This came up in another forum I go to. Folks were bemoaning the state of affairs in Northern America in that there are people who can't afford food. Or have to make decisions between food, bills and rent. That sort of thing.
Then someone suggested that what needs to happen is that there needs to be what amounts to a Basic Living Stipend. In essence, "the government" would ensure that every man, woman and child was given enough money, with no strings attached, to ensure that they could afford food, shelter and "at least bare bones" living expenses. (And for the purposes of this exercise, let's pretend that the government actually COULD do this, finding the money one way or another...)
I countered by asking who would pay for such largess? I feel that if a government suddenly said "Ok, we are going to give you enough money to ensure that you have food, a roof over your head, and some basic living expenses (to be determined at a later date) no matter what." that what would happen is a large number of people would quit their jobs.
After all, why do we get up in the morning, put on clothes and head off for 4 to 12 hours a day, 4 to 6 days a week in the first place? Because we all know that if we don't, in time, we'll end up with nothing. But if that worry was taken away? I'm convinced a lot of folks would just quit their jobs as soon as they were sure they would get the BLS.
There'd be a lot of reasons, like "Oh, I'm going to go back to school" or "I am going to look into/apply for that dream job now." and that sort of thing. But honestly, who is going to say "Well, I really like pumping gas, so even since I don't have to now, I'm going to keep on pumping that gas."
Now, this system doesn't really 'punish' those who DO want to work and do better. You want to work? There's a lot of work out there to be found. But someone has to pay for this. The taxman cometh, as it were. This has to be paid for somehow.
So...would you quit your job? Or keep working?
Mods, could you create an anon poll for me on this? I'm somewhat curious. Thanks!
Iceland is a socialist society, like the other nordic nations not working is actually decently comfortable way of life.
Yet these nations have very low unemployment and very strong work ethics. Money isn't the end all of these silly debates as is so often argued, that without incentive of money we are all doomed to just take the same money and not work than to work and earn maybe just slightly more.
Work isn't just about money, again, for most people its a main reason but having something to do that challenges you or puts you in a social situation for us social beings is very important. Routines are nothing to be underestimated, mental health speaking work vs sitting at home unemployed are major keys to human happiness.
Try this video on for size, its a great hint at why money isn't everything in our motivations and what keeps us from just quitting our jobs and doing nothing if we could.
__________________ Allskonar fyrir Aumingja!!
The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to Thor For This Useful Post:
No. Communism is where EVERYONE gets the BLS no matter what their contribution to society.
I remember back in university a friend asked if I wanted to go with him to a friends apartment. When we got to this friend-of-a-friend's place, I was shocked to see the squalor this guy was living in. It was a TINY, dirty cockroach-infested apartment. I just wanted to get the heck out of there but my friend was busy copying some Red Dwarf (this is back when you needed two VCRs and a half hour to copy an episode). While this was going on the FOAF was going on about how he had life made. "I'm on welfare. The government gives me enough to live on so I can live my life doing nothing." The guy pissed me off... an able-bodied 20 year old living off a program meant for those who WANT TO WORK BUT CAN'T FOR ONE REASON OR ANOTHER. But I realized he was an anomaly. Most human beings would not live on Mr. Noodles and KD.
Speaking for myself, I know I would continue working. For one, I would want more... far more... than to live at the very basic level of life. But far more importantly.. I have a NEED to believe that I am contributing to society. And besides that, I don't know what the heck I would do with my time. I go on vacation for two weeks and I'm ready to go back to work... and that's with disposable income to do things like go golfing or travel. I can't imagine what I would do to whittle time away on a BLS.
One last thought. Regarding the gas station attendant. I think that is why minimum wage should be significantly higher than the BLS. At that level, we're talking the very bottom rung of Mazlow's hierarchy. The gas station attendant is not likely to be thinking about his role in society or accomplishing his life goals (self-actualization). He or she just wants to make enough money to pay his/her bills and go to the movies on cheap night. So AT THAT LEVEL, you need more money to be an incentive.
Welfare and shelters provide the we wont let you die or live on the street if you dont choose to.
That is good enough support for the taxpayer to provide. If one wanted to throw.more.money at it programs to transition from welfare into education and real jobs would be a better way to spend it
After a year of grad school, which through funding and scholarships, basically gives me the basic living stipend, I can wholeheartedly say that I wish I was working.
A) Work provides you with dignity, and purpose. If you work hard, and diligently, you can find something that you love to do. There are no words to describe the sweet feeling of actually feeling properly motivated.
B) I love the things that money can buy within reason.
The Following User Says Thank You to peter12 For This Useful Post:
I would absolutely still be working, but this brings up an interesting argument. I don't want a government that pays my every need--I don't want to just survive. But Nordic companies offer better educational support beyond basic K-12, and I would love to see the US adopt a system which evened the playing field, with regards to higher education, for lower income students. As it stands now, if you're born into a lower income family, you live in a lower income neighborhood, you go to a lower income school, you get a lower tiered education with fewer resources afforded you, and often you bypass further education because your family can't afford to go into debt to send you to college. If you're born in a wealthy family, you live in a safer neighborhood with better transportation options, you go to a better school with better resources, you're afforded better opportunities for further education because your parents can afford it.
If the US fixes that one issue, it would fix a lot of the issues in this country. Until then, the wealthy cannot argue that lower income families don't work hard enough--you can work your entire life and still have nothing, if you came from nothing. Class mobility is severely limited in this country, if you're born into wealth, you're likely to keep it, if you're born into poverty, you're likely to stay there, or slightly above. You can no longer count on hard work and dedication to get you from lower class to upper-middle. Ask all the people who worked diligently for companies for 20-30 years, only to lose their jobs as soon as the recession started. It isn't just about hard work, hard work is a small part of the equation here. The government doesn't need to offer to cover all basic living expenses, but it should offer equal opportunities to all income levels.
The Following 11 Users Say Thank You to wittynickname For This Useful Post:
There are programs already in place throughout NA where all of your "basic living needs" are taken care of if need be, it's just not quite as simple as receiving a single cheque in the mail.
In the UK, the number of unemployed young/middle aged men and women is continuesly growing because in that country it IS as easy as receiving one simple cheque in the mail.
It may not be as easy to get a job throughout the UK as it is in Calgary (for example) but they definetly take advantage of the fact that they don't have to work and won't have to anytime in the near future.
A few hungry nights may be just what they need to motivate them towards employment.
Last edited by Glass n Out; 08-20-2012 at 08:55 AM.
I think the pole question isn't valid as it doesn't define the amount of basic living stipend and what it would entail.
For me if the basic living stipend got high enough I would quit my job from June until October each year and work crappy jobs in the winter to supplement my income. I am not sure how high the stipend would have to be though. Certainly significantly higher than welfare is now.
It all depends on what kind of food and shelter we're talking about here.
If I could maintain my exact same living conditions with the same quality of food, sure I'd probably find an easier job that has less hours and earn enough so that I could spend half my time travelling and seeing the world.
Actually it worked out a lot better than Democracy has for them. Not that I am advocating Communism.
I think only someone who has never himself, or had family, live under Communist rule could say this. Because if you did, you'd have some personal family history that would sway your opinion otherwise.
Bit of a ridiculous pole question. Firstly, few people would ever admit to wanting to be a leach. Secondly, the group of people on CP are a fairly motivated group. There is a large subset of the population who currently lives off disability/welfare/insurance fraud/etc... That subset would grow substantially if people didn't have to work. Also, what about people invovled in illegal business. Why would I go to work as a janitor everyday, when I can get my expenses paid for and then sell weed to fund my leisure activities.
Basically, I don't think this kind of stipend is going to affect the attitudes of motivated people who like their jobs. However, unmotivated people who don't like their jobs simply aren't going to show up for work.
Basically, I don't think this kind of stipend is going to affect the attitudes of motivated people who like their jobs. However, unmotivated people who don't like their jobs simply aren't going to show up for work.
I disagree greatly with that, as millions of minimum wage people in the US hate their job but keep working them to pay for things they want.
I think this is an interesting debate. Say 10% of the population drops out of the workforce. Suddenly you have more jobs chasing fewer people, unlike the current situation, so wages would have to increase. Why would someone work at McDs for $18k a year when they could just get $18k a year from the goverment. So McDs has to pay 24k to get someone to flip burgers, which thereby makes the burgers more expensive, moving them out of the price range of the folks getting $18k for doing nothing. I feel like an equilibrium would be reached at some point.
One big question with a system like this is what happens if people blow through their stipend, or borrow against it to the point of bankruptcy, or whatever. At that point I would assume they're on the street or in the hands of charities, kind of like the current system. Like I said, the whole concept is very interesting to me. I know I wouldn't be satisfied with just enough to get by, but knocking the people who only want that out of the employment market would sure take a chunk out of the unemployment rate.
I think only someone who has never himself, or had family, live under Communist rule could say this. Because if you did, you'd have some personal family history that would sway your opinion otherwise.
My uncles, aunts, and grandmother are all from Slovakia so I think I would. I am not talking about personally, I was referring to the economic side of things.
Basic Living Stipend
