Wait. What? Has anyone suggested that anyone be given more than their basic needs? It's the basic needs--as in a roof, heat, something to eat, and medical care beyond waiting in an emergency room that has no choice but to look at you--that many people are lacking.
By "take care of" I would instead say, society needs government to limit the unfair advantage too much wealth affords and especially society needs government to prevent capitalism from the greed and theft flaws that are inherent in the market. For example: a widget factory will naturally want to discard toxic waste in the public river because it amounts to free disposal costs. But we see that those disposal costs are simply shifted to society and that includes people who do not benefit from the widget production. Without government regulation the widget factory has no incentive, no market forces that prevent it from burdening society while the factory owners make greater profits. The same is true when the widget factories don't pay a living wage. The factory owners shift labor costs to the taxpayers who have to take up the slack supporting the underpaid workers. Yet people think increasing the minimum wage interferes with natural market forces. No, underpaying workers forces the taxpayers to subsidize the widget factory owners' profits by subsidizing labor costs.
@GingerCoffee Exactly. Now that I look at that again, I had absolutely oversimplified the point I was trying to make, so thank you very much for pointing it out and finishing the more complete version for me. Ultimately: When Capitalists decide to help those who cannot help themselves, then the Capitalists should be allowed to help; when Capitalists decide not to help those who cannot help themselves, then somebody else has to. Just like with every other kind of power that someone can have in the world.
Being a capitalist does not preclude being charitable, nor is being a capitalist the problem. The problem comes from not recognizing the limits of free market forces and falsely believing the government can do no right.
I started reading this and then realized I had somehow dropped into the Debate forum (obviously disguised quite ingeniously). As to the precariat thing, well, in the US we have a base income. If you fall below it, you get welfare (money, food stamps, health care, housing, etc) based on family size and other things. Even if one is working, you can still qualify for any/all of the above. Single parent, so been there, done that. Disenfranchised? Hell, every generation has those - and everyone wants to be one.
But welfare is time-limited, right? Also, I think that housing assistance is usually for the elderly, disabled, or families with children? There are a whole lot of homeless adults on the street, and I don't think that all of them choose to be that way. Re health care, I know that, for example, low-income people with diabetes can't always afford enough test strips to keep their blood sugar under proper monitoring and control. This is one example of what drives me crazy about the US system--we won't pay for well-understood necessary ongoing care like this, but we will pay when the person's unmanaged blood sugar lands them in the emergency room. I'm fervently hoping that the recent changes are going to fix this.
It is time-limited, yes. But the length of time depends on circumstances. And of course, people are expected to make their own way at some point - the sooner the better. Housing assistance is not limited to the groups you mentioned - healthy young singles can get it as well, but of course, it's harder since they are better able to support themselves. As to the homeless, many of those folks suffer from mental illnesses, alcoholism, drug addiction, etc - it's not from lack of government support in general. There are, of course, differences between states, even though the federal government also finances these things. Some states have abysmal support systems; others have excellent programs. I guess my whole feeling on this idea that the government should give everyone a bottom line income is to ask why? Is it not enough that it provides a safety net, and otherwise people should support themselves and their families?
I see too many holes in that safety net--it might catch many, but it also lets many fall right through. Sure, people should support themselves, but that's another issue--my understanding (and I wish I could find the article) is that it can take a good long while to qualify for government aid, and when you get a job, that aid promptly vanishes. If you lose the job--and early days on a job, especially a low-income job, are always risky--you're back at zero, re-applying. If you could rely on a 5X8 room and ramen noodles for you and the kids, and increase that lifestyle by working, rather than risking even that, it would be far safer to take a job. A system where you earn "too much" at your job to qualify for health care, but too little to pay for medicine after rent and food and heat, so that you slowly get sicker and sicker until you can't work, and then you qualify for health care, but you have to apply for housing assistance and hope that you get it before you're out on the street... That's a system that's broken.
@shadowwalker : Even on this forum we heard several stories where people couldn't afford to go to the doctor, or couldn't afford a good enough medicine or a specialist in order to manage their chronic condition. In my experience, worrying about being able to afford healthcare is a part of regular discourse for Americans. Certainly, in my profession, I saw and learned just how inadequate healthcare provision to the poor in the US can be. Unfortunately, particularly in America, those who don't have to worry about it, either because they haven't been sick or because they can afford adequate care, tend to minimalise and marginalise this problem. To an outsider, who always lived in socially responsible countries where public healthcare was free at the point of access, the whole situation seems extremely anxiety provoking on the behalf of those who draw the short straw in that system. To me, it's unacceptable. As for the welfare in any capitalist country, again, in my experience, this 'begging for charity' model we have is not really working. Not only is it undignified and designed to make you feel like you are a burden and 'robbing' the resources, what with all the propaganda against people on welfare and having to repeatedly jump through hoops to get it and even then, having the benefits taken away because someone decided you had enough, even though you still need it, or on a whim of a current political party in power (as it happened in Uk recently where Eaton boy David Cameron slashed benefits to the disabled). It removes all sense of agency from an individual and losing a sense of agency is one of the worst experiences a human can have.
Not to mention the slashing of SNAP (food stamps.) They interviewed some people who had experienced this cut, and none of them know how they're gonna make it. It's really sad.
I know what you mean Duchess. I know I'm the 'odd one out' in this capitalist world, because all my deepest ingrained values come from experiencing socialism and contrasting it with my experience of capitalism, but I view this forced charity situation we have, which is replacing true justice and equal opportunity for all, as an insult to poor people world wide. Nobody wants charity, everyone is valuable and can contribute IF they had access to equal opportunity. And equal opportunity in this world of human rights assumes that all the basic needs like food, shelter, healthcare and education, are satisfied, before we even start discussing the issue of individual contribution and profit. Some countries embrace this, others, not so much. I'll give you an example. My husband signed a partnership contract which included a clause on profit sharing. Certain amount of money from the earnings is held back, so everyone's tax can be paid in full before any profit is divided according to the contribution ie. number of hours worked and clinical responsibilities. Well, one year, the senior partners went ahead and divided the profit between themselves before my husband's tax was paid in full. They walked away with tens of thousands of profit, and we ended up paying off a thousand pounds a month for almost the entire year, in order to settle our 'debt'. But you see, there was no actual debt, we were simply ripped off. This is precisely what's happening in the world today. You can't skim off everyone's money into the pockets of the few with power, leave just a bit and then use that as evidence that general population has to go without because 'there's no money available'. It's a completely invalid argument.
To prove the statement that every non-capitalist country in the last 50 years, where their basic needs are ensured, provide productivity and happiness. I heavily doubt you can support this statement on experience and 'common sense'. Yes, although I have not made that point. I said ''the prerogative remains the same.'' In other words: basic needs do not alter, they remain the same. It is suggested here that people be given more than their basic needs. @ChickenFreak Why do you equate basic needs to a basic income? A subsidy and state housing already provide this. What is being said here is that everyone will get this basic income. The poor and the rich, and on top of that, their own individual income. You truly think this is pragmatic and subject to materialisation? Perhaps we have a different interpretation of what ''basic needs'' actually are. You seem to involve medical care within the equation, where the idea of a basic income serves as basic needs, but medical care should be unrelated to income. I remember when The Netherlands equated their subsidies to the proposed basic income—speaking out of experience, how ironic—and that did not turn out well. It acted as the opposite of an incentive. A basic income for everyone equates in tax for everyone. It simply shifts the 'burden' to another format. If you want to level the collective wealth, because that is exactly what this is about, there are other and better means to do so. The ludicrous amount of wealth from, let us call them capitalists, is worrisome, I agree, but battling this dichotomy requires structural, cultural and systematic changes. I do not believe this is one of them. I cannot relate to your American examples. But I do not see how people owe a debt to corporations when it is the state that hands out subsidies.
@Tharian This is what you want me to 'prove to you' (quoting your words) I never said that non-capitalist countries, who ensured basic needs, provided anyone's happiness. That's the ridiculous straw man you constructed from misquoting my words, so you can now beat him to a pulp and pretend that by doing so you are invalidating my argument. Which you aren't because those are two different things entirely. I said This means that it's been observed, in those countries (used for example here because they are closest to wanting to adequately provide for the less fortunate) that people are happier and more productive in their work IF their basic needs are taken care of (as opposed to worrying about their and their children's basic needs all the time - common sense, right?) even without money being a major incentive (because in those societies, money wasn't the main incentive - personal experience of living in it coupled with common sense of knowing how socialism functions, right?). In fact, it's been well documented (this you can learn if you study history, philosophy, economics and politics of 18th, 19th and 20th centuries in Europe and America) that the happy worker is a productive worker and it spawned even the workers rights within industrial and French revolutions that occurred at the beginning of capitalism, let alone economic models that came after that. This is precisely why marxism is a brain child of a western economist who observed all the issues and failings of capitalism, and not some fantasy utopia, as marxist theory is popularly referred to in the west. Not to mention two thousand years old Christian doctrine which is all about social welfare and against greed anyway. In any case, the fact we have such awfully unjust world in which it's become possible for a handful of people to have more than billions put together, means that significant proportion of people supports this 'dog eat dog' approach to human rights. These people can see all the suffering, and read all the data and arguments, and still they can't find enough compassion for another to facilitate a more just division of resources. I understand this is a part of the human condition and have no desire to argue or attempt to convince anyone. Compassion and sense of right and wrong has to come from the inside, if not, it has to be legislated. Trying to convince everyone who couldn't care less, to suddenly care, is a complete waste of time, in my experience.
Every safety net has holes - even this "basic income" would have holes, believe me. And the whole "can't get medical care" is being addressed (and actually, was addressed via emergency rooms up until health care reform). Look, as a single parent, I was on and off welfare for many years - even when working full time. I know the pitfalls and problems and headaches - but I really cannot say that the system is a failure overall. Again, yes, there are holes - but I've talked to people who had "problems" only to find out they really made too much money (and just didn't know how to manage it or wanted to live better off the government) or had given up because of the paperwork (which is a headache but why should it be easy?). Bear in mind, it's the people who have problems who yell the loudest - doesn't mean they're in the majority, or even a significant number. Personally, I don't think giving people a "base income" (whoever determines what that is, exactly) will bring any more happiness or productivity. I mean, look at writers - do you really think, if their and their family's basic needs were met, they would go looking for a job rather than writing? Sure, they'd be more productive and happier - doesn't mean they'd be making any money from their writing. And they'd be living off other people. I don't care who you tax or "don't tax", that money has to come from people, one way or another.
It indirectly insinuates that it does provide for a happiness that is otherwise not found. Why else would you refer to non-capitalist countries in regard to capitalist countries? It's hardly a straw man, and I'm still asking for tangible proof. Everyone is happier and more productive if their basic needs are taken care of. Capitalism has barely anything to do with this simple maxim, common sense, right? So why is this postulated in a manner that capitalism is intertwined with the absence of such needs? I would like to debate the notion of 'happiness' and how basic income would actually disintegrate this sense of bliss. But you know your philosophy, so you must already know the perils of free indulgence and mitigation of conflict. I do not see any utopia in this, nor do I deem it realistic. As @shadowwalker alludes, economy (and a myriad of other societal facets) is very complex, and I do not believe a state amongst other states could ever support this idea of a basic income for all, nor would I like to see it. Not in my own, at least.
@Tharian : You can't justify your lack of understanding by claiming that something 'indirectly insinuates' something else. That's a blanket non-statement which is designed purely to give legitimacy to your straw man. I explained clearly why I mentioned non-capitalist countries (not for reasons you are trying to claim) and your changing of my argument by misquoting it, then assigning your own meaning which is completely different to mine, is the very definition of an informal logical fallacy known as 'straw man argument'. As for the rest of your statements, they stem from claiming that capitalism has 'barely anything' to do with the maxim that people are happier if their needs are met. Furthermore, you already 'wouldn't want to see basic income provided for everyone' because you assume that would lead to some kind of indulgence? Excess? Absence of motivation? I explained why, in my opinion, welfare as seen in capitalism isn't working. You need to spend a few years in a socialist country as well, to actually comprehend even the meaning of 'basic provision'. As it is, you are like a fish in water (capitalism) judging life on land (socialism) as 'impossible'. It's only impossible because your only frame of reference is coming from an environment completely alien to this idea. Capitalism favours profit and sees humans as just another resource. It doesn't have any mechanisms to regulate toxic greed. The outcome of that we are seeing today, in a failing economy and massive humanitarian crisis even in the richest countries. Socialism, on the other hand, has social welfare as the central concern. Common sense, anyone? This world is full of people who either have experience of socialism, or can visualise it correctly and without prejudice, and this is why the idea of equal opportunity for all is stronger than ever. You might not ascribe to it, which doesn't mean it isn't valid. It just means that you do not accept it. And that's where this argument ends, because neither you or I will change our positions. @shadowwalker : For the millionth time - emergency care isn't adequate for most health issues. Chronic illnesses need to be managed by experienced specialists and family doctors, with the best treatments and medicines available. This is what is denied to the poor in the US and increasingly in other capitalist economies. This guy explains the rationale for basic income in great detail, I think you really need to read up on it because you seem to not be aware why this wouldn't be 'charity' or 'taken from someone else's pocket'. It's easy sticking to your own convictions if you refuse to even consider alternative explanations (and from what you are saying, it's clear you haven't actually read his rationale for this proposition).
I'm totally for this idea. Once the government pays for everything, I can quit my job and spend more time doing fun things. Working 50-60 hours a week to support my family is a drag.
I know you're not going to continue this discussion, or so you say, but I will have to get rid of your assertion. The fact you make your statement exclusive by referring to non-capitalist countries alludes that non-capitalism provides more happiness and more productivity. Why else would you include it? We have known that people work 'better' when their basic needs are met, we do not need non-capitalist countries to prove it. The claim pretty much says: non-capitalist countries provide a certain happiness and productivity when their basic needs are met. I ask for proof, you retort with 'experience' and 'common sense', because, when I think of 'non-capitalist' countries, there is no explicit grandeur that comes to mind. I build my reply on this clear insinuation, only to then have it deteriorated by a ''lack of understanding.'' A meritocracy favours the merits of people. This will proceed, even in a socialist nation. Capitalism is not some horrendous scourge. A society is built on more than economic features. You assume here that I am not a socialist. That I am a disgraceful, sick and twisted capitalist. I advise you to click on my profile and check my political views. You try to convey a ''live and let live, if you do not agree with me, I cannot convince you'' attitude, but your words pertain to a much more acidic substance. Also, common sense, just because I do not agree with you or this idea, does not mean I am not a socialist or have not done my research. I am sure you know which fallacy that presumed assertion belongs to.
@Tharian : You clearly have some sort of a hang-up about the non-capitalist countries, some kind of competition 'who's better' and you are reading everything through tinted glasses. I have no further interest in debating your logical fallacies, so you can continue to congratulate yourself on 'getting rid of my assertions'. Make sure you surround yourself with people who will validate you every step of the way and you will have a clear sense of victory. Enjoy Just to remind everyone, this isn't a debate forum. I deliberately posted this outside of the debate area because I didn't want to invite heated discussion about capitalism vs socialism. We have enough of those already, and absolutely no consensus about the outcome of those debates, which indicates that they are in fact pointless. I posted this for people to read something I believe is interesting and uplifting, food for thought. If you want to debate something, please open a thread in a debate room.
Since the debate forum was opened, I laugh at the people who think they can spout their biased views in the Lounge and command everyone not to disagree with them. This isn't the debate forum! Agree with me! No. Just because we have a debate forum, does not mean points will not be challenged anywhere else in this forum. Have you read the 'italics for thoughts' thread? If that's not a debate I don't know what is.
@jazzabel If you want to discontinue a discussion, do not refer to the participant of the discourse. Which you did initially, until you edited your post.
This confused me. Can you elaborate? Thanks. Here is an example of the false narrative where the issues are framed as takers, non-contributors, the 47% (refers to a Romney comment about Obama supporters voting because they expected something free in return for their vote), and redistribution of the wealth with the connotation of Marxism. It's a false narrative because the largest proportion of the poor in the US, if one excludes children, are people that work full time and don't earn enough to afford basic housing, food and/or medical care. The supposed people who pay no taxes, something the GOP loves to repeat, don't make enough to pay income taxes. They pay plenty of other taxes. A person who earns a couple thousand dollars in a year still pays FICA taxes. But the high income earner only pays that tax on some of their income. A renter typically pays the property tax when landlords decide how much rent to charge. If there is no sales tax, there are still taxes included in the cost of things we buy, again it's part of the price calculation. When addressing the shortcomings of capitalism we should not be framing the issue as a handout, or some basic level of free existence. A safety net is not a handout. Requiring companies to pay a living wage so the taxpayers do not have to subsidize the labor costs does not interfere with the free market, rather it forces widget makers to properly price the widget which costs include those labor subsidies and the cost of disposal. Free markets need regulating. We know that. History is clear. Some services are better served by public funding: police, fire, medical, infrastructure. The data shows these are more efficient when run by the public. Is it a perfect system with no flaws? Of course not. But I can't imagine anyone believing we'd be better off with a free market private police system.
How can it be a false narrative when it is exactly what is being proposed? We should not be framing a handout as a handout? If it talks like a duck and walks like a duck, it's a duck.
