As a member of the suboptimal class myself, I hope this gets put off for a while.

.

Why not expand social security?

http://www.psmag.com/business-economics/frustrated-blogger-made-expanding-social-security-respectable-idea-67226/

I'd like to reserve Social Security for those who truly cannot work. Within that, however, I could certainly consider an expansion.

What if people can't afford to retire without SS?

There is also the problem that every time someone over 65 doesn't retire some new job doesn't open up for someone younger--whatever we can do to sweeten the deal the better.

Then they don't retire until they can. Why should we be entitled by the government to a retirement fund if we still have the ability to work?

This shifts the subject slightly as to what the best mechanism is for job creation. Regardless of your position there, however, if you're going to have the government give money to people, you should get them to do something for that money instead of nothing--provided, as I've said, that they are able to.

====

Here's the main problem that I foresee: as life expectancy continues to increase, the amount of time that we will have to work will have to accordingly increase. I just don't see how the math is going to work otherwise. At the very least, I think another age hike to SS eligibility will have to come in the future.

Because they worked their whole lives? because leisure should be a right?



A slight shift, but it is still a relevant one. Work does not just exist in a vacuum. Jobs have to exist. Who holds them has consequences. Continuing to pay your debt to society by working could be delaying someone else's ability to pay theirs/






I'd propose a different question. We are living longer. We need fewer people to work to provide what we need. But we've linked our ability to get what we need to the idea of people working. It may be necessary to start uncoupling that as fewer jobs are needed and people can potentially occupy them for longer in a ways that are actually harmful to other segments of the population.

I tried to dissect your latest reply, but before I do I think it's best to flesh this out. Is this really true, and if so, what's a good article on the subject?

So now my working is harmful to others? How silly of me to have a productive job and pay taxes.

I'd be happy if we could agree on what people need, ensure that is provided as the social safety net and then get out of the way of those being productive. If you're not going to work or put yourself in a position to have a desired skillset to be employed or move to where jobs are then you may not get what you desire but society should provide what you need.

Of course fewer people working and having everyone's needs met will lead to an increase in income inequality and shoots down your full employment desire.

is this under debate? That we need far fewer people to grow all the food, make the goods, and provide the essential services we need to generate a reasonable standard of living in this country? Hooray for technology and all that?

I can try to dig something up if you want.

most people's issue with income inequality is less the issue of moral offense (I suppose I find it offensive, but I'll get over it). Income inequality is a short hand for the fact that the wealth of society is not distributed in a way that enables people to get what they need.

And insofar as you hold onto a job that someone else needs, and there is only one of those jobs, then yes, it is harming that person. Insofar as an entire generation delays retirement and blocks the advancement of the next generation yes, it is harmful to those people. Of course, under our current system if those people stopped working without the resources to take care of themselves they would be harmed. But a system where you're fucking over one generation to help the other, regardless of which way you're doing it, is a system with some very serious problems.

Are you just talking about producing the essential things of life? If so, then I may not have much to disagree there.

well now we can debate essential services, I guess

An article on the GBI concept (guaranteed basic income) hit the NYT today:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/17/magaz ... alive.html

I still like a more aggressive EITC better, but I do need to get around to answering stip's question, which I totally forgot about.

I like the part of the idea of phasing out the multiple levels of welfare and entitlement services into one federal entity, but just because per capita super-rich Switzerland (much of whose financial resources were acquired by questionable means) might or caribou-fuck Canada did it successful for a year, doesn't mean minimum income would work in the US/UK/France/Spain/etc where first world poverty and income disparity are getting worse. And I'd love to hear how that actually eradicates poverty and doesn't just end up causing inflation, massive debt, and a population explosion at the low-skill end.

OK stip, you may be interested to learn that this article has me on the verge of recanting my position on both of these, and instead becoming a full fledged supporter of a hefty minimum wage increase:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-11-1 ... ueens.html

An EITC or even a GBI falls into the same problems: you've got the taxpayers or the printing press making up for the shortfall in the money needed to acquire the basic necessities of life. It now seems to me that, unless you advocate completely killing a basic safety net (which I don't), the solution that requires the least amount of government interference is to just have the employer directly pay the employee enough.

I still can't shake that there are consequences to the minimum wage, and I'd certainly appreciate someone like Kris or others to tell me where I'm going wrong.

There is an assumption here that corporations are responsible for funding quality of life outside of salary.

Not sure what you mean here.

"Wal-Mart, the nation’s largest private sector employer, is also the biggest consumer of taxpayer supported aid. According to Florida Congressman Alan Grayson, in many states, Wal-Mart employees are the largest group of Medicaid recipients. They are also the single biggest group of food stamp recipients. Wal-mart’s "associates" are paid so little, according to Grayson, that they receive $1,000 on average in public assistance*. These amount to massive taxpayer subsidies for private companies.

Why are profitable, dividend-paying firms receiving taxpayer subsidies? ."

The article asserts Walmart is consuming the tax dollars in place of using it's own money to fund healthcare, when it's the minimum wage employees of Walmart that are the actual consumers of the federal aid. Walmart no doubt benefits from the healthier employees thanks to Medicaid, but that same argument could be applied to any service the government provides.


*I assume this monthly