Throughout history, those ruling over others within a society always have enjoyed privileges, which were denied to the majority of people.
The ruling class often has enjoyed many spoils, from jewellery to castles, access to the finest goods and best doctors. Power goes along with wealth, and wealth goes along with power. But whenever the situation of the land becomes dire, these privileges condense to the very life essentials. The chieftains get to eat, while their tribesmen starve. The Szar drunk imported wine, while the commoners froze to death in the Russian winter after a failed harvest. The French court held rushing festivals, while the French people suffered from the economic effects of war that bankrupted the country.
But every so often the imbalance become too great. The people feel cheated, treated unfair. Disillusioned and disadvantaged. And then they revolt.
That cost Louis XIV and Marie Antouinette their heads and Szar Nicholas II was shot with his family while trying to flee the revolution.
But through the majority of history, the people are quite contempt with the inequality of society.
Why?
Because everyone knows their place, their class. The Indians took that to the extreme, with their caste system, but effectively every society is layered horizontally, with those that have nothing at all at the bottom, and the majority of the population slightly above. With barely enough to make a living, but securely above those who have nothing.
All people need is a tiny tiny chance of making it one step higher in these layers. Preferably if they play by the rules made by those at the very top, while those not complying end up being demoted.
Then even those at great disadvantage will be contempt, because they enjoy privileges.
Probably the most perfidious example of this was the system of "kapos" or "prisoner functionary" in Nazi concentration camps.
These prisoners were given minor privileges. Larger rations while the rest was starving, better clothing, bedsheets. And also the privilege to stomp down on those under them. Kapos were used to help keep the regular prisoners under control, and no guard intervened if they hit, raped, or even killed someone. On the contrary, the prison administrations preferably promoted violent prisoners to this status.
But of course they had to play by the rules, or they could as quickly be demoted again and suffer like the rest.
It worked. Often the Kapos did the dirty work for the SS. Kept the prisoners under control, smashed down revolts, tortured others for information or just for fun, and kept the level of terror where the administration wanted it to be. Without a single Nazi needing to bend a finger for it.
Effectively the Kapos were victims turned offenders. But it was more. The system of privileges didn't just keep the normal prisoners under control, because they feared the capos and it created the incentive that if you just complied and overachieved your forced labour quota you might also earn your place among the privileged, but also because the privileged feared to fall back.
A kapo could have shared their food rations with their starving inmates, but none did. Why give away the privileges they had worked so hard for, that they deserved, were entitled to?
Are they to blame?
Let's leave the concentration camp to the abyss of history and look at a modern western society.
The world has recovered from the 2008 finance crisis. Western countries are technically rich. Rich enough that anyone could have a roof to live under, medical support to remain healthy and battle any illness that modern medicine can treat, and have food to eat. We are far from a situation where the majority of the population would have to starve.
But yet, the social gap is larger than ever. We have more multi billionaires than ever, but at the same time the middle class is getting thinner, and poorer. And the poor become more.
So what is easier than reinforce the system of limited privileges for those who have almost nothing.
Why would a middle aged middle class father vote for a party who pledges to erode guaranteed health care insurance for everyone? Insurance that he might need desperately a decade later when he is too old or too sick to work, but no longer eligible or able to afford the premium due to age and preconditions?
The answer is, because he is afraid. Afraid to loose status, privilege, and standing over those under him. This fear is being kindled by those in power, those above him, those with more power and more privileges. Those who will never even need insurance because they have enough money to shrug anything off. Those in charge.
But the family father is told that he should do this, since he is entitled to his status that he worked for all his hard working life. Why give anyone under him privileges for free that he had to work so hard for?
That family man is a victim. A victim because he had to work hard for what others above him had for free, only to now be turned into an accomplice to deny it to those beneath him.
Equality for all can't work. It is an illusion, people are not equal. But chances should be. Basic needs should not be denied. Be it a roof to sleep under, warmth when it is freezing cold, food to not starve, clean water, and the ability to get ones sickness and injuries treated.
But also the pre-requirements to be successful in life. Education, access to knowledge and communication. The bare essentials nowadays to get a job.
Having one's children taken care of while one goes to work. Letting them have an equal opportunity to make something out of their lifes as well.
This would make equal starting ground to give people a chance to make it. The so called American dream, where anyone can make it. It requires these pre-requisites to work. Anyone who is denied that can work his arse off all he wants, he won't make it.
By the way, you know that song: "16 tons, and what do I get. Another day older and deeper in dept..." ?
It would however require those who have become super rich to share a tiny bit of their privileges. Not even much.
But especially those in power, they oppose it. Not only do they oppose it themselves, they appeal to the fear of the underprivileged to assist them in the opposition. Undo what little has been achieved previously to level the inequality of chances.
This will block the family fathers chances of ever climbing higher up that elusive ladder. His future will be further down, and so will that of his children.
But he believes the illusion that the little he has achieved is setting him above those under, who haven't worked their arse off like him. And he is told he should rather shut down the door for those underneath him, lest they not climb to his level and share those "privileges" that are in fact none but bare life essentials, that he had to work so hard for.
And it's so easy, way less personal than what the kapos did in 1942. Noone gets tortured or beaten or killed. All the righteous and hard working American needs to do is vote for the party that will ensure, promise, he keeps his status. That he will not have to share with those who don't deserve it.
And as such making sure he, too will never, ever, climb above his level. The only way left, is down.
The clown always gets all the attention. But counterintuitively, this is more about the pachyderme to ass ratio during the boring animal act, then the slapstick intermezo ;)
The clown always gets all the attention. But counterintuitively, this is more about the pachyderme t
You say that the working man doesn't want these 'free' programs to help the poor because he's scared. Seriously, where do you think all this 'free' stuff comes from? I'll clue you in to a little hint, it isn't free! The rich politicians don't part with their money for these programs and the poor don't contribute hardly anything, (If anything at all.) So guess who gets fleeced? The working man. It's the working man whose paycheck get taxed into Oblivion so some lazy fuck can sit on his ass and have everything paid for him. This is something that these lazy bastards don't seem to realize... The money has to come from somewhere. I for one am tired of seeing 50% of my wages being taken away from me because a bunch of able bodied, able minded, folks don't want to go and earn a living for themselves. Think about it, you have a family member that WON'T get a job. He or she eats your food, uses your facilities, contributes no money, the lazy bastards doesn't even pick up after himself. He or she doesn't even go looking for work, they just sit around the house taking up space, using your resources and your money. How long do you think you will put up with that? The working class is sick of supporting the losers that refuse to work, refuse to pull their own weight, and refuse to grow up.
You say that the working man doesn't want these 'free' programs to help the poor because he's scared
Did you look at demographics? The working man is anyone who finished his education and isn't too old to work yet. The working man of today is the poor old grandpa of tomorrow who's ailed by age caused issues.
This is where statistically the money flows to. Not some scarecrow freeloader.
The same thing was going on in my country in the late 90s. High unemployment, Economy struggling. What the politicians did was rile up the working class against the unemployed. "Look at the freeloaders, they are set, get all the benefits from the unemployment plan and are sitting on their lazy ass."
They underlined that in the media with some extreme cases, and the working class bought it. They reformed the social system so anyone loosing their job, even if they worked for 20 years and paid into the unemployment-insuranxe fund would get payments for 1 year only and then cut to bare minimum. which was cut further if he did't take any job offered by anyone ( there was no legal minimum wage)
The effect was, it eroded wages. With lots of people suddenly forced to take up any job for any wage, companies fired the hard working people and instead hired the former "freeloaders" - for a fraction of the wage.
That in turn increased the fear of becoming unemployed for the rest. The only people able to keep their wage level were the highly skilled ones. The ones who couldn't be replaced by a lower class wageslave.
With the lower wages there were less taxes flowing, so the state increased taxes for those still earning good.
In the end, it was a big social experiment proofing that the cost for society remain the same, whether you feed the unprivileged from tax money, or if you force them to do your work for a fraction of the price cause they are desperate.
There is a diffetence though. Not for the working class, but those high above them. Investment brokers, politicians, shareholders, anyone who isnt hard working but can have their money working for them instead. Guess which system they prefer ?
Btw, instead of taking 50% of the hard working mans income as taxes, there is always the option of taxing companies profits instead. Why a worker pay 50% of what you earn but a multi billion dollar company like Google or Amazon gets away Scott free?
Or should I say - double Irish free?
Did you look at demographics? The working man is anyone who finished his education and isn't too old
There's just one little problem with your 'scarecrow illusion', it's actually very, very real. Case in point, I can name four people in my town that claim to be 'disabled, but are FAR from being disabled. They have full use of their limbs, eyes, ears, ect. They can think and reason just fine. Now these people may not be fit to be construction workers or brick layers, but they CAN work. Being able to work doesn't mean you have the physique of an Olympic athlete, if you have full use of your body and mind then there really is no excuse to just give up and make every one else pay for their existence. If you claim that you can't work cause of your knee, but you're more than willing to walk your happy ass three blocks to the corner store to buy a pack of cigarettes that I'm paying for with my taxes... then you can work.
But lets think about something else you pointed out. Getting rid of the hard workers and hiring the freeloaders for less money. That would be a very dumb business move. Training costs money and folks who are used to living for 'free' don't make very productive employees. Which is better? An 10 year veteran employee that doesn't need to be trained and makes few mistakes because he's been working the job for so long, or the new, low paid employee that needs to be trained, will make more mistakes, has low drive, and is used to having everything handed to him/her? The freeloader might be cheap in the starting block, but in the long run he'll cost the company more in errors and training. (Unless you're talking about a Walmart greeter or a fast food worker. I'm referring to living wage jobs not part time minimum wage jobs.) I build aircraft, would you think it's a good idea to get rid of me who has a mechanical degree and years of experience building aircraft and replace me with some guy that hasn't got a clue when it comes to building airplanes? Would YOU want to get on an airplane built by a crew of those guys? I'm pretty sure you wouldn't. Now imagine the airlines, (Your customers.) discovering that you had done this, how long would you expect to stay in business? (And that's if the FAA didn't eat you alive from manufacturing errors and process violations.)
As for the business getting away without paying their fair share of taxes, I think if we simply had a flat tax, (A tax that everyone pays. Choose a percentage and everyone pays it no matter how wealthy or poor you are.) I think that would put an end to all this 'loop hole' crap that companies use to get away without paying their fair share. (And politicians too.)
There's just one little problem with your 'scarecrow illusion', it's actually very, very real. Case
I don't doubt that the freeloaders are real. They didn't make those cases up in Germany either, they were very real. And there were many of them.
It's in peoples nature to try and find loopholes in the system they can exploit. There always will be (loopholes as well as exploiters that is).
But the issue was that these exploiters were used as example to stigmatize every sick, every unemployed, everyone who didn't work, as a lazy freeloader. And this was far from the truth. The freeloaders statistically had a financial impact but it was significantly below 10 percent of the total social cost. Definitely not the reason the powers in charge wanted to cut it. They wanted to cut down on the remaining 90% but needed a good argument to do so.
I'm skipping over the limping cigarette addict, that'd open an entire other barrel of mess ;)
Let's get to the bad business decisions. Yes, indeed, it might look like a bad to take the unskilled for skilled work. But this all didn't happen during a time of great economic success. Companies were downsizing their staff. Even skilled staff. It was cheaper to hire temp agencies on demand and have only a base crew. But even that base crew was too expensive. So what do you do?
Assume an aircraft manufacturer with 10000 employees in a city. He wants to scale down to 6000. So he evaluates all employees and keeps only 3000. The most skilled, the most irreplaceable. Anyone close to pension, anyone yet not trained enough, anyone not performing enough, anyone with health related shortfalls. Anyone who doesn't bring in a multiple of what they cost gets the kickout.
Then they hire another 3000 back on demand through temp agencies. These temp agencies now have a pool of 6000 workers to fill 3000 positions. Guess what that does to the expected wage level. And the manufacturer doesn't loose any skill, in fact even though its now bought in from a 3rd company you still have the same people doing the maintenance that always did. Well, some of them...
But I agree on your flat tax idea. Except, it might shouldn't be flat across people but more on incorporated entities.
Let's look at the chain of human wealth creation. You have some investor who provides funds. Then you source natural raw materials, you process them into producs, then further into refined products, and at the end you sell that product or a service based on it.
Throuhout history, the backbone of this possibly long and complicated chain was human labour. No enterpreneur and no investor could get rich without workers earning the money for him. In turn they received - as a whole - the majority of the income and were the largest cost factor. Even the natural raw materials effectively only cost as much as the amount of work involved to harvest them,
Paying the workers their share also provided a fluid customer base to consume the products. In their entirety, the workers are also the consumers. The money flows in a circle, except for a percentage that investors and possibly the state can siphon away. The first in form of profits, the second in form of taxes.
But capitalism demands optimization to survive against the competition. It is only natural to try and cut down the largest expense - wages - to produce cheaper than the competition. But as you correctly pointed out that only works to a degree. Beyond a certain point, cheap employees do cheap work.
However in the 19th century started a new process that has sped up in the last decade. At first it replaced weavers with automatic looms. Nowadays its replacing jobs even in human relation or money brokerage with big data algorithms and artificial intelligence. Automatism allows investors a shortcut. They can produce worthy products out of raw materials with a lot less labour involved. And even the raw materials get cheaper as mining and harvesting operations get more and more automated.
...
I don't doubt that the freeloaders are real. They didn't make those cases up in Germany either, they
I had a good laugh when I read this... "Assume an aircraft manufacturer with 10000 employees in a city. He wants to scale down to 6000. So he evaluates all employees and keeps only 3000. The most skilled, the most irreplaceable. Anyone close to pension, anyone yet not trained enough, anyone not performing enough, anyone with health related shortfalls. Anyone who doesn't bring in a multiple of what they cost gets the kickout.
Then they hire another 3000 back on demand through temp agencies. These temp agencies now have a pool of 6000 workers to fill 3000 positions. Guess what that does to the expected wage level. And the manufacturer doesn't loose any skill, in fact even though its now bought in from a 3rd company you still have the same people doing the maintenance that always did. Well, some of them..."
So lets just pretend that you own a airplane manufacturing company and you did this strategy. Do you really think that the 3000 highly skilled employees that you kept would be willing to take on the load of the other 7000 employees you laid off and replaced with temp workers? Lets just say that out of those 7000 temp workers you were lucky enough to get 2000 of your old workers back through the temp agency. So you have 5000 temp workers that need close supervision and training to manufacture your aircraft grade parts. (Because you aren't gonna get all of them back.) I dunno if you know anything about building airplanes, but you don't just drill a few holes, tighten a bolt or nut here and there and send it out the hangar door. Machining airplane parts is a very detailed and delicate process. You can't just grab some guy off the street or in this case away from his Xbox and tell him to start machining airplane parts to FAA specifications with a tolerance +/_ .0005 in. So like I said earlier, once your customer, (The airlines) gets wind that you've traded out your veteran workers for ex-baristas and basement dwellers to build your airplanes for cheap they're gonna drop you like a bad habit. Because no airline wants to run the risk of having airplanes in their fleet fall apart or fail FAA inspection because guess what... they have to pay the fines or answer to the public when a plane goes down and all 250+ passengers are killed in a big ball of twisted metal and burning jet fuel. But wait, then there's all the FAA violations and fines you'll be paying for each time one of these cheap temp workers cuts a corner in the production process cause he's either inexperienced or just doesn't care cause he's only making minimum wage. So this 'cheap' employee just cost you a few hundred bucks or even a few thousand bucks in fines and that's if your lucky. The FAA also has the ability to pull your production certificate if they feel you've violated too many regulations or processes.
Now on to your automated point. There's a reason why airplanes are not built by automated robots. It isn't cause they can't do it and it isn't that they cost too much. It's because the FAA and the flying public WANT several pairs of human eyes on each airplane part before it goes on an airplane. As a person building airplane parts I actually care about the quality of each part I produce because I know that lives depend on those parts. Robots don't care, if a part has a slight imperfection but passes it's programmed perimeters it'll pass the part along without so much as a hicup. Maybe that part won't fail, maybe... But hey, if falling out of the sky from 30,000 feet is worth saving a few dollars on a plane ticket to ya then welcome aboard. Don't mind the fast drop out of the sky or the sudden stop when you 'land'. We build cars with robots but if a part fails in a car you can at least get out of the thing without falling to your death. And even then people still die.
Just to show that I'm not making all this up. https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/feds-givi
You have more insight into the specifics of aircraft maintenance practice and guidelines than me, so I'm not going to argue against that.
In other fields, automated quality control reaches both higher quality levels and tighter error margins than manual checks could ever achieve. Often because the tolerances are much finer than the human eye can even perceive. (Chip production for example) and a human could never check so many parts so quickly.
But I fully agree, it would feel saver climbing in an aircraft that someone has looked over once again, just to make sure the programmer didn't miss something glaringly obvious. It's no use if the bolt hole and its thread are machined to 1 thousandth of an inch tolerance and automatically and the material composition checked with a neutron - x-ray machine and state of the art neural image processing ... and then somehow the screw never got put in because the robot's part magazine was short a bolt and the sensor for it failed. I could totally see that happening ;)
Very embarrassing, and very tragic should that ever cause a crash.
However I also have top say, exactly that thing I described was happening with car manufacturers when they had to lay off people.
You have more insight into the specifics of aircraft maintenance practice and guidelines than me, so
And to add a link from that time. A nice article (in german) describing mass layoffs planned at all sorts of companies from banks to car manufacturers to telecommunication. That was in 2010.
Regarding the Cato webpage, I read that through again. Its a commentary article, not a factual one, and I think they are overplaying the actual amount of cases of misuse - without being able to back that up quantitatively.
Yet they do have a point! The system is there to help disabled, not to be exploited by those not in need for it. Not IMHO because people with income have to pay for it, but because it takes funds away from those that really need it.
On the other hand, regulations that make it hard to impossible and a big buerocratic hurdle for those in need to proof that they are really in need is just as much of a problem. How do you make sure you can keep the fakers out and yet don't discriminate against those in need.
If I combine that article with what mouse24 wrote further down, the current regulations about who is eligible and who isn't isn't working very reliable. It does the opposite, it excludes people despite their disability, and yet allows those without to exploit it.
Clearly room for improvement.
Regarding the Cato webpage, I read that through again. Its a commentary article, not a factual one,
One way to cut back on the programs blatant abuse is to cut their funding for giving it to folks that don't need it. By having less money to just give away with no regard for who is getting it it will force them to at the very least think twice about giving away benefits without just cause.
One way to cut back on the programs blatant abuse is to cut their funding for giving it to folks tha
I disagree with that approach. My experience with the type of bureaucracy that manages applications and grants for programs like this and how they respond to budget cuts would not work out well.
1. Budget cuts would also end up in cuts for the administration of the program. That means less people to progress applications, which means less time to decide on each application. This would make both false positives and false negatives worse and also increase the waiting time for those in need.
2. Less funds would indeed result in less applications being approved. But in my experience they will either do that by keep approving them from the beginning of the fiscal year until the funds run out, and then just pile applications up until the beginning of the next year (which primarily hurts those who really need it) or they come up with impossibly high conditions to be eligible. (Basically only approve those who are half dead and can proof it) That would again hurt a lot of people who are sick but yet not eligible by the new extreme rules, while those faking, would just have to fake more extreme things.
In each case, general budget cuts would hurt the honest people while those dishonest still find a way to wiggle themselves access to those funds. To improve efficiency you usually need to invest. Put in some money at first in order to save more money later. (The same is true for any company, too. Grass-cutter type cuts everywhere usually doom innovation and flexibility and kill an already struggling enterprise)
I would hire an external independent group to analyze the situation - find out exactly how much misuse there is as well as how many people fall through the sieve and don't receive benefits even though they are sick - and then come up with a proposal for changed rules to make the application process more efficient and weed out those who are faking.
You'd have to pay for these external specialists, and then you might have to pay even more to implement the changes (might result in hiring some social workers to access individual cases) - but in the end you'd save money by only giving those people money who need it for as long as they need it.
When doing that it would also make sense to help these people find a job that they still can do despite their disability, instead of just raining money on them.
Here in Germany we have entire companies that specialize in employing disabled. They receive a lot of subsidees (in the form of tax cuts) and the state also partially pays those disabled employees, which makes them very cheap for the company. That allows that company to be profitable despite a less performant employee base, and it still saves the state money because it has to pay a lot less than if these were unemployed and dependent on wellfare.
I also think enrolling the "fakers" in programs like that would pretty quickly expose they are faking. If you only sit at home and receive a wellfare check every month with no social interaction, no one can tell.
I disagree with that approach. My experience with the type of bureaucracy that manages applications
You know, you could actually do some lobbying if you feel like it.
You could write a letter to your districts elected (federal or state) parliament representative, and/or state governor (generally, the higher up you go, the less important your "feedback" becomes and the less likely people are willing to listen to individuals, but in the rare case that they do, they can have a lot more power)
or if that guy is not willing to listen, the guy who's going to go against him in the next election ;)
I think, in the US, the budgets for disabled support health and welfare programs are often just state budgets. I dunno about social workers in the US, but in Germany they are also often even employed (and dispatched) on a municipal base.
That means you actually don't have to go that high up to make a difference. In many cases its actually possible to get involved or at least heard by people in local politics. (Especially since not too many people care about the local level these days.)
I wouldn't categorically rule it out that you find some open ears to both concerns and suggestions for solutions.
To my own shame I have to admit, when it comes to elections for my current towns municipality, I don't even know any of the names on the list. What they do, what they stand for, what they propose, or what their thing is. So I make my cross based on which party they are from, if I go to the election at all.
Which is technically stupid. It's that one level of politics where my vote, and my feedback could actually have a noticeable difference. But most people don't care and don't have the time to even bother reading their pamphlets, much less a transcript of a municipal debate... could turn out that the guy with the nice face from the popular party is both an idiot and an ***hole, and noone even knowns.
Yet it is those people who decide if there's gonna be a new mall in the neighborhood or if the local park is going to make room for a new bypass highway. If they are going to send social workers to deal with the gang of graffity spraying youngsters that hang out behind the train station, or have the police enforce a zero tolerance policy and bring them all to jail, or do just nothing and let them smash in windows and burn the occasional car... Often its that level that has the most impact on ones life.
You know, you could actually do some lobbying if you feel like it. You could write a letter to your
The problem with that is, that you need less and less workers, although those that you still need need to be more and more highly skilled. At the same time more and more products get created and they become cheaper and cheaper.
To a degree society can compensate. Employees become more and more skilled, and trained better. And the surplus of goods that the society simply doesn't have the wealth anymore to buy (less workers mean less wages paid) - you just export them to someone else who is willing to pay. Germany has been really good at that. We would never have reached the current peak in economical power if not for supplying the worlds boom in consumer good production with the machines to make the machines. Tools. Highly specialized industrial components.
The smartphone might be made in China. But the chip litography optics for its processor come from Zeiss, Germany. In turn Germans buy the Smartphones, the circle is complete.
Except, there are those who can't keep up. Those who don't get the highly paid specialist position in Zeiss, Jena. Cause meanwhile to get hired, even a Bachelor degree isn't enough, you need a master AND at least 5 years experience... unless you are just seeking a minimum wage internship.
I'm disgressing... the entire system uses less and less workers. The productive age of employees shrinks. As they spend more and more time acquiring skills and with education. You might be way over thirty before you get a well paying position. And above 50 they already stop hiring you because you are too old.
This isn't going to stop there. As a result, a state that taxes it's population for income will have less and less, even though productivity skyrockets. And the taxes would get higher and higher.
If people aren't involved in the worth creation to a significant degree anymore, if labour doesn't play the main role anymore, then you need to put the taxes on something else. Profits seem a good idea at first.
But if you look at two of the most succesful US companies these days, Tesla and Amazon, they don't actually make any profits. There are no dividends for stock holders, and no net surplus in their bank account. Anything that comes in gets reinvested to make the company bigger. Research and Development. Sacrifice the profits from today for the market domination tomorrow.
The investors still gain. Big time. Because as the companies estimated future worth rises, so does its stock value.
If you bought Tesla stock worth 60 grand in 2010 for 20 bucks a piece, you'd now be worth a million. Your income, technically 135 grand a year on average - twice your initial investment - without paying as much as a cent of taxes. (Better double check that, I don't know the US taxation system. But there wouldn't be any here if you keep stock that long)
Is that fair? If you worked your ass off in the same time to earn anywhere near that much, you'd have paid the state at least a quarter million dollar.
That's why I think the state shouldn't put taxes on workers or people. It should put taxes on money itself.
But that is easier said then done. The easiest way to tax money would be to print more of it and give it to the state. Everyone elses money just becomes worth less, while the state got the worth that everyone else lost. Or does it?
Not unless the new money actually affects the market by starting to circulate. If a state mint prints three quintillion dollars, then puts them on a safe on the moon, nothing would change. (Except for some sudden rise in private spaceflight investments) It's when the state starts spending it, that the money becomes available and affects the markets - including the market of currencies.
The problem with that is, that you need less and less workers, although those that you still need ne
Now in the past, most states turning on the printing press were in deep shit. They couldn't pay back their dept, or were involved in wars. That means the money being issued is immediately spent AND usually immediately exchanged into foreign currency - due to the very unstable situation. The result is an amplified devaluation of the currency.
On the other hand, the loose politics by both FED and European central banks in the recent years have not caused significantly large inflation. In Germany inflation rates are still very low, despite the eruo being under pressure through troubled states such as Portugal and Greece during that time. So more money alone doesn't immediately lead to devaluation, only if its combined with low demand and high supply on international trade markets.
If you would give that money to the people, in form of free medical aid, social payments or even a proposed "general income" for everyone, there would be two effects:
The negative effect on peoples savings from possible inflation or deevaluation - should it occur - is negated since the same people receive their share of that money at the same time.
The money from below creates a significant boost in consumer liquidity, which can have a drastic effect on the economy. Most importantly economies would no longer have to rely heavily on exports (or state contraracts as in the industrial-military complex) for profits. This in turn increases productivity, which compensates for the increase in total money amount, also compensating inflation.
So why not? This is going to work much better than previous "trickle down" schemes (the idea where you supply money to banks and investors in the hope that they invest in companies, in the hope that they hire and will create more worth for everyone) instead you make a "trickle up" scheme. The little man is almost guaranteed to spend his basic minimum income on food, services and consumer products. This money will automatically flow into the worth creation chain and up into the pockets of succeful enterpreneurs.
But it would create a fair baseline for anyone to live of and start. If you have a successful enterprise or good paying job, you are even better off than now, where you pay personal taxes.
Or am I missing something?
Now in the past, most states turning on the printing press were in deep shit. They couldn't pay bac
I actually wanted to check if this makes sense. Assuming the worst case, any additional dollar issued (for a general income) would result in the same amount of devaluation.
The total amount of money in the united states (not counting foreign dollar reserves) is around 9.6 trillion dollar ( M2 ) Another 5 trillion dollar are held by foreign reserve banks. That makes 15 trillion dollars of wealth exists worldwide that are directly coupled to the worth of dollars.
The inflation rate considered most healthy is around 2%. That means at least 300 billion dollars could be newly issued each year just to prevent the financial market from draining out. Is that correct?
The US has a population of 330 million people. Dividing 300 billon by 300 million means you could give everyone one grand a year just from that with guaranteed no ill effects. No matter if newborn or granddaddy.
I'd argue though that this can be increase by at least a factor of ten due to the economic boost effect from the trickle up. Absolutely worst case this would cause an inflation rate shy of 20%, which is significant inflation, but not to the point where it would ruin the economy. States in South America regularly have to deal with more than that. Much more likely the effective inflation would end up less than half of that as long as the productivity increases enough.
Now 800 $ per month and per person wouldn't be a lot, but its already more than a part time worker at minimum wage earns. You can live of that. You can pay the rent in a cheap apartment, get food. A family with 3 children would already get 4000$ a month. That's a lot more than my family currenlty has.
Of course you'd argue that 10 years later, at the worst case inflation rate, those 800 would be worth a lot less. That is true, but also M2 would have increased by the same factor, so the amount of money that can safely be issued increases by the same amount. You'd just need annual inflation compensation.
I actually wanted to check if this makes sense. Assuming the worst case, any additional dollar issue
not every able person without a job is lazy, to have a job an area has to have open business to employ people. Then you have those us are labeled able bodied but with major health issues that tho under control pretty excludes us from being hired. Add that to living in area were the so called "religious protection" laws are you can bet ALOT of qualified and able bodied people will be jobless regardless of there strong desire to work.
not every able person without a job is lazy, to have a job an area has to have open business to empl
If there is a will then there is a way. If someone is able to work and is willing to work then he or she can find work if they bother to put down the video game controller, get up off the couch, and go find it. The jobs aren't going to come looking for them, they have to go and look for the jobs. But that takes effort, and they don't want to put up the effort. I had to leave my home town because there wasn't any good job opportunities, so I had two choices. One: Sit on my ass and whine about how I can't find a job and become one of those folks living on everyone else's income through taxes because looking is just too hard. Two: Take responsibility for my own life and look job opportunities outside my home town and put some extra effort into getting a job. Review my resume, make phone calls, use the web to actually look for work and not YouTube videos, ECT. If these people are so willing to work then they'll find a way. But let's face it, it's so much easier to just sit down and make everyone else pay the bills rather than have a shred of self respect and take responsibility for oneself.
If there is a will then there is a way. If someone is able to work and is willing to work then he or
So everyone unemployed is just lazy? Well guess what, not all of us are lazy. On top of battling a condition were i can literally wake up blind randomly, I help maintain both my grand parents home and my uncle risking heat stroke and extreme sun burn due to the medication that only somewhat control my condition (because it not only messes with my temps regulation it killed my ability to sweat), while keeping up not only that but there animal enclosers along with various other mowers, but also the wireless net and security for a bunch of self entitled hicks that that barley know the difference from there ass and hole the ground(by the way the hole in ground is probably smarter than they are) So you know what i kinda get of being called lazy every time i find a moment to watch youtube or play a game by people that only seem to know how to repeat rhetoric based on confirmation bias mixed with a god complex.
So everyone unemployed is just lazy? Well guess what, not all of us are lazy. On top of battling a c
No, i spend most days doing actual work, I know strange concept, actually going outside and doing real work. Also if did try to leave id risk losing my ability to see. It took me 3 years to even find a doctor that even knew what i had, let alone know to control it( no real cure, only symptom control). The last 6 doc pretty told to start shopping for 2 glass eyes. And no this not an exaggeration. Moving for me means not only find a place and job, but a ocular specialist that treat me. Oh and the flares up are not pain free, best way to describe is having hot electric wire scraping across your eye. I lost out on several different jobs cause they want to explain in the interview why you have a 3 gap in your history. Oh and spoiler alert most places wont hire some prone to randomly not being able see.
No, i spend most days doing actual work, I know strange concept, actually going outside and doing re
Then if all you have said is true, then you are truly disabled. As I stated above, "Able bodied and able minded". If you don't have an able body then you are disabled and you have every right to be on assistance. The problem we working class folks have is that there is about 30% of able bodied and able minded folks that are claiming themselves as 'disabled'. This type of abuse of the system is what we are sick of.
Then if all you have said is true, then you are truly disabled. As I stated above, "Able bodied and
Sorry, get alot of lip from people about having problems finding work. Sad part is by law in still able bodied. And due to this i tend to get lumped with system abusers because of it. Its extremely infuriating when you can't get a job, do pull your own weight and more and have people call you lazy.
Sorry, get alot of lip from people about having problems finding work. Sad part is by law in still
30% or even just 25 would be a big and outrageous scandal. If that were true, whoever is in charge of managing that program or the gov agency responsible for it should be fired for incompetence.
Based on the total numbers cited by your cato article, that'd be equivalent to a waste of around 15 billion dollars annually, or 50 dollar for each person living in the US per year. (roughly 90$ if you only count those in employment. Only 60% of the US population have jobs, the rest is too young, too old, too sick, in jail, or unemployed)
Wouldn't make you rich, but I'm sure they could be invested better.
(( Like for a 2% increase in the defense budget? Sorry, being sarcastic here. In comparison the 8% defense budget increase just issued results in addition annual costs of 162$ yearly. Total defense expense is around 2000$ per year and head (including children and grandpas) or just shy of 4k $ per year on average for each employed American. That is before the most recent budget increase. ))
please do that. 30% or even just 25 would be a big and outrageous scandal. If that were true, whoev
that's just sick. I didn't even know that in the US, you loose your right to vote if you get a sentence. In some states that lasts life long. IMHO stuff like that makes the difference between a real democracy and the type of pretend-to-be-democratic states you have in Afrika, East Asia, South America, the middle east ... and apparently North America too.
that's just sick. I didn't even know that in the US, you loose your right to vote if you get a sente
