Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

wasupaloopa

(4,516 posts)
12. Here is the thing. Unskilled labor and many skilled jobs are gone never
Sun Oct 15, 2017, 02:20 PM
Oct 2017

to return. Available labor is outstripping available demand. Many new jobs do not pay a living wage.

So we know we need a new model. Guaranteed income seems to be an easy fix.

People latch on to it and develop a rational argument in its support.

My thinking is the universal income is vastly more complicated than its supports understand.

I would rather we have expert input than the idealist vs pragmatist arguments we have.

Same goes for single payer and free tuition.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

I don't understand the reasoning behind it. wasupaloopa Oct 2017 #1
I'll let someone with more of an understanding of basic economics reply. LongTomH Oct 2017 #2
The other basic economic theory is wasupaloopa Oct 2017 #3
You are right, basic income is a massive transfer from capital to labor DBoon Oct 2017 #4
The problem is only the producers are contributing. wasupaloopa Oct 2017 #5
Wrong. yallerdawg Oct 2017 #7
I am not wrong, you just leave out the inconvenient factors. wasupaloopa Oct 2017 #9
The capitalists are pocketing labor cost savings and more efficient productivity increase as profit. yallerdawg Oct 2017 #10
Here is the thing. Unskilled labor and many skilled jobs are gone never wasupaloopa Oct 2017 #12
It's coming. yallerdawg Oct 2017 #14
Yes. It is a fundamental way to reduce the society-busting levels of income & wealth inequalty. Bernardo de La Paz Oct 2017 #16
Wrong. Bernardo de La Paz Oct 2017 #15
You're confused about basic economic theory. Bernardo de La Paz Oct 2017 #13
Your steps go off the rails with "cost of living X + $5000". That violates the definition. Bernardo de La Paz Oct 2017 #11
You are putting money into circulation that wasn't there. You are creating more demand. wasupaloopa Oct 2017 #17
You're still not clear. If you want to argue from your initial set of steps you have to clarify them Bernardo de La Paz Oct 2017 #18
It seems to me that you start with the premise that everyone deserves a certain, basic Stonepounder Oct 2017 #6
They will not produce if you are going to take it away. wasupaloopa Oct 2017 #8
You do realize that during the Eisenhower years, the top marginal tax bracket was 92% Stonepounder Oct 2017 #19
Basic economic theories based on capitalism fail when you no longer need human workers. tclambert Oct 2017 #20
Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»Video & Multimedia»Universal Basic Income vs...»Reply #12