Thought Experiment

[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.

[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.