3 ms·

I respectfully disagree with this line of thinking. The goal of a society is to eliminate as many people from needing government benefits as possible, and to en

by hwstar 11y ago

I respectfully disagree with this line of thinking. The goal of a society is to eliminate as many people from needing government benefits as possible, and to ensure that only those who are truly unemployable receive government benefits. Employers must pay a wage which ensures that basic needs are met.

JoeAltmaier 11y ago
That's palpably not true. We all get roads, police, fire, regulated utilities. Absolutely nobody is trying to wean us from those. It takes a change in thinking to accept the basic income. I'm afraid a generation will have to grow old and die before it gains traction, because of the ingrained thinking that 'full employment' is a good or useful societal goal.
- MCRed 11y ago
  You mean the generation that remembers what the USSR was like? I'm not being flippant, I'm being serious. The entire leftist political agenda, including Basic Income is basic marxism and the arguments for it are the same ones we had in over a century ago. We've had a century of experimentation with it, from Fascism in germany ("to protect our farmers") to communism in Russia to socialism in the UK to all manner of variations in South America. It hasn't worked. Why is it leftists who are always going on as if they're the only ones who care about the poor, refuse to learn the lessons of history and economics? History isn't a science, but economics is, and the reasons these things will fail are always pointed out-- as they were in this comment section-- and always ignored (as they were downvoted here on HN). As a result more and more damage is done. And when you see the damage the next generation of 20 year old leftists calls for socialism to fix the damage of socialism! So yeah, when you're over 40 and you've been around the merry go round once you see what's going on. OH, and by the way, one thing was constant- in all of these situations the people at the top profited. The politburo made out, and so that's why they support it. It's how they exploit the poor.
  - JoeAltmaier 11y ago
    We can paint it with the socialism brush, and write it off. Or we can recognize that today is a very different economic situation from, well, pretty much any time in history. We've got automation, and technology, and a burgeoning unemployed and unemployable population of non-technologists. We can try to prop up the quaint systems of the past (full employment, work or starve). Or we can change our system to one that is kinder, economical, and raises the standard of living for everybody. As I said, I believe folks will have to grow old and die. Until then, we'll hear only FUD stories and scare tactics.
dragonwriter 11y ago
> The goal of a society is to eliminate as many people from needing government benefits as possible, and to ensure that only those who are truly unemployable receive government benefits. Not only do I disagree that this is the goal of society, I don't see any reason to think that this should be the goal of society. > Employers must pay a wage which ensures that basic needs are met. It seems to me that this is a paternalistic and feudalistic approach that presumes that every member of society must be dependent on a particular employer.
philwelch 11y ago
And if you require employers to pay a living wage, then more and more people become unemployable. Actually, the thing I like about basic income is that it gives you the freedom to eliminate minimum wage laws. People wouldn't have to work degrading jobs for subsistence pay, because they would already get subsistence pay, but if they earned even $3 an hour, that would be on top of basic income rather than in place of it.

by hwstar 11y ago

JoeAltmaier 11y ago

That's palpably not true. We all get roads, police, fire, regulated utilities. Absolutely nobody is trying to wean us from those. It takes a change in thinking to accept the basic income. I'm afraid a generation will have to grow old and die before it gains traction, because of the ingrained thinking that 'full employment' is a good or useful societal goal.

MCRed 11y ago
You mean the generation that remembers what the USSR was like? I'm not being flippant, I'm being serious. The entire leftist political agenda, including Basic Income is basic marxism and the arguments for it are the same ones we had in over a century ago. We've had a century of experimentation with it, from Fascism in germany ("to protect our farmers") to communism in Russia to socialism in the UK to all manner of variations in South America. It hasn't worked. Why is it leftists who are always going on as if they're the only ones who care about the poor, refuse to learn the lessons of history and economics? History isn't a science, but economics is, and the reasons these things will fail are always pointed out-- as they were in this comment section-- and always ignored (as they were downvoted here on HN). As a result more and more damage is done. And when you see the damage the next generation of 20 year old leftists calls for socialism to fix the damage of socialism! So yeah, when you're over 40 and you've been around the merry go round once you see what's going on. OH, and by the way, one thing was constant- in all of these situations the people at the top profited. The politburo made out, and so that's why they support it. It's how they exploit the poor.
- JoeAltmaier 11y ago
  We can paint it with the socialism brush, and write it off. Or we can recognize that today is a very different economic situation from, well, pretty much any time in history. We've got automation, and technology, and a burgeoning unemployed and unemployable population of non-technologists. We can try to prop up the quaint systems of the past (full employment, work or starve). Or we can change our system to one that is kinder, economical, and raises the standard of living for everybody. As I said, I believe folks will have to grow old and die. Until then, we'll hear only FUD stories and scare tactics.

dragonwriter 11y ago

> The goal of a society is to eliminate as many people from needing government benefits as possible, and to ensure that only those who are truly unemployable receive government benefits. Not only do I disagree that this is the goal of society, I don't see any reason to think that this should be the goal of society. > Employers must pay a wage which ensures that basic needs are met. It seems to me that this is a paternalistic and feudalistic approach that presumes that every member of society must be dependent on a particular employer.

philwelch 11y ago

And if you require employers to pay a living wage, then more and more people become unemployable. Actually, the thing I like about basic income is that it gives you the freedom to eliminate minimum wage laws. People wouldn't have to work degrading jobs for subsistence pay, because they would already get subsistence pay, but if they earned even $3 an hour, that would be on top of basic income rather than in place of it.