[Newsbot]

Title: Canada Will Experiment With Basic Income � Giving Out Salaries Just for Being Human
Category: Economics
Posted By: Robair
Date: 2016-03-08 09:19:15
Canadian

[uwish]

complete and utter lunacy! I will not support this at all, a terrible idea.

[andyt]

$1:

Mincome was an experimental Canadian basic income project that was held in Dauphin, Manitoba, during the 1970s. The project, funded jointly by the Manitoba provincial government and the Canadian federal government under Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau. It was launched with a news release on February 22, 1974, under the NDP government of Edward Schreyer, and was closed down in 1979 under the Conservative government of Sterling Lyon and the federal Progressive Conservative Party of Joe Clark. The purpose of this experiment was to determine whether a guaranteed, unconditional annual income caused disincentive to work for the recipients, and how great such a disincentive would be.
It allowed every family unit to receive a minimum cash benefit. Participants who worked had their mincome supplement reduced by 50 cents for every dollar they earned by working.[1] The results showed an impact on labor markets, with working hours dropping one percent for men, three percent for married women, and five percent for unmarried women.[2] However, some have argued these drops may be artificially low because participants knew the guaranteed income was temporary.[3] These decreases in hours worked may be seen as offset by the opportunity cost of more time for family and education. Mothers spent more time rearing newborns, and the educational impacts are regarded as a success. Students in these families showed higher test scores and lower dropout rates. There was also an increase in adults continuing education.[4][5]
A final report was never issued, but Manitoban economist Evelyn Forget (/fɔːrˈʒeɪ/) conducted an analysis of the program in 2009 which was published in 2011.[5][6] She found that only new mothers and teenagers worked substantially less. Mothers with newborns stopped working because they wanted to stay at home longer with their babies, and teenagers worked less because they weren't under as much pressure to support their families, which resulted in more teenagers graduating. In addition, those who continued to work were given more opportunities to choose what type of work they did. Forget found that in the period that Mincome was administered, hospital visits dropped 8.5 percent, with fewer incidents of work-related injuries, and fewer emergency room visits from car accidents and domestic abuse.[7] Additionally, the period saw a reduction in rates of psychiatric hospitalization, and in the number of mental illness-related consultations with health professionals.[8][9]

[BartSimpson]

Good news for losers!

[Canadian_Mind]

I don't mind this idea, but how the hell is it going to be paid for? The basic idea is that because less people work due to automation (really due to outsourcing), there are less high quality/high sckill jobs, so we have to make up for it by providing a basic income. The only realistic way to pay for such a thing would be to take the savings companies make via automation/outsourcing and use that to pay the basic income. Of course you could start that today, but good luck trying to get enough to make up for all the outsourcing/automation that has happened since the 1970s.

What I think we really need to do is isolate ourselves and only export that which we are in excess of and can sell for cheaper than the rest of the world can make. There us no reason why we should be importing things like t-shirts and socks.

[BartSimpson]

Canadian_Mind Canadian_Mind:

I don't mind this idea, but how the hell is it going to be paid for?

Higher taxes. How else?

[andyt]

Canadian_Mind Canadian_Mind:

I don't mind this idea, but how the hell is it going to be paid for? The basic idea is that because less people work due to automation (really due to outsourcing), there are less high quality/high sckill jobs, so we have to make up for it by providing a basic income.

If that's the case, why the hell are we importing 300,000 people a year?

Canadian_Mind Canadian_Mind:

The only realistic way to pay for such a thing would be to take the savings companies make via automation/outsourcing and use that to pay the basic income.

Good luck with that, you'd just be driving most companies into bankruptcy.

Canadian_Mind Canadian_Mind:

What I think we really need to do is isolate ourselves and only export that which we are in excess of and can sell for cheaper than the rest of the world can make. There us no reason why we should be importing things like t-shirts and socks.

That would likely result in us having a 3rd world economy. We just don't have the population for it. Even China doesn't seem to have the population to be a rich country with no exports. We'd certainly miss the fresh fruits and veges we now import, and we'd have to drive Canuckwagons, since nobody would find it profitable to build cars in Canada just for Canadians. (We're already losing our auto industry to Mexico.)
We would have to go socialist for most industries, since companies just wouldn't make a profit in our small market. Basically we'd become like North Korea, except our dear leader would have better hair.

[Jabberwalker]

I'm getting close to retirement age. Bring it on! My children can pay for it and I'll be dead by the time the bill comes due!

[BeaverFever]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Good news for losers!

New mothers are losers?

[herbie]

It's too simple to have one program instead of 10,000 little ones attempting to do the same thing.
Too simple in that all it will take is the first conservative gov't to clawback every dollar you earn above the set level, discouraging people from working low paying jobs. Like they do for welfare.
Then all they have to do is gather the data for a year say that 'proves' the concept doesn't work and cancel it. And there won't be an annual income or any of the other previous benefits. Exactly as planned. Buah hah hah.

[Canadian_Mind]

andyt andyt:

Canadian_Mind Canadian_Mind:

I don't mind this idea, but how the hell is it going to be paid for? The basic idea is that because less people work due to automation (really due to outsourcing), there are less high quality/high sckill jobs, so we have to make up for it by providing a basic income.

If that's the case, why the hell are we importing 300,000 people a year?

Canadian_Mind Canadian_Mind:

The only realistic way to pay for such a thing would be to take the savings companies make via automation/outsourcing and use that to pay the basic income.

Good luck with that, you'd just be driving most companies into bankruptcy.

Canadian_Mind Canadian_Mind:

What I think we really need to do is isolate ourselves and only export that which we are in excess of and can sell for cheaper than the rest of the world can make. There us no reason why we should be importing things like t-shirts and socks.

That would likely result in us having a 3rd world economy. We just don't have the population for it. Even China doesn't seem to have the population to be a rich country with no exports. We'd certainly miss the fresh fruits and veges we now import, and we'd have to drive Canuckwagons, since nobody would find it profitable to build cars in Canada just for Canadians. (We're already losing our auto industry to Mexico.)
We would have to go socialist for most industries, since companies just wouldn't make a profit in our small market. Basically we'd become like North Korea, except our dear leader would have better hair.

Because to grow the economy you have to increase demand. Only ways to increase demand is to export for cheap, deficit spending, or increase the population.\

You're right, it would bankrupt companies, which is why it can't be done that way. Sadly I think Bart is right.

Yes, we are a small market in a world with 7.5 billion people. But 100 years ago when the population was 1 billion, a country with 35 million people would have had significant economic clout.

Really breaking it down, but say your population was 10 and your various product demands fit into 10 different categories. In days past, you would have 1 person working to fulfill each product demand, all were employed. Nowadays, we really only have one demand to full due to importing the other 9, and 10 people to fill it with. due to modern efficiencies, you don't need 10 people fulfilling this one demand, in spite of world export. So now you only have 5 people working, and the other 5 unemployed... Hence Basic Living Wage.

Even then, things are so expensive that those on the basic living wage wont be able to afford everything they need, and the 5 who are employed can't really support the other 5 because we don't get enough for our product.

Either way, standard of living is going to decline. It's inevitable unless we borrow more, which will just make the problem worse 20 years down the road.

[Freakinoldguy]

Shades of Animal Farm. So, how will they decide who's "more human" than others and therefore worthy of this free money?

My guess is that they'll give it to a few drug addicts, mentally ill and homeless people just to make themselves feel good with the rest going to Liberal supporters because they've worked so hard at being human.

[Prof_Chomsky]

I'm in favour of it. The Mincome experiment seemed promising 40 or so years ago.

It's no different than welfare or even employment income really. Just sets a basic living wage for everyone as a standard, one stop program.

Honestly, if everyone here looked at themselves and excluded people who's parents were wealthy, it would have helped all of us. Half of the people I went to University with ended early due to financial issues. A ton more had to take the first crappy job that came up to pay the bills.

I'm not blind, I see the possibility of abuse. But it can't be any higher than what welfare costs. I mean really, look at the USA. Wherever cheaper social programs fail, crime rates soar due to desperate people doing desperate things. Then prison becomes the social safety net - at 3-5X the cost of basic welfare. Not factoring in the policing cost, or effect on law abiding citizens who are victims of crimes.

No one willing to work, and actively looking to support themselves deserves to be worried where their next meal will come from.

[BartSimpson]

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Good news for losers!

New mothers are losers?

Single mothers with no income who are going to be dependent upon the state are losers, you're damn right they are.

[BeaverFever]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Good news for losers!

New mothers are losers?

Single mothers with no income who are going to be dependent upon the state are losers, you're damn right they are.

Bart to battered wives: Should've stuck with your husband and learned to take a punch, you losers!
Bart to widows: Should've married someone healthier, you losers!
Bart to abandoned women: Shouldn't have let your husbands run off with younger women, you losers!
Bart to professional women: Should've handed your baby over to a stranger and got back to work you losers!