Why the world should adopt a basic income

"Doing nothing whatsoever". They exist, that's not nothing whatsoever!

And as a consequence of being born, they have indigenous birthright to a decent living, even if only basic in terms of public direct financial assistance. (We all have the right to expect of the state to offer an affordable means to obtain the educational requirements that are necessary to find a job.)

For one thing, far more important in America than here in Europe (from which I write), it will reduce the prison population. Whereby, about a half to two-thirds of all inmates have no high-school diploma! One of the requirements for such prisoners could be to finish the basic-program towards obtaining that secondary-level diploma (with an accent on learning a trade)!

From what I have seen in the reports, those states that have adopted such a retraining population have seen that most do not come back. See here:
Innovative strategies to reduce recidivism and help prison inmates transition back to society - and note that the program does indeed "work".

But perhaps not as well as it could because (quote from the above link):

That quote above was made based upon data previous to 2017. Subsequent to the Great Recession, the US did not start "creating jobs" until 2014. (See here and the uptake was not all that quickly.)

Does the above indicate we should do MORE or LESS for inmates who want to "go straight"?

Methinks yes!

 

So you want individual countries to fund their basic income and that we should decide globally that every country have a basic income in a way like the EU makes rules for everyone?

 

This is where your simplistic proposition breaks down: your neighbour may not have any property to take...

Again, simplistic. Requiring people to work for below poverty wages is the ultimate in mean-spiritedness.

Bernie Sanders has pointed out the irrational consequences of Walton's paying below poverty wages; one of the richest families in the US is subsidised by the US taxpayer, who is funding food-stamps required by Walton's inadequately paid workers.

 

But I'm not advocating the anyone be required to work.

Then perhaps they should work for any of the thousands of alternative employers, or become a sole proprietor of their own business. You know, since Walmart sucks so bad.

 

[ie, a global financial system fit for purpose, for our present global, post-industrial economy.]

Yes, but it requires establishing an operational international rules based system first.

You still interested?

 

We must all work (unless born into wealth).

Perhaps Walmart, and all other employers, should pay above poverty level wages.

As for everyone becoming his own employer - in neoliberal competitive markets - that's another one of your simplistic propositions (again...not surprising, coming from a Libertarian)

 

The only "counter argument" I am seeing to @Longshot is "it's simplistic"...which really isn't a counter argument at all.

Positive rights (in case you don't know, that is what you are proposing) is tantamount to slavery. Only through voluntary association is any obligation valid.

 

So, I'm trying to understand your position here. There's a guy. Let's call him Joe. Joe is apparently incapable of operating a business as a sole proprietor. Joe has also looked high and low for employment and everyone has turned him down. Finally Walmart offers him a job, and you're telling me that Walmart is the bad guy here? Why exactly?

 

Sure
But how is that related to basic income?

 

Simple. We dont make decisions individually related to our government and how it governs us, we as a collective elect people to dictate on our behalf.

In short, a democracy is governed by allowing the voters to vote on every issue, while a republic is representative. Really quite different.

 

It's related to the concept of universal above-poverty participation in the economy, as proposed in article 25 of the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

The important issue is above poverty level participation in the economy, whether by means of a universal basic income regardless of employment status, or by a set minimum wage for paid employment.

 

Making it illegal to hire low wage workers doesn't help low wage workers. It hurts them.

 

That's the only counter argument you choose to see (ideology can cause blindness to concepts outside that ideology)

The world is complex, so any system basing economic exchange/participation on 'voluntary agreement' among self-interested
individuals driven by (unconscious) survival instincts is...well..simplistic.

Notice how your ideological system turns logic into irrationality: positive rights eg the right to above poverty level existence in a world of plenty, now becomes slavery, in your view.

 

What's that got to do with a monetary system?

 

I'll answer that in a previous post of yours:

So Joe may or may not be capable of operating a business as a sole proprietor, nevertheless in some cases the smart decision might be to not open such a business in the conditions of the local market. (This brings to mind the proposition from another Libertarian in another forum who said that the citizens of Detroit, during it's slow decline during the 5 decades of the last century, should have simply abandoned the city on mass, such is the paucity of his vision).

Now Joe has looked high and low for employment and been turned down - such is the reality of life in our present unmanaged global neoliberal 'free' markets. So he ends up at Walmart, a company that relies on government to supplement the inadequate wages Walmart pays to its employees.

I'm not saying Walmart is the bad guy (I did say that Walmart along with all employers should pay a living wage)....although they, as a major employer, are certainly not portraying themselves as civic-minded citizens who are interested in the welfare of their own employees.

Obviously we have a systemic problem in an unmanaged global economy that reaches into every local economy.

 

Everything.

But I can only explain it if you express interest in an operational international rules based system.
[HInt: 'money' is not a physical resource. eg, if you are dying of thirst in a desert, will you choose $US1million, or a glass of water?]

 

Making illegal for Walmart to hire low wage workers will only hurt the low wage workers.

 

No, that's literally been your only "counter argument" to @Longshot commentary.

No, its not simplistic. It's a simple yet elegant solution, but for anyone caplable of understanding that one can not simply violate freedom of association and expect to maintain a peaceful society.

It isn't irrational at all.

Do you actually understand what the defines a positive right?

 

I don't know what you mean by unmanaged global economy. Care to elaborate?

 

Who will be compelled to produce this glass of water me?

 

Horseshit. With limited exceptions (super elderly, disabled, etc..) people have an OBLIGATION to take care of themselves, and not to be a burden on society. Easy for me to say, I suppose, as I AM disabled, though that's relatively new. A year ago I wasn't. (Well, to be technical, a year ago I was in a semi-coma in the ICU and my survival chances were small, which directly caused my disability), BUT I have always held that opinion, even when the idea that it might someday apply to me was unthinkable. And, for decades, I paid into the disability insurance system which thus far has been denied to me.

But notwithstanding that denial, while it would be very helpful, I can and will survive without it. Why? Because I worked, for decades, made good choices, for decades, and planned for something like this, for decades, again despite the fact that I never in a million years thought it would happen.

I expect the same from EVERYBODY else. It is everyone's responsibility to take care of themselves, first and foremost. Only in extreme circumstances should they expect others to do so.

 

We humans are all born with that obligation. What the RabidRight is ignorant of is the fact that 12.3% (40 million!*) of American men, women and children are incarcerated below the Poverty Threshold ($24K/year for a family of 4.)

And giving them food-stamps is just a palliative!

Btw, we don't need dunces-in-a-blog railing against methods to get people OUT OF THE POVERTY THRESHOLD to underline that necessity for doubling the Minimum Wage and a Basic Income for indigent families meeting the qualification!

Get it? Duhhhhhhhhhhh ....

*See here.

 

This bit of silliness is self-contradicting. Either we are or we are not "something". As regards our democracy, we, the people, deserve the right to elect our representatives without the slightest manipulation of the popular-vote by a two-party system.

In fact, the two-party system itself is nowhere recognized as the prefered method of electing a democratic representation!

Bollocks! Buy a dictionary, dammit! Look up the words democracy and republic.

They are practically synonymous!

From Merriam-Webster:
*Democracy = a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections
*Republic = a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law.

Now, YOU show me the inherent difference between the two definitions that allows for a specific DISTINCTION OF THE WORD "GOVERNMENT" rendering it wholly different from the other in either of the above two definitions.

 

Nope - never said that. It's something you assumed.

I am all for a basic-income that lifts people out of the Poverty Threshold, and allows them to live decently. That level is NOT $7.50-an-hour! And if you don't believe that, then see here. It's a pdf document that underlines the principle reasons why the present Minimum Wage in the US is not up to the task of bettering the lives of those forced to work at that level of income.

Thus arguing for raising it to a level that will reduce those incarcerated below the Poverty Threshold, which are, at present, about 40 million American men, women and children.)

The advantages are easy to see. And how about this bit of information from here:

The investments we make on both Secondary- and Tertiary-education are like an Insurance Policy that actually prevents crime from happening in our neighborhoods.

Why cannot we do like Europe where Tertiary-education is so low-cost* the only hindrance is a student's lack of will to undertake the studies ...

*I never spent more than about $1K (in euros) per school-year on fees to send my kids on to a post-secondary education whilst living in Europe! (Not including room&board.)

 

Lol.

Nothing I said was false. You rely on a dictionary, I'll rely on reality.

We vote for representatives that vote FOR us, we dont get to vote on every issue as in a democracy.

Really is quite simple.