Politicks - Page 15

AtomJack · 07-20-2018, 08:03 AM

Supporting local growers at farmer's markets is one opportunity, if you are sure they are local and not just a hireling of a conglomerate. That cycles money through the local economy.

Hobotronic2037 · 07-20-2018, 08:13 AM

Quote:

AtomJack wrote

Supporting local growers at farmer's markets is one opportunity, if you are sure they are local and not just a hireling of a conglomerate. That cycles money through the local economy.

But how do you prevent the local grower, once you’ve paid them, from just turning around and spending that money at Walmart or Amazon or Apple or Starbucks — places that concentrate money at the top 1%? I’ll bet a lot of them do just that.

Noodle · 07-20-2018, 09:13 AM

I think you'd have to do something to reduce profits and earnings for the 1% so that workers can have more of the pie.

Hobotronic2037 · 07-20-2018, 09:21 AM

Quote:

Noodle wrote

I think you'd have to do something to reduce profits and earnings for the 1% so that workers can have more of the pie.

Another way could be to grow the pie. Just spitballing.

dogpet · 07-20-2018, 01:05 PM

Quote:

Hobotronic2037 wrote

Do you have an idea on a means of getting the money to flow? And would you propose a mechanism to stop consumers of earth from pushing money to the top where it sticks?

Unconditional guaranteed income as proposed by Swiss government.

Hobotronic2037 · 07-20-2018, 02:40 PM

Quote:

dogpet wrote

Unconditional guaranteed income as proposed by Swiss government.

Wouldn’t people still spend it on stuff from companies like Apple and Walmart and it would end up lining the pockets of the wealthy? I like the idea (sign my lazy ass up) but I fail to see how it solves the problem of the rich keeping half the money out of circulation.

dogpet · 07-20-2018, 03:14 PM

It forces them to put it back in circulation, where do you think the money will come from?
Of course it will only work if we are not all lazyasses.

Noodle · 07-20-2018, 03:26 PM

Quote:

dogpet wrote

It forces them to put it back in circulation, where do you think the money will come from?
Of course it will only work if we are not all lazyasses.

Absolutely. If the guaranteed income covers basic needs, there's gonna be a lot of idle people around who would otherwise be working. I kind of actually think it's not a good idea.

Hobotronic2037 · 07-20-2018, 03:36 PM

Quote:

dogpet wrote

It forces them to put it back in circulation, where do you think the money will come from?
Of course it will only work if we are not all lazyasses.

Why would I work if you’re giving me money? I mean seriously. Oh and where will the money come from? The Swiss will just print it, I assume?

dogpet · 07-20-2018, 03:43 PM

Quote:

Noodle wrote

Absolutely. If the guaranteed income covers basic needs, there's gonna be a lot of idle people around who would otherwise be working. I kind of actually think it's not a good idea.

There are so many mundane jobs that could be done by machines, jobshare the work that can't be automated for extra dosh. There will be queues for that chance..
Artisans, who can provide for a demand that machines can't satisfy would become very rich, & proud to contribute.
Shit shoveling can be done by convicted criminals!

Anyway! Who you calling idle?

dogpet · 07-20-2018, 03:46 PM

I'll put Hobo down as an overhead.

Hobotronic2037 · 07-20-2018, 05:00 PM

Quote:

Noodle wrote

Absolutely. If the guaranteed income covers basic needs, there's gonna be a lot of idle people around who would otherwise be working. I kind of actually think it's not a good idea.

Yeah. Putting my snark aside I have to agree with you. I think work is good for people, generally. Discovering your innate aptitude, having a can-do attitude, developing your skills and putting them to work to help yourself and others can be emotionally and financially rewarding. I know it’s good for me.

Speaking only for myself, it doesn’t irk me when someone has more, or less, money than me, even when I’ve been dirt poor. What does bother me is when people lack equal access to the opportunity to become the best them they can be. I look at people as people — rich or poor. We all share the same nature. We are all equally ordinary and ubiquitous. Maybe they are someone I can have a voluntary, mutually beneficial exchange with of ideas or knowledge or goods or services. And we both can win. Idk. I just don’t think there needs to be a class conflict for us to coexist. Just my thoughts, for what it’s worth.

Noodle · 07-20-2018, 06:47 PM

How about regulating profits and earnings of the wealthiest by requiring them to be a certain proportion of workers' wages? According to Google, top CEOs make 271 times what the typical worker makes. Some make more and some make less. Making a law that says top executives can only be paid 200 times more than their average worker would help without getting rid of the incentive to become a CEO and it would help workers feel more ownership in their jobs.

You don't even have to raise taxes. Although I'm not sure how stocks and investments would fit into it.

Noodle · 07-20-2018, 06:59 PM

Quote:

dogpet wrote

There are so many mundane jobs that could be done by machines, jobshare the work that can't be automated for extra dosh. There will be queues for that chance..
Artisans, who can provide for a demand that machines can't satisfy would become very rich, & proud to contribute.
Shit shoveling can be done by convicted criminals!

Anyway! Who you calling idle?

If robots can do all the labor, we might need universal basic income. We'll all do art, play music, and write poetry all day while the robots grow our food and make all of our crap. Until the robot uprising, of course.

Idle hands are the devil's playthings and whatnot. How fitting for an atheist forum.

Hobotronic2037 · 07-20-2018, 07:44 PM

Quote:

Noodle wrote

How about regulating profits and earnings of the wealthiest by requiring them to be a certain proportion of workers' wages? According to Google, top CEOs make 271 times what the typical worker makes. Some make more and some make less. Making a law that says top executives can only be paid 200 times more than their average worker would help without getting rid of the incentive to become a CEO and it would help workers feel more ownership in their jobs.

You don't even have to raise taxes. Although I'm not sure how stocks and investments would fit into it.

In the U.S. I think you’d have to change the constitution to be able to regulate CEO wages. Or have the political will to pass it as a law (possibly with a veto proof majority) and have a Supreme Court that would uphold it on appeal, probably something that won’t happen for decades at the earliest, considering how the court is constructed.

Also, even if you regulate this, there would be no guarantee that the the extra money would be distributed to the workforce. It could just as easily be used to upgrade equipment or more likely office amenities and art in the executive suite.

The only way to really control private industry is to nationalize it. Hello Venezuela.