Minimum income for all

Re: Minimum income for all

Postby Vacancyrate » Dec 21st, 2018, 12:56 am

dakoda62 wrote:*bleep*. more taxpayer dollars for permanent welfare, where are you getting the cash for this? Oh yeah the taxpayers. This moron has to go.

As technology progresses many jobs for people will be eliminated. These people who will lose their jobs cannot be re-trained to be computer programmers and social media marketing entrepreneurs. Many children currently in school are not cut out to pursue higher learning, despite the Universities enthusiasm for their dollars.

What are you going to do with these people?

If you let them starve out in the streets you better build a very big castle with very large walls and a very large moat because they will far outnumber the university educated 6 figure salary urban professionals. I think there are few cases in history where this has occurred and it never turned out well for the people in the castles.

Less than 1% of humans are exceptional. Wise up.
Generalissimo Postalot
Posts: 755
Likes: 115 posts
Liked in: 486 posts
Joined: Mar 15th, 2018, 12:42 pm

Re: Minimum income for all

Postby hobbyguy » Dec 21st, 2018, 10:39 am

All of this relates to growing disconnect between GDP and the prosperity of the median person.

We have been through this before. We have allowed corporations to become the replacements for the "robber barons" of the 1880 - 1914 period. The template is there to fix that, one only needs to look at the actions of those that brought in laws to curtail the "robber barons".

While automation and technology have indeed played a big part in the decline of the middle class, I would argue that a more insidious force in that decline has been the agglomeration practiced by corporations - who wind up then leaving us - as consumers and workers, with no choice but to accept what they choose to offer. That agglomeration also tends to stifle innovation and has pernicious effects in driving lowest common denominator effects.

That leaves part of my incomplete thinking on the subject on mincomes stuck thinking: why do we need to even consider such things? Is that not the sort of thing that put the Soviet Union in a bind? Only a few "producers" that become complacent and calcified? If you have 100 companies in enterprise area "a", they need say 100 foremen. If you have only 3, then they only need say 30 foremen - that's 70 less middle class jobs - and very little choice for consumers. With only 3 in the market, price collusion becomes easy. With 100 in the market - price collusion is very difficult. If you have 100 middle class folks, there is a strong market diversity, with only 30 middle class and 70 on "mincome", by necessity "cheap and nasty" becomes the only consumer choice, and market. "Cheap and nasty" is where the Soviet Union wound up... a downward spiral.

So I start asking the question, would it not be better if we find ways to avoid the necessity of even thinking about mincomes??
Dimples - "just not ready"
Posts: 9215
Likes: 2609 posts
Liked in: 10006 posts
Joined: Jan 20th, 2011, 8:10 pm


Return to Canada

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: CommonCrawl [Bot] and 1 guest