3 ms·
How about the idea of actually hiring people, rather than handing out money? As in, the employer of last resort hires people to clean and fix roads and parks,
by Roboprog 13y ago
How about the idea of actually hiring people, rather than handing out money? As in, the employer of last resort hires people to clean and fix roads and parks, etc. Or perhaps in some cases, being paid to go to school or doing basic research in fields deemed to be relevant at the time? (even if it means you do research for a couple of years for low pay, then bail out)
There are enough things in the commons that need doing, I can't see just giving the money away to the able bodied/minded.
What's wrong with using tax money to approach 100% employment, and if you want a larger salary, get a private job? (as for the more grungy private jobs, if they can't find people to do them for $MIN wage, maybe they should up the automation or fold, in some cases)
Note that I am NOT advocating government ownership / communism, just basic Keynesian spending directed at useful activity, with the goal to keep unemployment near 0%. I suppose that in itself could be a nightmare for some corporations, but screw 'em. Treat people w/ dignity, or they can/will work elsewhere. (at least in the fantasy world in my head :-))
Recapping some other comments in this thread:
"Money for nothing" is very likely to cause inflation. So would full employment, but perhaps actually having something of value produced by the employed would offset that some?
Not many people would be satisfied sitting around doing nothing all day. Even in high school, most people got a bit bored after the end of summer break.
- venomsnake 13y agoBe careful. You are moving into Keynes heresy territory. The imperial inquisition (aka the very serious people) may want to have a word with you.
- Roboprog 13y agoAm I the only one who caught the part about the regressive tax on the middle class ($25 - $50 K income range) to pay for the hand out??? Gotta love uncle Milty (Friedman) and his boys.
- streptomycin 13y agoProbably. Friedman's negative income tax proposal was the opposite of regressive.
- Roboprog 13y agoQuote: It is important to point out that under Murray’s proposal, which is outlined fully in his book In Our Hands: A Plan To Replace The Welfare State, after someone’s total annual income reached $25,000 a 20 percent surtax tax would be imposed on “incremental earned income,” capped at $5,000 once someone earns $50,000 a year. OK, not uncle Milty, some other libertarian. Still, a tax that stops at $50K is hard to call something other than regressive.
- dragonwriter 13y ago> How about the idea of actually hiring people, rather than handing out money? I think the thing behind the increasing popularity of basic income is that we live in a world in which capital is increasingly important, and the fundamental idea of wage labor as the main source of income is breaking down. Creating make-work government wage-slaves is not a solution to this problem; creating a tax-and-general-benefit structure which amounts to an assessment on those making the most from the commons that is redistributed on an equal basis, OTOH, is.