Comment

Comment by The Flying Atheist on July 19, 2016 at 11:16am

Another idea that has been discussed is that many jobs could be divided into two part-time positions.  This would provide more jobs while at the same time provide more free time for those who are working.

Yes, Chris and Joan....lots of questions! 

Comment by Plinius on July 19, 2016 at 5:39am

Same for me, only questions, but I'm glad with your thoughts!

Comment by Joan Denoo on July 19, 2016 at 4:53am

Carl, I value and appreciate you thrashing on these issues. We need this conversation. I have no answers, only questions. 

Comment by Joan Denoo on July 19, 2016 at 4:05am

I suspect that people with no jobs will not "spend more time with family, to pursue travel, or to explore and partake in artistic abilities or humanitarian endeavors". 

There are too many distractions available, i.e. TV, computers used for gaming or watching other people have a life. I can remember when we didn't have TV and the only mechanical thing to pass time was the radio. The adults in my family listened faithfully to the weather report and the price of peas and wheat. Then, they got up from the comfortable chair and raised chickens, grew gardens, made their furniture and clothes, did the laundry over a wash tub and hung wet clothes on the clothesline. They made their beer and wine, played musical instruments, organized community theater, and had a relief society to help people in trouble. 

What will the excess labor force do with their idle time? 

What is fair and just about this arrangement? My kids work hard, don't take vacations, shop carefully for low prices, even as they boycott WalMart and Albertson's. Why should they work so hard?

Comment by Joan Denoo on July 19, 2016 at 3:47am

Carl, I agree with you, absolutely. Robots and technology take over more of the things humans once performed and production jobs will never return to our shores. 

The population grows exponentially now, creating more people to feed but not enough paid labor to sustain families.

Some work for $2.00 a day, and some even live as slaves, caught by values that exploit and manipulate them.

It would be cheaper than our present welfare program. I wonder what will happen to the individual who has no responsibility to one's own sustenance? A lazy person receives a reward and puts no effort into meeting his or her needs. 

If everyone has $1,000 a month just because they are alive, it wouldn't be very long before business would raise prices in order to scoop up as much of that $1,000 a month as possible. What incentive would the excess labor force have that receives pay for doing nothing? What will those people who work for $1,500 a month do? They could easily scale down expenses and stop working. It would be a disincentive. We would be back into the poverty/wealthy situation again. 

OH, I just watched your films and they ask the same questions as I. 

Comment by Ian Mason on July 19, 2016 at 1:19am

Joan, there is no guaranteed basic income in the Scandinavian countries. All unemployment benefits and social security are being eroded one piece at a time. First was a 50% cut for refugees on "integration allowance" with other small changes for the rest of us but we'll also be losing more as time goes by. Norway could afford to be generous to its citizens by declaring a tax-free month per annum for several years but only because of the income from North-sea oil. That won't be happening any more.

A solution? Karl Marx said "socialism or barbarism." I think that Marx's analysis of capitalism is still the best to date but what to do next is another question. Some sort of co-operative economic system based on the common good instead of profit and without exploitation of the world's poor has to be within human capabilities.  We've come so far - let's take the next step.

Comment by Joan Denoo on July 19, 2016 at 12:11am

Alaska has oil revenues from which the guaranteed income receives funding. When there is not a source of financing, the taxpayers have to pay. As long as the wealthy do not share in the costs of maintaining fire, police, libraries, highways, and many other expenses of public expenses, middle-income people cannot fund basic income for everyone.   

I have two children and their spouses who work terribly hard to increase their standard of living, and pay for high medical costs and education; they can't take on any more expense.  

I have a physically challenged son who can not contribute to funding basic income for all. 

Somewhere in this problem is a solution that I have not been able to see. I appreciate any input on this challenge 

Comment by The Flying Atheist on July 18, 2016 at 11:09pm

Joan, I totally understand your sentiment that all people should have a job with a living wage.  However, the reality is that as technology continually replaces jobs once performed by humans (as it has been since the industrial revolution) and the population continues to grow, a sufficient number of jobs are just not available to all who need or want one.

The basic income concept brings about quite a few questions and challenges.  As we exit the industrial age and progress further into the information age, people need an income in order to survive even though their labor skills are no longer required.  At some point far fewer people will be doing manual labor jobs.  Will they alone be able to provide the funds to financially support a basic income for all others? 

As it is right now, we are using the slave labor of developing countries to manufacture our goods and luxuries.  One may argue that we should "bring those jobs back here."  Unfortunately, those jobs are gone for good.  Contrary to the mistaken belief that our jobs are being robbed from under us by immigrants, the reality is that corporations have given away our working-class jobs on a silver platter to the lowest bidder from other countries.  Those jobs are not returning.

Proponents of a basic income have argued that as people are financially provided for, they will have the time and energy to spend more time with family, to pursue travel, or to explore and partake in artistic abilities or humanitarian endeavors. 

But that all comes at a human cost.  As I mentioned above, the slave labor from other countries is providing for our first-world existence.  It's also important to note that being poor in a first-world country is VASTLY different than being poor in a third world or developing country.

There are many ethical and financial arguments to be made on both sides of the basic income issue.

Comment by The Flying Atheist on July 18, 2016 at 10:49pm

The basic income concept is quite interesting.  One of the political podcasts I listen to regularly, The David Pakman Show, has discussed this topic several times in the past few years.

Below are three clips from that show.

By the way, Swiss voters just voted down the basic income last month.

Comment by k.h. ky on July 18, 2016 at 2:29pm

I was reminded of that from Ian's prior post.
And the rich get richer !!

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 40
• 41
• 42
• 43
• 44
• …
• 1371
• Next ›
• Page