I Think People Should be Paid not to Work, if That's What They Want: Switzerland to vote

[White Walker Texas Ranger]

$20,000 per year per person and about three hundred million people in the United States is about 6 trillion dollars, almost twice the current Federal budget. So right now it's not feasible, though I imagine it might become necessary in the medium to long term.

There's also a question of what "basic" means. Does it mean living in a one bedroom apartment in a walkable city, or does it mean a room with 6 bunk beds and sharing a bathroom and shower with twenty other people, like it did hundred years ago?

 

[aceluby]

How is having the flexibility to pursue what they want going to help most markets?  Particularly the housing market?  The people who are going to have more time on their hands because they're falling back on a stipend, are not going to have the $ to invest in housing.  Not to mention, the housing market would climb initially as a result of higher initial incomes, until it reaches a balancing point.  Those who are living on a stipend salary, or even a stipend + part-time job, are going to be the least able to afford housing. What the majority of people choose to fill their extra time with, will for the most part useless and contribute little to nothing.  There might be a flood of small businesses in a few unskilled markets for those with an entrepreneurial spirit, but doubtful it would be anything significant enough to have much impact on market prices.  

The housing market though, will go up.  There is no way around that one.  The only way you keep rent low in such a scenario is through government intervention. 

So market forces would have it be that the magical housing market could not be touched, nobody could possibly bring in lower prices and bring in more competition as profits increase, and more expendable income would have to mean everyone would be cut out from entering this market?

If you say so.....

[Lany Freelove Cassandra]

$20,000 per year per person and about three hundred million people in the United States is about 6 trillion dollars, almost twice the current Federal budget. So right now it's not feasible, though I imagine it might become necessary in the medium to long term.

There's also a question of what "basic" means. Does it mean living in a one bedroom apartment in a walkable city, or does it mean a room with 6 bunk beds and sharing a bathroom and shower with twenty other people, like it did hundred years ago?

 

I assumed it would only be for adults, not children, so the number would be less.

errr, maybe not.  I just looked and children under 18 are only about 25% of the population.  how weird is that?  I thought they would be closer to half (no idea why I thought that)

[Altherion]

I assumed it would only be for adults, not children, so the number would be less.

errr, maybe not.  I just looked and children under 18 are only about 25% of the population.  how weird is that?  I thought they would be closer to half (no idea why I thought that)

You probably thought it because that is what the age distribution looked like throughout history and how it still looks in many developing countries (example) However, the US (and the most other Western nations) are currently radically different; the equivalent distribution actually looks like this (hey, it could be worse -- we could be Japan).

But yes, even if we exclude children and require US citizenship (which would obviously have to be done for other reasons), $20K is still too expensive.

[Altherion]

I assumed it would only be for adults, not children, so the number would be less.

errr, maybe not.  I just looked and children under 18 are only about 25% of the population.  how weird is that?  I thought they would be closer to half (no idea why I thought that)

You probably thought it because that is what the age distribution looked like throughout history and how it still looks in many developing countries (example) However, the US (and the most other Western nations) are currently radically different; the equivalent distribution actually looks like this (hey, it could be worse -- we could be Japan).

But yes, even if we exclude children and require US citizenship (which would obviously have to be done for other reasons), $20K is still too expensive.

[BloodRider]

Would there not be an inflationary impact from this?

As in, let's say everyone gets $20k dollars a year for free.

So now, let's say they want to aspire to more, and they also do a job then, which pays $30k. So that person now earns $50k in total, where before he would only have earned $30k.

So if this applies to everyone who previously earned $30k, then the guys that used to supply say rental accommodation to this class of people will now be able to charge more for this essential commodity, as there are now millions more people who are able to pay more for it.

In short, where your living expenses were previously $30k, supply and demand would now drive it up to $50k, leaving you in exactly the same boat.

In fact, those who now get $20k from doing nothing will likely be worse off than those who used to get $20k for menial labor, as ‌$20k now buys you less than it did before.

Yes, there is an inflationary impact.  No, it is not in any way as drastic as you outline.  It is shown to actually expand the economy (increases GDP) and the labor pool much more than it causes inflation (Increases in the CPI).

Besides, lord knows we need some inflation right now.

[BloodRider]

I do see where y'all are coming from and I do have an issue with paying people for nothing who are capable of labor.  I think it shows a lack of respect for the labor of others.

Do you know what others get paid for doing the same work?  Either way, do you imagine that those who get paid more for the same job show disrespect for you?  Or is it inherently true that they ipso facto work herder than you?

Conversely, do you disrespect homemakers and housewives?  

[zelticgar]

Do you know what others get paid for doing the same work?  Either way, do you imagine that those who get paid more for the same job show disrespect for you?  Or is it inherently true that they ipso facto work herder than you?

Conversely, do you disrespect homemakers and housewives?  

Two different arguments. You cant argue Scot's point about societal fairness by bringing up pay equality.  There are variances within job families due to many different variables (years of experience, education, performance during the interview process, negotiating skills of the prospective employee, negotiating skills and bias of the hiring manager/company).

Scot's talking about whether it is fair to allow someone who is capable of working to sit home and collect income while others work by choice. I guess if everyone had the option it would be somewhat fair but I prefer to live in a society that strives for greatness versus catering to the lowest common denominator.

 

 

[BloodRider]

Two different arguments. You cant argue Scot's point about societal fairness by bringing up pay equality.  There are variances within job families due to many different variables (years of experience, education, performance during the interview process, negotiating skills of the prospective employee, negotiating skills and bias of the hiring manager/company).

Scot's talking about whether it is fair to allow someone who is capable of working to sit home and collect income while others work by choice. I guess if everyone had the option it would be somewhat fair but I prefer to live in a society that strives for greatness versus catering to the lowest common denominator.

Ah - so you think homemakers are "the lowest common denominator", and they should not be catered to.

Good to know!

[JonSnow4President]

Ah - so you think homemakers are "the lowest common denominator", and they should not be catered to.

Good to know!

Troll post.

Homemakers shouldn't be paid by the government, and are clearly not part of the lowest common denominator being mentioned.  Personally, a homemaker should only exist when the other member of the parternship can be a "breadwinner," regardless of who actually fulfills those roles.  

Quite frankly, I hate a lot of the income equalization that goes on already, which is obviously far from anything being discussed here, on raw principle.  I have no problem with a portion of my check going to someone who broke their back and can't work, or going to support someone with any other sort of disability that precludes working (other than sheer laziness).  I have no problem supporting people who had a job but lost it and are having a hard time find another, or someone who may have slipped up and created a little more family than they could support, or even to someone busting their ass working a job that doesn't pay enough.

I have a tremendous problem accepting that a portion of my check, which I earn hating every single minute of work but don't quit because I don't want to be a burden on others, will go to someone that is 100% capable of work but merely chooses not to.  

[Masonity]

$20,000 per year per person and about three hundred million people in the United States is about 6 trillion dollars, almost twice the current Federal budget. So right now it's not feasible, though I imagine it might become necessary in the medium to long term.

There's also a question of what "basic" means. Does it mean living in a one bedroom apartment in a walkable city, or does it mean a room with 6 bunk beds and sharing a bathroom and shower with twenty other people, like it did hundred years ago?

 

While I haven't seen the numbers for the USA (only the UK), remember that one of the "benefits" that it replaces is the tax free allowance, which I assume you have in the USA too?  That's a big chunk of "savings" that don't touch the current federal budget, as what it actually means is you pay more tax (while receiving the citizens income which compensates you for that). Also is the federal budget USA-wide while plenty of things it'd replace would be dealt with at the state level? If so it's not so comparable. 

 

Ultimately the UK figures balance out, on paper at least. So I'm sure it's at least possible in the USA too.

[Glaurung]

Do you know what others get paid for doing the same work?  Either way, do you imagine that those who get paid more for the same job show disrespect for you?  Or is it inherently true that they ipso facto work herder than you?

Conversely, do you disrespect homemakers and housewives?  

Payment for the same work is pretty similar for the most part.  It differs from company to company and there is a range of wages based on experience/tenure, ability, and how well you are at negotiating your salary.  

There is a huge difference though between somebody being paid a little more or less than you in the same career, and somebody who isn't working...at...all.  

Homemakers and housewives/husbands play an important role within their family unit and do so through choice.  It is generally a decision made for the betterment of the family unit and one person is usually sacrificing something in order to do so.  Not only that, but it isn't easy work for the most part.  How could you NOT respect that?  And it isn't even close to the same situation.  A homemaker is being provided for by their partner who is earning money through a career.  They make the decision and they pay for it themselves rather than somebody else paying for it.  Paying somebody to not work, you are essentially asking those who work to pay for those who don't.  If you want to compare THAT to a homemaker or housewife/husband, it would be like asking your neighbors to give you weekly donations so that your wife/husband could stay at home with the kids and clean  your house...even though those neighbors probably would like to be able to do the same but can't afford to do so.  It's just an entirely different situation.

Edit:  it looks like Zelticgar already made my point, but much more eloquently than I 

[Lany Freelove Cassandra]

 

I have a tremendous problem accepting that a portion of my check, which I earn hating every single minute of work but don't quit because I don't want to be a burden on others, will go to someone that is 100% capable of work but merely chooses not to.  

I just don't believe the majority of people currently collecting benefits have "simply chosen to not work". Often it is a decion forced on them by circumstances.

 

[JonSnow4President]

I just don't believe the majority of people currently collecting benefits have "simply chosen to not work". Often it is a decion forced on them by circumstances.

 

Refer to the context of this thread, and not what is actually occurring in reality.  

[Glaurung]

So market forces would have it be that the magical housing market could not be touched, nobody could possibly bring in lower prices and bring in more competition as profits increase, and more expendable income would have to mean everyone would be cut out from entering this market?

If you say so.....

OK, so you are giving those who don't work at all, a minimum stipend.  We are also working under the assumption that most people will continue to work anyway and earn that on top of their free salary.  This, in turn, leads to higher overall salaries for most people.  The housing market is based on what people are willing/able to pay for their housing.  If people have more money, housing prices will increase.  It is actually one of the most inelastic markets out there, because it is a necessity.  So yes, the housing market would go up, up, up.  

And those who have the basic income and decide to not work(and thus have all of this free time as you mention) would be at the very bottom of income range, making them the least capable of affording new housing costs.  They would actually be in a worse spot than before, if they gave up a job and decided to rely on that mandatory income(assuming that mandatory income resembles what they were earning before the mandatory income)...because they would essentially have the same amount of money but housing would be more expensive(among other things).   

So, in truth, they would actually need to get at least a decent part-time job just to maintain their current standard of living. 

 

 

[Lany Freelove Cassandra]

Refer to the context of this thread, and not what is actually occurring in reality.  

I was your statement about your current feelings that I was replying too. "I have a tremendous problem..."

Sorry if I misunderstood you.

[JonSnow4President]

I was your statement about your current feelings that I was replying too. "I have a tremendous problem..."

Sorry if I misunderstood you.

I didn't write that well.  Basically, what I meant was "I think we already go a little too far, so the very idea of this OP is despicable."

[Liffguard]

I didn't write that well.  Basically, what I meant was "I think we already go a little too far, so the very idea of this OP is despicable."

For the sake of argument - if it could be conclusively shown that this policy would work and be an economic net positive would you still think it despicable? Or would your moral aversion override any and all practical benefits?

[Michael Seswatha Jordan]

For the sake of argument - if it could be conclusively shown that this policy would work and be an economic net positive would you still think it despicable? Or would your moral aversion override any and all practical benefits?

Thats what I like about the scenario. I believe there would be many benefits to this. Yes, i don't like lazy people who are able to work, and don't, and eat better than most hardworking families. I get it, there are not too many people that like the thought of it. Though, as others have pointed out, not everyone getting assistance is doing so because they're lazy. People hit rough times and they need helped out. If this scenario would play out, what would it matter if everyone receives the stipend? Then, there is no welfare to bitch and complain about. Either scrape by on your stipend, or get a job so you can be more comfortable. I say, its a plus all the way around.

[zelticgar]

Not sure about that MSJ. I think the unintended results might cause more harm. Someone upthread talked about the potential of housing prices spiking and creating an even bigger gulf between the haves and have nots.

 

I also think the risk of government control and breakdown of society is pretty real. We see glimpses of this now in politics but I believe we would become even more polarized by politicians creating and opposing policies to expand and contract what level of payments and services represent a "basic lifestyle" in order to cater to whatever side they align with. I would guess in a culture like the US it would cause a lot more polarization and possibly breakdown to the point where there was serious consequence.

All that being said, i am not opposed to this idea provided it comes with serious concessions like a complete elimination of all other welfare/disability/unemployment programs. I look at it as more of a simplification of the welfare programs much like if you revamped taxes to a flat tax program. Its a simpler way to address a complex problem.