Sam's conversation with his Canadian socialist friend on Sunday, July 9, 2017

[Chester]

I had a discussion with a friend (and a pretty smart guy) from Canada this morning. He has a view that he thinks is opposite my own but it is actually not because I do not sit on one side of the view or the other and I will explain after describing the "two sides."

He is convinced that the proposals by a few over in Europe to supply a guaranteed minimum income (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guaranteed_minimum_income) to all citizens must be implemented because he states that automation inevitably would kill "most jobs." He stated that those who wish for better than "a basic sustained life" (his example was someone wanting an iPhone) would be incentivized to work for "more" and those who were happy enough just to survive would not need to work.

He then said each person should get 35K to 40K a year. I see that this is about $3,000 or more a month and I told him that if my 26 year old son, Stephen, were given (and of course this is tax free money) $3,000 a month, he would move to Colorado, share a cheap apartment with a few others, eat cheap, pitch in on cable TV/internet, then spend the rest of his money on high quality marijuana which he would smoke while 'veging out' day and night watching TV, or doing internet activity such as brain stimulating social media activity, interactive gaming and porn.

So I then asked him how he justifies enabling those who would abuse "free money?"

He then said, "but what someone chooses to do (with it) is not my business."

I then responded that if that is correct then why are we involving ourselves in other people's lives at all if it is none of our business?

He had no response for that and started to get a bit emotional and almost angry... but I then moved on and asked him... "OK, so let's say that a nation (all nations... eventually perhaps a single world government) does this, who pays for it?" His answer was, "Well, we all do... but especially the uber rich?" I responded, "good luck with getting governments who are run by representatives who are funded by so many of "the uber rich" via campaign contributions and other forms of "payoff" to make laws that would tax "the uber rich" for the support of the rest of us with a basic guaranteed income," and he conceded that this could only happen if socialists take over. - "Lovely," I stated.

He then went on a rant about capitalism where he made points I wholly agree with (when greedy people have the power to do whatever they wish via a capitalistic system which has zero regulation). He then used an example of the greedy corporations which happened to be the two choices in Canada for internet, one being Rogers.

I then pointed out to him that he is using an example of something that is "bad" that happens to exist in a country that is far more socialist than the US which he was bashing. I told him that here in the US I have at least 6 or 8 choices for internet that come to mind just off the top of my head! I have a 300 Meg plus download for just over (because of $10 in tax) $100 a month unlimited use! Fortunately for him, his kid ran in and said, "Mommy wants you," and so he had to go.

But somewhere in between all this (and what I partially shared above) I pointed out that there is a hypocrisy in thinking not just that society "should" help the less capable, the vulnerable, those who clearly need and/or could perhaps benefit from assistance coming from third parties and yet then, why is it "not our business" what they do with the money we throw at them? How can both be true? But what's worse about this idea is that the idea comes from folks who want other folks to pay for this!

Something tells me that people who think like this are people who do not want to actually provide direct help to others by giving to bona fide charities and/or volunteering their time to help others... but that they are looking for an easy (and personally financially free and time spending free) way to allow themselves to live with themselves for not being personally proactive in helping others and want to do so by justifying that those who actually go out and work for or in other ways via their own efforts earn their wealth should pay for most and perhaps even all of the "social agenda bill."

I have a final point to make but I wish share this first part of the conversation hoping to invite dialogue. And note, I placed this thread in the Politics sub-forum as I have (and perhaps erroneously) concluded that this sub-forum was created to house discussions of this nature which... cannot help but, discuss various views which can also sometimes appear as sides of two opposites (which are actually just extremes).

[Whiskey_Mystic]

Sam, sounds like you had an interesting conversation and brought up some good points to your friend. I'd be more in favor of offering a basic survival income (as well as educational tuition assistance and basic health care) to people who want it in exchange for work. Even if it's just picking up trash. This would help people bridge the gap in a difficult time, offer a path to a better life, but without disincentivizing people to eventually be able to take care of themselves. We have some programs like this now, such as California Conservation Corps, but I think an expansion of these programs would help our society as a whole.

[Justplain]

They had a 'work'-fare program for a while in Ontario, which required those receiving social welfare payments, to work at some job that didnt take away paid work from someone else. This has morphed over time into a psuedo-guaranteed income supplement where the labour ministry guarantees to top up wages you earn to $1200 cad/month. My stepson was in that for a while and it helped him by stabilizing his income during weak employment times.

I believe the key to an effective 'guaranteed income supplement' is that it not be so much as to allow the person to live overly comfortably, therefore there is still an incentive to work to make one's economic circumstances better.

There is no doubt that capitalism does NOT work for the betterment of humankind. The way it has changed since i was a child is back to having a government that caters to the wealthy few, at the expense of public health (see gmo food, pharmacuetical rules, municipal land development, etc.). Capitalism/fascism/cronyism has lead to the classification (hiding) of wondrous technical and scientific achievements that would likely free modern society from polluting tech we currently use.

Having seen a bank of canada rep promoting the need to invest in AI and robotics, i do believe that our civilization is thundering down the transhumanism dystopia track as depicted in the recent movie 'ghost in the shell'. There would be a very large number of displaced jobs with the onset of this tech. So, some form of income support will be needed, imho. If i were a young person, i would train to get the best paying job now, save my dinero, and buy a plot of real estate that me and my family could survive on if needed.

[TargeT]

He then went on a rant about capitalism where he made points I wholly agree with (when greedy people have the power to do whatever they wish via a capitalistic system which has zero regulation)

This a minor tangent of our conversation... but.

Look at this statement, this is the statement of someone either so beaten down that they view themselves as powerless, or someone who doesn't fully understand the Supply/Demand relationship and the power of informed consumers.

Yes capitalism can lead to some crazy ****... but ONLY if it is supported through consumers. I fear the type of mentality represented by that comment is one that ignores personal responsibility and probably blames a lot of their own life's circumstances, or even "what's wrong with the world" on almost exclusively external forces.

The symptom is political disagreement tainted with emotional commitment (anger over discussion of ideas indicates this is a "strongly held belief" which causes physiological changes in the belief holder when this belief is challenged, even just verbally) resides at the reptilian level of the brain... triggering fight/flight/freeze type responses.

So good luck with that one, haha you'll have to dance a very careful game around the belief (if you can ever actually define it, often the belief holder only has a nebulous "cloud" idea with very fuzzy edges that the belief is founded on) while trying not to trigger the reptilian-brain booby traps that are laced throughout the discussion.

Sometimes a certain level of meta awareness exists in the belief holder, but this often just leads to self restraint and the curbing of socially unacceptable actions, not deeper self examination (as the belief is defended from doubt, even if it comes from the belief holder itself).

Better get a good stretch in, the mental gymnastics can be quite amazing.



Sam, sounds like you had an interesting conversation and brought up some good points to your friend. I'd be more in favor of offering a basic survival income (as well as educational tuition assistance and basic health care) to people who want it in exchange for work. Even if it's just picking up trash. This would help people bridge the gap in a difficult time, offer a path to a better life, but without disincentivizing people to eventually be able to take care of themselves. We have some programs like this now, such as California Conservation Corps, but I think an expansion of these programs would help our society as a whole.

I've had 4 different people live in spare rooms I have in trade for work (for the younger ones it was feeding and watering horses every day, plus minor project assistance when needed, and they were welcome to eat with us when ever they wanted).

The agreement generally includes a room, utilities (water/power/trash), high speed internet, furniture (nothing fancy. serviceable stuff) in trade for assistance with the rescue (one agreement involved assisting me with my solar install and building a roof, most are feeding/watering horses, but those generally also include employment as tour guides, which were paid $10-15/hour + tips).

I always felt like we offered a fair deal on our end, but almost invariably the situations ended poorly, with (mostly the young people) leaving unhappy. I think it is due to the sense of entitlement that follows the period of thankfulness in the beginning (they all went through vaguely similar patterns of behavior) . There would be resentment when tasks were required to be done a certain way (and honestly, I can see how that would be frustrating, but sometimes you can't give a history breakdown on "why" you do a thing in a particular way.. especially when there are thousands of little tricks like that anywhere with multiple horses); which in my mind was a slightly appalling attitude. Were I in the situation I offer I would like to think that it would be very easy to understand that doing it the property owners way is DEFINITELY not a big deal and "too easy" to accomplish.

ANYWAY bla bla bla, we quit offering a room in trade.

I think it doesn't work because there's too little sense of personal accomplishment for a person in that type of situation (when so many things are being done for them, and "the stuff you have" is the only positive feed back; which is basically the antithesis to modern consumerism culture).

So, I see that as a good example of what we are discussing here, and it illustrates my trepidations as well.

[Virilis]

The Kurzgesagt crew created a compelling little summary of the issues outlined by the OP. The vid runs for ~11:40 mins.

WSKi8HfcxEk

Interestingly, Switzerland was the first country in the world to vote on "a guaranteed basic income for all" plan, which was ultimately rejected (77% No / 23% Yes).

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-36454060

[Whiskey_Mystic]

I think it doesn't work because there's too little sense of personal accomplishment for a person in that type of situation (when so many things are being done for them, and "the stuff you have" is the only positive feed back; which is basically the antithesis to modern consumerism culture).

Is this something you have seen change over the years or was it always this way? Also, were there exceptions and if so, what did you notice about the exceptions?

[TargeT]

I think it doesn't work because there's too little sense of personal accomplishment for a person in that type of situation (when so many things are being done for them, and "the stuff you have" is the only positive feed back; which is basically the antithesis to modern consumerism culture).

Is this something you have seen change over the years or was it always this way? Also, were there exceptions and if so, what did you notice about the exceptions?

This was over the past 3.5 years, so not a good historical sample.

The exceptions were a decade older than the norm.


So the commonality seems to be......
00FDR1E0zvE

Cultural degradation?

[neutronstar]

Think for a moment how many jobs we could eliminate if we did away with money. Had only jobs that benefited society in some way. So many more jobs could be eliminated by automation because now you don't have workers resisting automation. I would think there would be far more people wanting something to do then there would be jobs available. Sure there would be people that would be lazy, but I would be happy to do any job for a few hours a day if it meant food, clothing, and shelter were taken care of.

Of course I am not sure our society is ready for this type of thinking. Work for the betterment of humanity.

[neutronstar]

The Kurzgesagt crew created a compelling little summary of the issues outlined by the OP. The vid runs for ~11:40 mins.

WSKi8HfcxEk

Interestingly, Switzerland was the first country in the world to vote on "a guaranteed basic income for all" plan, which was ultimately rejected (77% No / 23% Yes).

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-36454060

Well then, maybe we will be forced into my working for the benefit of humanity way of thinking.

[Justplain]

The way that new tech could actually work unexpectedly for our benefit, is if some form of new tech enhanced our ability to live independently. Again, you would likely need your own piece of real estate. One enhancement would be low cost energy and energy storage. Solar panels have been coming down in cost almost hyperbolically. Recent research breakthroughs point to high capacity, cheap batteries based on such things as hydrocarbons. I have seen other nanotech on water filters that can desalinate sea water. Another form of new tech that could be liberating is 3D printers. If you could have a printer that would make your cloths, tools, even buildings and possibly food, then you dont need much else to live. Then you spend your time raising children, doing art, charity work, communing with nature, raising your consciousness, etc. So the future might not be bad, if we choose to use the tech to enhance our independence.

[Ernie Nemeth]

Always the worry of jobs. As if we`d all sit around doing nothing as Sam`s son is pre-accused of, and maybe he would, maybe we all would for a while. Heck, I know I`m tired of working (but then again I`m never idle, either)...

But that stance pre-supposes a dysfunctional society where larceny is already happening on a massive scale, where rights are trampled with impunity, where dignity and sanctity of life means not a whit. In a society where these fundamental aspects of a full and happy life are forefront in every endeavor, such concepts as work are moot. They are but important and necessary functions of an enlightened society. There it is an honor to serve, not a drudgery. In such a society the work serves the function and nothing else - no tax or profit or margin, no leveraged position or vested interest. The cost drops precipitously and so do the hours worked. The cost of such a society is a mere small fraction of its cost today. Easily paid for with a healthy surplus even, if such is the need.

And everyone would be happy and free to do as they pleased.

It is difficult to imagine beyond this point because the paradigm would be so completely different than today.

The entire idea of money lies on a faulty premise and a misplaced given. The faulty premise is that money allows the comparison of apples and oranges when in fact money allows the disassociation of wealth and value. The misplaced given is the pre-eminent importance of private property. Private property is a concept born of small and weak men in constant fear of deprivation, whether valid or not. It is in these minds that weapons and war take precedence over service and succor.

The riches of this world are no one`s to claim but everyone`s to share. No one man could sow it, no one man shall reap it. There may have been a time when there was not enough, that time is not now.

[A Voice from the Mountains]

When I started looking into starting my own business, my eyes were opened to what small business owners suffer through over-regulation and taxations, and how much blame they have unduly received for all of society's ills by the typical ignorant communist radical types.

People think that "the rich" are the problem and we should just tax the hell out of them, but even someone who makes $1 million a year is not employing that many people (and not because he's taking all the money, which is a very naive way of thinking of business -- there are typically ridiculous amounts of expenses). And that is how we should REALLY be thinking of people, rather than how much money they are making: what they are actually contributing to the economy, how many families they are feeding by putting people to work, etc.

People like the Rockefellers or George Soros have so much money you'll never even see it all on paper. They hide it away in charities and various assets or however they can manage to hide it from taxation or anything else. They are obscenely wealthy on an entirely different level than even people like Donald Trump. If you look at the Clinton Foundation and how much money was pouring into it, for example (many billions), and consider the fact that the Clintons were using all of that money for personal expenses indiscriminately, then even the Clintons are much richer than Trump. And who is the real burden here: the man who actually builds buildings and puts people to work in hotels and casinos, or the family who accepts billions in "charity donations" but then actually spends very little of it on any sort of real charity work? Because that is the difference between how they were making their money before the election.

[A Voice from the Mountains]

I believe the key to an effective 'guaranteed income supplement' is that it not be so much as to allow the person to live overly comfortably, therefore there is still an incentive to work to make one's economic circumstances better.

That was the idea behind food stamps and unemployment money here in the US, but instead it seems to have encouraged people to live on the cheapest, lowest-quality junk food, live in the cheapest and most run-down ghettos, etc., all just to manage to live on a modest government check without having to work.

So without healthy food, a good place to live, any form of exercise, or any motivation to do anything productive, you can imagine that this has had disastrous consequences on our poorer regions, and our economy in general. West Virginia is both the poorest and the fattest state on average. It's not a coincidence. It is because of what I just described. And military spending and social welfare programs are by far the 2 most expensive things the US government pays for. These "benefits" are not benefitting anyone in the end, when they create the above.

[Justplain]

I cant site the research study, but i believe that studies show that children from impoverished families who get access to decent education actually do as well later in life as those children from better off families. We need to invest in the children's future with good education, and nutrition, if required. A child who can get a glimpse of a better world will likely work towards it.

It may not be pretty that so many people take advantage of government handouts, and lower their standards in doing so, as attested by Sam's son or the west virginians mentioned above. However, there are those, like my own stepson, who used the oppourtunity to enhance his standard of living when given the needed support.

I know there are challenges with the way our society does things, but you dont want thousands, more likely millions, of homeless, starving people wandering the streets in search of food and carrying a grudge. That is what you'd have if social support were to be eliminated.

I suggest this problem is going to be compounded with coming AI and robotics technology. We need to educate the next generation to learn how to eat properly, how to find satisfaction in life regardless of money, and preferably how to survive more independently. Big task, but if they're your kids, its worth the effort.

[Chester]

a hint of where I planned to go to in this thread...

The secret of a good night's sleep has finally been found by scientists... (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2017/07/10/secret-good-nights-sleep-has-finally-found-scientists/)

It is said that a clear conscience makes the softest pillow, but according to a new study the secret of a good night’s sleep is having something worth getting out of bed for the next day.

In the first research of its kind, US scientists found that having a purpose in life results in fewer nighttime disturbances and improved sleep quality.

[emphasis mine]

EDIT: I hope to comment upon so many of the great comments coming out in this discussion... and that thankfully it appears it can be discussed.

[A Voice from the Mountains]

I cant site the research study, but i believe that studies show that children from impoverished families who get access to decent education actually do as well later in life as those children from better off families.

Many countries have a merit-based system for this where you take tests and the highest-scoring applicants can get free education regardless of how poor they are. But even in this system obviously everyone doesn't get a free ride, it just goes to the people with talent instead of means.

The fact is we can't collectively afford to give everybody free ****. We don't have that kind of money. Frankly higher education has become rather a waste of money for most people anyway when you can learn virtually anything of immediate usefulness online for free.

[Flash]

What are you talking about!! France, with a population of 70 millions around, I think, has free higher education. Those who thrive at school have access. In Canada, higher education (as good as in the US and recognized in US, no equivalency needed) is basically free. Anyone can afford it, by working part time and cumulating a bit of debts, but really a far cry than what it is in the State.

US could afford free medicare and free higher education if your government wanted it. For gosh sake, you are the richer country in the whole world. How couldn't you, if other countries can?

It is all a question of values and priorities. When war and money making for the 1% is the priority for everyone, well, you end up with gutters like you have in the US instead of educated people. Your high schools are basically terrible to start with. I am ashame for you American sometimes. Ignorance seems to be a bliss in the overall population.

Canada, viewed from an American biais, is fundamentally a socialist country. We have free medicare, low high education cost for the students, welfare (food stamps, but in money so you spend it as you want) for the impoverished, which are not given much to those who can work, and yet, contrarily to most European countries which have the same, it is very easy to start a business in Canada. So while being quite socialistic, we are still quite capitalists as well. And it seems to be working.

I never understood this me, myself and I mentality of the capitalist thinking that came from the American views of capitalism. Capitalism can be successful within a more equalitarian environment, which, for Americans, sounds socialistic.

Of course, this does not take away the 1% in Canada as well having the 99% of money. We are f king rich man. US and Canada. WIthout this outstanding richness, Canada could not afford its policies for the poors, the sick and the students and yet pay the very high moneys to the 1%. And yet, US is not showing the way of empathy and help for the most vulnerable ones of its own society.



I cant site the research study, but i believe that studies show that children from impoverished families who get access to decent education actually do as well later in life as those children from better off families.

Many countries have a merit-based system for this where you take tests and the highest-scoring applicants can get free education regardless of how poor they are. But even in this system obviously everyone doesn't get a free ride, it just goes to the people with talent instead of means.

The fact is we can't collectively afford to give everybody free ****. We don't have that kind of money. Frankly higher education has become rather a waste of money for most people anyway when you can learn virtually anything of immediate usefulness online for free.

As for Soros and company, of course we will never see their money on paper, it is hidden and problem inversted in secret technologies, secret... secret right?

[Virilis]

I cant site the research study, but i believe that studies show that children from impoverished families who get access to decent education actually do as well later in life as those children from better off families. We need to invest in the children's future with good education, and nutrition, if required. A child who can get a glimpse of a better world will likely work towards it.

It may not be pretty that so many people take advantage of government handouts, and lower their standards in doing so, as attested by Sam's son or the west virginians mentioned above. However, there are those, like my own stepson, who used the oppourtunity to enhance his standard of living when given the needed support.

I know there are challenges with the way our society does things, but you dont want thousands, more likely millions, of homeless, starving people wandering the streets in search of food and carrying a grudge. That is what you'd have if social support were to be eliminated.

I suggest this problem is going to be compounded with coming AI and robotics technology. We need to educate the next generation to learn how to eat properly, how to find satisfaction in life regardless of money, and preferably how to survive more independently. Big task, but if they're your kids, its worth the effort.

I once asked myself the question, "Why aren't we all billionaires by now?". Where has all the generational wealth gone? If one generation passed on the wealth accumulated throughout a lifetime to the next generation, shouldn't this have amassed to quite a substantial amount by now (e.g., via successive inheritances etc)?

Some families have been very successful in this regard. "Researchers at the Bank of Italy have used surnames as a proxy to inspect the fortunes of Florentine families since the 1427 census. They found the top-five earning surnames in 2011 were also the elites six centuries ago, when they were lawyers or members of the wool, silk and shoemaker guilds. The researchers found evidence of dynasties in some elite professions, such as banking and law."

Intergenerational mobility in the very long run: Florence 1427-2011 (https://www.bancaditalia.it/pubblicazioni/temi-discussione/2016/2016-1060/en_tema_1060.pdf?language_id=1)

But it seems that most folks find themselves starting from scratch as far as their personal financial situation is concerned. Why is this?

I suspect that as life expectancies in Western Societies increase, accumulated wealth reserves post retirement would erode, leaving little to pass on to surviving family members in the form of an inheritance. Just look at the number of retirees living in relative poverty.

https://blogs-images.forbes.com/niallmccarthy/files/2015/12/20151202_Pensioners_Fo.jpg?width=960



I think the problem of poverty is incredibly complex and is underpinned by a vast spectrum of factors and variables. Poverty and inequality create social conditions that can be difficult to free oneself from, hence they have the tendency to replicate similar contexts into the future (i.e., viscious cycles). I agree with justplain, that education affords an important avenue whereby such viscious-cycles may be "short-circuited", thereby promoting better standards of living for aspirational individuals.

But it's not that simple. Karl Alexander from John Hopkins University tracked 790 Baltimore schoolchildren for a quarter of a century resulting in the sad finding that the childrens' fate was significantly determined by the family they were born into.

Study: Children's life trajectories largely determined by family they are born into (http://hub.jhu.edu/2014/06/02/karl-alexander-long-shadow-research/)

Education still isn't the great "social mobiliser" that we idealise it to be, largely because it is still informed by antiquated systemologies and pedagogies. Education paradigms require significant reform.

zDZFcDGpL4U

I always find the statistics associated with the ever growing "wealth gap" in this world to be of great concern. The "health" of a Capitalistic system is continginent upon money "flowing" vigorously through that system, and "flow" it does, but it also seems to be "concentrating" into the hands of an "elite" population/"social class".
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/96/Distribution_of_wealth_globally.jpg

"The pyramid reveals that:
- half of the world's wealth belongs to the top 1%,
- top 10% of adults hold 85%, while the bottom 90% hold the remaining 15% of the world's total wealth,
- top 30% of adults hold 97% of the total wealth."

Wealth distribution in 2012
"According to the OECD in 2012 the top 0.6% of world population (consisting of adults with more than 1 million USD in assets) or the 42 million richest people in the world held 39.3% of world wealth. The next 4.4% (311 million people) held 32.3% of world wealth. The bottom 95% held 28.4% of world wealth. The large gaps of the report get by the Gini index to 0.893, and are larger than gaps in global income inequality, measured in 2009 at 0.38. For example, in 2012 the bottom 60% of the world population held same wealth in 2012 as the people on Forbes' Richest list consisting of 1,226 richest billionaires of the world."
^ Wikipedia

42 million people commanding almost 40% of the world's total wealth! Are these the philosopher kings that are going to usher in a new era of global enlightenment, liberation and peace?

You may be surprised where you fall on the Global Rich List. Here's a calculator to give you a rough idea (Note: may have accuracy issues).
Global Rich List (http://www.globalrichlist.com/)

[Chester]

Long post warning - and it cannot be helped as I am not interested in doing this in a point by point back and forth.


So much in this thread – wow

The primary subject was meant to focus upon a guaranteed minimum income –


First - the following was primarily stimulated by my reading of Whiskey_Mystic's post -


Sam, sounds like you had an interesting conversation and brought up some good points to your friend. I'd be more in favor of offering a basic survival income (as well as educational tuition assistance and basic health care) to people who want it in exchange for work. Even if it's just picking up trash. This would help people bridge the gap in a difficult time, offer a path to a better life, but without disincentivizing people to eventually be able to take care of themselves. We have some programs like this now, such as California Conservation Corps, but I think an expansion of these programs would help our society as a whole.

A Guaranteed Minimum Income (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guaranteed_minimum_income) (a.)) is not the same as b.) freely working for income or c.) trading work type efforts for the right to receive a guaranteed minimum income (and additional benefits); c.) being more reflective of what I took away from what Whiskey_Mystic seemed to write about. If we bring in your idea, Whiskey, we now are talking about three different things though each are excellent to consider and thus then, expand the scope of this thread.

But both of the above b.) and c.) are different from each other where the former is a “work for income based on the employer’s valuation of that work and the employee’s willingness to work for that employer’s offer of compensation.” In this case, both employer and employee have a choice. But this is much more a choice each other can freely make between each other where the work is negotiated and the pay is negotiated.

On the other hand, the latter (c.)) requires a third party to provide a list of tasks where one of those tasks may be chosen by the income/benefits recipient (thus some degree of choice by the “income recipient/pseudo-employee” or, as could happen, be chosen for him by the third party. Still and most significantly... the income/benefits are fixed at one "fair to all" level.

But let’s take the first possibility of the two in scenario c.), where the income/benefits recipient gets to choose which tasks they would be willing to do to receive the fixed, guaranteed income. Likely not everyone would identify one of the tasks as the only task they would do, but clearly what would emerge is that one of the tasks would be sought more than others. And since that task has a limited need - like to the degree all the trash has been picked up - you either must limit the number of trash picker uppers or you have a bunch of trash picker uppers sitting around doing nothing. Remember again,… the minimum guaranteed income is a fixed sum for everyone.

Now the other possibility in the above scenario is that there are lists of tasks where when a specific task has been, by best estimates, ‘filled’ with acceptees (my new word) to perform this task where that task no longer remains on the list of tasks. In time there would be tasks at the bottom of the list which no one wants to do such as “public park toilet cleaners.” How would you like to be one of the last “program acceptees” where this task is the only available task with openings available? You might decide to decline entry in the minimum income guarantee, so now what do you do. And this is why those who advocate a.) a guaranteed minimum income that has no task requirement, do so.

This scenario (c.)) creates a binary choice for at least some of the participants – do something you can’t stand to do but would do anyways or… refuse to do what you can’t stand to do.

All of the above is worked out in the wash in a system where jobs are offered by those who have them to offer where those who have them to offer can decide what they wish to offer as salary and where those who might be willing to do a specific job for a specific fee are able to decide if they would do a certain task for that offered sum. Again, back to just two parties having the ability to freely choose. Maybe the job provider may need to pay more. Maybe the individual seeking a job might want to be paid more and so he seeks a different job where he can get paid more but that alternative job may be less attractive to do. All in all, there is the freedom to choose. And in addition there’s no unnecessary third party.

Ahhhhhh but history shows there needs to be that third party no matter what because in the above, unregulated scenario, the greedy who are already reasonably wealthy, would rather offer an unfair lower wage or keep the position unfilled…. Well, unless some form of automation where the projected intermediate and longer term costs of that automation demonstrates it is better to either implement the robot or machine or… get the cheaper labor… and always this decision hinges upon the advancing technology suggesting less and less need for the costly human. And this scenario is what some folks point out as “the facts” where, if this scenario continues to play out – and we know technology only gets better and better, cheaper and cheaper, more efficient and more efficient, etc… what do you do with all the otherwise capable human workers? Give them a guaranteed minimum income?


And so now I have to go back, again, to my own experience. My father died when I was 21. An important factor of my life at that time (and a permanent factor for this entire specific lifetime) was/is the fact that I am bipolar and have the dual condition of substance/alcohol addiction issues. And though at age 21 this was already somewhat concluded to be the case by both my actions and third party psychiatric care representatives (from doctors on down), the key individual that needed to accept these facts was myself and, I was no where near ready to accept it. So when my father died, a few weeks after the family lawyer and one of the trustees met with me to discuss my future. I was told that “we will start you out on $2,000 a month, pay for your college tuition and housing and continue to make your car payment for you.” Note that this money would be coming from a family trust which, because of my father’s death, made me and my sister and little brother “beneficiaries.”

Guess what my response was to this family lawyer and trustee?

“And all I have to do is… breathe for a living?” I kid you not... the look on their faces was classic and forever etched in my memory.

So to make an already reasonably well documented story on this forum as short as possible, I entered into a several year long cycle of partying, using my monthly money to fund “entrepreneurial” type ventures, and in time - too much partying that led, due to my dual condition, to “episodes” (psychotic breaks), psyche wards and jails (minor stuff like weed possession) and the worst part, family alienation.

Of course, not only is it an obvious speculation to suggest the following - that being that my case was/is a small percentage of folks that would “go this way” much less to the extremes I did. But many would go in this direction to some degree where as many others would consider themselves lucky but would use the opportunity to make something of their life that could also go various directions between service to others or service to self (and everywhere in between), but certainly not in a self-destructive (and harmful to others) way which is the direction I went.

And so here’s the dilemma (again) I experienced with my friend. Since there is the obvious reality that each individual would handle the scenario differently, if you, as a society, are going to decide to give free basic subsistence to all by a mandated, set amount just because "they breath" by the third party created and funded by society, shouldn’t there be a third party that evaluates the risks of each and every individual who would receives such a set income coming from this (or a parallel agency within the same apparatus) as to the criteria each individual must meet to keep getting this income? And should the risks be individually assessed (like may have been wiser in my case?) Or should each individual be independently evaluated to eligibility/risk in the first place (as some may have other forms of income like I did)?


Can we see where this goes?

Who would be this third party?

Who within the bureaucracy that is this third party would set those criteria?

Who within this bureaucracy evaluates the rest of us?

How big would a bureaucracy like this need to be to cover the rest of us?

And then the biggest question of all… who pays for this bureaucracy?

And how is what each person pays determined?

Who enforces this all?


Does anyone see how far this tract goes? Does anyone see the most obvious victim of all? The very most scared right the United States (as reflected by its Constitution) promises to all? Freedom?

And if this risk is admitted to, who among us would then be willing to rewrite or throw out the US Constitution?

Should we?


And so... to this writer, it seems pretty clear that what we risk by implementing such a system is and throwing the basic tenants of the US Constitutional guarantees to each and every US citizen... is the loss of the natural result of a free economy that has the capacity of incentivization that creates new types of tasks which the public would benefit from and where this same public would demonstrate they want these new task by paying for them along with the loss of incentivization of the capable in accordance with their actual capability to choose what they wish to do to fulfill their opportunity for happiness.

By retaining as much free market style economy and less overbearing government as we can, we reduce the costly and incredibly intrusive third party middleman while raising each individual's need for and opportunity to experience the benefits of fulfilling one's own personal responsibility... again, to the degree they are realistically capable of so doing.



So the whole point of my post is that on the one hand, a completely free economy results in the opportunity for greedy to game the rest of us whereas, on the other hand, we must live under the rule of a massive costly and intrusive third party.

So for me, I see that the only way this every stops being a 'war' waged between an uber left and an uber right is the recognition of something that seems to be overlooked by all and that is –

The human factor. And this is what I see as both the problem but within which and from which will be the only viable solution.

And so I will be headed in this direction… the exploration of this “human factor” and how it must be considered with regards to seeking any solution to this looming concern… “too many humans with nothing to do” where I automatically throw out “the culling solution” so many conspiracy theorists believe is held by some (or most… or almost all) of the elite.

Just my last statement suggests a whole new thread alone on this one theorized solution. And just to make sure no one wishes to think or conclude that I, personally, would even entertain such a solution as that – I don’t because… I can’t. It is simply not a possibility I would ever accept as a pathway within a world I would also accept.

[regnak]

Sam who would pay for a basic income for everyone

There is a tale of a city in where the printing press was invented where the city boomed however the city overextended itself ( spent quite a lot money it did not have )
and said the rich can pay and raised taxes very high . The rich left the city quite quickly leaving only the poor to pay the money back , well the city defaulted on its loans .
The creditors got quite angry and looted the city and then burnt it to the ground then the pope excommunicated the city .

America is in debt of about 100 trillion which includes medical care, pensions , and goverment debt . In the future how will you pay it back people get angry ( rich powerful people )
if you ( when ?) default what then what happens.

If in the future there is no pension , medical care (free ) , can you survive

[Chester]

Sam who would pay for a basic income for everyone

There is a tale of a city in where the printing press was invented where the city boomed however the city overextended itself ( spent quite a lot money it did not have )
and said the rich can pay and raised taxes very high . The rich left the city quite quickly leaving only the poor to pay the money back , well the city defaulted on its loans .
The creditors got quite angry and looted the city and then burnt it to the ground then the pope excommunicated the city .

America is in debt of about 100 trillion which includes medical care, pensions , and goverment debt . In the future how will you pay it back people get angry ( rich powerful people )
if you ( when ?) default what then what happens.

If in the future there is no pension , medical care (free ) , can you survive

Great question... nothing is free... and yet also, what does a caring society do for those who legitimately need assistance from external sources? This is a big question and is a broader question than those my specific example put forth, but nevertheless, a very, very good question.

And this is one reason I prefer there be an economic system based far more on free market and with a lean, far less onerous regulatory structure doing its best to make sure the free system doesn't get out of hand.

[Chester]

also - every post up to this one I Thank but I won't push the button on each until I feel I have responded to it as I want to.

[AutumnW]

In traditional evolutionary theory, humans are subject to natural and sexual selection. What has been overlooked is the survival of the 'cutest.' Neoteny confers an advantage on social beings, as it extends both physical AND cognitive/behavioural traits of childhood into adulthood.

Neoteny is what makes domestic animals playful and gentle with their handlers. Neoteny is what makes us gentle and playful with each other and able to learn altogether new things past the age of 7 or 8 years old ( chimps can't learn altogether new tricks past this age)

The future will not necessarily involve developing strategies to get 'useless eaters' to stay occupied and out of trouble. Selective pressure will see to it...in fact has seen to it. Adults ARE becoming more childlike (not immature -- that is a different thing) more playful. They like to play video games, wear pajamas all day (leisure clothing) and live with their parents, sometimes by choice.

New forms of play will continue to be invented, new games, simulations, theatre, film, artistic endeavours. And most of this play will not be terribly costly. People living more Spartan lives, but engaged in play, will be easier on the Eco-system.

A basic living wage for those who live this way will meet their requirements.

[TargeT]

strategies to get 'useless eaters' to stay occupied and out of trouble:

1)They like to play video games
2) wear pajamas all day (leisure clothing)
3) live with their parents, sometimes by choice.

New forms of play (strategies) will continue to be invented, new games, simulations, theatre, film, artistic endeavours. And most of this play will not be terribly costly. People living more Spartan lives, but engaged in play, will be easier on the Control-system.

A basic living wage for those who live this way will meet their requirements.

Just a few minor changes and it seems like I'm reading the footnotes for SnowCrash (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snow_Crash) or A Brave New World (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brave_New_World).

[Wind]

I think many Americans view socialism this way and it's somewhat amusing/confusing.

a5d9BrLN5K4

[AutumnW]

Yes Target, I get the feeling that both Huxley and Orwell were envisioning different aspects of our future. As a side note and I don't know if this in any way relates...Huxley wasn't given credit but wrote the play or original work that Planet of the Apes was based on, called "Ape and Essence."

[neutronstar]

And this is one reason I prefer there be an economic system based far more on free market and with a lean, far less onerous regulatory structure doing its best to make sure the free system doesn't get out of hand.

The problem with that system is it is what we have, and it favors selfishness, greed and types of personalities that are psychopathic. Certain individuals have traits that thrive in our current system and they are a small % of the population. They intern hold most of the wealth and power in our society.

What about the majority of our society that don't posses the skills to thrive in this system? Nor do they even want to, I suspect. I know I don't. Socialism, Communism, Capitalism, they are all the same, it is about money witch I believe is a concept that we need to get past. It is out dated and if we are to move to a society that cares for one another, it needs to die.

[Chester]

And this is one reason I prefer there be an economic system based far more on free market and with a lean, far less onerous regulatory structure doing its best to make sure the free system doesn't get out of hand.

The problem with that system is it is what we have, and it favors selfishness, greed and types of personalities that are psychopathic. Certain individuals have traits that thrive in our current system and they are a small % of the population. They intern hold most of the wealth and power in our society.

What about the majority of our society that don't posses the skills to thrive in this system? Nor do they even want to, I suspect. I know I don't. Socialism, Communism, Capitalism, they are all the same, it is about money witch I believe is a concept that we need to get past. It is out dated and if we are to move to a society that cares for one another, it needs to die.

So how do you make that die?

What fills the void you would leave?

[A Voice from the Mountains]

What are you talking about!! France, with a population of 70 millions around, I think, has free higher education.

Germany does but not France, though France and other European countries still have much lower tuitions than the US.

What you want to do is lower the cost of tuition then. Not quite as simple as it sounds if you know anything about economics and unintended consequences. Putting artificial economic pressure on one part of the market tends to make the problem come out somewhere else. Even socialist California has been struggling immensely with this, and have some of the highest tuition rates in the country now. At current US prices we just can't afford federal programs for free education.


US could afford free medicare and free higher education if your government wanted it. For gosh sake, you are the richer country in the whole world. How couldn't you, if other countries can?

See, there's a reason we're the richest country in the world and it's because traditionally we don't give away a bunch of free stuff, and we try to actually discourage that. Canada's health care system is on the verge of collapse and you guys will have to address that sooner or later, just as Obamacare is collapsing. Government takeover of education has been a disaster as well, turning universities into radicalization centers, so it's good that schools here maintain what independence they still have.

I also think it's funny that foreigners always talk about how stupid Americans are and yet it's us who have broken the cycle of electing establishment globalists, while you Canadians are still killing yourselves under insane policies and probably will continue to do so for several more years before finally correcting yourselves. Same in Europe. For all the geniuses you are supposedly turning yourselves into with your government education I am not seeing anything very positive coming out of your countries.

[A Voice from the Mountains]

The problem with that system is it is what we have, and it favors selfishness, greed and types of personalities that are psychopathic. Certain individuals have traits that thrive in our current system and they are a small % of the population. They intern hold most of the wealth and power in our society.

I agree with this but I don't agree with the cause you're attributing it to. There is a lot of historical context to how we have arrived at our current political and economic situation, and it's not simply because we have been following more or less the same economic model since before 1776.

You want to only consider economics as the cause behind psychopaths being allowed to rise to the top? We were warned from the very beginning that our system would only work if our citizens remained educated and faithful to ancient Western principles such as honoring common law, following Christian ideas of civic duty, fairness in dealing with others, etc. All of this really comes down from Roman civilization which was also about free citizens who are guaranteed rights. This traditional moral culture of the US has been severely eroded, systematically over decades and completely intentionally by numerous subversive interests.

Today we are being brainwashed to tolerate a particular foreign culture that treats women as property, kills homosexuals, considers it okay to lie and murder in the name of their religion, are admittedly hellbent on "outbreeding" and annihilating Western culture, and are constantly involved in terrorist attacks in our countries. Have you considered that the people pushing this kind of social re-engineering and destruction of our culture might have something to do with the Hillary Clintons of our system? Because she is up to her eyeballs in this Muslim stuff, including sitting on the board of a company that funded ISIS. It's a perfect example of everything that is wrong with our establishment politicians.

When you talk about capitalism you are only talking about economics. Capitalism is not a system of government like Communism is, nor does it have anything to do with how our culture is being shaped by religion or any number of other factors. The US Constitution establishes our federal government, and it allows states the freedom to try whatever economic model they want.

Communism is the government and the means of production (real economic engine) coming together in one entity, giving ENORMOUS power to the people who put themselves in positions of control, which is where dictators invariably come into play. We separate our government from private economic transactions for good reason. It is crucial to our freedom.

[enfoldedblue]

Here are some articles on basic income that are pretty interesting....
http://evonomics.com/universal-basic-income-accelerates-innovation-reducing-fear-failure/

http://evonomics.com/how-universal-basic-income-solves/

http://evonomics.com/doubt-capitalism-useless-jobs-rutger-bregman/

http://evonomics.com/basic-income-conversation-make-sense-charlie-young/

http://evonomics.com/argument-basic-income-job-guarantee/

http://evonomics.com/how-to-pay-for-universal-basic-income/

*edit to add that one of the most appealing thing about the basic income idea is that it injects much needed currency at the bottom level. We have witnessed over the last few decades the top tier suck the bottom dry. I see so may people with excellent innovative ideas, or skills to share, but because money is so tight there is so few people able to buy the things they desire... for example my friend has a massage business...I sell art and coaching,...another friend grows beautiful free-range chicken's. If we all had a bit of money injected in the whole artisan/ alternative health field would be stimulated....rather than starved. Of course the elite don't care as long as they can afford their perks...

[A Voice from the Mountains]

They've already done at least 2 studies on basic income trials that I know of, one of them in Greece, and one of the Scandinavian countries is looking into it now too.

I learned about the Greek study from an article when it was first launched. The study had long concluded and must have released its findings, but I couldn't find them on the Internet anywhere despite looking up the researchers involved in the study and trying to find lists of their works.

The other country that did a study, which I believe may have been Spain or Portugal, also didn't have their results up anywhere.

I suspect I already know what the results indicated, but I would absolutely like to find these studies or any like them to see what exactly they show.




Also, just some quick numbers...

Providing a basic income of only $200 a month to all Americans would cost about $770 trillion dollars a year.

Providing it to even 1/4 of Americans would still be almost $200 trillion a year.

And you can't do much with only $200 a month. Not even afford rent.

Current national debt, as outrageous as it is after years of accumulated debt, is still only about $20 trillion.

[Virilis]

Interesting World Economic Forum discussion on the subject. A number of countries are beginning to experiment with the UBI model (e.g., Finland, Canadian Province of Ontario, and individual cities in Scotland & the Netherlands).

I liked that maxim that got the whole debate going...

"It’s from the champions of the impossible rather than the slaves of the possible that evolution draws it’s creative force" - Baroness Barbara Wootton

http://lowres-picturecabinet.com.s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/38/main/86/438719.jpg

7rL6gJkdlNU
^ 52:01 mins

- Amitabh Kant, Chief Executive Officer, NITI Aayog, India
- Neelie Kroes, Non-Executive Member of the Board, Open Data Institute, United Kingdom
- Michael Sandel, Anne T. and Robert M. Bass Professor of Government, Harvard University, USA
- Guy Standing, Research Professor in Development Studies, University of London, United Kingdom

Moderated by - Tamzin Booth, Business Editor, The Economist, United Kingdom

[regnak]

Sam the basic income support for everyone but most western goverments are broke so what would you accept to lose to pay for it

no police, no schools, no pensions , no army , no goverment ,

savings have to make 720 billion every year :cash:

[sdv]

When I started looking into starting my own business, my eyes were opened to what small business owners suffer through over-regulation and taxations, and how much blame they have unduly received for all of society's ills by the typical ignorant communist radical types.

People think that "the rich" are the problem and we should just tax the hell out of them, but even someone who makes $1 million a year is not employing that many people (and not because he's taking all the money, which is a very naive way of thinking of business -- there are typically ridiculous amounts of expenses). And that is how we should REALLY be thinking of people, rather than how much money they are making: what they are actually contributing to the economy, how many families they are feeding by putting people to work, etc.

People like the Rockefellers or George Soros have so much money you'll never even see it all on paper. They hide it away in charities and various assets or however they can manage to hide it from taxation or anything else. They are obscenely wealthy on an entirely different level than even people like Donald Trump. If you look at the Clinton Foundation and how much money was pouring into it, for example (many billions), and consider the fact that the Clintons were using all of that money for personal expenses indiscriminately, then even the Clintons are much richer than Trump. And who is the real burden here: the man who actually builds buildings and puts people to work in hotels and casinos, or the family who accepts billions in "charity donations" but then actually spends very little of it on any sort of real charity work? Because that is the difference between how they were making their money before the election.

I abhor obscene wealth and just do not understand why anyone would want billions (a view that annoys those who love money and buying stuff!). However, I am starting to think that with regard to inequality, it is not the rich causing the problem but the poor being shut out of opportunities to succeed. Even if you do provide free education (as South Africa does for the poor), children who are malnourished are not able to learn (even with a school feeding scheme, after the long holidays, it takes children a month or two to be able to overcome the effect of undernourishment), schools in poor areas are not able to supplement the basics through donations from the community, and so on. People are not equal but should be given equal opportunities, and how do you define what is an equal opportunity?

[sdv]

Sam who would pay for a basic income for everyone

There is a tale of a city in where the printing press was invented where the city boomed however the city overextended itself ( spent quite a lot money it did not have )
and said the rich can pay and raised taxes very high . The rich left the city quite quickly leaving only the poor to pay the money back , well the city defaulted on its loans .
The creditors got quite angry and looted the city and then burnt it to the ground then the pope excommunicated the city .

America is in debt of about 100 trillion which includes medical care, pensions , and goverment debt . In the future how will you pay it back people get angry ( rich powerful people )
if you ( when ?) default what then what happens.

If in the future there is no pension , medical care (free ) , can you survive

Great question... nothing is free... and yet also, what does a caring society do for those who legitimately need assistance from external sources? This is a big question and is a broader question than those my specific example put forth, but nevertheless, a very, very good question.

And this is one reason I prefer there be an economic system based far more on free market and with a lean, far less onerous regulatory structure doing its best to make sure the free system doesn't get out of hand.

In South Africa, social grants are given to pensioners (only the poor who have nothing), children (also only for the poor) and the disabled. Theoretically it should work to provide a safety net for the most vulnerable in society (pensioners, children and the disabled can't work their way out of being indigent). Is there not a similar system in the UK?

Unfortunately, in South Africa, the number of people on social grants exceeds the number of people employed (not because people do not want to work but because there are no jobs) and the unemployed are not supported in any way other than through child grants. The grants are very small - too small to prevent malnutrition and to cover rent and services so those have to be provided for free (medical care and schooling are also free for the poor).

[neutronstar]

And this is one reason I prefer there be an economic system based far more on free market and with a lean, far less onerous regulatory structure doing its best to make sure the free system doesn't get out of hand.

The problem with that system is it is what we have, and it favors selfishness, greed and types of personalities that are psychopathic. Certain individuals have traits that thrive in our current system and they are a small % of the population. They intern hold most of the wealth and power in our society.

What about the majority of our society that don't posses the skills to thrive in this system? Nor do they even want to, I suspect. I know I don't. Socialism, Communism, Capitalism, they are all the same, it is about money witch I believe is a concept that we need to get past. It is out dated and if we are to move to a society that cares for one another, it needs to die.

So how do you make that die?

What fills the void you would leave?

I don't know what it is going to take. In Star Trek it was contact. I am not sure it is that simple. Maybe bringing out these tech. that simply makes money useless because of abundance. I think it was Catherine Austin Fitts who said we already have abundance but it is the hands of the very few. If they would spread it, out everyone would have what they need to live comfortably, but they would never do that. It's like playing the game of monopoly, and it will always end the same as the game does, no matter what system you use. The problem is money, it really is the root of all evil.

You may find a system that works for awhile, but given time it will be exploited. Money = greed and selfishness. Take away greed and selfishness and you have no need for money.

[Flash]

where are those quick numbers from?

Canada has the population of California. Why not make it state based? Would be calculated differently and more accurately.

Gosh guys, a simple look to what is done ELSEWHERE with a working economy would tell you how to do it. Protection of Corporation and private interests are soooooo ingrained in your mentality in the US that it even stop you from looking around the world.

Other successful countries do exist you know, and they do things differently.

The Obamacare was the epithomy of bad management and bad decision making, I was 100% sure it would fail, just because of too much relying on private insurance industry to start with and many other wrong décisions. But hey, it is AMERICA and it ought to be right ...... nobody else on the planet knows. QUite arrogant in my views. JUst look around...


They've already done at least 2 studies on basic income trials that I know of, one of them in Greece, and one of the Scandinavian countries is looking into it now too.

I learned about the Greek study from an article when it was first launched. The study had long concluded and must have released its findings, but I couldn't find them on the Internet anywhere despite looking up the researchers involved in the study and trying to find lists of their works.

The other country that did a study, which I believe may have been Spain or Portugal, also didn't have their results up anywhere.

I suspect I already know what the results indicated, but I would absolutely like to find these studies or any like them to see what exactly they show.




Also, just some quick numbers...

Providing a basic income of only $200 a month to all Americans would cost about $770 trillion dollars a year.

Providing it to even 1/4 of Americans would still be almost $200 trillion a year.

And you can't do much with only $200 a month. Not even afford rent.

Current national debt, as outrageous as it is after years of accumulated debt, is still only about $20 trillion.

[Baby Steps]

OK, great discussion, thanks Sam for putting heart centred energy into this topic as you do with all of them.

I am going to advocate universal income. I work in a small business in UK. I hate over regulation and anti enterprise policies. I do not agree with a left type of view- that business is a bottomless pit of money to be taken for whatever questionable government project they dream up.

These projects, more often than not, have a VERY poor cost-benefit ratio. If they function at all.

I am coming from a UK ‘centrist’ perspective which you would see as left.
Firstly , it appears that socialism has won the argument. USA GDP approximates $20 trillion. Combined Federal & State spending is 35%. The UK numbers are £2.85 trillion and 28% at the government level, but this excludes ‘local government’ which might be the equivalent of state level spending in USA. So let’s settle on USA 35% or so, and UK – high thirties. Both with huge deficits.

The better socialist arguments are that markets are not the best way to provide certain services to the general population. Government steps in and provides services out of a taxation income that is progressive. So we have the same thing in both countries – socialist redistribution of resources to the mass of people. The differences are a small matter of degree.

For example, in the USA nobody would complain that a non tax paying vagrant benefits from being able to walk down a sidewalk that he had not contributed to – or that his access to a nuclear umbrella should be withdrawn- maybe relocate the non tax payers to a locale that will remain undefended then tell Kim that he can nuke that place with impunity! No I cannot see that happening.
The other socialist argument that does stack up for me relates to kids. They are born innocent. Many are born into bad households with violence, deprivation, mental illness, addiction and ignorance. The parents are victims of a harsh society, but also arguably have failed personally to create a good environment for that kid. We as a society try to intervene to ensure that kids from bad backgrounds get the opportunity to escape that cycle- because it is morally the right thing to do but also because it saves costs in the long run- the cost of more messed up , unproductive people.

So clearly some collectivised redistributively funded provision has been accepted.

Forward looking conservatives will be aware of the dangers of creep in this area, and how the state comes up constantly with reasons to tax more and spend more. They are making themselves more powerful at our expense. But the same conservatives have a soul that whispers to them about utopian societies like on star Trek – no money, everybody happy and productive, and they wonder about universal basic income.

A few more numbers. Suppose there are 300 million people in the USA over 21. If you gave them $200 per month that would cost $720 billion or 3.6% of GDP. This is affordable.
First thing to note is, that the cost would be much less than that, in total, because
a) It would replace all kinds of large expensive programs already in existence.
b) As it was universal, it would be far cheaper to administer, as there would be no means testing and monitoring , or at least much less.
People need to get out of the scarcity mind set. It is very important to grasp that it can be done in a way that is funded out of tax, but for most it would have little impact on their monthly budget.

See graph.

http://i.imgur.com/oviiyrm.png

You have an S shape with a straight middle. In the straight middle, people near the bottom would feel a slight uplift, and those near the top would have a small hit. But for people on the straight section, the impact either way would be minimal. Basically, everybody gets a small payment, most pay slightly more tax, and overall, most do not notice a difference.

HOWEVER at the bottom end vast amounts of suffering are reduced. I can confidently predict that if you had that token small income, and could eat, crime rates would fall. That would feed through to savings throughout all of society.

So the above is advocating a small basic income, to eliminate a host of costly inefficient government programmes.

The studies detailed in other posts are really a totally different thing. They are academic exercises to look at how people change (or not) their economic behaviour if they receive a reasonable living income-at a level that would equal a typical salary for many. They will be looking at psychology, happiness, social change etc. This is a different academic exercise- it is not piloting a proposal that governments are considering in my opinion. Or at least not for a long time.

My reasoning is that high levels of government pay-outs are not viable from taxation receipts. Tax is hard to collect, and if you tax too much you start to destroy the wealth creation process, and drive the rich out of the country. If you get into ‘helicopter money’ – just create currency without debt- which I agree with to a degree, you end up flooding the economy with fiat currency, and inflation prevents people from getting much for their money. I do not think this is realistic at all.

My very rough prediction for these European studies is that for a random sample of people receiving a living wage straight into their bank for no effort on their part , about 25% will become idle. About 50% will change their lifestyle, get into hobbies, less well paid but more rewarding activities, volunteering, artistic things, etc, and only about the remaining 25% will say that they love their work-life balance as it is, the money does not matter , and they will continue working as before.
When the results come out, I predict policy makers will say that the economic impact on society of this would be unsustainable, as well as the obvious un-affordability.

So my conclusion is that a small basic income is just an extension of the collective provision that we already have. It is a SMALL STEP towards that Star Trek utopia. Once it is established, we will have the option over time to look into whether it can be extended, as our own Social ethics and general level of social health improve. It will be a step in the right direction.

[Ernie Nemeth]

I could look it up but as I remember from a Ted Talk episode, the average individual on earth earns about $100/month.

This means that even if you are poor but live in the western world, you are far richer than the average human. In Canada the welfare system pays at least$700/month - seven times the average.

What this illustrates is that we are far richer as a collective than we think. It also means that there is something going on that limits the wealth of some countries while favoring the prosperity of others that goes beyond mere economics - or politics.

It means that we do not understand the basic driving forces of our economies as well as we think.

They have stolen so much from us that it has paid for an entirely independent and far advanced splinter civilization that travels the stars while we fight over the scraps, if you want to believe the worst scenario being bandied about these days. Whether true or not it does illustrate how easily such fortunes could be spent without our knowledge, bought and paid for with our toil. That is how much they steal from us. And how easily.

Education presupposes a need for knowledge, I agree. But what knowledge and for whose benefit? How can the knowledge to function in society, a skill all humans must possess, be charged for? It is the obligation of the prior generation to train their young. Instead we exploit our children and extort great sums of money from them just to become functioning members of society with a chance at a better future. What passes for education nowadays merely trains them to be good corporate soldiers with virtually no basic skill set at all. The goal of course being counter to raising intelligent, well-informed, self-sufficient, capable citizens.

We are so quick to point out the obvious: if no one works who will pay for all the slackers? Yet we are the lazy ones, preferring to go to work and have most of our toil stolen from us than to stand up and fight for a better world - to sacrifice today so that tomorrow's population won't have to.

As for the Americans, but to a smaller extent all western nations, stop aggressive military spending and dreams of empire, invest in the people and see if this discussion would even still be happening.

[Justplain]

How to pay for the basic needs of your citizenry? Chop military budgets by 80% and there's lots of money. If you want more taxable income within capitalist framework, free up the middle class who are the real innovators and growth industry creators. To get the tech you need to create unparalelled wealth, declassify almost all black budget projects.

Dont waste time blaming the poor for being lazy or sluggish. The real problem is the red tape or unregulated trade that benefits only the very few and lays waste to the rest. And yes, tax the crap out of the super rich, too.

[AutumnW]

By all means, tax the sh** out of the super wealthy. "But they worked hard for their money!" many of the obsequious wannabes exclaim. So do people who get hooked on meth so they can work three jobs and stay awake to support the deadbeats at the top.

[neutronstar]

They've already done at least 2 studies on basic income trials that I know of, one of them in Greece, and one of the Scandinavian countries is looking into it now too.

I learned about the Greek study from an article when it was first launched. The study had long concluded and must have released its findings, but I couldn't find them on the Internet anywhere despite looking up the researchers involved in the study and trying to find lists of their works.

The other country that did a study, which I believe may have been Spain or Portugal, also didn't have their results up anywhere.

I suspect I already know what the results indicated, but I would absolutely like to find these studies or any like them to see what exactly they show.




Also, just some quick numbers...

Providing a basic income of only $200 a month to all Americans would cost about $770 trillion dollars a year.

Providing it to even 1/4 of Americans would still be almost $200 trillion a year.

And you can't do much with only $200 a month. Not even afford rent.

Current national debt, as outrageous as it is after years of accumulated debt, is still only about $20 trillion.

Those numbers are not right. I rounded the pop. of the US to 400 million, and if you paid every one 20,000 a year it would cost 8 trillion dollars.

[A Voice from the Mountains]

where are those quick numbers from?

$200 a month x 12 months year x 320 million people. But I counted the zeroes wrong and it should have been billions instead of trillions, as Sam pointed out to me. But then again $200 a month doesn't really buy anything, either.


Canada has the population of California. Why not make it state based? Would be calculated differently and more accurately.

I'm all for decentralization and giving the states more say in how they run their economies. This is actually a very conservative position in the US that goes back to the founders. But if basic universal income came to my state I would vote hell no and I'm sure most others here would too.


Gosh guys, a simple look to what is done ELSEWHERE with a working economy would tell you how to do it. Protection of Corporation and private interests are soooooo ingrained in your mentality in the US that it even stop you from looking around the world.

We must have different ideas of what economy means and what the point of studying it is. In the 1950's the US was accounting for something like 80% of the entire world's production. That is a successful economy. Today western nations piddle around with big chunks of their populations on welfare, and with massive trade deficits and national debts, and that is not the description of a "working economy."


The Obamacare was the epithomy of bad management and bad decision making, I was 100% sure it would fail, just because of too much relying on private insurance industry to start with and many other wrong décisions. But hey, it is AMERICA and it ought to be right ...... nobody else on the planet knows. QUite arrogant in my views. JUst look around...

When we look around we don't see the same things that you see because we have no interest in them. Socialist Europe is something we frown at in disappointment, not look up to in breathless reverence. I know they constantly parade statistics about how terrible things are in America, because I read European media, but we see what's going on over there and in other countries and I want nothing to do with any of it.

[Flash]

where are those quick numbers from?

When we look around we don't see the same things that you see because we have no interest in them. Socialist Europe is something we frown at in disappointment, not look up to in breathless reverence. I know they constantly parade statistics about how terrible things are in America, because I read European media, but we see what's going on over there and in other countries and I want nothing to do with any of it.

And the reciprocal is true as well. Unless you are very rich or an actor, Canadians do not want to live in the US = except for old people looking for sun few months per year. But nobody with a family or even a career wants to make it there.

Europeans who would live in the US is because, most of the time, they have not even visited yet. When they do, seeing the incredible poverty of some neighborhoods, they prefer to return home. What is actually destroying their home is relentless refugees crisis - otherwise, their cities are pretty sane, clean and not dangerous when compared to the US.

Anyhow, those are different vision of the world. I do not understand why often American do not even want to look at other visions. They truly think theirs is it - but it ain't. As long as we do not take all the creativity of all the planet, we will lose in the end. Other countries may have part of the answer for the US. Why not looking at it? Truthfully look with curiosity and imagination to find solutions for one's own society?

Personnally, I do not want to be obliged to keep a job just for the sake of having medical insurance - this is slavery literally. And I do not want to be penalised lifelong for paying healthcare bills because I did not have an insurance but got in a car accident for example. This is just one example, there is thousands of them (another one being 2 weeks of vacation a year, who can rest in two weeks? who can take care of his personal business in two weeks or care for a sick relative?). Europeans have one month, this seems more reasonable to me.

[A Voice from the Mountains]

I rounded the pop. of the US to 400 million, and if you paid every one 20,000 a year it would cost 8 trillion dollars.

If we say 320 million Americans but let's say we exclude the richest 20 million or so and make it just 300 million.

And poverty line I think is around $14,000, so let's just say only basic income to be poor is provided and no more (why not? people want free luxuries next right?).

$14k a year x 300 million people is $4,200,000,000,000, or $4.2 trillion dollars per year.

Federal government revenue is $3.5 trillion a year. So the federal gov makes $3.5 trillion a year but on top of paying for military, roads, medicaid, medicare, Obamacare, and everything else, we'd have to pay $4.2 trillion more a year. We are already spending more than we make, thus the deficit. It took a good number of years to rack up about $20 trillion debt. We'd be adding over $4 trillion more a year.

Even if we only assured everyone made it to the poverty level and paid no more than that, we're still already paying for more stuff than we can afford.

Make someone should think of a way to put people to work actually doing something instead of thinking of people merely as the receiving end of a government check. The slave plantation still exists.

[A Voice from the Mountains]

where are those quick numbers from?

When we look around we don't see the same things that you see because we have no interest in them. Socialist Europe is something we frown at in disappointment, not look up to in breathless reverence. I know they constantly parade statistics about how terrible things are in America, because I read European media, but we see what's going on over there and in other countries and I want nothing to do with any of it.

And the reciprocal is true as well.

That's fine. If I'm okay with letting each state govern itself then how much less do I care what foreign countries think? I actually think it's a terrible thing that people feel the need to go around the world preaching their worldview to others, whether they're American or Canadian or Muslim or Chinese. That's why the US is in such a bad place today, because of the Yankee idea, that originated with the Puritan pilgrims, to go around preaching their brand of self-righteous evangelism whether anyone wanted to hear it or not, and even trying to force it on others.

You probably wonder why we don't like other systems because you lean socialist, at least from a US standpoint, most governments of the world today lean socialist in their policies of nationalizing everything "for the public good," and many Americans absolutely abhor the idea of government seizing control of these things. I understand the ideas underlying your systems but I think the real problem is that you simply never studied the American founders or the philosophy that our Constitution is actually based on. If you understood those people then you wouldn't be so confused as to why so many of us still absolutely reject your systems. It's thoroughly American to reject big government and has been from the start. We want to be responsible for ourselves, come good or evil, not depend on government like a crutch to get through life.

[Flash]

there is one thing that has to be mention about all European countries and Canada who got their socialistic tendencies and coverages (healthcare, employment insurance, welfare, etc). All those were instituted in the 60's, when govenrments were not as powerful and moslty not as corrupted. It was possible then to create policies for the people, without too much diverting the original intentions of the policies.

I do not think it would still be possible today. Too much corruption at all levels of governments, too much lack of ethics, and too much lobbyist and overtaking by large international corporations.

And yes, I know the American history probably better than most American and the inspiration beneath the US constitution as well (with the founding fathers). I know European history much less, although better than most lay person as well.





where are those quick numbers from?

When we look around we don't see the same things that you see because we have no interest in them. Socialist Europe is something we frown at in disappointment, not look up to in breathless reverence. I know they constantly parade statistics about how terrible things are in America, because I read European media, but we see what's going on over there and in other countries and I want nothing to do with any of it.

And the reciprocal is true as well.

That's fine. If I'm okay with letting each state govern itself then how much less do I care what foreign countries think? I actually think it's a terrible thing that people feel the need to go around the world preaching their worldview to others, whether they're American or Canadian or Muslim or Chinese. That's why the US is in such a bad place today, because of the Yankee idea, that originated with the Puritan pilgrims, to go around preaching their brand of self-righteous evangelism whether anyone wanted to hear it or not, and even trying to force it on others.

You probably wonder why we don't like other systems because you lean socialist, at least from a US standpoint, most governments of the world today lean socialist in their policies of nationalizing everything "for the public good," and many Americans absolutely abhor the idea of government seizing control of these things. I understand the ideas underlying your systems but I think the real problem is that you simply never studied the American founders or the philosophy that our Constitution is actually based on. If you understood those people then you wouldn't be so confused as to why so many of us still absolutely reject your systems. It's thoroughly American to reject big government and has been from the start. We want to be responsible for ourselves, come good or evil, not depend on government like a crutch to get through life.

[TargeT]

Personnally, I do not want to be obliged to keep a job just for the sake of having medical insurance - this is slavery literally.

You just want to take someones labor for free... because? (doctors don't work for free btw. but you still want their services with out paying anything??)

YOU would be the literal slave master at that point, or at least a slave-labor beneficiary.


And I do not want to be penalised lifelong for paying healthcare bills because I did not have an insurance but got in a car accident for example.

And this is why Americans think most other countries are crazy ;)

haha, HOW are you being penalized for paying bills on services that you received? how can your understanding of the fundamentals of capitalism be that skewed?


Entitlement is a disease.

[AutumnW]

"Entitlement is a Disease." And its manifestation in the upper tiers amount the rentier class is profoundly disabling.

[Chester]

A personal comment - Because of this thread (which I am responsible for creating) I faced the fact that I may not be in a good position to make any pronouncements of what I think is best for the United States. This is because, at age 21, all I had to do was "breath" for receiving a basic income. So expanding on this a bit further, because of this "free income" I lived a life where some might say, "I am lucky to have survived" because of the chances I took with regards to a.) my bipolar condition and b.) my serious issues with addictions (most specifically with alcohol and drugs - mostly illegal drugs depending on where and when... marijuana and cocaine).

Because of the "free money" I was able to take risks with regards to my lifestyle where I had the funding to take those risks and I had the funding to be saved from taking those risks. Thus I can count having experienced 10 bona fide serious psychosis, have been able to recall being in 14 psychiatric/rehab facilities and 11 jails directly because of this dual condition combined with my "free money" funding.

My point is that on one hand, the free money enabled my denial and yet, if I had not had the free money where I either was able to afford psychiatric/rehab care or the lawyers needed to limit my legal exposure, I might not have reached the age where I finally accepted my dual condition and have done (and continue to do) what I needed to do, where this condition is under control such that I don't go nuts and don't get arrested for DWI or weed or worse, cocaine.

Forgive the long post but I always feel compelled to explain myself in this regard because I think it matters - especially with regards to the specific reason I made this post - a universal guaranteed minimum income made available to all. On one hand, the argument can be made that I have zero experience in NOT having this income because... I always have had it! And if that is the case, how could I possibly make a case against it? Yet on the other hand, I am an example of someone who had the ability to avoid taking personal responsibility for the facts of my life circumstances... the fact that I have this dual condition... and I am extremely lucky to have survived that. And so from this perspective I have at least one leg to stand on when it comes to proclaiming a position of "good" or "bad" and doing so based on actual personal experience.

And so, after making sure I am completely transparent as I have now done in this post, I am now poised to share my position and my reasons as to why I have this position.

And this needs to be a separate post as it is not a short two or three liner.

[AutumnW]

When I started looking into starting my own business, my eyes were opened to what small business owners suffer through over-regulation and taxations, and how much blame they have unduly received for all of society's ills by the typical ignorant communist radical types.

People think that "the rich" are the problem and we should just tax the hell out of them, but even someone who makes $1 million a year is not employing that many people (and not because he's taking all the money, which is a very naive way of thinking of business -- there are typically ridiculous amounts of expenses). And that is how we should REALLY be thinking of people, rather than how much money they are making: what they are actually contributing to the economy, how many families they are feeding by putting people to work, etc.

People like the Rockefellers or George Soros have so much money you'll never even see it all on paper. They hide it away in charities and various assets or however they can manage to hide it from taxation or anything else. They are obscenely wealthy on an entirely different level than even people like Donald Trump. If you look at the Clinton Foundation and how much money was pouring into it, for example (many billions), and consider the fact that the Clintons were using all of that money for personal expenses indiscriminately, then even the Clintons are much richer than Trump. And who is the real burden here: the man who actually builds buildings and puts people to work in hotels and casinos, or the family who accepts billions in "charity donations" but then actually spends very little of it on any sort of real charity work? Because that is the difference between how they were making their money before the election.

I abhor obscene wealth and just do not understand why anyone would want billions (a view that annoys those who love money and buying stuff!). However, I am starting to think that with regard to inequality, it is not the rich causing the problem but the poor being shut out of opportunities to succeed. Even if you do provide free education (as South Africa does for the poor), children who are malnourished are not able to learn (even with a school feeding scheme, after the long holidays, it takes children a month or two to be able to overcome the effect of undernourishment), schools in poor areas are not able to supplement the basics through donations from the community, and so on. People are not equal but should be given equal opportunities, and how do you define what is an equal opportunity?

How do you define equal opportunity in the U.S, for example, when there are clearly two Americas -- and they interact less and less with one another?

The ability to climb up, leveraged off where you attended school, has vanished. Without this crucial ability to ladder up from the underclass, those without capital, are removed from the greater social umbrella of wealth.

And...as the middle class is vanishing, the social ladder is no longer adequate -- a pole vault is required.

There are opportunities to create your own business, without capital, in the service sector. But...those niches have been explored to the max. How many more massage therapists and life coaches do we need? And, fewer and fewer individuals outside of the technocratic and monied elite, can afford these services.

This thread is about a basic income for displaced people, a large and growing part of the population, who are there through no fault of their own. We all know people who are just basically lethargic and parasitic...but they are a small number compared to the growing number of people in the service industries, working very hard just to survive, or underemployed and living with their parents.

I compare it to an old 'snakes and ladders' game where most of the ladders up are gone, replaced by many snakes that take a person right back down.

Does the situation have a remedy currently, that one can possibly envision without summoning images of Venezuela? In the U.S., I would say, no, and for precisely that reason. Any alternative to a capitalist system that has become exploitive and rapacious is automatically equated with squalid Socialism gone to Hell, in places like Venezuela. And if that is the popular vision of socialism, it is in part based on the dynamics of extreme corruption in the U.S. itself.

As Flash has emphasized and others have described, the U.S. will not easily tend towards a sane quiet and workable form of socialism, like Sweden.

And for those who want to debate this points, rather than discuss them, please do the predictable and link to all the videos you can about a failed Swedish system where 'Islamic people have taken over.' LOL

Too add to the bizarre nature of these arguments are Americans who decry socialism while their government pours trillions of dollars into a sinkhole of military spending.

[AutumnW]

Sam, things are SO different now for those faced with having to accept a basic income or...nothing at all, or certainly not enough to get by on. I hear what you are saying and appreciate the points you make. I was in a sink,or swim situation as a young adult, before my illness was properly diagnosed.

As sick as I was, I HAD to create my own business or become a hooker. Those were my choices. I had pretty severe damage to parts of my brain (not psychosis) from the illness -- and reduced stamina. It was very very scary.

I managed to niche myself in to the economy, at that time. But a big emphasis on, 'at that time.' There is the same demand, as when I was young, for these services, but the supply of labor is crazy high. It doesn't match. That is the problem.

Were I to try to even gain employment in this industry today, I would be out competed by thousands of job applicants.

[TargeT]

"Entitlement is a Disease." And its manifestation in the upper tiers amount the rentier class is profoundly disabling.

No, it's a product of reality, if you go look at the world and how it works you'll only find one class of species that lives via entitlement behavior... that's Parasites. Parasites weaken the whole (host)....

This mentality will corrupt the whole, as we've seen in china and Russia... just doesn't work in reality.

You cannot TAKE from a system with out giving something and still expect that system to exist. this is as basic as basic gets... you eat a cookie, it's gone...

Plus we have countless examples that free-money never works... that's why the native american population in the US is still mostly devistated... Look to alaska for a perfect example (highest rate of incest, alcoholism, domestic violence... want to guess at why?)



How do you define equal opportunity in the U.S, for example, when there are clearly two Americas -- and they interact less and less with one another?

The ability to climb up, leveraged off where you attended school, has vanished. Without this crucial ability to ladder up from the underclass, those without capital, are removed from the greater social umbrella of wealth.

And...as the middle class is vanishing, the social ladder is no longer adequate -- a pole vault is required.

There are opportunities to create your own business, without capital, in the service sector. But...those niches have been explored to the max. How many more massage therapists and life coaches do we need? And, fewer and fewer individuals outside of the technocratic and monied elite, can afford these services.


I grew up very poor, single mother making 30,000 a year (which, at the time I thought was an ungodly amount of money).

I now live in the Caribbean, own a house, business, 5 vehicles and have 5 employees.

I'm in my 30's...

Are you saying what I did isn't possible? I didn't even really plan it, imagine if I had actually tried hard?

Maybe if people didn't come home and watch TV they'd find they have many productive hours in a day... maybe the issue is more with the population and less with the government (because the population IS the government when it comes down to it, at least in the US it still is; since we are mostly armed still).

I know a LOT of people with VERY LITTLE motivation, I myself suffer from this from time to time. Yes the market has shifted. but how many people are making 100,000+ a year from YOUTUBE now?

Put out effort, get rewards... that's how reality works, that's how every business owner I interact with down here did it, and now we all help each other.


I think your right, there ARE two classes.

Those that DO, and those that DONT.

[AutumnW]

Target,

I am not saying it is impossible to do what you did. In the Great Depression some people also managed to get ahead. Not nearly as many -- but some defied all the odds.

Btw, I thought you were currently in the military? I am surprised. Also, the employees that you have hired...are they full time and will they be able to 'rise through the ranks,' or be able to accomplish what you have accomplished one day?

[TargeT]

Target,

I am not saying it is impossible to do what you did. In the Great Depression some people also managed to get ahead. Not nearly as many -- but some defied all the odds.

I don't think the great depression is a very good metaphor for right now, but I may look back in 10 years and think you were spot on ;)

I think the market is shifting, and it's shifting rapidly.. Plenty of opportunity for money making endeavors out there but you have to think out side the box and not just "get in line for a job".

We see this with the LARGE amount of people making a living off Youtube and other social media outlets (brand new career field and potentially VERY high paying). New service industries popping up left and right (phone/small electronics repair can be a full time gig, my friend used to do that in Alaska and make decent money at it). Wrapping cars in vinyl can be a very successful business if your in an area that works for that.

There's literally so much out there, if I had capital I'd start 3 additional businesses today with a very high certainty of success. As it is I've pushed my next business out another 3-5 years while I expand this one.


Do or don't do. it's your choice..

It's always about choice, we need VERY LITTLE to survive; to just "live" the rest.. is choice.


Some of the kids I work with in the projects PROUDLY tell everyone they never drink water, only "product X" or "Product Y"... this is a CHOICE (and a very poor one).

I had been enjoying my life style and "playing" a lot (eating out all the time, being generous etc..) but it got me a bit behind, so this year I buckled down & changed, now I eat out maybe once a month and have been aggressively paying down debts to prepare for further expansion.

again, it's about choice. Motivation is a choice as well, one I force myself to... I'm inherently pretty lazy, i think a lot of us are ;)






Btw, I thought you were currently in the military? I am surprised. Also, the employees that you have hired...are they full time and will they be able to 'rise through the ranks,' or be able to accomplish what you have accomplished one day?


I'm presently as military as McDonald's is food. (haha)

I am currently in the National Guard (1 weekends a month, 2 weeks a year.. or so they advertise), but I also work FOR the national guard full time ( so there's two jobs)

I also started two businesses, one is a horse rescue, and the other is guided tours to pay for the horse rescue (jobs 3 and 4).

Both of those sets of jobs complement each other (working for the NG and being in the NG.... running the rescue and the tours). so it sounds a bit more hectic than it is.

[neutronstar]

Not everyone can start a business, otherwise no one would have a business because no one would have employees. Unless of course you ran the business yourself.

I once learned about a business owner in California that had a bakery. He paid everyone that worked for him an equal portion of the profits, including himself. Everything about the business improved, the quality, the quantity, they were the most successful bakery in town. The people working for him took pride in his business because they benefited when the company did. It was like everyone owned it. Everyone had their role and every job was important. They all made about 60,000 a year on average. That is the only way a system based on money can work is if everyone makes the same amount. Why dose someone need to make more money than someone else working the same amount of hours.

Every job that benefits humanity is no more or less important than any other job that benefits humanity. All other jobs can be done away with, but in our society they are the jobs that seem to make people the richest.

We don't care about each other,we are selfish. There was a study done that had people play monopoly, the game. They gave some people unfair advantages in the game, like more money, extra turns. The people that got the advantages became very greedy. It wasn't the people either because everyone took turns having the advantages. Everyone that got the breaks became very greedy.

It is pretty sad, but that is who we are when it come to money. It also has been proven that poor people give more to charity.

[Bob]

What is intellectual property worth? If one is labouring around a business which utilises another person (or group's) "IP" should they all be paid the same as the IP owner? Or a premium?

What about those who contribute start-up capital? Should they be paid back more than daily labourers?

Or should the IP owners or the capital contributers be paid a premium? Curious philosophy to ask about..

[neutronstar]

What is intellectual property worth? If one is labouring around a business which utilises another person (or group's) "IP" should they all be paid the same as the IP owner? Or a premium?

What about those who contribute start-up capital? Should they be paid back more than daily labourers?

Or should the IP owners or the capital contributers be paid a premium? Curious philosophy to ask about..

Well now your asking complicated questions.

I'll revert back to my statement earlier in the thread. If humanity grew up and started to care about each other, and that means everyone, we would do away with money, and do what needed to be done, so every person on earth had food, clothing, shelter, healthcare and anything else that was important. There would be more than enough people to do all the jobs that we needed, and people wouldn't have to work that many hours in a day. I would be surprised if it took more than a couple hours a day.

I don't know how humanity can get to this point. It seems so logical to me. Am I F**king weird or something that I think this way. What is wrong with this idea.

[Daozen]

I don't think it's so much about 'getting rid' of money... Just providing so much food, water, clothes and other basics at a local level, that the rat race is greatly diminished. Then money starts to lose it's hold on people.

A new direction has to come from a humanity that grows up and starts googling this stuff, I agree.

Change will come from engineers and innovators, at a local level. Expect nothing from politicians and the chattering classes.

Look at the last two, twenty, or two thousand years of history. Any rise in standards of living on this planet has come from backyard innovators who eventually scaled their ideas.

[TargeT]

Why dose someone need to make more money than someone else working the same amount of hours.

Well, I guarantee if you and I were set in front of my desk, with my trouble ticket load, there would be a significant difference in the "task completed" per day ratio.

And I guarantee the same would be true were I to attempt to do what you do for a living (I have given my life to IT, I (deeply) know little else).



It is pretty sad, but that is who we are when it come to money. It also has been proven that poor people give more to charity.

I feel that my wife and I exemplify the opposite of what you claim. I also feel that we are, BY FAR, not the only ones doing what we do.

the only thing "the poor" do more than "the rich" is follow the law... the "poor" are FAR more ethical.

[Bob]

I don't think that even comes close to asking my 'complicated' two questions Daozen and NeutronStar... about:


What is intellectual property worth? If one is labouring around a business which utilises another person (or group's) "IP" should they all be paid the same as the IP owner? Or a premium?

What about those who contribute start-up capital? Should they be paid back more than daily labourers?

Or should the IP owners or the capital contributors be paid a premium?

We are in a money oriented society.. And to do 'deals' such as even to start a "bakery", somebody has to put up something, and even have for instance recipes for the products that are "sold", not given away. IF we are not 'there' in the 'ideal' how is it going to work? Just asking. Is it complicated? Really?

[WhiteLove]

We are in a money oriented society..

Yes, to a pretty large extent this is the case. The political parties all agree that their political values motives and agendas should be focused into and reflected in the nation's budget/investment plan, in other words that it is proper management of money that drives the influence to desired results. Oh really. This goes on while at the same time the money supply and the money velocity is managed and it all streams into and is governed by a global financial system that is beyond the reach by the nation's democracy and its political process. Technically it is totally impossible that this can work efficiently.

[neutronstar]

We are in a money oriented society.. And to do 'deals' such as even to start a "bakery", somebody has to put up something, and even have for instance recipes for the products that are "sold", not given away. IF we are not 'there' in the 'ideal' how is it going to work? Just asking. Is it complicated? Really?

Ya, it is more complicated in a "Money oriented society", because people want to be compensated for the investment that they put into something right away. If we worked for the betterment of society and forgot about the money concept, sure sometimes you may do more work, where sometimes someone else dose more. This already happens in some small communities, like in Alaska where they don't have much use for money (not the entire state), areas that are cut off from the rest of the world most of the time. They rely on each other, they give freely knowing that eventually it will come back to them.

We are the only animal on this planet that uses money. Survival of the fittest is not how species thrive. It is threw cooperation.

And as far as the guy with the bakery, ya he started it by putting in more time and money, but he saw his employees as equally important to the business, so he made the change.

[Bob]

Then is "workforce balance", or financial balance or IP (intellectual property) balance appropriate?

There are statements of "fair share" aren't there? (entitlement to "fair share").

An employee who holds the "flag/stop sign" for instance on a road crew - should they be paid the same as the person who drives the "big loader" ?


https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/e9/38/57/e938573ade6b36b7cb893e4c7eccd2e7.jpg

verses


https://photos.travelblog.org/Photos/318941/895134/t/8596930-This-charming-flagman-was-one-of-many-we-encountered-0.jpg

Can we honestly think that the heavy equipment operator is going to sit still and be paid the same in their job as the flagperson?

How can we "value", or how can we 'judge' worth?

[neutronstar]

Then is "workforce balance", or financial balance or IP (intellectual property) balance appropriate?

There are statements of "fair share" aren't there? (entitlement to "fair share").

An employee who holds the "flag/stop sign" for instance on a road crew - should they be paid the same as the person who drives the "big loader" ?



verses



Can we honestly think that the heavy equipment operator is going to sit still and be paid the same in their job as the flagperson?

How can we "value", or how can we 'judge' worth?

Balance? Who cares, get the job done.

Both jobs you listed are important, and I can argue that the guy holding the sign is more important because he is saving lives.

If I could live off both incomes I would take less to run the loader than hold the sign. Much more interesting and a lot more fun. Some of the hardest work I have done in my life I got paid the least. If a job needs to be done it is important. We are brainwashed to think that some jobs deserve a higher income because we worship money.

Most Doctors became doctors because they want to help people, not because it pays a lot. Hell some Doctors in the world don't get paid a lot, but they do the job because they want to help people. That's the kind of Doctor I want. I don't want to see a Doctor that dose the job because it pays good. Some of the smartest guys in the world are inventors and they don't do the job for money as well many scientist. they do it because that is what the love to do.

Most people aren't doing a job that they love. They do a job that they hate, should we pay these people more. Maybe fast food workers should be some of the highest paid people on the planet. I have never met one that liked their job.

I think the single greatest fault of humanity is our love of money, and sadly I don't think it is going to change anytime soon.

Everything bad in our society you can attribute to money. Wars, almost all crimes, even domestic violence is often about fiances. So many of the things we buy are build to wear out in a few years for repeat sales. Resources are restricted to make it look like they are scares, so to increase they value. The Drug wars and all the violence that come with it. I could go on and on.

[TargeT]

Both jobs you listed are important, and I can argue that the guy holding the sign is more important because he is saving lives.

Important and skill level are two very different things, one of them determines your pay, the other determines the need for the position.


If I could live off both incomes I would take less to run the loader than hold the sign.

How did you obtain the certifications to drive the loader? who paid for your training, (because those who train must also be compensated for their labor) What motivated you to sit through the hours of classroom time, study and learn the limits of the equipment?

Have you ever worked with or known people who work in a highly technical field? I hold more certifications than any one of my co workers, and if you combine them they hold the same amount as I do; these represent thousands of dollars in training (thank you uncle sam) and years of experience. I can resolve problems off the top of my head rapidly because of of my familiarity with the field, I can plan a budget that is very high ROI and give future purchase suggestions based on the needs of the organization (not the current methods used) I understand the entirety of the IT system from networking, VOIP phones, Power use monitoring, networking equipment, environmental needs (AC, how cold, what humidity level for what types of equipment) servers, virtual everything (servers, workstations, applications etc.. but I'm VM centric, don't like hypervisor) and to some small extent end workstations and printers. there's a lot more, but it's not riveting reading.

I've put maybe close to 2000 hours into training and seminars on technologies and theory over my career; the contacts alone I've gained from that are worth compensation as they benefit my employer not only in problem resolution sources, but purchasing and collaborative agreements.

Now, do you think a guy trained to hold up a flag, and maybe use a radio should make the same wage as me? What would the motivation for me to go through all the above be then? Why would I stay up studying for tests like I'm still in college and I'm almost 40? How is this not a very obvious reason for pay differences, the incentives for effort must be in place.

Doing a thing well means you do it until you don't like doing it anymore, then you do it for a few more years, and now your really good at it. That has to be encouraged some how or we would have very few people in skilled and technical positions.




Most Doctors became doctors because they want to help people, not because it pays a lot.
Hell some Doctors in the world don't get paid a lot, but they do the job because they want to help people. That's the kind of Doctor I want.

So doctors should work for free, how do they pay back the 100,000+ in student loans?



Most people aren't doing a job that they love. They do a job that they hate, should we pay these people more. Maybe fast food workers should be some of the highest paid people on the planet. I have never met one that liked their job.

So, people who've dedicated a large portion of their life to excel at something shouldn't be rewarded, but people who chose a ****ty job and aren't motivated enough to change it should?

I'm baffled that you can think this way.


I think the single greatest fault of humanity is our love of money, and sadly I don't think it is going to change anytime soon.

Everything bad in our society you can attribute to money. Wars, almost all crimes, even domestic violence is often about fiances. So many of the things we buy are build to wear out in a few years for repeat sales. Resources are restricted to make it look like they are scares, so to increase they value. The Drug wars and all the violence that come with it. I could go on and on.

Yes but that's Rothschild controlled "money"; that's a perverted system, so of course it causes perversion when used...

Are you basing this all on the rothschild system (well fiat currency and keynesian economics)?

I agree that system is bad but just because it's bad doesn't make people's labor and skill level meaningless.

[neutronstar]

Both jobs you listed are important, and I can argue that the guy holding the sign is more important because he is saving lives.

Important and skill level are two very different things, one of them determines your pay, the other determines the need for the position.


If I could live off both incomes I would take less to run the loader than hold the sign.

How did you obtain the certifications to drive the loader? who paid for your training, (because those who train must also be compensated for their labor) What motivated you to sit through the hours of classroom time, study and learn the limits of the equipment?

Have you ever worked with or known people who work in a highly technical field? I hold more certifications than any one of my co workers, and if you combine them they hold the same amount as I do; these represent thousands of dollars in training (thank you uncle sam) and years of experience. I can resolve problems off the top of my head rapidly because of of my familiarity with the field, I can plan a budget that is very high ROI and give future purchase suggestions based on the needs of the organization (not the current methods used) I understand the entirety of the IT system from networking, VOIP phones, Power use monitoring, networking equipment, environmental needs (AC, how cold, what humidity level for what types of equipment) servers, virtual everything (servers, workstations, applications etc.. but I'm VM centric, don't like hypervisor) and to some small extent end workstations and printers. there's a lot more, but it's not riveting reading.

I've put maybe close to 2000 hours into training and seminars on technologies and theory over my career; the contacts alone I've gained from that are worth compensation as they benefit my employer not only in problem resolution sources, but purchasing and collaborative agreements.

Now, do you think a guy trained to hold up a flag, and maybe use a radio should make the same wage as me? What would the motivation for me to go through all the above be then? Why would I stay up studying for tests like I'm still in college and I'm almost 40? How is this not a very obvious reason for pay differences, the incentives for effort must be in place.

Doing a thing well means you do it until you don't like doing it anymore, then you do it for a few more years, and now your really good at it. That has to be encouraged some how or we would have very few people in skilled and technical positions.




Most Doctors became doctors because they want to help people, not because it pays a lot.
Hell some Doctors in the world don't get paid a lot, but they do the job because they want to help people. That's the kind of Doctor I want.

So doctors should work for free, how do they pay back the 100,000+ in student loans?



Most people aren't doing a job that they love. They do a job that they hate, should we pay these people more. Maybe fast food workers should be some of the highest paid people on the planet. I have never met one that liked their job.

So, people who've dedicated a large portion of their life to excel at something shouldn't be rewarded, but people who chose a ****ty job and aren't motivated enough to change it should?

I'm baffled that you can think this way.


I think the single greatest fault of humanity is our love of money, and sadly I don't think it is going to change anytime soon.

Everything bad in our society you can attribute to money. Wars, almost all crimes, even domestic violence is often about fiances. So many of the things we buy are build to wear out in a few years for repeat sales. Resources are restricted to make it look like they are scares, so to increase they value. The Drug wars and all the violence that come with it. I could go on and on.

Yes but that's Rothschild controlled "money"; that's a perverted system, so of course it causes perversion when used...

Are you basing this all on the rothschild system (well fiat currency and keynesian economics)?

I agree that system is bad but just because it's bad doesn't make people's labor and skill level meaningless.

Your talking about money and I'm talking about doing away with money. Yes, I have been to college twice and have a degree in computer networking and no I don't think it is any more important than someone who is working at dairy queen.

[TargeT]

Your talking about money and I'm talking about doing away with money. Yes, I have been to college twice and have a degree in computer networking and no I don't think it is any more important than someone who is working at dairy queen.

Your equating level of pay with "importance"... it's just compensation for effort, not a moral judgment... if you have a lot of compensation for effort then perhaps you are viewed differently from others, but that is because you probably put out a lot of effort to gain that compensation and people recognize and value that (people who DO things).

I'm talking about capital, not money.

There's TONS of different capitals, social capital, financial capital, knowledge capital, labor capital.

[neutronstar]

Your talking about money and I'm talking about doing away with money. Yes, I have been to college twice and have a degree in computer networking and no I don't think it is any more important than someone who is working at dairy queen.

Your equating level of pay with "importance"... it's just compensation for effort, not a moral judgment... if you have a lot of compensation for effort then perhaps you are viewed differently from others, but that is because you probably put out a lot of effort to gain that compensation and people recognize and value that (people who DO things).

I'm talking about capital, not money.

There's TONS of different capitals, social capital, financial capital, knowledge capital, labor capital.

I'm talking about doing things strictly for the betterment of humanity. I don't care about money nor do I care about capital.

[Bob]

Your talking about money and I'm talking about doing away with money. Yes, I have been to college twice and have a degree in computer networking and no I don't think it is any more important than someone who is working at dairy queen.

Your equating level of pay with "importance"... it's just compensation for effort, not a moral judgment... if you have a lot of compensation for effort then perhaps you are viewed differently from others, but that is because you probably put out a lot of effort to gain that compensation and people recognize and value that (people who DO things).

I'm talking about capital, not money.

There's TONS of different capitals, social capital, financial capital, knowledge capital, labor capital.

I'm talking about doing things strictly for the betterment of humanity. I don't care about money nor do I care about capital.

On this statement.. :





Your talking about money and I'm talking about doing away with money. Yes, I have been to college twice and have a degree in computer networking and no I don't think it is any more important than someone who is working at dairy queen.


Balance?

Who cares, get the job done.

Both jobs you listed are important, and

I can argue that the guy holding the sign is more important because he is saving lives.


If I could live off both incomes I would take less to run the loader than hold the sign.

I'm talking about doing things strictly for the betterment of humanity. I don't care about money nor do I care about capital.

I suppose following the viewpoint to an "end result" to me reminds me of the "values of a machine", which are no values, no worth, just tedious repetition, with no hope of improving one's "caste".

Born into a system of a "machine", where there is no way to gain, no way to move ahead, a conundrum of mediocrity (https://medium.com/@the_explicator/the-mediocrity-trap-7514feb40192)..and no hope to have a chance to be rewarded for "good service".. hmm can't say that appeals to me.

I see no betterment of humanity in machine-like hopeless mediocrity.

[Chester]

Against the advice of many, I sometimes write long, complex posts. It is my opinion that sometimes it is necessary. This is one of those posts.

Important questions to consider before making the next post -

One - How would anyone be able to answer their own questions (in this case... the questions related to the matter of whether or not a "minimum guaranteed income" should be provided to all citizens of the United States by the United States government and if so, how)?

Two - If I were to answer this question, are my answers only for myself or is there any way my answers might be, maybe should be, answers for others?

Three - If I am an "other" do I have the right to answer these same questions for myself or... is it possible one or more of the answers from another could be (and maybe should be) imposed upon me?


Here is my current opinion (answers) on all the above.

One – Yes, I am of the opinion that I should be able to make up my own mind as to what I think should be done with regards to whether or not the government of the United States should implement a “minimum guaranteed income” for all citizens of the United States. I am also of the opinion that I can certainly speculate and even share my speculations as to how that could be done or, what might be the ramifications if not done.

Two – My opinion is just that – my opinion. If I desire that my opinion be heard by others (as long as they are willing to hear it), then I hope my government protects my right to share it and have the protection to do so by various means as long as those means would not be harming others and where people have the right to hear it or not, their choice.

Three – I should have the same rights as the other “I” as in One and Two. I, also, could be both someone who has their own opinion and someone who wants to consider the opinions of others.

And I have intentionally left out the last part of question three which is alluded to in question two. This involves the potential of having something imposed on another despite the other agreeing with, or not, to that which is being imposed.

So there is a need to explore the following first -
Do we agree that, for example, though we may wish to drive as fast as we want wherever we want, that it should be OK to drive as fast as each individual wants? Most of us prefer that there are speed limits and that there is an enforcement mechanism that assist in ensuring most folks adhere reasonably well enough to the speed limits… speed limits that have been determined as safe and proper by a third party we empowered to do this task. In this case, we also see that because most folks agree, we do not experience the rising of protest movements against speed limits. What we have accepted (for right or wrong / good or bad) is a management system we have empowered to make (or facilitate the making of) these decisions, implement them and… if needed, enforce them. Yet it is not out of question that one or more individuals may feel that speed limits are imposed upon them. Some of those may not like this at all whatsoever. Yet again, many of us may agree that speed limit creation, implementation and enforcement is “a good thing” and perhaps necessary.

The above metaphor is meant to point out all the factors that go into considering how one might answer the first three questions listed above and, more importantly, point out the fact that in some cases we may get a mass majority who agree something should be created, implemented and enforced (which can be summarized as “imposed”) and where in other cases, something is so controversial, no matter what is decided, a respectably large enough number of folks would not be in agreement with the decision.

And so, for the sake of furthering where I am headed with this post (and my next one), I will assume that in both cases such as speed limits and “a guaranteed minimum income” there needs to exist a process for deciding, implementing and enforcing each and of course this implies that there needs to be a process for deciding, implementing and enforcing much of everything else too.

And so if the assumption of need is correct, then it becomes quite obvious there must be some sort of process to do this and an agreement among enough of us that we would follow the process reasonably well enough such that the result of the process would be accepted by enough of us and that enough of us would support the implementation and enforcement of the result (decision) of the process.

If we do not, we probably experience a form of anarchy which, at the level of the full 4D experience (3D and the fourth dimension, time), would likely pose danger to many, if not most of us, if not all of us. (Note I left a hint here as to where I hope to go in these next few posts)

So having made my case for the requirement that we have some form of accepted process where a decision that effects the many may be rendered and where there would need to be an implementation structure and an enforcement structure… whether a reader here agrees with this or not, is not a matter for discussion with regards to where I am headed now in this post. I have set a table and so a reader and/or commenter can sit at the table and “eat” or create your own thread and eat there because this thread will become derailed if anyone wants to debate whether some process (for decision making where what is decided, implemented and enforced effects most of us or all of us) is valid to accept and within which to participate.

So the fact is that because we in the United States supposedly have a process for this purpose, and if we assume this process is clean enough (void of enough corruption that the process is real as opposed to something that pretends to be but is only there “for show”), then those of us who participate in the process which will result in decisions where we also know there’s a mechanism in place to implement and enforce these decisions, how then do we form our opinion as to what is best?

Again - How then do we form our opinion as to what is best?

And so now we reach the last hurdle – best for who? For ourselves only? Best for a group we elevate above the rest such as our family or our sphere of loved ones or perhaps a group we see ourselves a part of based on something we share such as a value or set of values, a philosophy or religion? Do we consider “best for” to be what we perceive is the entire human race? Could “best for” expand to all living creatures? Would a plant be considered a living creature? Would the planet be considered a living creature? Do we look beyond the “creature” aspect and consider the term, “being?” What then defines “a being?” Has the reader (if they have gotten this far) begun to see that so many, what appear at first glance to be simple questions, can actually be quite complex and can actually experience great diversity as to how these questions are answered just within the context of “best for?”

And so then how does someone begin to answer these types of questions? Would not one’s metaphysical cosmological world view be an important factor in determining how one answers such a question?

I believe so.

And so now I ask each reader (if they have stayed with this post), do you have a metaphysical cosmological world view? Have you explored the questions for which a metaphysical world view might generate answers as to how that particular world view could be and should be formed? I imagine more folks on this forum (as a percentage of the world population) have delved into world view exploration than those who aren’t members or readers of this (and similar forums). There are a few forums I am aware of where this specific matter is a major topic, but all in all, it is my opinion based on my observations of others and conversations with others that almost everyone out there seems to either have chosen to accept a paradigm (one that is mostly formed with varying degrees of wiggle room) where the question of world view is considered to have been resolved or never even give much if any thought to what their world view might be. And note that this excludes those who never even considered what might be there world view and my opinion is that this most latter group is a very large swath of the human population and perhaps a majority.

And so I have now have cleared the table of all the appetizers and am ready to serve the main course… in my next post.

What is your metaphyisical cosmological world view and why does it matter?

[Chester]

Guess What Happens In States Where Food Stamp Recipients Have To Work

Leftists are constantly reminding of us of the merits of welfare. They tell us that without the help of taxpayer funded handouts, millions of Americans will starve or be left homeless. There’s no doubt that some people really do need help, but this black and white view of welfare doesn’t paint the full picture. Conservatives and libertarians have suspected for decades that many of the people on welfare are actually mooching off of the system. So to reconcile the need to help people who are helpless with the very really problem of people abusing the system, they’ve come up with a great compromise.

In regards to food stamps, they’ve suggested that we offer food assistance on the condition that the recipients are working. Or at the very least, that they volunteer or community service or are making an effort to train themselves for a new job. So what happens in states that have work requirements for food stamp recipients?

read it here (http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-07-18/guess-what-happens-states-where-food-stamp-recipients-have-work)

[Ernie Nemeth]

As an electrician, a trade under attack in the region I live, I make less money than the sign holder. So imagine my chagrin. That is what has formed my current mind-set. I am already being pushed downward, in terms of income. It has made me realize the truth of the situation. There is no 'working' to earn money. It is just paid slavery, where they steal more and more of the little you have. Especially the wealth-building sector of the economy - the only ones who build and make the wonderful 'trinkets' we all crave.

And in case an electrician might think of starting their own little one-man show - forget it. The fines, fees, levies, and licenses require more than one man can earn. An electrical company, like most companies in this era, must 'grow' in order to stay afloat. It is insane.

I agree there are many new opportunities in this world and if I wasn't sixty years old I might try one more. But I am. So my expertise goes to waste because I am stubborn, refuse to retrain, and refuse to give my high level of skill away for nothing. So I languish as I watch new Canadians happily take my job for less pay.

[AutumnW]

As an electrician, a trade under attack in the region I live, I make less money than the sign holder. So imagine my chagrin. That is what has formed my current mind-set. I am already being pushed downward, in terms of income. It has made me realize the truth of the situation. There is no 'working' to earn money. It is just paid slavery, where they steal more and more of the little you have. Especially the wealth-building sector of the economy - the only ones who build and make the wonderful 'trinkets' we all crave.

And in case an electrician might think of starting their own little one-man show - forget it. The fines, fees, levies, and licenses require more than one man can earn. An electrical company, like most companies in this era, must 'grow' in order to stay afloat. It is insane.

I agree there are many new opportunities in this world and if I wasn't sixty years old I might try one more. But I am. So my expertise goes to waste because I am stubborn, refuse to retrain, and refuse to give my high level of skill away for nothing. So I languish as I watch new Canadians happily take my job for less pay.

Ernie,

Thank you for highlighting this sad reality. It is something I was trying to explain in the "Trump is not the Answer," thread. The regulatory and licensing environment is so obstructive that only those with the capital and time to deal with can maintain a foothold in it.

One of the reasons power is consolidating and concentrating in the mega corporate sphere is largely due to this regulatory environment.

[neutronstar]

I suppose following the viewpoint to an "end result" to me reminds me of the "values of a machine", which are no values, no worth, just tedious repetition, with no hope of improving one's "caste".

Born into a system of a "machine", where there is no way to gain, no way to move ahead, a conundrum of mediocrity (https://medium.com/@the_explicator/the-mediocrity-trap-7514feb40192)..and no hope to have a chance to be rewarded for "good service".. hmm can't say that appeals to me.

I see no betterment of humanity in machine-like hopeless mediocrity.

That is the exact opposite of what I am talking about. Most all repetitive jobs can be automated. We would be free to do science, arts, teaching, things that move humanity foreword, makes us better. We gain by increased prosperity from a knowledge and values standpoint, and not by how much money a person can acquire.

[Chester]

As an electrician, a trade under attack in the region I live, I make less money than the sign holder. So imagine my chagrin. That is what has formed my current mind-set. I am already being pushed downward, in terms of income. It has made me realize the truth of the situation. There is no 'working' to earn money. It is just paid slavery, where they steal more and more of the little you have. Especially the wealth-building sector of the economy - the only ones who build and make the wonderful 'trinkets' we all crave.

And in case an electrician might think of starting their own little one-man show - forget it. The fines, fees, levies, and licenses require more than one man can earn. An electrical company, like most companies in this era, must 'grow' in order to stay afloat. It is insane.

I agree there are many new opportunities in this world and if I wasn't sixty years old I might try one more. But I am. So my expertise goes to waste because I am stubborn, refuse to retrain, and refuse to give my high level of skill away for nothing. So I languish as I watch new Canadians happily take my job for less pay.

Ernie,

Thank you for highlighting this sad reality. It is something I was trying to explain in the "Trump is not the Answer," thread. The regulatory and licensing environment is so obstructive that only those with the capital and time to deal with can maintain a foothold in it.

One of the reasons power is consolidating and concentrating in the mega corporate sphere is largely due to this regulatory environment.

Thankfully Trump has been dismantling so many of these ridiculous regulations. Its one of the forms of Winning I appreciate.

[Ernie Nemeth]

I know a few businessmen who left Canada and moved to USA because business in Canada is over-regulated and over-taxed.

[Chester]

Will Canada End Its Stanley Cup Drought? Well, It’s Not Impossible

It’s been a cold, agonizing quarter-century for hockey fans in the Great White North. No Canadian team has won the Stanley Cup since 1993, when the Montreal Canadiens raised a 24th banner to the rafters of Le Forum.

read here (https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/will-canada-end-its-stanley-cup-drought-well-its-not-impossible/)

The question is... why?

The answer my sports insider connections tell me is that talent gets the biggest bucks and this same talent desires to keep more of these big bucks. And they do by paying lower taxes. And they pay lower taxes in the US. And they likey will be paying even less taxes soon in the US.

[Chester]

Well... who would have figured this?

Psychologists say more and more young people are entitled (https://www.indy100.com/article/young-people-entitlement-disappointed-narcissism-psychology-research-7867961)

Research has discovered that large amounts of young people are developing an entitlement complex.

The psychological trend comes from the belief that you are superior to others and are more deserving of certain things.

This form of narcissism has some significant consequences such as disappointment and a tendency to lash out.

Pschology Today reports that some examples of entitlement range from the disregard of rules, freeloading, causing inconveniences and like to assume the role of leader when working in groups.

So called Millennials, who were born roughly between 1988 and 1994, tend to have this characteristic as a 2016 study found.




At extreme levels, entitlement is a toxic narcissistic trait, repeatedly exposing people to the risk of feeling frustrated, unhappy and disappointed with life.

Often times, life, health, ageing and the social world don’t treat us as well as we’d like.

Confronting these limitations is especially threatening to an entitled person because it violates their worldview of self-superiority.

read all here (https://www.indy100.com/article/young-people-entitlement-disappointed-narcissism-psychology-research-7867961)

I wonder if folks are willing to consider what recent trends have contributed to this sad rise in "innate entitlement."

Could it be the shift in the educational messaging students in the US now get indoctrinated with?

Could it be the influence of various forms of media, news, TV, movies, magazines, internet media, social media?




The entire mindset pits someone against other people.

When people think that they should have everything they want — often for nothing — it comes at the cost of relationships with others and, ultimately, their own happiness

[Ernie Nemeth]

Hi Sam.

I see this article and its sentiment in a different light. I would question what definition of entitlement they were using - and what other similar mindsets it may actually prove.

Children of the eighties saw their parents emerge from the love-in of the sixties to become sell-outs to the corporations. They saw the hypocritical stance of their parents and took umbrage with it. They saw the world through the eyes of cynicism. Shielded from the true circumstance of their lives during their formative years, then thrust into a world of extreme violence and insane rhetoric and unhealthy toxicity, they had little choice but to become entitled, to push for entitlement.

What is entitlement. Does it mean deserving of respect, enrichment, and dignity just because of one's affiliation, just because one is alive? Or does entitlement mean deserving of the undeserved? Entitlement as it is used today, means freeloader, bum, spoiled, parasite. Entitlement is actually what is deserved by any member of the group. So let's see what we are deserving of, shall we?

We are deserving of paying enormous sums to get the education that may, if lucky, compensate sufficiently to earn a decent living. We are deserving of our money being constantly eroded into worthless paper, that steals the value and scope of our lives. We are deserving of misinfo, lies and corruption by those with the power to make our lives better - or worse. We are deserving of being used as cannon fodder in endless wars. We are deserving of poverty, misery, hopelessness. We are deserving of being led into a bleak future world of complete servitude.

When these 'authorities' speak what I hear is the viewpoint of the entitled forced on those with no right at all to any viewpoint but that, for fear of ridicule and further erosion of the few rights they have left.

So they become belligerent, bellicose and rude. They become irrational and confused by the backlash of what they consider a valid stance. They advocate increasingly extreme actions and affiliate with those of extreme political leanings.

They want this world torn down, and so do I.

It is the only way to reset the absolutely evil system in place today. No part of it can be saved, no Band-Aid solution exists to mitigate the terrible consequences awaiting us just around the corner.

In a world of death, the living are under threat. In such a world, ultimately, the only entitlement is death.

[Helene West]

But the world is being torn down, Ernie, but not by those you would like it to be by.
And the 'belligerent, bellicose, rude...irrational and confused' and i assume you mean the young, are just that and not much more. They are not strong nor are they independent. They have less opportunities for a livable wage than the previous two generations before them granted but for all their gadgets and games they didn't prepare for AI or automation so they don't have too much foresight as well. If most of them were offered a clerical job at Monsanto they'd take it just like their so-called 'sell-out' parents who were also young once and easily misguided.
I feel sorry for us all....