BoatShoes;1585261 wrote:I agree with you. But herein lies the problem.



Capitalist economies consistently fail to have enough paid work for all citizens who are willing and able to work. They consistently have problems with unemployment. Unemployment as we understand it, did not exist until the advent of Capitalism.

So, how does a pragmatic government with a capitalist economy respond to this conundrum? 1). We could provide welfare to the unemployed thinking that it will be temporary until they join the labor force or 2). Create a Reserve Buffer Stock of Public Servants that work for society while not employed in the private economy.

We've tried 1. and it has been a miserable failure. Businesses don't hire the unemployed. They'd rather poach people from other firms. And, the unemployed lose their skills, get discouraged and become entrenched in the safety of social insurance.

Let's try #2.

Eliminate all 79 Means Tested Welfare Programs and replace it with a Job Guarantee and a Universal Worker's Income of $12,000 per year paid to all citizens who work tax free...rich and poor.

It would be less expensive than our society currently spends on Public Welfare Programs and private charity for the poor which amount to 15% of GDP combined.

I would be much more in favor of a Job Guarantee than what is going on now.

Let's try #2.

Eliminate all 79 Means Tested Welfare Programs and replace it with a Job Guarantee and a Universal Worker's Income of $12,000 per year paid to all citizens who work tax free...rich and poor.

It would be less expensive than our society currently spends on Public Welfare Programs and private charity for the poor which amount to 15% of GDP combined.

Agreed. But what about Shaniqua and her 12 children? How is she suppose to work and take care of her children on $12,000 per year?

sleeper;1585270 wrote:Agreed. But what about Shaniqua and her 12 children? How is she suppose to work and take care of her children on $12,000 per year?

I disagree with the racist premise but let's just accept it for sake of argument:

Part of the Job Guarantee could be operated through the private sector with the employment of subsidized markets to help solve that problem. Person posts a job offer as a Baby Sitter. "Shaniqua" agrees to pay $1.00 per hour. That is the best offer the Babysitter can get.

Government picks up remaining tab of $6.25 per hour (based on current federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour).

So, Baby Sitter makes $290 per week from JG income and also now qualifies for Universal Worker's Income of $230 per week while Shaniqua pays $40 per week for childcare. Assuming "Shaniqua" is enrolled in JG Program;

She also takes home $290 from minimum wage at $7.25 per hour and $230 from Universal Worker's Income.

$520 in total from both. That's $27,080 per year before tax.

Much better than the options available to single mothers currently if they try to venture into the job market while they have young children.

***Worth pointing out again this is much more efficient and cheaper than our hodge podge welfare state that consists of private charity from churches and fundraisers and the 79 means tested welfare programs that amount to 15% of GDP.

BoatShoes;1585278 wrote:I disagree with the racist premise but let's just accept it for sake of argument:

Part of the Job Guarantee could be operated through the private sector with the employment of subsidized markets to help solve that problem. Person posts a job offer as a Baby Sitter. "Shaniqua" agrees to pay $1.00 per hour. That is the best offer the Babysitter can get.

Government picks up remaining tab of $6.25 per hour (based on current federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour).

So, Baby Sitter makes $290 per week while Shaniqua pays $40 per week for childcare. Assuming "Shaniqua" is enrolled in JG Program.

She takes home $290 from minimum wage at $7.25 per hour and $230 from Basic Income.

$520 in total from both. That's $27,080 per year before tax.

Much better than the options available to single mothers currently if they try to venture into the job market while they have young children.

I'm curious if in fact instead of "Shaniqua" if I had used "Marybeth Smith" would that change your racial premise? It's only racist if its black people shown in a negative light?

Anyways, I really don't feel bad for single mothers with multiple children; that was their choice.

sleeper;1585284 wrote:I'm curious if in fact instead of "Shaniqua" if I had used "Marybeth Smith" would that change your racial premise? It's only racist if its black people shown in a negative light?

Anyways, I really don't feel bad for single mothers with multiple children; that was their choice.

You could have just said a single mother but your contempt for poor minorities has been made clear over and over on this board. You have at least one screen name on this board that makes you anonymous. There's no need to play coy.

BoatShoes;1585292 wrote:You could have just said a single mother but your contempt for poor minorities has been made clear over and over on this board. You have at least one screen name on this board that makes you anonymous. There's no need to play coy.

Considering black people make up about 15% of the US population yet also make up 40% of the total welfare recipients, my "contempt" is actually reality. Maybe the problem is instead of minorities that its someone elses fault that you are poor, let's start telling them the truth like "You are poor because you don't go to college, you have children before you are ready, and you don't respect the law of the land". No but can't do that! That's RACISM.

Grow up.

sleeper;1585295 wrote:Considering black people make up about 15% of the US population yet also make up 40% of the total welfare recipients, my "contempt" is actually reality. Maybe the problem is instead of minorities that its someone elses fault that you are poor, let's start telling them the truth like "You are poor because you don't go to college, you have children before you are ready, and you don't respect the law of the land". No but can't do that! That's RACISM.

Grow up.

Most of that is hard to read but very true...

BoatShoes;1585278 wrote:I disagree with the racist premise but let's just accept it for sake of argument:

Part of the Job Guarantee could be operated through the private sector with the employment of subsidized markets to help solve that problem. Person posts a job offer as a Baby Sitter. "Shaniqua" agrees to pay $1.00 per hour. That is the best offer the Babysitter can get.

Government picks up remaining tab of $6.25 per hour (based on current federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour).

So, Baby Sitter makes $290 per week from JG income and also now qualifies for Universal Worker's Income of $230 per week while Shaniqua pays $40 per week for childcare. Assuming "Shaniqua" is enrolled in JG Program;

She also takes home $290 from minimum wage at $7.25 per hour and $230 from Universal Worker's Income.

$520 in total from both. That's $27,080 per year before tax.

Much better than the options available to single mothers currently if they try to venture into the job market while they have young children.

***Worth pointing out again this is much more efficient and cheaper than our hodge podge welfare state that consists of private charity from churches and fundraisers and the 79 means tested welfare programs that amount to 15% of GDP.

Did I read right that "Sally" (instead of Shaniqua) (but wait, is that racist against white people?) makes $27k/yr for a $1/hr job?

rrfan;1585305 wrote:Most of that is hard to read but very true...

Agreed. I just don't feel like editing something that Boatshoes is just going to cry about anyway.

WebFire;1585308 wrote:Did I read right that "Sally" (instead of Shaniqua) (but wait, is that racist against white people?) makes $27k/yr for a $1/hr job?

No the job was the job was worth $7.25 per hour but the poor person could not pay that full price so the public purse picked up the rest of the tab. In addition all workers are categorically rewarded for their effort with $13,000 to try to capture the external benefits of productive activity for the benefit of the laborer since that is another failure of markets in capitalist economies; wage contracts do not price in the positive externalities of work.

Whatever wages they are able to bargain for in the job guarantee programs, they would still have strong incentives to join the private labor force.


I believe it was you who wrote a while back "Even if we all had Ph.D's somebody would have to do the crappy work" or something like that. This ensures that people who do the crappy work will be able to live decent lives, people won't be dependent on handouts and choose not to work, the people doing the crappy jobs still have strong incentives to try to achieve a higher status of living with a better wage, and ensures that all working people no matter how much they earn are rewarded for the positive societal benefits of working.

And, it is cheaper in the whole than our current system of private charity + Social Insurance.

sleeper;1585310 wrote:Agreed. I just don't feel like editing something that Boatshoes is just going to cry about anyway.

No worries. Much more fun to argue with yourself about it when you're logged in as Isadore.

BoatShoes;1585323 wrote:No the job was the job was worth $7.25 per hour but the poor person could not pay that full price so the public purse picked up the rest of the tab. In addition all workers are categorically rewarded for their effort with $13,000 to try to capture the external benefits of productive activity for the benefit of the laborer since that is another failure of markets in capitalist economies; wage contracts do not price in the positive externalities of work.

Ok, I did misunderstand.

BoatShoes;1585323 wrote:I believe it was you who wrote a while back "Even if we all had Ph.D's somebody would have to do the crappy work" or something like that. This ensures that people who do the crappy work will be able to live decent lives, people won't be dependent on handouts and choose not to work, the people doing the crappy jobs still have strong incentives to try to achieve a higher status of living with a better wage, and ensures that all working people no matter how much they earn are rewarded for the positive societal benefits of working.

And, it is cheaper in the whole than our current system of private charity + Social Insurance.

I do believe that, but you can't pay them higher than the crappy work is worth, or else the whole thing falls apart. And it fact, your example only gets the worker to minimum wage, which isn't a decent life, nor should it be. I'm also not sure it encourages people to try to do better. It just supplements them in a different way.

This is an intriguing idea, only because it is slightly better than what we have now. Still not sure it's a "good" idea.

BoatShoes;1585323 wrote:No the job was the job was worth $7.25 per hour but the poor person could not pay that full price so the public purse picked up the rest of the tab. In addition all workers are categorically rewarded for their effort with $13,000 to try to capture the external benefits of productive activity for the benefit of the laborer since that is another failure of markets in capitalist economies; wage contracts do not price in the positive externalities of work.

Whatever wages they are able to bargain for in the job guarantee programs, they would still have strong incentives to join the private labor force.


I believe it was you who wrote a while back "Even if we all had Ph.D's somebody would have to do the crappy work" or something like that. This ensures that people who do the crappy work will be able to live decent lives, people won't be dependent on handouts and choose not to work, the people doing the crappy jobs still have strong incentives to try to achieve a higher status of living with a better wage, and ensures that all working people no matter how much they earn are rewarded for the positive societal benefits of working.

And, it is cheaper in the whole than our current system of private charity + Social Insurance.

If we all had PhDs, the 'crappy work' would be the highest paying work since everyone has equal skills and would take less money in order to do work that would be the most fulfilling forcing the crappy work to rise in wages.

WebFire;1585336 wrote:Ok, I did misunderstand.




I do believe that, but you can't pay them higher than the crappy work is worth, or else the whole thing falls apart. And it fact, your example only gets the worker to minimum wage, which isn't a decent life, nor should it be. I'm also not sure it encourages people to try to do better. It just supplements them in a different way.

This is an intriguing idea, only because it is slightly better than what we have now. Still not sure it's a "good" idea.

They also get paid the Universal Workers Income which is $12,000 per year or an additional bonus of $5.77 per hour from the Public Purse based on 2,080 work hours per year which would be tax free. This is provided to all workers.

So a lawyer that is able to bargain for $120,000 per year as a wage gets an additional $12,000 per year on top of that tax free.

Paris Hilton gets paid millions to show up at clubs through out the year, gets the $12,000 per year.


But, yes, the poor person working at McDonald's still has incentives to get a new job if you believe in incentives. If they get a job as a bank teller earning $12.00 per hour, they still get their $12,000 universal worker's income.


They now earn $36,960 from $12.00 per hour + $12,000 as opposed to $27,080 from $7.25 per hour + $12,000.

Incentives are properly aligned and provides higher quality of life for the lowest earners at a cheaper cost than private charity + hodge podge welfare state of SNAP, TANF, Section 8, etc. etc.

sleeper;1585339 wrote:If we all had PhDs, the 'crappy work' would be the highest paying work since everyone has equal skills and would take less money in order to do work that would be the most fulfilling forcing the crappy work to rise in wages.

The marginal product of digging a ditch is never going to warrant wages that would support a decent life but the world needs ditch diggers. Might as well set up a system so they can lead a decent life and still have incentives to try and rise up from being a ditch digger.

BoatShoes;1585341 wrote:The marginal product of digging a ditch is never going to warrant wages that would support a decent life but the world needs ditch diggers. Might as well set up a system so they can lead a decent life and still have incentives to try and rise up from being a ditch digger.

Why do wages even matter if the US government can just print more money to support its citizens? After all, wages are just electrons in a computer so what's the problem?

sleeper;1585342 wrote:Why do wages even matter if the US government can just print more money to support its citizens? After all, wages are just electrons in a computer so what's the problem?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strawman

Dollars are electrons on computer servers. Wages denominated in dollars are an approximation of a person's productivity/bargaining power. The whole purpose of a monetary system is to create the means of exchange to generate productive activity. Hope this helps.

BoatShoes;1585343 wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strawman

Dollars are electrons on computer servers. Wages denominated in dollars are an approximation of a person's productivity/bargaining power. The whole purpose of a monetary system is to create the means of exchange to generate productive activity. Hope this helps.

My post was not sarcastic at all.

BoatShoes;1585340 wrote:They also get paid the Universal Workers Income which is $12,000 per year or an additional bonus of $5.77 per hour from the Public Purse based on 2,080 work hours per year which would be tax free. This is provided to all workers.

So a lawyer that is able to bargain for $120,000 per year as a wage gets an additional $12,000 per year on top of that tax free.

Paris Hilton gets paid millions to show up at clubs through out the year, gets the $12,000 per year.


But, yes, the poor person working at McDonald's still has incentives to get a new job if you believe in incentives. If they get a job as a bank teller earning $12.00 per hour, they still get their $12,000 universal worker's income.


They now earn $36,960 from $12.00 per hour + $12,000 as opposed to $27,080 from $7.25 per hour + $12,000.

Incentives are properly aligned and provides higher quality of life for the lowest earners at a cheaper cost than private charity + hodge podge welfare state of SNAP, TANF, Section 8, etc. etc.

Ok, that makes more sense for the incentive. I almost asked if everyone got the $12k, but then it seemed a silly question. For someone to make $120k and still get the $12k seems like wasteful spending, but I'm not sure how you'd handle the transition to eliminate a group that loses out when jumping in income. Maybe their could be different tiers of JG income to ween people off it.

sleeper;1585348 wrote:My post was not sarcastic at all.

It's a good idea to have people paid money wages in capitalistic marketplaces because capitalism is very good and generating the wealth of nations. We just so happen to keep a record of those money wages electronically on bank servers. We know that hoping and praying people will engage in productive activity voluntarily and out of the generosity of their hearts doesn't work. Self Interest in wages denominated in the currency controlled by the government works pretty well.

But that's not to say Capitalism is perfect. We should be pragmatic capitalists and ameliorate its flaws such as perpetual mass unemployment rather than laissez-faire capitalists.

WebFire;1585349 wrote: Maybe their could be different tiers of JG income to ween people off it.

That could work too and would be better than current system.

sleeper;1585189 wrote:Who's choice to have the child?

luckily not your choice

Con_Alma;1585199 wrote:It was a benefit not an obligation. It is the people who became dependent upon it.

when you continue it for generations, it becomes an obligation
by doing it, they prevented the obvious alternative, a single payer plan

rrfan;1585223 wrote:gosh sounds like you think the government should take care of everything...gosh wait they are already paying for all these people's expenses...gosh maybe they should have to work hard and earn things like the rest of us...gosh that would require them to not sit on there fat butt all day at home...gosh that would be to hard and they would not like it...gosh give them an Obama phone because everyone needs a cell phone...Shut up with that crap. You are allowing this to continue!

maybe we can follow your philosophy, and just let them starve and decrease the population, Oh and save you a few bucks.

BoatShoes;1585209 wrote:They are all market interventions by the government that materially affect the bargaining power of players in the economy. A person can oppose any of them or all of the them but not on the grounds that they "artificial inflation" of wages unless they are an anarcho-capitalist. Most people are not. Most people are perfectly fine with license requirements for Doctors that artificially inflate the wages of doctors.

I understand that they all affect the market. The fact they affect the market as opposed to flat out directly raising the wage by simply increasing it is the greatest difference.