So if I give you money and you give someone else money and they give me money that's the economic plan? I don't get it. Seems like something is missing. Here's what I heard you say. 1. Min wage must go up. 2. Auto replaces manual labor so displaced needs money. 3. Money will come from "Capital" (which you never explained) 4. Then what? Is capital eternal endless never ending infinite? If it is why don't we just use capital for everything? This sounds more like a band of robbers planning a bank heist.
I mean, an unending cycle of money is economics isn't it? Right now, we get money from companies for labor, then we give money back to companies for products, or, their labor. Back and forth constantly changing hands, which is why making sure it comes back down is an important part of the cycle! The survey that is capitalistic pricing is properly redistributing capital to those who do more labor. Current paradigm is just that min wage must go up to keep money coming back down the pipe, while there are still jobs. But, the shift in the future to automation means those jobs, that exchange of labor, will eventually go away, and that only companies will produce labor, so...to keep consumers having purchasing power, we need some mechanism. So what I meant was: 1. Minimum wage needs to go up to sustain workers while there are still jobs. 2. UBI will replace minimum wage as jobs disappear. By capital, I did just mean money, sorry. Funding the UBI is done thru taxation that is grown gradually as jobs are eroded. People often harp on a high basic income being unfeasible, but it could be as simple as turning the current benefits program into a tiny UBI, which won't increases taxes for now, but then gradually be grown as needed.
I guess a piece of pie is better than none at all. I want you to understand that my focus on production should not be deflected by calling it 'supply side' in a pejorative way. The term was politicized long ago by those who were involved in policy but had little understanding of the economics, and still don't. Economically, there are two ways to look at what drives an economy....the economics of production versus the economics of consumption. The economics of consumption has become the established view for the past 75 years; all department heads at major universities, all 'reputable economists' educated there and often quoted, all our government metrics, our economic policy, our monetary policy, our trade policy, the tranquilized obviousness of economic establishment assumptions, are embedded in a consumer paradigm. This view of economics has never been predictive; there is no evidence that its assumptions are valid after all this time; certainly the last decade has demonstrated that its monetary assumptions are wrong. You can see it working in the discussion between Java and CyJack above. The whole issue is whether a simple wage can drive an economy with no reference to what is being made and who is buying it and for what purpose it is being produced. More money out means more money in...don't ask any further. The base production point of view is that there is no such thing as a pure consumer, there are only producers and those who are funded by producers. You have to have production or you cannot consume. Workers are producers; the issue is how the application of capital can enable them to produce more...product and wage. Consumption must be funded by present production surplus, saved surplus from prior production, or borrowed surplus of future production; otherwise, 'money', and minimum wage, will have no value. So, the better question to ask, from my view, is what can be done to increase production, particularly domestic production? What can be done to increase the expected surplus of future production in order to pay debt and provide for social needs?
You never answer the question. Where does the money come from? Jobs disappear so we give people money so they can buy things machines make. Where does the money come from? If this works we should just do it right now.
As far as increasing domestic production goes, if people have more money, they have the greater potential to create more production thru small businesses and local economic development. I mean, that is the very premise of trickle-down economics, isn't it? That producers with more money will create more production. Except in this case, we want the lowest producers to grow, not the biggest, since we know that capital has a habit of stagnating as it reaches the top, or being offshored. A pilot program in Namibia decreased child malnutrition, increased school attending, and boosted income-generating activities since people were freer to attempt to pursue those activities. Alaska has had lower inflation than the rest of the US since their basic income was instituted in 82! Scott Santens is a major UBI proponent, so take what he says with your own analysis of its sources, but here's a solid article on UBI's effects on entrepreneurship and inflation.
Tax what? A smaller and smaller piece of pie until it's all gone? How long do you think Bill Gates entire net worth will run the country?
The premise is the pie stays the same size, but is distributed differently. Higher taxes on companies is offset by higher consumption. Trickle-down economics is based on the assumption that giving the biggest producers breaks will increase the pie, that giving top tier tax breaks will increase productivity and wage growth. Has it? UBI is based on the assumption that enabling the workers to become better producers will increase the pie, that giving negative tax breaks will increase productivity and wage growth. Which it has, in pilot areas.
Higher taxes on companies is offset by higher consumption. People have more money to spend, so they spend more. Studies show that welfare recipients do not hoard their money; they use it. That money will find its way back up the chain thru consumption. What would you do, if given a little extra money or wages? Would you hoard it, and do nothing with it? Or would you consume, stimulating the economy, or use it to invest in yourself and increase your earning potential thru entrepreneurship or education? I'm more interested in your assertion, that the money leaves the economy if it goes downwards. Where do you think the pie goes?