Is basic income smarter concept than a minimum wage?

Discussion in 'Business & Economics' started by Plazma Inferno!, Apr 4, 2016.

  1. Plazma Inferno! Ding Ding Ding Ding Administrator

    Messages:
    4,609
    I found this article arguing in favor of basic income as a smarter option than minimum wage.
    http://timesofoman.com/article/8067...s-are-a-problem-in-any-country-with-big-immig

    I'm aware that neither the minimum wage nor a basic income are a magic wand to end income inequality (or make it lessen). Both concepts may work as tools for providing basic the human rights.
    What do you think? Which one is better (if not both or none)?
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Russ_Watters Not a Trump supporter... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,051
    Getting paid for nothing or overpaid for an easy job is a human right?! Civilization is doomed.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,908
    Well, is it any worse than being born into great wealth?
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Russ_Watters Not a Trump supporter... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,051
    Yes. Yes, it is.
     
    krash661 likes this.
  8. Jeeves Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,085
    Of course civilization is doomed - unless we figure out a more intelligent and sustainable way to run it than rat-racing and canine cannibalism.
    GBI doesn't substitute for minimum wage. Minimum wage is a guard against exploitation of the productive people by the cream-skimmers.
    GBI is a comprehensive social program that replaces old age security, unemployment insurance, veteran's pension, disability, family allowance, food stamps and whatever other programs may have been put in place to make sure that the most vulnerable members of society are not left without resources. Rolling all those disparate programs into a single package saves a huge amount of bureaucratic duplication and delay and prevent anyone 'falling through the cracks' between agencies.
    Ideally, minimum wage is set at a rate where people with jobs are able to live decently on their earnings. GBI would allow the people who are unable to work to live decently, as well. If that ends civilization, civilization deserves to end.
     
  9. Russ_Watters Not a Trump supporter... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,051
    Those two ideas contradict each other. The wage where people aren't being exploited is far lower than the wage where people earn a "decent living".
     
  10. PhysBang Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,422
    No, any wage that does not allow a decent living is exploitative.
     
  11. krash661 [MK6] transitioning scifi to reality Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,973
    peope not living within their own means is also exploitative--which can be the source(not living within means) for not having a " decent living."
     
  12. Russ_Watters Not a Trump supporter... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,051
    Really? So you think a burger-flipping teenager on a part time summer job is being exploited if s/he isn't making a wage that allows him/er to make a "decent" adult living? Really?

    The definition I see for "exploit" is unfairly taking advantage of someone. If someone is being forced to pay a higher value for something than it is worth, isn't that unfair? Who is really being exploited by that unfairness?

    Should our wages have nothing to do with the value of what we are doing to earn them? This is mind-boggling to me. How can an economic system function if value and cost are decoupled?
     
  13. PhysBang Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,422
    Thanks for continuing to support my assessment of you as a jerk. Sad to see "The God" is on the right side of that one.

    You are a) assuming that all fast food workers are teenagers, b) deciding that teenagers are not worth as much as other human beings.

    Sure, but sub-humans who work at fast food jobs, doing something that millions of people in North America rely upon, do not deserve the fairness others get.

    Not automatically.
    The ones we have seem to be doing just fine.
     
  14. krash661 [MK6] transitioning scifi to reality Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,973
    what about if, they may have those jobs simply because they have slacked off in life and then blamed society, while someone like me or such worked massively hard to receive the amount of pay that i may receive, which should rightfully be above the job's pay you are referring to--what is fair about that?
     
  15. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,908
    And why is that? Why should a person on the low end of the wage scale be treated worse than a person with similar skill sets but had the good fortune of being wealthy by virtue of birth?
     
  16. PhysBang Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,422
    Most service jobs are not slack jobs, especially busy locations. Why do you feel that those beneath you have to suffer?
     
  17. Russ_Watters Not a Trump supporter... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,051
    Huh? I do think everyone should be treated the same. What are you talking about? As with physbang, my suspicion is that this isn't about fairness: someone has more, so you want to take it from them. You think "good fortune" should be outlawed!
     
    krash661 likes this.
  18. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,908
    Ultimately, I think society will come to a minimum guaranteed income. I think that is where we are going, and on the longer term. That is the way to go. I don't think we are fully ready for it today. But we already have sprinkles of guaranteed income programs. Welfare, unemployment insurance, and disability insurance programs, Medicare, and Social Security programs, and the earned income tax credits are all forms of minimum income.

    I think an expansion of earned income tax credit program would be a very good thing and it's probably the best way to implement a minimum income program. It's also a good way to fix our income inequality problem, and it would be hugely beneficial to our economy. It would significantly increase aggregate demand, which is sorely needed. It would stimulate demand, and it would also require some effort on the part of those receiving the aid.

    One of the problems "progressives" sometimes overlook is, it's not easy operating a small business. Many small businesses operate on very small profit margins. The reason many small businesses don't pay better, is because they can't. There just isn't enough money in the business to pay more than what workers are currently earning. That's especially true of small and franchised restaurants.
     
  19. Russ_Watters Not a Trump supporter... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,051
    Wow, I don't know what I've done to earn such animosity from you. Near as I can tell, I've been perfectly respectful to you, which leaves only that you dislike me strictly because you dislike my political/philosophical/economics views. Frankly, that strikes me as a bad way to be and it is disappointing that someone who is capable of being logical/scientific in other contexts could discard that and be so emotionally driven when talking about politics/philosophy/economics. You don't even seem to really be trying to understand my position and really, my position is neither extreme nor very complicated. Unfortunately, though, we seem to live in an age where extreme intolerance of those with differing views is becoming accepted. It's sad. Anyway, you do ask some specific questions so at least for now I have something of substance from you that I can respond to, even if I'm not optimistic that you will make an effort at productive dialog:
    I'm certainly not. I'm identifying a potential limitation of a blanket minimum wage position. It apples to everyone and I'm suggesting that the logic behind it is flawed if it is intended to provide a "living wage" to people who don't have to earn a "living wage". I'll be direct: a teenager working a summer job to make extra cash for movies and snacks doesn't need to earn a "living wage". Their living standard is provided by their parents.
    They aren't, or more specifically, the jobs they do aren't. I know it, you know it, everyone knows it. That's why they don't have the same rights and priveleges as adults. That's why they are protected as juveniles.

    But that's not the point: the point is their value as workers, not their value as humans. A junior in high school, when first hired, is not worthy the same amount of money as an adult - even in the same job. Less life experience, underdeveloped brains, overdeveloped hormones make them - in general - likely to be inferior workers.
    Sub-humans? That's a slanderous lie. You're going to have to make an effort not to go off the deep end if productive conversation is to be possible.
    False. Everyone deserves fairness. Fairness is a balance between the sides of the coin. Giving more to one person means taking it away from someone else. Thus far, you've shown no indication that you are interested in finding and striking that balance. You have shown no actual interest in being fair.
    Agreed! So you do agree then that minimum wages should not be increased, since we are "doing just fine" the way things are? I don't think you really meant to say that...
    That's not what Krash said. A burger-flipping job is a zero skill required job and people generally do that job because they don't have better skills - either because they are teenagers or because for whatever reason they failed to acquire useful skills as adults.
    Yet another slanderous lie and indeed backwards: why do you feel that those above you should be punished for success? Why do you feel that people should be given things they didn't earn or that other people earned? Why do you feel that those beneath you should be paid/encouraged to remain beneath you?
     
    krash661 likes this.
  20. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,908
    Huh....this isn't about fairness? Is it fair that a poor person receive poverty level wages for their labor and be forced to work versus someone who by virtue of birth doesn't even have to work? That's treating people differently whither you chose to recognize it or not.

    Who said anyone was advocating outlawing good fortune? You are using a straw man. No one ever made that argument. What has been argued is the notion of a minimum income. That doesn't stop wealth inheritance. It just makes life a little better for those who were less fortunate at birth.
     
    Last edited: Apr 7, 2016
  21. krash661 [MK6] transitioning scifi to reality Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,973
    i would say that the individual with the good fortune, simply, probably, was raised with great work ethics(but you are correct, there are trust fund babies, but fair is simply an illusion) along with hard work and pursuance that was distilled in their minds and then they did something rather than whining to the manager about how they are being treated with a notion of having these skills and not perusing another job that will take advantage of their skills but instead attempt to forcing the company to facilitate their lack of will or such, that would be the cause. it is similar to one's child arguing with them about the dishes-- if the kid would stop whining and stop finding reasons to NOT do it, but instead just, simply, did the dishes, then the dishes would have been done already.
     
  22. krash661 [MK6] transitioning scifi to reality Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,973
    not only did you completely miss the point, but now you are steeping out of your original boundaries and attempting pathetic shenanigans by putting words in my mouth.. but to give a thought about this, the whole point was not the job itself, but simply the employees themselves.
     
  23. krash661 [MK6] transitioning scifi to reality Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,973
    minimum guaranteed income is simply socialism. you also forgot to mention owners greed and incompetence of business--these are the top common reasons of why they fail.
     

Share This Page