Universal Basic Income: Biden's Best Bet?

[Andylusion]

Raising the minimum wage should help; higher paid labor creates more in demand and generates more in federal income tax revenue.

Sixty years ago a single minimum wage job where I live paid enough to entirely support an independent lifestyle for a single adult. Today, a single minimum wage jobs puts you on the streets.
One chart that shows how much worse income inequality is in America than Europe

Raising the minimum wage to $15 by 2025 will restore bargaining power to workers during the recovery from the pandemic

"The 1963 March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom demanded a federal minimum wage that would, as economist Ellora Derenoncourt has observed, be the equivalent in inflation-adjusted terms of almost $15.00 an hour today.

"While organizing efforts such as the 'Fight for $15' have led to many minimum wage increases at the state and local levels, the current $7.25 federal minimum wage stands at less than half of that 57-year-old goal."

So a couple of problems. First, you claim that raising the minimum wage will restore bargaining power to workers.

Why do you think this? Because that isn't even logical. If you dramatically increase the minimum wage, then as we all know, people lose their jobs. This means that in the low-skill / no-skill labor market there will be a surplus of newly unemployed people with low/no skills.

That means it will be an employers market. Because if you don't take the job, there are hundred people behind you that will. That means the employer can dictate terms. He might not be able to pay you less money, but he can cut benefits, give only reduced hours, and treat you like crap, because again... if you leave, there are a dozen people behind you ready to take your spot.

Sixty years ago a single minimum wage job where I live paid enough to entirely support an independent lifestyle for a single adult. Today, a single minimum wage jobs puts you on the streets.

Yeah...?

Tell me, what size house or apartment did you live in?
How was your Air Conditioning in the 1960s?
How was your microwave?
How was your smart phone?
How was your cable TV, and your internet?
How was your home computer?
How was your car, if you had one?
How did that car compare to a car today?

You can very easily.... EASILY live a 1960s life style on minimum wage today.

The problem is, you want to live a 2020 life style, but on a 1960s income. Sorry, that doesn't work.

You can't a luxury life style, on a 1960s minimum wage income.

And yes... it is a luxury. The size of an apartment in the 1960s, is like a walk in closet compared to apartments today.

The type of car you drive today, is better than the most expensive luxury car the 1960s ever produced.

Air conditioning is a luxury. People survived thousands of years without central air. Today, you want a place with central air, that costs money. Can't have a 2020 life style, on a 1960s income.

You want to find an apartment that has no A/C, and is only 300 sq ft? There are Studio apartments, that are $400 a month, and you can in fact live that 1960s life style, on minimum wage.

You can sell your phone, cancel your cable, go back to land line phones for a low monthly bill without data charges. You can sell your modern expensive vehicle with power windows and locks, and traction control and get yourself a Geo Metro or something, and drive that dinky thing around.

But if you want a modern Honda Accord, you need a higher income. That's how life works. You want more products and services, you gotta pay for it.

You can't live a 2020 life on a 1960s income. And that's a not a problem of the minimum wage, that's problem of expecting more for less.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You can very easily.... EASILY live a 1960s life style on minimum wage today.

Yes!

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I wager the same would result from having UI. Because the problem is the heart. People don't want to make the choice to act wisely with money, and giving them more money just results in them being irresponsible with more.

I learned this the hard way. I had a co-worker that got laid off a few months after I was laid off. I heard through another party, that she was getting kicked out of her apartment.

I contacted her, and let her stay at my place. I only charged her $350 a month, which for a steal given it was a 900 sq ft place, and she had the entire first floor to herself. 300 sq ft studio apartments cost $350 a month, right?

Instead of using all this extra money she had, from having such a low rent, to save and use it to better herself.... she blew it. And I mean completely blew all the money. She would get paid on Friday, and be penny-less by Thursday. She did this week after week after week.

Every single time that an unplanned expense came up, she would call me, and ask me to help her. Even if she just ran out of gasoline for the car on Thursday, she wouldn't be able to buy gas until Friday.

What I discovered was that in my well intentioned efforts to help another person, all I had really done was be an enabler of her to be more irresponsible than she had been before.

She didn't save the money for when her car broke down. She didn't pay for training to get her skills to get a better job. She didn't use the money to do anything helpful, or even save for her retirement.

In fact, she said directly to me "I don't need to save, because I'll just get social security".

Which tells me, that just like how I enabled her be more irresponsible by providing her an extremely low rent..... society enabled her to be more irresponsible by let her intentionally spend everything she makes, so she can live on social security.

So I admire your optimistic outlook about Universal basic income, but I think it would simply allow people to be more irresponsible than they are now.

Without a doubt for some, yes it would. We all know people like your former coworker.

I have an old GF I've stayed in contact with for many years. We even lived together for one of those years. She ended up on disability and lost her house. Before being thrown out, she had two choices: get her own apartment, or live with her mother. She and her mother don't get along very well. The problem was that she couldn't afford an apartment. At the time I had an apartment open up and told her I'd give it to her at a little bit of a discount.

She looked at the place (even though she seen it many times before) and later declined my offer stating that even with lower rent, she still couldn't afford to live there. She started to give me a rundown of her expenses. I stopped her when she got to the car payment part. $600.00 a month. I screamed at her "Are you Fn crazy, 600 bucks a month for a car???" I went on to suggest she get rid of a car and buy something used at least near a reasonable payment. She refused.

She moved in with her mother, they fought night and day, she was so aggravated she said she couldn't stand it any longer. I offered her a nice apartment for less than her car payment was. Extremely irresponsible. She bought the car when she was working and making pretty good money. When she lost the house, that stupid car payment was likely the reason why. She was more concerned about keeping the car than keeping a roof over her head.

But I don't think most people are like our friends. If UI turned out to be a great deal for our government and country, it would be a shame to not consider it because of irresponsible people. They are going to be irresponsible whether they get UI or not, just like our friends. For more responsible people, or those who just need a little push to go in the right direction, it could solve a lot of problems and perhaps change a lot of lives.

 

[Andylusion]

it is not theft, but a delegated social Power to Tax; do you understand bearing false witness and having nothing but Hoax is immoral and unethical?

You can gussy it up with all the weasel words you'd like, but taking wealth from another without consent is theft.

Our Constitution expresses consent in Article 1, Section 8.

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

Yeah, so lets review what the founders and writers of the constitution said about that.

James Madison:

“But in the general Constitution, its powers are enumerated. Is it not, then, fairly deducible, that it has no power but what is expressly given it? – for if its powers were to be general, an enumeration would be needless…But the rhetoric of the gentleman has highly colored the dangers of giving the general government an indefinite power of providing for the general welfare. I contend that no such power is given.”​

He saying it has no power, except what is specifically enumerated. For them to claim the government had indefinite power to provide for the general welfare.... Madison says "I contend no such power is given."

You need more evidence? Let's ask Thomas Jefferson:

“provide for the general welfare," was an extension of the powers specifically enumerated to whatever would promote the general welfare; and this, you know, was the federal doctrine…that Congress had not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but were restrained to those specifically enumerated; and that, as it was never meant they should provide for that welfare but by the exercise of the enumerated powers, so it could not have been meant they should raise money for purposes which the enumeration did not place under their action; consequently, that the specification of powers is a limitation of the purposes for which they may raise money.”​

Congress had not unlimited powers to provide for the 'general welfare', but were restrained to those specifically enumerated power.

It can't get much clearer than that. The General Welfare is limited to those power specifically enumerated in the US Constitution.

Do you see a power for free education? Or health care? Or retirement? Or anything else?

No you do not. Those things are unconstitutional violations of the enumerated powers of the government.

 

[Wyatt earp]

It is about General operation of the law for the General welfare.

Do you believe people should receive money from the government for doing nothing?

You are begging the question. I could say, only if CEOs have to work hard and with the sweat of their brow even in the summer time.

Prove they don't...

 

[georgephillip]

Trump won't go to prison. That's assured. He may pay some fines here or there, but he's not going to prison.

If so, that's only because Joe Biden reverts to his corporate roots and refuses to prosecute:

Losing Could Expose Trump to Prosecution for Any Number of Crimes

"Tax fraud seems to be a family tradition for Trump.

"The Trumps set up a company in 1992 owned by Trump, his siblings, and a cousin who apparently did nothing except siphon money from the real estate empire of Donald’s father, Fred Trump, into the company’s pockets.

"This allowed Fred to shower his children with millions of dollars in gifts without having to pay any gift tax."

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Yeah, so lets review what the founders and writers of the constitution said about that.

James Madison:

“But in the general Constitution, its powers are enumerated. Is it not, then, fairly deducible, that it has no power but what is expressly given it? – for if its powers were to be general, an enumeration would be needless…But the rhetoric of the gentleman has highly colored the dangers of giving the general government an indefinite power of providing for the general welfare. I contend that no such power is given.”
He saying it has no power, except what is specifically enumerated. For them to claim the government had indefinite power to provide for the general welfare.... Madison says "I contend no such power is given."

You need more evidence? Let's ask Thomas Jefferson:

“provide for the general welfare," was an extension of the powers specifically enumerated to whatever would promote the general welfare; and this, you know, was the federal doctrine…that Congress had not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but were restrained to those specifically enumerated; and that, as it was never meant they should provide for that welfare but by the exercise of the enumerated powers, so it could not have been meant they should raise money for purposes which the enumeration did not place under their action; consequently, that the specification of powers is a limitation of the purposes for which they may raise money.”
Congress had not unlimited powers to provide for the 'general welfare', but were restrained to those specifically enumerated power.

It can't get much clearer than that. The General Welfare is limited to those power specifically enumerated in the US Constitution.

Do you see a power for free education? Or health care? Or retirement? Or anything else?

No you do not. Those things are unconstitutional violations of the enumerated powers of the government.

In the US Constitution, it mentions that government needs to promote the general welfare. It also says provide the general welfare, nowhere does it say fund the general welfare.

If I see my elderly neighbor having a difficult time carrying her groceries up her porch stairs, and I help her out, I provided for her general welfare.

If I cannot help her out because of a back injury, and I ask a friend sitting with me if he could help her out, I promoted the welfare of my neighbor.

If I cannot help my neighbor, and I have no friend to ask to help her, but see some kid walking down the sidewalk, pay him 20 bucks to help my neighbor, I funded her welfare.

"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution that grants Congress the right, of expending on articles of benevolence, the money of their constituents."
James Madison, annals of Congress, 1794

 

[georgephillip]

Alaska's revenue comes from oil royalties, moron. Where is the revenue for this giant swindle supposed to come from?

The revenue will come from every American's share of their national commons; feel free to donate your share to the billionaire parasite of your choice.

A Big, Simple, Winning Issue for Biden

"Bring 20 of the Trumpiest-looking Alaskans to a press conference. Unveil a plan whereby every man, woman, and child gets a $1,000 check every month from the government.

"Finance it with taxes on large wealth, fossil fuels, financial transactions, and intellectual property resulting from taxpayer-funded public research.

"Invite the Alaskans to describe the joy of getting their checks: no middleman, no means tests, no government forms to fill out—just free money as everyone’s share of the American commons."

 

[danielpalos]

lol. there is no general warfare clause only a general welfare clause.

So why do you keep using the term "general warfare"? Just because you think it's a clever variation of "general welfare"?

Only in right wing Hoax.

 

[danielpalos]

It is about General operation of the law for the General welfare.

Do you believe people should receive money from the government for doing nothing?

You are begging the question. I could say, only if CEOs have to work hard and with the sweat of their brow even in the summer time.

Prove they don't...

Prove the unemployed would be paid for doing nothing.

 

[Thinker101]

It is about General operation of the law for the General welfare.

Do you believe people should receive money from the government for doing nothing?

You are begging the question. I could say, only if CEOs have to work hard and with the sweat of their brow even in the summer time.

Prove they don't...

Prove the unemployed would be paid for doing nothing.

Prove the unemployed would be paid for doing nothing? WTF, do you fricken read what you write or you just spew out BS?

 

[Wyatt earp]

It is about General operation of the law for the General welfare.

Do you believe people should receive money from the government for doing nothing?

You are begging the question. I could say, only if CEOs have to work hard and with the sweat of their brow even in the summer time.

Prove they don't...

Prove the unemployed would be paid for doing nothing.

Uncompassionate poor, proceed nothing to the rich common cause of being poor

 

[Orangecat]

It is about General operation of the law for the General welfare.

Do you believe people should receive money from the government for doing nothing?

You are begging the question. I could say, only if CEOs have to work hard and with the sweat of their brow even in the summer time.

You could say all manner of diversionary things. Or you could man-up and answer the question:
Do you believe people should receive money from the government for doing nothing?

 

[Orangecat]

Only in right wing Hoax.

You excel at empty responses.

 

[Orangecat]

Prove the unemployed would be paid for doing nothing.

What do you think they'd be doing to earn the money? Breathing?

 

[22lcidw]

And, I agree to disagree that military spending is better than infrastructure spending as a Government means of production.

If I understand the concept correctly, military spending is more useful to modern economies dominated by big business. Apparently, blowing things up on the opposite side of the planet doesn't compete with elite capitalist interests in the same way as domestic spending (like infrastructure) does. There's also the additional benefits of imperialism like controlling the natural resources of other sovereign states. MAGA yet?

That has been going on for a long time before Trump. One thing though. The United States for the most part is seen as an investment of last resort and it generally makes the foreign investors and our fiat currency seem safer then most others. We benefit from that. Having a strong military is a guarantor of keeping it although the investments and clout of our dollar has been reducing over the years. China knows this. They have the resources to build a massive military and will take the mantle from us gleefully. When it comes to the military, are we supposed to be minding our business or be the world's policeman? Britain did that job before us. It did make them rich. But we are tired of losing our children in endless conflicts also.

 

[georgephillip]

We can always trust you to believe every government swindle is a great idea.

The Biggest Swindle in US History

Trump Is Creating a Grifter Economy

 

[danielpalos]

Prove the unemployed would be paid for doing nothing.

What do you think they'd be doing to earn the money? Breathing?

Employment is at the will of either party, there can be no work Requirement.
They would be compensated for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment in our at-will employment States at the rock bottom cost of UC. Only capital has to circulate under Capitalism. A multiplier effect requires multiple people being market friendly. We get the best, bang for our buck, with the Poor since they tend to spend most of their income sooner rather than later.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Alaska's revenue comes from oil royalties, moron. Where is the revenue for this giant swindle supposed to come from?

The revenue will come from every American's share of their national commons; feel free to donate your share to the billionaire parasite of your choice.

A Big, Simple, Winning Issue for Biden

"Bring 20 of the Trumpiest-looking Alaskans to a press conference. Unveil a plan whereby every man, woman, and child gets a $1,000 check every month from the government.

"Finance it with taxes on large wealth, fossil fuels, financial transactions, and intellectual property resulting from taxpayer-funded public research.

"Invite the Alaskans to describe the joy of getting their checks: no middleman, no means tests, no government forms to fill out—just free money as everyone’s share of the American commons."

So you just want everyone to work for you, again no oil under Iowa

 

[georgephillip]

Quit using economic terms that you don't understand.

How can we have an economy that isn't producing at full capacity and widespread unemployment AT THE SAME TIME?