Quote:
Originally Posted by CliffFletcher
I don't think governments could afford to be the sole funders of a guaranteed minimum income. Not without a radical overhaul of taxation that would be practically impossible to implement. This would need to be done by a the state, banks, and corporations working together.
|
Why would corporations and banks do that there's no benefit for them to? The only benefit would be if the government paid lets say the first 30k of everyone's salary and they top up after that, but that's an unaffordable concept.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CliffFletcher
Enough that people have a roof over their heads and some money to spend to keep the economy going. The spending part is key. Our entire economy is based on broad spending to keep the wheels turning. If we see the kind of chronic economic stagnation and relentless and permanent loss of jobs some are predicting, most people won't earn enough to spend. We won't be able to rely on the wealthiest 20 per cent to spend enough to keep the economy running.
|
Again one of the primary selling points of a minimum government income would be that there would be no more social programs, everything would be user paid, so that roof over peoples heads would vanish pretty quickly the first time your kids got sick and you had to pay $1000.00 of dollars for their health care. Or you had to buy your own health care insurance.
To me the current system needs adjustment to targeted help instead of something like a guaranteed income, that to me means education and job training dollars instead of income dollars from the government except for those in real need on a temporary basis (EI/Welfare) or a permanent basis (pension or disability) for example.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CliffFletcher
If we really are entering an era of chronic stagnation, with 1 to 2 per cent growth for the next 20 plus years, while automation eliminates tens of millions of jobs and most people are lucky to have any kind of full-time employment, we'll have class warfare anyway. We're already seeing a kind of class warfare, where the losers of globalization in the UK and the U.S. - the unskilled and the old and those who can't adapt - would rather blow up the whole system than quietly go into the night.
|
This is going to happen no matter what, even the Canadian Finance Minister talked about the future of younger or unskilled workers being one of constant churn and moving from job to job and training to training. Just creating a unaffordable minimum income concept where we actually make the vulnerable more vulnerable through the removal of social programs and targeted help makes very little sense.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CliffFletcher
In the big picture, it's looking more and more like the post-war society that we consider 'normal' - the widespread prosperity and security of the 50s to the 90s - were an anomaly. A fortunate era that came about because of an unlikely confluence of history and technology. Today, capital is back on top, and those who either don't have a pile of money already, or have the technical and social skills to succeed in a world of innovation and intense competition, will be left out in the cold. That will be most people.
|
Sure, but then society has to change and I believe that the emphasis has to be on targeted education and job training and encouraging people to learn to work where the gaps are. In the 50's and 60's the gap was in manufacturing, and you could get away with being relatively unskilled. Now the demand is going to be heavy in the skilled trades and we need to encourage the young to look at those areas and train and prepare to work in those areas because the other option is that you don't train in those skills and you get caught in the churn. I believe that the day of education for the sake of just learning or spreading your wings is ending and everything is going to be with a purpose.