What if the basic necessities of life were free?

[Pope Joan]

It would be bad for the economy, of course.

The Trilateral Commission strongly pressured the US to substantially hike up food prices, since food consumption represented too small a portion of our economy.

That was in the late 80's, I believe.

[Sobaeg]

The basics of life are free to those who don't work until such time as they want to work in some countries. The reason it doesn't work in America is because of Americans.

[The Joseon Dynasty]

The basics of life are free to those who don't work until such time as they want to work in some countries. The reason it doesn't work in America is because of Americans.

Source, I say!

[Moving Forward Inc]

The basics of life are free to those who don't work until such time as they want to work in some countries. The reason it doesn't work in America is because of Americans.

The idea that you can make the basics of life free is insane.
For something to be free, it has to come at the cost of another.
That is what scarcity is supposed to be about.
You want to make the basics of life free for Americans who don't work: now, who should receive the bill?
And, lol, free for people who don't work?
Wouldn't people just stop working until the system collapses from protests against the lack of incentive to work harder?
I mean, to earn the basics of life for an unskilled worker, takes several hours every week.
If it was free, work just wouldn't be worth it for the unskilled.

[Sobaeg]

The basics of life are free to those who don't work until such time as they want to work in some countries. The reason it doesn't work in America is because of Americans.

The idea that you can make the basics of life free is insane.
For something to be free, it has to come at the cost of another.
That is what scarcity is supposed to be about.
You want to make the basics of life free for Americans who don't work: now, who should receive the bill?
And, lol, free for people who don't work?
Wouldn't people just stop working until the system collapses from protests against the lack of incentive to work harder?
I mean, to earn the basics of life for an unskilled worker, takes several hours every week.
If it was free, work just wouldn't be worth it for the unskilled.

I don't really care if Americans solve this problem, I hope they can return to their greatness… but it doesn't really bother me. The fact is, it exists, open your eyes, and ask yourself why Americans cant have it… you will come to the same conclusion that I just did… because of Americans.

[Dongolia]

This is why it might work without eliminating the motivation to contribute to society.

[Meridiani Planum]

What do you think? Why wouldn't it work?

It would work just fine if Santa Claus was real.

Otherwise, those basic necessities are coming from someone, and probably through organized theft.

Maybe it would "work", but I'm more interested in the ethical issues.

[Sobaeg]

This is why it might work without eliminating the motivation to contribute to society.

There is no motivation to contribute to society by anyone against, they are only interested in financial reward, this does not contribute to society.

[Sobaeg]

What do you think? Why wouldn't it work?

It would work just fine if Santa Claus was real.

Otherwise, those basic necessities are coming from someone, and probably through organized theft.

Maybe it would "work", but I'm more interested in the ethical issues.

Dude, are you not reading anything, it works, countries do it, just not America

[Moving Forward Inc]

The idea that you can make the basics of life free is insane.
For something to be free, it has to come at the cost of another.
That is what scarcity is supposed to be about.
You want to make the basics of life free for Americans who don't work: now, who should receive the bill?
And, lol, free for people who don't work?
Wouldn't people just stop working until the system collapses from protests against the lack of incentive to work harder?
I mean, to earn the basics of life for an unskilled worker, takes several hours every week.
If it was free, work just wouldn't be worth it for the unskilled.

I don't really care if Americans solve this problem, I hope they can return to their greatness… but it doesn't really bother me. The fact is, it exists, open your eyes, and ask yourself why Americans cant have it… you will come to the same conclusion that I just did… because of Americans.

Do I have to repeat myself?
Who will pay the bill, and how will the collapse of the system be prevented?
And seriously, how is it a problem that some people can't afford the basics of life?
Maybe they aren't worth it?

[Crogach]

As far as I'm concerned there's nothing wrong with having a guaranteed national income that provides enough for a single person to rent an apartment and live a fairly spartan working- to lower middle-class life; it would certainly simplify our welfare system and solve the "welfare queen" problem (whether you define that problem to be the existence of people who don't belong receiving benefits milking the system for extras or the use of pejorative terms and ugly stereotypes to justify throwing the poor out in the cold). From where I stand that sort of reform would effectively make welfare like Social Security (something that comes with being an American citizen rather than a handout that can be used to play wedge politics down the line) and that would be good for everyone.

The only problem I see with this is that there's no way to do this in the US without dramatic tax increases and spending cuts elsewhere. As it stands now, the US spends approximately $878 billion on old-age pensions, $422 billion on welfare, and $900 or so billion on defense. If we cut the defense budget by 30 percent, cut federal pensions in half, and redirect all current welfare spending, then that gives us $270B+$422B+$439B = $1.131 trillion in savings, while a quick back-of-the-envelope calculation (237 million people aged 18 or older multiplied by $22500 per person per year, or 112.5% of the poverty line) gives us expenditures of $5.333 trillion right off the bat. That's a $4.2 trillion hole that would have to be filled, and the current total revenue of the US government is somewhere in the neighborhood of $5.5 trillion; we'd need to increase revenues by 80 percent or so in order to cover the costs of a guaranteed annual income.

I'd be damn curious to see the CBO or someone else do a study on possible means of phasing in a guaranteed annual income over a period of years; it's an idea that I think would be awesome to have, but somebody with a lot more free time, a lot more training, and a lot better numbers than I have would need to make the math work before it could go anywhere.

[Moving Forward Inc]

It would work just fine if Santa Claus was real.

Otherwise, those basic necessities are coming from someone, and probably through organized theft.

Maybe it would "work", but I'm more interested in the ethical issues.

Dude, are you not reading anything, it works, countries do it, just not America

It works for the majority, at the cost of the oppressed minority.

[Sobaeg]

I don't really care if Americans solve this problem, I hope they can return to their greatness… but it doesn't really bother me. The fact is, it exists, open your eyes, and ask yourself why Americans cant have it… you will come to the same conclusion that I just did… because of Americans.

Do I have to repeat myself?
Who will pay the bill, and how will the collapse of the system be prevented?
And seriously, how is it a problem that some people can't afford the basics of life?
Maybe they aren't worth it?

How old are you? Seriously, go and take the list of Countries we discussed, find out who pays the bill, then come back to the discussion.

[Disserbia]

Some of a safety net is necessary, but too much of one leads to lack of motivation because people when people feel like they are working for the welfare of others and their work isn't benefiting themselves as much as it should they become less motivated.

[Sobaeg]

As far as I'm concerned there's nothing wrong with having a guaranteed national income that provides enough for a single person to rent an apartment and live a fairly spartan working- to lower middle-class life; it would certainly simplify our welfare system and solve the "welfare queen" problem (whether you define that problem to be the existence of people who don't belong receiving benefits milking the system for extras or the use of pejorative terms and ugly stereotypes to justify throwing the poor out in the cold). From where I stand that sort of reform would effectively make welfare like Social Security (something that comes with being an American citizen rather than a handout that can be used to play wedge politics down the line) and that would be good for everyone.

The only problem I see with this is that there's no way to do this in the US without dramatic tax increases and spending cuts elsewhere. As it stands now, the US spends approximately $878 billion on old-age pensions, $422 billion on welfare, and $900 or so billion on defense. If we cut the defense budget by 30 percent, cut federal pensions in half, and redirect all current welfare spending, then that gives us $270B+$422B+$439B = $1.131 trillion in savings, while a quick back-of-the-envelope calculation (237 million people aged 18 or older multiplied by $22500 per person per year, or 112.5% of the poverty line) gives us expenditures of $5.333 trillion right off the bat. That's a $4.2 trillion hole that would have to be filled, and the current total revenue of the US government is somewhere in the neighborhood of $5.5 trillion; we'd need to increase revenues by 80 percent or so in order to cover the costs of a guaranteed annual income.

I'd be damn curious to see the CBO or someone else do a study on possible means of phasing in a guaranteed annual income over a period of years; it's an idea that I think would be awesome to have, but somebody with a lot more free time, a lot more training, and a lot better numbers than I have would need to make the math work before it could go anywhere.

The challenge with the USA is that an apple is not an apple. Because of Insurance and Credit and market forces, blue collar and white-collar goods and services are overly inflated.
An example of this is property in Florida, what did people think it was worth 5 years ago… where they right? Ask the same question about other basic services, food, medical and ask the same question.

[Moving Forward Inc]

What do you think? Why wouldn't it work?

It would work just fine if Santa Claus was real.

Otherwise, those basic necessities are coming from someone, and probably through organized theft.

Maybe it would "work", but I'm more interested in the ethical issues.

This^

But what's with all the fuss over Santa and Christmas?

Shouldn't we be celebrating the 2nd of every month?

[Sobaeg]

Some of a safety net is necessary, but too much of one leads to lack of motivation because people when people feel like they are working for the welfare of others and their work isn't benefiting themselves as much as it should they become less motivated.

Countries that do this have found that the number who are not motivated to work is less than in some European countries that do not have the support system.

[Crogach]

Some of a safety net is necessary, but too much of one leads to lack of motivation because people when people feel like they are working for the welfare of others and their work isn't benefiting themselves as much as it should they become less motivated.

Here's the thing; while that may be true I'm fairly certain that the threshold of guaranteed income at which a significant population of the country decides working and/or leading a productive existence isn't worth it is well above the income most people would set (and by that I mean at least twice the poverty line, which is also a good deal more than I think our economy could necessarily support; see my calculations above for why).

What I'd bet is that at levels between 1 and 1.5 times the poverty line you'd see more of different kinds of productivity and a re-shaking out of the labor markets rather than simply less productivity; in particular artists, writers, poets, and so on would no longer have to work 40-50 hours at menial jobs and would be able to turn out a great deal more culturally valuable work than they do now, while low-skill menial jobs could once again become boot camps for teenagers who want extra spending money rather than poverty traps.

As far as I'm concerned there's nothing wrong with having a guaranteed national income that provides enough for a single person to rent an apartment and live a fairly spartan working- to lower middle-class life; it would certainly simplify our welfare system and solve the "welfare queen" problem (whether you define that problem to be the existence of people who don't belong receiving benefits milking the system for extras or the use of pejorative terms and ugly stereotypes to justify throwing the poor out in the cold). From where I stand that sort of reform would effectively make welfare like Social Security (something that comes with being an American citizen rather than a handout that can be used to play wedge politics down the line) and that would be good for everyone.

The only problem I see with this is that there's no way to do this in the US without dramatic tax increases and spending cuts elsewhere. As it stands now, the US spends approximately $878 billion on old-age pensions, $422 billion on welfare, and $900 or so billion on defense. If we cut the defense budget by 30 percent, cut federal pensions in half, and redirect all current welfare spending, then that gives us $270B+$422B+$439B = $1.131 trillion in savings, while a quick back-of-the-envelope calculation (237 million people aged 18 or older multiplied by $22500 per person per year, or 112.5% of the poverty line) gives us expenditures of $5.333 trillion right off the bat. That's a $4.2 trillion hole that would have to be filled, and the current total revenue of the US government is somewhere in the neighborhood of $5.5 trillion; we'd need to increase revenues by 80 percent or so in order to cover the costs of a guaranteed annual income.

I'd be damn curious to see the CBO or someone else do a study on possible means of phasing in a guaranteed annual income over a period of years; it's an idea that I think would be awesome to have, but somebody with a lot more free time, a lot more training, and a lot better numbers than I have would need to make the math work before it could go anywhere.

The challenge with the USA is that an apple is not an apple. Because of Insurance and Credit and market forces, blue collar and white-collar goods and services are overly inflated.
An example of this is property in Florida, what did people think it was worth 5 years ago… where they right? Ask the same question about other basic services, food, medical and ask the same question.

That might be true in a general sense, but I'd like to see more thorough numbers on that. Furthermore, the guaranteed annual income wouldn't operate in a vacuum; if we set it to a similar fraction of the poverty line and then redefine the poverty line based on severely deflated numbers then the markets won't automatically deflate to match the numbers and we'll have people on the streets.

[Dongolia]

This is why it might work without eliminating the motivation to contribute to society.

There is no motivation to contribute to society by anyone against, they are only interested in financial reward, this does not contribute to society.

Lolwut?

Are you saying that people only work because they want money and that somehow that means that the work they do doesn't contribute to society?

Because of Insurance and Credit and market forces, blue collar and white-collar goods and services are overly inflated.

Also, this reads like a string of buzzwords that you read on the internet. It has absolutely no basis in fact.

[Moving Forward Inc]

Do I have to repeat myself?
Who will pay the bill, and how will the collapse of the system be prevented?
And seriously, how is it a problem that some people can't afford the basics of life?
Maybe they aren't worth it?

How old are you? Seriously, go and take the list of Countries we discussed, find out who pays the bill, then come back to the discussion.

The rich.
I knew it.
It's just that to assume would be to make an ass of you and me.
So, why not the rich have the basic necessities of life at the cost of the poor?
Perhaps you are classist?

[Crogach]

Because of Insurance and Credit and market forces, blue collar and white-collar goods and services are overly inflated.

Also, this reads like a string of buzzwords that you read on the internet. It has absolutely no basis in fact.

I was wondering whether or not there was a source for that; I know we had a bad bubble that popped in 2006-2007, but I doubt that there has been as much systematic, reversible inflation as Sobaeg's contending here.

[Disserbia]

The basics of life are free to those who don't work until such time as they want to work in some countries. The reason it doesn't work in America is because of Americans.

I can't tell if you're serious. I hope you're not.

[Moving Forward Inc]

This is why it might work without eliminating the motivation to contribute to society.

There is no motivation to contribute to society by anyone against, they are only interested in financial reward, this does not contribute to society.

Society is overrated.

[Disserbia]

Some of a safety net is necessary, but too much of one leads to lack of motivation because people when people feel like they are working for the welfare of others and their work isn't benefiting themselves as much as it should they become less motivated.

Countries that do this have found that the number who are not motivated to work is less than in some European countries that do not have the support system.

I don't think you understand the extent to which I'm referring.

[Dongolia]

Also, this reads like a string of buzzwords that you read on the internet. It has absolutely no basis in fact.

I was wondering whether or not there was a source for that; I know we had a bad bubble that popped in 2006-2007, but I doubt that there has been as much systematic, reversible inflation as Sobaeg's contending here.

I don't even think he's talking about inflation. Inflation of 2-3% is normal and healthy for an economy. It's just a throw away comment designed to make it appear that he knows what he's talking about but one that a person with a basic understanding of economics would never make.