Thought Experiment

[bu villain]

Just curious to see people's take on this scenario. Imagine tomorrow the government announced that every single adult and child would be provided with the most basic level of necessities as follows:

Food
staple foods such rice, beans, vegetables, water, etc such that each person would receive just enough to consume three nutritous balanced meals each day.

Shelter
An apartment with approximately 500 sq ft/person or couple + 250sq ft per child or equivalent there of. A basic level of electricity, gas, and water would be covered.

Healthcare
All healthcare would be paid for but only doctors get to determine which procedures/tests are necessary.

No other laws would change. In this scenario, what would the country look like in 5 years? how about 10 or 50 years? If you consider this unsustainable, how long could it last and why? Would general happiness increase or decrease?

[Vteckidd]

unsustainable. Country would be bankrupt in 10 years maybe less, unless you plan on jacking taxes 100% and forcing everyone to pay.

WHat you are suggesting is physically and fiscally impossible anyway. The government cant provide food or shelter because those are private institutions. If youre telling me that the Govt is going to just pay someones rent or subsidize it, then that leads to the problems that we have already seen.

Anytime the government tries to subsidize a private industry, it drives prices up, not down.

Housing
Healthcare
Oil

list goes on and on and on

[Vteckidd]

furthermore, food , shelter, healthcare arent rights and no one is guaranteed those items.

Although for underprivledged people we have Section 8 housing, Food stamps, and free clinics.

[Sinfix_15]

i mentioned the exact same thing in an early post. That's what you dems want right?

[BanginJimmy]

Under that scenario the country would be dead broke as people in low end jobs would leave the work force in droves. There would simply be no incentive to work at all in low paying jobs. Fast food would dry up as they would never be able to find people to work the jobs.


I have read no responses before this was submitted.

Post response reading edit;

Who is going to work in the fields to pick those fruits and vegetables? Who is going to work in the chicken processing plants? The only way to get people into those jobs would be to drasticly raise wages and as a result, massive price inflation to compensate.

[RandomGuy]

Just curious to see people's take on this scenario. Imagine tomorrow the government announced that every single adult and child would be provided with the most basic level of necessities as follows:

Food
staple foods such rice, beans, vegetables, water, etc such that each person would receive just enough to consume three nutritous balanced meals each day.

Shelter
An apartment with approximately 500 sq ft/person or couple + 250sq ft per child or equivalent there of. A basic level of electricity, gas, and water would be covered.

Healthcare
All healthcare would be paid for but only doctors get to determine which procedures/tests are necessary.

No other laws would change. In this scenario, what would the country look like in 5 years? how about 10 or 50 years? If you consider this unsustainable, how long could it last and why? Would general happiness increase or decrease?
I guess my view is really pessimistic, but I think that the quality of everything would decline, "prices" would increase- even though it's free at the point of delivery, someone must pay for the goods/services, in this case the Gov't. Corruption would rage on: for example, the doctor who can determine which procedures/tests are necessary. Imagine any motives/opportunities for corruption here, especially with the corruption-ridden pharmaceutical industry and FDA that already exists.

The biggest casualty would be motivation in the average person. Where people on the bottom to lower end of the spectrum who were motivated to strive to feed themselves/family no longer have the same fire under their feet to keep them running. Some will not change in ethic, where others will be even more useless. Don't know 5, 10 years later, but after 50 years we'd be a lot like the people in the movie Wall E. Haha

[98blackcivic]

oh no!

[bu villain]

Thanks for the replies. Obviously this is an unrealistic scenario but I just wanted to see how you all thought people would behave when their basic necessities were already met. It gives a lot of insight into why people advocate certain policies. I found it particularly interesting that there wasn't a single comment about any possible upsides even in the short term.

[bu villain]

There would simply be no incentive to work at all in low paying jobs....Who is going to work in the fields to pick those fruits and vegetables? Who is going to work in the chicken processing plants? The only way to get people into those jobs would be to drasticly raise wages and as a result, massive price inflation to compensate.

So you think people would be satisfied living without beer, a car, tv, internet, cell phones, eating at restaurants, or anything beyond the three items listed as long as they didn't have to work even part time at a low wage job?

[Vteckidd]

Thanks for the replies. Obviously this is an unrealistic scenario but I just wanted to see how you all thought people would behave when their basic necessities were already met. It gives a lot of insight into why people advocate certain policies. I found it particularly interesting that there wasn't a single comment about any possible upsides even in the short term.

i dont think there is any upside into turning a culture into dependence rather than providing for itself.

You lose liberty and freedoms that way.

Its sounds like a rosey utopia, but it would never work, other countries have tried, its unsustainable. Our society has never been meant to have a "everyone deserves everything" type of system. its engineered more towards survival of the fittest.

[.blank cd]

Question. If I'm given the standard items, do other items still exist? For example, if I'm given the standard protein, vegetables, and water, can I still buy a hamburger and root beer?

[Vteckidd]

Question. If I'm given the standard items, do other items still exist? For example, if I'm given the standard protein, vegetables, and water, can I still buy a hamburger and root beer?

i would assume yes.

His post was meant to say that everyone will have BASIC needs taken care of, so they dont have to worry about feeding or clothing themselves

[.blank cd]

So if I wanted more than what I got for the government, I could work for a little extra cash and buy filet mignon or a Piget Audemars watch, if I wanted to, right?

[Vteckidd]

yes. Bare minimum to survive would be provided, but that doesnt keep you from getting more.

The problem is, with every entitlement we have, that is NEVER the case. People get accustomed to being with that entitlement, and it is hard to implement the way it was designed.

They have an old theory in money management. If you make 20,000 a year, you say "MAN, IF I MADE $40,000 a YEAR ID HAVE IT MADE!!!" Then you make $40,000 a year (double salary) and within a few years you say "man i dont know how i lived on $20,000 a year, if i only made $60,000 a year, ID HAVE IT MADE!"

People become used to an income, a set of rules, an entitlement, and its hard to remove and it restrict upward progress IMO

[BanginJimmy]

So you think people would be satisfied living without beer, a car, tv, internet, cell phones, eating at restaurants, or anything beyond the three items listed as long as they didn't have to work even part time at a low wage job?

At first no, but in 20 years, absolutely. Dependence is a drug and the more readily available it becomes, the more it expands. This is why use of social handout programs have exploded. If those safety nets werent in place, people would work a lot harder to find a way to support themselves.



BTW, your experiment has already been tried several times, most notably in the former USSR. It did not end well.

[bu villain]

BTW, your experiment has already been tried several times, most notably in the former USSR. It did not end well.

In the USSR, the government controlled the means of production. That is not what I proposed here. Food, shelter, and healthcare would still be privately owned, the government would just pay to buy a certain amount of those items to distribute to the populace. Do you have any other examples of where this has been tried with an otherwise capitalistic society?

[BanginJimmy]

In the USSR, the government controlled the means of production. That is not what I proposed here. Food, shelter, and healthcare would still be privately owned, the government would just pay to buy a certain amount of those items to distribute to the populace. Do you have any other examples of where this has been tried with an otherwise capitalistic society?

Of course there isnt going to be an exact copy of this. What I meant is that govt provided necessities to the populace.

[bu villain]

Of course there isnt going to be an exact copy of this. What I meant is that govt provided necessities to the populace.

Sure, but that's where the similarities end so I don't think you can draw too many conclusions from the USSR and apply them here. We can discuss some overlap though. For example, there was a black market for goods and services in the USSR and yet you said you think people here would be content with basics and wouldn't be willing to work for more here. Why do you think a black market would arise in a country where it was not allowed and a market would not survive in a country that did allow it?

[BanginJimmy]

Sure, but that's where the similarities end so I don't think you can draw too many conclusions from the USSR and apply them here. We can discuss some overlap though. For example, there was a black market for goods and services in the USSR and yet you said you think people here would be content with basics and wouldn't be willing to work for more here. Why do you think a black market would arise in a country where it was not allowed and a market would not survive in a country that did allow it?

The black market was there to provide things that were not legally available, not just things that people wanted more of.

Look at the dependent class of Americans right now. How much ambition do you see from them? Why would giving them even less inventive to work bring more of them to the workforce? Remember, no other laws change so there is still section 8 housing and there is still free cell phones.

[bu villain]

The black market was there to provide things that were not legally available, not just things that people wanted more of.

Actually money, private business, and trade of any kind was pretty much illegal so the black market included everything even food and other basics as well as "luxury" items.


Look at the dependent class of Americans right now. How much ambition do you see from them? Why would giving them even less inventive to work bring more of them to the workforce? Remember, no other laws change so there is still section 8 housing and there is still free cell phones.

Actually I think many of them would be more ambitious. Right now, many see no reason to work more because if they make more money they lose the benefits they currently have. To put it simply, working a little harder doesn't make their lives better. If those benefits were not tied to them remaining poor, they all of a sudden have a stronger incentive to work more.

[BanginJimmy]

Actually money, private business, and trade of any kind was pretty much illegal so the black market included everything even food and other basics as well as "luxury" items.

I am talking about basic necessities. They simply were not always available unless you were among the party leadership.




Actually I think many of them would be more ambitious. Right now, many see no reason to work more because if they make more money they lose the benefits they currently have. To put it simply, working a little harder doesn't make their lives better. If those benefits were not tied to them remaining poor, they all of a sudden have a stronger incentive to work more.

You make a great case for cutting back on the current handouts. If you are getting so many handouts that you lose out by working, you are getting too many.

[bu villain]

I am talking about basic necessities. They simply were not always available unless you were among the party leadership.

Ok so now you are saying the USSR is not a good parallel to my initial scenario (which I agree with by the way)?


You make a great case for cutting back on the current handouts. If you are getting so many handouts that you lose out by working, you are getting too many.

That's one way of seeing it. Another way is that the handouts in many cases are too binary and should phase out in such a way that there is no "gap" where a small increase in income is not profitable. For example, in the scenario I gave in the initial post, no one loses their handouts no matter what their income is so work will always be profitable.

[bu villain]

I am talking about basic necessities. They simply were not always available unless you were among the party leadership.

Ok so now you are saying the USSR is not a good parallel to my initial scenario (which I agree with by the way)?


You make a great case for cutting back on the current handouts. If you are getting so many handouts that you lose out by working, you are getting too many.

That's one way of seeing it. Another way is that the handouts in many cases are too binary and should phase out in such a way that there is no "gap" where a small increase in income is not profitable. For example, in the scenario I gave in the initial post, no one loses their handouts no matter what their income is so work will always be profitable.

[BanginJimmy]

Ok so now you are saying the USSR is not a good parallel to my initial scenario (which I agree with by the way)?

In the beginning all of the necessities will be available, but what about in 20 years when the incentive to work is even more eroded than ti is now?




That's one way of seeing it. Another way is that the handouts in many cases are too binary and should phase out in such a way that there is no "gap" where a small increase in income is not profitable. For example, in the scenario I gave in the initial post, no one loses their handouts no matter what their income is so work will always be profitable.

So who pays for these handouts? As you can tell by our recent deficits, the Govt cant afford it.


The handout programs shouldnt be more profitable than working under any circumstances. Thats why I say we have too many, thats why their use has exploded. Just last week Obama disregarded laws passed by Congress and told HHS to ignore the welfare reforms of the mid 90's. Why work an entry level job when welfare gives you a better standard of living? Who cares that you have almost no education? Who cares that in 5 years you will be making double what the starting pay is? Why should I work to keep my standard of living when I can sit on my ass shitting out kids instead?

[bu villain]

In the beginning all of the necessities will be available, but what about in 20 years when the incentive to work is even more eroded than ti is now?

I think I understand your perspective now. Basically you are saying that the revenue from the people who want to work and thus live a financially better life will not be enough to support those who are satisfied with the absolute minimum.



So who pays for these handouts? As you can tell by our recent deficits, the Govt cant afford it.

It would still be tax revenue. I know I stated that all other laws would be the same but I guess I meant the new provisions would replace most other welfare programs. You don't need food stamps if you are already getting free food. You don't need unemployment if you have housing, food, and health benfits. So I guess the cost depends on how much the proposed benfits cost versus the amount of current programs that can be cut.


The handout programs shouldnt be more profitable than working under any circumstances. Thats why I say we have too many, thats why their use has exploded. Just last week Obama disregarded laws passed by Congress and told HHS to ignore the welfare reforms of the mid 90's. Why work an entry level job when welfare gives you a better standard of living? Who cares that you have almost no education? Who cares that in 5 years you will be making double what the starting pay is? Why should I work to keep my standard of living when I can sit on my ass shitting out kids instead?

Of course welfare programs must balance helping people with discouraging work. I don't think you'll find too many who will argue that work should be discouraged though. I don't know about you but you couldn't pay me to have extra kids.

[BanginJimmy]

Of course welfare programs must balance helping people with discouraging work. I don't think you'll find too many who will argue that work should be discouraged though.

Obama just used executive order to undo passed legislation and relax work requirements for welfare. I am starting to really think he believes himself to be a ruler who only takes congress' bills as nothing more than advise. He just uses executive order to ignore the laws he doesnt like.

[bu villain]

Obama just used executive order to undo passed legislation and relax work requirements for welfare. I am starting to really think he believes himself to be a ruler who only takes congress' bills as nothing more than advise. He just uses executive order to ignore the laws he doesnt like.

Ok but now we are getting off topic. I think this thread has gone as far as it will go. Thanks for the responses.