3 ms·

If you read my post, you will see that distinctiveness people from working is half of the point. Our current problem is that our population is currently willing

If you read my post, you will see that distinctiveness people from working is half of the point. Our current problem is that our population is currently willing to do X amount of work, but we only have Y amount of work to do. If we make income (which I am using as a proxy for 'stuff') directly proportional to how much work you do, then a small percentage of the population will attempt to gain as much economic power as possible leaving the rest of the population without. If we decouple income from the amount of work you do, then we do not have sufficient incentive to work, and do not have enough stuff to go around (although I think we will reach a point where this is no longer true). If we have a minimum income, we can increase it until our workforce still has the capacity to do all the work available, but does not have such a surplus in capacity that people who want to do more work but cannot find any do not suffer. If we get to the point where their is work that is not being done, we would need to decrease minimum income. The resentment you are speaking about is a cultural problem that would simply need to change along with society. Also, in my basic implementation of this system, every individual would receive the minimum income in addition to whatever they receive from their job. The alternative is that we keep increasing the amount of work we need to do. Unfourtuantly, work is expensive and a key strength of capitilism is that it encourages minimizing the work that needs to be done. I believe a minimum income is a comprimise that maintains an economy that improves efficiency by being capitalistic at the micro level, while at the same time providing the best quality of life it can support to all of its citizens. If it ever falls into pure socialism, it would be because everyone is content.

eli_gottlieb 14y ago
Here's a notion for us to think about: why not start structuring a basic-income system in a "capitalist" way by reforming the way companies pay out dividends? I mean, how does it make sense that, on the one hand, American business corporations are sitting on record-sized heaps of cash, but on the other hand, most gains for investors are made via buy-low, sell-high capital gains and almost all stock is owned by the investor-capitalist class, institutions, and retirement accounts? Why not transform our existing paper certificates that theoretically place a legal claim on a stream of profits into a real, enforceable claim on a stream of profits? So we could maintain our notions of "labor" and "deserving" by radically shortening the lifespan of a person's mandatory career. You work until you build enough wealth to start living off capital income, then "retire" into the rest of your life with a standard of living that remains linked to the work you actually did. A sovereign wealth fund could distribute social dividends through ownership of society's common assets for those who don't have much else.
NoPiece 14y ago
Practically, how would a minimum income even be feasible? There are ~250m adults in the country, and ~150m are employed. If all adults got a minimum salary of $25k, you'd have to tax every employed adult $40,000 to pay for it (in addition to the normal taxes that pay for government). It wouldn't be worth working, so you'd just drop out and collect the check, which would increase the burden on those still employed causing even more to drop out.
- gizmo686 14y ago
  True, so the minimum income would not be $25k. Consider that 23k is considered the poverty line for a family of 4. If currently employed people decide that it is no longer worth their time to work, then we still do not have a problem, because we have plenty of people who not only think it is worth their time to work, but do not currently have work. Surely one of them would be willing to take your job.
  - NoPiece 14y ago
    Well what do you think the minimum income might be? The labor problem is much more complicated than: there are more people than want jobs than jobs available. The unemployment rate for people with bachelors degrees is now down to 3.7%. My leaving the labor force isn't going to help a high school drop out who use to manufacture furniture in North Carolina.
- justincormack 14y ago
  You probably nationalise the robots and we all get dividends not salaries.

eli_gottlieb 14y ago

Here's a notion for us to think about: why not start structuring a basic-income system in a "capitalist" way by reforming the way companies pay out dividends? I mean, how does it make sense that, on the one hand, American business corporations are sitting on record-sized heaps of cash, but on the other hand, most gains for investors are made via buy-low, sell-high capital gains and almost all stock is owned by the investor-capitalist class, institutions, and retirement accounts? Why not transform our existing paper certificates that theoretically place a legal claim on a stream of profits into a real, enforceable claim on a stream of profits? So we could maintain our notions of "labor" and "deserving" by radically shortening the lifespan of a person's mandatory career. You work until you build enough wealth to start living off capital income, then "retire" into the rest of your life with a standard of living that remains linked to the work you actually did. A sovereign wealth fund could distribute social dividends through ownership of society's common assets for those who don't have much else.

NoPiece 14y ago

Practically, how would a minimum income even be feasible? There are ~250m adults in the country, and ~150m are employed. If all adults got a minimum salary of $25k, you'd have to tax every employed adult $40,000 to pay for it (in addition to the normal taxes that pay for government). It wouldn't be worth working, so you'd just drop out and collect the check, which would increase the burden on those still employed causing even more to drop out.

gizmo686 14y ago
True, so the minimum income would not be $25k. Consider that 23k is considered the poverty line for a family of 4. If currently employed people decide that it is no longer worth their time to work, then we still do not have a problem, because we have plenty of people who not only think it is worth their time to work, but do not currently have work. Surely one of them would be willing to take your job.
- NoPiece 14y ago
  Well what do you think the minimum income might be? The labor problem is much more complicated than: there are more people than want jobs than jobs available. The unemployment rate for people with bachelors degrees is now down to 3.7%. My leaving the labor force isn't going to help a high school drop out who use to manufacture furniture in North Carolina.
justincormack 14y ago
You probably nationalise the robots and we all get dividends not salaries.