Skilled or not, jobs for all, at $15/hour... WOO HOO

te:

go for a Universal Basic Income before they try for this. "

about right.

s been going on for quite a while. It is long overdue here. Many people nee d it to survive, some people want it because they have better things to do then be a tool.

n't

lse' claims its basic income trial has failed: 'Proceeding as planned' http s://

experiment-wages-a8322141.html

Awwww- isn't that so cute, the mental midget with arrested development is p laying the part of a 10yo...

You're talking about yourself, again, dumbass.

:

te:

bly go for a Universal Basic Income before they try for this. "

nds about right.

has been going on for quite a while. It is long overdue here. Many people need it to survive, some people want it because they have better things to do then be a tool.

don't

'false' claims its basic income trial has failed: 'Proceeding as planned' h ttps://

me-experiment-wages-a8322141.html

s playing the part of a 10yo...

Nah- we're talking about you. You seem a bit too adept at impersonating an adolescent online. This bears looking into, like the social media forums fo r kids you may have been visiting.

Hmm, I thought I was mostly agreeing with you. did you miss this line?

I didn't vote for him last time. But the alternatives are not promising.

George H.

ll the "right" story. "

I was unfamiliar with that and so fouud an article on it :

I am not sure but Finland might have a government like Norway, which enjoys a position from which socialism can work. Norway has a situation where the y have lots of oil and their government is not full of thieves, so instead of leasing the rights to their friends, they share the wealth of the land w ith the People. This reduces their tax burden ans allows for a better stand ard of living when it comes to infrastructure, health care and a few other things. The US government is unique standing as among the most greedy in th e world. They claim every blade of grass for themselves, literally. (I got proof upon request)

But let's say things were a bit different, for example the US government na tionalized part of the mineral wealth here and used the money for the gener al welfare of the US. I know this sounds strange but it is a hypothetical s ituation.

So this money is taken and provided to the people in a monthly stipend of s ay $ 1,500 per month. That is enough to subsist on, to have someplace to go , to be able to live while gong to school, and to be able to actually quit a job where one is mistreated.

The last part I brought up because it might do away with the need for minim um wage and other things like the government having to step in and stop pot ential employers from requiring all your passwords to social media and even your personal email. Yes they did that and thought they would get away wit h it because labor is such a buyer's market in the US now.

And pay inequality, if you can quit and the company wants to pay someone el se as or less qualified than you, let them and let marker forces take their course. And it would also encourage the forming of new small business, whi ch is the backbone of a healthy country and economy. It is an overlooked fo rm of diversity that they normally push so much, but is not politically cor rect or "feelgood".

I admit that I am not fully qualified to estimate the impact on society her e should a universal stipend be established. but then neither are the schoo l taughten economists. their thinking is what got us into this mess and the same thinking will not get us out. if you look at our private and public d ebt it is obvious that these supposed experts have failed. Of course they a re dong fine and things couldn't be better, but when people have to put gas in a car on a credit card when they used to pay cash for a new car, someth ing has not quite gone right, wouldn't you say ? (that demeanor is not dire cted at you K, it is to everyone)

It might be more economical to provide directly for people's needs. not lik e Trump and his stooopid give half the food stamps in government approved f ood, and the idiot would lose his small but still there voter base among th ose who are poor but want to work. I mean more like a list of places to liv e, not fancy but tolerable, electricity, phone, internet and even a PC, and a discount on (better) public transportation since they have made the cost s of vehicle ownership ridiculous.

Something along those lines would be more of a hand up than a hand out, and I do not object to that as much. My objection would be based on the histor y of the individual, if doing well and lost it all because of his own idioc y or gall, fukum, but circumstances beyond his control are a different stor y.

I am against most charity really, but that is because of the way it is admi nistered, it tends to weaken rather than strengthen the recipients. I'll us e affirmative action as an example here. Let's say that one person is requi red to carry 40 pounds all the time, and another is only required to carry

20 pounds all other things being equal. Who would you figure is the stronge r ?

tell the "right" story. "

l

ys a position from which socialism can work. Norway has a situation where t hey have lots of oil and their government is not full of thieves, so instea d of leasing the rights to their friends, they share the wealth of the land with the People. This reduces their tax burden ans allows for a better sta ndard of living when it comes to infrastructure, health care and a few othe r things. The US government is unique standing as among the most greedy in the world. They claim every blade of grass for themselves, literally. (I go t proof upon request).

Norway has oil. The rest of Scandinavia doesn't.

Sweden collects 55% of the GDP in taxes (compared with the US 30% and the G erman 45%, and spends a lot of it on social security that works - inter-gen erational social mobility is lot higher in Sweden and Germany than it is in the US, largely because the children of the poor are healthy enough to tak e advantage of the good education they are offered, which puts them two str ikes ahead of their US counter-parts).

The US government isn't all that greedy, but it is mean, and it leaves educ ation to local school districts, which leads to a remarkably wide range of spending per student per head - from about $6575 - the average for Utah and not much above the minimum in Arizona to $21,206, which is the average in New York state and more than the highest for an Arizona school district.

Children that get taught in poor school districts don't get a high quality education.

The US average expenditure per student doesn't look bad, but the averaging process hides a lot of under-funded schools. Countries with more broadly ba sed education system don't have as many seriously under-funded schools.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

Surely a $ 15 per hour minimum wage should work, no ?

Oh, I forgot that thee would be even less jobs. I guess teaching teenagers a work ethic is out as the low skill labor market fills up with the 2 or 3 breadwinners necessary for every family. Damn lucky for food stamps eh ? Be cause you know many are going to get out of working if possible.

Well that will at least create jobs in the social security administration a s tens of millions apply for disability for hangnails, willful drunkenness, depression due to their dog dying and all kinds of terribly debilitating c onditions, which of course are chronic and incurable.

At least they won't have guns so they will be easier to pick off when the t ime comes.

The proposition that setting a higher minimum wage means less jobs doesn't always work out in practice.

Apparently the classic counter examples were fast food shops in Texas, wher e beggar-my-neighbour competition had reduced fast food wages to the point where the jobs were barely worth having, and people would stay in them just as long as it took for something better-paying to show up, which wasn't lo ng enough to get good at the job.

When minimum wage legislation raised wages, the jobs got to be worth having , staff stayed longer, got more skillful, served better food, and attracted more customers, which increased the number of staff needed.

This story came from Cambridge economist in Cambridge UK, talking to a Labo ur Party meeting in the early 1990's. It sounded plausible to me, but upset s doctrinaire right-wingers, who prefer their free markets to follow the si mplest possible rules (which is to say, the kind that they can get their he ads around).

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

Seattle is almost as crazy as Kaifornika.

wing how much it will cost and not knowing where the funds will come from) but at the same time a bunch of assumptions have to be made for criticizing how well it will work.

the Democrats, but by a famously left-wing Democrat, Bernie Saunders, which means that the National Review won't like it, independent of it's merits.

it will be because I haven't heard the details. It may be that this will r esult in a savings to the government. If each job created under this plan replaces a government job at a higher salary, that could be a good thing, n o? Why not wait until you know the details before expecting it to cause th e fall of civilization.

the fall of civilisation. Jim isn't actually all that civilised, and what he's mostly interested in is paying less taxes, so he's resistant to the id ea that socialist initiatives (that tend to involve collecting more in taxe s) can benefit society as a whole.

per head on secondary school students - more than Utah ($6,575) and Idaho ( $6,923) but less than every other state - is in some way exemplary, presuma bly because it's cheap. It didn't educate Arizona voters well enough to let a majority of them recognise Trump as lying buffoon, but Jim may think tha t this a good thing.

Pity that they don't bite some of the other states.

People like Robert Baer never stop to think how California got Silicon Vall ey, and Seattle got Boeing and Amazon. Right-wing political prejudices do h ave their place, but it isn't in running places that make money.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney