USA Guaranteed income?

[anatess2]

1 hour ago, Traveler said:

 In short, I do not believe it matters how much money is given to those in poverty – poverty will remain.

As near as I can tell – almost all of the modern social programs to help those in poverty disincentives those that work (the LDS welfare programs being an exception).   

 

The Traveler

The elephant in the room is that the government (and other politically affiliated groups) are actually not intent on solving the issue.  Rather, they want to keep a constant influx of people to feel they are poor.  So that, even if they accidentally solve the issue of poverty, it wouldn't matter because they would just figure out a different way to make you feel poor.

Check this out:  The Congressional Black Caucus' tepid response to the President stating that Black Unemployment hit a record low (since the govt started tracking Black Unemployment rates).  The one guy there in the middle who clapped is Alfred Lawson - new to congress, he replaced Corrine Brown when she got put in jail.

 

[Guest]

On 1/30/2018 at 3:51 PM, JohnsonJones said:

The Law of Consecration is almost the very definition of a Theocratic socialistic government.  A quick study on how it was implemented in Utah will show that it can work, but as you say, it is highly dependant on those who are righteous and are willing to work.  Some of the most desolate place in Utah flourished under this law...and it may be that without it, those places may have actually failed (as in, everyone dies there).  The sharing of necessities at first (and yes, that did include healthcare to the best ability they had to offer it, which in some cases was more a local knowledge by one without formal schooling) was key in promoting those towns and areas to survive.

Are you not familiar with the real story of the Pilgrims?  Not the shoolhouse story that everyone hears.  But the real story of how they intended to be socialists (because we're all God fearing Christians).  It didn't work.  It was only after Bradford admitted this to himself that he had to declare it to the colony and divided up the property for everyone to have ownership of it that they actually began producing enough food for people to eat.

The secret to the United Order working or not working was the different systems by which it was practiced.  Most used socialist principles to implement the Law of Consecration.  They all failed.  A few (including the model used in St. George) was basically a capitalist system.  These few made enough money to support the entire territory (more or less).  It was only after they caught wind of just how disproportionate everything was that they, too began griping.  At that point Brigham finally said,"This isn't working."

It wasn't "just" because the people were not good enough.  The main principle of taking from some and giving to others was what drove the laziness into otherwise good people's hearts.

The problem with socialism isn't simply "It just doesn't work" or "it just isn't efficient."  The problem with socialism is that it begins with the notion that just because I've got something (legitimately) that you somehow have a right to it.  IOW, just because you're jealous, you have the right to steal it from me.  Does that sound like Celestial principles to you?

[Guest MormonGator]

7 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

The problem with socialism isn't simply "It just doesn't work" or "it just isn't efficient."  The problem with socialism is that it begins with the notion that just because I've got something (legitimately) that you somehow have a right to it.  IOW, just because you're jealous, you have the right to steal it from me.  Does that sound like Celestial principles to you?

That's the key right there. The foundation of socialism is envy. Which is also sinful, but no one talks about that anymore. 

[zil]

12 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Are you not familiar with the real story of the Pilgrims?  Not the shoolhouse story that everyone hears.  But the real story of how they intended to be socialists (because we're all God fearing Christians).  It didn't work.  It was only after Bradford admitted this to himself that he had to declare it to the colony and divided up the property for everyone to have ownership of it that they actually began producing enough food for people to eat.

The secret to the United Order working or not working was the different systems by which it was practiced.  Most used socialist principles to implement the Law of Consecration.  They all failed.  A few (including the model used in St. George) was basically a capitalist system.  These few made enough money to support the entire territory (more or less).  It was only after they caught wind of just how disproportionate everything was that they, too began griping.  At that point Brigham finally said,"This isn't working."

It wasn't "just" because the people were not good enough.  The main principle of taking from some and giving to others was what drove the laziness into otherwise good people's hearts.

The problem with socialism isn't simply "It just doesn't work" or "it just isn't efficient."  The problem with socialism is that it begins with the notion that just because I've got something (legitimately) that you somehow have a right to it.  IOW, just because you're jealous, you have the right to steal it from me.  Does that sound like Celestial principles to you?

Helaman 12:3

Quote

3 And thus we see that except the Lord doth chasten his people with many afflictions, yea, except he doth visit them with death and with terror, and with famine and with all manner of pestilence, they will not remember him.

Whether it's righteousness or productivity, the natural man will not continue in it unless occasionally prodded by something.  God prods us with teaching and with affliction.  The world prods us with hunger, cold, nakedness.  When you take away the hunger, cold, and nakedness rather than giving someone a way to work to relieve themselves from hunger, cold, and nakedness, you feed the natural man and increase evil in the universe.

Further, as soon as one person starts being lazy, most others will start thinking they deserve to be lazy too (because we would all rather play than be productive¹).  Eventually the scale tips and there are too many lazy people for the productive people to support, and you have collapse.

¹Yes, rarely, a person's play is also their productive - lucky them.

[estradling75]

14 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

That's the key right there. The foundation of socialism is envy. Which is also sinful, but no one talks about that anymore. 

Indeed... and you know many times when I hear people railing against the rich (or who they think are rich) I can't help but think there is some envy going on there

[Guest]

Just now, estradling75 said:

Indeed... and you know many times when I hear people railing against the rich (or who they think are rich) I can't help but think there is some envy going on there

If you go to youtube and search "occupy i-phone", you'll find multiple interviews of people condemning evil corporations who "don't to any good for society".  Then the interviewer asks about their new I-phone.  They're happy to show their phone off.

[Guest MormonGator]

8 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

Indeed... and you know many times when I hear people railing against the rich (or who they think are rich) I can't help but think there is some envy going on there

Same here bud. 

 

4 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

If you go to youtube and search "occupy i-phone", you'll find multiple interviews of people condemning evil corporations who "don't to any good for society".  Then the interviewer asks about their new I-phone.  They're happy to show their phone off.

I once saw an Occupy Wall Street bumper sticker on a Lexus was easily over 60,000$. I wasn't surprised, limousine liberalism was/is rampant in New England. 

[Traveler]

Quote

I do not believe that anything can or will occur or happen without incentive.    I do not even believe that water would flow downhill without the incentive of gravity.   As far as economy and world affairs – I do not think we should look to any man incentivized economy as a good representation or comparison of the divine economy of G-d or the society he keeps.  So, no surprise – but I do not believe G-d is a capitalist or socialist.    Rather I believe G-d and his incentives to be both just and merciful. 

It has been my personal observation that wealthy individuals outside of the corporate world and those that have sold off their interests of business ownership - as being lazy – rather I find such individuals to be more interested in what they do rather than what they are paid. 

As a side note – it was my father’s council that instead of trying to find work that I enjoyed doing; that instead I find joy in whatever work I find myself doing.   That the first method will always lead to disappointment and discouragement but that the second will bring fulfillments in joy and honor.

 

The Traveler

 

[NightSG]

On 1/30/2018 at 3:38 PM, JohnsonJones said:

Currently, one of the main complaints is that people who take welfare may be afraid of working.  This is because the system is rigged that if you work, you stand a chance of losing all of that, even if you are making less. 

This would be the first thing I'd have to see any system fix.  As a general rule, IMO, people should lose no more than $0.50 of benefits for every dollar of take-home pay.  Earn $200/week, you have $100 more overall than if you don't earn anything.  $0.33 would be my proposed number, though; you're still getting some benefits until you earn twice as much as your basic needs.

Then again, basic needs would need a lot of defining.  Last time I sat down with some other folks who'd also experienced being truly poor without government assistance, one thing that was brought up was how much any of us would have loved to have had the option of some very simple things; how about bunkhouse/barracks style accommodation for dramatically less than a motel or cheap apartment?  Good luck getting it past any level of government, but I'm pretty sure even when I was completely out of work I could have found some way to earn $200/mo for a shower and a warm, dry bed every night.  Would have felt a lot better about it than camping on friends' couches, too.

We also looked at what a true "minimum wage" would be. 

First off, if you don't have a job, you don't need to be in NYC, Chicago or LA; free bus ticket to rural Wisconsin or wherever a garage apartment or mother-in-law suite is available cheaply.  (Another situation where bunkhouses would help.)  Pick a roommate or have one (or more, depending on the house/apartment - big incentive to get married too, since any sensible system would give married couples priority on housing appropriate to their family size) assigned; not having to share housing is a luxury you can earn if you want it bad enough. 

Eating better than HDRs should also be earned; issue 7 of those a week to anyone who wants them, and cut off other food benefits.  (On that, I don't care if Bill Gates pulls up in a Ferrari to pick them up; issuing 365/yr to every man, woman and child in the country regardless of income would be far cheaper than the current food assistance programs, and I know there have been times I was earning more than most of the customers at the steakhouses, but counting change for pork and beans, ramen and the occasional McD's dollar menu lunch because I put paying off certain debts quickly at the top of my budget.  If I could have gotten 2200-2400 nutritious calories a day just by picking it up weekly at whatever .gov office with no hassle, I'd have done it then and had a lot less stress.  Probably would have lived in a bunkhouse for 1-2 years too, if that was an option.  Employer at the time had a serious squirrel infestation, so that would provide several meat servings a week...in theory, of course, as I would never covertly disregard the City of Richardson's ordinances on hunting and trapping within city limits.  Unless I was hungry.  Or tired of fixing chewed wiring.  Or tired of cleaning up their messes.)

Cell phone?  I'll grant that to the ones actively seeking employment, or employed but still eligible for some level of benefits: a lot of potential employers won't consider you if they can't get in touch with you on short notice, and honestly, if I was living in a bare-minimum situation, I'd likely spend as little time at "home" as possible. ($2.08 for a McChicken and large soda with free refills, and if you're quiet and clean up after yourself at the one across from the college here, they'll let you abuse those free refills and the free WiFi for hours.) Then of course, job seeking pretty much requires being out and around as much as possible during business hours, so best not to have them trying to plan in a trip back home to check messages between applications/followups/interviews, when home may be on the other side of a major city.  The ones not looking for work can go talk to their friends in person until they decide to earn enough for a $25/mo phone.

Clothing budget?  Unless you can show a specific work or health related need, you can pick the (solid) colors of the cheapest items locally available. If seeking employment, you get decent business clothing or a field-appropriate alternative.  (Plain Dickies work shirt, pants and workboots for most unskilled, but everyone gets at least one set of dress shirt, slacks, coordinating jacket and tie.  They can practice wearing it properly at "how to get through an entire job interview without calling anyone the N word or the MF word" classes if they don't get enough practice at church.  No bling; "aspiring hip-hop artist" is an excuse, not a job description.)

Essentially, if you want the taxpayers to cover your needs, you don't get to define your needs; common sense does, and you don't need 90+% of the junk people are getting on welfare as it is.

[Sunday21]

I am interested to look at Stockton CA and see what the rules of this system will be. In Finland, I think they selected a couple of thousand unemployed people and gave the $ and walked away. No monitoring. The idea was to save $ on monitoring. Anyway, let’s see what happens. Maybe fewer jobs for social workers and administrators. 

[anatess2]

32 minutes ago, Sunday21 said:

I am interested to look at Stockton CA and see what the rules of this system will be. In Finland, I think they selected a couple of thousand unemployed people and gave the $ and walked away. No monitoring. The idea was to save $ on monitoring. Anyway, let’s see what happens. Maybe fewer jobs for social workers and administrators. 

Unfortunately, the Stockton experiment is not a valid experiment regardless of its outcome.  And the way it is currently designed is a recipe for failure.  So, critics will have a field day with it, which is unfortunate because the UBI idea will be singularly blamed when the UBI is the least of their worries.

Stockton is a mess of great proportions even for California mess standards.  The city is bankrupt, industry fled and continue to flee.  With Stockton having one of the highest unemployment rates in the State, a $500 ubi in a California city where $500 can't get you a decent apartment will simply make government think they have cured Stockton's government illness as people won't complain as much.

Now, here's some interesting phenomenon.  California is so big on social welfare that the State is in billions of debt.  Yet with all these social programs and the money brought in by Hollywood, the Tourist industry, and agriculture, California leads the nation in the poverty ratio with homelessness a crisis in super rich places like San Francisco.  San Francisco homelessness is so high that the government provided a city map marking where the poop in the streets are so people can avoid going there.

Edited February 3, 2018 by anatess2

[mordorbund]

The advantage of having a Universal Basic Income is that it eliminates much of the desperation of poverty. A panic for the necessities of life increases crime in and around poorer neighborhoods. A side bonus is that removing the desperation the poor can be choosier about what jobs they take so they're more likely to take work they actually prefer, increasing productivity.

On the subject of productivity, larger stipends will undoubtedly mean some will just be willing to live on the UBI, but although the size of the workforce will decrease the economy will likely enjoy long-term (and quite possibly short-term) growth because of that increased productivity. Imagine your workplace without those employees that you reluctantly call "workers".

Finally, theory aside, we already have a welfare state. UBI promises to be a better welfare state because it reduces the overhead cost of administrators and bureaucrats who have to ensure that the money only goes to those who qualify. Everyone with a pulse qualifies! UBI is more affordable and streamlined.

[Sunday21]

On 2018-01-31 at 3:52 PM, Ironhold said:

The ultimate issue with a guaranteed minimum income is: where will the money come from? 

There are a *lot* of people who would regard this the same as their hitting the lottery and so drop right out of the work force. 

I think Finland is hoping that Removing the cost of monitoring people will help pay the cost. In Canada we hope that by providing good schools and health care we will have more and higher earning tax payers so that over the long term, we will generate more revenue from taxes. 

In both Canada and Finland, UBI is envisioned as less than enough to live on. It is for the working poor.

Edited February 8, 2018 by Sunday21

[BeNotDeceived]

On 1/31/2018 at 3:30 AM, anatess2 said:

And this is why the early Saints prospered - not because of the institution of the law of consecration but because of the gospel.  They continued to prosper even with the law of consecration taken away.  This threatened the government so they got driven out of the lands they inhabit until they migrated far out of government's reach.

People are important, but so too is the total resources available to them. Land was in abundance; now acreage per person dwindles in comparison, but now energy and technology are in abundance. The parable of the talents teaches this where talents may include anything of value. Actions determine increase, and resources must increase faster than the population for an improving situation. Sin wastes resources and causes inefficiencies that rob us of resources. Talents are natural abilities, whereas skills are learned. It may be an interesting exercise to investigate the translation of the original text. 

[mordorbund]

17 hours ago, Sunday21 said:

In both Canada and Finland, UBI is envisioned as less than enough to live on. It is for the working poor.

What UBI benefits can it bring if it isn't enough to live on? That seems doomed to failure.

[Guest MormonGator]

18 hours ago, mordorbund said:

The advantage of having a Universal Basic Income is that it eliminates much of the desperation of poverty. A panic for the necessities of life increases crime in and around poorer neighborhoods. A side bonus is that removing the desperation the poor can be choosier about what jobs they take so they're more likely to take work they actually prefer, increasing productivity.

On the subject of productivity, larger stipends will undoubtedly mean some will just be willing to live on the UBI, but although the size of the workforce will decrease the economy will likely enjoy long-term (and quite possibly short-term) growth because of that increased productivity. Imagine your workplace without those employees that you reluctantly call "workers".

Finally, theory aside, we already have a welfare state. UBI promises to be a better welfare state because it reduces the overhead cost of administrators and bureaucrats who have to ensure that the money only goes to those who qualify. Everyone with a pulse qualifies! UBI is more affordable and streamlined.

I'm a little short this weekend. Can you give me 50$ (give, not loan) so I can buy some weed and beer? 

[Sunday21]

9 minutes ago, mordorbund said:

What UBI benefits can it bring if it isn't enough to live on? That seems doomed to failure.

The idea is that you can now take a badly paying job eg internship and work you way up. Previously you might have been afraid to take a job in case you lost benefits

 

[Sunday21]

3 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

I'm a little short this weekend. Can you give me 50$ (give, not loan) so I can buy some weed and beer? 

Okay! In exchange, Lady Gator and I are taking off to Montreal! See you in a couple of weeks!

[Guest MormonGator]

2 minutes ago, Sunday21 said:

Okay! In exchange, Lady Gator and I are taking off to Montreal! See you in a couple of weeks!

While she is gone I'll also go to a gentlemen's club. 

One of the many, many issues with a universal basic income is that the money you'll be getting will be used for things that you believe are immoral. Instead of going though a third party government than will use force at gunpoint to do this, why not just buy weed and Jack Daniels for people? 

Edited February 9, 2018 by MormonGator

[zil]

2 minutes ago, Sunday21 said:

Montreal

In February!  Are you nuts!?

[Sunday21]

6 minutes ago, zil said:

In February!  Are you nuts!?

Underground Montreal! The subway system serves the underground city! We have everything restaurants, gyms, department stores and cute guys! Also missionaries! 

[zil]

2 minutes ago, Sunday21 said:

Underground Montreal! The subway system serves the underground city! We have everything restaurants, gyms, department stores and cute guys! Also missionaries! 

Been there, tried that, in January - you can't stay underground the whole time.  It was worse than Moscow ever dreamed of being.  Was killing myself for not bringing a dead animal (fur hat) to wear on my head!  (There's nothing like a dead animal on your head to keep you warm.  At the time, I still had hats made of dead rabbit and dead fox.)

[Sunday21]

2 minutes ago, Sunday21 said:

Underground Montreal! The subway system serves the underground city! We have everything restaurants, gyms, department stores and cute guys! Also missionaries! 

 

Now that I think about it...we call it Underground but..to go from building to building, you go under ground and then up into an atelier within a building. Like gophers!

[mordorbund]

19 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

I'm a little short this weekend. Can you give me 50$ (give, not loan) so I can buy some weed and beer? 

I already give a guy $70 monthly. He's supposed to give you the $50 and make sure you don't use it to buy weed and beer (let's face it, he doesn't do a good job). I'd rather cut out the middleman and give you $50 directly (it's cheaper for me, better for you), but right now I'm legally required to give it to this other guy. I hear a rumor that the $50 plan is getting some traction to replace the $70 plan.

[Sunday21]

5 minutes ago, zil said:

Been there, tried that, in January - you can't stay underground the whole time.  It was worse than Moscow ever dreamed of being.  Was killing myself for not bringing a dead animal (fur hat) to wear on my head!  (There's nothing like a dead animal on your head to keep you warm.  At the time, I still had hats made of dead rabbit and dead fox.)

I have a winter coat that has hood which is like a tunnel. And several layers of polypropylene for my face! But all that stuff is expensive! 

Edited February 9, 2018 by Sunday21