Page 7 of 10 FirstFirst ... 56789 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 93
Thanks Tree43Thanks

Thread: Basic Income

  1. #61
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    15,339
    Thanks
    4095

    From
    Boise, ID
    Quote Originally Posted by labrea View Post
    Part of the reason old people arent generally poor any more, are those very programs.
    Oh I know. That doesn't change anything about what I'm saying, especially in the context of a basic income type of policy.

    Take away affordable health insurance (medicare isnt free) and social security, and see what happens.
    We don't need to descend into death panels histrionics. The nation isn't going to deprive itself of health care. We'll continue providing health care to all, and continue sending the bill anywhere and everywhere else. This isn't about health care though.

    For all the left wing rhetoric about "the rich," and "the 1%," there sure is a lot of avoidance of the fact that if you were to put "the richest 1%" in a room together, it'd look like the world's biggest AARP conference. The people with the most wealth tend to be older. We constantly hear from the progressive left that "the rich (who tend to be old) aren't paying their fair share of taxes," but then these same people get really defensive about protecting tax breaks, entitlements, full pension benefits, and other privileges for all seniors, regardless of their wealth.

  2. #62
    Junior Member
    Joined
    Sep 2017
    Posts
    1,947
    Thanks
    2681

    From
    Massachusetts
    Quote Originally Posted by MaryAnne View Post
    Something that Richard Nixon suggested.

    Could we have a sensible discussion on the Pros and Cons? How could it be set up?

    Several Countries are already doing this. Not like Welfare where people are ashamed or greedy to stay on it.

    What about one Health care for all? Insurance companies would share, but it would be equal. We have a lot of that for older people. why not all?
    Here's an indirect response to that. In the half century leading up to 2016, real GDP per capita rose 136.5%. In the same period, real median household income rose just 31.5%. To understand the impact of that, consider that right now median household income is $59,039, whereas if economic expansion had been proportional over the last 50 years (benefiting the middle class to the same proportional extent as the rich), the median household would today enjoy an income of $106,190.

    I think that really underlines a basic fact: although our economy, as a whole, has been producing more and more new wealth per capita, shockingly little of it is going to most people in the country. We are all, essentially, collaborating on the group project of a national economy, and that group project is succeeding well. But, the benefit of that success is being withheld pretty much entirely from those at the bottom of the structure (the poverty rate is actually a bit higher than it was way back in 1970, and barely lower than 50 years ago), and disproportionately little is going to those in the middle. Instead, the gains are being diverted mostly to the benefit of the very rich.

    That's the problem we need to tackle. I don't know if a basic income is the most sensible way to make sure that the poor and middle class get some reasonable share of all that new wealth we, as an economy, have been creating. But it sure beats not tackling the problem at all.
    Thanks from labrea

  3. #63
    Veteran Member bajisima's Avatar
    Joined
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    46,330
    Thanks
    28357

    From
    New Hampshire
    Quote Originally Posted by Neomalthusian View Post
    Oh I know. That doesn't change anything about what I'm saying, especially in the context of a basic income type of policy.



    We don't need to descend into death panels histrionics. The nation isn't going to deprive itself of health care. We'll continue providing health care to all, and continue sending the bill anywhere and everywhere else. This isn't about health care though.

    For all the left wing rhetoric about "the rich," and "the 1%," there sure is a lot of avoidance of the fact that if you were to put "the richest 1%" in a room together, it'd look like the world's biggest AARP conference. The people with the most wealth tend to be older. We constantly hear from the progressive left that "the rich (who tend to be old) aren't paying their fair share of taxes," but then these same people get really defensive about protecting tax breaks, entitlements, full pension benefits, and other privileges for all seniors, regardless of their wealth.
    Baby Boomers control 70% of disposable income in the US.

    https://impactbp.com/baby-boomers

  4. #64
    Veteran Member MaryAnne's Avatar
    Joined
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    50,716
    Thanks
    36260

    From
    Englewood,Ohio
    Quote Originally Posted by Arkady View Post
    Here's an indirect response to that. In the half century leading up to 2016, real GDP per capita rose 136.5%. In the same period, real median household income rose just 31.5%. To understand the impact of that, consider that right now median household income is $59,039, whereas if economic expansion had been proportional over the last 50 years (benefiting the middle class to the same proportional extent as the rich), the median household would today enjoy an income of $106,190.

    I think that really underlines a basic fact: although our economy, as a whole, has been producing more and more new wealth per capita, shockingly little of it is going to most people in the country. We are all, essentially, collaborating on the group project of a national economy, and that group project is succeeding well. But, the benefit of that success is being withheld pretty much entirely from those at the bottom of the structure (the poverty rate is actually a bit higher than it was way back in 1970, and barely lower than 50 years ago), and disproportionately little is going to those in the middle. Instead, the gains are being diverted mostly to the benefit of the very rich.

    That's the problem we need to tackle. I don't know if a basic income is the most sensible way to make sure that the poor and middle class get some reasonable share of all that new wealth we, as an economy, have been creating. But it sure beats not tackling the problem at all.
    Twitter is now exploding about Education being cut to the bone. Kasich did that to fund Charter Schools. Scandal after scandal of stolen funds, closed Charter Schools, now we have this. Just the latest.

    https://www.cleveland.com/opinion/in...ould_face.html

    https://www.cincinnati.com/story/new...ers/609172002/

    I can post newspaper after newspaper articles.

    Our Churches are taking up donations for School supplies while Kasich is out telling everyone what a good Christian he is, and people believe him.
    Thanks from labrea

  5. #65
    Radical Centrist BigLeRoy's Avatar
    Joined
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    35,101
    Thanks
    30533

    From
    Colorado
    Quote Originally Posted by Libertine View Post
    It was absolutely true for the decade ending with Obama leaving office.
    Jan 2007 we had 146 million jobs and 195 million working age population

    Jan 2017 we had 152 million jobs and 205 million working age.

    6 million more jobs for 10 million more people.

    Donald J Trump has changed that.

    June 2018
    We have 156 million jobs and 207 million working age population.

    3.5 million more jobs and 1.1 million more working age people.

    In the Trumpconomy, 3 jobs have been created for every 1 new working age person.


    For the entire period, 9.5 million new jobs and 11.7 million new working age people.

    https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LFWA64TTUSM647S


    Data extracted on: July 10, 2018 (1:58:26 PM)

    Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey

    Series Id: LNS12000000
    Seasonally Adjusted
    Series title: (Seas) Employment Level
    Labor force status: Employed
    Type of data: Number in thousands
    Age: 16 years and over


    Download:
    Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
    2007 146028(1) 146057 146320 145586 145903 146063 145905 145682 146244 145946 146595 146273
    2008 146378(1) 146156 146086 146132 145908 145737 145532 145203 145076 144802 144100 143369
    2009 142152(1) 141640 140707 140656 140248 140009 139901 139492 138818 138432 138659 138013
    2010 138438(1) 138581 138751 139297 139241 139141 139179 139438 139396 139119 139044 139301
    2011 139250(1) 139394 139639 139586 139624 139384 139524 139942 140183 140368 140826 140902
    2012 141584(1) 141858 142036 141899 142206 142391 142292 142291 143044 143431 143333 143330
    2013 143292(1) 143362 143316 143635 143882 143999 144264 144326 144418 143537 144479 144778
    2014 145122(1) 145161 145673 145680 145825 146267 146401 146522 146752 147411 147391 147597
    2015 148113(1) 148100 148175 148505 148788 148806 148830 149136 148810 149254 149486 150135
    2016 150576(1) 151005 151229 150978 151048 151164 151484 151687 151815 151939 152126 152233
    2017 152076(1) 152511 153064 153161 152892 153250 153511 153471 154324 153846 153917 154021
    2018 154430(1) 155215 155178 155181 155474 155576
    Yeah, you're using the WRONG dataset again! @Arkady, where was the thread where you and Libertine were discussing this before?

  6. #66
    Senior Member
    Joined
    Apr 2015
    Posts
    10,049
    Thanks
    1669

    From
    Banned
    Quote Originally Posted by labrea View Post
    Or the employer could just change the entity it pays for its employees health insurance.
    Most companies with 100 or more employees today are self insured. Add in a government bureaucracy and a lot more people and it wouldn't be enough.

  7. #67
    Veteran Member MaryAnne's Avatar
    Joined
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    50,716
    Thanks
    36260

    From
    Englewood,Ohio
    Quote Originally Posted by Libertine View Post
    Most companies with 100 or more employees today are self insured. Add in a government bureaucracy and a lot more people and it wouldn't be enough.
    Link? We need links when you post what you think.
    Thanks from labrea

  8. #68
    Senior Member
    Joined
    Apr 2015
    Posts
    10,049
    Thanks
    1669

    From
    Banned
    Quote Originally Posted by BigLeRoy View Post
    Yeah, you're using the WRONG dataset again! @Arkady, where was the thread where you and Libertine were discussing this before?
    What does the data you like, that leaves out millions of jobs, say over the same period?

  9. #69
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    13,302
    Thanks
    3267

    From
    California
    Quote Originally Posted by MaryAnne View Post
    Something that Richard Nixon suggested.

    Could we have a sensible discussion on the Pros and Cons? How could it be set up?

    Several Countries are already doing this. Not like Welfare where people are ashamed or greedy to stay on it.

    What about one Health care for all? Insurance companies would share, but it would be equal. We have a lot of that for older people. why not all?
    Ms. MaryAnne,

    I am all in favor of a basic income. You get a job and work, and basically, you get an income.
    Thanks from Libertine

  10. #70
    Radical Centrist BigLeRoy's Avatar
    Joined
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    35,101
    Thanks
    30533

    From
    Colorado
    Quote Originally Posted by Libertine View Post
    What does the data you like, that leaves out millions of jobs, say over the same period?
    It says, of course, that the working age population was growing more slowly than the number of jobs.

    https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/PAYEMS

    https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LFWA64TTUSM647S

    Why on EARTH simply not use the FRED data series on the Working Age Population, INSTEAD of using the series on the Labor Force, which is NOT the right series to use?!!???

    Here are the numbers:

    June 2008: 196,502,791 in the Working Age Population
    June 2018: 206,520,267 in the Working Age Population


    That's an increase of just a bit over 10 million in the Working Age Population.


    As for the New Jobs Created, we had a bit more than 11 million new jobs created in that same time span.


    Shrug.
    Last edited by BigLeRoy; 10th July 2018 at 01:17 PM.

Page 7 of 10 FirstFirst ... 56789 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Quebec to offer guaranteed basic income
    By The Man in forum Current Events
    Replies: 145
    Last Post: 12th December 2017, 04:01 PM
  2. Swiss Voters Reject 'Basic Income' Measure
    By excalibur in forum Current Events
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 6th June 2016, 12:13 PM
  3. Replies: 184
    Last Post: 22nd March 2016, 04:51 AM
  4. Unconditional Basic Income
    By Ambicatus in forum Opinion Polls
    Replies: 162
    Last Post: 4th July 2015, 04:24 PM
  5. Guaranteed Basic Income
    By Suppiluliuma in forum Current Events
    Replies: 71
    Last Post: 23rd November 2013, 06:51 AM

Tags for this Thread


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed