Discussion:
Correlation between unemployment and crime
(too old to reply)
a***@gmail.com
2019-02-10 07:43:20 UTC
Permalink
If you are employed then you should have at least a minimum wage. What consumer product does everyone want? A smartphone. You can get a pretty good smartphone for as little as USD 200. There is no need to steal one.

If you are busy working, you don't have much spare times to plan or commit crimes.

If you are employed, you feel like a useful part of society, and are more likely to follow its rules.

I have not studied any data, but suspect that there is a strong correlation between unemployment and crime.

Abhinav Lal
Writer & Investor

"Man is by nature a political animal"
Robert Carnegie
2019-02-10 22:15:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by a***@gmail.com
If you are employed then you should have at least a minimum wage. What consumer product does everyone want? A smartphone. You can get a pretty good smartphone for as little as USD 200. There is no need to steal one.
If you are busy working, you don't have much spare times to plan or commit crimes.
If you are employed, you feel like a useful part of society, and are more likely to follow its rules.
I have not studied any data, but suspect that there is a strong correlation between unemployment and crime.
Abhinav Lal
Writer & Investor
"Man is by nature a political animal"
But I thought you argued in favour of a free wage
for everyone. In that case, people could choose to
be unemployed. Or, employed doing something that
they aren't paid for.
a***@gmail.com
2019-02-11 04:53:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert Carnegie
Post by a***@gmail.com
If you are employed then you should have at least a minimum wage. What consumer product does everyone want? A smartphone. You can get a pretty good smartphone for as little as USD 200. There is no need to steal one.
If you are busy working, you don't have much spare times to plan or commit crimes.
If you are employed, you feel like a useful part of society, and are more likely to follow its rules.
I have not studied any data, but suspect that there is a strong correlation between unemployment and crime.
Abhinav Lal
Writer & Investor
"Man is by nature a political animal"
But I thought you argued in favour of a free wage
for everyone. In that case, people could choose to
be unemployed. Or, employed doing something that
they aren't paid for.
The concept you are referring to is known as universal basic income. I don't recall what I argued before, but UBI is basically unaffordable for most governments.

What may be affordable is a targeted income support. A basic income that raises the income of only the poorest to a living wage.

I also think people should work, as it keeps them busy, and makes them feel useful.

Abhinav Lal
Writer & Investor

"Nature is cruel"
Alex W.
2019-02-11 22:59:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by a***@gmail.com
If you are employed then you should have at least a minimum wage.
What consumer product does everyone want? A smartphone. You can
get a pretty good smartphone for as little as USD 200. There is
no need to steal one.
If you are busy working, you don't have much spare times to plan or commit crimes.
If you are employed, you feel like a useful part of society, and
are more likely to follow its rules.
I have not studied any data, but suspect that there is a strong
correlation between unemployment and crime.
Abhinav Lal Writer & Investor
"Man is by nature a political animal"
But I thought you argued in favour of a free wage for everyone. In
that case, people could choose to be unemployed. Or, employed
doing something that they aren't paid for.
The concept you are referring to is known as universal basic income.
I don't recall what I argued before, but UBI is basically
unaffordable for most governments.
What may be affordable is a targeted income support. A basic income
that raises the income of only the poorest to a living wage.
Fundamental market mechanisms make this impossible.

A vendor will offer goods and services at a price they think the market
will bear. Hand out more money to the poorest, and those who make a
living by selling goods and services to the poor will raise their prices
to match this new, higher level of income. Put simply, a street vendor
selling food to day labourers may charge only 10 rupees for a dosa ...
but when he knows that his customers now have double their income, his
prices will go up to 20 rupees. The end result is that government
spending, prices and inflation will all go up but the poorest will be no
better off.
a***@gmail.com
2019-02-12 09:25:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alex W.
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by a***@gmail.com
If you are employed then you should have at least a minimum wage.
What consumer product does everyone want? A smartphone. You can
get a pretty good smartphone for as little as USD 200. There is
no need to steal one.
If you are busy working, you don't have much spare times to plan or commit crimes.
If you are employed, you feel like a useful part of society, and
are more likely to follow its rules.
I have not studied any data, but suspect that there is a strong
correlation between unemployment and crime.
Abhinav Lal Writer & Investor
"Man is by nature a political animal"
But I thought you argued in favour of a free wage for everyone. In
that case, people could choose to be unemployed. Or, employed
doing something that they aren't paid for.
The concept you are referring to is known as universal basic income.
I don't recall what I argued before, but UBI is basically
unaffordable for most governments.
What may be affordable is a targeted income support. A basic income
that raises the income of only the poorest to a living wage.
Fundamental market mechanisms make this impossible.
A vendor will offer goods and services at a price they think the market
will bear. Hand out more money to the poorest, and those who make a
living by selling goods and services to the poor will raise their prices
to match this new, higher level of income. Put simply, a street vendor
selling food to day labourers may charge only 10 rupees for a dosa ...
but when he knows that his customers now have double their income, his
prices will go up to 20 rupees. The end result is that government
spending, prices and inflation will all go up but the poorest will be no
better off.
I don't agree. About 50 million people live in India on less than two dollars a day. If we focus on providing income support to this 4% of the population, most people will still only be able to afford the same price for food. On packaged goods, there is a Maximum Retail Price, so shops cannot overcharge customers.

Abhinav Lal
Writer & Investor

"Just what the truth is,
I can't say anymore"
Robert Carnegie
2019-02-12 10:17:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by Alex W.
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by a***@gmail.com
If you are employed then you should have at least a minimum wage.
What consumer product does everyone want? A smartphone. You can
get a pretty good smartphone for as little as USD 200. There is
no need to steal one.
If you are busy working, you don't have much spare times to plan
or commit crimes.
If you are employed, you feel like a useful part of society, and
are more likely to follow its rules.
I have not studied any data, but suspect that there is a strong
correlation between unemployment and crime.
Abhinav Lal Writer & Investor
"Man is by nature a political animal"
But I thought you argued in favour of a free wage for everyone. In
that case, people could choose to be unemployed. Or, employed
doing something that they aren't paid for.
The concept you are referring to is known as universal basic income.
I don't recall what I argued before, but UBI is basically
unaffordable for most governments.
What may be affordable is a targeted income support. A basic income
that raises the income of only the poorest to a living wage.
Fundamental market mechanisms make this impossible.
A vendor will offer goods and services at a price they think the market
will bear. Hand out more money to the poorest, and those who make a
living by selling goods and services to the poor will raise their prices
to match this new, higher level of income. Put simply, a street vendor
selling food to day labourers may charge only 10 rupees for a dosa ...
but when he knows that his customers now have double their income, his
prices will go up to 20 rupees. The end result is that government
spending, prices and inflation will all go up but the poorest will be no
better off.
I don't agree. About 50 million people live in India on less than two dollars a day. If we focus on providing income support to this 4% of the population, most people will still only be able to afford the same price for food. On packaged goods, there is a Maximum Retail Price, so shops cannot overcharge customers.
I think your government proposes to do the income
support thing - when they are re-elected?

On maximum price, I can't help wondering whether
Indian cinemas sell popcorn to the audience.
I suppose it doesn't apply there.
a***@gmail.com
2019-02-12 11:25:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert Carnegie
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by Alex W.
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by a***@gmail.com
If you are employed then you should have at least a minimum wage.
What consumer product does everyone want? A smartphone. You can
get a pretty good smartphone for as little as USD 200. There is
no need to steal one.
If you are busy working, you don't have much spare times to plan
or commit crimes.
If you are employed, you feel like a useful part of society, and
are more likely to follow its rules.
I have not studied any data, but suspect that there is a strong
correlation between unemployment and crime.
Abhinav Lal Writer & Investor
"Man is by nature a political animal"
But I thought you argued in favour of a free wage for everyone. In
that case, people could choose to be unemployed. Or, employed
doing something that they aren't paid for.
The concept you are referring to is known as universal basic income.
I don't recall what I argued before, but UBI is basically
unaffordable for most governments.
What may be affordable is a targeted income support. A basic income
that raises the income of only the poorest to a living wage.
Fundamental market mechanisms make this impossible.
A vendor will offer goods and services at a price they think the market
will bear. Hand out more money to the poorest, and those who make a
living by selling goods and services to the poor will raise their prices
to match this new, higher level of income. Put simply, a street vendor
selling food to day labourers may charge only 10 rupees for a dosa ...
but when he knows that his customers now have double their income, his
prices will go up to 20 rupees. The end result is that government
spending, prices and inflation will all go up but the poorest will be no
better off.
I don't agree. About 50 million people live in India on less than two dollars a day. If we focus on providing income support to this 4% of the population, most people will still only be able to afford the same price for food. On packaged goods, there is a Maximum Retail Price, so shops cannot overcharge customers.
I think your government proposes to do the income
support thing - when they are re-elected?
The opposition, led by Congress, is promising basic income for 300 million people. It's going to be very expensive for the state, and possibly the taxpayer. But it will improve the quality of life for the poorest and provide them financial security.

I haven't looked at the details, but it looks promising, even though I personally won't benefit.
Post by Robert Carnegie
On maximum price, I can't help wondering whether
Indian cinemas sell popcorn to the audience.
I suppose it doesn't apply there.
They have MRP for things sold in retail. But if you buy the same item in a restaurant it may be sold over MRP.

Abhinav Lal
Writer & Investor

"I am a contradiction,
there is no logical solution"

"
Alex W.
2019-02-12 22:56:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by Alex W.
Post by a***@gmail.com
On Sunday, 10 February 2019 07:43:24 UTC,
Post by a***@gmail.com
If you are employed then you should have at least a
minimum wage. What consumer product does everyone want?
A smartphone. You can get a pretty good smartphone for
as little as USD 200. There is no need to steal one.
If you are busy working, you don't have much spare times
to plan or commit crimes.
If you are employed, you feel like a useful part of
society, and are more likely to follow its rules.
I have not studied any data, but suspect that there is a
strong correlation between unemployment and crime.
Abhinav Lal Writer & Investor
"Man is by nature a political animal"
But I thought you argued in favour of a free wage for
everyone. In that case, people could choose to be
unemployed. Or, employed doing something that they aren't
paid for.
The concept you are referring to is known as universal basic
income. I don't recall what I argued before, but UBI is
basically unaffordable for most governments.
What may be affordable is a targeted income support. A basic
income that raises the income of only the poorest to a living
wage.
Fundamental market mechanisms make this impossible.
A vendor will offer goods and services at a price they think
the market will bear. Hand out more money to the poorest, and
those who make a living by selling goods and services to the
poor will raise their prices to match this new, higher level of
income. Put simply, a street vendor selling food to day
labourers may charge only 10 rupees for a dosa ... but when he
knows that his customers now have double their income, his
prices will go up to 20 rupees. The end result is that
government spending, prices and inflation will all go up but
the poorest will be no better off.
I don't agree. About 50 million people live in India on less
than two dollars a day. If we focus on providing income support
to this 4% of the population, most people will still only be able
to afford the same price for food. On packaged goods, there is a
Maximum Retail Price, so shops cannot overcharge customers.
I think your government proposes to do the income support thing -
when they are re-elected?
The opposition, led by Congress, is promising basic income for 300
million people. It's going to be very expensive for the state, and
possibly the taxpayer. But it will improve the quality of life for
the poorest and provide them financial security.
There is no "possibly" about it.

This will be hugely expensive for the taxpayer.

Now think about the practicalities. How will those 300 million get
their basic income? If it is in cash, they will have to form orderly
queues to pick up their money once a week or month ... when was the last
time you saw an efficient government office in India? Hell, even with
an efficient bureaucracy, this would be a mammoth task.

If it is by way of bank transfer, most of those 300 million will have to
open bank accounts. This requires skills such as literacy which many of
them do not have. It requires identification papers. It will cost
these people money in banking fees.
Robert Carnegie
2019-02-12 23:13:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alex W.
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by Alex W.
Post by a***@gmail.com
On Sunday, 10 February 2019 07:43:24 UTC,
Post by a***@gmail.com
If you are employed then you should have at least a
minimum wage. What consumer product does everyone want?
A smartphone. You can get a pretty good smartphone for
as little as USD 200. There is no need to steal one.
If you are busy working, you don't have much spare times
to plan or commit crimes.
If you are employed, you feel like a useful part of
society, and are more likely to follow its rules.
I have not studied any data, but suspect that there is a
strong correlation between unemployment and crime.
Abhinav Lal Writer & Investor
"Man is by nature a political animal"
But I thought you argued in favour of a free wage for
everyone. In that case, people could choose to be
unemployed. Or, employed doing something that they aren't
paid for.
The concept you are referring to is known as universal basic
income. I don't recall what I argued before, but UBI is
basically unaffordable for most governments.
What may be affordable is a targeted income support. A basic
income that raises the income of only the poorest to a living
wage.
Fundamental market mechanisms make this impossible.
A vendor will offer goods and services at a price they think
the market will bear. Hand out more money to the poorest, and
those who make a living by selling goods and services to the
poor will raise their prices to match this new, higher level of
income. Put simply, a street vendor selling food to day
labourers may charge only 10 rupees for a dosa ... but when he
knows that his customers now have double their income, his
prices will go up to 20 rupees. The end result is that
government spending, prices and inflation will all go up but
the poorest will be no better off.
I don't agree. About 50 million people live in India on less
than two dollars a day. If we focus on providing income support
to this 4% of the population, most people will still only be able
to afford the same price for food. On packaged goods, there is a
Maximum Retail Price, so shops cannot overcharge customers.
I think your government proposes to do the income support thing -
when they are re-elected?
The opposition, led by Congress, is promising basic income for 300
million people. It's going to be very expensive for the state, and
possibly the taxpayer. But it will improve the quality of life for
the poorest and provide them financial security.
There is no "possibly" about it.
This will be hugely expensive for the taxpayer.
Now think about the practicalities. How will those 300 million get
their basic income? If it is in cash, they will have to form orderly
queues to pick up their money once a week or month ... when was the last
time you saw an efficient government office in India? Hell, even with
an efficient bureaucracy, this would be a mammoth task.
If it is by way of bank transfer, most of those 300 million will have to
open bank accounts. This requires skills such as literacy which many of
them do not have. It requires identification papers. It will cost
these people money in banking fees.
Bank accounts are a thing on a computer, or a cellphone.
They're pretty cheap really.

As for the actual money involved in payments - money is
only pretend anyway.
Alex W.
2019-02-13 05:26:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert Carnegie
Post by Alex W.
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by Alex W.
Post by a***@gmail.com
On Sunday, 10 February 2019 07:43:24 UTC,
Post by a***@gmail.com
If you are employed then you should have at least a
minimum wage. What consumer product does everyone want?
A smartphone. You can get a pretty good smartphone for
as little as USD 200. There is no need to steal one.
If you are busy working, you don't have much spare times
to plan or commit crimes.
If you are employed, you feel like a useful part of
society, and are more likely to follow its rules.
I have not studied any data, but suspect that there is a
strong correlation between unemployment and crime.
Abhinav Lal Writer & Investor
"Man is by nature a political animal"
But I thought you argued in favour of a free wage for
everyone. In that case, people could choose to be
unemployed. Or, employed doing something that they aren't
paid for.
The concept you are referring to is known as universal basic
income. I don't recall what I argued before, but UBI is
basically unaffordable for most governments.
What may be affordable is a targeted income support. A basic
income that raises the income of only the poorest to a living
wage.
Fundamental market mechanisms make this impossible.
A vendor will offer goods and services at a price they think
the market will bear. Hand out more money to the poorest, and
those who make a living by selling goods and services to the
poor will raise their prices to match this new, higher level of
income. Put simply, a street vendor selling food to day
labourers may charge only 10 rupees for a dosa ... but when he
knows that his customers now have double their income, his
prices will go up to 20 rupees. The end result is that
government spending, prices and inflation will all go up but
the poorest will be no better off.
I don't agree. About 50 million people live in India on less
than two dollars a day. If we focus on providing income support
to this 4% of the population, most people will still only be able
to afford the same price for food. On packaged goods, there is a
Maximum Retail Price, so shops cannot overcharge customers.
I think your government proposes to do the income support thing -
when they are re-elected?
The opposition, led by Congress, is promising basic income for 300
million people. It's going to be very expensive for the state, and
possibly the taxpayer. But it will improve the quality of life for
the poorest and provide them financial security.
There is no "possibly" about it.
This will be hugely expensive for the taxpayer.
Now think about the practicalities. How will those 300 million get
their basic income? If it is in cash, they will have to form orderly
queues to pick up their money once a week or month ... when was the last
time you saw an efficient government office in India? Hell, even with
an efficient bureaucracy, this would be a mammoth task.
If it is by way of bank transfer, most of those 300 million will have to
open bank accounts. This requires skills such as literacy which many of
them do not have. It requires identification papers. It will cost
these people money in banking fees.
Bank accounts are a thing on a computer, or a cellphone.
They're pretty cheap really.
Not so cheap when you live on $1-2 a day and count yourself lucky if you
share a shack in a shanty town somewhere without running water or access
to electricity.

Nor does this solve the problem of access to the system by the unbanked.
Post by Robert Carnegie
As for the actual money involved in payments - money is
only pretend anyway.
It may be, but the stuff you buy with that pretend stuff is pretty damn
real.

Well, unless we're talking about buying an hour with a hooker and her
pretend love....
Robert Carnegie
2019-02-14 02:56:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alex W.
Post by Robert Carnegie
Post by Alex W.
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by Alex W.
Post by a***@gmail.com
On Sunday, 10 February 2019 07:43:24 UTC,
Post by a***@gmail.com
If you are employed then you should have at least a
minimum wage. What consumer product does everyone want?
A smartphone. You can get a pretty good smartphone for
as little as USD 200. There is no need to steal one.
If you are busy working, you don't have much spare times
to plan or commit crimes.
If you are employed, you feel like a useful part of
society, and are more likely to follow its rules.
I have not studied any data, but suspect that there is a
strong correlation between unemployment and crime.
Abhinav Lal Writer & Investor
"Man is by nature a political animal"
But I thought you argued in favour of a free wage for
everyone. In that case, people could choose to be
unemployed. Or, employed doing something that they aren't
paid for.
The concept you are referring to is known as universal basic
income. I don't recall what I argued before, but UBI is
basically unaffordable for most governments.
What may be affordable is a targeted income support. A basic
income that raises the income of only the poorest to a living
wage.
Fundamental market mechanisms make this impossible.
A vendor will offer goods and services at a price they think
the market will bear. Hand out more money to the poorest, and
those who make a living by selling goods and services to the
poor will raise their prices to match this new, higher level of
income. Put simply, a street vendor selling food to day
labourers may charge only 10 rupees for a dosa ... but when he
knows that his customers now have double their income, his
prices will go up to 20 rupees. The end result is that
government spending, prices and inflation will all go up but
the poorest will be no better off.
I don't agree. About 50 million people live in India on less
than two dollars a day. If we focus on providing income support
to this 4% of the population, most people will still only be able
to afford the same price for food. On packaged goods, there is a
Maximum Retail Price, so shops cannot overcharge customers.
I think your government proposes to do the income support thing -
when they are re-elected?
The opposition, led by Congress, is promising basic income for 300
million people. It's going to be very expensive for the state, and
possibly the taxpayer. But it will improve the quality of life for
the poorest and provide them financial security.
There is no "possibly" about it.
This will be hugely expensive for the taxpayer.
Now think about the practicalities. How will those 300 million get
their basic income? If it is in cash, they will have to form orderly
queues to pick up their money once a week or month ... when was the last
time you saw an efficient government office in India? Hell, even with
an efficient bureaucracy, this would be a mammoth task.
If it is by way of bank transfer, most of those 300 million will have to
open bank accounts. This requires skills such as literacy which many of
them do not have. It requires identification papers. It will cost
these people money in banking fees.
Bank accounts are a thing on a computer, or a cellphone.
They're pretty cheap really.
Not so cheap when you live on $1-2 a day and count yourself lucky if you
share a shack in a shanty town somewhere without running water or access
to electricity.
Nor does this solve the problem of access to the system by the unbanked.
There are cellphones in Africa.

According to <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M-Pesa>
people started using exchangeable airtime as currency
in its own right, then business stepped in to make it
more bank-y. This is very much a summary.
Post by Alex W.
Post by Robert Carnegie
As for the actual money involved in payments - money is
only pretend anyway.
It may be, but the stuff you buy with that pretend stuff is pretty damn
real.
Sure, but you're getting goods and services of real value
in exchange for the pretend value of the money.

This isn't exactly how it's taught in economics classes
but it's basically true.
d***@cox.net
2019-02-12 13:21:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by Robert Carnegie
Post by a***@gmail.com
If you are employed then you should have at least a minimum wage. What consumer product does everyone want? A smartphone. You can get a pretty good smartphone for as little as USD 200. There is no need to steal one.
If you are busy working, you don't have much spare times to plan or commit crimes.
If you are employed, you feel like a useful part of society, and are more likely to follow its rules.
I have not studied any data, but suspect that there is a strong correlation between unemployment and crime.
Abhinav Lal
Writer & Investor
"Man is by nature a political animal"
But I thought you argued in favour of a free wage
for everyone. In that case, people could choose to
be unemployed. Or, employed doing something that
they aren't paid for.
The concept you are referring to is known as universal basic income. I don't recall what I argued before, but UBI is basically unaffordable for most governments.
What may be affordable is a targeted income support. A basic income that raises the income of only the poorest to a living wage.
Only so they can now be exposed to elevated pricing for all goods and
services and be no better off than before.

The dukester
a***@gmail.com
2019-02-12 16:19:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by d***@cox.net
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by Robert Carnegie
Post by a***@gmail.com
If you are employed then you should have at least a minimum wage. What consumer product does everyone want? A smartphone. You can get a pretty good smartphone for as little as USD 200. There is no need to steal one.
If you are busy working, you don't have much spare times to plan or commit crimes.
If you are employed, you feel like a useful part of society, and are more likely to follow its rules.
I have not studied any data, but suspect that there is a strong correlation between unemployment and crime.
Abhinav Lal
Writer & Investor
"Man is by nature a political animal"
But I thought you argued in favour of a free wage
for everyone. In that case, people could choose to
be unemployed. Or, employed doing something that
they aren't paid for.
The concept you are referring to is known as universal basic income. I don't recall what I argued before, but UBI is basically unaffordable for most governments.
What may be affordable is a targeted income support. A basic income that raises the income of only the poorest to a living wage.
Only so they can now be exposed to elevated pricing for all goods and
services and be no better off than before.
The dukester
Obviously you don't know economics. The prices of all goods and services will not go up in proportion to the additional income of the poorest sections of society who recieve the basic income.

The GDI will not be changed, and there may be a redistribution of income from the rich to the poor.

By your logic, people's salaries should not be raised, as it would gain them nothing.

Abhinav Lal
Writer & Investor

"Just what the truth is,
I can't say anymore"
d***@cox.net
2019-02-12 20:32:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by d***@cox.net
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by Robert Carnegie
Post by a***@gmail.com
If you are employed then you should have at least a minimum wage. What consumer product does everyone want? A smartphone. You can get a pretty good smartphone for as little as USD 200. There is no need to steal one.
If you are busy working, you don't have much spare times to plan or commit crimes.
If you are employed, you feel like a useful part of society, and are more likely to follow its rules.
I have not studied any data, but suspect that there is a strong correlation between unemployment and crime.
Abhinav Lal
Writer & Investor
"Man is by nature a political animal"
But I thought you argued in favour of a free wage
for everyone. In that case, people could choose to
be unemployed. Or, employed doing something that
they aren't paid for.
The concept you are referring to is known as universal basic income. I don't recall what I argued before, but UBI is basically unaffordable for most governments.
What may be affordable is a targeted income support. A basic income that raises the income of only the poorest to a living wage.
Only so they can now be exposed to elevated pricing for all goods and
services and be no better off than before.
The dukester
Obviously you don't know economics. The prices of all goods and services will not go up in proportion to the additional income of the poorest sections of society who recieve the basic income.
The GDI will not be changed, and there may be a redistribution of income from the rich to the poor.
So you think that if person getting min wage gets a nice raise, none
of the people he does business with like groceries, utilities, etc,
etc will not increase their own pricing to pay the higher wagers for
their own employees.
Post by a***@gmail.com
By your logic, people's salaries should not be raised, as it would gain them nothing.
Exactly. You really think that if every man's min wage was raised to
$15/hr, every company owner would raise his own pricing to pay for his
own emplyees raises?
Post by a***@gmail.com
Abhinav Lal
Writer & Investor
"Just what the truth is,
I can't say anymore"
The dukester
Malcolm McMahon
2019-02-13 11:24:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by Robert Carnegie
Post by a***@gmail.com
If you are employed then you should have at least a minimum wage. What consumer product does everyone want? A smartphone. You can get a pretty good smartphone for as little as USD 200. There is no need to steal one.
If you are busy working, you don't have much spare times to plan or commit crimes.
If you are employed, you feel like a useful part of society, and are more likely to follow its rules.
I have not studied any data, but suspect that there is a strong correlation between unemployment and crime.
Abhinav Lal
Writer & Investor
"Man is by nature a political animal"
But I thought you argued in favour of a free wage
for everyone. In that case, people could choose to
be unemployed. Or, employed doing something that
they aren't paid for.
The concept you are referring to is known as universal basic income. I don't recall what I argued before, but UBI is basically unaffordable for most governments.
It's affordable if you tax it back at a rate that puts the person currently on an average income back where they are now.

It's bound to be cheaper to administer than means tested benefit.

Means testing:

1) Is adversarial

2) Is intrusive

3) Is expensive to implement

4) Encourages dishonesty

5) Creates perverse incentives.
Alex W.
2019-02-13 23:19:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Malcolm McMahon
On Monday, February 11, 2019 at 3:45:03 AM UTC+5:30, Robert
Post by a***@gmail.com
If you are employed then you should have at least a minimum
wage. What consumer product does everyone want? A smartphone.
You can get a pretty good smartphone for as little as USD 200.
There is no need to steal one.
If you are busy working, you don't have much spare times to
plan or commit crimes.
If you are employed, you feel like a useful part of society,
and are more likely to follow its rules.
I have not studied any data, but suspect that there is a strong
correlation between unemployment and crime.
Abhinav Lal Writer & Investor
"Man is by nature a political animal"
But I thought you argued in favour of a free wage for everyone.
In that case, people could choose to be unemployed. Or, employed
doing something that they aren't paid for.
The concept you are referring to is known as universal basic
income. I don't recall what I argued before, but UBI is basically
unaffordable for most governments.
It's affordable if you tax it back at a rate that puts the person
currently on an average income back where they are now.
It's bound to be cheaper to administer than means tested benefit.
1) Is adversarial
2) Is intrusive
3) Is expensive to implement
4) Encourages dishonesty
5) Creates perverse incentives.
The last two points of course also apply to those who devise, administer
and keep fiddling with the system for political gain....

The simplest and cheapest to administer system would be a genuine UBI,
payed to everybody regardless of need or income level. But such would
never survive in political systems where players employ the politics of
envy in order to gather votes and power.
Malcolm McMahon
2019-02-14 09:15:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alex W.
Post by Alex W.
The last two points of course also apply to those who devise, administer
and keep fiddling with the system for political gain....
The simplest and cheapest to administer system would be a genuine UBI,
payed to everybody regardless of need or income level. But such would
never survive in political systems where players employ the politics of
envy in order to gather votes and power.
It's a problem. People don't focus on the _balance_ of tax and benefits to a household, but emotionally treat the two separately. So there's a lot of nonsensical feeling around universal benefits being paid to people "who don't need them".

Though I put this down more to human nature, and less to political manipulation. Humanity is not a rational species.
Alex W.
2019-02-10 23:24:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by a***@gmail.com
If you are employed then you should have at least a minimum wage.
What consumer product does everyone want? A smartphone. You can get
a pretty good smartphone for as little as USD 200. There is no need
to steal one.
If you are busy working, you don't have much spare times to plan or commit crimes.
If you are employed, you feel like a useful part of society, and are
more likely to follow its rules.
I have not studied any data, but suspect that there is a strong
correlation between unemployment and crime.
If you work, you are more likely to own stuff. This means you are more
likely to worry about losing what you have, and hence less likely to do
it to others....
zencycle
2019-02-12 10:42:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alex W.
Post by a***@gmail.com
If you are employed then you should have at least a minimum wage.
What consumer product does everyone want? A smartphone. You can get
a pretty good smartphone for as little as USD 200. There is no need
to steal one.
If you are busy working, you don't have much spare times to plan or commit crimes.
If you are employed, you feel like a useful part of society, and are
more likely to follow its rules.
I have not studied any data, but suspect that there is a strong
correlation between unemployment and crime.
If you work, you are more likely to own stuff. This means you are more
likely to worry about losing what you have, and hence less likely to do
it to others....
wow...there's a sociological paper just begging to be written...
zencycle
2019-02-12 10:48:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by a***@gmail.com
If you are employed then you should have at least a minimum wage. What consumer product does everyone want? A smartphone. You can get a pretty good smartphone for as little as USD 200. There is no need to steal one.
If you are busy working, you don't have much spare times to plan or commit crimes.
If you are employed, you feel like a useful part of society, and are more likely to follow its rules.
I have not studied any data, but suspect that there is a strong correlation between unemployment and crime.
I don't disagree with you, but that's pretty fucking lazy. It took less time to get over a million hits in a google search for "unemployment rate vs crime rate" and read a few abstracts of peer reviewed research papers on the subject than it did for you to write your post. Arguing from a position of ignorance (regardless wuether you're right or not) is the surest way to lose the argument.
Davej
2019-02-12 21:09:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by a***@gmail.com
If you are employed then you should have at least a minimum
wage. What consumer product does everyone want? [...]
As a writer, you are dull. Are you any better at investing?
%
2019-02-12 21:20:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Davej
Post by a***@gmail.com
If you are employed then you should have at least a minimum
wage. What consumer product does everyone want? [...]
As a writer, you are dull. Are you any better at investing?
he can invest a lot of time here does that count
Loading...