A basic income for all?

[jmsepe 2,038]

I do, however I do not share the same sentiment. For me, a strong government is necessary for a country to survive and flourish. 

[47ply 1,100]

I will never understand why some narrow minded people think everyone on welfare is a drug addict. they all need drug testing the say blah blah I say. Start drug testing working people as well and watch the prison population grow. sorry for the vent

[dogma555 187]

No for me, basically because I believe the government ought to provide basic needs to its people through revenues taken from the people per se.

 

Or better yet.. a government that can help provide JOBS to these people, not just handing them free money .. so they can have the dignity that comes along with having a job and earning their money. Something like a modern day version of what FDR did to cut the unemployment rate almost in half with public works programs, like a modern day version of the WPA. especially in manufacturing.. We need a whole lot more of those yellow tile zones HERE rather than in other countries!

 

Caps on wages and hours is what we are going to need eventually if income inequality continues on to this extent. For a job that pays $100,000 for 40 hours of work, I'd rather have two people sharing that work.. at $50,000 a year with 20 hours a week each worker. More people will have disposable income to go around, less class conflict, more time for people to devote to various arts and hobbies. End the days where the economy resembles a game of musical chairs.

 

But total removal of govermnent is just pure anarchy .. I don't want to live in some wild wild west where there aren't even laws, courts, judges, military, etc..

[Ocram's Razr 963]

I agree that infrastructure desperately needs improving. The government should indeed start some new public works projects to put more Americans back to work and should also hire more teachers and pay them all living wages.

--Ocram

[LexusInfernus 908]

Or better yet.. a government that can help provide JOBS to these people, not just handing them free money .. so they can have the dignity that comes along with having a job and earning their money. Something like a modern day version of what FDR did to cut the unemployment rate almost in half with public works programs, like a modern day version of the WPA. especially in manufacturing.. We need a whole lot more of those yellow tile zones HERE rather than in other countries!

 

Caps on wages and hours is what we are going to need eventually if income inequality continues on to this extent. For a job that pays $100,000 for 40 hours of work, I'd rather have two people sharing that work.. at $50,000 a year with 20 hours a week each worker. More people will have disposable income to go around, less class conflict, more time for people to devote to various arts and hobbies. End the days where the economy resembles a game of musical chairs.

 

But total removal of govermnent is just pure anarchy .. I don't want to live in some wild wild west where there aren't even laws, courts, judges, military, etc..

 

Yeah but the premise of this discussion is that the jobs are simply gone. Hence programs designed to get people to work are a waste of time and resources as those jobs simply no longer exist. Robots and smart computers do them now. 

 

But you do mention an alternative, and that is to basically divide existing jobs into several smaller part time jobs. Well that is an alternative, but there are some limitations to it, as it only really works with high end jobs. A job that only pays say 25.000 a year divided into two gives neither employee one a really decent wage. It still leaves a lot of people with not nearly enough disposable income to really get along. 

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

If you are going to hand out subsistence, there is nothing wrong with requiring the able bodied to earn some or all of it.  The idea of repairing and maintaining the infrastructure is rather good.  It can also be an incentive.  Many people would strive to find some other employment after they've been repairing a sewage system, for example.

 

If you don't have a job, no job you can do is beneath your dignity.  The concept of dignitas went out with the Roman Empire.

 

The infrastructure will always need maintenance.

[LexusInfernus 908]

If you are going to hand out subsistence, there is nothing wrong with requiring the able bodied to earn some or all of it.  The idea of repairing and maintaining the infrastructure is rather good.  It can also be an incentive.  Many people would strive to find some other employment after they've been repairing a sewage system, for example.

 

If you don't have a job, no job you can do is beneath your dignity.  The concept of dignitas went out with the Roman Empire.

 

The infrastructure will always need maintenance.

And here I thought thinking this was the 21st century where human dignity meant something and where we didn't all gang up on people because they don't have a job. 

 

The idea that people MUST work in order to live is an outdated concept. It applied at a moment where if people didn't work there simply wouldn't be enough food for everyone. But we have reached a point where we can produce everything in such sufficient numbers and quality by using the minimal amount of human labor that this idea simply no longer applies. We have been inventing methods that supposedly made work easier, more efficient and more productive while requiring less input from us, yet we are still demanding that everyone keeps working 40 hour work weeks or more. Why? This makes no $%&^! sense, we have the technology and the capabilities to reduce the amount of work that is needed so why dont we do that? 

[Sabretooth78 808]

Or better yet.. a government that can help provide JOBS to these people, not just handing them free money .. so they can have the dignity that comes along with having a job and earning their money. Something like a modern day version of what FDR did to cut the unemployment rate almost in half with public works programs, like a modern day version of the WPA. especially in manufacturing.. We need a whole lot more of those yellow tile zones HERE rather than in other countries!

 

The argument has been made in several circles that FDR's policies actually helped to extend the Great Depression (you will note there were actually 2 "troughs" - the initial 1929-30 crash and the recession of 1937).  Probably not entirely dissimilar to the misguided efforts of those in power today which have done nothing but to extend the Great Recession - TARP, etc. Of course what the G.D. didn't have was civil liberties infringement inherent to today's foolishness like the [anti]Patriot Act, some equivalent to SOPA, Citizen's United and other fascist policies of the like.

 

Economically speaking, the Great Depression didn't end until after WWII, coincident with the disgorging of the armed service vets into the civil workforce.

[LexusInfernus 908]

Economically speaking, the Great Depression didn't end until after WWII, coincident with the disgorging of the armed service vets into the civil workforce.

 

Pretty sure the economic depression was gone halfway through WWII. A total war planned economy does wonders to your industrial production and unemployment ratings...

[hym 358]

We have been inventing methods that supposedly made work easier, more efficient and more productive while requiring less input from us, yet we are still demanding that everyone keeps working 40 hour work weeks or more. Why? This makes no $%&^! sense, we have the technology and the capabilities to reduce the amount of work that is needed so why dont we do that?

This is confusing the goal with the means. The goal is minimum cost. The means to this is maximizing productivity. If minimum cost means not deploying technology that would allow people to work less, then business won't deploy that technology.

[Meg 368]

 

This is confusing the goal with the means. The goal is minimum cost. The means to this is maximizing productivity. If minimum cost means not deploying technology that would allow people to work less, then business won't deploy that technology.

 

 

The goal of what?  One business in particular or the economy in general?   It’s been said that what is good for business is good for the economy but that isn’t always the case.   Take the following (albeit simple) example:

 

Company A needs workers with a specific skill set to perform 200 hours of work a week, doing whatever it is that the company does.   There are several ways they could accomplish this but let’s look at two ways:

 

Option #1:   Hire 5 workers.  They each work 40 hours a week.

Option #2:   Hire 4 workers.  They each work 50 hours a week.

 

Either way, there are 200 hours of work being performed.  For sake of discussion, let’s say these employees are all paid the same.

 

Which option is cheaper for the company?  Usually, it is Option #2.  

 

In addition to actual salaries and wages, employees cost a company a lot of overhead expenses.  This overhead comes in many forms:  benefits (if there are any), administrative costs for processing time cards, payroll deposits, tax withholding, and so forth.  Liability insurance costs money; more employees, higher insurance costs.   Physical space is usually an overhead cost.  Unless the company is totally telework, each employee needs a place to be in the workplace:  a cubicle, a place on the manufacturing floor, or whatever it is for that company.  By using 4 employees instead of 5, the company is saving the overhead costs of having a 5^th employee.

 

Which option is better for the economy?   Usually, it is Option #1.  

 

Under Option #1, the economy has 5 fully employed individuals who just might have some free time on their hands.  Having an income, these individuals could purchase and enjoy things that will boost the sales of other companies.  Buy stuff.  Take a trip somewhere.  Get a sailboat.   Get a project car to work on in the garage.   

 

Under Option #2, the economy has 4 individuals who are working overtime and 1 who is unemployed.  None of them are doing as much spending to boost the economy.   The four people who are working overtime don't have the time or energy to spend taking a trip or getting a sailboat or doing volunteer work.  Why bother getting a (–insert name of new gadget here –) if you don’t have the time to use it.   Meanwhile, the person who is unemployed has no extra money to spend on anything and is being a drain on economy because he is still eating food but not producing anything.

 

Downsizing by having fewer employees work longer hours might be good for the company but it is not doing the economy, the employees, or the edged-out wannabe employees any favors.

[hym 358]

 

This is confusing the goal with the means. The goal is minimum cost. The means to this is maximizing productivity. If minimum cost means not deploying technology that would allow people to work less, then business won't deploy that technology.

 

One business in particular or the economy in general?

 

That particular business.

 

While I agree with the point that you were making in your example, I think that reality makes this a much more complicated discussion.  For example, the company may have several employees who will work 50 hours a week regardless of actual need.  Might as well give them that work if you can.    It's also possible that you overburden your employees, but instead of asking for more help, they figure out how to cut the work down to less than 160 hours a week.  No need to hire a 5th person, and depending on their efficiency and loading, you may be able to pile more work on them.

[LexusInfernus 908]

This is confusing the goal with the means. The goal is minimum cost. The means to this is maximizing productivity. If minimum cost means not deploying technology that would allow people to work less, then business won't deploy that technology.

 

No, because we have been implementing those methods and means on a large scale as well. Since the industrial revolution we have constantly been implementing mechanical and technological methods to reduce the need for human labor. Before now it was mostly in the production related businesses, with robots taking over human labor. But now we are reaching a point where it will be cost effective to replace human white collar workers with robots or automated computer systems as well. Those jobs will disappear just like the jobs working at a conveyor belt have disappeared. Only this time we wont be creating a whole new area of work for people to go to. 

 

And this is problematic given our attitude towards work, namely that everyone who isn't work is little more than a lazy criminal genetic garbage waste of resources who is completely responsible and at fault for not having a job. This attitude is not only unfair when we are going to have a 25-75% structural unemployment rate because those jobs just ceased to exist, it will also cause friction between the unemployed and those who still have a job, resentment that will result in social instability and possibly the very end of American and European civilization. 

 

We MUST adapt our economic system and our political and financial policies towards unemployment and our overall attitude towards the unemployed if we want to survive as nations. We will need to teach ourselves to accept that not everyone works and can work anymore and we will need to teach ourselves how to still be 'productive' without actually having a job. 

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

<snip>

And here I thought thinking this was the 21st century where human dignity meant something and where we didn't all gang up on people because they don't have a job. 

 

The idea that people MUST work in order to live is an outdated concept. It applied at a moment where if people didn't work there simply wouldn't be enough food for everyone. But we have reached a point where we can produce everything in such sufficient numbers and quality by using the minimal amount of human labor that this idea simply no longer applies. We have been inventing methods that supposedly made work easier, more efficient and more productive while requiring less input from us, yet we are still demanding that everyone keeps working 40 hour work weeks or more. Why? This makes no $%&^! sense, we have the technology and the capabilities to reduce the amount of work that is needed so why dont we do that? 

 

What an utterly, utterly silly thing to say.  Socialist attitudes like this have caused major wars in the past.  If you are unable to work at anything (and there are lots of work at home schemes these days via your computer) well and good;  this is what the social safety net is for.  I don't believe in lazy slugs turning down jobs they can do because it is not in their basket-weaving field of work, even if it is carrying night-soil.

[LexusInfernus 908]

What an utterly, utterly silly thing to say.  Socialist attitudes like this have caused major wars in the past.  If you are unable to work at anything (and there are lots of work at home schemes these days via your computer) well and good;  this is what the social safety net is for.  I don't believe in lazy slugs turning down jobs they can do because it is not in their basket-weaving field of work, even if it is carrying night-soil.

 

Name one hot war where the 'socialist' attitude caused a war. 

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Well, other than the 'cold' war, we have to step back into history a bit.  How about the French Revolution?

[hym 358]

 

This is confusing the goal with the means. The goal is minimum cost. The means to this is maximizing productivity. If minimum cost means not deploying technology that would allow people to work less, then business won't deploy that technology.

 

No, because we have been implementing those methods and means on a large scale as well. Since the industrial revolution we have constantly been implementing mechanical and technological methods to reduce the need for human labor. Before now it was mostly in the production related businesses, with robots taking over human labor. But now we are reaching a point where it will be cost effective to replace human white collar workers with robots or automated computer systems as well. Those jobs will disappear just like the jobs working at a conveyor belt have disappeared. Only this time we wont be creating a whole new area of work for people to go to. 

 

And this is problematic given our attitude towards work, namely that everyone who isn't work is little more than a lazy criminal genetic garbage waste of resources who is completely responsible and at fault for not having a job. This attitude is not only unfair when we are going to have a 25-75% structural unemployment rate because those jobs just ceased to exist, it will also cause friction between the unemployed and those who still have a job, resentment that will result in social instability and possibly the very end of American and European civilization. 

 

We MUST adapt our economic system and our political and financial policies towards unemployment and our overall attitude towards the unemployed if we want to survive as nations. We will need to teach ourselves to accept that not everyone works and can work anymore and we will need to teach ourselves how to still be 'productive' without actually having a job. 

 

As I said, the goal is not to reduce the amount of work that is to be done.  The goal is to decrease the cost of doing that work.  When a company deploys a new technology to reduce the amount of time that its office workers spend performing task X, the goal isn't that those individuals work fewer hours.  The goal is to reduce the cost of performing X, and as a result, allow the company to get more work out of those same employees.  In general, when a company wants to reduce the amount of man-hours an office works, it lays people off.

 

To put it a different way, companies don't hire you to perform a task or set of tasks.  They hire you to perform a service, namely have your body in a chair for X hours a day to perform the work that the company is giving you.  If your intern finishes a week's worth of work in 3 hours simply because he is proficient with Excel, that doesn't mean he goes home for the week and gets a week's worth of pay.  It means your intern is very efficient, and you need to find something else for him to do.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

^ and while you are at it, consider this in his next performance review.  Probably needs a raise and a better position.

[nemusd 22]

Ladies and Gentlemen, I can see that you all are slowly heading towards Communism, or, better to say, Yugoslav socialism (which I think was the best model).

Greetings all, Have a beer on me,

Nemus

[47ply 1,100]

the way I see it to have a basic income for all. You will need to set a basic maximum cost of living. Meaning factor in what the min amount of utility's water heat and electricity and health care pre household. Now here is where everyone starts to scream. but wait.

After you set that parameter. Now you can start capitalism. If you goals desire the illusion of better health care "more expensive" as everyone is programed that more is better the biggest lie ever!!!! As a knee replacement is a knee replacement then you are encouraged to earn more to have that sense of higher wealth or privilege if you wish with out rising the price on the rest of us. that's what is call a luxury tax you impose on your self not a standard to be imposed on all, Some are spenders others are savers and some just wish to get by  

[AcmeSigns 97]

the way I see it to have a basic income for all. You will need to set a basic maximum cost of living. Meaning factor in what the min amount of utility's water heat and electricity and health care pre household.

 

Good luck with that. Utility rates can vary from city to city. Am I to assume that somehow, someone is going to be the arbitrator and dictate what those utility rates (some utilities are owned by the municipalities themselves) should be across the board? Wouldn't that amount to the end of free enterprise and the inception of Communism? If so...no thank you.

 

America has a motto...'Land of the free, home of the brave'. It's the 'Land of the free' part that I wish to retain. Without freedom, we are nothing but serfs. There are those that will argue that we don't really have freedom in this country and yet I have the freedom to choose: who I vote for, where I shop, what I purchase, where I travel, what I read, which religious path I follow, to be a gun owner (or not) and any number of other 'freedoms' as long as I do not cause injury to another, without any form of government 'permission'. How many other countries come to mind where all of these things are possible? I'm not willing to trade my freedoms for some form of social equality just to please those that have less (or even those that have more).

 

America has been called a 'melting pot'. Well, isn't that what the definition of a 'melting pot' is...a whole made up of a bunch of different/dissimilar parts? If we're all the same we may as well start braying.

[47ply 1,100]

how you miss the point of what I said you are free to pick anything you wish I am just saying privatized utilities don't work. when the goal is to provided basic human needs!!! That way the price can be controlled for basics if you want more you are free to go forth and get it

[Duke87 1,070]

You don't need something to be government run to control the price. Electric and gas services in New York state are (with a few exceptions) run by for-profit companies, but the rates they charge their customers are set by the Public Service Commission (a government agency), and the rate structures are all publicly available online.

[LexusInfernus 908]

Well, other than the 'cold' war, we have to step back into history a bit.  How about the French Revolution?

The Cold War wasnt the result of socialist attitudes, it was the result of two ideological systems declaring the other ideological system to be 'the enemy' and the resulting fear that the other would attack first. And the French revolution had again nothing to do with the actual socialist attitudes of anyone, that was basically food riots gone bad. Please try again and give me proof to back up your statement

 

As I said, the goal is not to reduce the amount of work that is to be done.  The goal is to decrease the cost of doing that work.  When a company deploys a new technology to reduce the amount of time that its office workers spend performing task X, the goal isn't that those individuals work fewer hours.  The goal is to reduce the cost of performing X, and as a result, allow the company to get more work out of those same employees.  In general, when a company wants to reduce the amount of man-hours an office works, it lays people off.

 

To put it a different way, companies don't hire you to perform a task or set of tasks.  They hire you to perform a service, namely have your body in a chair for X hours a day to perform the work that the company is giving you.  If your intern finishes a week's worth of work in 3 hours simply because he is proficient with Excel, that doesn't mean he goes home for the week and gets a week's worth of pay.  It means your intern is very efficient, and you need to find something else for him to do.

 

So we have been creating more and more, faster and faster, without any tangible benefit to ourselves. The only people that have benefited from this system is the elite that sits at the top raking in the cash. I think its high time we change that around. Less work for us and more money into our pockets. Its possible. Its economically probably even better if we do that. More money in the pockets of the consumer means more consumption. More consumption is good for the economy. 

 

Good luck with that. Utility rates can vary from city to city. Am I to assume that somehow, someone is going to be the arbitrator and dictate what those utility rates (some utilities are owned by the municipalities themselves) should be across the board? Wouldn't that amount to the end of free enterprise and the inception of Communism? If so...no thank you.

 

America has a motto...'Land of the free, home of the brave'. It's the 'Land of the free' part that I wish to retain. Without freedom, we are nothing but serfs. There are those that will argue that we don't really have freedom in this country and yet I have the freedom to choose: who I vote for, where I shop, what I purchase, where I travel, what I read, which religious path I follow, to be a gun owner (or not) and any number of other 'freedoms' as long as I do not cause injury to another, without any form of government 'permission'. How many other countries come to mind where all of these things are possible? I'm not willing to trade my freedoms for some form of social equality just to please those that have less (or even those that have more).

 

America has been called a 'melting pot'. Well, isn't that what the definition of a 'melting pot' is...a whole made up of a bunch of different/dissimilar parts? If we're all the same we may as well start braying.

 

How is giving everyone a basic allowance going to infringe on any of those freedoms you mentioned? And no, having your utilities controlled by a single organ is not the end of free enterprise or the start of communism. Not every deviation from the current situation is automatically communism. You guys really should stop buying into that republican/conservative nonsense. 

[hym 358]

So we have been creating more and more, faster and faster, without any tangible benefit to ourselves. The only people that have benefited from this system is the elite that sits at the top raking in the cash.

 

The general populace has benefited also.  The drive for increased productivity is a big part of why we aren't still stuck in the 1700s where 70% of people are working on farms from sunrise to sunset just to have enough food to feed the family.

 

 

I think its high time we change that around. Less work for us and more money into our pockets. Its possible. Its economically probably even better if we do that. More money in the pockets of the consumer means more consumption. More consumption is good for the economy. 

 

Realistically, if I'm running an office of employees and my labor costs suddenly double, the first thing I'm doing is finding the sales department and telling them that they had better start drumming up a lot of work very quickly, or they are all going to lose their jobs.  The next thing I'm doing is cutting ancillary staff to the absolute lowest level necessary to keep the office functioning.  The rest of the employees are getting their pay cut in half to reflect that their value has been halved and I'm closing the office for the second half of the day to cut the costs of running the office (lighting, AC, etc.).  Afterward, I'm going to start looking at hiring more employees to pick up the slack left by the half that had their hours cut, plus whatever extra people need to be hired to pick up any slack in any extra work that the sales team may have successfully procured.  From there, it is a mad push to automate and standardize as much of the work as possible and fire as many of those employees I never wanted in the first place.  Hopefully, I can fire all of them, and keep the office permanently closed half the day.  Once it is all over and we appear to have reached a steady state that we can realistically expect to maintain, I will give everyone a bonus as a "sorry for all the hassle and thanks for sticking around" and a 10% raise so I can say that they are technically coming out better than they were before.  I'm also giving myself a fat bonus for managing to save the company from the people in Washington who thought this was a good idea.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

I think that this introduction to Marxism has gone far enough.  Next we'll be hearing about the dictatorship of the proletariat.  Such a system failed in a 90 year experiment called the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, which being ideologically opposed by the old empires and the new American would be emperors led us to the present state.

 

Now that we have the bear in chains, are we going to drum up a new tiger to keep the plebs in line?  What is really being proposed is a subsistence economy.  Some people think governments are wealthy when, in fact, governments have nothing.  The ruled cede the taxation power to governments, and that is the only power that governments really have.  We need a new system, not a new welfare state.

 

Remember that the rulers rule with the consent of the ruled.

[hamsterTK 93]

Even if such a thing worked, politically it would be hard to support. People who are opposed to welfare are emotionally motivated by descriptions of poor people as being lazy.

 

My solution for the "robots take everyone's job" future is for government to fund a lot of public domain science and technology and buy a ton of patents and then liberate them. Then these magic stuff machines that threaten the structure of society become free or affordable for everyone. You wouldn't need to be smart to use them because of AI.

 

The end game here is a Star Trek future, right? I can still work for a living if you supply me "the means of production".

 

The big threat of course will be large corporations and trade agreements that will try to limit public competition by blocking the creation of public intellectual property.

[LexusInfernus 908]

The general populace has benefited also.  The drive for increased productivity is a big part of why we aren't still stuck in the 1700s where 70% of people are working on farms from sunrise to sunset just to have enough food to feed the family.

Yes and no. People benefited but naturally from the increased productivity itself. They benefited because governments had to step in and tell capitalist to pay people a fair wage. Mind you that for most of the 19th century people could produce much more than ever before but they were still only paid just enough to not starve to death. 

 

And that benefit ended when Reagan and Thatcher came into power. For the past 30 years no one has had an effective wage raise, even though productivity has only increased. 

 

 

Realistically, if I'm running an office of employees and my labor costs suddenly double, the first thing I'm doing is finding the sales department and telling them that they had better start drumming up a lot of work very quickly, or they are all going to lose their jobs.  The next thing I'm doing is cutting ancillary staff to the absolute lowest level necessary to keep the office functioning.  The rest of the employees are getting their pay cut in half to reflect that their value has been halved and I'm closing the office for the second half of the day to cut the costs of running the office (lighting, AC, etc.).  Afterward, I'm going to start looking at hiring more employees to pick up the slack left by the half that had their hours cut, plus whatever extra people need to be hired to pick up any slack in any extra work that the sales team may have successfully procured.  From there, it is a mad push to automate and standardize as much of the work as possible and fire as many of those employees I never wanted in the first place.  Hopefully, I can fire all of them, and keep the office permanently closed half the day.  Once it is all over and we appear to have reached a steady state that we can realistically expect to maintain, I will give everyone a bonus as a "sorry for all the hassle and thanks for sticking around" and a 10% raise so I can say that they are technically coming out better than they were before.  I'm also giving myself a fat bonus for managing to save the company from the people in Washington who thought this was a good idea.

 

Well no offense, but that just shows that you would make a horrible capitalist. Do you honestly think that paying people the lowest wages as is legally and technically possible is a good thing for you, your company, and the economy? Its shortsighted thinking because you forget that your employees are also your consumers. If they don't get paid enough to live in a decent manner, they cannot buy your product or services. Because capitalists only care about the short term they do not realize that by not paying their workers enough, they are effectively killing the middle class and by killing the middle class, they are destroying their own consumer base. But their addiction to constantly higher profits blinds them to this. In the end though, raising wages to ensure that there is a healthy middle class only benefits capitalists in the long run. But yeah, who gives damn about the long run right?

 

And again, while productivity has been constantly increasing, wages have not. So effectively people can do much more in much less time, capitalists also regards them as much less valuable then ever before. Its an unfair and stupid attitude to have, and if it does not change soon, it will have major negative consequences for them. 

[jmsepe 2,038]

The thing is that CPI shows that inflation of necessary goods increases faster than the rate of the minimum wage. I don't think a basic income concept will work, giving everyone A's in the class without even considering the individual efforts will create confusion and chaos and in the long run decrease productivity. With that being said, I also don't agree of the huge income gap between rich and the poor but these social stratification have to exists. Someone will always have to till to the ground or else there will be no food on the table. Otherwise, we need to find another system but as long the triangle exists and those people remains sitting on the top, that would be impossible. In a capitalistic world, people are profit based and that's it. I would rather suggest that gradual shift to attain equal access to basic needs and human rights despite the differences in income is a good starting ground. 

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

^ That's why the system is broken.  Cost of Living increases in the minimum wage fail to keep pace with inflation.  Inflation is the bug that will eventually shake the machine apart from the positive feedback.  The machine is in sad shape right now and needs replacement not more band-aid fixes.