Why the world should adopt a basic income

Imagine using economics to support your desire to initiate violence against your fellow man in order to make them pay the wages you wish them to pay.

 

Most folk will use economics to derive logical argument. A libertarian demanding destruction of economic exchange through elimination of minimum wages will struggle!

 

I can't get on board with your calls for violence against peaceful people. Sorry, but I'm not a sociopath.

 

You're demanding destruction of economic exchange. You might want to consider the consequences of that for your hyperbole...

 

Is your belief in 'economic exchange' why you choose the path of violence?

 

What path of violence is that? Look at the difference in our contribution. You are attempting personal attack. I am merely educating you over supply and demand.

 

Using violence to forbid people from paying wages you don't like.

Actually, I am advocating that we DON'T use violence against innocents. You are arguing in favor of doing so.

 

You continue to deliberately misrepresent, as you look for personal attack to ignore the need to focus on supply and demand comprehension. I didn't invent supply and demand. You apparently think it's relevant, particularly in comparison with the labour theory of value. That theory says you have no business referring to violence. A minimum wage aids mutually beneficial exchange. You wish to force the destruction of that exchange.

 

The difference between a Republic and a Democracy is insignificant -
*Republic: A state in which supreme power is held by the people and their elected representatives, and which has an elected or nominated president rather than a monarch.:
*Democracy: A system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives.

From the words above (out of a dictionary) explain to me the difference.

So call the US a "republic" or a "democracy", if that amuses you. It makes no difference whatsoever ...

 

Great! So you don't want to use violence to force prices on your fellow man. Yay!

 

You're not in a position to judge either way, given supply and demand confirms a hypocritical position based on coercion.

 

So you do want to use violence to force prices on your fellow man? Please clarify your position. Do you advocate violence against innocents or not?

 

My position has been very clear. You can't talk about violence as you ultimately support a coercive outcome.

 

Unlike yourself, I oppose coercion.

 

Income distribution has no effect on an economy.

There's no relationship between poverty and crime. Some of the most impoverished States that lack electricity and running water have lower crime rates than the US.

Basic income will not lower the murder rate, nor will it reduce the incidents of rape, sexual battery, gross/sexual imposition or pedophilia, nor will it reduce domestic violence or DWIs, or anything else.

Middle Class teenage girls do not shop-lift because they have no money, they shop-lift because they're acting out, usually against their parents.

Contrary to conventional wisdom, the case for BI does not rest on the assumption that robots and artificial intelligence will cause mass unemployment or that it would be a more efficient way of relieving poverty than present welfare systems (although it would). The main arguments are ethical and relate to social justice, individual freedom and the need for basic security.

The individual creates their own freedom and is responsible for their own basic security, and they are more effective at providing for their own basic security than any government ever could be.

Basic income cannot be implemented in the US, due to the tremendous variation in Cost-of-Living throughout the US.

Your Cost-of-Living varies so greatly across the US that a single retiree receiving $1,201/month in Social Security benefits earns too much money to qualify for HUD Section 8 housing in many areas of the US.

Meanwhile, another single retiree receiving the maximum Social Security benefit of $2,788/month, plus a pension of $1,878/month, for a total of $4,666/month qualifies for HUD Section 8 housing in some areas of the US.

We can use the actual data:

$56,000 - $14,400 = $41,600

or express it as an hourly wage rate:

$26.92/hour - $6.92/hour = $20/hour

$1,000 per month would unjustly enrich some Americans, while doing nothing to alleviate the so-called problems other Americans have.

Basic income cannot replace the current welfare system. For many Americans, $1,000 per month would be less than the amount of welfare benefits they're currently receiving, and no one would be stupid enough to take less than what they're currently getting.

What Social Security beneficiary would give up $1,500/month to get $1,000?

What person receiving HUD Section 8 rental subsidies, SNAP benefits, Medicaid benefits and other benefits give up $2,800/month to get $1,000/month?

Federal and State benefits already provide $6,240 in Food Stamps, $7,200 to $21,600 in rent subsidies, $6,000 to $9,000 in healthcare benefits, and $6,444 in cash, which comes to $25,884 to $43,284 in cash and non-cash benefits.

Those people may be dumb, but they're not stupid, and they're not going to buy into that.

Basic income was tried in the US and didn't produce the desired results:

1. The New Jersey Income Maintenance Experiment 1968-1972
2. The Rural Income Maintenance Experiment 1970-1972
3. The Gary, Indiana Experiment 1971-1974
4. The Seattle Income Maintenance Experiment 1972-1982
5. The Denver Income Maintenance Experiment 1972-1982

A Basic Income of $1,000/month, and that would have to be in addition to current existing welfare benefits would cost over $3 TRILLION annually, and there's no way you can raise that money, no matter how high you increase taxes.

First, a BI is a matter of social justice. The wealth and income of all of us has far more to do with the efforts and achievements of our collective forebears than with anything we do for ourselves. If we accept private inheritance, we should accept social inheritance, regarding a BI as a “social dividend” on our collective wealth.

That's a non-sequitur and false analogy. A person leaving money to private charities and family members is not the same as taking money from others and giving it away.

You're wrong, as usual, and the 14th Amendment says you're wrong. Someone will challenge it on grounds of equal protection under the law and that's the end of that.

 

First, this isn't about me. Your continued attempts to make this personal is not appreciated. This is about American right wingers who wrongly fly the libertarian banner. It is clear that there is a knowledge deficiency over supply and demand, explaining why there is support for destruction of exchange.

It's all a bit of a shame. It would be better to see non-hypocritical position. I suppose we will have to wait for real libertarianism, ie anarchism, for that...

 

Correct. This isn't about you. It's about your position. Your support for the violence imposition of price controls violates your neighbors' rights.

 

Sure, in grade school mathematics and overly simplified scenarios that don't exist in reality. In your fiction, me getting a $1 raise means that someone, somewhere isn't.

You cannot possibly hold that belief and the belief that a 'rising tide lifts all ships' unless you're quite alright with the dissonance that's likely to create. Moreover, concepts like velocity, churn and even interest wouldn't make a lick of sense in the world you're trying to say exists.

Brutally oversimplified, assumes there's absolutely no slack between revenue and wages and that whatever firm is in question is operating exactly on margin. Which exists exactly no where.

 

And much of it is unsurprisingly devoid of actual economics.

Would you like some time series charts showing the growth in productivity vs. wages? Unless you think wages and productivity should be unrelated, then you're going to struggle showing that underpayment isn't the norm. This is without even mentioning the labor market frictions that have been beat to death in this thread.

Longshot insisted on a different definition of coercion, one outside of economics. That remark was clear in the context of the conversation, the paper I reference was Acemoglu "The Economics of Labor Coercion".

Following along yet?

 

I'm simply pointing out the mathematical fact that if the employer is forced to pay his worker $1.00 more then the employer necessarily has $1.00 less.

 

Even if the employee is $1 more productive? Nope.
Even if I had profits <$1?
Even if the price of my capital goods falls by $1?

Sure, 1-1=0, but again, as I'm demonstrating above, the world is both more complicated than the scenario you present and it's simultaneously not a zero sum game. In the context of a zero sum world, trade makes no sense and I have to assume that's something you're in favor of. Right?

 

Yes, the normal definition of coercion: the practice of persuading someone to do something by using force or threats.

 

No. Ceteris paribus, if an employer is forced to pay his employee $1.00 more then that necessarily means that the employer has $1.00 less. It's basic math. I'm unclear as to why you take such issue with a simple mathematical observation.

 

Ok, so in the economic sub-forum, you don't want to do economic or deal with economic terms. Got it.

Maybe next you'll insist we use the physics definition of velocity when discussing monetary policy. According to LS, all terms are now universal and cannot have realm specific definitions.

 

Because, often in real life, we're able to hold all other things constant. /s

You're not even making an attempt to deal with reality anymore.