Help end wage-slavery (2nd version)
Andrew Usher
Andrew Usher
--------
I propose the basic income, also known as the guaranteed minimum
income
or negative income tax, for modern civilised society. This entails
that
every person would receive a fixed payment from the government, which
is
enough to maintain oneself without working. I further maintain that
this
is only practical with a system of true national health care, as, for
one, persons with significant medical expenses could not rely on the
basic income alone, as is entailed by the concept.
- How should it work?
I will refer only to the USA in the rest of this essay, though it
applies
to every comparable nation. The basic income would be paid out by the
federal government to everyone, and would replace all current welfare
and
redistribution programs (federal, state, and local) with possibly a
few
minor exceptions. Similarly the universal health care that accompanies
it
would replace all current provisions for health care; as these
combined
form about half of all government spending, their obsolescence would
free
a considerable amount of money.
The benefit could be paid based on individuals or based on households.
In
my mind, only payment based on individuals would be acceptable.
First,
there is the rampant fraud likely to arise if done the other way;
this
already exists with current welfare programs, and would be much worse
if
applied to the entire population. Second (and related), the costs of
managing the program would be much lower for an individual income as
the
means to count every person exactly once already exist. It may be
objected that this provides an incentive for persons to live in fewer
households, but this is no different from the situation now: in both
cases, one financially benefits from living with other persons as the
fixed costs do not scale with number of persons. Although I do not
like
that it is an issue of housing availability and not money per se.
Persons in prison or another involuntary institution should be
excluded,
but should begin to receive it again immediately upon their release.
- The amount of the benefit
It is necessary to propose a monetary amount for the benefit. Though
the
exact value it would be can not be specified, I propose a present
value
of $1,500 per month, plus $200 for each dependent child. This benefit
would for obvious reasons have to be limited to citizens, or perhaps
citizens and legal permanent residents.
My benefit of $200 per child seems low. However, I realise that to
avoid
encouraging high fertility, the amount must be less than the minimum
reasonable cost of raising a child. Also, as it may be assumed that
persons relying on the basic income are not working, it is unnecessary
to
account for regular child care; likewise, as health care will be free
I
do not need to include that, either.
This child benefit should not be zero either, I think, though that
would
not be impossible. No increment would result in many families with
children in need of help, just as now, which this program is meant to
end.
Another issue is that I do not vary the amount with place of
residence,
while everyone knows that some places have a significantly higher cost
of
living than others. I answer that the reason such places do have such
a
high cost of living is the high demand to live there, and that
varying
the basic income by place of residence will only drive that demand
higher, thus further increasing the cost. The only way to partially
equalise these differences is to encourage more housing developement
in
high-cost areas, bringing the price of housing down there.
The amount would of course be automatically indexed to the cost of
living.
- Paying for it
Concrete proposals for a basic income usually include a flat income
tax
(hence the term negative income tax - the benefit can be thought of as
a
flat tax minus the benefit amount). I concur. With a flat tax, it
makes
no difference if it is figured by individuals or married couples, so
I
would do it by individuals to match the benefit. My tax would have no
exceptions, and go from 30% up to 70%, with most ordinary people in
the
30% bracket and the very rich in the 70%. This would apply only to
earned
income (wages, salaries, and other compensation for work performed).
Investment income would be capped at 30% to avoid disadvantaging
investing or punishing people that live on investment income.
Likewise, the corporate income tax, though it can not be made exactly
flat, would be made far more so, at 30 or 40%, greatly increasing
revenue; this is only restoring it to where it was in the 1950s.
Considering the amount of the benefit named above, the federal
government's revenue would have to approximately double to pay it.
The
taxes above would go a long way toward that, and others could make up
the
difference. The most important figure is the proportion of total GDP;
my
benefit would be approximately 38% of current GDP, which is not out
of
bounds for goverment revenue.
- The basic law of the basic income
The basic income would surely decrease the amount of work performed.
Many
people would choose to not work at all, or to work only part-time,
rather
than a conventional job. Hence we may be certain that the average
income
would fall.
It must be noted that this would not be a large effect, because
employers
would soon adjust to the new conditions, and much of the work done in
our
society has zero or negative value. The reasons for the latter are
partly
those explicated in the next section that would go away with the
basic
income, and partly issues of patronage, class, etc. that would
hopefully
diminish.
If the average income falls, while the worst-off become better off,
it
can only be by decreasing the income of the rich. Indeed this will
occur,
by means of the taxes I propose, as well as the fact that businesses
will
have less to spend on salaries. This can't be considered a bad thing.
- Automation
Though the essential argument does not depend on it, many thinkers
have
proposed that the basic income is essential to implement because of
automation. This may be. It is definite, though, that the basic
income
has the potential of eliminating many inefficiencies that are at root
caused by the reduced number of workers needed in our modern economy.
In today's society, there are fewer places for useful full-time work
than
there are people that, in our economic system, need to have a job.
The
basic income is the only solution that I can see to this dilemma.
Therefore the prevailing conceit that everyone should have a normal
job
to support themselves is harmful. It is inconsistent in any case as
there
are already people that violate this ideal: not only wealthy people
that
don't need to work, but retired people and stay-at-home wives -
anyone
not working is in fact living off the rest of society. It doesn't
matter
where the money is coming from: it is important to realise that money
is
just marks on paper or in a computer, not real wealth.
And another way that everyone, even working people, is free-loading
is through living in an advanced society like ours rather than a Third
World society. It is impossible to quantify this, but it is real, and
everyone shares it in common. In other words, it is our inheritance
for
all past technological and organisational developement. Paying part
of
this inheritance in money is not fundamentally different.
I have another argument, as well: that the possibility of automating
many jobs will dramatically reduce the impact of the basic income of
national production. As the effective cost of unskilled labor rises,
the
incentive to automate jobs that have not been automated increases.
For
example, I just observed, when making a doctor's appointment, that
that
could be entirely automated given what it now entails - of course, in
this particular case, a national health-care system would allow it to
be
done easily.
The basic income also reduces the impact of further automation on the
economy, as workers that lose their jobs face no risk of starving and
can
take ample time to train for a new career if desired. And as I know
that
most jobs can be largely automated, I would not be surprised if, say,
30-50 years after implementing a basic income less than 20% of adults
were working a normal job, calculated as full-time equivalents.
Therefore, it will increase freedom by allowing us to choose,
individually, whether to take productivity increases as more leisure
or
more money.
- Is it a form of communism?
If we consider the goal of communism to provide everyone a decent
living,
then we can say the basic income has the same goal. But nonetheless,
it
does not have the deficiencies of Marxist government.
First, it does not give any more power to the government. To the
contrary, government will have less power if anything.
Second, it does not try to abolish money. It is true that the world
once
ran without money, but the trend throughout history has been to put
more
and more on a money basis. It is today impossible to live even a
short
time without money in some form. The basic income accepts this.
Third, it has no ideological component beyond the basic idea. I'm
sure
everyone knows that governments having an ideological basis become
tyrannical because of their need to suppress dissent. This includes,
of
course, all historical communist governments.
- Its effect on men's rights
The essential difference between the opportunities afforded to the
sexes
at present is that women can normally rely on a man to support them,
if
need be, and thus need not work, and most men must.
Therefore, the basic income, alone, would be a great step forward for
men. But there is more: with an income assured to all, the
justification
for alimony and child support disappears. It would be reasonable,
then,
to completely abolish them upon its implementation; but if not, at
least
to protect the basic income from any awards, as it should be
protected
from all debts.
- Its effect on youth rights
I wrote an essay, which is online here: http://www.youthrights.org/forums/showthread.php?t=14961
proposing that the age of majority be made 15, and outlining the
securing
of adult rights to young people 15 to 20 years old. Since the basic
income would be paid to all adults, that would necessarily entail
that
that be given to all those 15 and over (instead of 18 as at present).
Regardless of whether the age is 15, 18, 21, or otherwise, the plan
would
surely cause more young people choosing to leave home shortly after
that
age, simply because that would not require employment. It does not
seem
that having the age 15 is much worse, even if one considers this a
bad
thing.
Note that although many people in the youth rights movement say that
there should be no age of majority, it is plainly ridiculous to not
have
a threshold age for the basic income, and paying it upon birth would
(as
discussed above) become a huge reward for having children, which can
not
be tolerated. If the money were placed in a trust-fund, not to be
given
out until the child reaches a certain age, we would again have to
decide
on an age; further, that plan would be needlessly costly, and it runs
contrary to the spirit of the guaranteed income (which is intended
for
current expense) to have it used for saving as that would be.
- Its effect on crime and criminals
I do not know for certain what impact it will have upon crime.
However, I
surmise that crime will be reduced overall. As no one would feel the
need
to turn to crime for a living, it would become a less attractive
option.
This applies especially to men getting out of prison, who now often
feel
unable to get reasonable work again and therefore want to go back to
the
criminal world.
Some crimes, of course, are unrelated to money, but I can not believe
there would be any substantial rise in their incidence. I am somewhat
concerned that the law would create more 'idle hands', but know that
reducing the overall level of crime would allow us to focus more on
eliminating the criminal subcultures that remain.
- An end to wage-slavery
All of this, however, is surpassed by the most pointed reason for the
basic income; namely, to reduce the disparity of power between
employer
and employee. No longer would the boss be able to rely on employees'
willingness to do anything to avoid termination, for no one would have
to
fear his life reaching a crisis due to job loss. It is true that the
rich
would nonetheless have a significant reduction in income, but they
tend
to be treated better by their employers anyway, and also likely have
savings sufficient to make temporary loss of work less traumatic (As
well, many weathly couples have two incomes; I will not cite that as
a
primary reasons because I am focusing only on individuals in this
paper.)
Ironically, this scourge, created by this existence of money, will be
ended through money.
rdu...@pdq.net
uhhmmm... but from the point of view of the fiscal needs of the
governing authorities, they would prefer that more of their citizens
become dead. Thereby much of this brutal expense might be terminated.
And the authorities do have most of the guns, right.? At least in
California.
But not in Texas. Cops are polite down there in the desolate
wastelands where witnesses are non-existent and God is kinda neutral
as to the outcome of a fair fight...
Society
"Andrew Usher" <k_over...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:dca057e2-9b5b-4631...@w1g2000prk.googlegroups.com...
>
> I propose [...] that every person would receive
> a fixed payment from the government, which is
> enough to maintain oneself without working.
How did that work out when you tried it in your commune, Andrew?
--
Ayn Rand on the concept of "wage-slavery":
The rotter who simpers
that he see no difference
between the power of the dollar
and the power of the whip,
ought to learn the difference
on his own hide - as, I think, he will.
Ayn Rand, _Atlas_Shrugged_
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
Masculist
> "Andrew Usher" <k_over_hb...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:dca057e2-9b5b-4631...@w1g2000prk.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > I propose [...] that every person would receive
> > a fixed payment from the government, which is
> > enough to maintain oneself without working.
> > [...]
>
> How did that work out when you tried it in your commune, Andrew?
Oh jeeze Andrew, we're in trouble if Society doesn't think this is a
good idea.
In defense Society of Andrew and my plan to progressively reform our
economic and social system, how well has YOUR plan worked on OUR
economy? It looks to me that we are all going down the tubes and to
be honest no "plan" appears to work if that's the case. Well...maybe
barter.
> --
> Ayn Rand on the concept of "wage-slavery":
>
> The rotter who simpers
> that he see no difference
> between the power of the dollar
> and the power of the whip,
> ought to learn the difference
> on his own hide - as, I think, he will.
>
> Ayn Rand, _Atlas_Shrugged_
Jeeze, you're real handy with the appropriate quotes. OK, you win
<smile>
Smitty
> ** Posted fromhttp://www.teranews.com**
Andrew Usher
> > I propose [...] that every person would receive
> > a fixed payment from the government, which is
> > enough to maintain oneself without working.
> > [...]
>
> How did that work out when you tried it in your commune, Andrew?
It's not designed for a 'commune'; in fact it wouldn't make sense for
such a society..
> Ayn Rand on the concept of "wage-slavery":
>
> The rotter who simpers
> that he see no difference
> between the power of the dollar
> and the power of the whip,
> ought to learn the difference
> on his own hide - as, I think, he will.
>
> Ayn Rand, _Atlas_Shrugged_
I don't take Ayn Rand seriously. That quote doesn't even make sense -
the point of 'the whip' isn't to hurt slaves for the hell of it but to
get
them to comply - exactly the same as 'the power of the dollar'.
Andrew Usher
Andrew Usher
> In defense Society of Andrew and my plan to progressively reform our
> economic and social system, how well has YOUR plan worked on OUR
> economy? It looks to me that we are all going down the tubes and to
> be honest no "plan" appears to work if that's the case. Well...maybe
> barter.
The capitalist system is failing. I don't want to see it fail
completely for
then we fall to dictatorship.
Andrew Usher
jmfbahciv
> On Dec 17, 2:52 pm, Masculist <MASCUL...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> In defense Society of Andrew and my plan to progressively reform our
>> economic and social system, how well has YOUR plan worked on OUR
>> economy? It looks to me that we are all going down the tubes and to
>> be honest no "plan" appears to work if that's the case. Well...maybe
>> barter.
>
> The capitalist system is failing.
It is? I don't see it failing. I do see politicians' meddling
making huge messes.
> I don't want to see it fail
> completely for
> then we fall to dictatorship.
>
No. Your society proposal will become a dictatorship and turn viscious
within a year. What will you do to people who won't play by your rules?
/BAH
Masculist
Good point Andrew and the problem still remains what leverage does the
worker have? How about male workers? The unions are no longer an
option. They mostly represent a small part of the work force and most
of them are now women. The unions got their angst and justification
"fighting for their families". That ended with feminism but that need
remains as well as a need for workers to have some leverage and
freedom.
Smitty
> Andrew Usher
Andrew Usher
> Good point Andrew and the problem still remains what leverage does the
> worker have?
This is eactly the main point of my essay.
> How about male workers? The unions are no longer an
> option.
Unions are a good idea but they easily become corrupt. All the
larger unions today have become devoted to left-wing politics above
the working man. And even when a union does keep fighting for its
workers it does so at the cost of ignoring the wider economy - see
the UAW and what's going on with the automakers - and thus
harming workers that don't have a strong union.
> They mostly represent a small part of the work force and most
> of them are now women. The unions got their angst and justification
> "fighting for their families". That ended with feminism but that need
> remains as well as a need for workers to have some leverage and
> freedom.
For the great majority of workers, the only way they get any leverage
or freedom is through actions that violate the free market system.
Andrew Usher
Andrew Usher
> > The capitalist system is failing.
>
> It is? I don't see it failing. I do see politicians' meddling
> making huge messes.
Only if you look at the world through looneytarian glasses.
> > I don't want to see it fail
> > completely for
> > then we fall to dictatorship.
>
> No. Your society proposal will become a dictatorship and turn viscious
> within a year. What will you do to people who won't play by your rules?
Ignoring the spelling and grammar mistake, your response is asinine.
Since my proposal, as stated in the essay, gives government no new
power, it can't possibly lead to dictatorship.
Andrew Usher
Society
Smitty as "Masculist" <MASC...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:e9cb6228-81a7-4127...@b38g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
> "Society" wrote...
> >
> > "Andrew Usher" wrote...
> > >
> > > I propose [...] that every person would receive
> > > a fixed payment from the government, which is
> > > enough to maintain oneself without working. [...]
> >
> > How did that work out when you tried it
> > in your commune, Andrew?
>
> Oh jeeze Andrew, we're in trouble if Society
> doesn't think this is a good idea.
Hey, all I asked was for the real-life evidence that
Andrew's scheme ever worked out in practice.
> In defense Society, of Andrew and my plan to
> progressively reform our economic and social system,
> how well has YOUR plan worked on OUR economy?
Alas, my plan hasn't been tried in the US in my lifetime.
> It looks to me that we are all going down the tubes
> and to be honest no "plan" appears to work if that's
> the case. Well...maybe barter.
You're right, if we are all going down the tubes, no plan
will work. However, I'm not a fatalist nor do I believe
we are all going down the tubes. The United States, along
with the other so-called developed countries, may be in
for a rough patch but I expect that the worst we'll see is
a re-run of 1970s stagflation -- tho' I don't expect that
the worst will come about.
Still, going forward will be imagined to be horrible,
horrible, horrible by the under-40 crowd whose
awareness of the big wide world and making a living
as an independent adult began when the Long Boom
started just about 25 years ago when Ronald Reagan
was President. Such naifs have never seen a serious
recession in their lifetimes. I fee-yul ba-ad tho' for all
the Art History grads who will be let go by the 600+
Starbucks coffee counters that are scheduled to close
in the coming months. Terrible, just terrible.
> > Ayn Rand on the concept of "wage-slavery":
> >
> > The rotter who simpers
> > that he see no difference
> > between the power of the dollar
> > and the power of the whip,
> > ought to learn the difference
> > on his own hide - as, I think, he will.
> >
> > Ayn Rand, _Atlas_Shrugged_
>
> Jeeze, you're real handy with the appropriate quotes.
> OK, you win <smile>
Yeah, they're real timesavers, those quotes.
When Andrew Usher used the phrase "wage-slavery"
in the title of the topic he started, that got my goat.
IMO, the term trivializes real slavery and the people
who suffer slavery's immorality, hardship and pain,
for nothing but scoring cheap, illegitimate rhetorical points.
Anyway, I believe that any sort of Welfare State dole
that "is enough to maintain oneself without working"
would in time lead to a social disaster. Think about
how such a scheme would have to operate: the people
most likely to be most productive wage-workers will
be taxed to pay for the people who shun wage-work.
Let's see, who could these two groups mostly be?
Uh huh, mostly men will be taxed to pay for mostly
females, especially females who'll breed irresponsibly
with the minority of men that most women occasionally
have a crush on.
IOW, Andrew Usher's dole program will lead to an
acceleration of the growing New Girl Order in which
there's a lot of soft polygyny and many (most?) females
are married to the Welfare State, not to men.
--
Weird thing about life...
the test comes before the lesson.
"CoyoteV"
rdu...@pdq.net
Ireland had been poor for centuries, eons, really. In the past single
generation they have become quite well off and thoroughly modernized.
The largest employer there is Dell computer. Do you imagine they
seriously want to go back to their pre-capitalistic life? Or India. Or
even Iceland. Sure they have some issues but no way those countries
want to return to being poor, isolated, and priest-ridden.
Where do you get the notion that foreigners like being poor and
backward just because modern life is challenging?
jmfbahciv
So you don't like answering the question. Could it possibly be
because your society would have to kill those who didn't agree
or obey your rules?
/BAH
Andrew Usher
> >> No. Your society proposal will become a dictatorship and turn viscious
> >> within a year. What will you do to people who won't play by your rules?
>
> > Ignoring the spelling and grammar mistake, your response is asinine.
>
> > Since my proposal, as stated in the essay, gives government no new
> > power, it can't possibly lead to dictatorship.
>
> So you don't like answering the question. Could it possibly be
> because your society would have to kill those who didn't agree
> or obey your rules?
I did answer. If you need it spelled out even farther, there would be
no
need to kill anyone more than there is now because the government
would not need to exercise any power over people that it isn't now.
If you don't understand that, you're either a fucking idiot or lying.
Andrew Usher
Andrew Usher
> Where do you get the notion that foreigners like being poor and
> backward just because modern life is challenging?
What does my proposal have to do with being poor and backward?
It can only be implemented in a rich society, and I consider it a
step forward, not back.
Andrew Usher
Andrew Usher
> If the minimum income will be introduced, then many people
> will have more free time to volunteer (work for free).
> Examples are math research and writing free software. Now
> I'm busy with not very useful work. When I'll be
> free I will do math research and write free software what is
> far more useful for the society.
This is indeed an important benefit that I failed to
include in my essay: that people that don't have
a regular job, rather than just being idle, may also
contribute productively for no or low remuneration.
Andrew Usher
Andrew Usher
> Hey, all I asked was for the real-life evidence that
> Andrew's scheme ever worked out in practice.
It hasn't really been tried. But that's not really an argument against
it,
as societies haven't been wealthy enough to truly attempt it until
recently, and and most people have a moral reaction against the idea
of people 'for not working' (although that's silly for reasons I've
pointed
out).
> When Andrew Usher used the phrase "wage-slavery"
> in the title of the topic he started, that got my goat.
> IMO, the term trivializes real slavery and the people
> who suffer slavery's immorality, hardship and pain,
> for nothing but scoring cheap, illegitimate rhetorical points.
The term 'wage-slavery' is not, of course, my invention, but
has been a standard term in socialism for a long time. It is
intentionally exaggerating, true, to compare the condition of
'free' workers with the real examples of chattel slavery in
history; but it has a point: it is an attempt to wake people up
that are in denial or hypocrisy about the power that employers
have in capitalism.
> Anyway, I believe that any sort of Welfare State dole
> that "is enough to maintain oneself without working"
> would in time lead to a social disaster. Think about
> how such a scheme would have to operate: the people
> most likely to be most productive wage-workers will
> be taxed to pay for the people who shun wage-work.
The first problem with that analysis is that it equates the
(social) value of work with the wages paid for it. People
given theleisure will do useful work for no or low pay; the
less pleasant work would still be done if wages were high
enough, just as now. Remember that technology has
significantly diminished the amount of really unpleasant
work that must be done.
> Let's see, who could these two groups mostly be?
> Uh huh, mostly men will be taxed to pay for mostly
> females, especially females who'll breed irresponsibly
> with the minority of men that most women occasionally
> have a crush on.
This is already true! There is right now a huge net transfer
of wealth from men to women, and there is no reason to
believe that the guaranteed income would make it any higher.
> IOW, Andrew Usher's dole program will lead to an
> acceleration of the growing New Girl Order in which
> there's a lot of soft polygyny and many (most?) females
> are married to the Welfare State, not to men.
As you just admitted, this problem already exists. My essay
includes a (short) section on men, showing that the payment
would actually improve equality between men and women. The
root causes of the decline of marriage are not really economic.
Andrew Usher
jmfbahciv
You did not answer the question. What are you going to do to the
people who won't obey your societal rules?
/BAH
jmfbahciv
Not many people have self-discipline. Most will go out and
make messes instead of being productive.
/BAH
Sean_M...@yahoo.com
> People
> given leisure will do useful work for no or low pay; the
> less pleasant work would still be done if wages were high
> enough, just as now.
This is the important part that you want to keep developing.
Remember that technology has
> significantly diminished the amount of really unpleasant
> work that must be done.
> > Let's see, who could these two groups mostly be?
> > Uh huh, mostly men will be taxed to pay for mostly
> > females, especially females who'll breed irresponsibly
> > with the minority of men that most women occasionally
> > have a crush on.
>
> This is already true! There is right now a huge net transfer
> of wealth from men to women, and there is no reason to
> believe that the guaranteed income would make it any higher.
>
> > IOW, Andrew Usher's dole program will lead to an
> > acceleration of the growing New Girl Order in which
> > there's a lot of soft polygyny and many (most?) females
> > are married to the Welfare State, not to men.
>
> As you just admitted, this problem already exists. My essay
> includes a (short) section on men, showing that the payment
> would actually improve equality between men and women. The
> root causes of the decline of marriage are not really economic.
>
> Andrew Usher
Your scheme needs work even to be finished no less politically
achieved but...
Arguing with Society is a waste of theme-development time. People like
him are mules --they are against change (but will always be dragged by
it). The problem is that that has damned men to always being on the
wrong side of change.
Sean_M...@yahoo.com
> Smitty as "Masculist" <MASCUL...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:e9cb6228-81a7-4127...@b38g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > "Society" wrote...
>
> > > "Andrew Usher" wrote...
>
> > > > I propose [...] that every person would receive
> > > > a fixed payment from the government, which is
> > > > enough to maintain oneself without working. [...]
>
> > > How did that work out when you tried it
> > > in your commune, Andrew?
>
> > Oh jeeze Andrew, we're in trouble if Society
> > doesn't think this is a good idea.
>
> Hey, all I asked was for the real-life evidence that
> Andrew's scheme ever worked out in practice.
>
> > progressively reform our economic and social system,
> > how well has YOUR plan worked on OUR economy?
>
> Alas, my plan hasn't been tried in the US in my lifetime.
Why is that? I mean democratic capitalist free market is the obvious,
natural best system, right? It will lead to a free society [tm] --
where the kinds of oppression/nee hypocrisy that has ensnared men
doesn't happen--right? So why hasn't it been tried in your lifetime?
The destiny of Mankind hinges on your answer...
Andrew Usher
Not even wrong. I will not argue with people that refuse to be honest.
Andrew Usher
Andrew Usher
> > The first problem with that analysis is that it equates the
> > (social) value of work with the wages paid for it.
> > People
> > given leisure will do useful work for no or low pay; the
> > less pleasant work would still be done if wages were high
> > enough, just as now.
>
> This is the important part that you want to keep developing.
Yeah. I can't really give specific details on how it would work,
because it would have to work itself out. The general idea,
though, should be apparent.
> > As you just admitted, this problem already exists. My essay
> > includes a (short) section on men, showing that the payment
> > would actually improve equality between men and women. The
> > root causes of the decline of marriage are not really economic.
>
> Your scheme needs work even to be finished no less politically
> achieved but...
I know. I'd like to find other people that advocate this program, but
I can't find a way to get in touch with any of them. Although, as I
mentioned before, those people are all leftists that are likely to
react with horror to my suggestions that there is discriimination
against men.
> Arguing with Society is a waste of theme-development time. People like
> him are mules --they are against change (but will always be dragged by
> it). The problem is that that has damned men to always being on the
> wrong side of change.
This attitude is problematic mainly because it always refuses to
acknowledge, or at least downplays, the changes that have already
taken place. If we don't face our problems honestly, we lose.
Andrew Usher
jmfbahciv
> On Dec 20, 7:59 am, Sean_MacCl...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>>> The first problem with that analysis is that it equates the
>>> (social) value of work with the wages paid for it.
>>> People
>>> given leisure will do useful work for no or low pay; the
>>> less pleasant work would still be done if wages were high
>>> enough, just as now.
>> This is the important part that you want to keep developing.
>
> Yeah. I can't really give specific details on how it would work,
You can get a really good idea by just looking at the Welfare
system.
> because it would have to work itself out. The general idea,
> though, should be apparent.
Why aren't you doing useful work?
>
>>> As you just admitted, this problem already exists. My essay
>>> includes a (short) section on men, showing that the payment
>>> would actually improve equality between men and women. The
>>> root causes of the decline of marriage are not really economic.
>> Your scheme needs work even to be finished no less politically
>> achieved but...
>
> I know. I'd like to find other people that advocate this program, but
> I can't find a way to get in touch with any of them.
Any communist, anarchist, or fascist political party or any union
that has celebrated its 50th anniversary are around. Oh, but getting
in touch with them would require work on your part.
>Although, as I
> mentioned before, those people are all leftists that are likely to
> react with horror to my suggestions that there is discriimination
> against men.
Now you need to visit any NOW headquarters.
>
>> Arguing with Society is a waste of theme-development time. People like
>> him are mules --they are against change (but will always be dragged by
>> it). The problem is that that has damned men to always being on the
>> wrong side of change.
>
> This attitude is problematic mainly because it always refuses to
> acknowledge, or at least downplays, the changes that have already
> taken place. If we don't face our problems honestly, we lose.
[ROTLMAO emoticon holding its sides] Oh, the irony.
/BAH
gabydewilde
> On Dec 20, 7:59 am, Sean_MacCl...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > > The first problem with that analysis is that it equates the
> > > (social) value of work with the wages paid for it.
> > > People
> > > given leisure will do useful work for no or low pay; the
> > > less pleasant work would still be done if wages were high
> > > enough, just as now.
>
> > This is the important part that you want to keep developing.
>
> Yeah. I can't really give specific details on how it would work,
> because it would have to work itself out. The general idea,
> though, should be apparent.
>
> > > As you just admitted, this problem already exists. My essay
> > > includes a (short) section on men, showing that the payment
> > > would actually improve equality between men and women. The
> > > root causes of the decline of marriage are not really economic.
>
> > Your scheme needs work even to be finished no less politically
> > achieved but...
>
> I know. I'd like to find other people that advocate this program,
Here,
http://blog.360.yahoo.com/blog-ooVnzrU3eqXHKSdB2TQ.j3cMn.tCeQ--?cq=1&p=7382
Andrew Usher
> > I know. I'd like to find other people that advocate this program,
>
> Here,
>
> http://blog.360.yahoo.com/blog-ooVnzrU3eqXHKSdB2TQ.j3cMn.tCeQ--?cq=1&...
Aside from the impossibility of implementing it as you suggest, I
meant to talk
to someone that might make a difference.
Your proposal assumes some kind
of world government, shows a lack of understanding of economics, and
besides
300 euro per month is not enough in developed countries.
Andrew Usher
gabydewilde
Thanks for reading it,
Not perfect you say? I didn't put as much effort into it as you did
but the basic idea is the same. We have the means to feed everyone but
in stead we starve people by the millions. I think we agree this is A)
inhumane B) bad for business and C) bad for economic growth.
Food is something like 5% of the economy. If we feed everyone the rich
would actually become 10 times as rich as they are today. When
slavery was abolished the average African American got 20 cm shorter.
So the current system is actually worse than slavery.
If you want to make a difference you have to gather as much people as
you can. Find 1000 people who support your idea, change it and trim it
down to fit more agenda's.
For every multinational it should be very interesting to lower wages
by 300 Euro.
The money can be created out of nothing because the population is what
backs a currency while starving people have no economic value. They
loot and steal up to a point where they make it impossible to develop
a working society.
As for your argument that it would require some global government you
should pay more attention to the global development. We have the
European union, the American union and the Asian union. Russia has
been united for a long time. Each one of those is big enough to buy it
self into being the global currency. Look how long printing US dollars
worked? As long as the printed dollar circulates outside the US it's
value isn't harmed.
But still it would require say 100 000 people in rich countries to
support the concept. Just slaughtering billions of people is just not
in anyone's interest you see?
Andrew Usher
> The money can be created out of nothing because the population is what
> backs a currency while starving people have no economic value.
This is the serious mistake. Population is not what backs a currency.
What gives it value is that it is accepted as money _and_ that one
trusts
the issuer not to print unlimited amount of it, rendering it
worthless. Your
plan would create 2 trillion euro per month - more than the current
monetary base! This would indeed make the euro worthless!
> But still it would require say 100 000 people in rich countries to
> support the concept. Just slaughtering billions of people is just not
> in anyone's interest you see?
No one's slaughtering billions of people.
Andrew Usher
gabydewilde
>
> No one's slaughtering billions of people.
>
Ignorance is murder.
http://analienearthling.wordpress.com/2008/10/15/a-billion-people-are-facing-starvation/
"If you are reading this post, I assume you would not have experienced
starvation in your life. Certainly not prolonged starvation that has
been forced on you by economic circumstances. But do you know how many
people on this planet are facing starvation? Almost a billion! That
is nearly one-sixth of the entire human population. Yes, one in every
six humans is starving!"
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/may/11/iraq2
"Iraqi agriculture is on the brink of collapse, with fears that many
of its 24.5 million people will go hungry this summer, according to a
confidential report being studied by the UN's Food and Agriculture
Organisation."
http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2008/s2327239.htm
"given the economic meltdown in Zimbabwe, that people haven't been
able to get access to food. by the end of this year, 45 per cent of
the country's population - 5.1-million people - will be food insecure,
won't have access to sufficient food."
http://www.ww4report.com/node/6166
"More than 900 million people in developing countries face starvation
as food prices soar, a new report from Oxfam finds. Spiraling
inflation in the cost of basic foods, such as rice and cereals, have
pushed an extra 119 million people into hunger this year."
http://pkdass.rediffiland.com/blogs/2008/10/18/Facts-about-starvation-1.html
"Throughout the 1990's more than 100 million children will die from
illness and starvation. Those 100 million deaths could be prevented
for the price of ten Stealth bombers, or what the world spends on its
military in two days!"
All the people in Africa could have drinking water for the same money
the US spends on Iraq per week.
This is murder:
http://smallvoicesmovie.com/about_movie.htm
>Population is not what backs a currency.
>What gives it value is that it is accepted as money
Listen to yourself? Who are you going to buy things from? If you and
me are the last 2 people on this planet you can have all the money
okay? Those starving people on the dump CAN be productive. If we have
a lot of products the prices go down. Here it becomes abundantly clear
that the money buys more products. If we starve low wage counties we
will pay more and more for the same items. The inevitable result will
be that the value of the money goes down.
> Your
> plan would create 2 trillion euro per month - more than the current
> monetary base! This would indeed make the euro worthless!
Not at all.
Countries that do not participate in the program will pay giant export
taxes. Say 500%
Anyone who has money will move to the counties where their money buys
6 times as much. Any multinational will move to a western country
where wages are low while the economy is growing.
The multinationals don't care about you, all they want is money. Why
would we bother them with uninteresting counter productive things like
pension funds, health care, social security taxes and the book keeping
that comes with it? What part of _"they don't care about you"_ is so
hard to understand?
People are looking for work, so they get social support. Their future
employer will have to pay minimum wages. This means they have to sit
at home and be unproductive? This is just retarded, most would love to
work for less money but if it wont pay for their house and food there
is no point. This is why we have minimum wages.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/1133980.stm
"One billion people - that is a third of the world's work force - are
unemployed or underemployed."
We can give them food and housing quite cheaply. In stead we want them
to pay magic money from nowhere. Money that doesn't exist!
Money was created to make trade more easy. The idea to have people
first pay money, then work and after that they can eat doesn't make
any sense at all. If we would just print such currency the value of
the currency will eventually go up along with the productivity.
Devaluation is only going to make things worse, there will be even
less money available. It only takes a few months for a perfectly
productive person to render into a useless heap of meat.
Starving children for your rolex, starving children so that you can
watch the suppabal. Did you know Tiger Woods gets more money from Nike
than the entire workforce put together? You are either for it or
against it. You are either looking for a way to fix the problem or you
are part of the problem. If mass murder defines the moral standards
you want to live by then so be it.
More production => increased value of currency
less production => devaluation
If we can just print money and increase the value of currency I say
that is one hell of a way to move forwards. All the people in power
need to know is that it will change our millionaires into
billionaires. And there would be products available to purchase! Our
natural resources have been looted already. Today's money doesn't buy
what it did 50 years ago. The so called "externalities" that are
currently deemed to be "free". But we ran out of "free" rides.
It's time for the money grabbers to give rather than take. You can
pretend the availability of crops and food have no influence on the
value of currency but you are going to discover the truth very soon.
The US is the world’s most prolific food producer.
http://www.casavaria.com/cafesentido/2008/12/19/918/12-million-children-in-the-united-states-face-hunger/
"An estimated 12 million children across the United States are
currently facing hunger on a daily basis. With nearly 40 million
people living below the government’s officially recognized “poverty
line”, chronic undernourishment affects as many as 1 in 6 American
children. The USDA reports that studies of “very low food security”
households found that “29 percent reported that an adult did not eat
for a whole day because there was not enough money for food; 22
percent reported that this had occurred in 3 or more months”. The
statistics are particularly troubling in a country facing record
levels of bankruptcy and home foreclosure, with over 2 million jobs
lost this year, and the risk of major corporate layoffs and millions
of more home foreclosures in the coming year."
You think they can rebuild the economy on an empty stomach? Biggest
farms in the world, high tech equipment, 1 in 6 kids is starving? Huh
what?
This is not mass murder and it wont have negative effect on currency
you say?
Are you sure?
________________
http://blog.360.yahoo.com/factuurexpress
Society
"Andrew Usher" <k_over...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1fc66bed-8361-4517...@i18g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
> "Society" says...
>
> > Hey, all I asked was for the real-life evidence that
> > Andrew's scheme ever worked out in practice.
>
> It hasn't really been tried.
I disagree. The United States is littered with the
remains of communes that tried that very same
sort of scheme.
> But that's not really an argument against it,
> as societies haven't been wealthy enough
> to truly attempt it until recently,
In the 19th century, New Harmony, Indiana
was financed by Robert Owen. (People in the U.K.
might have heard of his earlier project, the company
town called New Lanark.)
Never had a utopian community benefited from so many
advantages from the start. The New Harmonians
arrived not in the wilderness but at a village.
They did not face the hardship of constructing
a community from scratchl Houses, churches, mills,
workshops, dorms, roads, tilled fields, vineyards,
and even a textile factory awaited them. The
_New Harmony Gazette_ described thirty thousand
acres of "beautiful" land, where the "timber is
generally heavy." The trees offer "an abundant supply
of fruit" and the "river abounds with fish."
Robert Owen saved the communists form having
to pool financial resources to buy land. Unlike
previous sectarian endeavors, communists needn't
transfer their savings to their leader. Unlike future
secular endeavors, communists needn't purchase
subscriptions to gain admittance. Through his own
fortune, Owen bought the completed Rappite village
and its thousands of acres of land. No one, save Owen
and a few lesser partners, invested money to conduct
the experiment. Enthusiasts need only travel to
southwestern Indiana, which many did, not only from
Philadelphia and Cincinnati but also from Wales,
Scotland, and France.
Daniel J. Flynn, _A Conservative History of the
American Left_, Crown Forum, New York (2008)
pp 25-26
New Harmony didn't even last 3 years.
> and most people have a moral reaction
> against the idea of people 'for not working'
> (although that's silly for reasons I've pointed
> out).
Never mind the "moral reaction," just explain
in pragmatic terms how "not working" will stave off
the forces of decay and dissolution that have always
accompanied dole schemes.
> > When Andrew Usher used the phrase "wage-slavery"
> > in the title of the topic he started, that got my goat.
> > IMO, the term trivializes real slavery and the people
> > who suffer slavery's immorality, hardship and pain,
> > for nothing but scoring cheap, illegitimate rhetorical points.
>
> The term 'wage-slavery' is not, of course, my invention,
> but has been a standard term in socialism for a long time.
Yes, 'wage-slavery' has long been a socialist shibboleth.
> It is intentionally exaggerating, true, to compare
> the condition of 'free' workers with the real examples
> of chattel slavery in history; but it has a point:
> it is an attempt to wake people up that are in denial
> or hypocrisy about the power that employers have
> in capitalism.
What 'power' would that be?
> > Anyway, I believe that any sort of Welfare State dole
> > that "is enough to maintain oneself without working"
> > would in time lead to a social disaster. Think about
> > how such a scheme would have to operate: the people
> > most likely to be most productive wage-workers will
> > be taxed to pay for the people who shun wage-work.
>
> The first problem with that analysis is that it equates the
> (social) value of work with the wages paid for it.
Hmm. I notice that what you identified as "the first problem"
wasn't the use or threat of force (taxation) to finance
the scheme.
Also, what you supposed was "the first problem with
(my) analysis" is incorrect. Whatever the social value
of work is has nothing to do with what the worker
is paid because the worker is paid what the employer
is willing to pay.
> People given the leisure will do useful work for no
> or low pay;
I disagree. This is an assertion about "people"
that you haven't proven and experience shows otherwise.
The word "people" refers to people generally; that you
may know of a person here or there who appears to be
an exception to the typical behavior of people doesn't
make your case for what you believe "people" will do.
> the less pleasant work would still be done if wages
> were high enough, just as now.
Color me skeptical on that assertion too. How did
that work out in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics?
> Remember that technology has significantly diminished
> the amount of really unpleasant work that must be done.
Perhaps, but you haven't shown that this dimunition
has been significant _enough_ to make your scheme workable.
> > Let's see, who could these two groups mostly be?
> > Uh huh, mostly men will be taxed to pay for mostly
> > females, especially females who'll breed irresponsibly
> > with the minority of men that most women occasionally
> > have a crush on.
>
> This is already true! There is right now a huge net transfer
> of wealth from men to women, and there is no reason to
> believe that the guaranteed income would make it any higher.
Yes, it's already true to some extent. However, your scheme
would enlarge that "huge net transfer of wealth from men
to women" -- there's plenty of reasons to believe that your
guaranteed income scheme would make the transfer higher.
Or large numbers of men would drop out of the workforce
and join the slacker sex in being, well, slackers. Then, the
transfers from men as a class to women as a class wouldn't
be so high in absolute terms (the economy having collapsed)
but in percentage terms it would be higher than ever before.
--
If civilization had been left in female hands
we would still be living in grass huts.
Camille Paglia (1947- ), _Sex, Art, and American Culture_;
Introduction (1992).
*
Andrew Usher
> > Your
> > plan would create 2 trillion euro per month - more than the current
> > monetary base! This would indeed make the euro worthless!
>
> Not at all.
Idiot.
Andrew Usher
Andrew Usher
> > > Hey, all I asked was for the real-life evidence that
> > > Andrew's scheme ever worked out in practice.
>
> > It hasn't really been tried.
>
> I disagree. The United States is littered with the
> remains of communes that tried that very same
> sort of scheme.
I don't think any of them is really comparable.
> > But that's not really an argument against it,
> > as societies haven't been wealthy enough
> > to truly attempt it until recently,
>
> In the 19th century, New Harmony, Indiana
> was financed by Robert Owen. (People in the U.K.
> might have heard of his earlier project, the company
> town called New Lanark.)
>
> New Harmony didn't even last 3 years.
Utopian communities faced 2 main problems that the basic income
would not: first, they have to compete against the 'ordinary' outside
economy, and second, they attract a population that is not ideal to
run a society. I believe that the plan must be adopted on a national
scale, which obviates these difficulties.
In addition, most if not all of the utopian communities attempted to
abolish money for internal purposes, which I have identified as a
problem.
> > and most people have a moral reaction
> > against the idea of people 'for not working'
> > (although that's silly for reasons I've pointed
> > out).
>
> Never mind the "moral reaction," just explain
> in pragmatic terms how "not working" will stave off
> the forces of decay and dissolution that have always
> accompanied dole schemes.
Primarily because there will no longer be a class distinction
between those receiving welfare and those that are not.
> > It is intentionally exaggerating, true, to compare
> > the condition of 'free' workers with the real examples
> > of chattel slavery in history; but it has a point:
> > it is an attempt to wake people up that are in denial
> > or hypocrisy about the power that employers have
> > in capitalism.
>
> What 'power' would that be?
Come on, you can't really not realise it.
> > > Anyway, I believe that any sort of Welfare State dole
> > > that "is enough to maintain oneself without working"
> > > would in time lead to a social disaster. Think about
> > > how such a scheme would have to operate: the people
> > > most likely to be most productive wage-workers will
> > > be taxed to pay for the people who shun wage-work.
>
> > The first problem with that analysis is that it equates the
> > (social) value of work with the wages paid for it.
>
> Hmm. I notice that what you identified as "the first problem"
> wasn't the use or threat of force (taxation) to finance
> the scheme.
If you believe taxation is wrong, then you should oppose all
government. If, on the other hand, you believe taxation is wrong
only when used to fund something you don't like, that's
illogical, as all government programs are opposed by someone,
which would make all taxes immoral.
> Also, what you supposed was "the first problem with
> (my) analysis" is incorrect. Whatever the social value
> of work is has nothing to do with what the worker
> is paid because the worker is paid what the employer
> is willing to pay.
That's right (or close enough). It also discredits the free-market
system, for a worker will normally take the job that pays most,
though according to your own admission, that often will not be
the most productive!
> > People given the leisure will do useful work for no
> > or low pay;
>
> I disagree. This is an assertion about "people"
> that you haven't proven and experience shows otherwise.
> The word "people" refers to people generally; that you
> may know of a person here or there who appears to be
> an exception to the typical behavior of people doesn't
> make your case for what you believe "people" will do.
I didn't say 'all people'. Of course there are some that will
indeed do nothing. But most people really want to be doing
something useful, that's a primitive instinct of man.
Comparison to current people 'on welfare' isn't really
appropriate because of the class barriers mentioned earlier:
they do not have access to the social networks that would
allow them to contribute in many ways other than having a
regular job.
> > the less pleasant work would still be done if wages
> > were high enough, just as now.
>
> Color me skeptical on that assertion too. How did
> that work out in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics?
They never tried to operate such a system, as far as I know.
> > Remember that technology has significantly diminished
> > the amount of really unpleasant work that must be done.
>
> Perhaps, but you haven't shown that this dimunition
> has been significant _enough_ to make your scheme workable.
If it isn't now, it will be.
> > This is already true! There is right now a huge net transfer
> > of wealth from men to women, and there is no reason to
> > believe that the guaranteed income would make it any higher.
>
> Yes, it's already true to some extent. However, your scheme
> would enlarge that "huge net transfer of wealth from men
> to women" -- there's plenty of reasons to believe that your
> guaranteed income scheme would make the transfer higher.