3 ms·

I consider myself pretty economically conservative. After a lot of thought about the future of employment, automation, the effect of wealth distribution, safet

by aneth4 13y ago

I consider myself pretty economically conservative. After a lot of thought about the future of employment, automation, the effect of wealth distribution, safety nets, and many other factors, I finally concluded that paying all citizens/residents (determining who may be the hardest problem) an equal subsistence wage, enough to cover cheap housing in low demand areas and food, would be of both social and economic benefit to all. Critically, at the same time, drugs should be legalized, regulated, and available to addicts in controlled environments. The threat of starving sick homeless in the street, the basic tenet of laissez faire capitalism, is not a humane incentive for a modern society, nor is it beneficial to a developed economy.

whiddershins 13y ago
this is an extremely rational response.
aneth4 13y ago
I should add, this is, in fact, a socialist distribution of wealth scheme. That money must come from somewhere if it is not to be inflationary, and it comes from taxes on incomes and properties. The benefit to society and the economy should far outweigh the cost. Those with investments will benefit from the broader base of lower-middle class income to spend money with the companies they are invested with. Those with high income will benefit from a stronger economy supported by the middle class. Those with property will benefit from the reduction in crime, homelessness, poverty, and generally improved social environment. The only downside is the reduced incentive to work. That is real. Many who are now employed may choose not to work, which will increase wages for those who choose to work and reduce involuntary unemployment, which will be on the rise regardless as automation reduces the need for unskilled labor. There is more incentive to work when everyone, employed or unemployed, receives the same minimum income rather than the current situation, where working only earns the differential between unemployment and wages. Unemployment will likely reach 25% in the next 30 years due to increased economic efficiencies, regardless of whether we have a means of supporting the unemployed.
cookingrobot 13y ago
I think there's one opportunity you're missing. If you give non-workers enough only for basic needs, then they are basically outside the interesting part of the economic system. They don't make meaningful decisions about where their spending goes. If instead you give them more than that - enough to have disposable income, then all of that spending will trickle up to those who choose to create and work. (all economics besides redistribution are trickle up economics). This means healthy markets and rewards for staying in the workforce. So we get the benefits of capitalism and innovation, instead of just feeding and sheltering most of the population with basics.

by aneth4 13y ago

whiddershins 13y ago

this is an extremely rational response.

aneth4 13y ago

I should add, this is, in fact, a socialist distribution of wealth scheme. That money must come from somewhere if it is not to be inflationary, and it comes from taxes on incomes and properties. The benefit to society and the economy should far outweigh the cost. Those with investments will benefit from the broader base of lower-middle class income to spend money with the companies they are invested with. Those with high income will benefit from a stronger economy supported by the middle class. Those with property will benefit from the reduction in crime, homelessness, poverty, and generally improved social environment. The only downside is the reduced incentive to work. That is real. Many who are now employed may choose not to work, which will increase wages for those who choose to work and reduce involuntary unemployment, which will be on the rise regardless as automation reduces the need for unskilled labor. There is more incentive to work when everyone, employed or unemployed, receives the same minimum income rather than the current situation, where working only earns the differential between unemployment and wages. Unemployment will likely reach 25% in the next 30 years due to increased economic efficiencies, regardless of whether we have a means of supporting the unemployed.

cookingrobot 13y ago

I think there's one opportunity you're missing. If you give non-workers enough only for basic needs, then they are basically outside the interesting part of the economic system. They don't make meaningful decisions about where their spending goes. If instead you give them more than that - enough to have disposable income, then all of that spending will trickle up to those who choose to create and work. (all economics besides redistribution are trickle up economics). This means healthy markets and rewards for staying in the workforce. So we get the benefits of capitalism and innovation, instead of just feeding and sheltering most of the population with basics.