UBI is the only solution. Then set the minimum wage to whatever you please
- Thread starter heisenbern
- Start date
Every one pays taxes. But there is a good reason why many people don't pay income taxes. They have no money they could use to pay them.
Average home price in US $310k.
Average home price in Australia $656k
Average rent in NSW is $480 per week. So $16.50 per hour x 40 hours = $660 per week. So that means 72% of income goes to rent.
Links? Proof?
Yikes!
How the hell does anyone afford living in Australia? At least you can join the Aborigine and live in the dessert. That's probably cheap.
other studies found to the contrary... that article is a bit fuzzy it seems like berkeley may have been modeling or comparing to other washington areas.
because Bereau of Economic Research said there was sharply reduced wealth among low wage workers because lost hours worked and job loses.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-really-helps-workers/?utm_term=.a3fa6abe3dc6
and here...
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/liberals-try-to-refute-seattle-minimum-wage-study/article/2627837
For $15 minimum wage fans, the report released June 26 as a working paper by the National Bureau of Economic Research was a rude shock. It found that the city's increase to $13 an hour in 2016, up from $9.32 in 2013 and part of a planned phase-in to $15 for most employers by 2018, had sharply reduced wealth among low-wage workers because of job losses and reductions in hours worked. Businesses did both to mitigate the sharp increase in labor costs they faced.
"The lost income associated with the hours reductions exceeds the gain associated with the net wage increase of 3.1 percent.... [W]e compute that the average low-wage employee was paid $1,897 per month. The reduction in hours would cost the average employee $179 per month, while the wage increase would recoup only $54 of this loss, leaving a net loss of $125 per month (6.6 percent), which is sizable for a low-wage worker," the study concluded. It found that payrolls for low-wage workers declined by an average 5.8 percent after the $13 rate went into effect, reducing those workers' income by $120 million.
That was before the final $15-an-hour rate is phased in, suggesting the situation for those workers would get even worse. Liberals have been trying to shoot down the results ever since.
because Bereau of Economic Research said there was sharply reduced wealth among low wage workers because lost hours worked and job loses.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-really-helps-workers/?utm_term=.a3fa6abe3dc6
and here...
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/liberals-try-to-refute-seattle-minimum-wage-study/article/2627837
For $15 minimum wage fans, the report released June 26 as a working paper by the National Bureau of Economic Research was a rude shock. It found that the city's increase to $13 an hour in 2016, up from $9.32 in 2013 and part of a planned phase-in to $15 for most employers by 2018, had sharply reduced wealth among low-wage workers because of job losses and reductions in hours worked. Businesses did both to mitigate the sharp increase in labor costs they faced.
"The lost income associated with the hours reductions exceeds the gain associated with the net wage increase of 3.1 percent.... [W]e compute that the average low-wage employee was paid $1,897 per month. The reduction in hours would cost the average employee $179 per month, while the wage increase would recoup only $54 of this loss, leaving a net loss of $125 per month (6.6 percent), which is sizable for a low-wage worker," the study concluded. It found that payrolls for low-wage workers declined by an average 5.8 percent after the $13 rate went into effect, reducing those workers' income by $120 million.
That was before the final $15-an-hour rate is phased in, suggesting the situation for those workers would get even worse. Liberals have been trying to shoot down the results ever since.
Here is what I would say about UBI...why would anyone do regular jobs, like being a maid or a janitor, or even a fruit picker in 100 degree weather if they had UBI? Nobody would do that stuff at the rate these jobs currently pay. These jobs would have to significantly pay more to get people to do them if there was UBI.
And how would employers pay these increased costs? They would raise prices. So now yeah, you get $2k per month basic income, but you can't afford to buy food because tomatoes are $20 per pound, chicken is $40 per pound and beef is $70 per pound.
The only thing UBI would be successful at doing is decreasing productivity and when you decrease productivity, the standard of living will go down for everyone.
And how would employers pay these increased costs? They would raise prices. So now yeah, you get $2k per month basic income, but you can't afford to buy food because tomatoes are $20 per pound, chicken is $40 per pound and beef is $70 per pound.
The only thing UBI would be successful at doing is decreasing productivity and when you decrease productivity, the standard of living will go down for everyone.
All good points. I will respond tomorrow.