Universal Basic Income

Originally posted by Soothfast
Regardless, unless you enjoy being trailer trash in the land of Dixie and can make shoes out of ping-pong paddles nicked from the local YMCA, you'll find yourself hard put to live decently on $1800 a month in the US.

Isn't warefare around 40K when you add it all up? If you are making
just over 21K you'd be better off not working, unless you are trying to
better yourself.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
Isn't warefare around 40K when you add it all up? If you are making
just over 21K you'd be better off not working, unless you are trying to
better yourself.
Kelly

If welfare is around 40K, would you support replacing the welfare system with a 21K minimum income?

Originally posted by twhitehead
I am fairly sure I would enjoy a higher standard of living than I do now. If that is 'trailer trash' to you, then so be it.
You probably just don't realize just how good you have it.

Prior to moving to South Africa, I met lots of people who said much as you do now, ie that the cost of living would be much higher and I wouldn't be that much better off ...[text shortened]... n fact cheaper, and I because I earn more could enjoy a significantly higher standard of living.

If you actually looked through that website I linked to, I think you would find that it does indeed appear to be cheaper living in South Africa than in Zambia. The big cities might be an exception, though.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
If welfare is around 40K, would you support replacing the welfare system with a 21K minimum income?

I agree why would anyone want to work? Of course after the working class
dies off someone will have to get a job to support those that don't.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
I agree why would anyone want to work? Of course after the working class
dies off someone will have to get a job to support those that don't.
Kelly

If you won 10 million dollars in the lottery, would you continue to work or stop working?

68% of Americans surveyed answered "yes" to this question. Out of the 68%, about two thirds say they would continue in their current job.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/163973/work-even-won-millions.aspx

Perhaps the reasons people have for working are not as simple as putting enough food on the table?

Originally posted by Soothfast
If you actually looked through that website I linked to, I think you would find that it does indeed appear to be cheaper living in South Africa than in Zambia. The big cities might be an exception, though.

Yes, I agreed with most of its figures for Zambia and South Africa. Buy it is nevertheless hard to make a judgement because not everything is cheaper in one country, so it very much depends on what sort of things you spend most of your money on, and this very much depends on your income bracket and whether or not you have a family.
Many of the differences that I personally experienced had to do with my specific situation and choices I made. I have family in Zambia which can save a lot of costs. In South Africa, I chose to send my son to a good school (better than anything available in Zambia) which costs considerably more than I would have paid for him in Zambia.
Fuel is cheaper here, but I tend to drive longer distances.
Accommodation is very different, making comparisons difficult.
Availability of credit is much better here, but how do you factor that into cost of living?

But give me a universal basic income of USD1800, and a permit to live in the US, and I will move immediately.

Originally posted by HarrisonBergeron
I have been reading about this idea lately and I'm intrigued. Anyone have any thoughts? It looks to be much more efficient than the current welfare system in the US. What about the welfare system where others on the site live, could it be improved with a plan like this?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_income

How about a basic minimum wage, adjusted for the cost of living in specific geographic areas, that would give a full time worker enough money to pay for basic clean safe shelter, food, clothing, a phone, basic health care and a means of transportation for getting to and from a job. Transportation could mean money to cover the cost of public transport or a used vehicle. This would instantly stimulate the economy as these folks would have money to actually purchase the above items instead of needing welfare. Under the current system of welfare in the US, my tax dollars are actually supporting corporations and businesses who pay their employees so little, the worker qualifies for tax funded services. Frankly, I deeply resent the entitlements these corporations and businesses are receiving while they rake in record profits.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

I don't think Gallup conducted a poll asking white supremacists if they would continue working after winning 10 million dollars, although I would be interested in the result.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

There is no correlation unless race was included in the questionnaire. All the survey shows is that some people, probably more often white, have decent jobs they enjoy and they would like to continue the employment as it is emotionally and socially fulfilling. Compared to all other industrialized nations, including Canada, upward mobility in the US lags. Whatever economic class you are born into is likely the one where you will remain due to the high cost of education in the US. When people begin to doubt that there is anything they can do to change their economic situation, they tend to loose hope.
Having inherited wealth does not make you a brilliant person especially fit to control the politics of your country. If the US continues to make education inaccessible for the masses, the country's global position in every area will decline.

Originally posted by sasquatch672
The liberal project distilled. This exposes the fundamental misunderstanding, and perhaps even rejection, of human nature by liberals.

All the liberal elites will champion this for the little people, but in the end they will still live like kings and queens and the peasants will still be peasants, only more dependent on the elites.

Originally posted by KellyJay
I agree why would anyone want to work? Of course after the working class
dies off someone will have to get a job to support those that don't.
Kelly

That's called work bigotry.

Just because someone does not want to work does not mean they should not be entitled to a living wage.

Originally posted by whodey
All the liberal elites will champion this for the little people, but in the end they will still live like kings and queens and the peasants will still be peasants, only more dependent on the elites.

Whilst you, presumably champion keeping those elites rich without doing anything whatsoever for the little people.
At least you concede that the little people will benefit in some way, unlike some other posters that claim the little people will lose their jobs and skip town.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Whilst you, presumably champion keeping those elites rich without doing anything whatsoever for the little people.
At least you concede that the little people will benefit in some way, unlike some other posters that claim the little people will lose their jobs and skip town.

Claiming that everything is a meritocracy is over optimistic, but thinking that you get the same quality of output from less qualified workers is equally naive. If pay is the same regardless, what is the incentive to improve?

Originally posted by normbenign
Claiming that everything is a meritocracy is over optimistic, but thinking that you get the same quality of output from less qualified workers is equally naive. If pay is the same regardless, what is the incentive to improve?

Social mobility in Australia, with its USD15+/hr minimum wage, is higher than in the US. How do you explain this?