SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
The idea of giving people free money is so radical, even some recipients think it's too good to be true.
Later this year, roughly 6,000 people in Kenya will receive regular monthly payments of about a dollar a day, no strings attached, as part of a policy experiment commonly known as basic income.
People will get to use the money for whatever they want: food, clothing, shelter, gambling, alcohol — anything — all in an effort to reduce poverty.
...
But instead of accepting the cash transfers with open arms, many Kenyans have recently been saying "No, thank you." It's a legitimate concern: As GiveDirectly moves into its larger basic income experiment, the last thing it wants is for people to turn down the money.
Basic Income is a concept often mentioned on SN, and this is an experiment to do exactly that. Many potential recipients of the basic income are skeptical about the goals of the experiment, though, and rumors have arisen that it's tied to a cult or devil worship.
Opponents of such wealth transfers argue they lead to indolence, while another school of thought believes they would reduce poverty and directly produce economic stimulus because the poor would immediately spend the money.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 12 2016, @03:20PM
If offshoring moved capital from rich country to poor country, there would be no reason for businesses to do it. Offshoring's goal is to move more capital from workers to owners.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday September 12 2016, @05:12PM
If offshoring moved capital from rich country to poor country, there would be no reason for businesses to do it.
Aside from making profit, of course.
Offshoring's goal is to move more capital from workers to owners.
Zero sum thinking. There's a huge number of workers getting wealthier by offshoring. They just aren't in the US.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 13 2016, @01:52AM
If offshoring moved capital from rich country to poor country, there would be no reason for businesses to do it.
Aside from making profit, of course.
IOW, moving capital from workers to owners. Money paid to workers isn't profit, it's a business expense. Profit is made for the benefit of the owners.
Offshoring's goal is to move more capital from workers to owners.
Zero sum thinking. There's a huge number of workers getting wealthier by offshoring. They just aren't in the US.
Because it is a zero sum. The income disparity between the working class and the rich has increased.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday September 13 2016, @04:12AM
IOW, moving capital from workers to owners. Money paid to workers isn't profit, it's a business expense. Profit is made for the benefit of the owners.
Only if you choose to view the world in that stilted way. Workers still get paid, meaning there is wealth flowing the other way. And profit is necessary in the private world in order for employment to be justified.
Because it is a zero sum. The income disparity between the working class and the rich has increased.
This is flawed because a) income parity doesn't mean that the working class gets more, and b) the valuation of the wealth of the rich is deeply suspect. How much of income disparity is purely imaginary because it is paid in wealth with valuation that will go away in the next bubble collapse?