Is the US One Nation or Many?

Australia has a very similar system to New Zealand, using a complex CPI based on necessities. One problem even with this is that the average wage tends to rise half as fast again. So after 20 years of 3% CPI and 4.5% wages growth, those on welfare are just as well off in survival terms as they were but everyone else is much better off. Research into satisfaction levels shows that once you reach survival level (Maslov theory), your satisfaction level relates to how well off you are in relation to those around you. Thus a millionaire feels deprived when living in a billionaire suburb.
Another way to illustrate this is to consider a welfare family living as well as a well paid worker would have in 1970 (who would have been happy with his lot). Everyone else has colour TVs and PVRs while you have a B&W TV and no modern gadgets. Not helpful of course that many of the poorer people have limited money skills.
A strange anomaly is that our politicians' pensions are indexed to AWOTE (Average Weekly Ordinary Time Earnings) that is the previously mentioned 4.5% average. Funny that.

Properly channeled this dissatisfaction is a good thing. It would give a welfare family a stronger motive to get off welfare.

Improperly channeled the anger could be utilized by the unscrupulous. Dishonest politicians, organized crime, Al Qaeda, etc come to mind.

Ive heard some interesting ideas on how to fix this problem. what does everyone think of universal based income (a minimum flat fee paid to everyone regardless of status) and negative geared income tax on such?

Phillip Jose Farmer raised this in Riders of the Purple Wage in 1967.
I personally don't think a universal stipend would inhibit most people from being productive members of society. It might inhibit them from putting up with being exploited by bad employers.

Spacekiwi wrote:Ive heard some interesting ideas on how to fix this problem. what does everyone think of universal based income (a minimum flat fee paid to everyone regardless of status) and negative geared income tax on such?

Ive heard some interesting ideas on how to fix this problem. what does everyone think of universal based income (a minimum flat fee paid to everyone regardless of status) and negative geared income tax on such?

It might work in an ideal world, but when politicians get involved it's bound to be a disaster.

Thats one thing that i see related with this all the time: that people wouldnt work as much in minimum wage jobs as they do now, as they wouldnt be so hard up for money, and so theoretically, either the wage would go up, or more people would work shorter shifts, so in the end, everyone will benefit.

Daryl wrote:Phillip Jose Farmer raised this in Riders of the Purple Wage in 1967.
I personally don't think a universal stipend would inhibit most people from being productive members of society. It might inhibit them from putting up with being exploited by bad employers.

Spacekiwi wrote:Ive heard some interesting ideas on how to fix this problem. what does everyone think of universal based income (a minimum flat fee paid to everyone regardless of status) and negative geared income tax on such?

Thats one thing that i see related with this all the time: that people wouldnt work as much in minimum wage jobs as they do now, as they wouldnt be so hard up for money, and so theoretically, either the wage would go up, or more people would work shorter shifts, so in the end, everyone will benefit.

And then the politicians in an effort to win votes raise the basic living stipend. A few years later they raise it again to win more votes. A few years after that they raise it some more etc until you have the dole situation the People's Republic of Haven faced.

In an ideal world there is the possibility something like this may work. In a world where politicians control the government, never.

except it raises it for everyone, so shouldnt that just increase inflation?

biochem wrote:

Thats one thing that i see related with this all the time: that people wouldnt work as much in minimum wage jobs as they do now, as they wouldnt be so hard up for money, and so theoretically, either the wage would go up, or more people would work shorter shifts, so in the end, everyone will benefit.

And then the politicians in an effort to win votes raise the basic living stipend. A few years later they raise it again to win more votes. A few years after that they raise it some more etc until you have the dole situation the People's Republic of Haven faced.

In an ideal world there is the possibility something like this may work. In a world where politicians control the government, never.

except it raises it for everyone, so shouldnt that just increase inflation?

That would be logical. But the response of the recipients would be to contact their representatives and demand that their payments be increased due to rampant inflation.

biochem wrote:

except it raises it for everyone, so shouldnt that just increase inflation?

That would be logical. But the response of the recipients would be to contact their representatives and demand that their payments be increased due to rampant inflation.

Which locks in the comparison to the People's Republic of Haven to a fare-thee-well. The cycle ratchets higher and higher with those not on the dole losing more and more buying power. At each ratchet up those on the margins of self sustaining income are tempted more and more to join the dole, which increases the cycle faster yet.

Howard T. Map-addict wrote:You're welcome.

Once they get there, several things might happen.
Some of them stay. Some move on. Some go back.

EU/Europe = important question.
In the sense of nation-state, very dubiously.
In the old-fashioned sense of "people sharing the same
culture, or very similar cultures,
then IMHO yes, very likely, in many ways.
Once upon a time, that "nation" was called Christiandom.
Its political expression was called "Roman Empire."
Cities as far away as Moscow claimed to be "3rd Rome."

Of course, mine is the "expansive" or "liberal" view.
Other's miliage varies.

HTM

*ugh*

Sharing the same culture? Across EUROPE?

Goodness no. I have more in common with someone from New York, California or even Texas than i have with someone from France or Italy, much less Romania, Spain or Italy.

And people can often still see the difference between people from nations as similar as Sweden and Norway.

Is the US One Nation or Many?

I would say the answer to this question is BOTH.

There is a strong and clear national pseudo-unity(people agree very strongly that they agree about being part of USA, even if they all tend to claim that they agree about different things), under which strong regionalisation can be found(often including many of the above differences).

His most mistaken argument is "isolation of regions."
Actually, people have *always* been moving between
regions, exchanging ideas with other people.

Yes, but the areas are so big that most movements still go within them.

You can find strong regionalisation even in different parts of a small nation like Belgium, TODAY, and USA has had a few centuries of digging in, as it´s isolationism extends to regions as well as nationally, more in some areas and less in others, but that also means a reduced amount of exchange.

And of course, just because people move doesn´t mean that they change something where they move to.