Why the world should adopt a basic income

What the Replicant libertarians cannot understand is that, were they marooned on a desert-island like Robinson Crusoe, they would live like him. Nope, they don't want that - but what they want is some kind of self-fashioned liberty to do whatever the hell they want. (Like having so many guns easily available that sick-children start killing one another.)

Like a spoiled child, but as adults they think it is "freedom".

True freedom is to have a foundational base upon which to self-construct oneself (National Healthcare and above all Free Tertiary Education) and then get out to make the best of a career in an open but "measured" capitalist market-economy. Only one guaranty is necessary - that no one (NO ONE) should fall below the Poverty Threshold into complete and utter destitution*. (Meaning not escaping the First Level above to the Second, and therefore serious ill-health as well as ultimately subsequent death.)

Me arse ...

*And how is that done? By assuring that our kids get out of High-school and into post-secondary education in order to earn a decent living - all free, gratis and for nothing. Which requires the most important Funding Investment ever embarked upon by the Federal Government.

 

I love the 'please repeat, again and again' routine. It's a poorly constructed dodge mind you, replacing contribution with repeated question.

Let's look at the difference between left and right wing approaches to the labour market. An uneducated view is the following...

Left Wing = labour theory of value
Right Wing = supply and demand

That is bogus as it really refers to the distinction between classical and neoclassical economics. A more enlightened comparison is offered through reference to orthodox and heterodox economics....

The lefty is not limited to any single approach. Understanding labour market outcome is paramount, allowing the derivation of evidence based policy choice. That will automatically lead to integration of orthodox and heterodox approaches. There will be appreciation of human capital, but also realisation that Marxist discrimination theory is useful contribution. There will be appreciation of orthodox wage equations (based on supply and demand), but also acceptance that we have to consider features such as the screening hypothesis, efficiency wages and internal labour markets.

And the right wing? Authoritarianism kicks in from the start. As described in the Psychologist experiments, the focus is on simple polemics and a binary sense of righteousness. We see that with the minimum wage. The right winger relies on emotional rant. The minimum wage is violent, it is deemed to be damaging coercion. However, when you burrow down and ask for detail, you realise that the rant is also hypocritical. The problem is that the rant goes first. It isn't constructed around any valid application of economics. They are purely reliant on saying 'it's supply and demand, ain't it'. This doesn't coincide with any real understanding of supply and demand. We know that such theory, backed up by complimentary empirical evidence, concludes that the minimum wage aids exchange. If the right winger was successful in eliminating minimum wages, they would coerce an outcome which increases inefficient rent and increases equilibrium unemployment.

 

Maavalous idea. Who is going to fund it, and don't say the business community.

 

Let Darwin take over? Sounds defeatist.

A more positive approach would be: design a global financial system fit for purpose, for our present global, post-industrial economy.

Re population: haven't you noticed the number of shuttered shops, and sometimes even de-population, in the main streets of smaller regional centres?

Reason: a century ago these were thriving centres, with much local manufacturing providing local employment. Now Stuttgart and Tokyo supply the world's "carriages".

If people moved back to these regional centres, congestion in the big cities could be eliminated.

And a general point about overpopulation; if poverty is eradicated, the birth-rate falls, as people become more responsible for and can take control of their own standard of living.

 

You are a member of a community of self-interested individuals with different capabilities.

So...to avoid the dystopia of gated communities in a sea of poverty:

It's in your own interest, to contribute via, inter alia, taxation to ensure your neighbour has access to vital services, in order to avoid the ugly reality of the scenario of "neighbourhoods like war zones", confronted by Trump (even if only to win votes - but the poverty is real).

[btw, when poverty is eradicated, I'll have another look at your 'voluntary co-operation' ideal]

 

I have a scheme to fund it, but it requires an operational, international rules-based system to be established first....

 

How do you suggest we pay for such a thing?

 

Can you explain what you mean by this?

 

I still don't agree with you that I have any right to take my neighbor's property. My neighbors are self-interested individuals, and I'm sure it's not in their self interest to have me forcibly take their property.

 

I'm sorry if my request for a definition of coercion feels repetitive, but you haven't yet provided a definition of coercion, so I have no idea what you're talking about.

 

You know that's nonsense. I've stated, repeatedly, that deliberately harming exchange is- by definition- coercion. I've also gone further and highlighted where the hypocrisy in right wing ideology develops. Try responding to what was said. Please do not go for personal insult or repetition of derailing question. Respond to what has been said:

Let's look at the difference between left and right wing approaches to the labour market. An uneducated view is the following...

Left Wing = labour theory of value
Right Wing = supply and demand

That is bogus as it really refers to the distinction between classical and neoclassical economics. A more enlightened comparison is offered through reference to orthodox and heterodox economics....

The lefty is not limited to any single approach. Understanding labour market outcome is paramount, allowing the derivation of evidence based policy choice. That will automatically lead to integration of orthodox and heterodox approaches. There will be appreciation of human capital, but also realisation that Marxist discrimination theory is useful contribution. There will be appreciation of orthodox wage equations (based on supply and demand), but also acceptance that we have to consider features such as the screening hypothesis, efficiency wages and internal labour markets.

And the right wing? Authoritarianism kicks in from the start. As described in the Psychologist experiments, the focus is on simple polemics and a binary sense of righteousness. We see that with the minimum wage. The right winger relies on emotional rant. The minimum wage is violent, it is deemed to be damaging coercion. However, when you burrow down and ask for detail, you realise that the rant is also hypocritical. The problem is that the rant goes first. It isn't constructed around any valid application of economics. They are purely reliant on saying 'it's supply and demand, ain't it'. This doesn't coincide with any real understanding of supply and demand. We know that such theory, backed up by complimentary empirical evidence, concludes that the minimum wage aids exchange. If the right winger was successful in eliminating minimum wages, they would coerce an outcome which increases inefficient rent and increases equilibrium unemployment.

 

You still are afraid to define your terms. Dodge, bob, and weave.

According to you, coercion is when a person...?

 

Again, I won't be bothered with your attempt to derail. I have given a very clear definition pertinent to this discussion. Coercion here, as adopted by the hypocrisy of right wing view on the minimum wage, is deliberate destruction of exchange opportunity. Now I've given detail of how that coercion is generated, twinning psychological experiments into authoritarianism and right wing lip-service to economics. You can either try and reply to that post or admit that you have no response. Your choice.

 

So my hiring someone to assist me in my wood shop is coercive. So what should I do? Should I not hire an employee but call in another business to do the work?

 

Again with the attempt to derail with irrelevant question to what has been said The post you have ignored is copied in one more time. Until I see any proof to say otherwise, I will assume that you are incapable of responding to it.



Let's look at the difference between left and right wing approaches to the labour market. An uneducated view is the following...

Left Wing = labour theory of value
Right Wing = supply and demand

That is bogus as it really refers to the distinction between classical and neoclassical economics. A more enlightened comparison is offered through reference to orthodox and heterodox economics....

The lefty is not limited to any single approach. Understanding labour market outcome is paramount, allowing the derivation of evidence based policy choice. That will automatically lead to integration of orthodox and heterodox approaches. There will be appreciation of human capital, but also realisation that Marxist discrimination theory is useful contribution. There will be appreciation of orthodox wage equations (based on supply and demand), but also acceptance that we have to consider features such as the screening hypothesis, efficiency wages and internal labour markets.

And the right wing? Authoritarianism kicks in from the start. As described in the Psychologist experiments, the focus is on simple polemics and a binary sense of righteousness. We see that with the minimum wage. The right winger relies on emotional rant. The minimum wage is violent, it is deemed to be damaging coercion. However, when you burrow down and ask for detail, you realise that the rant is also hypocritical. The problem is that the rant goes first. It isn't constructed around any valid application of economics. They are purely reliant on saying 'it's supply and demand, ain't it'. This doesn't coincide with any real understanding of supply and demand. We know that such theory, backed up by complimentary empirical evidence, concludes that the minimum wage aids exchange. If the right winger was successful in eliminating minimum wages, they would coerce an outcome which increases inefficient rent and increases equilibrium unemployment.

 

Interesting post. I've read it. Thanks.

So, just so I'm clear, if I offer to pay someone to assist me in my wood shop, I'm coercing them, in you mind?

 

A doubling of the Minimum Wage will mean your BigMac will cost 50cents more. So, some inflation can be expected by raising the Minimum Wage. There is no reason, however, that such inflation would diminish Overall Demand for goods/services. In fact, just the opposite will happen.

Because the money thus spent will raise considerably the level of income in a Consumer Class (of workers) that spends almost 100% of what they earn. Thus the additional-income will go into enhancing Demand, which will cause more people to be employed satisfying such Demand.

How do you get paid? Because you work for a company that provides Goods/Services to Consumers. Accordingly, you will respend your income also on goods/services - just as others employed will do. So, providing an individual currently working at $7.25 an hour with the double of that wage in income will provoke them to spend the money to better their standard-of-living.

Thus providing more Demand for goods/services that augments the Gross Domestic Production (GDP). Which sparks further the necessity of increasing workers and thus expanding further unemployment. (See "NB" below.)

It is a well-known factor that enhanced economic Demand Reinforces Demand. A dollar given to you by the government to spark Demand (upon goods&services) will be respent by you and respent again down the line several times thus reinforcing Overall Demand. Because human behaviour stimulates Demand when we see others spending their money. (Aka, the "copycat nature of spending".)

Or to put it simply, the money your spending on goods/services pays for those who supply products/services who, in turn, spend their money on Consumption ...

NB: At present, the Employment-to-population Ratio is still 60.6% (see here). Note also that before the Great Recession the Ratio was at a high of 64.6%. So, there is still room to expand employment in America without necessarily sparking inflation.

 

Making it illegal to hire low wage workers seems very mean spirited. It hurts those who are the most vulnerable.

 

Ok, $24,000. Now, for this global basic income, should it be separated by country, so that each country has to pay for its own basic income, or should it be global so that developed countries pay for the basic income in developing countries?

 

You won't get far with the basic income guarantee. It's of limited value and ironically, given its on a par with the negative income tax, it's corrupted by supply side rhetoric.

For global aspects, the emphasis has to shift to the limitations of the WTO. That was spawned from the 'temporary' GATT which stopped a true international trade organisation- with development as it's core aim- from forming.

 

That explains how you (might!) handle a mandatory increase in the minimum wage. That is not what you are suggesting. You are suggesting paying people more (a lot) than the current minimum wage for doing nothing whatsoever. How do you plan to pay for that? Or are you just ignoring that aspect?

 

Three aspects for the minimum wage. First, there tends to be a productivity gain. Second, there tends to be a macroeconomic demand effect. Third, there tends to be a redistribution of rent from employer to employee.

Much better than too much reliance on welfare.

 

I find it very hurtful to outlaw employing low wage workers. It hurts those who are most vulnerable.

 

That's Mission Impossible. Each country decides on its own its voting process.

I don't see the problem. The way the democratic process is conducted in each country is a matter solely of that country and the discretion of its citizens.

The EU is an amalgamation of independent countries. It has nonetheless created a parliament and stipulated the rules of voting. To date, there has been no question of those rules. Despite the fact that far-too-Rightist groups have actually had real successes in national elections. (The last one in Germany forcing Merkel to resign - which is in the offing.)

I suspect this is a passing fad provoked by some disgruntled voters on the Right (upset by the current migrancy problem) who decided to vote Further Right. It too will pass because, after Hitler and WW2, the body-politic in most EU countries is very suspicious of Rightist Tendencies - having born the tremendous cost of the last misadventure that led to WW2 ...