Is basic income smarter concept than a minimum wage?

By definition it cannot; you cannot "live within your means" while working a low-paying job and living in lower Manhattan, for example. Solutions (if you really want to work in lower Manhattan):

1) Move somewhere cheaper and share an apartment with someone. Public transit is quite good in NYC. Work at a Starbucks.

2) Go to college; get a degree in finance and then an MBA. Get an entry level position at a Wall Street firm. Work your butt off. In 10 years when you are making well over six figures, buy a nice condo in Manhattan.

3) Find a service job (like maid or nanny) that allows you to live where you work.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Well, what you don't seem to understand is that not everyone is cut out to be or wants to be an engineer or to function at some "higher" level. Having owned a fast food restaurant chain, I've seen a number of these people. They just don't have the social or technical skills to function at higher levels. They move from job to job. They live from paycheck to paycheck. Some are in and out of jails. They can't pay their bills. They can't pay rent. They can't pay their utility bills. They don't make good personal choices. Now that obviously doesn't apply to all folks who do these jobs, but there are a significant number of folks where it does apply. How would you have society treat these people? Some of these people could better their skills if that had the opportunity. But it isn't easy. And if they never get the opportunities, it will never happen.

Not everyone is a Billvon. There are other people with some very different experiences, skills, and motivations. You cannot realistically expect a dog to become a horse. It's not happening. You shouldn't expect everyone to be a Billvon.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

so why are they whining about being mistreated and cannot afford to live if they have no will and determination to change that?

opportunity is everywhere, it is simply a matter of will and determination. there are millionaires and billionaires whom have been more in poverty than what anyone here are claiming, why are they still not poor?

so why would i realistically give a dog the amount of food, that i would give to a horse then?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Exactly. Some people would be better off as accountants, or writers, or foremen, or carpenters.

Provide them with free (or very low cost) education. Allow them to choose their own path through that education and allow them to choose their own jobs. Provide a safety net if they lose their job and provide the basics of healthcare if they can't afford it.

As to their personal choices - allow them to make decisions that are as good (and as bad) as they want. Then allow them to live with the consequences.

Agreed. So provide those opportunities. Provide free or very low cost education through public schools and community colleges.

People aren't dogs. I know a lot of "dogs" who have become very successful; I know a lot of "horses" that have foundered miserably. People can completely change who they are, and do so pretty regularly.

Nor would I want that - nor would that benefit society as a whole. Society is best served by a wide variety of people of different professions, desires, standards, goals, skills and plans.

 

And some people should be house and lawn keepers or restaurant workers. Some people should be lower income workers. As I said before, the question is, how should society treat these people at the lower end of the income spectrum?

We do give low income people "free" or low cost education. In the US we do have a system of free public education, and people do steer their own way through it. But the cure for what ails some of these folks isn't taught in a classroom. We can and should provide affordable healthcare to everyone and we should provide a safety net and to some degree we do. But those safety nets have some pretty big holes in them, and that is a problem for everyone.

That's what we do today. How well is that working out? The point is there should be some level of income which is more livable than that which is currently provided. Some states have accepted Medicare expansion money. So some working poor people, depending on where they live, are now getting healthcare coverage. Part of the problem here is we are not consistent.

Isn't that what we do today? But as I said before, education will not solve what ails many of these people. Additionally, many are happy doing what they are doing. They just find it difficult to live on their wages. In many cases, employers cannot afford to pay them more. We as a society need these people. We need low wager workers. They care for our lawns, our homes and factories, and harvest and prepare our foods and care for our children and elders. Those are important jobs.

No...duh. Did I say there were? The point was, you cannot change people into something they are not. Some people don't have the hardware or software to become a star athlete or a successful businessperson or a member of any other well paid profession. Some people will always be on the lower end of the income spectrum, and we need those people. They provide important services. I like clean toilets, floors, etc.

Do ya now...but can you change a dog into a horse? No, you cannot and that was the point. There are some people who will always be on the lower end of the income scale. And we in fact, need these people. We don't need to change them. We cannot change them. What we can do is give them opportunities to better themselves and their income. Some may chose to gain new skills and move up the value chain, others may not. Some might instead become better housekeepers, or lawn-keepers, or whatever they are doing.

Yes, society is best served by a diversity of people with a diversity of talents and skills. The question under discussion is how we should treat the poorest among us. I think most people want to support people at the lower end of the income scale, but the question which has vexed us is how? The nation made an attempt to eliminate poverty in the last century, it failed. Early in my working career I worked as a paramedic in large inner city. I worked the housing projects with and for the poor. There was a lot of abuse....abuse of everything and almost everyone, and I suspect there still is. So whatever the solution is, it has to be a quid pro quo. We shouldn't be paying people to sit on their butts. That's why I favor earned income credits. That's why congress created the system of earned income credit.

 

well it appears that it is working out to just, simply, whining about wanting higher wages while having a lack of will and determination to get higher wages. now lets explore why it is not working out-- oh that is right it has been mentioned over and over while being masked by the feeble minded whining. which is the point for the last few pages.

except there are.. it is simply a mater of pursuing.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

(shrugs)

what about " obama care?"

should you not be saying" we need these low paying jobs to be higher paying jobs, rather than you saying " we need low waged workers, but need high wages?"

so why are the ones whom are not,whining for the amount of pay that those specific individuals receive?

except these services are not needing extra skills that are above common knowldge/skills. i can clean my own toilets, i have been since i was seven years old-- and the funny thing is, i did not need above average skills to do so.

so why should i give the dog the same amount of food that i would give for the horse?

i thought the question is, clearly, about wages.

the point of mine is that being poor and not able to afford one's own living is simply a matter of self inflicted conduct, while finding excuses. and i am simply speaking from actual experience from all sides of this. i was massively poor when i was a kid. i am now wealthy. i also deal with the exact nonsense that i speak of through all of my businesses(which are owned and operated through my holdings company).

 

and what was a solution of this? was it not increasing minimum wage?

hmm, i would have thought that you would understand how many times an individual is taxed per dollar-- and i do not mean by receiving the income and then taxed, but when you spend it and other such-es.

 

So why do you want to deny these people the right to a decent salary?

 

I don't.

 

Except you are already on the record saying that you do.

 

you are, simply, implementing an abundance of pathetic shenanigans, and nothing more. cease this nonsense.
also, why not address my points of post #66?

 

Please produce the record showing that I want to deny people the right to a decent salary. (Or apologize for lying, your choice.)

 

http://sciforums.com/threads/is-bas...han-a-minimum-wage.155896/page-2#post-3372035

 

Society (as in the government) should treat everyone equally.
Society (as in the people in society) should treat everyone as they themselves wish to be treated.

I am all for fixing holes in the safety net. But I am not for turning the safety net into a comfortable living room. It should be there to catch people when they fail, not to hold them comfortably forever.

Compared to 50, 100, 150 years ago? Very well. Most people are more prosperous, healthy, and successful than they were decades ago. They live longer on average and are more educated on average.

Agreed that we are not consistent. That's a good thing, because then people have a lot of choices. They can get a high paying job and live where living is expensive. If they can only get a low paying job, they can live where the cost of living is a lot lower.

Agreed.

You compared poor/low-achieving people to dogs, and compared high-achieving people to horses, implying that one could not turn into the other. You are, simply put, dead wrong. I have seen it happen.

Exactly. That is why you are wrong. You cannot change a dog into a horse; it's impossible. It is NOT impossible for one of "those people" who "cleans toilets, floors etc" because they lack some sort of "hardware or software" to change course and make more money or become more successful. It is NOT impossible for people with great "hardware or software" to fail miserably.

If you keep them there - yes, there will be. I prefer to provide them the opportunity to change if they want. They are not "dogs" who cannot change, and shame on you for making that comparison.

 

Here you go: You want people to "work harder" to get better jobs at better pay while ignoring the fact that these lesser jobs at worse pay still have to exist; some human being still has to do these jobs. You want to treat these people like shit. I do not.

 

Nowhere in that post did I claim that I "want to deny these people the right to a decent salary."

So you are lying and are not going to apologize. OK then; I will treat you accordingly.

 

i am having a hard time understanding here-- where is this "record of "???? this link does not facilitate your obvious manipulation attempt.

 

except they are choosing to have such a job--that is in your own pathetic exaggerations of words.. why not evolve and move on to a better paying job.. i noticed that everyone continues to skip/ mask this simple question, and then resorts back to the pathetic shenanigans that i have displayed below.

why are you continuing with this pathetic manipulation attempt?--you are the only one in this conversation screaming this shiit, WHY IS THAT?--for me it appears that you have personal feeling from this, as in, you are a broke, poor teenager, whining, simply because you have no will to evolve yourself, but yet want everyone else to facilitate that. your jealousy and resentment is massively obvious for me.

 

"Those jobs would certainly not "allow a decent living" - but they were in no way exploitative."

How can we not read that as saying that is is OK to give people less than a decent salary?

 

Have you lived in the real world? People do not always have choices. And there are not an infinite amount of other jobs for people to take even if they were better skilled.