When will we have a Basic Minimum Income?

[Vitold]

I'm not sure I agree, I think it depends on which train of thought you subscribe too. I have a handful of (I want to say they're libertarian, or maybe they're on the opposite end and very liberal...) friends who have posted articles and studies showing it's not a closed system, and making the poor richer, doesn't make the rich poorer.

In capitalist system things/services/etc cost as much as people are willing/able to pay (one reason healthcare should not be private and why we maybe allowed to buy (legal) drugs from Canada). If more people have money they will be willing to pay more and 'rich' will no longer be as rich having the same as before amount of money. If everyone had 100M - no one would be rich (this reasoning excludes access to resources and land which is another topic worthy discussion).

 

[Vitold]

==================

Now back to the topic at hand, I like the concept of BMI, but I don't think it'll work well in a non-utopia. Sure you can replace all the handouts that the government has, but that still won't fund the BMI enough to offset expenses.

Unless you make BMI income dependent, at which case it goes back to being a [larger] handout than what we have now.

And people are stupid and can't manage money. If you give someone a check for $1,000, they can blow it on whatever they want. They way the system is set up now, of those $1,000, they get a voucher for rent for $250 that they have to spend on rent. A $250 voucher for food, that they have to spend on food, etc. So it leaves them little wiggle room to spend the money and realize they can't feed their family. Unfortunately it's aimed at the lowest common denominator, but I'm not sure there's a better way.

I think it would be simple to restrict what the MBI can be spent on. People using 'food stamps', for example, are free to buy any food they want as long as it's not on the forbidden list (I'd imagine no caviar). I think such restrictions are reasonable but tough to decide upon. Similar rationing have been discussed for healthcare (infamous death panels) about procedures should be covered, to what extent etc.

 

[Max*]

I think it would be simple to restrict what the MBI can be spent on. People using 'food stamps', for example, are free to buy any food they want as long as it's not on the forbidden list (I'd imagine no caviar). I think such restrictions are reasonable but tough to decide upon. Similar rationing have been discussed for healthcare (infamous death panels) about procedures should be covered, to what extent etc.

Once you start restricting the BMI, now you need to have a way to enforce it. This adds cost, to an already unsustainable solution.

The whole point (or at least the way I see it, and someone up thread mentioned it) was to cut a check for $x,xxx every month, and get rid of every agency dealing with handouts for the poor/middle class. This way you offset some of the expenses necessary to have those agencies file paperwork, look for people violating the system, etc.

 

[McRat]

...
What's with you and government workers? Why paint them all with a single stroke brush?

...

Because it's gotten out of hand and is getting worse.

Much like Congress, public employee unions in my state pretty effectively dictate to the taxpayer what pay they will receive.

They are the #1 funding source for the elections.

And $93k average per state worker is far higher than the $63k average per family in this state. Most state workers are unskilled or clerical, not technical, middle or upper management who's pay is far higher. Recently it was found that many janitors were over $100,000 a year, one was $271,000 a year. Because the union picks the politicians and it's quid pro quo from there in our state.

This did not happen by market forces, or even collective bargaining. It happened over the years by the influence money has in Sacramento.

 

[Vitold]

Once you start restricting the BMI, now you need to have a way to enforce it. This adds cost, to an already unsustainable solution.

The whole point (or at least the way I see it, and someone up thread mentioned it) was to cut a check for $x,xxx every month, and get rid of every agency dealing with handouts for the poor/middle class. This way you offset some of the expenses necessary to have those agencies file paperwork, look for people violating the system, etc.

Funding someone's drug or gambling habit (BMI w/o supervision) would eventually cause issues some government agency would need to address.

 

[Max*]

Because it's gotten out of hand and is getting worse.

Much like Congress, public employee unions in my state pretty effectively dictate to the taxpayer what pay they will receive.

They are the #1 funding source for the elections.

And $93k average per state worker is far higher than the $63k average per family in this state. Most state workers are unskilled or clerical, not technical, middle or upper management who's pay is far higher. Recently it was found that many janitors were over $100,000 a year, one was $271,000 a year. Because the union picks the politicians and it's quid pro quo from there in our state.

This did not happen by market forces, or even collective bargaining. It happened over the years by the influence money has in Sacramento.

I assumed you were talking about the federal government, but I don't have all the facts for the local state government of California.

But being eager to learn something new, I did some googling. I came across this -- https://www.calhr.ca.gov/Documents/2014-California-State-Employee-Total-Comp-Report.pdf (from the CA government website, for 2014, so a little outdated). On Page 25, it's showing that the wage for a state employee varies from ~33k to ~239k with an average (my math) of about $77k (not $93k), and a median (which I think is more meaningful) of $61k, which is exactly where the CA statewide median income was in 2013 (source: http://www.bizjournals.com/sanjose/...alley-median-income-now-94-572-43-higher.html)

I'm not saying your numbers are wrong, I don't know enough about CA, but can you back them up so I can see your point of view?

Funding someone's drug or gambling habit (BMI w/o supervision) would eventually cause issues some government agency would need to address.

We're in agreement, that's what I started off with:

If you give someone a check for $1,000, they can blow it on whatever they want.

I don't have a better solution, I like the idea of BMI, but implementing it with restrictions takes something that's already non-sustainable to be even less more non-sustainable, and implementing it without restrictions would never work.

 

[ohmman]

And people are stupid and can't manage money. If you give someone a check for $1,000, they can blow it on whatever they want. They way the system is set up now, of those $1,000, they get a voucher for rent for $250 that they have to spend on rent. A $250 voucher for food, that they have to spend on food, etc. So it leaves them little wiggle room to spend the money and realize they can't feed their family. Unfortunately it's aimed at the lowest common denominator, but I'm not sure there's a better way.

I think this is how we view the problem intuitively, probably because the human mind always focuses on the abuse instead of the appropriate use. But there are programs that do indeed give out unconditional cash transfers to the poor. The results have not shown any systemic abuse of the money, and have generally found that people do know what's best for them, despite us thinking we know better.

Here's an article from 2013, but if you search for unconditional cash transfers online, you'll find there's quite a bit of research that has been done subsequently. It's not a huge win, but it appears to be better than the directed programs (heifer, roof, etc.)

 

[Max*]

I think this is how we view the problem intuitively, probably because the human mind always focuses on the abuse instead of the appropriate use. But there are programs that do indeed give out unconditional cash transfers to the poor. The results have not shown any systemic abuse of the money, and have generally found that people do know what's best for them, despite us thinking we know better.

Here's an article from 2013, but if you search for unconditional cash transfers online, you'll find there's quite a bit of research that has been done subsequently. It's not a huge win, but it appears to be better than the directed programs (heifer, roof, etc.)

That's interesting, you may be right, are there any studied done in the US? I see a lot of differences between someone living in poverty in East Africa, and for example Detroit.

I've heard of the Uganda business plan initiative before, I think there was an exhibit about it in DC or something.... but that's slightly different than just giving money for nothing.

Also, this seems to be aimed at the very poor. What about the people on the cusp of poverty? The article itself states that it might not work. BMI would be universal (i.e. the top 1% as well as the bottom 1% would get it)

Overall, an interesting read, thanks.

 

[DragonWatch]

Yes, Logan's Run ~ at twenty~ your green orb in your hand turns from green to black and you are terminated. Run Logan Run.

Germany following white supremacist control outlawed displaying the flag. They as a nation are the least affected of the nations by racism today. In pre-1940s if you were white in Germany you still had a chance of being killed off if you did not have blue eyes or blond hair or, OR the wrong religion. One religion joined in the eradication of another. So, if you are white and think you will be above the fray, kindly think again.

Privatization is the code word "fU I have mine." Its root derivative is "greed or Elitism." Through privatization we will KILL off Public Education, we will KILL off all social programs like social security, we will KILL off medical coverage ~ we will kill off anything "social" and "Good."

We are at the tipping point of self destruction ~ Over Populated, Insufficient Job Opportunities, and a whole lot of Village Idiots. Here is a scientific experiment the will yield a blood fact of life. Put a dozen mice in an enclosed container ~ allow for air (variable control so you can reduce it), only enough food and shavings for say nine of those mice. Ensure all of the mice are white so you cannot tell one from another. After a month, reduce the food quantity down to six, and change the air to only recycled with no fresh air. Next month reduce the food again down to enough for three mice. And, pull some of the air out. Make sure you journal daily so you can review your findings. Then at the very end or whenever you quit the experiment, look down, close your eyes. Then ever so slowly open your eyes and allow them to slowly drift up and then, a then try to focus on the world around you ~ what do you see? Realizing that you are the Religious Elitist, the Political Elitest, and or the Village Idiot because you are the one that put the mice in the cage, you controlled their food, you controlled their air supply. If this turned your stomach, then their is hope for you. If you do not give a gD then there is no hope for you. We are at this door ~ open it and make your choice. It is as simple as a computer responding to 0s or 1s.

I have said universal income will not work. It could, but the walls (laws) around it have to be severe. Otherwise the Religious Elites, the Political Elitist and the Village Idiot will once again tear the walls down. Very good laws (not well protected) were eroded one step at a time. First the racist gangs were moved from one political party to another, the federal tax system was gutted, public education has been under fire since the sixties, social security is a prime target; I could go on for ever ~ it seems. Those laws were enacted to bring this nation out of the Great Depression and keep it Out. It has not lasted because HATE is compelling, and addicting vs love and compassion. Hate is no different than yelling fire in a crowded room. Not one drip of blood different.

Oh, the mice experiment above. Try an experiment with twelve mice, a larger space, food and water for the twelve, control birth rate, pick each mouse up frequently and hold them lovingly or at least like you care, clean the cage frequently. Again keep a journal, once you have reached the two month period, again close your eyes while looking down. Then once more gently open your eyes and raise your head looking at you experiment. Continue upwards to the world around you ~ see if a smile comes to to your face or is it the angered white man look?

Hate is a simple switch 0s & 1s. But you have to make the choice, I cannot do it for you. No guts no glory. When the going gets tough, the tough get going.

 

[Max*]

Through privatization we will KILL off Public Education, we will KILL off all social programs like social security, we will KILL off medical coverage ~ we will kill off anything "social" and "Good."

The best way for a project to go over budget and not meet requirements? Give it to the government. Private industry will always be leaner, better and faster. They will not be ethical though, then again, neither is the government.

If you do not give a gD then there is no hope for you.

I don't give a damn, but that doesn't mean there's no hope for me. You draw it too black or white.

What's the point of the experiment? Are we adding something scientific to the world by running the experiment or are we just torturing animals?

 

[McRat]

I assumed you were talking about the federal government, but I don't have all the facts for the local state government of California.

But being eager to learn something new, I did some googling. I came across this -- https://www.calhr.ca.gov/Documents/2014-California-State-Employee-Total-Comp-Report.pdf (from the CA government website, for 2014, so a little outdated). On Page 25, it's showing that the wage for a state employee varies from ~33k to ~239k with an average (my math) of about $77k (not $93k), and a median (which I think is more meaningful) of $61k, which is exactly where the CA statewide median income was in 2013 (source: http://www.bizjournals.com/sanjose/...alley-median-income-now-94-572-43-higher.html)

I'm not saying your numbers are wrong, I don't know enough about CA, but can you back them up so I can see your point of view?


We're in agreement, that's what I started off with:


I don't have a better solution, I like the idea of BMI, but implementing it with restrictions takes something that's already non-sustainable to be even less more non-sustainable, and implementing it without restrictions would never work.

I got that $93k number directly from the official California Government website for December 2016. They do not calculate medians as that is sort of pointless unless you're marketing something. In fact, they just list the payroll and number of employees.

 

[Max*]

I got that $93k number directly from the official California Government website for December 2016. They do not calculate medians as that is sort of pointless unless you're marketing something. In fact, they just list the payroll and number of employees.

Medians are pointless? I don't know if I should laugh or cry. It's basic math, they're often more meaningful than means, but sure, let's use means for the sake of argument.

Also, when looking at the US, the census bureau uses median household income, not mean household income. Just saying.


And i'll ask again, got a link? I can't find it on ca.gov or publicpay.ca.gov

Because under GCC : Summary it states that the average (which you like better) for 2015 is between $69k to $21k, depending on jurisdiction.

And here GCC : Cities (2015) it's $63k average wage for all city employees (I'm guessing this doesn't include CA state employees, which the above link does include).


So what I'm seeing the average income for a CA city/state employee is the same as the national median household income. Not 150% higher. So I'm still not sure where you're getting your numbers from.



ETA: I'll try to throw you a bone.

Since you live in Norco, CA, maybe you're looking at local values? Well then we should compare against local median income.

http://www.city-data.com/city/Norco-California.html

Norco median household income is $90k. So if the Norco city (county?) employees are being paid an average of $93k, that sounds somewhat reasonable. Maybe a tad high, but not outrageous like you listed above.

 

[kort677]

Because it's gotten out of hand and is getting worse.

Much like Congress, public employee unions in my state pretty effectively dictate to the taxpayer what pay they will receive.

They are the #1 funding source for the elections.

And $93k average per state worker is far higher than the $63k average per family in this state. Most state workers are unskilled or clerical, not technical, middle or upper management who's pay is far higher. Recently it was found that many janitors were over $100,000 a year, one was $271,000 a year. Because the union picks the politicians and it's quid pro quo from there in our state.

This did not happen by market forces, or even collective bargaining. It happened over the years by the influence money has in Sacramento.

in addition to their salaries, the benefits are totally out of whack with the private sector, the pensions are ultimately going to cause many problems as most of them are unfunded. the medical benefits they're given is also far above what is offered by the private sector. civil service type positions should not be allowed to be unionized.

 

[McRat]

Medians are pointless? I don't know if I should laugh or cry. It's basic math, they're often more meaningful than means, but sure, let's use means for the sake of argument.

Also, when looking at the US, the census bureau uses median household income, not mean household income. Just saying.


And i'll ask again, got a link? I can't find it on ca.gov or publicpay.ca.gov

Because under GCC : Summary it states that the average (which you like better) for 2015 is between $69k to $21k, depending on jurisdiction.

And here GCC : Cities (2015) it's $63k average wage for all city employees (I'm guessing this doesn't include CA state employees, which the above link does include)

I'll trade. You give the 'median' family income for California State employees per their household paycheck amounts and see if it's comparable.

An example, a rookie state policeman starts at $75k here and goes up 5% a year to $95k. This does not include bonuses, incentives, or overtime.

A rookie US Army policeman starts at $18k.

 

[Max*]

in addition to their salaries, the benefits are totally out of whack with the private sector, the pensions are ultimately going to cause many problems as most of them are unfunded. the medical benefits they're given is also far above what is offered by the private sector. civil service type positions should not be allowed to be unionized.

Until I see numbers to back up the $93k, I stand by actual numbers

https://www.calhr.ca.gov/Documents/2014-California-State-Employee-Total-Comp-Report.pdf

There's a report in there comparing salary + benefits to market wages (pages 4 and 5). And they're not "out of whack"

 

[McRat]

in addition to their salaries, the benefits are totally out of whack with the private sector, the pensions are ultimately going to cause many problems as most of them are unfunded. the medical benefits they're given is also far above what is offered by the private sector. civil service type positions should not be allowed to be unionized.

The pensions are dramatically underfunded and there is not enough money to cover them.

 

[McRat]

Until I see numbers to back up the $93k, I stand by actual numbers

https://www.calhr.ca.gov/Documents/2014-California-State-Employee-Total-Comp-Report.pdf

There's a report in there comparing salary + benefits to market wages (pages 4 and 5). And they're not "out of whack"

2014? Are you for real?

"For Bargaining Units 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, and 21"

How about the entire burrito and not just the box it came in?

 

[Max*]

I'll trade.

What does that mean? You stated a number as fact, I said I don't see it, you told me to look harder, I did, but I still don't see it. Where does it state $93k?

Unless you concede that the number was wrong, in which case, let's move on.

You give the 'median' family income for California State employees per their household paycheck amounts and see if it's comparable.

How in the world am I, or anyone, supposed to know what the median household income is for government employees? Why should that matter? If my spouse is a government employee, but I'm a business owner make $1M a year, that's not her fault.

Same thing, if my spouse is a government employee, but I'm a janitor, it shouldn't count against her.

An example, a rookie state policeman starts at $75k here and goes up 5% a year to $95k. This does not include bonuses, incentives, or overtime.

A rookie US Army policeman starts at $18k.

I agree that the army is underpaid. But again, your numbers are skewed, but at least they're right this time. So don't pull strawmen argument.

State police in CA:
Salary and Benefits - Officer

Non-state police, starts a lot lower
http://www1.salary.com/CA/police-officer-salary.html

 

[Max*]

2014? Are you for real?

Give me ANY numbers to justify $93k! Anything, anything at all.

Otherwise, you keep pulling numbers out of thin air, and I have to go figure out that you're wrong? lol.

I don't live in CA, I don't really care about CA, but I wanted to see if it's as drastic as you said it is. It's not. Unless you got something to back it up?

 

[Max*]

"For Bargaining Units 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, and 21"

How about the entire burrito and not just the box it came in?

First thing that came up in Google. Find something better, o wait, I did from the CA government website that you didn't link me to. It states $63k.

Did you mistake a 6 for a 9?