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.

[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?

[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.

[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.

[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