Leading economists promote guaranteed minimum income


mentalfloss
#1
Too bad the US is falling so far behind.

They could really use something like this.



Leading economists promote guaranteed minimum income

Inequalities are increasing globally. Millions of people work for an income that does not provide them with a living, and welfare states and trade unions are under pressure. A basic wage that increases in line with economic progress can reverse this development, according to two leading economists.

A guaranteed minimum income such as the citizen's wage provides security for all. Might it be possible to design schemes in such a way that they also lead to positive economic and social development?

The issue is a topical one. The citizen's wage is hotly debated in both rich and poor countries. Last year, Switzerland held a referendum on the introduction of the citizen's wage, and Finland plans systematic experiments this year. India is also cautiously testing versions of the scheme.

The debate has supporters and opponents at both ends of the political spectrum. Some wish to dispose of cumbersome welfare state schemes; others believe that there is a greater need for resources to be used for other purposes, such as health and education. While yet others want temporary support schemes that are phased out with increased national wealth, some argue that only wealthy countries can afford a citizen's wage.

Development bonus in all countries

'Experience worldwide indicates a pressing need for new and simpler methods of income distribution,' says Kalle Moene, director of ESOP – the Centre for the Study of Equality, Social Organization and Performance at the University of Oslo, and his Indian-American colleague, Debraj Ray, who is affiliated to the Centre.

The two economists argue for a different alternative – guaranteed minimum income as a development bonus:

'We propose a minimum income for everyone as a fixed proportion of gross national income – Universal Basic Share (UBS). The scheme can thereby be introduced in all countries, poor as well as wealthy. It would function in India equally well as in Norway.'

They point out that UBS can also stand for Universal Basic Services and in Norwegian the same acronym is used for Development Bonus. No contradiction exists between these.
in the form of cash payments can act as a stimulus to UBS in services. This type of development bonus can boost support for the welfare state. It provides strong incentives for further growth, equality and efficiency, as well as for consensus and social cohesion,' Moene emphasizes.

Debraj Ray is considered to be one of the world's foremost economic theorists and development economists. He was awarded an honorary doctorate by the University during its bicentennial year in 2011. A few weeks ago he visited Oslo.

'In India there is an ongoing political debate about introducing a basic income for all. This is interesting, because India is a poor country. How can India afford something like this? It is worth noting that the Indian government already hands out huge sums in inefficient subsidies. Now many people are advocating for the state to use these resources more effectively by giving the money directly to citizens. However, this gives rise to a new problem, namely that the payments are diluted by inflation.'

https://m.phys.org/news/2017-03-econ...um-income.html (external - login to view)
 
petros
#2
How much is ISIS offering?
 
mentalfloss
#3
You work for them, so you should know.
 
captain morgan
Bloc Québécois
+3
#4  Top Rated Post
Quote: Originally Posted by mentalflossView Post

You work for them, so you should know.

What a clever retort.... Kudos to you on that
 
White_Unifier
#5
I'm in two minds about it.

I understand the efficiency in it compared to a more bureaucratic welfare state, but how do we ensure that an addict does not misuse the funds. After all, the goal should be to help him up, not to throw money at him to tear him down.
 
petros
+1
#6
You can't. They have the Right to misuse their money. If they didn't, something would have been done about it by now.
 
taxslave
No Party Affiliation
#7
Aside from the fact that a raise in minimum wage to the proposed $15/hr. would cause massive inflation because everyone else up the pay scale would require a raise some employees are not worth what the minimum wage currently is.

If I understand the article correctly these two clowns want a minimum wage even for people that don't work based on average income in the country. That would mean massive tax hikes on the highest earners to foot the bill as usual.
 
Remington1
#8
There will soon be a larger number of people willing to work under the table for way less than $15. Not that it's hard to find a few right now.
 
Bar Sinister
No Party Affiliation
#9
Quote: Originally Posted by taxslaveView Post

Aside from the fact that a raise in minimum wage to the proposed $15/hr. would cause massive inflation because everyone else up the pay scale would require a raise some employees are not worth what the minimum wage currently is.

Massive inflation? I haven't noticed that in Alberta. The biggest cause of inflation here is a lower dollar.
 
Dixie Cup
Conservative
#10
I'm all for cutting the cost of everything - then we wouldn't have to worry about a "living wage" LOL
 
Danbones
Free Thinker
#11
the same guys who wrecked the whole worlds economy
well that's scary

notice these guys only notice a good idea AFTER it happens?
Top Economists: Iceland Did It Right … And Everyone Else Is Doing It Wrong
Top Economists: Iceland Did It Right (external - login to view)
 
Jinentonix
No Party Affiliation
+2
#12
See? This is what I "love" about Flossy. He's only interested in the opinions of those whom he agrees with. Yep, leading economists say we need a mincome and Flossy is right there cheer leading. But when leading economists (and immigration experts) say that Canada's immigration policy is a disaster waiting to happen, he buries his head in the sand.
 
White_Unifier
#13
I wonder if the following could be a solution to the guaranteed minimum income.

Imagine the following hypothetical scenario:

I'm aa struggling heroinaddict. I go to my local city hall and tell them that I don't want them to give me the money because I just spend it on heroin anyway and si ask instead if they could give me a government debit card that I can use only at supermarkets, clothing shops, and apartment rental agencies and maybe a few other specific categories if shops.

Should the government be willing and able to comply with my request?

We could include transit authorities and cell phone providers to the list too.

I suppose we could even make the debit card the standard. Even wealthy people buy food. If you want to buy anything else, then use your own money for it.
 
lone wolf
Free Thinker
#14
They do now, It's called a trustee - available to folk who have proven to be unstable with a buck
 
White_Unifier
#15
Quote: Originally Posted by lone wolfView Post

They do now, It's called a trustee - available to folk who have proven to be unstable with a buck

Interesting.

You might know more about this than I do,but must the person be proven unstable or can he just declare himself unstable without proof so as to avoid a problem before it happens?

Another example, the heroin addict says he does not want easy access to his funds but does not want to say why out of Shane for his addiction. Would they pry him for an answer or just take him at his word and so give him less easy access to his money because that's what he asked for without them really knowing why he asked for that?
 
Jinentonix
No Party Affiliation
+1
#16
Quote: Originally Posted by White_UnifierView Post

Interesting.

You might know more about this than I do,but must the person be proven unstable or can he just declare himself unstable without proof so as to avoid a problem before it happens?

It depends. Sometimes it's automatic. For example, my wife's son is developmentally disabled. He receives an amount from Ontario disability every month, but even though he's 25 now his mother's name is also on the cheque as a trustee because he still lives at home under her (our) care.
Last edited by Jinentonix; Mar 20th, 2017 at 02:38 PM..
 
White_Unifier
#17
Quote: Originally Posted by JinentonixView Post

It depends. Sometimes it's automatic. For example, my wife's son is developmentally disabled. He receives an amount from Ontario disability every month but even though he's 25 now his mother's name is also on the cheque as a trustee because he still lives at home under her (our) care.

Thanks for sharing that.

With some kind of guaranteed minimum income, I could see some people (specially addicts) not wanting easy access to that money but also being too ashamed to say why.

I guess if we were to introduce something like that, some kind of cost-efficient control would need to be introduced on request.

For some, it might be a matter if giving them a giverent debit card that they can programming so that they can use it only between certain times if the day or can use only so much money in one day.

For others, even stricter controls might be needed, like trusteeship for example.
 
no new posts