Guarantee all Americans an income

[Jon]

Again, if the future is that dismal, where do you think the tax dollars will come from to fund this sort of idea?

I discount it because:
1- I have thought about it and think it's counter-productive in almost every way, and
2- if we have 40-50% unemployment there's nothing the government can do to help - the tax base will have vanished.

I agree that 50% unemployment under our current system is dismal and that our current Government could in no way support it

I also agree that under our current system that the tax base couldn't support this solution

all that said I also feel that 50% or more unemployment is in our future, and all options regardless of political ideology should be on the table

right now I see no answer but I also don't see this as happening overnight, in fact I think it already is, Obama gets the blame but it isn't all him this stuff has been eroding jobs for years blue and white collar. I just see it accelerating and think we better wake up to reality and realize what is going on before too long.

 

[bama_wayne1]

The moment we decided not to be the economy the world should aspire to and began to open up and export jobs we started the spiral.

 

[uafanataum]

If we stop to 40% employment that means one person with a job will be supporting 2.5 people. If you divide that by the average income 50k I think, that comes out to 20k per person. That is assuming that the person earning the income would split the income equally with the other people.( not gonna happen). Also have you tried to live off 20k a year? The only way this could work and the people still be able to pay their bills is if those that worked averaged 100k per year. There are not enough 100k jobs to support that many people, so unless the dollar strengthens mightily before this prediction happens, then this plan will not work.

 

[Displaced Bama Fan]

The moment we decided not to be the economy the world should aspire to and began to open up and export jobs we started the spiral.

Amen.

 

[Tidewater]

clearly this is addressed to me and I think you miss my point entirely


I'm not advocating or endorsing a guaranteed wage I am simply saying we shouldn't discount it without actually thinking it through and I'm pointing out that sticking to ideology is a freaking bad idea when ideology gets smacked in the face by reality. I am also showing why as the middle class is disintegrating and that disintegration is only going to accelerate. The point I din't mention but did allude to is what will we do when unemployment is 50% or 60%? Can't blame laziness when a business mba gets you no prospects or when your CPA Certification has no value as all the accounting is done in software. I hear conservatives all the time saying "15$ an hour gets a McDonalds employee replaced by a Robot" well guess what in a few years you'll hear "50K a year (or 70, 90 whatever) gets you replaced with Software" and in case you don't know it is already happening in a big, big way

Here is my response to that. I get that you are not advocating a guaranteed income (although this was the gist of the article you posted to start the discussion).
Th economy is dynamic, not static. 50% employment is not a"given." As unemployment rises (assuming your hypothesis is correct), the American people is not likely to just stand for it and say, "Oh well, my job has been outsourced, or automated. I guess it sucks to be me. Guess I'll just suck-start my shotgun now."
Likewise, the Federal government is not going to be able to just say, "Well, lots of jobs outsourced/automated. Guess we'll just have to give everyone a guaranteed income from now on." If your premise is true, then there won't be enough money to pay for it. The dismal science will intervene to stop that eventually.
I would think that the US economy (and perhaps the US electorate will demand) the erection of tariff barriers to do inside the US things that were being outsourced, or as the supply of labor (within the appropriate skill sets, skilled, semi-skilled, unskilled) will drive down the cost of labor to the point that it is no longer economically viable to outsource the labor.
The one thing I do strongly suspect is that importing 1.3 million low-skilled or semi-skilled laborers per year will not help the situation. Computer scientists, MDs, sure. how many of those immigrants come with the skill set to run a convenience store?* Not sure, but however many, those are the ones that aren't helping. They are probably adversely influencing the economic situation.

* "30 percent of immigrants lacked a high school diploma or General Educational Development (GED) certificate."

 

[Gr8hope]

If we stop to 40% employment that means one person with a job will be supporting 2.5 people. If you divide that by the average income 50k I think, that comes out to 20k per person. That is assuming that the person earning the income would split the income equally with the other people.( not gonna happen). Also have you tried to live off 20k a year? The only way this could work and the people still be able to pay their bills is if those that worked averaged 100k per year. There are not enough 100k jobs to support that many people, so unless the dollar strengthens mightily before this prediction happens, then this plan will not work.

If those not working are going to get the same $20,000 as those who do work, I am going to join the unemployed. How many of you will join me? There's the proof it will not work.

 

[Tide1986]

I agree, that's why I stated, "Despite our technological advances in the last few thousands years, there's generally enough work for everyone if they want it badly enough."

I don't see work going away, yet that seems to be the reason he thinks this is something that should be considered. Yet if he's correct and unemployment will rise due to automation, then there will be far fewer tax payers to support this minimum income.

IOW, I can't make sense of his logic.

We are in agreement. I was just adding to your thought.

 

[Tide1986]

the logic isn't hard

we are looking at a future with massive unemployment and unless you want to see your children begging for scraps from the 40-50% of the population lucky enough to have one of the jobs then we will need to rethink a few things

and again I HAVEN"T ADVOCATED THAT THIS IS THE SOLUTION I'VE ONLY STATED THAT WE SHOULDN'T DISCOUNTED IMMEDIATELY WITHOUT REALLY EVALUATING IT

I swear y'all have zero reading comprehension skills

The rise in nationalism is a response to globalization. Many jobs are simply relocating possibly due to our country not looking out for its own first and foremost. Personally, I'd rather there be a lot of Indians and Chinese out of work than Americans. Maybe there is something to Trump's bombast about our "free trade" agreements.

 

[Bama Reb]

Again, if the future is that dismal, where do you think the tax dollars will come from to fund this sort of idea?

I discount it because:
1- I have thought about it and think it's counter-productive in almost every way, and
2- if we have 40-50% unemployment there's nothing the government can do to help - the tax base will have vanished.

If we reach that tipping point it will quickly 'fall off the cliff' and hit near 100% almost overnight. When it is realized that for every person that's working there's another who isn't, those who are will simply throw up their hands and give up. And I agree that at that point, there will be nothing the government can do about it. But look on the bright side. It will also result in a drastic decrease in the size of government.
One more point. Ultimately, the people will survive. The government will not.

 

[Tide1986]

I agree that 50% unemployment under our current system is dismal and that our current Government could in no way support it

I also agree that under our current system that the tax base couldn't support this solution

all that said I also feel that 50% or more unemployment is in our future, and all options regardless of political ideology should be on the table

right now I see no answer but I also don't see this as happening overnight, in fact I think it already is, Obama gets the blame but it isn't all him this stuff has been eroding jobs for years blue and white collar. I just see it accelerating and think we better wake up to reality and realize what is going on before too long.

Maybe we should simply outlaw robots or limit the use of them to a select set of jobs. In other words, just regulate the use of robots so jobs for humans are essentially maximized.

Then again, maybe Asimov's "Caves of Steel" is instructive. Maybe it has less to do with robots themselves than with the size of the world population. Spacers severely limited their populations, maximized the use of robots, and maximized wealth and privacy/individualism as a result (notwithstanding the limits on births).

 

[Bama Reb]

Maybe we should simply outlaw robots or limit the use of them to a select set of jobs. In other words, just regulate the use of robots so jobs for humans are essentially maximized.

Then again, maybe Asimov's "Caves of Steel" is instructive. Maybe it has less to do with robots themselves than with the size of the world population. Spacers severely limited their populations, maximized the use of robots, and maximized wealth and privacy/individualism as a result (notwithstanding the limits on births).

Better yet, drastically reduce the amount of taxes and regulation on privately owned businesses. Reverse the economic direction of this nation. Return the US from a purchasing nation to a manufacturing nation.

 

[Tide1986]

One more point. Ultimately, the people will survive. The government will not.

There will always be a government. I suspect the new one (in a time when the vast majority do not work) would be extremely authoritarian, especially if the population remains high.

 

[Bama Reb]

There will always be a government. I suspect the new one (in a time when the vast majority do not work) would be extremely authoritarian, especially if the population remains high.

We'll just have to agree to disagree on this. If there is no one working, there is no one to pay taxes. Hence there are no more taxes flowing from the people and the US economy is broke. At that point, the government will have no choice but to do one of two things. Either completely mobilize the police and military forces (like the gov't's manpower works for free) and attempt to turn this into a 100% dictatorship or realize the catastrophic consequences of it's failed policies and shut the government down. Regardless of how it comes about, the government that everyone knows today will cease to exist. I think from that point, it will likely be decades, if not generations, before the people decide to start another one, albeit completely different from the present one.

 

[Tide1986]

We'll just have to agree to disagree on this. If there is no one working, there is no one to pay taxes. Hence there are no more taxes flowing from the people and the US economy is broke. At that point, the government will have no choice but to do one of two things. Either completely mobilize the police and military forces (like the gov't's manpower works for free) and attempt to turn this into a 100% dictatorship or realize the catastrophic consequences of it's failed policies and shut the government down. Regardless of how it comes about, the government that everyone knows today will cease to exist. I think from that point, it will likely be decades, if not generations, before the people decide to start another one, albeit completely different from the present one.

I'm not sure where we disagree. You just said mostly what I said (using a lot more words) unless you think that 400M people will live in the U.S. without any form of government whatsoever.

 

[Bama Reb]

I'm not sure where we disagree. You just said mostly what I said (using a lot more words) unless you think that 400M people will live in the U.S. without any form of government whatsoever.

No. not at all. There will be survivors, just not 400M of them.

 

[bama_wayne1]

Can someone tell me why Bernie is laying off his staff instead of just lowering the income of all. I thought these socialists believed everyone deserves a piece of the pie...

 

[Jon]

Here is my response to that. I get that you are not advocating a guaranteed income (although this was the gist of the article you posted to start the discussion).
Th economy is dynamic, not static. 50% employment is not a"given." As unemployment rises (assuming your hypothesis is correct), the American people is not likely to just stand for it and say, "Oh well, my job has been outsourced, or automated. I guess it sucks to be me. Guess I'll just suck-start my shotgun now."
Likewise, the Federal government is not going to be able to just say, "Well, lots of jobs outsourced/automated. Guess we'll just have to give everyone a guaranteed income from now on." If your premise is true, then there won't be enough money to pay for it. The dismal science will intervene to stop that eventually.
I would think that the US economy (and perhaps the US electorate will demand) the erection of tariff barriers to do inside the US things that were being outsourced, or as the supply of labor (within the appropriate skill sets, skilled, semi-skilled, unskilled) will drive down the cost of labor to the point that it is no longer economically viable to outsource the labor.
The one thing I do strongly suspect is that importing 1.3 million low-skilled or semi-skilled laborers per year will not help the situation. Computer scientists, MDs, sure. how many of those immigrants come with the skill set to run a convenience store?* Not sure, but however many, those are the ones that aren't helping. They are probably adversely influencing the economic situation.

* "30 percent of immigrants lacked a high school diploma or General Educational Development (GED) certificate."

not sure why you think I posted any articles in this thread, I haven't, nor did I start this discussion.

I don't know that tariffs are the answer either, they may help against some of the globalization issues but they won't help with the jobs that will be lost to automation.

 

[Tidewater]

not sure why you think I posted any articles in this thread, I haven't, nor did I start this discussion.

I'm sorry. I thought you had. You were defending the concept of a guaranteed income, which was the point of the article, though, weren't you?

I don't know that tariffs are the answer either, they may help against some of the globalization issues but they won't help with the jobs that will be lost to automation.

I think the idea that globalization is giving the American worker the hairy side of the lollypop is the source of a lot of anger amongst Trump and Bernie supporters. Not that their policy prescriptions will help that problem necessarily, but I think that is where a lot of the anger comes from.
I have said here (and elsewhere), that the freest possible trade is the best economic policy for the people of a country, but as my econ professor at Alabama said, "Free trade wins all debates, and protectionism wins all votes."

Globalization and free trade, plus open borders will result in a world that looks like the dystopia in the film Elysium. Squalor, crime-infested neighborhoods, callous disregard for workers' safety, an abusive dehumanizing (and dehumanized) police state. I'm not sure why anyone who pretends to look after the interests of the "little guy" would tolerate, much less aggressively pursue such a future, unless, maybe they really don't give a hoot in the infernal regions about the little man and just want more voters for their party. I know why Chamber of Commerce Republicans support open borders. The other fellows I con't figure out.

 

[Tide1986]

Globalization and free trade, plus open borders will result in a world that looks like the dystopia in the film Elysium. Squalor, crime-infested neighborhoods, callous disregard for workers' safety, an abusive dehumanizing (and dehumanized) police state. I'm not sure why anyone who pretends to look after the interests of the "little guy" would tolerate, much less aggressively pursue such a future, unless, maybe they really don't give a hoot in the infernal regions about the little man and just want more voters for their party. I know why Chamber of Commerce Republicans support open borders. The other fellows I con't figure out.

Ironically I just saw this movie for the first time less than a week ago. I agree with you on what society would likely be like with extreme globalization, free trade, and open borders; but I think the writers of the movie might say their intended message is quite different.

 

[Jon]

I'm sorry. I thought you had. You were defending the concept of a guaranteed income, which was the point of the article, though, weren't you?

I think the idea that globalization is giving the American worker the hairy side of the lollypop is the source of a lot of anger amongst Trump and Bernie supporters. Not that their policy prescriptions will help that problem necessarily, but I think that is where a lot of the anger comes from.
I have said here (and elsewhere), that the freest possible trade is the best economic policy for the people of a country, but as my econ professor at Alabama said, "Free trade wins all debates, and protectionism wins all votes."

Globalization and free trade, plus open borders will result in a world that looks like the dystopia in the film Elysium. Squalor, crime-infested neighborhoods, callous disregard for workers' safety, an abusive dehumanizing (and dehumanized) police state. I'm not sure why anyone who pretends to look after the interests of the "little guy" would tolerate, much less aggressively pursue such a future, unless, maybe they really don't give a hoot in the infernal regions about the little man and just want more voters for their party. I know why Chamber of Commerce Republicans support open borders. The other fellows I con't figure out.

no I was simply saying that discounting a potential solution based on pure black/white ideology is a bad idea and used what I see coming to illustrate why