Basic income guarantee - opinions&criticism welcome

[Jutarul]

The solutions are suggested in the problems. Don't let the union control the entire profession. The AMA's (legislated, btw) stranglehold on the medical profession is limiting entry into the field, which in turn creates a scarcity of medical professionals, which in turn increases the rates they can charge. Open the market, and that problem goes away.

This sounds like a regulatory mechanism. Who should enforce it? The government? In that sense I agree - someone needs to watch the market and (re-)establish balances. But to come back to the topic raised by the OP. What do you do if a majority of your labour force thinks that the wage is too low?

[myrkul]

The solutions are suggested in the problems. Don't let the union control the entire profession. The AMA's (legislated, btw) stranglehold on the medical profession is limiting entry into the field, which in turn creates a scarcity of medical professionals, which in turn increases the rates they can charge. Open the market, and that problem goes away.

This sounds like a regulatory mechanism. Who should enforce it? The government? In that sense I agree - someone needs to watch the market and (re-)establish balances. But to come back to the topic raised by the OP. What do you do if a majority of your labour force thinks that the wage is too low?

How, exactly, does removing the legislated restrictions on a profession, and thus having a completely free market in that profession sound like a regulatory mechanism?

If the majority of the labor force thinks the wage is too low, then they'll be asking for higher wages, won't they? And "a majority" is certainly enough to unionize. But the minority that is willing to work for less is important, too. If the union tries to push wages too high, they'll pull it back down by working when the union members strike. So the union members had best be willing to work for wages that the company owners will accept, or when they strike, they'll be replaced.

Labor is a market product, too. And that means it's governed by the laws of supply and demand, just like any market product.

[Rothgar]

If the majority of people decided that slavery was OK again, would that make it OK to enslave the minority they picked?

Why does a government founded on a logical fallacy seem like a good idea to you?

You have constitution, safeguarding basic rights. You could possibly try and change the constitution, but for that you need an overwhelming majority, which just doesn't happen in a democracy. Even landslide victories are like 60%.

Check the exceptions on the wikipedia page you linked to. Income redistribution falls withing the lines of social convention and safety, therefore the fallacy does not apply here.

The constitution was in effect when slavery was happening.  Myrkul you have failed to address the point that was made.

You sure that was me? It looks more like miln40 failed to address the point. Slavery was not only not abolished by the constitution, it was written into it. So much for "basic rights." Check the other names for the fallacy. "Democracy" is included in the list.

Yeah, I also think he meant me =D . Slavery was made illegal with the 13th amendment, I believe. So the constitution was modified after the majority of people decided to oppose slavery. Well, there was also this civil war, but it might have been pure coincidence.

Any way the constitution is supposed to guarantee habeas corpus.  A piece of paper is doing a poor job at solving problems. 

[myrkul]

Any way the constitution is supposed to guarantee habeas corpus.  A piece of paper is doing a poor job at solving problems. 

Times like these, I like to drop this quotation into the discussion:

But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain - that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist.

(It should be noted that this was said almost 150 years ago. How much more true is it now?)

[myrkul]

The solutions are suggested in the problems. Don't let the union control the entire profession. The AMA's (legislated, btw) stranglehold on the medical profession is limiting entry into the field, which in turn creates a scarcity of medical professionals, which in turn increases the rates they can charge. Open the market, and that problem goes away.

This sounds like a regulatory mechanism. Who should enforce it? The government? In that sense I agree - someone needs to watch the market and (re-)establish balances. But to come back to the topic raised by the OP. What do you do if a majority of your labour force thinks that the wage is too low?

How, exactly, does removing the legislated restrictions on a profession, and thus having a completely free market in that profession sound like a regulatory mechanism?
...

In order to fix the problem, you're suggesting more of what caused the problem in the first place?

It's a free market. We should just let the alcoholic drink himself to death - problem solved!

How is what I suggest more of the same?

[Rudd-O]

After a while every government is just another cooperation and acts in its self interest. States become corrupt and we have no real way of dealing with big corrupt governments. Do we?

We do.  One way is to evade taxes.  And to affirm clearly that taxation is theft.

I like this.

[grondilu]

After a while every government is just another cooperation and acts in its self interest. States become corrupt and we have no real way of dealing with big corrupt governments. Do we?

We do.  One way is to evade taxes.  And to affirm clearly that taxation is theft.

I like this.

OMG I actually wrote this.  Sometimes some of my old posts pop up and I surprise myself.

[myrkul]

After a while every government is just another cooperation and acts in its self interest. States become corrupt and we have no real way of dealing with big corrupt governments. Do we?

We do.  One way is to evade taxes.  And to affirm clearly that taxation is theft.

I like this.

OMG I actually wrote this.  Sometimes some of my old posts pop up and I surprise myself.

That's less than three months ago. Have you really changed so much in so short a time?

[grondilu]

After a while every government is just another cooperation and acts in its self interest. States become corrupt and we have no real way of dealing with big corrupt governments. Do we?

We do.  One way is to evade taxes.  And to affirm clearly that taxation is theft.

I like this.

OMG I actually wrote this.  Sometimes some of my old posts pop up and I surprise myself.

That's less than three months ago. Have you really changed so much in so short a time?

You have no idea.

[MasterOfDisguise]

I'm German too, and I actually was at the Grundeinkommenskongress in Munich yesterday (briefly only though). My view on it is divided.

I welcome it in a very pragmatic sense for drastically reducing bureaucracy of our social system (only in theory though... we're in Germany after all  ). I furthermore welcome the idea of eliminating existential fears, which I'm confident will create a better and more human standard of living with more care and happiness, and I do believe (unlike most libertarians) that a society with insufficient equality can not realize its full potential.

My main issue with it then is that most models require the "big state" solution which may become corrupt over time (see GEMA - what a great idea in its beginning, democratic and all, but look what it has become  ). Unconditional my ass, more and more conditions *will* sneak in through the back door, just watch.

So I'm looking for other ways to achieve something similar to a basic income guarantee. The best would be when people can issue their money themselves (think Ripple etc). Some friends and me, we're working on the concept of some kind of network economy.

About automation and technological unemployment, most libertarians will argue that your point here is a Luddite fallacy, and I agree to a degree. New technology opens more possibilities, creates more desires and demand for those possibilities, and thus creates new jobs. For example, we software developers are in huge demand right now in order to achieve this automated society, and we will be the working class of the 21st century. They're already trying to streamline our productivity into industrialization-like schemes with all those agile/scrum/kanban (Toyota!) methodologies. The problem with technology is rather always structural. People lose old obsolete jobs and cannot learn new things fast enough, hence these phases of recession. In 200 years, everyone will want their own spaceship, then soon after everybody will actually *need* their own spaceship in order to be able to get a job at all somewhere in our solar system. And you'll be there then demanding an unconditional spaceship for everyone. In 500 years, maybe there'll be interstellar travel, and the new working class will be, I don't know, maybe space-time curvature architects.

The jobs created by new technology will never be enough to sustain the masses. Plus, only a handful or people will be skilled/intelligent enough to work on this new technology. A universal basic income is needed.