- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Replacing Social Welfare Programs with a Min Income Payment
Posted on 1/5/14 at 10:55 am
Posted on 1/5/14 at 10:55 am
Offering: a national/federal minimum income for all citizens of the US. an amount slightly above the poverty line, so let's say $15k per adult person (no children subsidies...at least not directly). this minimum income replaces all social programs, both direct (SS, medicaid, medicare, section 8, welfare, SNAP, Obamacare) and indirect (legislative pork/stimulus, especially within the military).
Argument: our economy does not have enough jobs for our population. this is a good sign, as it means we are essentially living in a post-scarcity world. as a society we don't all NEED to work (especially as hard as we do). and before you start calling this a lazy/hippie argument, as another person once put it: isn't this the point of societal progress?
why do we want a more efficient and progressing system if not to make our lives better/cheaper? instead of 100 people needed to farm, with technology we only need a handful to do the same job. instead of inefficient "big box" stores, we have amazon.com. instead of blockbuster, we have Netflix. instead of paying $1/minute for long distance calls from a wired phone in our kitchen, we have free long distance from a cell phone (or international calls via skype for even more savings). instead of our cars getting 10 mpg, we get 30 mpg. on and on and on and on.
how do we deal with the problem of simple lack of jobs? and technology is only going to eliminate the need for even more jobs in time. once Google's self-driving car gets going, we stand to lose 5-6M jobs in the "Driving" industry (cabs, transport trucks, car services, etc). in a decade or so after that down the road, we stand to lose 10x that once we stop buying cars as a society (if you need me to explain, i can). retail jobs are going to becoming more and more useless. hell, most retail jobs only exist due to familiarity and b/c our society wants to give people shitty jobs just to give those people something to do. you don't need to pay a clerk $10/hour to hand you cigarettes, lotto tickets, or candy when a smart vending machine can do that for much less.
yes, i know that as technology increases/expands, we will have new industries of technicians, professionals, developers, and/or coders that will arise, but these will not replace the sheer number of jobs (and most of the jobs that will be lost are currently filled by people incapable of higher-end jobs, anyway). the millinos and millions of people who are (1) unintelligent, (2) purposefully uneducated, and/or (3) unskilled will not job job opportunities in the modern economy (and it is a big problem TODAY, let alone as the economy advances and leaves these people behind).
so what options do we have? the first is a policy of emigration, which i don't mind, but is probably impractical. second we can continue to expand the growing current welfare state/system (that is going broke). third we can cut off everyone and just see what happens. fourth is a min income.
the min income allows people a subsistence living if they "opt out" of trying to fit into the system of production. this sounds ridiculous, but they're already out of it, and they aren't going to be able to fit into it down the road. they can either be subdued, forced out of the country, or starved to death/killed. there is no other option for these people. even the most libertarian-leaning person has to accept that these people will not fit into a modern/developing economy.
the min income goes to everyone, so it's not biased like current social welfare programs. the min income also does not prevent any person from opting into the producer economy. if you want to be middle class, nothing stops you. if you want to go for upper class/elite? go for it. if you want to supplement your min income by working part time at some lower-end job, go for it. the idea is that by forcing people "off the teet" of these jobs as a full time, primary income will open up economic opportunities to the current unemployed via splitting up that "full time" labor into multiple part-time opportunities. this will both allow people to "rise above" the min income, possibly give then incentives to improve their education/skills, and give MORE people "stuff to do" in the future economy.
*Note/Disclaimer: these are not my own ideas. i have just sort of started to consider them (b/c i used to think it was insane). wiki has been posting about these ideas for months now, and i suggest all of you spend 1 hour of your life listening to this podcast. it goes into details about all of these concepts in much greater, more learned details.
Argument: our economy does not have enough jobs for our population. this is a good sign, as it means we are essentially living in a post-scarcity world. as a society we don't all NEED to work (especially as hard as we do). and before you start calling this a lazy/hippie argument, as another person once put it: isn't this the point of societal progress?
why do we want a more efficient and progressing system if not to make our lives better/cheaper? instead of 100 people needed to farm, with technology we only need a handful to do the same job. instead of inefficient "big box" stores, we have amazon.com. instead of blockbuster, we have Netflix. instead of paying $1/minute for long distance calls from a wired phone in our kitchen, we have free long distance from a cell phone (or international calls via skype for even more savings). instead of our cars getting 10 mpg, we get 30 mpg. on and on and on and on.
how do we deal with the problem of simple lack of jobs? and technology is only going to eliminate the need for even more jobs in time. once Google's self-driving car gets going, we stand to lose 5-6M jobs in the "Driving" industry (cabs, transport trucks, car services, etc). in a decade or so after that down the road, we stand to lose 10x that once we stop buying cars as a society (if you need me to explain, i can). retail jobs are going to becoming more and more useless. hell, most retail jobs only exist due to familiarity and b/c our society wants to give people shitty jobs just to give those people something to do. you don't need to pay a clerk $10/hour to hand you cigarettes, lotto tickets, or candy when a smart vending machine can do that for much less.
yes, i know that as technology increases/expands, we will have new industries of technicians, professionals, developers, and/or coders that will arise, but these will not replace the sheer number of jobs (and most of the jobs that will be lost are currently filled by people incapable of higher-end jobs, anyway). the millinos and millions of people who are (1) unintelligent, (2) purposefully uneducated, and/or (3) unskilled will not job job opportunities in the modern economy (and it is a big problem TODAY, let alone as the economy advances and leaves these people behind).
so what options do we have? the first is a policy of emigration, which i don't mind, but is probably impractical. second we can continue to expand the growing current welfare state/system (that is going broke). third we can cut off everyone and just see what happens. fourth is a min income.
the min income allows people a subsistence living if they "opt out" of trying to fit into the system of production. this sounds ridiculous, but they're already out of it, and they aren't going to be able to fit into it down the road. they can either be subdued, forced out of the country, or starved to death/killed. there is no other option for these people. even the most libertarian-leaning person has to accept that these people will not fit into a modern/developing economy.
the min income goes to everyone, so it's not biased like current social welfare programs. the min income also does not prevent any person from opting into the producer economy. if you want to be middle class, nothing stops you. if you want to go for upper class/elite? go for it. if you want to supplement your min income by working part time at some lower-end job, go for it. the idea is that by forcing people "off the teet" of these jobs as a full time, primary income will open up economic opportunities to the current unemployed via splitting up that "full time" labor into multiple part-time opportunities. this will both allow people to "rise above" the min income, possibly give then incentives to improve their education/skills, and give MORE people "stuff to do" in the future economy.
*Note/Disclaimer: these are not my own ideas. i have just sort of started to consider them (b/c i used to think it was insane). wiki has been posting about these ideas for months now, and i suggest all of you spend 1 hour of your life listening to this podcast. it goes into details about all of these concepts in much greater, more learned details.
Posted on 1/5/14 at 11:00 am to SlowFlowPro
I this is the way society is progressing. The idea of a negative income tax is very appealing to me, as ideally you would cut out lots of government bureaucracy.
I do worry about the price of goods in this situation, as government subsidies seem to inflate prices.
There are pilot programs for basic income in India, Brazil, and Nambia. I don't know yet if the Swiss have voted on it. But as technology and innovation increases, we will need less and less workers.
I do worry about the price of goods in this situation, as government subsidies seem to inflate prices.
There are pilot programs for basic income in India, Brazil, and Nambia. I don't know yet if the Swiss have voted on it. But as technology and innovation increases, we will need less and less workers.
This post was edited on 1/5/14 at 11:01 am
Posted on 1/5/14 at 11:02 am to SlowFlowPro
Are all other entitlement programs eliminated across the board?
Posted on 1/5/14 at 11:04 am to SlowFlowPro
It will take quite a while for this idea to catch steam, be discussed, and then implemented.
By that time, the system will have crashed.
By that time, the system will have crashed.
Posted on 1/5/14 at 11:04 am to CITWTT
quote:
Are all other entitlement programs eliminated across the board?
really? REALLY?
Posted on 1/5/14 at 11:04 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
our economy does not have enough jobs for our population. this is a good sign, as it means we are essentially living in a post-scarcity world
wait, what?
can you really say that we are truly "post-scarcity" before we have the resource capacity to accommodate an infinite population?
eta: maybe it'd be better to say "productive capacity to accommodate an infinite population"
This post was edited on 1/5/14 at 11:09 am
Posted on 1/5/14 at 11:13 am to SlowFlowPro
If this could be done for the same cost as the current system, or less, I'd be down with it. There would be less bureaucracy and less ways to pile up welfare payments.
Posted on 1/5/14 at 11:16 am to 90proofprofessional
quote:
can you really say that we are truly "post-scarcity" before we have the resource capacity to accommodate an infinite population?
is an "infinite" population really your standard?
Posted on 1/5/14 at 11:20 am to Zed
quote:
If this could be done for the same cost as the current system, or less, I'd be down with it. There would be less bureaucracy and less ways to pile up welfare payments.
IT would certainly mean less hands in the proverbial cookie jar, but that is why it will never be implemented until it is too late.
Posted on 1/5/14 at 11:25 am to CherryGarciaMan
quote:
IT would certainly mean less hands in the proverbial cookie jar,
which is one of those "indirect" examples i was speaking of earlier
part of our system's current "minimum income" includes those very federal jobs
Posted on 1/5/14 at 11:33 am to SlowFlowPro
So no food stamps, welfare, section 8, etc., everyone gets a debit card and that's it.
If you blow it all on booze and cigarettes and starve, then that's your problem.
I'm intrigued. This could be coupled with the Fair Tax.
I'm concerned about exacerbating illegal immigration and politicians creating add ons that reward irresponsibility (booze and cigarette example).
If you blow it all on booze and cigarettes and starve, then that's your problem.
I'm intrigued. This could be coupled with the Fair Tax.
I'm concerned about exacerbating illegal immigration and politicians creating add ons that reward irresponsibility (booze and cigarette example).
Posted on 1/5/14 at 11:34 am to TrueTiger
quote:
I'm intrigued. This could be coupled with the Fair Tax.
just start taxing after the min-income level
quote:
I'm concerned about exacerbating illegal immigration
i put citizens in the OP, didn't i?
Posted on 1/5/14 at 11:36 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
is an "infinite" population really your standard?
if not, you're taking liberties by using "post-scarcity"
it sounds like your using it interchangeably with (your standard of) "we produce enough"
eta: i see the discussion of "citizen" and the problem of people wanting in. forget a population approaching infinity- if we can't accomodate the world as it is, we are not post-scarcity in any meaningful way at all
This post was edited on 1/5/14 at 11:39 am
Posted on 1/5/14 at 11:37 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
i put citizens in the OP, didn't i?
Yes but there is already pressure to give millions a "path to citizenship" and this could make those numbers grow.
Posted on 1/5/14 at 11:38 am to 90proofprofessional
that's an insanely difficult standard for actual living human beings and actual societies
we produce more than enough...way more than enough. hell the world's population keeps doubling and people keep living longer...and fewer people are starving to death than ever
quote:
it sounds like your using it interchangeably with (your standard of) "we produce enough"
we produce more than enough...way more than enough. hell the world's population keeps doubling and people keep living longer...and fewer people are starving to death than ever
Posted on 1/5/14 at 11:41 am to TrueTiger
quote:
Yes but there is already pressure to give millions a "path to citizenship" and this could make those numbers grow.
i bet you with a decline in federal power, you see the numbers behind this argument fall drastically
plus there will be fewer social incentives for illegals to take advantage of (hospitals, education, etc) and as funny as this sounds, with an elimination of the min wage, you'll see fewer economic opportunities for them BECAUSE of the min income.
that's actually one of the brilliant parts of this. by reducing fedgov, we reduce all of these moral hazards and incentives
Posted on 1/5/14 at 11:42 am to SlowFlowPro
Yes really. If you are going to hand out free unearned money just for being alive then it should be enough to give you a living with no other support from anyone, not one dime more. Don't be in front of a tv camera complainng that what you receive for free isn't enough for you. The person complaining isn't seeing the fruits of labor stolen out of their pockets as the people paying taxes to support the leeches do.
Posted on 1/5/14 at 11:43 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
that's an insanely difficult standard for actual living human beings and actual societies
sure looks that way doesn't it? it's because post-scarcity is far away
quote:
we produce more than enough...way more than enough. hell the world's population keeps doubling and people keep living longer...and fewer people are starving to death than ever
is scarcity a problem, or is there enough to satisfy everyone's desires at a price everyone can afford? or are you using some different definition of scarcity?
eta here's the definition i work off of: LINK
it's the economic definition, as that's the context of the thread.
quote:
The basic economic problem that arises because people have unlimited wants but resources are limited. Because of scarcity, various economic decisions must be made to allocate resources efficiently.
This post was edited on 1/5/14 at 11:46 am
Posted on 1/5/14 at 11:43 am to CITWTT
quote:
Yes really.
puedes leer, kimosabe?
Posted on 1/5/14 at 11:45 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
hospitals, education, etc
so no more public education and no more mandatory ER service without payment?
I'm game but how will you sell it to the Rex's and Tuba's.
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News