A Town Without Poverty? Canada's Guaranteed Income Experiment

reply to post by 547000


where did they get the money for all those bailouts??????

oh, ya, they just created it in some computer and off it went, into someone's pockets as a nice fat bonus!!!

we have enough people out of work (or on welfare, disability) in this country, hey we probably could probably all cut our hours to part time, share our job with someone who isn't working, and still live nicely....
and save money!!!

and as a extra benefit, we probably would see the level of obesity go down, since people wouldn't be forced to sit behind a desk for 8 or more hours a day punching a keyboard and pushing papers.

a guaranteed income would elliminate much of those gov't jobs that involved providing assistance to the poor, hud, welfare, food stamps, medicare......and simplify things alot, and make it less costly....



As a mother who stayed at home some when those kids were small, got to tell ya something, it kind of gets lonely, and boring!! I would rather be working, just not working as hard as I am currently!!

Originally posted by JIMC5499
One town. What about the other towns that had to foot the bill?

Since you do not know how much they were given, you do not know if other towns has a bill to foot or not..

reply to post by predator0187

You wouldn't do something you wanted to? Maybe learn something you always wanted to learn? Go back to school?

What would you do?

That's the first thing that came to my mind! All the artists and musicians (etc) out there who wouldn't have to struggle so! The people who wanted to carry on with something vitally important to them - my gawd we only have one life! Use it wisely.

As for those people who don't want to work? What of it? Not everyone is competitive or driven. Not everyone wants to intermingle with others. Some people choose to stay at home, behind their computer... Oh wait, too much personal info! LOL, no, not really, but you get the idea.

peace

we'd also quit wasting so much money and resources in our drive to create jobs!!

oops, more savings found!!!

probably wouldn't need so many child care centers, since mom's wouldn't have to be out working and leaving them with strangers....more savings!!!

reply to post by dawnstar


Money represents production, unless you're a central banker. I earnestly hope people try all these silly ideas so people can tell their children not to go with it because they've witnessed failure first hand.

Originally posted by 547000
reply to post by dawnstar

 

Money represents production, unless you're a central banker. I earnestly hope people try all these silly ideas so people can tell their children not to go with it because they've witnessed failure first hand.

Share your experience with us, oh wise one...

...clearly this doesn't work, although there is proof that it does... because you said so.

People will be productive for the sake of being productive. Who are you to say they won't? Are you saying everyone needs to be forced to do something they don't want to just to keep the gears turning and be "grateful" for it? Talk about slave mentality.

Where does the work behind the money come from, oh sarcastic one? To make sure everyone gets resources, everyone has to contribute. What will come of those who can't contribute because they don't like the jobs available to them? They're eventually going to have to grit their teeth and do a job they don't like so society will not send them to work camps. The idea that everyone doing what they like will lead to no sustainability problems is naive. And isn't the whole point of setting up such a society so people can be free? Where does the income come from, if not from people paying for the scheme? Behind the guaranteed income there has to be labor. To pay into the pool, you have to work. But you cannot always get the job you like, because the job market might be saturated for your dream job. Do you see the problem yet?

I think the only reason it worked was because people from the outside paid. The system by itself is unsustainable.

Originally posted by Partisanity
Are you saying everyone needs to be forced to do something they don't want to just to keep the gears turning and be "grateful" for it? Talk about slave mentality.

edit on 5-10-2011 by Partisanity because: (no reason given)

LOL

Seriously the amount of people that think this shock and sadden me. its the basis of our economy right now. Its every nitpicking ahole manager youve ever had. its the banks and their tellers. its the supermarkets.

"Dont resist, join us, your life will be easier! Join us!"

Originally posted by 547000
To make sure everyone gets resources, everyone has to contribute.

They'll walk over to the field.. and get the resources.... instead of starving on a corner... because "resources" cost $6.99/gram or death.

What resources do you speak of?

Gas? You only really need that if you're being forced to commute ridiculous distances due to financial issues...

Food? You may have forgotten this over the past umpteen years of regimented industry, but the stuff literally grows out of the ground...

Water? Well, that's a hard one .

Power? Someone will get sick of not having it and start producing it.

What will come of those who can't contribute because they don't like the jobs available to them?

....In capitalism, these problems clearly don't exist, right? Oh wait... people end up working 14-hour days doing something that they hate and still barely scrape by...

Yet, in this system, if they really couldn't find a damn thing to do, then the community wouldn't support them either, so they would be forced to by the will to survive; lest they die, in which case, so be it, because they have no passion anyways.

But you cannot always get the job you like, because the job market might be saturated for your dream job. Do you see the problem yet?

Do you advocate that capitalism is the better option? Really? Because the problem exists in every system, this one just doesn't have massive skews in distribution. This problem is much worse in capitalism, because everything is exaggerated in price to turn a profit.

There's a reason why utopian movements are criticized. I prefer capitalism; I never said capitalism has no problems, but I prefer it over the system proposed, which will end up as pseudo-capitalistic in the long run anyway. If you want everything to be free, that would require machines that produce more energy than they consume, otherwise the "freedom" would require eliminating undesirables or forcing labor, which is the same problem that is deplored in capitalism. All you would really be doing is giving people resources and forcing them to work, or even just killing people who won't for some reason or the other. Same problem, isn't it? Just disguised with superficial coating.

Until we discover new holes in the laws of physics, utopia would just not be possible -- unless you're comfortable with murdering or enslaving people.

Anyway, I see what you're saying about capitalism and concede the point, but I'm hoping you see my points too. I do not want to start a flame war with you.

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
reply to post by JIMC5499

 

We'd just have to do like Rome. Keep pillaging other nations to fund our own splendor until there were no nations left to plunder then we start plundering our own people to keep the oligarchs happy then we burn down and start it all over again.

you are describing the america of today.
the financial sector plundered all they could overseas and are now fleecing the americans.
we pay too much for pharmaceuticals, too much for healthcare, energy, education, all to keep a fat parasite called the financial sector fat and happy.
not to mention all the giveaways they get directly from the government, whenever their gambling doesn't work.

no wonder people are looking for another system.
neccesity is the mother of invention, we need new ideas, a new system.

Reply to post by VonDoomen

As it is now I produce most of my own food and clothing. My transportation is a bicycle. My vacations are basically just bike trips for extended distances with camping in parks.

I promise I would not work. Even if I were given a job doing my most favorite thing I would not do it as a job. I'd do what I wanted to when I wanted to.


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

Reply to post by Partisanity

Yay! You got the joke.


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

Originally posted by purplemer

Originally posted by JIMC5499
One town. What about the other towns that had to foot the bill?

Since you do not know how much they were given, you do not know if other towns has a bill to foot or not..

If they were given anything, it had to come from someplace.

reply to post by Partisanity


Why don't you just go back to reading your copy of "The Little Red Book" and buzz off.

Originally posted by JIMC5499
One town. What about the other towns that had to foot the bill?

Why do you assume that someone had to "foot the bill" ? Did you even read the article? Plenty of things happened that might actually mean that doing so would end up saving money, instead of costing money. This is exacly what the researcher is trying to prove now.

Some countries have quite a close system as this town experimented with. Like Finland for example. Noone is forced to work. A livelyhood is quaranteed and that comes with stuff like entertainment etc. to boot so it's not just scraping by. Despite that people work. They get better pay out of it for one.

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
If I were guaranteed a salary that paid my mortgage/taxes there's no way in hell I would bother working.

Just keep sending me those checks.

Sure, you would. You want money to buy games, go out with your gf, rent movies, pay for cable and internet? You work for it. The point in question you seem to be missing is that you would only have to work for things that aren't the most basic necessities. And only in proportion to your wanting of those.

You say you would read a bunch, work on your brewing... this is great, actually. Who knows you wouldn't become the next Socrates, or come up with a innovative brew? The point is, the way the society is, you will never become the next Socrates because you are too damn busy working to survive.

reply to post by JIMC5499


Hardley conudive to a friendly discussion pal.
In fact the experiment had some very good success.
The only ones who worked LESS were school age kids and moms .....
What part of that dont you get?
Everyone else kept on working period.(except maybe a few)
The point of the report is to tell you it DOES work in microcosm.
I think you people are mostly either 16 yrs old or brainwashed heavily towards the Amaikun way,
The whole country was founded by masonic elites who were not exactly working class people to start with.
It was set up for their benefit, and they hardly took the common people into account in their plans.
the facts are that a moneyless society can work well and efficiently.
The way it is now the top 1% own and control the whole society for their own benefit!
Capitalism sucks big time.
It produces more strife than it worth for the ordinary people.
Money is simply a SLAVE tool to keep you captive in the system.
Or cant you bend your head around that.
Live free or die- it looks like you dont really need to work at a day job.You are already rich.

reply to post by Leahn


Yes, I read the article. I believe that it said that the data had not yet been compiled or evaluated. I would like to see the raw data, before it is folded, spindled and mutilated by political spin.