5 ms·

Or even better, pay them basic income - now women would no longer need to prostitute themselves out of desperation, and only the ones who really saw this as a l

by capisce 12y ago

Or even better, pay them basic income - now women would no longer need to prostitute themselves out of desperation, and only the ones who really saw this as a lucrative career would choose it.

ekianjo 12y ago
Yeah, pay basic income then prices for everything goes up and you are back at sqiare1.
- capisce 12y ago
  Source?
  - ekianjo 12y ago
    Source of what? Economic Principles?
    - capisce 12y ago
      I'm asking for the source of your claim that implementing basic income would make no difference whatsoever. Sure, some prices would rise. Basic income needs to be continuously calibrated relative to the cost of basic living. That said, I don't see any good reason to expect that the price of say food would rise beyond people's ability to buy. Western countries already produce way more food than is necessary, so supermarkets end up throwing a lot away. With increased demand there would be increased production of food, clothes, and other essential items. Market forces would still be in effect, so rent prices would reach a new equilibrium. As long as there are more apartments than people, rents would stay at a level that people could afford (or the empty apartments would lower rents until people could afford to live there). If there are not enough apartments, more would be built in cheap locations to satisfy demand. Sure, basic income wouldn't make everyone able to live in New York, but that's not the goal.
      - ekianjo 12y ago
        No economic system is an island anymore. First, where do you get the supply of money to provide basic income to everyone? Seeing that most western countries and knee deep in debt, I guess you mean printing money then? Inflation would then go rampant, leading to rising prices, and rising commodity prices for everything that is not produced in the said country. Depending where you are that could have a very big impact on your daily purchasing power. And then you'd have to raise prices again because your "basic income" is not basic anymore to sustain paying for rents, for stuff more than bare minimum. In other words, more debts. That's a simplified explanation of what would be going on, but it gives a general idea of why it would not work so well in practice, and why it's not sustainable. By the way in most countries you have a "basic income" already for people who have no resources whatsoever (not for everyone in society) - it's very limited but that's enough to buy food usually. The idea is nothing new.
        capisce 12y ago
        Western countries are knee deep in public debt, but very rich when it comes to private wealth. We don't need to print money, we just need to increase taxes a bit, especially on the wealthiest 1 %. Inflation is an unfair tax as it targets middle class savers the most, instead of the rich who have most of their wealth in real estate, shares and bonds, etc. Some prices would rise, but not enough to offset the benefits of basic income. Our economy has more than enough productivity and wealth to provide everyone with food and shelter. The majority of food production is largely automated and does not require a lot of cheap labor. Your claim that basic income is not sustainable is unsubstantiated. Basic income is a great way to share the proceeds of automation and increased productivity among the many instead of just among the few.
        ekianjo 12y ago
        Are you one of the Occupy Wall Street guys? :) It's very easy for corporations or rich individuals to move away from places were tax increase too much. More unemployment, is that what you want? Because when such companies/people move, they don't spend their money locally anymore. Yeah, and they are free to move, unless you want to set up a totalitarian regime. And the claim that taxing the very rich will save the government from its debt is hilarious, seeing that the US government, for example, has dozens of trillions of USD in debts and I have yet to hear about any company who has a trillion of net worth.
- pinkyand 12y ago
  True - demand increases - prices rise. But than new factories should open and prices would return to normal.
jensen123 12y ago
Or marry out of desperation. But I wonder, though, if you give welfare to women, will that lead to financially responsible, but "dull" men having a hard time getting laid? While "fun", but financially reckless men getting most of the women? I suppose you may have meant a basic income scheme for both men and women, but the issue would still be there. Women get pregnant. Men don't. Thus men tend to be financially more successful than women, since they don't have to spend time being pregnant etc.

by capisce 12y ago

Or even better, pay them basic income - now women would no longer need to prostitute themselves out of desperation, and only the ones who really saw this as a lucrative career would choose it.

ekianjo 12y ago

Yeah, pay basic income then prices for everything goes up and you are back at sqiare1.

capisce 12y ago
Source?
- ekianjo 12y ago
  Source of what? Economic Principles?
  - capisce 12y ago
    I'm asking for the source of your claim that implementing basic income would make no difference whatsoever. Sure, some prices would rise. Basic income needs to be continuously calibrated relative to the cost of basic living. That said, I don't see any good reason to expect that the price of say food would rise beyond people's ability to buy. Western countries already produce way more food than is necessary, so supermarkets end up throwing a lot away. With increased demand there would be increased production of food, clothes, and other essential items. Market forces would still be in effect, so rent prices would reach a new equilibrium. As long as there are more apartments than people, rents would stay at a level that people could afford (or the empty apartments would lower rents until people could afford to live there). If there are not enough apartments, more would be built in cheap locations to satisfy demand. Sure, basic income wouldn't make everyone able to live in New York, but that's not the goal.
    - ekianjo 12y ago
      No economic system is an island anymore. First, where do you get the supply of money to provide basic income to everyone? Seeing that most western countries and knee deep in debt, I guess you mean printing money then? Inflation would then go rampant, leading to rising prices, and rising commodity prices for everything that is not produced in the said country. Depending where you are that could have a very big impact on your daily purchasing power. And then you'd have to raise prices again because your "basic income" is not basic anymore to sustain paying for rents, for stuff more than bare minimum. In other words, more debts. That's a simplified explanation of what would be going on, but it gives a general idea of why it would not work so well in practice, and why it's not sustainable. By the way in most countries you have a "basic income" already for people who have no resources whatsoever (not for everyone in society) - it's very limited but that's enough to buy food usually. The idea is nothing new.
      - capisce 12y ago
        Western countries are knee deep in public debt, but very rich when it comes to private wealth. We don't need to print money, we just need to increase taxes a bit, especially on the wealthiest 1 %. Inflation is an unfair tax as it targets middle class savers the most, instead of the rich who have most of their wealth in real estate, shares and bonds, etc. Some prices would rise, but not enough to offset the benefits of basic income. Our economy has more than enough productivity and wealth to provide everyone with food and shelter. The majority of food production is largely automated and does not require a lot of cheap labor. Your claim that basic income is not sustainable is unsubstantiated. Basic income is a great way to share the proceeds of automation and increased productivity among the many instead of just among the few.
        ekianjo 12y ago
        Are you one of the Occupy Wall Street guys? :) It's very easy for corporations or rich individuals to move away from places were tax increase too much. More unemployment, is that what you want? Because when such companies/people move, they don't spend their money locally anymore. Yeah, and they are free to move, unless you want to set up a totalitarian regime. And the claim that taxing the very rich will save the government from its debt is hilarious, seeing that the US government, for example, has dozens of trillions of USD in debts and I have yet to hear about any company who has a trillion of net worth.
pinkyand 12y ago
True - demand increases - prices rise. But than new factories should open and prices would return to normal.

jensen123 12y ago

Or marry out of desperation. But I wonder, though, if you give welfare to women, will that lead to financially responsible, but "dull" men having a hard time getting laid? While "fun", but financially reckless men getting most of the women? I suppose you may have meant a basic income scheme for both men and women, but the issue would still be there. Women get pregnant. Men don't. Thus men tend to be financially more successful than women, since they don't have to spend time being pregnant etc.