Humans Need Not Apply: Fast Food $15 Minimum Wage Strike Edition

[MRT144]

To bring it back on topic: this machine thingy could probably cook burgers better than me.

That is such a low bar.

[Ben Kenobi]

you'd realize he'd take out welfare at least. Not that I'd expect you to understand such complicated things as compound sentences.

Guaranteed minimum income is a much greater benefit than welfare, if for nothing more than the fact that everyone gets it. Either you have a much smaller per person benefit, or you have increased government spending.

In actuality, Social Security is about 3x that of Welfare, at least in America. If he's only cutting Welfare, than the basic minimum would be very small.

[C0ckney]

BTW, this entire discussion is about a majority of people being "out of a job", poor or not. When, not if, that occurs, what will you do with all the people who will literally have no income?

this is the key issue and one that will need to be addressed. you and i will probably disagree on the answer, but at least you have asked the question.

we've been here before of course. if you read stuff from the mid 30s there were people talking about how there would probably be a significant group of people who would never find work and asked what was to be done for them; a basic income was mentioned then too (it's a much older idea of course). then world two came around and solved the chronic unemployment problem. i think most of us would prefer a different solution this time.

[The Mad Monk]

If he's eliminating welfare and social security, depending on his numbers it could work out to be a net negative. 3 Trillion is a good back of the envelope number, fwiw, but it's worth remembering that together, it would be larger than welfare + social security. Also, there would be significant administration costs associated with the program.

Welfare, foodstamps, maybe a few other similar programs would be rolled up as BI was rolled out, since it would be taking those functions. Social Security would wind down too, but much more slowly since people who have paid in have some "ownership" of it that would be hard to handwave away. A birthdate would need to be set after which no more recipients would be added, and the tax would need to remain until the last recipients died. Medicine would need to be socialized as well, preferably on the British plan, not the Canadian. Unemployment Insurance may be a different matter that I need to look into.

As I have set it out, between the program cuts and increased governmental automation, there should be more than enough money to support BI without increasing debt. BI itself will be very simple, a "single, unified check".

[N35t0r]

Guaranteed minimum income is a much greater benefit than welfare, if for nothing more than the fact that everyone gets it. Either you have a much smaller per person benefit, or you have increased government spending.

In actuality, Social Security is about 3x that of Welfare, at least in America. If he's only cutting Welfare, than the basic minimum would be very small.

I just spent 10 seconds reading what SS covers, and I'd hazard most of it would be covered as well. I'd guess that you, since you live there, already know what they are. It's a shame, if you knew how to reason, you'd realize it too.

[N35t0r]

Welfare, foodstamps, maybe a few other similar programs would be rolled up as BI was rolled out, since it would be taking those functions. Social Security would wind down too, but much more slowly since people who have paid in have some "ownership" of it that would be hard to handwave away. A birthdate would need to be set after which no more recipients would be added, and the tax would need to remain until the last recipients died. Medicine would need to be socialized as well, preferably on the British plan, not the Canadian. Unemployment Insurance may be a different matter that I need to look into.

As I have set it out, between the program cuts and increased governmental automation, there should be more than enough money to support BI without increasing debt. BI itself will be very simple, a "single, unified check".

Doesn't the BI cover (basic) unemployment insurance?

[The Mad Monk]

No, because it's not insurance, it's a stable income that isn't effected by any additional income the individual may or may not have. Unemployment insurance, on the other hand, is paid into by people earning an income, with the purpose of protecting that individual from catastrophic loss of income (temporary or permanent). It buys time for the individual to either find another job, sell off assets, or reduce their standard of living in a reasonable time frame, while reducing the risk of seizure of assets. Disability (I knew I missed one!), is similar, but based on temporary or permanent loss of employment through injury.

The jobs won't all disappear, at least not soon, but it won't take more than, say 25% before we need to look at implementing something like this.

...or suicide booths. One or the other.

[N35t0r]

Those could be handled by insurance companies?

[The Mad Monk]

Well, disability already is. I don't think any private enterprise would be willing to take on Unemployment insurance, not after the past decade, anyway. There would have to be a guarantee of no mandated extensions, at the very least.

Or do you mean the suicide booths?

[regexcellent]

I was with you until you started whining about seeing pink in the center. Steak is supposed to be pink, buddy.

I said red, not pink; pink is fine.

[Ben Kenobi]

Medicine would need to be socialized as well, preferably on the British plan, not the Canadian. Unemployment Insurance may be a different matter that I need to look into.

As I have set it out, between the program cuts and increased governmental automation, there should be more than enough money to support BI without increasing debt. BI itself will be very simple, a "single, unified check".

It may sound simple, but the program is anything but. IF you socialize the medicine, that will vastly increase costs. If you keep Social security and the guaranteed maximum, then there go all your administrative savings.

You'll also be increasing the money supply.

[The Mad Monk]

Now, on to the next point: Is keeping BI constant across country (Manhattan KS and Manhattan NY) a good thing or a bad thing?

I shall at this point say that I believe it will be a good thing. It boils down to why places like NYC are so expensive, and how that will change in an essentially jobless economy.

I will try to get back to this tomorrow.

[Ben Kenobi]

I just spent 10 seconds reading what SS covers, and I'd hazard most of it would be covered as well. I'd guess that you, since you live there, already know what they are. It's a shame, if you knew how to reason, you'd realize it too.

SS is a scam. I'd really rather the solution to SS not simply be SS for everyone. As bad as it is, it would be vastly smaller than this plan. We can't afford to pay for SS, let alone the size of this new entitlement, and that's not even taking into account the effects on the labor pool, on employment, on inflation, etc all the second order effects.

[Ben Kenobi]

I shall at this point say that I believe it will be a good thing. It boils down to why places like NYC is so expensive, and how that will change in an essentially jobless economy.

You're vastly, vastly mistaken here. People generally have very good reasons for living where they do, and more importantly, not living somewhere else. If you look at where the cities are built and why, you would see this.

A basic minimum income isn't going to change any of this. At most, maybe 10 percent of people would move. They would be more likely to move into the cities than the reverse.

People currently move out of the cities for very specific reasons, and your bill would discourage everything about rural life, by increasing inflation costs there over and above everywhere else.

You'd also kill most of the jobs in these areas, as few would work at them if they could make as much or nearly as much doing nothing.

[C0ckney]

one other aspect to consider is the implications of citizens' income for central government control. it would stop governments from being able to undertake social engineering through the benefits/welfare system. it would mean an end to the silly, spiteful, humiliating and useless measures to 'force' the unemployed into work when there are no jobs; to effectively punish them for being unemployed through no fault of their own. it might, although perhaps not, mean an end to the vicious right-wing media campaign against them, and an end to them being described as lazy scroungers. or to put it another way, it would mean that the right-media no longer need to demonise and blame the unemployed for their predicament, to distract attention from the real, systemic, causes.