Jump to content

Talk:Guaranteed minimum income/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Title

The title of this article should be Basic Income which is the universally accepted term. Guido den Broeder 00:12, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

In German the title means translated something like "Unconditional Basic Income". But I really don't know, what the scientific term is in English. I also think, this article has to be much longer. In the German article for example tells about different models of the Unconditional Basic Income, criticism, ethics and history. Maybe anybody who has a better English than me can upgrade this article. I would appreciate that! --DidT
The thing is, that a guaranteed minimum income need not be unconditional, as in the Romanian example where community service is obligatory.[1] Otoh, a basic income is by definition unconditional. Guido den Broeder (talk) 19:13, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
In that case the foreign language references should be corrected. All the foreign language sites point to this one instead of the site about Basic income. (That's why I put them in) -- Máté
I understand, but at the time the article Basic income had not been created yet. The other Wikipediae haven't noticed this yet. I.e., we chose a different solution than the proposed move. Guido den Broeder (talk) 17:52, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Eliminate money

Now that we have computers it is possible to eliminate money altogether, so no GMI would need to exist, as money should disappear into computers. David Korten explains in "When Corporations Rule the World" how we've been forced into needing money over the centuries...So that means we need to find a way to eliminate money...inside of computers. Also see this: http://www.energybulletin.net/node/45240 -- about the end of money. Since no one ever knew how to handle money, we need to eliminate it, & computers will make it happen soon. Stars4change (talk) 06:28, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Ummm, that doesn't really eliminate it: it just hides it inside computers. And then whoever controls the computers controls the money. I think I prefer the current system, flawed as it may be. Now if you really want a radical system, how about monetising land parcels. So that we basically use title certificates as cash... -- Derek Ross | Talk 08:11, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

In Paul Zane Pilzer's book "God Wants You to be Rich" ch. 7 "Money" he says many, if not most, commercial & savings banks should have gone out of business when they were abandoned by their customers in the 1970s, & explains how banks invented fictitious customers, which doesn't sound legal. In David Korten's book "When Corporations Rule the World" he explains how we were all forced into needing money. Ex: In many colonized countries, the imposition of taxes payable only in cash was used to force people into the cash economy...The British in Sudan taxed crops, animals, houses, and households. In France's West African colonies, they punished tax evasion by holding wives & children hostage, whipping men, burning huts, & leaving people tied up without food for several days. Development was a hard sell in those days. Traditional colonialism came to an end after World War II, & the new corporate colonialism--advanced through foreign aid, investment, & trade--stepped into the breach. It goes on & on, you should read the books. A fortunate few availed themselves of the colonization process to amass vast fortunes. Whatever the richest countries do affects all nations because we're all linked financially. The UN estimates that in 1960 1.4 million people were international refugees. By 1970 the number had risen to 2.5 million, by 1980 to 8.2 million, & by 1992 to 18.2 million. More than 24 million additional people are currently displaced within the borders of their own countries. That means that roughly one of every 130 people on the planet lives involuntarily separated from the place they consider home. That was all in 1995 edition, so now it's worse. Stars4change (talk) 21:02, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Well sure but removing money ain't gonna fix that. The key issue in a moneyless economy is land access. If you don't have cash then you need some right to use of a piece of land for housing and to its production for food. If everyone has a self-supporting plot of land, no one needs money. Without that resource some form of money is essential as a means of keeping track of who is entitled to what. -- Derek Ross | Talk 21:30, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

We are all taught only to work for a wage & no one knows of any other way. So when I saw a TV show about computers of the future, I saw that all the wage jobs would be eliminated so I worried how people would survive without any wage jobs existing, & a month later when someone said the words "guaranteed residual income" I had a vision that that's what every person should have & I saw it end world poverty. And GMI also helped save the earth because then all harmful work/jobs could be stopped, & wouldn't leave anyone to starve, especially children. Think how much peace there'd be on earth if every person had a GRI/GMI. Everyone has had visions like mine, but they don't know it; It's like hearing a story & you see it happen in your mind, & I saw the GMI end world poverty instantly, & who wouldn't want that to have worldwide peace, safety & security. And it will also help stop diseases from spreading because medicine would be free to everyone. GMI is the only right way. The land question would be quickly remedied too, I think. Stars4change (talk) 22:38, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

On that I agree. Now we just have to convince everybody else, <grin>. -- Derek Ross | Talk 00:30, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
I agree as well. I'm sure there are more of us. We should set up a space where we can discuss our ideas and how we can transform society.--Jeiki Rebirth (talk) 18:24, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh shoot, I forgot to say that in that vision I saw the GRI eliminate money, so no one would be forced to buy & sell anything to get money to survive. Stars4change (talk) 05:16, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Good idea, Jeiki, could you do that? Stars4change (talk) 22:42, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Partial GMI

The elderly. Deliver the GMI to all those above age 60, about 50 million Americans. The universal pension will replace existing age pensions, so the cost is not as high as it seems. $1,250 billion, about 11% of US GDP. Age distributions and GDP figures are readily available.

Women. Deliver the GMI to all women over the age of 18. This age group includes the fertile age group, so the GMI will replace any tax offsets or welfare aimed at supporting child rearing. $2,750 billion, about 25% of GDP.

This possibility is subtler than it seems. A young woman turning 18 will look forward to a lifetime GMI of a thousand dollars a month, indexed for inflation. (Sorry, should be a thousand dollars a fortnight - David 124.176.126.98) The GMI will pay for groceries, rent and power. She will eventually marry. If her husband is temporarily out of work, or suffers a long bout of illness, the grocery bill is still paid. If she leaves the work force to look after children, the grocery bill is still paid. GMI for women only delivers a lot of income security for a married couple.

Women and old men. $3,375 billion, about 31% of GDP.

It is important to understand that these costs are gross, not net. GMI replaces a lot of existing welfare, relief and social security measures. Rich women and rich elderly will also receive the GMI but will pay it back in an adjusted income tax regime.

David Erskine

124.176.126.98 05:01, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually Child Benefit in the UK can be seen as exactly such a Partial GMI for every child under the age of 16 and some over that age since it is universal and not means-tested. The amount and the categories of children eligible has changed over the years and the payment is made to the mother (or guardian) of the children concerned rather than directly to the children. However many mothers do hand over the cash once their children reach a responsible age. So the UK can be said to have had a partial GMI since 1946. -- Derek Ross | Talk 08:32, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Why should only woman receive GMI? Woman are perfectly capable to being a wage slave just like a man is. Women as an endangered population is an outdated notion.--Jeiki Rebirth (talk) 18:27, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
In the case of Child Benefit, the money was for the child, not the mother. During the late 1940s/early 50s when this payment was introduced, it was very much the case that the men went out to work and the women raised the family, so at the time it made more sense to give the money to the women than to the men. As for David's suggestion, I think that he has already explained quite well why it is beneficial for everyone even if you only give GMI to women. -- Derek Ross | Talk 02:28, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Thankyou for your support, Derek. I should add that people are likely to baulk at allocating GMI to all adults, in which case allocating the GMI to women only is a partial solution. Women are the child raisers so are more economically vulnerable, in general. ---DavidJErskine (talk) 10:21, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Other websites

There is an excellent German site with a dauntingly long German compound word, which means Freedom not Full Employment. Search on the English phrase. There is even an International Journal on Basic Income Studies.

The German site states explicitly that GMI is only logical, seeing that machines are taking over so much work. Good to see that what scientists have been talking about for fifty years is finally appearing at a political and economic level.

David Erskine 124.176.126.98 05:05, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


Machine slaves and Guaranteed Minimum Income

When the possibility of automated economies emerged in the fifties, those advocating automation painted a picture of a society where people live comfortable lives with only a small amount of work.

All through history, landowners and nobles have had unearned income, and in more recent times this independent class has emerged as lords of creation, moving about the world and living the good life.

Machines take the place of slaves, something that has been known for a century. A slave owning society arranges for a boss class and a slave class. In the future, the boss class will be all people in a society, and machines will be the slaves.

Take Mississippi, about 1850. Whites did little heavy lifting, leaving that to the slaves, as policy. The more slaves there are, the more work is offloaded on to them, as policy, until the boss class does not work much, but still receives income.

FALSE. Only a tiny minority of people in the American South owned slaves. Most whites and blacks, free or slave, did "heavy lifting" (i.e. agricultural work etc.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.104.3.218 (talk) 18:18, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Take any advanced society, about 2015. As machines emerge as slaves, it is appropriate for the boss class, that is people, to offload as much work as possible on to the machine slaves, as policy, until a point is reached where the boss class does not work much, but still receives income.

Enter Guaranteed Minimum Income.

David Erskine 124.176.126.98 05:08, 28 October 2007 (UTC) 

   In the 1860 Census, quoted in the discussion page of Slavery in the United States, about
   half the population of Mississippi were slaves, and about half of white families owned
   slaves. My point was that a slave class will perform heavy manual work to a
   disproportionate degree.        David Erskine124.179.1.30 (talk) 11:54, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

The cost of a fully autonomous machine anytime in the next 100 years >>>>> the possible amount of output performed as a manual laborer. Still it doesn't hurt to dream, but 2015 is a ridiculously soon estimation to the day when robots possibly could turn welfare into free money for bums. My money's on cheep laborers picking my tomatoes for the foreseeable future. -W T Sontag —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.179.182.16 (talk) 18:39, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I refer you to my section on the Equivalence of Machinery and Slave Labor. Why should machines be autonomous to be effective? A backhoe does the work of perhaps 10 laborers, & the human driver is in the position of an overseer. There are already machines to pick & sort tomatoes. --DavidErskine02 (talk) 06:29, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Yup, Twenty-five years ago I was occasionally part of a squad of low-paid workers harvesting potatoes. Nowadays these squads don't exist because a machine has been introduced which, under the direction of one man, can do the job cheaper despite the high cost of the machine. That's the power of capital at work. If your money's on cheap labour you lost the bet years ago. -- Derek Ross | Talk 07:54, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Free money for bums. WT Sontag has raised a point. Automation allows most of people to live like the gentry in a Jane Austen novel, or as the independent class to use the American term. Sontag implies that most people are not capable of ever being ladies & gentlemen of leisure & he may be right. I can see a future where a minority of people choose to live in a separate automated economy, & the majority choose to live the way we do now in first world societies. ---DavidErskine02 (talk) 10:37, 18 December 2008 (UTC)


Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no move. JPG-GR (talk) 05:49, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Old name: Guaranteed minimum income
  • New name: Basic income

Basic income is the universally accepted name for what is described in this article. Guaranteed minimum income (gmi) is not adequate, since a gmi can be conditional as in the case of Romania (community service).[2] Guido den Broeder (talk) 19:23, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

How is that relevant? Regards, Guido den Broeder (talk) 21:15, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
This is the English wikipedia, not the Dutch one. You haven't shown that 'basic income' is the 'universally accepted term' in English. The way, the truth, and the light (talk) 22:01, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Take a look at the names of the international organizations. But what does this have to do with your initial comment? Guido den Broeder (talk) 22:42, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
No, it is a different proposal. E.g., Thomas Paine proposed a one-time lump sum ('stake'); basic income is periodical. The article explains what it means, so that should not be a concern. You can find the differences between the various proposals explained in a historic overview here: [3] The idea of a minimum income guaranteed by the government to all the members of a particular community is far older than the more specific and radical idea of an unconditional basic income. Guido den Broeder (talk) 19:53, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
We don't need to discuss Paine (whom you misunderstand). King and Friedman are not quoted as using this term; what's the earliest citation you can find? We should not employ a novel term, which we will need to disambiguate for other articles, when a clear, precise, and unambiguous term is usage. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:05, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Basic income is my no means a new term, but that is completely irrelevant. Whether the present term is unambiguous or not, it is simply not the correct term for what is described in the article. It would be the same if you had given the artile cat the title animal. Guido den Broeder (talk) 20:40, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose "GMI" is the common term used to describe this topic in English. On the other hand, "Basic income" is generally used to mean an income which is only just large enough to cover a person's survival needs whether that income is a rent, a dividend, a wage, a government allowance, or a mixture of the four. While the GMI might form a basic income it could equally well be worth less than or more than a basic income. In fact none of the GMI's so far implemented or about to be implemented are large enough to form a basic income. -- Derek Ross | Talk 15:53, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the 'move' template, i.e. we will have two articles. Guido den Broeder (talk) 19:57, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Portugal

  • Portugal is by far the closest a country has come to actually having fully implemented such a system. This is because the Portuguese government made a guaranteed minimum income a legally enshrined right for the entire population in 1997. The policy remains at present. However, the country's income security policy is rather residualist, with an amount guaranteed well below the poverty line, and other income security policies such as the minimum wage are thus still in place as a consequence. The system also forces participants to attend social integration sessions.

This sounds to me like a full implementation of a safety-net-type GMI similar to the Dutch system (bijstand), unless there is more to tell? Guido den Broeder (talk) 19:55, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Could we add links to these books "The End of Work" and "When Corporations Rule The World" which both talk about a guaranteed income? Sundiii (talk) 02:03, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

It'd be better to include in the text *what* is said about guaranteed income in those books, instead of just adding a link.Diego (talk) 06:54, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Is it better for more people to pay income tax or less?

Submit your answers here: —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.81.72.218 (talk) 14:06, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Economically speaking, it is better for the economy when people pay no Income Tax. The operation of the economy is enhanced when the rate of Income Tax drops to zero. Theoretically it would be further enhanced if the rate of Income Tax became negative. One of the things which would cause it to go negative would be the introduction of a Guaranteed Minimum Income coupled with the elimination of Income Tax. -- Derek Ross | Talk 06:00, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Remember, this is not a discussion forum. CRETOG8(t/c) 07:07, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Incentive for working

Discussion transferred from Basic income talk page.

This article could be improved, in my opinion, by adding a discussion of the impact on a person's incentive to work.

For example, suppose Joe is currently earning (using a round number for simplicity) $10,000 per year. Suppose the Basic Income is passed and set at $10,000 per year. Joe no longer needs to work to maintain his accustomed standard of living. So why wouldn't he just stop working?

Maybe Joe likes the idea of having twice as much money, so he goes to work anyway. But his employer knows about the Basic Income, and concludes that Joe can withstand a pay cut. For that matter, will the minimum wage be cut, because Joe no longer needs as much wage income to meet a minimum standard of living? Suddenly Joe is doing a job that used to pay (for example) $5 an hour, but only pays (let's say) $3 an hour. Joe hated his job, but reluctantly went to work for $5 an hour. Now he has a choice he can make. Will he still tolerate that job when it pays only $3, or will he decide he values his freedom more than the $3?

Suppose Joe decides to stay on the job, for a while at least. His employer only has to pay $3 per hour instead of $5, so the firm's profits are higher (or losses are reduced). Will the firm be forced to pay the leftover $2 in taxes in order to fund the Basic Income? Joe's $10,000 per year Basic Income cannot be paid from the employer's $4,000 per year tax increase, so where will the other $6,000 come from? If sales taxes are increased, some of Joe's $10,000 will go to pay those taxes, so he isn't really coming out $10,000 ahead. Instead, the government is giving him money with one hand and taking it right back again with the other. More money flies around faster and faster in little circles, but Joe doesn't end up with the full benefit.

Joe now has $16,000 per year to spend ($10,000 Basic Income plus $6,000 wages). However, his employer has not produced more goods for him to buy, because Joe is not working more hours. Nor have other employers produced more goods, because their employees are in the same situation. On the other hand, some people have probably decided to quit work, so the total production will be less. Meanwhile, there are a lot more dollars chasing fewer goods. When this happens, prices go up until the number of available goods match the number of available dollars. Because the economy as a whole is producing less, the average Joe will be able to buy less with his $16,000 than he previously could with his $10,000!

Have the scholars behind these proposals researched and resolved these issues, and can someone who knows more about the subject provide some references to support an article update? Thanks. 72.208.56.42 (talk) 00:49, 14 November 2008 (UTC)


I refer you to the topic Guaranted Minimum Income, discussion page & my contributions; Partial GMI; & Machine Slaves and Guaranteed Minumum Income. A guaranteed minimum income does not of course increase production, it redistributes income. Rich people receive the GMI but pay it back in a modified tax regime.

You raise an interesting point, that of minimum income laws. I imagine such laws would be repealed if a GMI is introduced, if the GMI is, say, $25K a year. Better to get a GMI than income at $12 or $13 an hour in a boring, tedious job. Release from tedious work is part of the payoff of a GMI. Employers needing unskilled workers will need to offer good money to attract them. The GMI is a guaranteed income, so replaces some personal insurance expenses, & most existing welfare such as age pensions & unemployment relief.

David Erskine124.179.1.30 (talk) 11:26, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Gentlemen, a GMI does increase production. The reason is that it reduces unemployment. It makes people employable whose productivity would have been too low without GMI, providing that minimum wage legislation (which GMI makes irrelevant) is removed. It also offsets the people who 72.208.56.42 said would decide to stop working since in the current situation there are more people wanting a job who can't get one than vice-versa. This more than offsets the possible lowering in average productivity because we have many more people working at a slightly reduced productivity. Hence overall production is greater. In any case productivity is far more affected by capital investment than by labour costs, so the effect that 72.208.56.42 mentions has little effect over the long-term.
Re the inflation effect, this will always happen when wages rise for any reason whether GMI exists or not because of the existence of inelastic goods. If inelastic goods were a trivial part of the economy they would have a trivial effect but unfortunately one of the essential factors, land, is in completely inelastic supply. Everyone on a normal wage needs to rent or buy a house close to their place of work. Every businessman needs to rent or buy premises close to a source of labour with good communications or with a local market for their products. And there are only so many land parcels on which houses and premises can be erected. So land will always be subject to inflationary pricing when times are good and deflationary pricing when times are bad. It has major effects on the economy as we are seeing at the moment. -- Derek Ross | Talk 18:02, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
So a GMI actually increases production, Derek Ross? (It might if you include voluntary work.) Consider someone who is unemployed and wins a large Lotto prize, invests the money and receives $25K a year. This is equivalent to receiving a GMI of $25K a year. Such a person might still work, but only in an occupation which they like. Why would such a person consider taking a job that they would not consider if they had not won a Lotto prize?
If unemployment is, say 5%, that means that 95% of those who want to work do work. There is not much room for improvement. You also point out, correctly, that capital expenditure is more effective in increasing production than labor. --David Erskine58.165.167.146 (talk) 07:03, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Of course a person who won the lottery would have no incentive to take such a job and would act as you describe. But there are two major differences between a lottery winner and a GMI "winner". The first difference is that a lottery winner's investment income may well be above the average productivity level without causing any general economic problems whereas the GMI would cause hyperinflation if it were above this level. That's why GMI is better to be a guaranteed MINIMUM income rather than a guaranteed AVERAGE income. Hence GMI is more likely to be at the 10K per year level than at the 25K per year level. More importantly, the second difference is that the percentage of winners in a lottery is tiny, whereas the percentage of "winners" in GMI is 100%. That large percentage of "winners" causes an effect on prices which just doesn't happen with a lottery win because they are such a small percentage of the general population. And the price which would be most strongly affected by the introduction of GMI is the price of housing, whether rented or bought. Adam Smith showed that in a free market, the rent (or the price of housing which is basically capitalised rent) will rise to absorb any excess income above basic needs. Thus in spite of GMI, people will still need to take jobs that they don't like in order to make the rent, or the mortgage, and live the lifestyle that they want just as they do at the present time. Today's highly paid finance director at BigCorp Inc may well hate his job and wish that he was a skiing instructor but he needs the income to finance his lifestyle (as his trophy wife constantly reminds him). I think it likely that tomorrow's GMI recipient will find the same awkward truth staring him in the face.
Re the 5% unemployment figures. Note that governments the world over understate unemployment figures. Where the rate really is as low as 5% then there isn't much room for improvement. However I suspect that there are many places where the rates are rather higher. -- Derek Ross | Talk 16:47, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
Derek, I refer you to my sections; Equivalence of machinery and slave labor, and No Cheap Labor.
Watch a building site today, and tradesmen outnumber laborers. In Adam Smith’s time, laborers would have outnumbered tradesmen. The difference is machinery, the equivalent of a slave labor. Machines dig trenches for foundations, lift pallets of bricks off a truck, lift roof tiles to roof level and mix concrete. Labourers are not paid well, but tradesmen are. If GMI came in, well paid people pay back most or all their GMI as a special tax, so tradesmen would pay back most of their GMI. Machines, replacing laborers, do not get GMI.
House building is an industry with young, well paid workers, so GMI will have little effect. If GMI is slowly introduced to those over 50 years of age, and then progressively to those over 45, and so on, those who choose to retire early will be the older workers losing their strength. ‘Strength’, in a wide sense, also applies to desk workers. If GMI comes in, and economic problems emerge, then the extension of GMI can be delayed until the problems are fixed.
Well paid people want to maintain their way of life; I did not suggest anything else. --David Erskine58.165.167.146 (talk) 09:54, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
David, we may be arguing at cross-purposes here. I'm fully in favour of GMI and completely agree with your point on the equivalence of machine labour to slave labour. However I think that it's important to understand all the effects that GMI would have on the economy because it's a very powerful tool and, like most powerful tools, if it's not used properly it can cause harm instead of causing good. That's why I think it's important to explore all aspects of GMI, positive and negative, before any introduction is attempted. It is politically far, far better to anticipate and thus avoid economic problems than to fix them on the fly. -- Derek Ross | Talk 16:14, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

See #Neutrality of Article section below for how this discussion should affect the article. -- Derek Ross | Talk 04:46, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

No Cheap Labor

When I was growing up in Australia in the late fifties and sixties, union power enforced high wages in some industries where unions were strong, and high wages ‘flowed through’ as the saying was at the time, to other industries. Employers reacted by buying more machinery, so productivity per worker rose. Backhoes, front end loaders, and forklifts replaced laborers in the worst jobs. Union power was rough and ready, but it worked.

The Australian attitude at the time, and now, was; ‘no cheap labor’. If an employer was unwilling, or unable, to pay good money to employees, the job was not worth doing.

Later, as female wages rose, house maids became scarce. The same idea; no cheap labor. Keep house yourself, preferably with household appliances. I am old enough to remember tea ladies at places of work. As statutory minimum wages rose, tea ladies disappeared. Want a cup of tea? Make it yourself.

Today, employees at McDonalds are not well paid, either because there is a glut of labor for that type of work, or customers are not prepared to pay more for the product. If a GMI came in, and the supply of cheap labor dwindled, McDonalds have a three way choice: charge more, install robots, or go broke. What is more important; cheap hamburgers or adequate income?

David Erskine58.165.167.146 (talk) 09:49, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Who says we should have taught people to build a million restaurants to "create" such horrible low-wage jobs? I say we never should have done that. Nor should any "jobs" have existed that pay wages. We should have built up up up only. Stars4change (talk) 22:52, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Equivalence of machinery and slave labor

Two hundred years ago, sugar planters in the New World cut sugar cane with slaves. A hundred years ago, planters cut cane with free labor. Today, planters cut cane with slaves, but mechanical ones.

In the 1850’s railways were spreading across England, and laborers, did the work. Steam shovels came in, and replaced the most of the laborers. Anyone watching a steam shovel can see that it does the work, of, say ten laborers, and burns coal rather then food.

A modern warehouse might have ten forklifts, loading and unloading trucks. A forklift might replace twenty laborers, and if two shifts are worked, forty. A warehouse with ten forklifts has a shadow workforce of 400 laborers. That is, if forklifts did not exist, the warehouse would need 400 laborers to do the work of ten forklifts over two shifts.

In old times, slave owners bought slaves, and today, businessmen buy forklifts. From an economic point of view there is no difference.

David Erskine58.165.167.146 (talk) 09:50, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

True, that's why every person should have a Guaranteed Residual Income, & then find ways to automate all work, & still end world poverty. I think Residual is a better word than minimum, can we change it to Guaranteed Residual Income (GRI)? Stars4change (talk) 22:31, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Here are old photos of LA area which shows why America thought the Capitalist WAGE was the "best system" because they still thought "we must force people to work or no one will work" building houses & small buildings, cars, roads, etc, which is the exact same way slave owners always thought, and not just slave owners, most slaves thought it was true then too, as now. (We should have built UP.) http://thechive.com/2009/02/los-angeles-before-sigalert-31-photos/ Stars4change (talk) 02:14, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Starving people need MONEY first to buy food, shelter, clothing & an "education". That's why every person needs a GMI. That's why all people should OWN ALL THINGS on earth so everything is FREE. Stars4change (talk) 02:47, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality of Article

This article does neglect potential problems with the proposed system and objections to it. Therefore, I added a POV tag. StephenMacmanus (talk) 00:30, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

It would have been much better if you'd added some properly cited problems and objections instead of just adding a tag. I can think of two immediately. The first discussed above, that it causes people to choose to work less, is a widely made objection which may or may not be true. Even if true it may not actually be a Bad Thing. Studies so far seem to show that it is true but that it is such a minor effect (a reduction of a few percent) that it can be ignored. The second, which is a little known but definite problem with fairly strong evidence to support it, is that any widespread GMI will act as a subsidy for employers (by enabling them to cut wages by the amount of the GMI) although there would be little or no effect on the level of workers' income until the GMI was above subsistence level. That is because new wages plus GMI would more or less equal old wages. This was discovered during the late 18th/early 19th century. See our article on the Speenhamland system. The second issue is far more significant than the first since the idea of GMI is to try and reduce poverty and the second issue seems to suggest that it won't have this effect unless it is large enough to be above the current minimum wage level (or is introduced in conjunction with other reforms such as Land value tax). -- Derek Ross | Talk 04:21, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

GMI = all programs for welfare?

I'm from Sweden, so I perhaps misunderstand. But when one reads the first sentences it feels like GMI just means all programs with which the state combats poverty, but giving people to people, including the minimum-income rules. But then the focus is on basic income anyway. I think you should rethink what it actually is, and primarilly what the difference between GMI and basic income. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mats33 (talk • contribs) 23:18, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Your point is an excellent one. What gives these "editors" the right to make arbitrary distinctions in the definitions of GMI or BI? As pointed out later in the article, Robert Theobald coined the term GMI in his book Free Men, Free Markets, and if you read that book, you'll realize that nothing could be further from the truth than trying to define GMI in such a way that it incorporates all the corruption built into the the current "welfare" programs, especially "means testing". From Robert Theobald onward, GMI always referred to an income that each citizen would receive as a right of citizenship. Period. To add "means testing" to the definition of GMI is simply obscene, and reveals nothing but the political agenda of the editor trying to perpetrate such fraud. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.28.141.145 (talk) 18:57, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Criticism

This article lacks the Criticism section I see in most economic policy articles. I added one, and the the basic argument against it. I'm not sure if this is article needs more work, or if the GMI is an genuinely asinine idea. A criticism section would help readers understand why common objections are false. For example, I saw in another discussion section that Portugal has the nearest thing to a GMI. Portugal is almost broke. I could cite newspaper articles, but I'm not familiar with Wiki policies. I'm afraid it may be Original Research if I form the arguments myself and support them with citations, instead of citing someone else who made the argument. I'm hoping others will know where to find a criticism of the GMI. -- MutantPlatypus (talk) 23:22, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. However since it is an uncited criticism at the moment it needs a "citation required" tag, so I've added one. -- Derek Ross | Talk 01:38, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
In an earlier discussion you mentioned that the reduced incentive to work was debunked (or limited a few percent) by recent studies. You failed to cite said studies. Could you please provide one or two here? -- MutantPlatypus (talk) 03:59, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Sure. It's been a while since I read them but I'll search them out. -- Derek Ross | Talk 07:00, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
This was the main one, "Whatever Happened to Canada's Guaranteed Income Project?". 1993. Canadian Public Administration, Vol 36, No 3, (Fall) 442-50, but you need a subscription to read it (or you can get it from a library). The article text does seem to be available at this website though, and it includes citations for the reports on the four US studies from the 1970s. The second interesting one is the more recent Namibian Basic Income Grant experiment. According to the project report, GMI has led to an increase in employment rather than a diminution. Der Spiegel wrote up quite an interesting article on this trial too. -- Derek Ross | Talk 07:43, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Unfortunately, the article text seems to refrain from making conclusions on the effect of the basic income on work incentive. The real substance of the article is in the tables, which I don't have access to because I don't have a subscription. Would it be legal to copy just the tables?
Also, the Namibian experiment explains nothing about the macroeconomic effects of the basic income on a developed society. The money the villagers received came from outside the village - from charities. In this case, it was much more like an investment (that didn't need to be repaid). In fact, I didn't even get the feeling the Namibians were told they were guaranteed this income for life. So, instead of expecting the money indefinitely, they used it to buy things that would have future value (education and livestock), as well as necessities like food. In a developed society, the money from the basic income must be taken from others in the society. The education the Namibians bought with their income is already guaranteed to members of a modern society. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MutantPlatypus (talk • contribs) 21:07, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
...and here's a report on the Portuguese system. It's a bit more technical. -- Derek Ross | Talk 05:06, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
Hmmm... yeah, I can't quite understand it. The gist of it seems to be that it reduced income inequality but didn't decrease the number of poor, only how poor they were. It had some kind of negative effect on the labor supply canceling many benefits, leaving only a reduction in inequality of some sort. They spent 30.6G estudos, didn't create any extra wealth, and didn't measure the overall effect on GDP growth. Do I understand this right? -- MutantPlatypus (talk) 05:29, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
Agreed. I found it difficult to understand too. The only thing that I really got out of it was that the GMI had little effect on those who were poor but was of some benefit to those who were absolutely destitute. Like you I would have been interested to see the overall effect on GDP. Based on reports on the Speenhamland system, I would have expected it to reduce unemployment a little owing to the subsidy effect making workers cheaper for employers but I didn't see any investigation of that either. The reports that the Canadian researchers have produced seem much more informative. -- Derek Ross | Talk 05:46, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
...and another Canadian report. Not so technical and mentions a 5% average reduction in hours worked. -- Derek Ross | Talk 05:12, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
Is it safe to assume that "hours worked" means "hours spent creating wealth"? I'll add this Canadian report to the article. Thanks! -- MutantPlatypus (talk) 05:31, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
<Grin>, yes that's always the big question. People may get paid for 40 hours a week but I often wonder how many of those are actually productive "hours spent creating wealth" as you put it. I think you're safe to make the assumption. -- Derek Ross | Talk 05:44, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

For the benefit of the Platypus, here is a brief quote from "Lessons from the Income Maintenance Experiments: An Overview" by Alicia H. Munnell (which you can find at www.bos.frb.org/economic//conf/conf30/conf30a.pdf): "In summary, the survey of empirical findings suggests that the income maintenance experiments caused a moderate but manageable reduction in labor force activity, had no statistically significant stabilizing or destabilizing effect on the marriages of couples with children, and basically did not alter noticeably the consumption and investment decisions of recipients. The question that remains is: how much weight can be placed on these results?" 97.123.229.196 (talk) 21:40, 21 February 2011 (UTC) Frank

Fiscal resources

Why is there a list of all possible sources of government revenues? I think it goes without saying that any kind of income supplement would be funded out of general government revenues, which in turn implies the various means listed here. Maybe there should be a link to the wiki article on taxation or public finance, but it's unnecessary to list every possible method of raising revenues. Further, I understand that certain varieties of the GMI (like a negative income tax) are intricately intertwined with the tax system, but I've never heard of, say, a Tobin Tax imposed specifically to fund a GMI. Why are all of these obscure and marginal means of revenue generation listed here? -- wrote someone who didn't sign with ~~~~

I would guess that it's because one of the questions that always comes up for GMI is "How would this be funded ?". And once one source of funding has been added the normal Wikipedia "tweaking" process means that the list will just grow and grow. By all means prune it back. -- Derek Ross | Talk 02:58, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Would it be copacetic to replace the existing list section with a prose passage such as -

"Tax revenues would fund the majority of any GMI proposal. As most GMI proposals seek to create an earnings floor close to or above poverty lines amongst all citizens, the fiscal burden would require equally broad tax sources, such as income taxes or VATs, in order to fund such expenditures. To varying degrees, a GMI might be funded through the reduction or elimination of other social security programs such as employment insurance. Though neutral with respect to government finance, Milton Friedman also proposed a GMI in the context of abolishing minimum wages, which he argued unduly distorted labor market economics. The extent to which a GMI is designed to reduce or supplement existing social security programs can be seen as one of the unresolved cleavages amongst GMI advocates; more economically conservative seeking to replace the bulk of welfare spending with a GMI while more social or egaliarian proponents see the GMI as a component of a broader social welfare system. "-- [dave] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.235.8.35 (talk) 22:43, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Wait

So a high school dropout working at bk would get the same amount of pay as a person who went to college to be a doctor? 174.20.184.100 (talk) 01:37, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

GMI isn't pay. It's a tax refund of, say, $7,800 per year that every adult citizen gets, whether they are rich or poor, teaching or learning, working or golfing, taxpayer or not. If someone is getting pay, that's on top. -- Derek Ross | Talk 23:58, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
And here we see Derek display the complete lunacy and ignorance of basic economics that are necessary to buy into the "guaranteed minimum income" scheme: it's not a "tax refund" if one isn't holding a job and earning an income that can be taxed. It's simply being provided money that was taken away from those who do work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.213.192.187 (talk) 08:49, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
And here we see some anonymous idiot display the capacity to insult which makes up for his lack of insight. Even people with no income pay taxes. Sales tax? Property tax? Heard of those? And as for taking money from people who work, that's an issue with the tax system not with a GMI system. If you want to stop taking money from people who work, then replace the taxes on earned income with a tax on unearned income. That's what they do in Alaska where the GMI is funded by a resource tax. But whatever, for the 80+% of people who work, a GMI payment is basically a tax refund; for the 20-% who don't, it's part-tax refund, part-welfare payment. -- Derek Ross | Talk 07:30, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Should this be deleted?

This article seems to be incredibly vague and not really about anything specific. The introduction says "Eligibility is typically determined by citizenship, a means test, and either availability for the labour market or a willingness to perform community services.", why can't this be included under employment insurance schemes then? Also, I can't speak for other countries but the Irish 'Supplementary Welfare' is not a guaranteed income, you have to meet varying conditions not dissimilar to 'Jobseeker's Allowance/Benefit', it's basically a last resort if you don't fit into other payments and they decide you still deserve payment, if you quit your job or otherwise don't fulfill their conditions, they leave you with nothing. - 95.44.48.43 (talk) 19:25, 16 September 2014 (UTC) Addition: Or at least it should be clarified how this is different from employment insurance schemes. - 95.44.48.43 (talk) 19:25, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Removed 'advocacy' and 'funding' sections

I also put this in the edit summary, but anyway, I removed those sections because they used the term 'guaranteed minimum income' but were actually talking about basic income or negative income tax, which is not what the article, as per it's intro paragraph, is about. - 109.79.88.221 (talk) 22:47, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

There is a politically motivated movement to twist history and, through abstraction, turn this into "Basic income with conditions", which turns BI into "just another system"

One of the politically motivated things people do is post blog posts on medium / wordpress / some proponents site, immediately link them here. You can't write "dead person thinks this because", read into what they've said on other topics, which are completely different in many ways, and then use this as a way of "rewriting history" and "asserting facts" on wikipedia.

Milton Friedman talked about how to fix problems with existing safety nets that disincentivized work - which led to massive welfare growth we have now, which leads to the fallacy of "well it's so bad, we can just pay everyone something". Nothing in what Friedman said talked about reducing the means test or guaranteeing certain incomes in any way. He spoke from the position of existing solutions and their flaws.

Safety nets exist, if this is "welfare" as we know it - why do you need to talk about GMI? GMI is yet another tool people are using as a stepping stone to conflate BI with welfare - on one hand they try to assert they are the same, yet of course, if that were the case, what is the point of proposal?

They are very different and the articles intentionally do not talk about these very important points. Nothing about these proposals have been talked about by Friedman: negative income tax has NOTHING to do with BI, it's a solution to welfare cliffs - which begs the question, what exactly is GMI - should the article be removed if the authors cannot define it clearly as different from welfare and not just another label being used to push an agenda? --author (talk) 16:46, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

The title of the article should perhaps be "Basic income with conditions"

According to BIEN, Basic Income Earth Network, there is two kind of guaranteed income-systems, basic income and negativ income tax. Both are per definition without conditions (except for citizenship). So it is by definition not a pure basic income nor a negative income tax if there are conditions, for example the condition to stay ready for the labour market while not working, or to have readiness to work "for free" for the comune while not having a paid job. So, what Im trying to say is that this article may have a place, because of this, but that it may be wiser to call the article something else, for example "Basic income with conditions", as this seems to be what is meant. Or?--Mats33 (talk) 13:59, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

What are the differenced between GMI and BI? What are the differences between GMI and Welfare? author (talk) 16:47, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
Whatever the definition may be, "Guaranteed minimum income", is a well known phrase that people will seek out on the internet. When they do so, they will find our GMI article which can discuss the points that you make (if it doesn't already). "Basic income with conditions" is not a well known phrase and people are unlikely to search for it. They are more likely to sarch for "Basic income" which will lead them to our BI article. Hence it would not be a good idea to change the name of this article from "Guaranteed minimum income", which people will be searching for, to something else, which they won't. -- Derek Ross | Talk 02:52, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
I´m not sure that "Guaranteed minimum income" is a well known phrase, can you convince me? --Mats33 (talk) 14:52, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
I don't know anything about you, so I can't really answer that. Are you easy to convince? Or next to impossible? If the former, I would say yes. If the latter, I would say no. The phrase, "Guaranteed minimum income", returns 162,000 results on a Google search (many of which are convincing in their own right) whereas "Basic income with conditions" returns 9 results (none of them particularly compelling) and "Basic income" returns 2,510,000 results. So the GMI phrase appears to be less well known than the BI one but better known than the BIWC one. If this argument convinces you, then I can convince you. If not, then I assume that I cannot convince you without putting in more effort than I am prepared to do. However that is neither here nor there since I do not have to convince you. The onus is on you to convince me (and any others who may take an interest) that it would be an improvement to make the change that you have suggested. Otherwise no change will be made. -- Derek Ross | Talk 03:14, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
I agree that the article is confusingly named, it should refer to supplementary welfare schemes for when a person doesn't qualify for normal unemployment benefit. Does anyone know of an appropriate article to merge it into? - 109.79.88.221 (talk) 22:53, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Some comments/issues

There's the MLK piece, which besides linking to another WP article, is also referenced at Basic Income. So which was MLK talking about, Basic Income or GMI? There doesn't seem to be a source for the "American" section which asserts the US has "multiple social programs that provide guaranteed minimum incomes," the two listed are both Social Security programs. A) We need an RS which asserts that SS actually is considered GMI as defined, and B) If that is true, we should rephrase it to make clear that there are two SS programs. There seems to be some conflation between this article and Basic Income, as I think the Nixon "Family Assistance Program" would be more appropriate in this article than that one. There are a few other examples of this. Is it a clear case that GMI (as most sources refer to it) actually exists in the US and has since the 70s? It seems that most sources (on both articles) are under the impression that GMI would constitute an overhaul of the current welfare system, rather than a description of things as they are now. <> Alt lys er svunnet hen (talk) 22:40, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Guaranteed minimum income. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:50, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Guaranteed minimum income. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:34, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Guaranteed_minimum_income/Archive_2&oldid=1043898045"