Proof that a free lunch works?

[mashman]

Yes I added a question mark.. Whilst better than the current social security system, personally I see it as pointless to give people money. If the resources are there for people to help themselves i.e. everything free, and people will use those resources for the benefit of not only themselves, but others, then why bother with the stuff in the first place given that it's obviously holding people back?

"Milestones of civilization are often first considered impossible utopias. Albert Hirschman, one of the great sociologists of the previous century, wrote that utopian dreams are usually rebutted on three grounds: futility (it is impossible), danger (the risks are too big) and perversity (its realization will result in the opposite: a dystopia). Yet Hirschmann also described how, once implemented, ideas previously considered utopian are quickly accepted as normal".

Don't be scared, it'll be alright. Trust me

[Ocean1]

Works for who?

"People have to ‘work for their money,’ we like to think. In recent decades, social welfare has become geared toward a labor market that does not create enough jobs. The trend from 'welfare' to 'workfare' is international, with obligatory job applications, reintegration trajectories, mandatory participation in 'voluntary' work. The underlying message: Free money makes people lazy.

Except that it doesn’t."

Like that's a major revelation. To begin with, (and I've pointed this out many times), there's no such thing as "Free". And being given someone else's 50,000 quid might not make people lazy, but it does make lazy people comfortable. Which is well beyond what most consider is the purpose of charity.

Oh, and the reason the "Labor" market doesn't create enough jobs is because it's severely constrained in that creation by "minimum wage" legislation and a host of similar nonsense. When there's "minimum production" legislation draughted to match that "minimum wage" you'll see that problem cleared right up.

[mashman]

Works for who?

"People have to ‘work for their money,’ we like to think. In recent decades, social welfare has become geared toward a labor market that does not create enough jobs. The trend from 'welfare' to 'workfare' is international, with obligatory job applications, reintegration trajectories, mandatory participation in 'voluntary' work. The underlying message: Free money makes people lazy.

Except that it doesn’t."

Like that's a major revelation. To begin with, (and I've pointed this out many times), there's no such thing as "Free". And being given someone else's 50,000 quid might not make people lazy, but it does make lazy people comfortable. Which is well beyond what most consider is the purpose of charity.

Oh, and the reason the "Labor" market doesn't create enough jobs is because it's severely constrained in that creation by "minimum wage" legislation and a host of similar nonsense. When there's "minimum production" legislation draughted to match that "minimum wage" you'll see that problem cleared right up.

It works for everyone. I take it it was a case of tl:dr... not that I'm surprised.

"Costs? 50,000 pounds a year, including the wages of the aid workers. In addition to giving eleven individuals another shot at life, the project had saved money by a factor of at least 7. ". That would indicate that in order to "look after" those 13 people it would usually cost 250k. So a 200k saving to the tax payer. Not good enough? And that passage that you quoted is the opposite of that which you have pointed out many times.

"One of the perks of the basic income is that it stimulates the ‘working poor’ – who are, under the current system, more secure receiving welfare payments - to look for jobs. The basic income can only improve their situation; the grant would be unconditional. Minimum wage could be abolished, improving employment opportunities at the lower ends of the labor market. Age would no longer need to form an obstacle to finding and keeping employment (as older employees would not necessarily earn more) thereby boosting overall labor participation."

So, good for the "Labor" market too according to your logic. Perhaps you need to clean the pigeon shit of yer glasses.

[Ocean1]

It works for everyone. I take it it was a case of tl:dr... not that I'm surprised.

Oh I read it.

Why don't you ask those who paid for it if it works for them? You could do a wee count up, y'know, to see if a majority of them really want to work a bit of overtime to pay some hand-picked freeloaders to prove some socialist sociologist's theory that giving them money is cheaper than giving them services they don't want.

Not good enough?

Correct.

And that passage that you quoted is the opposite of that which you have pointed out many times.

Which is why I disagreed with it. TANSTAFL

Get up to speed, idiot.

[mashman]

Oh I read it.

Why don't you ask those who paid for it if it works for them? You could do a wee count up, y'know, to see if a majority of them really want to work a bit of overtime to pay some hand-picked freeloaders to prove some socialist sociologist's theory that giving them money is cheaper than giving them services they don't want.

Who are those and them? Why would "they" need to work any harder given that "freeloaders" would be receiving money directly instead of it being clipped every step of the way to their pocket? Surely it'd be coming from the same budget? The analysis pointed to it costing less in many social and financial sectors than the current system did. Also, it wasn't a theory. They did it in practice and produced positive results, both social and financial. Isn't that what currently happens with the benefit system? Ya know, we give people money to keep them from committing worse crimes than they actually would in order to "feed" themselves. Dunno where you got the idea that they didn't want particular services from.

Which is why I disagreed with it. TANTAFL

Get up to speed, idiot.

Not what I meant, but maybe that's what you meant.