DescentBB

Lothar wrote:

callmeslick wrote:well you may be eating, but you will be doing so on the streets in a lot of major cities under your plan

This is an interesting response to my having found affordable shared housing within a reasonable radius of each of the areas mentioned.

No, you won't be living on the streets in NY, you'll be living in a low-end apartment in Newark with roommates.

and spending how much to get to your job in NYC? I mean, there are literally a million low-end service workers, many of whom walk to work, or at best take subways. From Newark, they are paying triple per day to work. Your idea of 'reasonable radius' doesn't take into consideration the realities of folks living in major urban areas, frankly, and the idea that if they can't hack the costs, just move someplace cheaper is unworkable. Unless, you envision a huge number of people 'subsisting' and not working, which, of course, could happen under this plan anyway, as I noted above. There are a lot of complex forces around supply and demand for housing, food, etc, which, if not fully considered, could lead to a ghettoization(further than the present) of massive numbers of poor people, or lead to VASTLY higher wages needed to attract service workers to larger population centers. What I'd envision coming from your plan is a wholesale influx of undocumented foreign workers into the cities, further pressuring housing, further reducing employment opportunities and if there is a bright side, folks would finally realize that our current immigration reality is quite tame.

I thought we were talking about people who are only living off this program and who don't have jobs.

Because if they have a job in NYC, odds are it pays enough in addition to this program that they could afford to rent an apartment in NYC in the first place.

Krom wrote:I thought we were talking about people who are only living off this program and who don't have jobs.

Because if they have a job in NYC, odds are it pays enough in addition to this program that they could afford to rent an apartment in NYC in the first place.

true enough, but when laid off, sick or injured? Remember, we are REPLACING existing safety nets with this, unless you wish to triple the federal budget.

I'd imagine it wouldn't be much different from today. When you are laid off, sick, or injured you either get better rapidly or get a new job before your reserves run out, or else you die miserable and alone.

Except, maybe on the basic income with universal health care system, you could quickly move to someplace affordable and get both the time and the care you needed to get back on your feet.

Krom wrote:I'd imagine it wouldn't be much different from today. When you are laid off, sick, or injured you either get better rapidly or get a new job before your reserves run out, or else you die miserable and alone.

Except, maybe on the basic income with universal health care system, you could quickly move to someplace affordable and get both the time and the care you needed to get back on your feet.

first off, at present, you'd get disability, unemployment insurance. Second, it isn't just quite as simple to 'quickly move someplace' as some of you seem to feel it is. Hell, this isn't even the 1920s-30s with the dust bowl migration we're talking about, you are suggesting nationwide relocation on a regular basis, and that sort of thing is EXTREMELY difficult for a family. Several of you seem focused on individuals, I am looking towards families which make up the vast bulk of adults over 30.

Now we are up to mass migrations instead of talking about individuals? Is this system even supposed to address when some significant portion of the population of NYC suddenly comes down with the plague and are unable to work? Aren't there other government services meant to handle that kind of disaster?

I still return to the cost, also. I've heard stuff like, 'it's all a matter of accounting', but this thing raises the cost of the federal government by double or triple depending on how much social safety net you leave intact, and the actual costs of cradle-to-grave Medicare. Currently, writeoffs might account for a loss of revenue equal to half of the increase, at best, and THAT assumes that folks earn adequately to pay taxes at the same scale as now(less incentive for full time work for younger people, for instance). There is a HUGE shortfall, that is going to be placed somewhere. Then, one asks, where? The rich? That will work for many, but prove poltically and practically difficult. The business community? Could be a job killer. As I said, this is a creative approach, but leaves a ton of unanswered questions around budgets, and revenue generation.


One other concern, which I touched upon above is disincentive. Just as young people, especially in modern societies, tend towards not working if they don't have to, what incentive does the average 24 year old have to earn more than extra spending money, which can be done with a part time menial job? What percentage of young people will bother with college or even think about the long-term at all? I don't pretend to have any answers here, but the concept presented by Lothar raises a lot of questions that WOULD have to be answered before you can sell the idea to the voting public.

Krom wrote:Now we are up to mass migrations instead of talking about individuals? Is this system even supposed to address when some significant portion of the population of NYC suddenly comes down with the plague and are unable to work? Aren't there other government services meant to handle that kind of disaster?

no, you misread me. At any given time, there are a significant number of fellow citizens who are unemployed, unable to work. They cannot all just migrate away from population centers until they get better, now, can they? You can focus on individuals, but in a nation of 300 million, plus, there are a lot of individuals in play at any given time. What I'm getting out is what further services WILL you keep from the current status quo, since this plan alone blows the budget to smithereens.

callmeslick wrote:spending how much to get to your job in NYC?

If you have a job, then you're well above the basic subsistence level.

the idea that if they can't hack the costs, just move someplace cheaper is unworkable ... There are a lot of complex forces around supply and demand for housing, food, etc

It's reality already, and always has been.

This plan doesn't solve every pre-existing problem. Those will still be there and still need to be thought about. But it solves some problems.

What I'd envision coming from your plan is a wholesale influx of undocumented foreign workers into the cities

... because they, without Basic Income, can better afford to live there than people who have it and a job? It seems like your evaluation is twisted.

I've heard stuff like, 'it's all a matter of accounting', but this thing raises the cost of the federal government by double or triple

Again, I disagree with your calculations.

what incentive does the average 24 year old have to earn more than extra spending money, which can be done with a part time menial job?

... are you kidding me? The average 24 year old can live on the Basic Income and a part time menial job and not starve to death, but getting a good job means considerably more luxury, and you're worried about the incentives?

It's the current system that has all the wrong incentives. Lots of spots where there's a "cliff" to get over.

the concept presented by Lothar raises a lot of questions that WOULD have to be answered

... and you can take some time reading over http://www.basicincome.org/ to see if they've answered your questions.

I also think a lot of the questions will be answered as cities and smaller countries run pilot programs. That's the thing about economics -- you don't really know until you see it in action. You can voice all sorts of concerns that I don't think will materialize; I can give all sorts of answers that you don't think are adequate. An actual, in-practice implementation is what we need to answer the questions.

well, Lothar, despite my reservations, this IS a fresh idea. Let's see how it plays out.