Basic Income Guarantee (2 Viewers)

lod01 said:

NCCommish said:

You guys are missing the point. They are already bringing out machines that can replace fast food workers and make 200 burgers an hour. I have seen automated flag wavers at construction sites. This is not the printing press which created typesetters and press repair guys. This is replacing everyone involved with the production of everything and maintenance of those machines except one or two guys to make sure the place is running smoothly. That's what is coming. And everyone can't be bloggers.

Click to expand...

We got a human flag waver at the local Boost Mobile store and GD is she fawking hot. You can't automate that.

Click to expand...

Yankee23Fan said:

JMHO, I think the recent few posts are attacking the problem that they see in the wrong manner. The BIG is called an income and we associate income as what you get for doing something. For work. It's a hard association to break. But that isn't what the BIG really is - at least not the one that I am talking about in this thread and it seems like I am closing to what the idea would be.

So maybe stop calling it an "income" guarantee. Call it whatever name you want. Call it a prebate for all I care. The point is that if we take the entire pool of social safety net programs that are designed to help the least among us pay for basic necessities that pool costs us X amount a year. I don't know the exact number. I've floated numbers anywhere from 2-4 trillion a year depending on how you look at it. So what we have right now costs 2-4 trillion. And what we have right now still results in the government spending that money and not fixing the problem. You can argue why it doesn't fix the problem. But there is still poverty of a kind that a country as rich as ours really shouldn't have.

So instead of that pool that is a conglomeration of hundreds of government programs ripe with abuse, underfunding, overfunding, political gamesmanship, targeted to the wrong demographic and each and every other "problem" these programs have, let's get rid of them and spend that money in a different way. If we take every single person in this country from age 18 to death and pay them about 1500 per month from the government we spend about 4-6 trillion a year. The numbers are close to what the entire social safety net is already. So we aren't paying people not to work. We are restructuring the governmental entanglment into the daily lives of the polity by taking hundreds of programs and turning into 1 check per month.

It's not income. It's a recognition that the safety net isn't working but is necessary and that it can be done better at at least the same cost if not cheaper. You factor into that the change to GDP that it creates and maybe that is where you get the rest of the cost difference. Is there a dissincentive to work if you get 1500 a month before you lift a finger? Maybe. But the argument is that its no different than what is already there. And there are flip sides. If the single mom has money for the kid to eat maybe she can better herself with advanced job training instead of working a minimum wage job with no opportunity for growth. Maybe there are less single woman that live below the poverty line in this country because they have the means to live - not great but live - and can focus on getting better.

Maybe they take the check and do nothing. You can survive on 1500 a month in many parts of this country. You can't in NYC or LA. You absolutely can in much of the middle and midwest and south of the country. But instead of forcing yourself into the dead end low paying unsatisfactory job just to be able to get diapers maybe you can get just a couple steps up the totem poll.

Don't look at the BIG as an income. Look at it as a savings coupon for the government to get rid of hundres of programs mixed with what amounts to job training vounchers for low income low educated people.

Click to expand...

NCCommish said:

You guys are missing the point. They are already bringing out machines that can replace fast food workers and make 200 burgers an hour. I have seen automated flag wavers at construction sites. This is not the printing press which created typesetters and press repair guys. This is replacing everyone involved with the production of everything and maintenance of those machines except one or two guys to make sure the place is running smoothly. That's what is coming. And everyone can't be bloggers.

Click to expand...

DrJ said:

Yankee23Fan said:

JMHO, I think the recent few posts are attacking the problem that they see in the wrong manner. The BIG is called an income and we associate income as what you get for doing something. For work. It's a hard association to break. But that isn't what the BIG really is - at least not the one that I am talking about in this thread and it seems like I am closing to what the idea would be.

So maybe stop calling it an "income" guarantee. Call it whatever name you want. Call it a prebate for all I care. The point is that if we take the entire pool of social safety net programs that are designed to help the least among us pay for basic necessities that pool costs us X amount a year. I don't know the exact number. I've floated numbers anywhere from 2-4 trillion a year depending on how you look at it. So what we have right now costs 2-4 trillion. And what we have right now still results in the government spending that money and not fixing the problem. You can argue why it doesn't fix the problem. But there is still poverty of a kind that a country as rich as ours really shouldn't have.

So instead of that pool that is a conglomeration of hundreds of government programs ripe with abuse, underfunding, overfunding, political gamesmanship, targeted to the wrong demographic and each and every other "problem" these programs have, let's get rid of them and spend that money in a different way. If we take every single person in this country from age 18 to death and pay them about 1500 per month from the government we spend about 4-6 trillion a year. The numbers are close to what the entire social safety net is already. So we aren't paying people not to work. We are restructuring the governmental entanglment into the daily lives of the polity by taking hundreds of programs and turning into 1 check per month.

It's not income. It's a recognition that the safety net isn't working but is necessary and that it can be done better at at least the same cost if not cheaper. You factor into that the change to GDP that it creates and maybe that is where you get the rest of the cost difference. Is there a dissincentive to work if you get 1500 a month before you lift a finger? Maybe. But the argument is that its no different than what is already there. And there are flip sides. If the single mom has money for the kid to eat maybe she can better herself with advanced job training instead of working a minimum wage job with no opportunity for growth. Maybe there are less single woman that live below the poverty line in this country because they have the means to live - not great but live - and can focus on getting better.

Maybe they take the check and do nothing. You can survive on 1500 a month in many parts of this country. You can't in NYC or LA. You absolutely can in much of the middle and midwest and south of the country. But instead of forcing yourself into the dead end low paying unsatisfactory job just to be able to get diapers maybe you can get just a couple steps up the totem poll.

Don't look at the BIG as an income. Look at it as a savings coupon for the government to get rid of hundres of programs mixed with what amounts to job training vounchers for low income low educated people.

Click to expand...

I just don't get why it will be all too much more successful than our currently program. Let's suppose for the sake of argument that the person takes their income guarantee and blows it all on crack and hookers. They're still in poverty, right? Their kids probably still aren't getting the role model and/or education that they need to be competitive in today's society, right? The main reason we're still talking about this is because giving people a small amount of money and hoping they just fix themselves hasn't proven to work as well as we might have hoped.

Click to expand...

NCCommish said:

DrJ said:

Yankee23Fan said:

JMHO, I think the recent few posts are attacking the problem that they see in the wrong manner. The BIG is called an income and we associate income as what you get for doing something. For work. It's a hard association to break. But that isn't what the BIG really is - at least not the one that I am talking about in this thread and it seems like I am closing to what the idea would be.

So maybe stop calling it an "income" guarantee. Call it whatever name you want. Call it a prebate for all I care. The point is that if we take the entire pool of social safety net programs that are designed to help the least among us pay for basic necessities that pool costs us X amount a year. I don't know the exact number. I've floated numbers anywhere from 2-4 trillion a year depending on how you look at it. So what we have right now costs 2-4 trillion. And what we have right now still results in the government spending that money and not fixing the problem. You can argue why it doesn't fix the problem. But there is still poverty of a kind that a country as rich as ours really shouldn't have.

So instead of that pool that is a conglomeration of hundreds of government programs ripe with abuse, underfunding, overfunding, political gamesmanship, targeted to the wrong demographic and each and every other "problem" these programs have, let's get rid of them and spend that money in a different way. If we take every single person in this country from age 18 to death and pay them about 1500 per month from the government we spend about 4-6 trillion a year. The numbers are close to what the entire social safety net is already. So we aren't paying people not to work. We are restructuring the governmental entanglment into the daily lives of the polity by taking hundreds of programs and turning into 1 check per month.

It's not income. It's a recognition that the safety net isn't working but is necessary and that it can be done better at at least the same cost if not cheaper. You factor into that the change to GDP that it creates and maybe that is where you get the rest of the cost difference. Is there a dissincentive to work if you get 1500 a month before you lift a finger? Maybe. But the argument is that its no different than what is already there. And there are flip sides. If the single mom has money for the kid to eat maybe she can better herself with advanced job training instead of working a minimum wage job with no opportunity for growth. Maybe there are less single woman that live below the poverty line in this country because they have the means to live - not great but live - and can focus on getting better.

Maybe they take the check and do nothing. You can survive on 1500 a month in many parts of this country. You can't in NYC or LA. You absolutely can in much of the middle and midwest and south of the country. But instead of forcing yourself into the dead end low paying unsatisfactory job just to be able to get diapers maybe you can get just a couple steps up the totem poll.

Don't look at the BIG as an income. Look at it as a savings coupon for the government to get rid of hundres of programs mixed with what amounts to job training vounchers for low income low educated people.

Click to expand...

I just don't get why it will be all too much more successful than our currently program. Let's suppose for the sake of argument that the person takes their income guarantee and blows it all on crack and hookers. They're still in poverty, right? Their kids probably still aren't getting the role model and/or education that they need to be competitive in today's society, right? The main reason we're still talking about this is because giving people a small amount of money and hoping they just fix themselves hasn't proven to work as well as we might have hoped.

Click to expand...

Well as I have stated you might have to have certain programs to protect children. And there will still be charitable organizations. But as far as adults go you have a chance to make a proper decision if you don't that's mostly on you isn't it? Keep in mind through all this testing of people on welfare they have proven to be using less drugs than the general population as a per capita percentage. The biggest users of powder cocaine are white middle managers not welfare recipients.

Click to expand...

DrJ said:

Yankee23Fan said:

JMHO, I think the recent few posts are attacking the problem that they see in the wrong manner. The BIG is called an income and we associate income as what you get for doing something. For work. It's a hard association to break. But that isn't what the BIG really is - at least not the one that I am talking about in this thread and it seems like I am closing to what the idea would be.

So maybe stop calling it an "income" guarantee. Call it whatever name you want. Call it a prebate for all I care. The point is that if we take the entire pool of social safety net programs that are designed to help the least among us pay for basic necessities that pool costs us X amount a year. I don't know the exact number. I've floated numbers anywhere from 2-4 trillion a year depending on how you look at it. So what we have right now costs 2-4 trillion. And what we have right now still results in the government spending that money and not fixing the problem. You can argue why it doesn't fix the problem. But there is still poverty of a kind that a country as rich as ours really shouldn't have.

So instead of that pool that is a conglomeration of hundreds of government programs ripe with abuse, underfunding, overfunding, political gamesmanship, targeted to the wrong demographic and each and every other "problem" these programs have, let's get rid of them and spend that money in a different way. If we take every single person in this country from age 18 to death and pay them about 1500 per month from the government we spend about 4-6 trillion a year. The numbers are close to what the entire social safety net is already. So we aren't paying people not to work. We are restructuring the governmental entanglment into the daily lives of the polity by taking hundreds of programs and turning into 1 check per month.

It's not income. It's a recognition that the safety net isn't working but is necessary and that it can be done better at at least the same cost if not cheaper. You factor into that the change to GDP that it creates and maybe that is where you get the rest of the cost difference. Is there a dissincentive to work if you get 1500 a month before you lift a finger? Maybe. But the argument is that its no different than what is already there. And there are flip sides. If the single mom has money for the kid to eat maybe she can better herself with advanced job training instead of working a minimum wage job with no opportunity for growth. Maybe there are less single woman that live below the poverty line in this country because they have the means to live - not great but live - and can focus on getting better.

Maybe they take the check and do nothing. You can survive on 1500 a month in many parts of this country. You can't in NYC or LA. You absolutely can in much of the middle and midwest and south of the country. But instead of forcing yourself into the dead end low paying unsatisfactory job just to be able to get diapers maybe you can get just a couple steps up the totem poll.

Don't look at the BIG as an income. Look at it as a savings coupon for the government to get rid of hundres of programs mixed with what amounts to job training vounchers for low income low educated people.

Click to expand...

I just don't get why it will be all too much more successful than our currently program. Let's suppose for the sake of argument that the person takes their income guarantee and blows it all on crack and hookers. They're still in poverty, right? Their kids probably still aren't getting the role model and/or education that they need to be competitive in today's society, right? The main reason we're still talking about this is because giving people a small amount of money and hoping they just fix themselves hasn't proven to work as well as we might have hoped.

Click to expand...

Yankee23Fan said:

DrJ said:

Yankee23Fan said:

JMHO, I think the recent few posts are attacking the problem that they see in the wrong manner. The BIG is called an income and we associate income as what you get for doing something. For work. It's a hard association to break. But that isn't what the BIG really is - at least not the one that I am talking about in this thread and it seems like I am closing to what the idea would be.

So maybe stop calling it an "income" guarantee. Call it whatever name you want. Call it a prebate for all I care. The point is that if we take the entire pool of social safety net programs that are designed to help the least among us pay for basic necessities that pool costs us X amount a year. I don't know the exact number. I've floated numbers anywhere from 2-4 trillion a year depending on how you look at it. So what we have right now costs 2-4 trillion. And what we have right now still results in the government spending that money and not fixing the problem. You can argue why it doesn't fix the problem. But there is still poverty of a kind that a country as rich as ours really shouldn't have.

So instead of that pool that is a conglomeration of hundreds of government programs ripe with abuse, underfunding, overfunding, political gamesmanship, targeted to the wrong demographic and each and every other "problem" these programs have, let's get rid of them and spend that money in a different way. If we take every single person in this country from age 18 to death and pay them about 1500 per month from the government we spend about 4-6 trillion a year. The numbers are close to what the entire social safety net is already. So we aren't paying people not to work. We are restructuring the governmental entanglment into the daily lives of the polity by taking hundreds of programs and turning into 1 check per month.

It's not income. It's a recognition that the safety net isn't working but is necessary and that it can be done better at at least the same cost if not cheaper. You factor into that the change to GDP that it creates and maybe that is where you get the rest of the cost difference. Is there a dissincentive to work if you get 1500 a month before you lift a finger? Maybe. But the argument is that its no different than what is already there. And there are flip sides. If the single mom has money for the kid to eat maybe she can better herself with advanced job training instead of working a minimum wage job with no opportunity for growth. Maybe there are less single woman that live below the poverty line in this country because they have the means to live - not great but live - and can focus on getting better.

Maybe they take the check and do nothing. You can survive on 1500 a month in many parts of this country. You can't in NYC or LA. You absolutely can in much of the middle and midwest and south of the country. But instead of forcing yourself into the dead end low paying unsatisfactory job just to be able to get diapers maybe you can get just a couple steps up the totem poll.

Don't look at the BIG as an income. Look at it as a savings coupon for the government to get rid of hundres of programs mixed with what amounts to job training vounchers for low income low educated people.

Click to expand...

I just don't get why it will be all too much more successful than our currently program. Let's suppose for the sake of argument that the person takes their income guarantee and blows it all on crack and hookers. They're still in poverty, right? Their kids probably still aren't getting the role model and/or education that they need to be competitive in today's society, right? The main reason we're still talking about this is because giving people a small amount of money and hoping they just fix themselves hasn't proven to work as well as we might have hoped.

Click to expand...

Anecdotal hypo-story.

I deal with a lot of people that are roughly in the same boat so I'm going to take one specific client - a single mom. Got divorced because husband was a deadbeat while married and is now worse while divorced. 3 kids. The kids are going to school but are young so they can't be left at home and will be home all summer.

Day care so that she can work basically costs more than what she can earn. And then over the summer it's even worse. So she works as best she can - part time for minimum wage but only while the kids are in school. So the chance of her ever earning more in the job is almost nil. Because of her income problems, she qualifies for several government programs. She makes maybe 200 a week. She gets a couple hundred a month in food stamps. So maybe she gets about 1000 total a month. Her rent for a place that fits 3 kids in low income housing is 600 a month. 400 a month to pay for, in any particular order, gas, electric, food and medicine, clothes, gas, phone, stuff for the kids, and on and on and on and on is about impossible. So she has tried to qualify for every government program she can - energy assitance, rental assistance, post school costs waivers and on and on it goes. And she isn't making it which is hard because her kids are 3 of the nicest most beuatiful human beings that earth ever saw and would probably become wonderful people - and still may - but the system that is designed to help them isn't helping because she only qualifies for all of this help if she doesn't make any more money.

So even if she could work more and figure something out with the kids - she would lose more benefits than she could earn. Negative income to try to succeed.

Now, let me give her 1500 a month. No matter what. She doesnt get any of that assistance any more in any manner, but at 1500 a month she can pay rent - 600 a month (and maybe it goes up a little, say 800 a month) and she still has 700 a month more for the basics - the kids. Now - she can go to work part time or - even better - take a class or two while the kids are in school to be a pharm tech. They start at $31,000 a year in NJ on average if they work full time - which I can't assume she does right away but she probably would eventually - regardless it's more than she makes now.

So, at that point, she gets 50,000 a year. There is no more government program forcing her to stay in poverty - it's doing the exact opposite and allowing her to grow and earn more and be a more important provider to society as a whole and her kids specifically.

Again - 1 story. 1 set of facts. 1 person I know that doesn't want to live at the poverty line forever but is just stuck because of the system in place. If you can fix that you did a good. Would there still be problems? Sure. But I just helped a single mom pull herself up and in doing so help - again, not kidding - 3 of the nicest kids you will ever set your eyes on.

I'm for trying that.

Click to expand...

roadkill1292 said:

Yankee's story reminds me of another benefit -- the lady's deadbeat husband is also getting a BIG, some of which can be easily attached and funneled to the support of his kids.

Click to expand...

DrJ said:

I still don't get why it will be all too much more successful than our current program.

Click to expand...

Rich Conway said:

DrJ said:

I still don't get why it will be all too much more successful than our current program.

Click to expand...

For someone who really wants to leech off the system and blow their money on crack and hookers, it won't be. (One might argue at the margins that the proposed system is still better because of lower administrative costs)

For someone in dire straights who actually does want to better themselves, this is a far superior system. Each dollar that this person makes is a dollar of extra income, versus the current system, each additional dollar they earn is one dollar less that they receive in assistance. In other words, under the current system, there's zero utility added by working unless you can earn more than N dollars (N being the amount where assistance drops to zero). Under this system, there's additional utility added by working even if you earn ten bucks.

Click to expand...

DrJ said:

Rich Conway said:

DrJ said:

I still don't get why it will be all too much more successful than our current program.

Click to expand...

For someone who really wants to leech off the system and blow their money on crack and hookers, it won't be. (One might argue at the margins that the proposed system is still better because of lower administrative costs)

For someone in dire straights who actually does want to better themselves, this is a far superior system. Each dollar that this person makes is a dollar of extra income, versus the current system, each additional dollar they earn is one dollar less that they receive in assistance. In other words, under the current system, there's zero utility added by working unless you can earn more than N dollars (N being the amount where assistance drops to zero). Under this system, there's additional utility added by working even if you earn ten bucks.

Click to expand...

Your 2nd part is only true if the amount of money available in this system is more than would otherwise be available. If that's the case, it's better for crack and hooker guy too.

Click to expand...

NCCommish said:

DrJ said:

Rich Conway said:

DrJ said:

I still don't get why it will be all too much more successful than our current program.

Click to expand...

For someone who really wants to leech off the system and blow their money on crack and hookers, it won't be. (One might argue at the margins that the proposed system is still better because of lower administrative costs)

For someone in dire straights who actually does want to better themselves, this is a far superior system. Each dollar that this person makes is a dollar of extra income, versus the current system, each additional dollar they earn is one dollar less that they receive in assistance. In other words, under the current system, there's zero utility added by working unless you can earn more than N dollars (N being the amount where assistance drops to zero). Under this system, there's additional utility added by working even if you earn ten bucks.

Click to expand...

Your 2nd part is only true if the amount of money available in this system is more than would otherwise be available. If that's the case, it's better for crack and hooker guy too.

Click to expand...

So what? I mean seriously so what? It's better for single moms and their kids. Especially minority and at risk populations. It's better for older folks that are having trouble finding a real job anymore and have to work part time. It's better for those that are incapacitated and can't work. So it's better for a lot more than just crack and hookers guy. It isn't really about him and he will exist in any system.

Click to expand...

DrJ said:

NCCommish said:

DrJ said:

Rich Conway said:

DrJ said:

I still don't get why it will be all too much more successful than our current program.

Click to expand...

For someone who really wants to leech off the system and blow their money on crack and hookers, it won't be. (One might argue at the margins that the proposed system is still better because of lower administrative costs)

For someone in dire straights who actually does want to better themselves, this is a far superior system. Each dollar that this person makes is a dollar of extra income, versus the current system, each additional dollar they earn is one dollar less that they receive in assistance. In other words, under the current system, there's zero utility added by working unless you can earn more than N dollars (N being the amount where assistance drops to zero). Under this system, there's additional utility added by working even if you earn ten bucks.

Click to expand...

Your 2nd part is only true if the amount of money available in this system is more than would otherwise be available. If that's the case, it's better for crack and hooker guy too.

Click to expand...

So what? I mean seriously so what? It's better for single moms and their kids. Especially minority and at risk populations. It's better for older folks that are having trouble finding a real job anymore and have to work part time. It's better for those that are incapacitated and can't work. So it's better for a lot more than just crack and hookers guy. It isn't really about him and he will exist in any system.

Click to expand...

You're right - that's more of a side point. The main point is that none of the systems where we try and attack poverty by giving people a few bucks and hope they fix themselves have ever worked. You can pay for their day care, schooling, housing, food, etc and it still doesn't seem to work. Poverty never seems to shrink. So there's no reason to believe this one actually would work, since it's just more of the same. The anecdotal hypo-story successfully distracted from that point.

Click to expand...

NCCommish said:

To add to Y23s personal report. My brother in law can't work for medical reasons. He could do something like phone work part time and he would like to. But if he does he loses food stamps, housing assistance, medicare, the whole bit. But a BIG would make it so he could work part time and feel like a person again,

Click to expand...

Black Box said:

My biggest concern with this sort of system is the temptation to do the BIG plus something else down the road.

Politician: "So and so is down on their luck, they need a food assistance program or they'll starve!"

The Masses: "Isn't that what the BIG is for?"

Politician: "Why do you hate so and so?"

But the general idea is solid, IMHO. Though the devil may still be in the details, as always.

Click to expand...

NCCommish said:

DrJ said:

NCCommish said:

DrJ said:

Rich Conway said:

DrJ said:

I still don't get why it will be all too much more successful than our current program.

Click to expand...

For someone who really wants to leech off the system and blow their money on crack and hookers, it won't be. (One might argue at the margins that the proposed system is still better because of lower administrative costs)

For someone in dire straights who actually does want to better themselves, this is a far superior system. Each dollar that this person makes is a dollar of extra income, versus the current system, each additional dollar they earn is one dollar less that they receive in assistance. In other words, under the current system, there's zero utility added by working unless you can earn more than N dollars (N being the amount where assistance drops to zero). Under this system, there's additional utility added by working even if you earn ten bucks.

Click to expand...

Your 2nd part is only true if the amount of money available in this system is more than would otherwise be available. If that's the case, it's better for crack and hooker guy too.

Click to expand...

So what? I mean seriously so what? It's better for single moms and their kids. Especially minority and at risk populations. It's better for older folks that are having trouble finding a real job anymore and have to work part time. It's better for those that are incapacitated and can't work. So it's better for a lot more than just crack and hookers guy. It isn't really about him and he will exist in any system.

Click to expand...

You're right - that's more of a side point. The main point is that none of the systems where we try and attack poverty by giving people a few bucks and hope they fix themselves have ever worked. You can pay for their day care, schooling, housing, food, etc and it still doesn't seem to work. Poverty never seems to shrink. So there's no reason to believe this one actually would work, since it's just more of the same. The anecdotal hypo-story successfully distracted from that point.

Click to expand...

Actually you have been presented with a lot of reasons why this is different than what we are doing. Not to mention many economists think it would be the best anti-poverty thing we could do.

Click to expand...

DrJ said:

The main point is that none of the systems where we try and attack poverty by giving people a few bucks and hope they fix themselves have ever worked.

Click to expand...

You can pay for their day care, schooling, housing, food, etc and it still doesn't seem to work. Poverty never seems to shrink. So there's no reason to believe this one actually would work, since it's just more of the same.

Click to expand...

DrJ said:

NCCommish said:

To add to Y23s personal report. My brother in law can't work for medical reasons. He could do something like phone work part time and he would like to. But if he does he loses food stamps, housing assistance, medicare, the whole bit. But a BIG would make it so he could work part time and feel like a person again,

Click to expand...

Could he donate some time to a charitable non-profit organization doing phone work or something?

Click to expand...

Doug B said:

DrJ said:

The main point is that none of the systems where we try and attack poverty by giving people a few bucks and hope they fix themselves have ever worked.

Click to expand...

You're looking at this as pretty much exclusively a program for the poor. It's not -- everyone participates.

You can pay for their day care, schooling, housing, food, etc and it still doesn't seem to work. Poverty never seems to shrink. So there's no reason to believe this one actually would work, since it's just more of the same.

Click to expand...

It's not more of the same -- see above.

Click to expand...

NCCommish said:

Black Box said:

My biggest concern with this sort of system is the temptation to do the BIG plus something else down the road.

Politician: "So and so is down on their luck, they need a food assistance program or they'll starve!"

The Masses: "Isn't that what the BIG is for?"

Politician: "Why do you hate so and so?"

But the general idea is solid, IMHO. Though the devil may still be in the details, as always.

Click to expand...

If we have the BIG and it is enough to provide the basics then I become very libertarian. Children may be an exception to that as I have stated.

Click to expand...

Black Box said:

My biggest concern with this sort of system is the temptation to do the BIG plus something else down the road.

Politician: "So and so is down on their luck, they need a food assistance program or they'll starve!"

The Masses: "Isn't that what the BIG is for?"

Politician: "Why do you hate so and so?"

But the general idea is solid, IMHO. Though the devil may still be in the details, as always.

Click to expand...

DrJ said:

But really it's the same solution - throw a minimum amount of dollars at something and hope it just fixes itself.

Click to expand...

DrJ said:

The main point is that none of the systems where we try and attack poverty by giving people a few bucks and hope they fix themselves have ever worked. You can pay for their day care, schooling, housing, food, etc and it still doesn't seem to work. Poverty never seems to shrink. So there's no reason to believe this one actually would work, since it's just more of the same. The anecdotal hypo-story successfully distracted from that point.

Click to expand...

Gawain said:

I think the best part of the BIG is that it strikes at the concept of "unfairness" that some people see in people getting welfare/food stamps and the like.

We see the argument, "why should I have to work if this person gets a phone (or what not)?"

The BIG gives everyone that basic level of cash, so the basic sense of "fairness" is met.

Click to expand...

DrJ said:

What's the point of the program if it's not to alleviate poverty? The government could give nothing to anyone, it would be a lot more efficient, cost nothing, and be entirely fair.

Click to expand...

Rich Conway said:

DrJ said:

The main point is that none of the systems where we try and attack poverty by giving people a few bucks and hope they fix themselves have ever worked. You can pay for their day care, schooling, housing, food, etc and it still doesn't seem to work. Poverty never seems to shrink. So there's no reason to believe this one actually would work, since it's just more of the same. The anecdotal hypo-story successfully distracted from that point.

Click to expand...

And what everyone else is saying is that the reason those systems have never worked is specifically because they are built such that if the system starts to work just a little bit (i.e. the person starts to earn their own money), the system kicks out the legs from under itself. What if the system stayed stable when it did start to work? Maybe it would continue to work.

Think of it this way:

System A: We give you $20K per year, minus whatever you earn by working. You need to be able to earn $20,001 by working in order for working to be of any benefit whatsoever.

System B: We give you $20 per year. You only need to earn $1 by working in order for working to be beneficial to you.

Click to expand...

DrJ said:

Rich Conway said:

DrJ said:

The main point is that none of the systems where we try and attack poverty by giving people a few bucks and hope they fix themselves have ever worked. You can pay for their day care, schooling, housing, food, etc and it still doesn't seem to work. Poverty never seems to shrink. So there's no reason to believe this one actually would work, since it's just more of the same. The anecdotal hypo-story successfully distracted from that point.

Click to expand...

And what everyone else is saying is that the reason those systems have never worked is specifically because they are built such that if the system starts to work just a little bit (i.e. the person starts to earn their own money), the system kicks out the legs from under itself. What if the system stayed stable when it did start to work? Maybe it would continue to work.

Think of it this way:

System A: We give you $20K per year, minus whatever you earn by working. You need to be able to earn $20,001 by working in order for working to be of any benefit whatsoever.

System B: We give you $20 per year. You only need to earn $1 by working in order for working to be beneficial to you.

Click to expand...

I get that part. I guess the part that I don't get is how any job that changes this equation actually translates to this person getting out of poverty. We could just raise minimum wage to $15.00 or whatever and accomplish the same thing. Now there's no jobs they could take that wouldn't be of benefit to them. I don't get how them taking this minimum wage job is going to change much for them long term though. They need to be trained to where they aren't competing for these sorts of jobs if we're to stand any chance of that long term.

Click to expand...

DrJ said:

NCCommish said:

DrJ said:

Rich Conway said:

DrJ said:

I still don't get why it will be all too much more successful than our current program.

Click to expand...

For someone who really wants to leech off the system and blow their money on crack and hookers, it won't be. (One might argue at the margins that the proposed system is still better because of lower administrative costs)

For someone in dire straights who actually does want to better themselves, this is a far superior system. Each dollar that this person makes is a dollar of extra income, versus the current system, each additional dollar they earn is one dollar less that they receive in assistance. In other words, under the current system, there's zero utility added by working unless you can earn more than N dollars (N being the amount where assistance drops to zero). Under this system, there's additional utility added by working even if you earn ten bucks.

Click to expand...

Your 2nd part is only true if the amount of money available in this system is more than would otherwise be available. If that's the case, it's better for crack and hooker guy too.

Click to expand...

So what? I mean seriously so what? It's better for single moms and their kids. Especially minority and at risk populations. It's better for older folks that are having trouble finding a real job anymore and have to work part time. It's better for those that are incapacitated and can't work. So it's better for a lot more than just crack and hookers guy. It isn't really about him and he will exist in any system.

Click to expand...

You're right - that's more of a side point. The main point is that none of the systems where we try and attack poverty by giving people a few bucks and hope they fix themselves have ever worked. You can pay for their day care, schooling, housing, food, etc and it still doesn't seem to work. Poverty never seems to shrink. So there's no reason to believe this one actually would work, since it's just more of the same. The anecdotal hypo-story successfully distracted from that point.

Click to expand...

Black Box said:

My biggest concern with this sort of system is the temptation to do the BIG plus something else down the road.

Politician: "So and so is down on their luck, they need a food assistance program or they'll starve!"

The Masses: "Isn't that what the BIG is for?"

Politician: "Why do you hate so and so?"

But the general idea is solid, IMHO. Though the devil may still be in the details, as always.

Click to expand...

Rich Conway said:

DrJ said:

Rich Conway said:

DrJ said:

The main point is that none of the systems where we try and attack poverty by giving people a few bucks and hope they fix themselves have ever worked. You can pay for their day care, schooling, housing, food, etc and it still doesn't seem to work. Poverty never seems to shrink. So there's no reason to believe this one actually would work, since it's just more of the same. The anecdotal hypo-story successfully distracted from that point.

Click to expand...

And what everyone else is saying is that the reason those systems have never worked is specifically because they are built such that if the system starts to work just a little bit (i.e. the person starts to earn their own money), the system kicks out the legs from under itself. What if the system stayed stable when it did start to work? Maybe it would continue to work.

Think of it this way:

System A: We give you $20K per year, minus whatever you earn by working. You need to be able to earn $20,001 by working in order for working to be of any benefit whatsoever.

System B: We give you $20 per year. You only need to earn $1 by working in order for working to be beneficial to you.

Click to expand...

I get that part. I guess the part that I don't get is how any job that changes this equation actually translates to this person getting out of poverty. We could just raise minimum wage to $15.00 or whatever and accomplish the same thing. Now there's no jobs they could take that wouldn't be of benefit to them. I don't get how them taking this minimum wage job is going to change much for them long term though. They need to be trained to where they aren't competing for these sorts of jobs if we're to stand any chance of that long term.

Click to expand...

How does raising minimum wage to $15 help the poorest and least skilled? The only causes employers to stop hiring.

The BIG helps with training too. Now someone in a low wage, dead-end job can simply quit (or cut back hours) and take a class instead.

Click to expand...

Yankee23Fan said:

Don't need some idea of hard numbers?

There are roughly what 230 million people over the age of 18 in this country. If you paid them all, directly, 20,000 per year you would spend 4.6 trillion - the government would need to take in just to pay salary of citizens.

So the first "obstacle" to both showing this could work and actually trying to make it work is cut as much of that 4.6 trillion out of the federal budget per year. The social safety net programs that would probably go away (those that are non SSI, MediCaid, MediCare etc) only really make up about $400 billion annually. Maybe a little more. But just for mental gymnastics, cut that 400 billion out. You are at 4.2 trillion needed for the government to pay its citizens their salary at 20 grand a year per person.

That's a lot of money to find to cut.

Click to expand...

Gawain said:

Would the BIG be protected from debt collectors and bankruptcy proceedings?

Click to expand...

Gawain said:

Would the BIG be protected from debt collectors and bankruptcy proceedings?

Click to expand...

Doug B said:

Gawain said:

Would the BIG be protected from debt collectors and bankruptcy proceedings?

Click to expand...

Seems like BIG would have to be immune from that kind of collection. The way this might work is to not allow BIG income to be included in credit qualification.

Click to expand...

Black Box said:

My biggest concern with this sort of system is the temptation to do the BIG plus something else down the road.

Politician: "So and so is down on their luck, they need a food assistance program or they'll starve!"

The Masses: "Isn't that what the BIG is for?"

Politician: "Why do you hate so and so?"

But the general idea is solid, IMHO. Though the devil may still be in the details, as always.

Click to expand...

humpback said:

Dr J, I'm having trouble following you- have you backed off your "this would be a huge disincentive to work and would crush the global economy" and are now saying "doesn't seem like it would be much better than our current system"?

Click to expand...

We need to address the root problem rather than just treat the symptoms. The idea that you select a career at age 18, get an entry level job, and then reap ever increasing rewards as your experience in this area increases is becoming antiquated. Careers are now going to be fluid and we need a population that can adapt readily. Training and re training is now a continual process. Making sure that people can continue to survive no matter how little they're willing to adapt is kind of counterproductive.

Click to expand...

DrJ said:

humpback said:

Dr J, I'm having trouble following you- have you backed off your "this would be a huge disincentive to work and would crush the global economy" and are now saying "doesn't seem like it would be much better than our current system"?

Click to expand...

The collapsing of the global economy and terminator stuff is more a bit of tongue in cheek nonsense related to the idea that we're all getting automated out of jobs.

My original post regarding this actual idea itself was this:

We need to address the root problem rather than just treat the symptoms. The idea that you select a career at age 18, get an entry level job, and then reap ever increasing rewards as your experience in this area increases is becoming antiquated. Careers are now going to be fluid and we need a population that can adapt readily. Training and re training is now a continual process. Making sure that people can continue to survive no matter how little they're willing to adapt is kind of counterproductive.

Click to expand...

There's a giant skill gap in this country. Our current systems have been horrible at addressing this and it is continuing to widen. I don't really see how this system is any better since it is pretty much a lot of the same with maybe a few minor tweaks that might make it slightly less bad.

Click to expand...

DrJ said:

humpback said:

Dr J, I'm having trouble following you- have you backed off your "this would be a huge disincentive to work and would crush the global economy" and are now saying "doesn't seem like it would be much better than our current system"?

Click to expand...

The collapsing of the global economy and terminator stuff is more a bit of tongue in cheek nonsense related to the idea that we're all getting automated out of jobs.

My original post regarding this actual idea itself was this:

We need to address the root problem rather than just treat the symptoms. The idea that you select a career at age 18, get an entry level job, and then reap ever increasing rewards as your experience in this area increases is becoming antiquated. Careers are now going to be fluid and we need a population that can adapt readily. Training and re training is now a continual process. Making sure that people can continue to survive no matter how little they're willing to adapt is kind of counterproductive.

Click to expand...

There's a giant skill gap in this country. Our current systems have been horrible at addressing this and it is continuing to widen. I don't really see how this system is any better since it is pretty much a lot of the same with maybe a few minor tweaks that might make it slightly less bad.

Click to expand...