|
Purveyor, Fine Asian Porn
Industry Role:
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: San Francisco Bay Area
Posts: 38,323
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rochard
You think?
Minimum wage entry level jobs aren't meant to raise a family on. Such jobs are for high school kids, seniors working part time, or young people who don't yet qualify for something better.
|
That is why I favor a Basic Income system that provides a living wage for all:
Quote:
A Basic Income system (also called basic income guarantee, unconditional basic income, universal basic income or citizen?s income) is a proposed system of social security that regularly provides each citizen with a sum of money unconditionally.
Basic income is entirely unconditional: the only requirement for receiving it is to be a citizen and/or resident of the country. In contrast, a guaranteed minimum income may be conditional upon participating in government enforced labor or other means testing.
|
Quote:
One of the arguments for a basic income was articulated by the French economist and philosopher André Gorz:
...The connection between more and better has been broken; our needs for many products and services are already more than adequately met, and many of our as-yet-unsatisfied needs will be met not by producing more, but by producing differently, producing other things, or even producing less. This is especially true as regards our needs for air, water, space, silence, beauty, time and human contact...
From the point where it takes only 1,000 hours per year or 20,000 to 30,000 hours per lifetime to create an amount of wealth equal to or greater than the amount we create at the present time in 1,600 hours per year or 40,000 to 50,000 hours in a working life, we must all be able to obtain a real income equal to or higher than our current salaries in exchange for a greatly reduced quantity of work...
Neither is it true any longer that the more each individual works, the better off everyone will be. The present crisis has stimulated technological change of an unprecedented scale and speed: 'the micro-chip revolution'. The object and indeed the effect of this revolution has been to make rapidly increasing savings in labour, in the industrial, administrative and service sectors. Increasing production is secured in these sectors by decreasing amounts of labour.
As a result, the social process of production no longer needs everyone to work in it on a full-time basis. The work ethic ceases to be viable in such a situation and work-based society is thrown into crisis...
?André Gorz, Critique of economic Reason, Gallile, 1989
|
Quote:
naturalfinance.net describes several benefits from basic income:
The benefits of technology and automation make work less necessary, and are only possible if people can afford the outputs of technology and automation.
Wealth redistribution is the best possible economic development program because the wealthy don't spend as great a portion of their income as the poor do.
Wealth redistribution does not harm the wealthy, because all money is spent until it ends up with a saver. So, taxes paid eventually return to the tax payer.
Basic income is the most efficient possible form of wealth redistribution because there is no bureaucratic overhead needed to filter recipients, or find and punish abusers.
Basic income as an alternative to public retirement pensions (such as social security in the US) is the only possible prevention of generational theft that will occur if the funding sustainability of future retiree pensions and care is threatened
Reduced crime as a result of lower levels of desperation. If loss of income is a consequence of crime, it may in turn create more crime.
Balanced power in the labour market as a result of not needing work out of desperation, and better competitive position of workers if some people choose not to work.
Better work opportunities as a result of people better able to afford an education or business start up.
Smaller government made possible and attractive by the alternative of increased basic income to offset any program cost reduction. Viewed this way, the cost of every government program is paid for equally by each citizen, even if the source of government revenue is progressive income taxation.
Social justice is achieved efficiently and automatically, with less requirement on charity and welfare.
It is easier for volunteer home owners to help the poor and secluded through group homes by being able to rely on their certain income. Its possible and easier for the disadvantaged to group up and help themselves in the same manner.
Natural finance's definition of social dividends (variable basic income: tax revenue surplus over social program expenses) essentially allows the level of basic income paid to citizens to rise with economic, productivity, and automation growth. The affordability of basic income adjusts automatically to the performance of the economy.
|
A good book on the subject:
Quote:
Two proposals that would make capitalism much more egalitarian.
Volume V in the acclaimed Real Utopias Project series, edited by Erik Olin Wright.
Are there ways that contemporary capitalism can be rendered a dramatically more egalitarian economic system without destroying its productivity and capacity for growth?
This book explores two proposals, unconditional basic income and stakeholder grants, that attempt just that. In a system of basic income, as elaborated by Philippe van Parijs, all citizens are given a monthly stipend sufficient to provide them with a no-frills but adequate standard of living.
This monthly income is universal rather than means-tested, and it is unconditional ? receiving the basic income does not depend upon performing any labor services or satisfying other conditions. It affirms the idea that as a matter of basic rights, no one should live in poverty in an affluent society.
In a system of stakeholder grants, as discussed by Bruce Ackerman and Anne Alstott, all citizens upon reaching the age of early adulthood receive a substantial one-time lump-sum grant sufficiently large so that all young adults would be significant wealth holders. Ackerman and Alstott propose that this grant be in the vicinity of $80,000 and be financed by an annual wealth tax of roughly 2 percent.
A system of stakeholder grants, they argue, ?expresses a fundamental responsibility: every American has an obligation to contribute to a fair starting point for all.?
|
ADG |