US CITIES DEEMED FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES will only be bringing global corporate campuses back to America----they are mostly MULTI-NATIONAL----they KILL FREE MARKET and any ability to build local small and regional businesses that are not simply temporary patronage. THIS IS NOT A HEALTHY FREE MARKET ECONOMY. Please stop allowing these global corporations say they are going to create all these jobs when the goal is to eliminate all job categories.
The right wing through REAGAN/CLINTON/BUSH have sold corporate monopoly as free market----they are now doing the same with global corporate monopoly-----the right wing economics will always be-----extreme wealth for a 1% extreme poverty for 99%......
'Meanwhile, thank you, Amazon. The exciting race to find your HQ2 could only happen in America. For that, we salute you'.
Mayor to Amazon: You’re offering 50,000 jobs? $5 billion in construction?
Thanks, but no thanks
By Mark Stodola | Fox News
As of late, it seems like nearly every city in America is vying for the attention of Amazon in hopes of attracting the planned HQ2 campus of the multibillion-dollar corporation. The second headquarters for Amazon promises to create 50,000 high-paying jobs and $5 billion in construction, for starters.
The city where I am mayor – Little Rock, Ark. – used to be one of the eager suitors
Eager to sweep Amazon off its feet, I met with the Little Rock Regional Chamber of Commerce and a team of our best and brightest business leaders to discuss our proposal. But as we reviewed the list of traits Amazon was looking for in an HQ2 city, we realized it would never work out between us.
We know ourselves well enough to realize that an ill-fated courtship could ruin everything we’ve worked to achieve for our city, which is on track to become one of the best places to live, work and go to school in the South.
As mayor of Little Rock, I must admit that our city was at first blindly smitten by the glamour of HQ2. And really, who wasn’t?
Amazon estimates its investments in Seattle from 2010 through 2016 resulted in an additional $38 billion to the city’s economy. And every dollar invested by Amazon in Seattle generated an additional $1.40 for the city’s economy overall.
My hat is off to Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos and his company for creating such competition, intrigue and hope for America’s cities, 238 of which are putting their best foot forward in an effort to attract attention.
Chicago has even hired actor William Shatner, best-known from his TV and movie roles as Captain Kirk on “Star Trek” to pitch the city to Amazon. And one city even offered to rename itself “Amazon.”
But in Little Rock, we decided to make a very public break-up announcement to let the world know that while we are not right for Amazon, our city is available for business. Thus, we embarked on a targeted campaign and launched a website called Love, Little Rock.
We even called a press conference to announce the campaign with several community partners, including our local U.S. Rep. French Hill – a Republican and former Chamber president – to create a conversation with Amazon and spur a sense of pride among Little Rock residents.
The letter we wrote to Amazon says is all – the company is smart and wildly successful. It just won’t work out, this time.
But our Amazon fantasy got us thinking about all the other businesses out there that we might actually be compatible with, and then it hit us: Instead of creating a proposal for a company that wasn’t really interested in us, we decided to focus on attracting partners that are looking for a city just like ours – and there are plenty out there.
Thanks to our short commute times, easy access to beautiful parks, urban office spaces, ample building sites and a thriving tech scene, a lot of companies find a lot to love here.
Our message to businesses we are trying to attract to our city can be summarized in our 10 Reasons To Love Little Rock: Inventive thinking; financial freedom; leisurely living; international connections; gifted residents; ample education opportunities; enthusiasm for environmentally friendly practices; picturesque natural areas; Southern comfort; and devotion to doing good.
As the incoming president of the National League of Cities, I strongly believe that the strength of America’s businesses is integral to our national economy. And there is no underestimating the power of competitiveness and innovation that is at the heart of our success.
Little Rock applauds Amazon’s game-changing success and the opportunity to showcase our amazing city. We’ve started a conversation, and we look forward to finding the perfect fit.
Meanwhile, thank you, Amazon. The exciting race to find your HQ2 could only happen in America. For that, we salute you.
'However, some are concerned that high wages could make an unfriendly business climate'.
We just posted the need for REAL free market US economy and the fact we cannot have that without rebuilding the local small and regional businesses killed during CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA deliberately keeping US city economies stagnant these few decades and allowing only a CRONY PATRONAGE economy of throwing a few million at that 5% white, black, and brown citizen be the only economy......THAT IS NOT A REAL FREE MARKET CAPITALIST ECONOMY.
REAL left social progressives have shouted these few decades that wages are not keeping up with inflation we have shouted for LIVING WAGE from back in 1990s. IS NOW THE TIME FOR THIS?
NO, BECAUSE WE WANT TO REBUILD OUR LOCAL ECONOMIES.
As with all labor laws in US Foreign Economic Zones-----global corporations are not being made to follow labor laws and this will include $15 an hour. It will make it impossible for our small businesses to become established --the goal of global 1% in installing these wage policies right now is just that ---to assure no real US small business economy is established and to compete for global 99% labor pool who are mostly those hired to these jobs. The dates of 2022-23 for reaching these wage goals are saying---DON'T WORRY ABOUT AN ECONOMIC CRASH---GREAT DEPRESSION---which will then find $15 an hour laws disappear.
THE COUNTIES MOST LIKELY TO INSTALL $15 AN HOUR ARE THOSE ALREADY FILLED WITH GLOBAL CORPORATE CAMPUSES---LIKE MONTGOMERY COUNTY AND THEY ARE THE ONES DIRECTING GLOBAL LABOR POOL TO COUNTIES ACROSS THE REGION.
Montgomery County these several years has been that GATEWAY for global labor pool 99% now building that system down to Baltimore ----over to PRINCE GEORGES-----labor brokers have always promised wages that our global labor pool find is never met-----this practice is soaring in US.
Montgomery County Officials Vote to Raise Minimum Wage to $15
The Montgomery County Council voted unanimously to raise its minimum wage to $15 an hour over the next seven years.
Councilmembers voted Tuesday on an amended bill that would force large employers to adopt the $15 hourly wage by 2022. Small employers would need to pay the higher wage by 2024.
The Washington Post reports that the county is the first in the state to require a $15 minimum.
Montgomery County Executive Ike Leggett said he will sign the bill.
The county raised the minimum wage in 2013 by phasing it in over several years. It has incrementally risen to $11.50 an hour, where it is currently set.
News4 spoke to one woman who expects to make an extra $6,000 annually when the $15 wage is phased in.
"It’s very hard to be able to pay my rent," Mirtha Munoz, a single mother who cleans offices at night, said. "That’s going to help me tremendously."
All nine council members agreed to vote for the bill after a compromise that the increased wage would be phased in over several years.
Employers with 50 employees or more will have to start paying $15 an hour or more by July 1, 2021.
Employers with between 11 and 50 employees have until July 2023 to raise their wages.
Very small companies with fewer than 11 employees must pay the higher wage by July 2024.
The new wage is higher than neighboring Prince George’s County’s $11.50 an hour and the statewide minimum wage which is set to go up to $10.10 hourly in July. Montgomery County will be in line with D.C. as they implement a $15 per hour minimum wage in 2020.
However, some are concerned that high wages could make an unfriendly business climate.
The Montgomery County Chamber of Commerce says raising the minimum wage puts businesses in their county at a competitive disadvantage.
"A state mandate was something that would at least would apply to the other counties in Maryland," said a Chamber of Commerce spokesperson. "But here we are, we’re going it alone."
But advocates who fought for the wage increase in Montgomery County also have their eyes on statewide legislation. "Fight for 15" activists told News4 their next stop is Annapolis.
When FDR installed higher wages after Great Depression so US citizens would be able to be the consumers needed to spark the economy he did it by PUBLIC SECTOR UNIONS. It was the use of taxpayer money in creating jobs paying that living wage that kept competitive disadvantage at bay as small, regional businesses grew to compete with the larger corporations. When the public sector paid solid wages they attracted the best workers to those jobs----making the private sector corporations HAVE TO RAISE THEIR WAGES----this is how the US created that strong middle-class with a minimum wage to assure a LIVING WAGE.
All this sparked the strongest economy in WORLD HISTORY lifting the most citizens into middle-class, having REAL unemployment the lowest. We cannot go from having KILLED ALL OUR LOCAL US ECONOMIES to legislating $15 an hour because it will keep us from solid healthy growth of small businesses.
PLEASE STOP ALLOWING GLOBAL 1% CORRUPT OUR REAL LEFT SOCIAL PROGRESSIVE LABOR AND JUSTICE POLICIES.
As global corporations phase in robotics these few years---they may pay a little more----it will not last long.
These US Foreign Economic Zones with high cost of living are temporarily competing for low-wage workers-----mostly drawn from overseas
'More people are moving here from elsewhere than at any time since the Gold Rush'.
It was solid wages paid for our public sector and that competition forcing corporations to do the same opening the door for small and regional business growth. Didn't we learn the GOLD RUSH was a marketing scheme to do just that---draw settlers when the availability of gold was marginal. We will see no small business economic growth in these US cities with $15 an hour.
Researchers 'Prove' Seattle's $15 Minimum Wage Kills Jobs--but Ignore the Existence of Amazon
University of Washington team completes detailed study of Seattle's low-wage employment--but they leave the big names out.
By Minda Zetlin
Co-author, The Geek Gap
Does raising the minimum wage force businesses to eliminate so many jobs that it hurts the very people it was intended to help? New research in Seattle seems to say that it does. But researchers left some important elements out of the equation--such as Amazon, the city's largest employer.
The idea that employers forced to pay higher wages to unskilled workers would eliminate jobs to keep their payroll from going over budget seems logical enough. But over the years, most studies of minimum wages and jobs have shown that doesn't happen. This week, researchers at the University of Washington completed a very detailed study of Seattle's experiment of gradually raising the minimum wage to $15.
Their results show that Seattle employers had indeed decreased payroll to compensate for the higher minimum wage, by letting employees go, reducing their hours, or putting off planned hiring. The costs to unskilled workers outweighed the benefits three to one, the UW researchers say, because the higher minimum wage caused employers to cut hours for low-wage workers by an average of 9 percent against a 3 percent increase in income because of the law. The result, they say, is an average net loss for workers of $125 per month--a significant amount for someone at the lower end of the economic spectrum.
The study is getting a lot of attention, not only because it contradicts decades of earlier research but also because it's using data from Washington State on what workers earn and how many hours they work--much more detailed data than any researchers have been able to use before. Nevertheless, other researchers have questioned some of the UW study's methodology. Chief among them is a team from UC Berkeley, who recently completed their own study. The Berkeley study, conducted with less detailed data than the UW version, was consistent with earlier findings that raising the minimum wage had not caused Seattle employers to meaningfully cut hours or jobs.
The UW study, based on more specific data than anyone else has had so far, is certainly compelling but it has one serious flaw. To avoid including employers that might not be subject to the new law, the UW researchers left out companies with offices both in Seattle and elsewhere--in essence, every large company. That means they skipped the region's three largest employers, Boeing, Microsoft, and Amazon.
Amazon is a particularly meaningful omission because the bulk of its local jobs are within the city, and its warehouses employ large numbers of unskilled workers who might be directly affected by the new law. The online retailer is expanding rapidly in Seattle, building new offices and warehouses. It currently has 30,000 employees working in the city, and is trying to hire another 10,000. In 2022, when construction on its new buildings is complete, the company will account for more than 20 percent of the city's office space.
Studying minimum wage law effects without including large companies completely skews the results, the Berkeley researchers argue. And it's true that if some of the workers getting fewer hours from the small employers counted in the study are now also working for Amazon (or any other large company), they could be earning more than they were before the minimum wage hike, but this study would show them as earning less. That's a concern, especially when you consider that many low-wage workers have multiple employers. However, the UW researchers stand by their data, citing evidence that large employers are, if anything, even more likely than small ones to cut hours or jobs in response to a higher minimum wage.
How much is a low wage?
A second issue with UW's methodology is how it defines a low-paid worker, as someone earning $19 or less per hour. That threshold makes sense in that it would seem to leave out most people not affected by the minimum wage. On the other hand, the Berkeley researchers argue, some of the low-wage earners in the study may be getting work that pays more than that amount, which would also fail to show up. The UW researchers do note an increase in jobs at their ceiling level of $19 an hour, suggesting that there may also have been an increase at slightly higher pay rates that the UW team isn't seeing.
Who's getting these higher-paying jobs?
Their data doesn't answer that question, but the UW researchers hypothesize that since employers are forced to pay a higher minimum wage anyhow, they are hiring more experienced workers at higher salaries, aiming to make up for the extra cost with increased productivity. If that's true, it would certainly be bad for minimum-wage workers. On the other hand, the higher hourly wages could also be a result of Seattle's tightening labor market.
And then there's the question of what would have happened to wages and employment if the minimum wage hadn't been raised. Research such as this tends to assume everything would have remained unchanged, but given the rapidly evolving local economy, that probably isn't true here. So the UW researchers attempted to compensate by creating a hypothetical "synthetic" Seattle, using data from municipalities outside King County but in Washington that have had similar trends. Critics say that this doesn't work--you can't synthesize Seattle with data from other places around the state, because Seattle is completely different from anyplace else in Washington. Having lived in the Seattle area for the past three years, I tend to agree. Seattle is unique, if only because of Amazon's rapid expansion, which is changing the city in such striking ways that locals call it "Amageddon."
If Seattle doesn't have an unemployment problem, it definitely does have a housing problem. Estimates vary, but there's a general consensus that rents in Seattle have been climbing between 7 and 9 percent. The city's dramatic building boom might eventually create enough extra supply to slow that increase, but there's little evidence of that yet. Homelessness is a growing crisis.
That means that one of the biggest arguments against minimum wage increases--that they cause wages to rise much faster than inflation--isn't true in Seattle. Housing costs here have climbed by more than 50 percent this decade, eating up a large portion of unskilled workers' newly higher wages.
There's only one Seattle
That's the most important thing to remember about all this. Seattle is in the midst of a transition from a second-tier city driven by forestry, fishing, shipping, and airplane manufacture to a first-tier city with a huge technology footprint. More people are moving here from elsewhere than at any time since the Gold Rush. In the midst of all this, is a higher minimum wage good or bad for unskilled workers? My instincts say it's good, but I'll admit that the conflicting data makes it hard to be sure.
But one thing's for certain: It would make no sense at all to take research about Seattle and use it to predict what effect a $15 minimum wage might have in other places. The city is in a category of its own.
'1,120 CNY =168.668USD
Shanghai Employee Wage & Labor Cost Information'
In 2010, Shanghai had the highest minimum wage per province/municipality in China at 1,120 RMB per month. In March of 2011, nearly every province, municipality, and economic zone saw minimum wage increases. Shanghai was not excluded in this increase as it saw its minimum wage rise to 1,232 RMB. As a consequence of the minimum wage hike, the average wage for a direct employee in Shanghai rose from 1,996 RMB per month to approximately 3,084 RMB per month. Calculating the exact cost of a direct employee on an hourly basis involves a complex formula composed of a daily base salary, employee benefits, and taxation'.
Please remember, MOVING FORWARD US FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES filling US cities with global corporate campuses moving from overseas Foreign Economic Zones will ALWAYS use the excuse---we are competing with Chinese/Asian Foreign Economic Zones ---and will bring US Foreign Economic Zone wages down to Chinese level-----no matter how much they PRETEND TO REMAIN AMERICAN IN LABOR AND JUSTICE.
Here we see to where US FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES MOVING FORWARD are indeed moving----that $200 a month for blue-collar-----$30 a day for white collar professional----will be below even today's US minimum wage.
By Bruce Kennedy Money
Watch March 31, 2014, 7:51 AM
China increases minimum wage rates
The U.S. isn't the only large nation currently dealing with wage issues for its lowest-paid workers.
In China, where city and provincial governments set minimum wage standards, a number of regions are moving to raise employee pay. Starting in April, the minimum wage for workers in Shanghai will rise to $293 per month (1,820 Chinese yuan), the highest in mainland China. And over the past several weeks, both Shandong Province in eastern China and the city of Shenzhen, a major manufacturing base just across from Hong Kong, have raised their minimum pay scales.
The state-run Xinhua News Agency says these wage hikes follow similar actions elsewhere in China, "where fewer new workers are entering the labor force," and local governments are dealing with labor shortages.
The Chinese economy, which has been rising steadily for decades, has in some ways become a victim of its own success. While hundreds of millions of Chinese have been lifted out of poverty since the 1980s, many more have been left behind economically.
"The central government is looking to equalize, to take the poorest people in China and move them up," says Stephen Orlins, president of the National Committee on U.S.-China Relations. "So what they're seeking to do, and what they have been doing since 2008, is raising the minimum wage.... So this is part of a process -- this is not a one-time thing."
At the same time, China's decades-old "one-child" policy, originally implemented out of concerns of a runaway population explosion, is also affecting its national labor force.
"The work force, the 18-to-30 demographic, has peaked," Orlins noted. "There's a lot of competition for labor now. That is driving up prices very, very significantly -- much more so than government edicts or minimum wages." And late last year China announced it was easing the "one-child" policy.
A raising of minimum wages also comes into play in China's newly announced urbanization plan, an ambitious campaign to move tens of millions of Chinese out of rural areas and into cities by 2020. And Chinese officials, Orlins says, are hoping urbanization will increase the country's GDP, as they look to shift China away from investment-led growth and more toward domestic consumption.
"An urban worker is much more productive than a rural worker," he said. "They go to work in industries where they produce much more GDP than the more inefficient rural workers."
Orlins believes the minimum wage rise in China will not affect the U.S.-China trade deficit. But he notes that, much like American manufacturers moved their jobs overseas to lower-income markets, Chinese manufacturers are now looking elsewhere for less expensive work forces. It's even possible that Chinese manufacturing could end up going to Vietnam, Myanmar and other Southeast Asian nations.
"They have begun to look," he said, "but you need an infrastructure to support those kinds of industries. You need to be able to get them to port, get them into ships and to ship them to where they're going. The problem with competitive countries is, even though they have lower labor rates, they don't have the infrastructure to support those kinds of industries. So until that infrastructure gets built, we're going to see a minimal shift."
Here is Seattle again----ground zero for global 1% ONE WORLD ONE GOVERNANCE 5G SMART CITIES US FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONE policies -----passing $15 an hour----and promoting BASIC INCOME----we have educated that BASIC INCOME is the far-right wing Libertarian global 1% structure to bring developed nations in North America, UK, and Europe down to that Chinese level of $200 a month.
If we understand that 99% of US citizens will become unemployed if MOVING FORWARD continues---then 99% of citizens will become tied to BASIC INCOME---what global 1% PRETENDS will be $2,000 a month will quickly fall to that $200 a month. This right wing economic policy was written to end all Federal safety net programs----all unemployment benefits----disability benefits----Social Security and Medicare ------under the umbrella of handing this bolus of $2,000 a month. When it falls to $200 a month of course none of the above can be afforded---and when 5G ROBOTICS AND ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE take all job categories----US citizens black, white, and brown 99% will not even get that BASIC INCOME---global banking has no intention of paying people not to work.
If MOVING FORWARD continues planetary colonization policies will fall into place and all US citizens will be MILITARIZED----part of the space program......
It is the GLOBAL GREEN CORPORATION PARTY------INTERNATIONAL WORLD WORKERS AND WORKER'S PARTY pushing what is MOVING FORWARD Clinton neo-liberalism morphing into far-right wing, authoritarian, militaristic, extreme wealth extreme poverty LIBERTARIAN MARXISM----basic income is that MARXIST platform. All of these ALTERNATIVE PARTIES are just that ---GLOBAL 1% ALT RIGHT ALT LEFT 5% PLAYERS----
It is Time to Talk About Basic Income, Again
March 22, 2017 by Brian Bergen-Aurand
I’m now convinced that the simplest approach will prove to be the most effective—the solution to poverty is to abolish it directly by a now widely discussed measure: the guaranteed income
~Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
Where Do We Go from Here: Chaos or Community? (1967)
47%. By some predictions, 47% of the jobs currently available in the United States will be lost to automation and other factors in fewer than fifteen years. These estimations are respected predictions, made by economists, entrepreneurs, venture capitalists, and other employment market watchers. Other prognostications set the number at greater than 50%. By 2030, perhaps half the jobs currently available in the United States will disappear.
According to a recent study from Ball State University’s Center for Business and Economic Research, nearly 87% of manufacturing job eliminations across the United States are due to gains in productivity, including more efficient supply chains, increased capital investment, and technological displacement. These changes are creating some new jobs, but not nearly enough to replace the jobs lost in the process.
And the trend is for more automation and more job displacement in more areas, including the service and care sectors of the economy, areas previously thought much less vulnerable to robotics, big data, and algorithms. The first successful cochlear implant by a robot and human team is breaking news in the medical profession, and few doubt the machines will be taking the lead in many more such procedures.
Essentially, any repetitive task can be taken over by automation. Any job that requires repetition is vulnerable.
Presently, Seattle has an unemployment rate of about 3%. Overall, King County’s rate is approximately 3.3%. Automation does not seem to be affecting us as negatively as it already has elsewhere. Our primary concerns seem to be transportation, houselessness, education, and incarceration. Yet, we have to ask ourselves how long we can stay ahead of the international shift toward technological job loss. How long can the area resist this global trend, especially considering our extraordinary population influx and technologically driven local economy?
Right now, you can read about several ideas to offset the effects of automation and lowered productivity costs on unemployment and job loss: banning/refusing automation, robot taxes, retraining and re-education, public works (government job guarantees), and reductions in working hours/job share schemes. These may all work in the short term, but if the predictions are correct, by 2030, they will not be sufficient to address the ever increasing world poverty at a time when resource scarcity is a thing of the past.
What seems to be the most radical and potentially effective suggestion on the horizon again, is the discussion of Basic Income—a guaranteed monthly payment of 70-150% of the existing poverty line (currently $12,060 annually), adjusted regionally against the cost of living, per adult. (Many Basic Income plans vary in the details, but all are based in this simple starting point of direct income maintenance to provide an economic “floor” for each person in the society.)
Many public voices have been raising the issue of Basic Income over the past few years—especially, Guy Standing and Rutger Bregman in Europe; Andy Stern and Allan Sheahen in the United States; and several international technology entrepreneurs, including Elon Musk and Bill Gates. They do not all agree, but they are involved in the conversation.
Basic Income is not a new idea but has been around for at least since the founding of the United States of America. It has been lauded and loathed by Republicans and Democrats; Conservatives and Progressives; Liberals, Radicals, and Libertarians. The federal government almost instituted a national Basic Income forty-five years ago. In the 1970s, Republican President Richard Nixon and the Democrat-controlled House of Representatives proposed a national Family Assistance Plan grounded in a Guaranteed Annual Income. The bill was defeated by the Democrat-controlled Senate, which argued the plan did not include a large enough stipend to address significant impoverishment. (By the time they tried to revamp the bill, support and political will had withered.)
Furthermore, Basic Income is certainly not new to the Pacific Northwest. Between 1968 and 1980, the United States government conducted four “negative income tax,” “cash transfer,” or “income maintenance” experiments: in New Jersey/Pennsylvania, Iowa and North Carolina, Seattle and Denver, and Gary, Indiana. In Seattle, from 1970 until 1976 (or some until 1980), 4800 black, white, and Latino families with at least one dependent and incomes below $11,000 for single parents and $13,000 for two-parent families received monthly payments between 126% and 148% of the current poverty line. Many writers have argued about the successes and failures of these experiments.
In a survey of the studies conducted the throughout the 1970s published in The Journal of Socio-Economics, Karl Widerquist cautions that what we learned from these experiments is “tentative and limited.” They can tell us some things about the possible effects of Basic Income on recipients, but they can neither prove nor disprove the overall arguments of Basic Income supporters or detractors. “It is better to understand that the … experiments were able to shed a small amount of light” on some Basic Income issues, writes Widerquist. “They were able to indicate only that a basic income guarantee is financially feasible at a cost of certain side effects that people with differing political beliefs may take to be desirable or disastrous.” Basic Income is feasible and, by definition, can eliminate poverty. What else it can do, we have yet to discover.
Following Widerquist, here I am writing neither simply to endorse nor refute Basic Income. Rather, I am writing to encourage a new conversation about an old idea. I am writing to suggest that it is time—now, before the turn comes and the jobless rate begins to increase, adding to our houselessness, healthcare, access, and transportation problems—to talk about Basic Income again. It is time for us to raise questions and talk seriously about raising the economic floor and guaranteeing the minimum income of everyone, regardless of formal employment status.
In his analysis, Widerquist explains why Basic Income conversations and Basic Income experiments cannot address every variable that in play. He does list the issues we might be able to explore through the lens of Basic Income. These issues include health, homeownership, marriage and divorce rates, birth-weight, school performance, and other indicators of well-being. As well, he explains, such exercises may be able to suggest effects on work effort and work incentive or disincentive; however, these suggestions must remain inconclusive because of the significant number of variables involved in such suggestions.
What I am proposing is that we should push our elected officials and candidates to educate themselves on Basic Income and address questions we have regarding the policy proposal. We should ask every one of them where they stand and why. We should push ourselves to read, listen to, and join in conversations regarding Basic Income. There has been a good deal of information available for some time now. And, we should consider the specific variables in play in the Pacific North West that might make a Seattle Basic Income or King County Basic Income serve the area best. How could basic income address transportation, houselessness, healthcare, incarceration, and disability here?
Whether or not Basic Income will best address the changes on the horizon, now is the time to start asking the questions.
We shared an article that predicted 2/3 of Earth's population will be those planetary colonists by 2150-------we want to remind that depopulating the EARTH with FAILED DEVELOPMENT----global corporate campus SUSTAINABILITY for only the global 1% if allowed to MOVE FORWARD will itself kill billions of global citizens not having the resources for food, fresh water, or shelter---not to mention WW 3 and civil wars in Europe and North America -----so that 2/3 of Earth's population as planetary colonists will leave only that global 1% ----hiding down that hole---mining shaft ecodome in SIBERIA ---with those global 2% looking in the ecodome windows wishing they could live in that mining shaft with luxury apartments.
What is now being called $15 an hour will never happen-----what is called BASIC INCOME will be that platform moving developed nations' wages from $2000 to $200 as in China----and what is basic income will become GLOBAL CORPORATE CAMPUSES TAKING CARE OF THEIR HUMAN CAPITAL---SLAVE LABOR.
THINK ALL CITIZENS TIED TO SPACE COLONIZATION WILL BE MILITARY? OF COURSE----99% OF PEOPLE WILL BE FAR-RIGHT, AUTHORITARIAN, MILITARISTIC, DICTATORSHIP-----MAO MARXIST.
That will be NOTHING like being modern US military servicemen and women-----who have rights as US citizens are paid a living wage with benefits---and are able to leave that military assignment to return to a CIVILIAN LIFE.
Should Mars Be Independent, Or Just A Colony Of Earth?
Astrobiologist wants to make sure the red planet is independent from the start
By Sarah Fecht August 25, 2015
Artist's vision of a colony on Mars
NASA Ames Research Center
It’s a popular sci-fi plot: Earth sets up colonies on Mars; Mars colonies grow, developing their own technologies and culture; Mars colonies rebel against overbearing Earth government, demanding independence. It happens in Total Recall, in Babylon 5, in Red Mars.
But what if we gave Mars its independence right from the get-go? Rather than giving future colonies to governments or corporations, Jacob Haqq-Misra thinks we should let Martian colonists develop their own values, governments, and technologies, with minimal interference from Earth. Haqq-Misra is an astrobiologist at the Blue Marble Space Institute of Science, a non-profit organization that promotes international unity in space.
Not only would Haqq-Misra's strategy preclude any Martian wars for independence, but cultural independence could help Martians think differently enough to solve problems that Earth continues to struggle with—such as working together to fight global environmental problems, or making long-term plans for the future of humanity.
“Maybe Mars is more valuable in trying to seed the second incidence of civilization.”Instead of getting divided by nations or plundered by industry, says Haqq-Misra, “maybe Mars is more valuable in trying to seed the second incidence of civilization.”
A Free Mars
The plan that Haqq-Misra lays out in an essay in New Space has five main provisions:
- Humans who leave Earth to permanently settle on Mars relinquish their planetary citizenship as Earthlings and claim a planetary citizenship as Martians.
- Governments, corporations, and individuals of Earth cannot engage in commerce with Mars and cannot interfere with the political, cultural, economic, or social development of Martian civilization.
- Scientific exploration may continue as long as it does not interfere with the development of civilization on Mars. Sharing of research and information between Mars and Earth is permitted only to pursue mutual scientific or educational goals.
- The use of land on Mars will be determined exclusively by the citizens of Mars. No Earthlings may own or otherwise lay claim to land on Mars.
- Any technology, resources, or other objects brought from Earth to Mars become permanent fixtures of the Martian civilization. Earthlings may not make any demands for resources on Mars.
You Can't Own Mars, But You Can Rule A Colony
There is some legal precedent for the idea. The 1967 Outer Space Treaty, which 103 nations (including the U.S. and Russia) are party to, prohibits any nation from claiming territory in space. The treaty “makes very clear that a colony on Mars could never become a colony in the classical legal sense of the word, like the U.S. was originally a colony of the U.K.,” says Frans von der Dunk, a space law professor at the University of Nebraska.
Nevertheless, under the current legal system, von der Dunk says American colonists on Mars would still probably fall under U.S. jurisdiction.
Sailors in international waters are expected to follow the rules of their ship's flag, and astronauts must do the same. The rules even hold when they're not on board the ship—for example, when the Apollo astronauts roamed around the moon, or when astronauts on the International Space Station do spacewalks, they're still subject to U.S. laws.
But what about when the excursion is longer than a few hours? On the ISS, where astronauts spend months at a time, participating countries have worked up their own quasi legal system, which is pretty similar to Earth's. If an American astronaut were to hit a Russian astronaut over the head, for example, first the U.S. would have the right to determine whether a criminal act was committed. If the U.S. doesn't take action, then he could be tried under Russian jurisdiction.
The rules could be different when we're talking about pioneers who venture to another planet with no intention of returning home. Still, says von der Dunk, “You cannot simply say 'I'm no longer a citizen of the U.S.' It's not for you to decide.”
Von der Dunk thinks that if Americans are able to set up self-sustaining communities on Mars, they'll consider themselves Americans and abide by U.S. laws—at least at first. “At some point in time, they will not like that anymore,” he says. “They won't feel like they are American or Russian or wherever they come from, they'll feel like they are Martian. They will say, 'Listen, we don't want to pay taxes anymore, and we want to develop our own legal system.'”
Illustration Showing a Mars Colony with Living Quarters and Solar Panels
Cultural evolution is inevitable in small populations that splinter off from Earth. A lot of Earthly traditions just won't apply, and the Martians will develop their own jokes, rules, and customs. Haqq-Misra's suggestion of limiting contact with Earth would simply speed up that transition.
Von der Dunk thinks it would be difficult to set up a colony as a blank slate, as Haqq-Misra proposes. Mars colonists would carry with them a lot of legal and cultural baggage that biases their ideas about how society should work. But over time, Martian culture could change dramatically. "It's hard to think outside the box there, but one could think that because Mars is so different from Earth, that when they tear themselves away from traditional legal structures, they could develop something very new," says von der Dunk. "This is all very hypothetical."
Getting There Is Half The Battle
There are other potential problems. Getting to Mars ain’t easy, and there are a lot of ways to die once you get there. Unfortunately, Earth's help won’t come cheap: these days it costs about $10,000 to send one pound of supplies to the space station, and that's a much closer, easier trip than Mars. Without the financial incentives of Martian communities, resources, and/or business, nations and private companies aren’t likely to rally around the Free Mars idea. Haqq-Misra’s plan relies on either extremely thorough planning to make sure the colonies are completely self-sufficient, or generous donations to send resupply missions to Mars.
Haqq-Misra says he’s not holding his breath for anyone to jump on this idea. Still, he says, since everyone from NASA to SpaceX and Mars One has their sights set on visiting or colonizing Mars in the coming decades, it's important to think about.
“Hopefully it’s going to instigate people to have a longer-term vision for whatever we do on Mars.”
If one goes to Washington DC and walks those streets coming as spokes from the central axis ----you will have seen nothing but global restaurant chains one after the other----that was a few decades of filling DC with global corporations creating the DC beltway suburbs in VA and MD. What was grand US POST OFFICES-----US PUBLIC LIBRARIES----all closed and sold to global hotels and used as marketing for global technology----not a trace of America to be found.
As US CITIES DEEMED FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES started to gain momentum these few decades as in Baltimore---all those global corporations --the restaurants and hotels filling DC expanded into our US cities. This is the economy we are allowing to fill our US cities. None of these chains are local-----most are not even American ---and every time Baltimore gentrifies a community ---it fills with these same global restaurants, hotels, global technology centers.
Donald is explaining this as it relates to the next Baltimore area of gentrification and no, there will be NO AFFORDABLE HOUSING---no matter how much those global Wall Street 5% pols and players PRETEND to be addressing these housing issues for 99% of WE THE PEOPLE IN BALTIMORE BLACK, WHITE, OR BROWN CITIZENS.
'The picture you see is the Pen North community in Baltimore city before the Freddie Gray thing broke out this community there was plans to change it over'.
These US CITIES AS FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONE MASTER PLANS were in place in 1980s-----you know a 5% player organization pretending to be labor and justice by how long they have kept these goals silent in Baltimore---and our other mid-size US cities.
Gentrification Displaces District Of Columbia’s Longtime Black Residents, Study Finds
The report blames the poverty and exodus on past discriminatory practices that kept Blacks in the "Chocolate City" at the fringes of the economy.
Written By Nigel Roberts
Posted October 16, 2017
Gentrification in the nation’s capital continues to displace more of the city’s longtime African-American residents, as the Black population in the District of Columbia has fallen below 50 percent for the first time in decades.
The Washington Post reports that Georgetown University published a study that analyzes the impact of the district’s booming economy on Black residents and offers recommendations to stem the exodus.
The report, which pulls data from several other studies, paints a picture of profound economic disparities between the city’s Black and White residents. The average net worth of a White household is $284,000 compared to just $3,500 for Black households.
There’s also a huge gap in median annual incomes: Whites at $120,000 and Blacks at $41,000.
That’s not surprising because half of the new jobs in the district’s economy require at least a bachelor’s degree. Only 12 percent of Blacks in the city were college graduates in 2014, the study noted.
Consequently, White residents can pay more for houses and apartments, which is driving up costs and reducing available affordable housing.
Many of these inequalities stem from a history of discrimination that pushed the district’s Black residents to the fringes of the economy, the study said. Historic discriminatory practices range from segregated schools to redlining, in which banks refused to lend money to Black entrepreneurs and home buyers.
Creating opportunities for Black-owned businesses is one key solution. The report urges the D.C. Chamber of Commerce and city agencies to build a database of minority businesses and do more to help them thrive. Local universities can also play a role by offering courses on business development.
'Rather than trust to the Davos crowd and hope “the 1%” develops a taste for social justice, a far better approach would be to build the social movements and struggles that can defend past gains and work for expanded and accessible public services'.
We see plenty of media making REAL LEFT SOCIAL PROGRESSIVE statements about things like BASIC INCOME----it is a global naked crony neo-liberal MOVING FORWARD economic policy and NOT A LEFT SOCIAL PROGRESSIVE one and as this article states----the US 99% want to return to last centuries real free market social progressive capitalism and not install FAKE ALT RIGHT ALT LEFT extreme poverty for all 99% of WE THE PEOPLE with basic income.
Some labor unions are making this clear---outing basic income as neo-liberalism gone further right wing----but most of our international labor unions---all those 5% FAKE justice organizations ----are selling to our US citizens and those overseas that this will help those poor citizens.
THIS ARTICLE PRETENDS BASIC INCOME IS UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES AND TELESUR IS THAT CAPTURED MAIN STREAM MEDIA OUTLET----IT IS NOT UNINTENDED---IT IS MOVING FORWARD CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA----NOW TRUMP.
The same US CITIES DEEMED FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES pretending to install $15 an hour are the ones having these 5% ALT RIGHT ALT LEFT groups pushing BASIC INCOME---MOVING FORWARD RACE TO THE BOTTOM.
This is how we KNOW UK CORBYN is still yet the UK LABOUR PARTY captured by far-right global banking neo-liberals pretending to be real left labor and justice
'British Labour Party and BI
With very good reason, there has been considerable excitement internationally around the Jeremy Corbyn leadership in the British Labour Party. His close ally, Shadow Chancellor, John McDonnell, has been paying some attention to adopting BI, as part of a platform that would express a break with the austerity consensus'.
Opinion > Articles
Basic Income as a Neoliberal Weapon
By: John Clarke
A large poster in a square in Geneva, Switzerland, promoting the idea of a universal basic income | Photo: Reuters
Published 17 February 2017
There are a wide range of notions of what a BI system might look like. Devotees of free market capitalism have their own vision.In April of this year, the Ontario government is expected to release details of a pilot project that will study the effects of a very limited and rather dubious attempt at Basic Income or BI. As with similar experiments in Finland and the Netherlands, nothing approaching a universal payment will be put in place. Rather, a sampling of the poorest people will be provided with a very modest allowance, with fewer bureaucratic strings attached than under existing systems of income support.
Workless Utopias and the Return of the Future
These experiments are really focused on the impacts that the measures will have on the people being tested, with a major focus on to what extent “labor market participation,” which really means readiness to take low paying jobs, is enhanced. In truth, it’s really poor people who are being evaluated and not a system of BI. For that to happen, the impact of introducing the measure on a massive scale would have to be assessed. The results for the people being tested are probably quite predictable. If those in poverty are given an increased payment with less intrusion into their lives, we may expect that they will be somewhat better off. The real issue is what kind of a BI would be implemented across an entire political jurisdiction and what impacts would such a measure how on society as a whole.
There are a wide range of notions of what a BI system might look like. Devotees of free market capitalism have their own vision. The right wing U.S. political scientist, Charles Murray, advocates a meager universal payment and stresses vehemently that this must replace entirely the other elements of social provision. The liberal to radical left supporters of a progressive BI counter with models that are anything from modestly redistributive to radically transformative, some even dreaming of a universal and very adequate payment that would rob capitalism of any capacity to economically coerce workers. The problem with all of these plans is that, despite thoroughly good intentions, they fail to address the actual practical possibilities of their being implemented. It is just assumed that fairness and social justice can be introduced by way of a social policy initiative.
India Considers Universal Basic Income to Eradicate Poverty
Before we consider the prospects for a BI that would improve lives and reduce poverty, we should examine the factors that have shaped existing systems of income support. If we go back to the roots and consider the English Poor Laws, we see a peasantry being driven off the land in the 1500s and forced to enter a newly created job market. An oversupply of labor served the interests of the employers of the day but total abandonment of the unemployed led to dangerous levels of social unrest. The solution the State came up with was a system of provision that might enable people to survive but that was as inadequate as possible so as to continue to drive people into the lowest paying jobs. Modern systems of welfare and social assistance have continued with this approach and are marked by meager payments and bureaucratic intrusion into peoples’ lives.
As the neoliberal agenda took root and intensified and, as employers sought to lower wages and increase the rate of exploitation, a systematic degrading of income support systems was carried out in all countries that had the elements of a welfare state in place. This led to a scramble for the worst jobs and an explosion of low wage and precarious employment. From the standpoint of the architects of neoliberalism, this has been an enormously successful and profitable strategy. Yet the advocates of a progressive BI imagine that all this can be put behind us simply by somehow convincing governments to adopt a social policy that will make everything rational and fair. They don’t ask themselves why the neoliberal powerbrokers would give up decades of gains by providing income adequacy and, in doing so, increase workers’ bargaining power massively. They don’t ask how, with our unions and movements significantly weakened by the neoliberal attack, we could force the employers and the state to make such a vast concession.
Ecuador's Correa: 'Neoliberalism Has Failed, Not Socialism'
The danger of not dealing with such issues lies in the above-mentioned right-wing version of BI. When the exploiters and enablers who gather at Davos consider the policy, they realize that it has enormous possibilities for them. With a whole progressive lobby laying down a welcome mat, they can now work on very different brand of BI. A meager and dwindling payment can be provided that in no way interferes with the flow of workers into the low-wage sector. Moreover, if they extend the payment to the working poor, it becomes a de facto wage top-up for employers. The struggle for living wages is now undercut. The most exploitative employers know that their workers are being paid out of the tax revenues and they are under little pressure to raise wages. Governments can freeze of even lower minimum wages and a general lowering of wages sets in.
At the same time as neoliberal BI is used to grease the wheels of super-exploitation, another key element of the neoliberal agenda, privatization, is facilitated. The BI payment, as free market advocates have long suggested, is given in place of the other elements of social provision. As public healthcare, social housing and much else beside are gutted, BI transforms those who receive it into “customers” shopping through the privatized rubble of the social infrastructure. It is, of course, quite possible to design on paper a BI model that is adequate and that does not involve cutbacks in other areas but the question is which version is more likely, based on prevailing economic and political agendas and the present balance of forces in society.
Rather than trust to the Davos crowd and hope “the 1%” develops a taste for social justice, a far better approach would be to build the social movements and struggles that can defend past gains and work for expanded and accessible public services. Rather than hope neoliberal governments will offer us a social policy end-run around austerity, far better to press for income support systems that offer full entitlement, adequate payments and that are no longer based on bureaucratic intrusion and moral policing.
Basic Income is a false hope and a pathway to the commodification of social provision that, while it may be paved with good intentions, leads to a destination entirely to the liking of those who design and operate the neoliberal order.