American Basic Income: An End to Poverty?

Economy • 11/17/13 3:50:31 pm • Views: 1,791

Danny Vinik, Slate: American Basic Income: An End to Poverty?

What are the benefits of a basic income?

The clear one is that no American would live below the poverty line. The U.S. has been waging the War on Poverty for a generation now and still nearly 50 million Americans are below the line. This would end that war with a decisive victory.

There are knock on effects as well. Americans would have greater leverage to demand higher wages and better working conditions from their employer thanks to the increased income security. Families could allow one parent to take time off to raise their kids. Eliminating the numerous different government welfare programs would also lead to efficiency gains as adults would simply receive their check in the mail and not have to waste time filling out paperwork at numerous different offices.

What are the drawbacks of a basic income?

Economists have long shuddered at the thought of a basic income, because it strongly disincentives work. However, a basic income is just that: basic. Most adults would continue to work to earn extra money. The employment effects would not be non-existent and there may be an increase in part-time work. As Lowrey points out, different studies have found the disincentive effects on work are not as strong as economists feared.

A basic income would basically abolish recessions, since adults would always have income to spend to keep aggregate demand high. It would also greatly increase freedom and decrease bureaucracy by eliminating all the restrictions and red tape involved with social welfare programs. Money being hoarded by the 1% is doing nothing for anyone since they already have vastly more money than they need to satisfy every desire they could have, so putting it into the hands of people who need it and would use it has virtually no downside.

Recent Pages by aagcobb (No Malarkey!):
Claim Your $125 From Equifax Today Green New Deal Critics Are Missing the Bigger Picture Donald Trump Told Michael Cohen to Lie to Congress About Moscow Tower Project Trump's Shutdown Is Because the Wall Is a Bad Idea Paul Ryan's Farewell Address: Transcript Shows Nonsense on Poverty

Jump to bottom

50 comments

Achilles Tang Sun, Nov 17, 2013 4:40:03pm

Communist!! /

jogiff Sun, Nov 17, 2013 5:16:08pm

re: #1 Achilles Tang

Even Nixon at one point advocated a basic income

William Barnett-Lewis Sun, Nov 17, 2013 5:56:33pm

re: #2 jogiff

Even Nixon at one point advocated a basic income

Nixon’s proposal was written up, IIRC, by that staunch Socialist Milton Friedman.

But it would grow the economy so it has nearly no chance of passing.

joe90 Sun, Nov 17, 2013 6:20:46pm

Advocated here too - as an unconditional basic income.

Achilles Tang Sun, Nov 17, 2013 7:08:57pm

Don’t we have a basic income that is called welfare? Maybe not unconditional.

Decatur Deb Sun, Nov 17, 2013 7:11:10pm

re: #5 Achilles Tang

Don’t we have a basic income that is called welfare? Maybe not unconditional.

Not for young, single, unemployed males.

Achilles Tang Sun, Nov 17, 2013 7:30:32pm

re: #6 Decatur Deb

In the case of young single unemployable males, I presume is what you mean.

Shall we discuss our system of education next?//

Actually, given that many of them, while single, have managed to perpetuate the status quo by fathering children, then the minimum wage does apply since they often benefit from the proceeds of the child’s and mother’s minimum wage.

None of the above is intended to suggest that males are the only category referenced.

sagehen Sun, Nov 17, 2013 7:36:16pm

It also means no minimum wage; if you’re willing to work for $2/hour more than your basic minimum, that’s up to you. Anything anybody pays you is more than you’d have if you didn’t work.

freetoken Sun, Nov 17, 2013 7:52:31pm

As noted with the Nixon/Friedman thing, these kind of ideas get kicked around from time to time.

Why is everybody afraid to use the “S” word?

Personally I’m skeptical that an approach like this at large scale social engineering will work as intended. Mathematically, these ideas seem like nothing other than a linear transformation of the “income” graph, and there will be nothing to stop the “expenses” from also just undergoing the same linear transformation.

What our society is currently suffering is a polarization of social status with a lot of people ending up in a broad bottom and a few people at the very, very distant top.

The ghosts of unintended consequences of these large scale systemic changes to life scare me, frankly.

Let’s look at this from the article:

That doesn’t mean there aren’t ways to pay for it. The CBO found that a carbon tax would bring in nearly $100 billion a year for instance.

Carbon taxes are popular for AGW-mitigation schemes precisely because it makes carbon resource extraction based energy more expensive. Thus the cost of everything using carbon resource energy goes up. The idea in the best of scenarios forces the growth of solar and nuclear energy as well as better efficiency, but what if those alternative energy sources don’t come on line fast enough or at a cost much higher than expected? Then all of a sudden your guaranteed government income won’t buy a hill of beans… so the income will have to be raised.

There are so many ways that an idea like this can fail that articles like the one in Slate do a disservice in not really exploring them. The article reads to me as very naive or disingenuous, and perhaps both apply.

freetoken Sun, Nov 17, 2013 7:58:18pm

The bandwagon about these schemes strike me so much as trying to frame the debates for the 2016 election, with the progressive portion of the DP needing a movement to show the more institutional (and not really very different than the old GOP) Democratic machinery that socialism is again back on the menu.

I suspect this will blow up in their faces.

freetoken Sun, Nov 17, 2013 8:01:08pm

And BTW, a carbon tax like all sales taxes is the last thing poor people need.

It seems that everybody is afraid of a truly progressive tax structure, that does not allow people to hide their wealth in lower “capital gains” taxes or squirreled away in some foreign fund where it can escape US taxes.

Decatur Deb Sun, Nov 17, 2013 8:07:31pm

re: #7 Achilles Tang

In the case of young single unemployable males, I presume is what you mean.

Shall we discuss our system of education next?//

Actually, given that many of them, while single, have managed to perpetuate the status quo by fathering children, then the minimum wage does apply since they often benefit from the proceeds of the child’s and mother’s minimum wage.

None of the above is intended to suggest that males are the only category referenced.

You presume wrong. Extended unemployment insurance has been cut back, especially in red states. In a lot of demographic and geographic areas, there are no jobs. Fathers, including divorced fathers, come up short—there is no baby daddy funding out there.

Drop by a free clinic or church mission sometime—there are some capable ex-yuppies there.

RadicalModerate Sun, Nov 17, 2013 8:13:06pm

re: #6 Decatur Deb

Not for young, single, unemployed males.

Take out the word “young” and I would tend to agree with you - there were a whole bunch of people over 30 who lost their jobs during the 2008 economic crash and found themselves without a safety net after unemployment benefits ran out, and still without job prospects.

Decatur Deb Sun, Nov 17, 2013 8:14:12pm

re: #10 freetoken

The bandwagon about these schemes strike me so much as trying to frame the debates for the 2016 election, with the progressive portion of the DP needing a movement to show the more institutional (and not really very different than the old GOP) Democratic machinery that socialism is again back on the menu.

I suspect this will blow up in their faces.

There’s nothing to blow up. Except perhaps for Bernie Sanders, no sane politician would touch this in an election year.

Decatur Deb Sun, Nov 17, 2013 8:18:40pm

re: #13 RadicalModerate

Take out the word “young” and I would tend to agree with you - there were a whole bunch of people over 30 who lost their jobs during the 2008 economic crash and found themselves without a safety net after unemployment benefits ran out, and still without job prospects.

Yup—The stats are worse for the young, but guys nearing retirement age fell all the way out of reasonable employment. (And they had few parents’ basements to move their families into.) Our neighborhood is coming back, but we’ve still got at least one middle-middle-middle income foreclosure.

aagcobb Sun, Nov 17, 2013 9:13:43pm

re: #11 freetoken

And BTW, a carbon tax like all sales taxes is the last thing poor people need.

It seems that everybody is afraid of a truly progressive tax structure, that does not allow people to hide their wealth in lower “capital gains” taxes or squirreled away in some foreign fund where it can escape US taxes.

You could provide a refund on the sales tax for low income people, and we badly need to move to cleaner energy sources. And so what if the alternative energy sources are more expensive and incomes have to be raised? The money for solar, wind, natural gas, nuclear, hydroelectric and geothermal energy would stay in the country because they don’t have to be imported. We could also legalize marijuana and put a big national tax on that. It has also been suggested that a tax on land value could replace a lot of income tax, and it would spur development of high value land (if you are being taxed on it you want it to generate as much revenue as possible) which would create jobs in high income urban areas. I agree that capital gains should be taxed at a higher rate.

freetoken Sun, Nov 17, 2013 9:27:25pm

re: #16 aagcobb

You could provide a refund on the sales tax for low income people, …

But… you’ve already made sure that everybody gets a guaranteed income, so does everyone just get a slightly bigger guaranteed income?

You might say, give those with only the guaranteed income a carbon-tax refund, but haven’t you then just moved up the bar for whether someone will look for the additional income from a traditional job?

And I still can’t figure out how a guaranteed income will keep social stratification from happening.

aagcobb Sun, Nov 17, 2013 9:37:14pm

re: #17 freetoken

But… you’ve already made sure that everybody gets a guaranteed income, so does everyone just get a slightly bigger guaranteed income?

You might say, give those with only the guaranteed income a carbon-tax refund, but haven’t you then just moved up the bar for whether someone will look for the additional income from a traditional job?

And I still can’t figure out how a guaranteed income will keep social stratification from happening.

I’m not trying to prevent social stratification. There is nothing wrong with the existence of rich people, middle income people and poor people. The problem comes when almost all of the nation’s economic growth is being captured by a tiny fraction of the population, and ever increasing numbers of people are struggling just to get by. This not only causes needless suffering, it hampers economic growth because when most people’s income is stagnant, demand doesn’t increase enough to justify creating more jobs. And the refund of a carbon tax won’t change the incentive to work because all its doing is keeping you from losing income due to higher energy costs. If you want more stuff, as most people do, you’ll still have to work to get it.

sagehen Sun, Nov 17, 2013 10:24:35pm

re: #16 aagcobb

You could provide a refund on the sales tax for low income people, and we badly need to move to cleaner energy sources. And so what if the alternative energy sources are more expensive and incomes have to be raised? The money for solar, wind, natural gas, nuclear, hydroelectric and geothermal energy would stay in the country because they don’t have to be imported. We could also legalize marijuana and put a big national tax on that. It has also been suggested that a tax on land value could replace a lot of income tax, and it would spur development of high value land (if you are being taxed on it you want it to generate as much revenue as possible) which would create jobs in high income urban areas. I agree that capital gains should be taxed at a higher rate.

Taxing pot is never going to bring in as much as people seem to think — the real economic value of legalization is the money we won’t be spending on enforcement and incarceration.

Decatur Deb Mon, Nov 18, 2013 3:24:32am

re: #12 Decatur Deb

You presume wrong. Extended unemployment insurance has been cut back, especially in red states. In a lot of demographic and geographic areas, there are no jobs. Fathers, including divorced fathers, come up short—there is no baby daddy funding out there.

Drop by a free clinic or church mission sometime—there are some capable ex-yuppies there.

Sorry. That came out harsher than intended.

Romantic Heretic Mon, Nov 18, 2013 4:39:11am

I would prefer that there was a direct correlation between working and reward. The whole American and Western Dream is predicated on the belief that if you work you get paid at least a living wage.

Unfortunately that idea is now more mythological than it has ever been. Most working people are no longer employees, they are chattel. It makes sense since what is known as globalism is basically feudalism.

I’m beginning to think feudalism is the most natural form of government because human beings fall into it the second they stop trying to make the other types of government work.

Learned Pie Of Zion Mon, Nov 18, 2013 4:50:07am

re: #21 Romantic Heretic

I would prefer that there was a direct correlation between working and reward. The whole American and Western Dream is predicated on the belief that if you work you get paid at least a living wage.

Unfortunately that idea is now more mythological than it has ever been. Most working people are no longer employees, they are chattel. It makes sense since what is known as globalism is basically feudalism.

I’m beginning to think feudalism is the most natural form of government because human beings fall into it the second they stop trying to make the other types of government work.

The Waltons and the Kochs are the Feudal Lords of America. The Waltons especially. They are not TEH JRRB CREEYATERZ they are the enslavers of society, destroying the environment, destroying small business and enslaving the population with sub-living wages and the cheap shit that is offered in their establishments.

The Waltons should get the shit taxed out of them for all the government subsidies they receive, in the form of welfare for their slave workers.

If Walmart didn’t exist HURR HURR WHERE WOULD THE LOWEST OF THE LOW GET JRRBS Maybe they could find decent jobs that pay a living wage and offer some hope of advancement?

Learned Pie Of Zion Mon, Nov 18, 2013 5:31:46am

HURR HURR IF YOUR POOR IT’S ONLY JUST CAUS YOUR LAZY!!!!!

#uniteblue #reality #getoffurassesandwork #liberallogic <<<(#oxymoron) pic.twitter.com/BlhaDXxtoN
— Amanda Swanson (@amanda050183) November 18, 2013

aagcobb Mon, Nov 18, 2013 5:49:14am

re: #21 Romantic Heretic

I would prefer that there was a direct correlation between working and reward. The whole American and Western Dream is predicated on the belief that if you work you get paid at least a living wage.

Unfortunately that idea is now more mythological than it has ever been. Most working people are no longer employees, they are chattel. It makes sense since what is known as globalism is basically feudalism.

I’m beginning to think feudalism is the most natural form of government because human beings fall into it the second they stop trying to make the other types of government work.

There still will be a correlation between working and reward. I know that conservatives think that the poor are poor because they are lazy, so if you give them a check to meet their basic needs there goes your labor force. I disagree; I think most people want to work, and won’t be satisfied with just meeting basic needs. What a national income would do is establish a floor below which demand for goods and services won’t drop since every adult will have cash to spend every month, which will help prevent the kind of lingering mass unemployment we have been experiencing. This will force employers to provide better wages and working conditions, because there will be more demand for labor and people will be freer to walk away from bad conditions and low wages. it redresses the current imbalance between capital and labor. People will also have more freedom to pursue an education, take parental leave, start a small business or retire early, and won’t have as much red tape to deal with. The Right’s excessive fear of inflation is, IMO, unfounded. The last time the US had a serious bout of inflation, China’s economic reforms had barely started and information technology was primitive. Productivity has increased so much around the world, the actual serious problem stalking the planet is deflation, not inflation; just getting enough cash into people’s hands that they can purchase all the goods and services they can produce.

Decatur Deb Mon, Nov 18, 2013 6:17:36am

re: #23 Vicious Babushka

HURR HURR IF YOUR POOR IT’S ONLY JUST CAUS YOUR LAZY!!!!!

Effective photos. I guess skinny Amanda is sure the fat ladies are welfare queens, and not just playing the hand they were dealt as best they can.

Learned Pie Of Zion Mon, Nov 18, 2013 6:19:56am

re: #25 Decatur Deb

Effective photos. I guess skinny Amanda is sure the fat ladies are welfare queens, and not just playing the hand they were dealt as best they can.

How does she even assume they’re poor? Because fat people can’t get hired to good jobs?

kirkspencer Mon, Nov 18, 2013 8:32:26am

I see the moral problem poked its head up. Moral as in (paraphrase) “those lazy people won’t bother to work.”

May I offer a single subset? Single mothers will be able to stay home and raise their children, being there for support. And they’ll be able to do so without worrying about making too much.

At a slightly higher level, a mother and father don’t have to work two part-time jobs apiece never having time for their kids.

Artists who aren’t yet good enough for Big Income can afford to practice and practice and become good enough.

My problem with the ‘lazy people won’t work’ argument is that there’s little support, and a great deal of the support uses rather restricted definitions for ‘work’. Such as everyone /saying/ that a mother raising kids is work, but in practice it’s not because it’s neither counted nor paid.

SidewaysQuark Mon, Nov 18, 2013 9:14:02am

re: #27 kirkspencer

May I offer a single subset? Single mothers will be able to stay home and raise their children, being there for support. And they’ll be able to do so without worrying about making too much.

I would hope single fathers get the same option.

Artists who aren’t yet good enough for Big Income can afford to practice and practice and become good enough.

I’m fine with that, for a while; I think there is a timeframe, though, in any type of career, after which if you can’t make a reasonable living at it, it may be time to consider that your better abilities lie elsewhere….

FemNaziBitch Mon, Nov 18, 2013 9:16:29am

Who determines what the parameters of “poverty” are?

Learned Pie Of Zion Mon, Nov 18, 2013 9:18:06am

re: #28 SidewaysQuark

I would hope single fathers get the same option.

I’m fine with that, for a while; I think there is a timeframe, though, in any type of career, after which if you can’t make a reasonable living at it, it may be time to consider that your better abilities lie elsewhere….

“Oh sorry Wolfgang, it looks as though you can’t make a decent living with your music, maybe you should become an accountant.”

“The same goes for you and your painting, Vincent!”

SidewaysQuark Mon, Nov 18, 2013 9:44:44am

re: #30 Vicious Babushka

“Oh sorry Wolfgang, it looks as though you can’t make a decent living with your music, maybe you should become an accountant.”

“The same goes for you and your painting, Vincent!”

If Mozart and Van Gogh sucked, this would be good advice. Reality is harsh. In a world where funding could get the likes of Mozart and Van Gogh off the ground, I suspect they could make a good living on their own, and your hypothetical scenario (which was obviously not the one I was proposing) would not come to pass.

In any job market where the supply exceeds the demand, the reality is you have to weed out the ones who don’t excel at it, somehow.

kirkspencer Mon, Nov 18, 2013 10:02:51am

re: #31 SidewaysQuark

If Mozart and Van Gogh sucked, this would be good advice. Reality is harsh. In a world where funding could get the likes of Mozart and Van Gogh off the ground, I suspect they could make a good living on their own, and your hypothetical scenario (which was obviously not the one I was proposing) would not come to pass.

In any job market where the supply exceeds the demand, the reality is you have to weed out the ones who don’t excel at it, somehow.

re bolded part, Why?

In part, who determines if there’s “too much art?

And in another part, why must they excel? Why can’t they be adequate - or more in tune with today’s world, why can’t they be considered very good by a section of the ‘long tail’ even though invisible or even worthless by a vast majority?

I’ll point out there are more than a few writers and artists who didn’t ‘succeed’ while alive, but were discovered only after they were dead. Henry Darger, Edgar Allen Poe, and Emily Dickinson are three.

And van Gogh, who barely survived on the work he produced prior to his suicide.

Learned Pie Of Zion Mon, Nov 18, 2013 10:06:45am

re: #31 SidewaysQuark

In any job market where the supply exceeds the demand, the reality is you have to weed out the ones who don’t excel at it, somehow.

Who are the ones who “excel”?

Is “excellence” determined by sales? By popularity?

Is Justin Bieber a more excellent musician than Mozart?

Is Thomas Kinkaide a more excellent artist than Van Gogh?

kirkspencer Mon, Nov 18, 2013 10:12:58am

(ugh, spamming the thread, sorry all, but have more to note)

I’d like to point out that while it’s politically problematic right now, it may be a solution to a problem that’s coming down the road.

The ‘moral’ argument, implied by sidewaysquark’s comment, is that people should be productive members of society.

The problem that is rapidly approaching is over-production. Technology has been leveraging the productivity of individuals since the industrial revolution, and it’s in the process of moving out of the blue collar and into the white.

Short term it’s wonderful for companies. It makes for an employer’s job market in that they can pick and choose from an ever-increasing pool of eligible candidates. It cuts heavily into the costs by reducing manpower requirements.

Longer term, however, it is bad for companies. If the only way people can afford to buy the company products is to have a job-related income and fewer people have jobs, well, too many companies chasing too few paying customers means fewer companies down the road.

Basic income isn’t the only solution, but it’s a viable one. it’s got problems, but so do all the other solutions I’ve seen.

ausador Mon, Nov 18, 2013 10:47:28am

Uhh, yes this is a stupid idea, bread and circuses anyone?

What constitutes a basic income, and what does it entail exactly? Besides basic rent money for everyone and the already existing food subsidy should it also include something else “necessary” like money for car insurance?

In the age of of trillion dollar annual Federal deficits were is this money supposed to come from?

Oh that is right, we will just tax the money from the people who do work to pay money to the people who don’t so that that will not have to ever seek employment?

This goes beyond “social welfare” and into the realm of “social engineering” and while it may be being proposed with good intention it fails to take human nature into account.

Economists have long shuddered at the thought of a basic income, because it strongly disincentives work.

That is because most reputable economists at least have some idea of how thin the margin is between the supposed “middle class” and the “poor” is currently. Why work when you can have nearly the same lifestyle while sitting at home playing video games all day?

However, a basic income is just that: basic. Most adults would continue to work to earn extra money.

Says who? Were are the studies that back this rather absurd assertion up with actual data? Whoever it is pushing this they have obviously never met my Nephew who has spent the last few months with me for free at 26 years old…

SidewaysQuark Mon, Nov 18, 2013 11:19:54am

re: #33 Vicious Babushka

Who are the ones who “excel”?

Is “excellence” determined by sales? By popularity?

Is Justin Bieber a more excellent musician than Mozart?

Is Thomas Kinkaide a more excellent artist than Van Gogh?

That’s a good question, but I’m not sure where you’re running with it. I’m all for funding of people in the arts, who do competent (and better) work, where the free market won’t pick up the slack. But, the bottom line is, there’s simply not as much of a demand for Renaissance oil painters as there is for solid-state electrical engineers. Not everyone who wants funding to pursue whatever passion captures them will be able to get it, even in the rosiest of scenarios I can think of.

SidewaysQuark Mon, Nov 18, 2013 11:23:54am

re: #34 kirkspencer

The problem that is rapidly approaching is over-production. Technology has been leveraging the productivity of individuals since the industrial revolution, and it’s in the process of moving out of the blue collar and into the white.

I completely agree with this. Solutions, anyone?

aagcobb Mon, Nov 18, 2013 11:25:17am

re: #35 ausador

And we have the wingnut response. One lazy nephew proves all poor people are lazy bloodsuckers who will just live off the middle class.

aagcobb Mon, Nov 18, 2013 11:28:04am

re: #29 FemNaziBitch

Who determines what the parameters of “poverty” are?

Well the federal government has set dollar figures for what amount of income it takes to get above the poverty rate.

aagcobb Mon, Nov 18, 2013 11:31:53am

re: #37 SidewaysQuark

I completely agree with this. Solutions, anyone?

Most people are going to be working in service in which automation either can’t do the job or people prefer human service. The capitalist class is making massive profits from the ever more mechanized industrial sector, while wages for labor stagnate. So a straightforward way to deal with this so that the economy continues to work for everyone is basic income redistribution as proposed here.

kirkspencer Mon, Nov 18, 2013 12:08:10pm

re: #40 aagcobb

Most people are going to be working in service in which automation either can’t do the job or people prefer human service. The capitalist class is making massive profits from the ever more mechanized industrial sector, while wages for labor stagnate. So a straightforward way to deal with this so that the economy continues to work for everyone is basic income redistribution as proposed here.

Bets on automation and ‘can’t do the job’? (or for that matter human service?) And you’re also not catching that it’s not ‘total automation’ but various automation that lets one person do what two did last week - every week, week after week, a little more improvement. (There are numerous jokes/puzzles/stories along the lines of “pay me a penny today, and each day this month double what you paid me yesterday.” It works with things other than money.)

Librarians and accountants, to name two professions, can give you an idea if they know what their business was like 20+ years ago. How many businesses maintain a full-time phone receptionist, and how many have gone to some form of menu/voice-mail?

If the job has repetitive tasks then the computer can do them. If the computer can do the repetitive tasks and one person can do what two (or more) did when they weren’t doing the repetition.

the next 20 years are going to be at least as full of change as the last 20, and probably more. And a lot of those changes did and will affect productivity - work.

aagcobb Mon, Nov 18, 2013 1:18:29pm

re: #41 kirkspencer

Bets on automation and ‘can’t do the job’? (or for that matter human service?) And you’re also not catching that it’s not ‘total automation’ but various automation that lets one person do what two did last week - every week, week after week, a little more improvement. (There are numerous jokes/puzzles/stories along the lines of “pay me a penny today, and each day this month double what you paid me yesterday.” It works with things other than money.)

Librarians and accountants, to name two professions, can give you an idea if they know what their business was like 20+ years ago. How many businesses maintain a full-time phone receptionist, and how many have gone to some form of menu/voice-mail?

If the job has repetitive tasks then the computer can do them. If the computer can do the repetitive tasks and one person can do what two (or more) did when they weren’t doing the repetition.

the next 20 years are going to be at least as full of change as the last 20, and probably more. And a lot of those changes did and will affect productivity - work.

I’ll point out that replacing humans with machines has been going on for a couple of centuries, making life easier and humanity wealthier. But people are still going to want to hear live music, if they go out for fine dining they will want to be served by waiters and waitresses food cooked by chefs, there are still going to be jobs for teachers, medical professionals, legal professionals, law enforcement, and so on. Granted a lot of these jobs are low paying, but that’s why income redistribution is needed so that society serves everyone and not just the investor class.

William Barnett-Lewis Mon, Nov 18, 2013 1:22:23pm

It might be interesting to think of this in the perspective of Ian Bank’s “The Culture” series. We aren’t at a full post-scarcity level yet but there are similarities and the idea of providing a minimum level of income that gives people who - like Vincent Van Gogh enough to eat & health care to find what they are good at and desire to do with their lives is one that provides social value for the nation out of proportion to the cost.

Likewise, a requirement for 2 years of national service (military, CCC, Americorps, etc) from 18 to 20 for everyone even slightly able to serve with free education, health care & basic income afterwards. Education in this case can be University, Vocational, Apprenticeship and could even begin, depending on what is being learned during the NS period. The benefits in giving everyone a stake in the success of the nation would be enormous.

Why can we spend 200 Billion + on yet another carrier yet not on something like this?

SidewaysQuark Mon, Nov 18, 2013 1:53:24pm

re: #43 William Barnett-Lewis

Why can we spend 200 Billion + on yet another carrier yet not on something like this?

Because 2 years of “forced volunteer work” isn’t for everyone.

William Barnett-Lewis Mon, Nov 18, 2013 2:08:57pm

re: #44 SidewaysQuark

Because 2 years of “forced volunteer work” isn’t for everyone.

Why? Are Johnny and Suzie such special snowflakes that they can’t handle giving a little time towards their education?

Decatur Deb Mon, Nov 18, 2013 4:17:56pm

re: #37 SidewaysQuark

I completely agree with this. Solutions, anyone?

The 30-hour fulltime workweek.

Decatur Deb Mon, Nov 18, 2013 4:18:51pm

re: #44 SidewaysQuark

Because 2 years of “forced volunteer work” isn’t for everyone.

Damn. If only I’d thought to tell the draft board that.

freetoken Mon, Nov 18, 2013 6:58:05pm

re: #43 William Barnett-Lewis

Likewise, a requirement for 2 years of national service (military, CCC, Americorps, etc) from 18 to 20 for everyone even slightly able to serve with free education, health care & basic income afterwards.

I’m sort of against those kind of ideas, especially as the ability to learn goes down with age. Highly abstract thinking (e.g., mathematics) is for the young to learn.

We already provide 12 years of education for every child - we need to do a better job with those 12 years.

Absalom, Absalom, Obdicut Mon, Nov 18, 2013 7:49:42pm

I’m completely for a guaranteed minimum income.

Political Atheist Tue, Nov 19, 2013 6:40:15am

re: #38 aagcobb

And we have the wingnut response. One lazy nephew proves all poor people are lazy bloodsuckers who will just live off the middle class.

Ausador is no wingnut. Is that kind of attitude what anyone who is not on board with this concept is going to get here? Way to stifle the dialog there dude.

Auto

This page has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Create a PageThis is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2016-01-01 10:29 am PST LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds Tweet

Help support Little Green Footballs!