can a guaranteed minimum income increase the quality of life?

[Anarchist420]

i dont think so because there is no increase in production and it may even cause a decrease in production.

 

[mikeymikec]

i dont think so because there is no increase in production and it may even cause a decrease in production.

A business makes products and sells them at a certain price. That price is determined (very basically) by the cost of production, the desired amount of profit (for investment in the business's future) and what the business thinks is the highest figure it can ask from its customers for the product.

Increasing the minimum employee wage may (in reality, probably) result in the price of the product going up.

I don't think there's any reason to believe that increasing the minimum employee wage would inherently require an increase in production or cause a decrease in production.

The point of increasing the minimum wage is to try to ensure that even the lowest earners in society can afford the necessities as well as the extras to invest in the next generation of society. Having a portion of society that produces generation after generation of "always will be poor and little opportunity to improve" people doesn't help society. For all we know, some very capable people are being deprived of the opportunity to contribute significantly more to society than say stacking shelves.

Also, most businesses are aware of the notion that it generally makes more sense to sell a product to 100 people for $1 each than to sell to one for $100 because it provides a more stable income. The more affluent a society is, the more opportunities business have to sell their products.

 

[Anarchist420]

A business makes products and sells them at a certain price. That price is determined (very basically) by the cost of production, the desired amount of profit (for investment in the business's future) and what the business thinks is the highest figure it can ask from its customers for the product. Increasing the minimum employee wage may (in reality, probably) result in the price of the product going up. I don't think there's any reason to believe that increasing the minimum employee wage would inherently require an increase in production or cause a decrease in production. The point of increasing the minimum wage is to try to ensure that even the lowest earners in society can afford the necessities as well as the extras to invest in the next generation of society. Having a portion of society that produces generation after generation of "always will be poor and little opportunity to improve" people doesn't help society. For all we know, some very capable people are being deprived of the opportunity to contribute significantly more to society than say stacking shelves. Also, most businesses are aware of the notion that it generally makes more sense to sell a product to 100 people for $1 each than to sell to one for $100 because it provides a more stable income. The more affluent a society is, the more opportunities business have to sell their products.

i disagree with what you said, but that wasn't what i was talking about. i was talking about redistribution of wealth. sorry for the confusion

 

[boomerang]

No, it will decrease the quality of life. We have only to look at history for the answer. Guarantee an income and people will gradually stop producing. Those still willing to produce will start to wonder why they are doing so and are getting the same as those that don't. The decay is inevitable and the collapse follows. Having said that, we are on that road now. We have not learned from the mistakes that history has taught us because too many have been taught a bastardized version of history. The question is a moot one, because it's all in motion now and there is no stopping it.

 

[mikeymikec]

@ Anarchist420

Then so far you've said, "a guaranteed minimum wage requires more production, may encourage a decrease in production and... redistribution of wealth".... what?

I think you need to define a lot of your argument before most people have an accurate idea of what you're talking about.

I assumed your initial question was to do with the minimum wage, because who in their right mind would recommend a guaranteed minimum income even if no services have been rendered (which is what I think 'boomerang' is talking about).

 

[waggy]

1st) you aren't very clear in what you are asking.

Will a gurenteed min income the quality of life? i don't see how. IF you say everyone who works makes at least say $30k. what happens to those that are not in fast food or entry level jobs making 30k? they are going to go up in pay..etc all along the scale.

also do you think the items we buy are going to stay the price they are now? hell now.


bottom line is the poor are still going to be poor. now they are just going to make more money to buy the more expensive stuff they need.

 

[Anarchist420]

I assumed your initial question was to do with the minimum wage, because who in their right mind would recommend a guaranteed minimum income even if no services have been rendered (which is what I think 'boomerang' is talking about).

boomerang was right.🙂 min incomes without rendered services have been recommended before, huey long recommended a min income w/ no rendered service.

 

[shadow9d9]

i disagree with what you said, but that wasn't what i was talking about. i was talking about redistribution of wealth. sorry for the confusion

You(well, actual working people) are already paying for these people via their taxes. it is simply corporate welfare disguised.

 

[pauldun170]

Raise minimum income, prices end up getting raised and you are back to square one.

mo money...mo problems

 

[yllus]

I think it would, despite some effect on inflation and prices. Having witnessed welfare-level economic state closely, I know that it takes an absolutely enormous amount of time and effort (and a significant psychological toll) simply trying to stay housed and fed - forget trying to network and find employment.

If we can relieve that burden from everyone and let them concentrate on employment, I'm all for it.

 

[Moonbeam]

Perhaps you don't really understand what quality of life really is. Your quality of life would improve if you did 't feel compelled to post. For hungry people some guaranteed income might mean the end of hunger. The starving have a poor quality of life.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Perhaps you don't really understand what quality of life really is. Your quality of life would improve if you did 't feel compelled to post. For hungry people some guaranteed income might mean the end of hunger. The starving have a poor quality of life.

And where does that extra income come from? Who's pocket?
Who determines the quality level that is needed?

 

[Anarchist420]

You(well, actual working people) are already paying for these people via their taxes. it is simply corporate welfare disguised.

you mean medicaid and food stamps?

if so, then i agree, because firms that dont accept food stamps, medicaid, medicare, etc. tend to be run by more efficient people.

 

[Zodiark1593]

No, we need to encourage people to strive for more money, not hand it to them.

 

[IngemarStenmark]

Sure, I'll agree to an income for you.

Beware, if you get complacent, think you've got "tenure" or "seniority" and you can use that to cut the value of your contribution.

Then, I fire your silly ass.

:biggrin:

 

[Cogman]

I personally think that two things should happen.

First, the we should fund education, Single payer universal education if you will. After that, we should fund anyone who is willing to attend school. Attach income to grades and first time classes. For example: Give $25 for the first time taking a class and set income based on what grade they got - their previous grade income. So for example, give $100 for an A, $75 for a B, $50 for a C, $25 for a D, and $0 for an F. If someone takes a class, gets a D and then retakes it and gets an A they would earn $25 from the first time and $75 for the second. This keeps people from endlessly retaking the same class.

Still keep the requirements for attaining a degree/certificate/whatever, but open the doors and make it more desirable to learn.

I think the effects of this sort of social change will be very pronounced. First off, minimum wage jobs will probably cease to exist. Companies won't be able to hire people for minimum wage because "Damn it, they would rather learn than stare at a sizzling burger for 40 hours a week" That would result in an increased wage pretty automatically. On top of that, a smarter population will lead to more innovation. People that formerly wouldn't have a chance to invent because of economic circumstance would be given the freedom explore their interests.

The best part? The worst kind of "abuse" that would happen to this system is people learning for the rest of their lives... which, IMO, is probably the best social outcome we could have.

 

[Moonbeam]

And where does that extra income come from? Who's pocket?
Who determines the quality level that is needed?

One thing we could do is pass laws that require people to have a license to eat with exemptions and food if you can't afford to. People who never have to worry where their next meal will come from need to learn more gratitude. If your imaginary right to eat were potentially revocable, folk might have more humility. Each person could determine the quality level by the usual method at meals, eating till you don't want to eat more.

 

[DucatiMonster696]

First of all, the entire premise behind a GMI (Or as it was known in the past, aka The Negative Income Tax) is based around the premise of dismantling of the current welfare and social services system in lieu of just paying unemployed/unemployable people a minimum income for which they would be allowed to do with as they please without government interference.

Secondly some of the criticism behind such a plan is that either you would be stuck paying people to little, i.e. barely enough to scrap by on or paying them way too much, i.e. people would be comfortable enough not to want to work and you'd be incentivizing unemployment and undermining the underpinnings of our capitalist economy by and large. Hence the third point which is any attempt to establish a "GMI" (negative income tax) scheme and still entertain the possibility of having a welfare system or other social services would undermine such a plan drastically to say the least.

Nevermind the issues of border control and immigration in which you would be put in a position to not ignore and have to crack down on illegals entering the nation just to pop out a kid to be able to collect on this negative income, etc and all the other abuses and instances of fraud that would occur because again that would just undermine the system itself.

As for Switzerland where this idea is being brought to a vote well you have a nation where the cost of living is already sky-high and the proposed amount being discussed way below the cost of living, secondly Switzerland has an extremely low unemployment rate, the vast majority of its populace is college educated and its people are basically are homogenized society (everyone in that society is expected to work and not leech off the system) where most foreigners find it extremely difficult to fit in let alone become citizens of that nation because the Swiss have tight controls on who enters their nation, who can become a citizen and who can gain access to benefits, etc. So yeah for them this would have very little impact on their nation because they are looking for a solution to a problem that does not exist in any meaningful manner.