6 ms·

It's not the purpose of a company to pay enough to completely cover an employees life costs. It is the role of governments to help those in need. Companies pay

It's not the purpose of a company to pay enough to completely cover an employees life costs. It is the role of governments to help those in need. Companies pay taxes (profits, part of social security, wages which support taxes, property taxes, and on and on) which helps fund this role of government. If you require companies to pay enough to support the lifestyles of employees, than any person unable to generate enough value for a company will not get a job, will not have the opportunity to gather job skills to maybe get to that point, and will require full support from the government. And mandated higher wages leads to inflation, which puts the most vulnerable even further behind. It's fairly reasonable for the least skilled to get a job that pays accordingly, with society picking up the slack. If that person ever increases in skills to move out of this, then they too will pay more in taxes to support the new group in need or least skilled.

lovich 8y ago
I'm pro UBI and think we'd all be better off if everyone got enough to live and then companies could offer a penny a week if they wanted, since employment would not longer be tied to your ability to live. Regardless of any of those arguments, I was responding to someone who said they hoped wealth redistribution didn't happen in his lifetime, and gave examples of it happening right now
- ChrisLomont 8y ago
  I'd be pro UBI, but I've never seen the math where it works without violating one of: 1) insane tax rates that traditionally kill economies, 2) lower benefits for those most in need, or 3) simply wanting richer to hand money to poorer so they can not work much. As such, I'm much more in favor of targeted assistance to make the most use out of limited resources. And every one I've looked into will suffer from terrible inflation, probably defeating any gains. For example, if a person is willing to work a crap job to pay rent, this will not change no matter the money scaling. Give enough free money, then rents will simply rise (along with all other things for the same reason), to absorb the excess, and the same people will still end having to do the same work to keep their standard of living. Free money is almost always inflated away by markets.
  - lovich 8y ago
    I don't know that our economy and technology is actually advanced enough to handle full UBI but there are places we could start. A food allowance for everyone would be good for instance and possible. Just no checks, here's x amount of money which will buy you enough food whether or not you use it on food. Housing is another example. We don't have more empty house than homeless people in America. We don't necessarily have more house in downtown SF or NY but if we could set up a system where you could accept a house, with no real control over where, it would relieve some pressure off of people as a number of the population would accept that offer I agree on the free markets inflating away free money. University costs are a perfect example where demand was artificially inflated with federal student loans, but the supply was not equally increased so the price just went up. If we started providing basics I'd believe they'd have to be controlled more like a utility. We try not to let market forces control water because weve decided that basic for everyone. So we give a company some garunteed profits in exchange for them not being able to wrong every last dollar out of the economic niche. We lose some efficiency, but gain stability Targeted assistance might help better, but it's extremely difficult for the government as a single entity to try and provide help on the demand side without constraining the actions on the supply side. The increase in beuracratic costs also eats up much of the benefit
    - ChrisLomont 8y ago
      >A food allowance for everyone would be good for instance and possible. This would likely just be absorbed into inflation. It's hard to simply give people free money without prices increasing to make the time/work tradeoff for the good simply remain constant. > you could accept a house, If you've ever been a landlord, you'd realize people would likely destroy the properties. Many homeless are not homeless because they don't have a dwelling; they're homeless because that have fundamental other issues that make them owning and maintaining any property impossible. >If we started providing basics I'd believe they'd have to be controlled more like a utility Any country in history that tried to centrally plan such a large chunk of their economy failed. It's a sure way to get massive shortages and corruption and cronyism.
      - 8y ago
- DoreenMichele 8y ago
  I'm pro UBI and think we'd all be better off if everyone got enough to live and then companies could offer a penny a week if they wanted, since employment would not longer be tied to your ability to live. This will never work. First, it is a myth that X amount of money provides adequately for everyone, in part because there is no standard issue normal person. Second, money reduces friction in trade, thereby providing valuable efficiencies. But if income is entirely unrelated to creating or husbanding some kind of value, the entire system can rapidly come unraveled.

lovich 8y ago

I'm pro UBI and think we'd all be better off if everyone got enough to live and then companies could offer a penny a week if they wanted, since employment would not longer be tied to your ability to live. Regardless of any of those arguments, I was responding to someone who said they hoped wealth redistribution didn't happen in his lifetime, and gave examples of it happening right now

ChrisLomont 8y ago
I'd be pro UBI, but I've never seen the math where it works without violating one of: 1) insane tax rates that traditionally kill economies, 2) lower benefits for those most in need, or 3) simply wanting richer to hand money to poorer so they can not work much. As such, I'm much more in favor of targeted assistance to make the most use out of limited resources. And every one I've looked into will suffer from terrible inflation, probably defeating any gains. For example, if a person is willing to work a crap job to pay rent, this will not change no matter the money scaling. Give enough free money, then rents will simply rise (along with all other things for the same reason), to absorb the excess, and the same people will still end having to do the same work to keep their standard of living. Free money is almost always inflated away by markets.
- lovich 8y ago
  I don't know that our economy and technology is actually advanced enough to handle full UBI but there are places we could start. A food allowance for everyone would be good for instance and possible. Just no checks, here's x amount of money which will buy you enough food whether or not you use it on food. Housing is another example. We don't have more empty house than homeless people in America. We don't necessarily have more house in downtown SF or NY but if we could set up a system where you could accept a house, with no real control over where, it would relieve some pressure off of people as a number of the population would accept that offer I agree on the free markets inflating away free money. University costs are a perfect example where demand was artificially inflated with federal student loans, but the supply was not equally increased so the price just went up. If we started providing basics I'd believe they'd have to be controlled more like a utility. We try not to let market forces control water because weve decided that basic for everyone. So we give a company some garunteed profits in exchange for them not being able to wrong every last dollar out of the economic niche. We lose some efficiency, but gain stability Targeted assistance might help better, but it's extremely difficult for the government as a single entity to try and provide help on the demand side without constraining the actions on the supply side. The increase in beuracratic costs also eats up much of the benefit
  - ChrisLomont 8y ago
    >A food allowance for everyone would be good for instance and possible. This would likely just be absorbed into inflation. It's hard to simply give people free money without prices increasing to make the time/work tradeoff for the good simply remain constant. > you could accept a house, If you've ever been a landlord, you'd realize people would likely destroy the properties. Many homeless are not homeless because they don't have a dwelling; they're homeless because that have fundamental other issues that make them owning and maintaining any property impossible. >If we started providing basics I'd believe they'd have to be controlled more like a utility Any country in history that tried to centrally plan such a large chunk of their economy failed. It's a sure way to get massive shortages and corruption and cronyism.
    - 8y ago
DoreenMichele 8y ago
I'm pro UBI and think we'd all be better off if everyone got enough to live and then companies could offer a penny a week if they wanted, since employment would not longer be tied to your ability to live. This will never work. First, it is a myth that X amount of money provides adequately for everyone, in part because there is no standard issue normal person. Second, money reduces friction in trade, thereby providing valuable efficiencies. But if income is entirely unrelated to creating or husbanding some kind of value, the entire system can rapidly come unraveled.