Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old 02-08-2019, 06:32 PM
Broomstick's Avatar
Broomstick Broomstick is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NW Indiana
Posts: 27,570
Quote:
Originally Posted by scr4 View Post
Am I the only on who thinks "those unwilling to work" refers to stay-at-home moms & dads?
Also those with physical disabilities, the mentally ill, those taking care of disabled family members, the old...
  #52  
Old 02-08-2019, 06:40 PM
RTFirefly RTFirefly is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 38,027
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
Look, I'm not an AOC fan. I think she would be largely laughed at and disregarded if she were a poster on this message board. But if the topic is something like whether health care and affordable housing should be available to all Americans, or just those with jobs, I'm going to side with making that available to everyone. And I mean everyone.
And I'm not gonna laugh at her because she's almost singlehandedly turned climate change into a top-tier issue for the first time since Obama's cap-and-trade bill died in the Senate back in 2009.

I don't know if her plan is the ideal pony plan, but I think it's up to critics to come up with better plans. One point Atrios makes frequently is that we often don't get a choice between the plan on the table and some ideal plan that's in our heads; we usually get a choice between the plan on the table versus doing nothing.

In 2019, of course, whatever passes the House will run into a brick wall in the shape of a tortoise shell on the other side of the Capitol: there's no way Mitch will allow the Senate to take up climate change legislation, no matter how good it is. So the rubber's going to hit the road in January 2021, if ever. But in the meantime, it's time for those who are concerned about climate change to either improve this plan, or present alternatives, so we can be ready for that moment when it gets here.
  #53  
Old 02-08-2019, 06:42 PM
Fiddle Peghead's Avatar
Fiddle Peghead Fiddle Peghead is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Harlem, New York, NY
Posts: 3,693
I love the immediate assumption by some when this first came out that the "unwilling to work" part is exactly, positively, abso-fucking-lutely what AOC wants, namely to support people on the government's dime, even if they want to sit around on their sorry asses watching "Wheel of Fortune" reruns all day. In addition to the fact that it never occurred to them to read the resolution first, to consider that maybe, just maybe the "overview" misstated something, and to immediately have their biases confirmed that AOC is the dumbest person ever to set foot in a legislative forum in history.

Last edited by Fiddle Peghead; 02-08-2019 at 06:43 PM. Reason: typo
  #54  
Old 02-08-2019, 06:46 PM
Fiddle Peghead's Avatar
Fiddle Peghead Fiddle Peghead is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Harlem, New York, NY
Posts: 3,693
Quote:
Originally Posted by octopus View Post
I thought the cow fart detail was humorous.
Oh, you mean you have a sense of humor? For some reason, I thought you were a Republican.

Last edited by Fiddle Peghead; 02-08-2019 at 06:46 PM.
  #55  
Old 02-08-2019, 06:49 PM
Fiddle Peghead's Avatar
Fiddle Peghead Fiddle Peghead is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Harlem, New York, NY
Posts: 3,693
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Stone View Post
The vast majority of of people, if given a free income, will spend their time watching TV, surfing the net, drinking, smoking pot, or otherwise just chilling.
Would your mom and dad have done that? Would you? If so, well, maybe you're onto something. If not, why would you ever assume you have any idea what other people would do in the same situation?
  #56  
Old 02-08-2019, 06:58 PM
Fiddle Peghead's Avatar
Fiddle Peghead Fiddle Peghead is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Harlem, New York, NY
Posts: 3,693
Sam Stone, to be clear, if you are talking about a million dollar income or the like, I might just agree. But if you are talking about a basic income covering just food and shelter, my question stands.

Last edited by Fiddle Peghead; 02-08-2019 at 06:59 PM.
  #57  
Old 02-08-2019, 07:08 PM
Dale Sams Dale Sams is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 4,396
Christ ...you guys are the reason Section 31 was created.
  #58  
Old 02-08-2019, 07:57 PM
Sam Stone Sam Stone is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 27,521
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiddle Peghead View Post
Would your mom and dad have done that? Would you? If so, well, maybe you're onto something. If not, why would you ever assume you have any idea what other people would do in the same situation?
If you must know, my father left us when I was two, and spent his life mostly sitting on a barstool. He lived in a room in the Elk's club. My mother worked her ass off, because that's how she was raised. But we were one of very few families in the neighborhood who were not on welfare. Most of my friends had mothers on welfare, and they mostly sat around and smoked and talked with each other all day, if they weren't parked in front of a TV watching their 'stories'.

And I knew plenty of young men who didn't work, or who only worked sporadically when they absolutely needed the money, then would blow off work for partying. Those are the ones I really worry about, because it was hard to live that way so most eventually figured out that they needed a career of some sort and straightened out. If they had had a UBI, that might not have happened.
  #59  
Old 02-08-2019, 08:05 PM
RTFirefly RTFirefly is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 38,027
Maybe this thread should be retitled to be about UBI, because it sure as hell isn't about the Green New Deal.
  #60  
Old 02-08-2019, 08:09 PM
Chingon Chingon is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: the hypersphere
Posts: 410
Quote:
Originally Posted by octopus View Post
I grew up in a similar neighborhood and you are 100% correct. I think everyone who has such lofty ideas of humanity ought to live a few years in a very economically depressed area and see for themselves the reality of human nature.
Oddly enough I was also raised in a similar neighborhood, and both of you are wrong.
  #61  
Old 02-08-2019, 08:09 PM
Kimera757 Kimera757 is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 417
The quote:

Quote:
Build on FDR’s second bill of rights by guaranteeing:
A job with a family-sustaining wage, family and medical leave, vacations, and retirement security
High-quality education, including higher education and trade schools
Clean air and water and access to nature
Healthy food
High-quality health care
Safe, affordable, adequate housing
Economic environment free of monopolies
Economic security for all who are unable or unwilling to work
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
The Green New Deal proposed by Ocasio-Cortez contains an interesting part: "Economic security for those unwilling to work."

There needs to be a strong social net for those who are unable to work or temporarily out of work, no doubt. But for those who are unwilling to work, this opens up a huge can of worms.
I agree with this criticism. There are quite a few people apparently living with family and not working (and not paying rent). Some of them are unpaid caregivers, some are mentally or physically ill, but others are just leeches. They wouldn't qualify for welfare, but they are still tolerated.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
This appears to be a manufactured outrage by the right wing, as the words "unwilling to work" do not appear in the legislation, but only in her press release
Why would she put that in her press release? That's the thing people pay more attention to. This is political malpractice. Next time she needs to hire an editor.

Last edited by Kimera757; 02-08-2019 at 08:09 PM.
  #62  
Old 02-08-2019, 10:35 PM
Jas09 Jas09 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 5,673
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimera757 View Post
Why would she put that in her press release? That's the thing people pay more attention to. This is political malpractice. Next time she needs to hire an editor.
Maybe it was not an accident? You may not be entirely in touch with the popularity of such a proposal. One potential cite: https://www.thenation.com/article/un...tical-reality/

You may notice the overwhelming support from African American voters and fair support from working-class whites.

A progressive and populist agenda may be exactly the thing Democrats are looking for in 2020. It will give college-educated whites and fiscal conservatives the willies (myself included in many cases), but it's possible Trump has burned his bridges with suburban college-educated whites to the point that this kind of platform can win nation-wide.

I could see this being a sort of trial-balloon by including it in the press release. Something that can easily be walked back or refuted by Harris, Booker, Warren et al (who have signed up for the GND resolution) but if it catches on could be picked up as well.
  #63  
Old 02-08-2019, 10:58 PM
eschereal's Avatar
eschereal eschereal is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Frogstar World B
Posts: 15,620
Here is a data point, so to speak:

Housing the homeless is cheaper than not doing so

Why waste money in order to make people suffer?
  #64  
Old 02-08-2019, 11:23 PM
octopus's Avatar
octopus octopus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 8,009
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chingon View Post
Oddly enough I was also raised in a similar neighborhood, and both of you are wrong.
Don’t think so. How can I be wrong about my own anecdote? You mean to tell me that in a terribly depressed neighborhood people weren’t wasting time getting drunk and high and were actually unrealized Mozart’s and Tchaikovsky’s that just needed a grant? That girls weren’t having 2 or 3 children by the age of 18? What slum did you live in? Sounds like a nice place.

Now nowhere in my post did I say everyone who was poor was unwilling to work. But to think that that attitude is rare in those environments is naive or myopic.
  #65  
Old 02-08-2019, 11:28 PM
TimeWinder TimeWinder is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Albany/Corvallis, OR
Posts: 4,620
Quote:
Originally Posted by eschereal View Post
Why waste money in order to make people suffer?
Clearly you are not a conservative.
  #66  
Old 02-08-2019, 11:46 PM
Gatopescado's Avatar
Gatopescado Gatopescado is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: on your last raw nerve
Posts: 21,241
Work is highly overrated.
  #67  
Old 02-09-2019, 12:03 AM
eschereal's Avatar
eschereal eschereal is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Frogstar World B
Posts: 15,620
Preach!
  #68  
Old 02-09-2019, 02:59 AM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster GIGObuster is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 28,354
Quote:
Originally Posted by eschereal View Post
Here is a data point, so to speak:

Housing the homeless is cheaper than not doing so

Why waste money in order to make people suffer?
That link does not work, here is one that goes to the point:

https://www.vox.com/2014/5/30/576409...s-than-to-keep
Quote:
Giving housing to the homeless is three times cheaper than leaving them on the streets
  #69  
Old 02-09-2019, 03:08 AM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster GIGObuster is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 28,354
Here is another data point:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.aeab6e775208
Quote:
The remarkable thing that happens to poor kids when you give their parents a little money

Twenty years ago, a group of researchers began tracking the personalities of 1,420 low income children in North Carolina. At the time, the goal was simple: to observe the mental conditions of kids living in rural America. But then a serendipitous thing happened.

Four years into The Great Smoky Mountains Study of Youth, the families of roughly a quarter of the children saw a dramatic and unexpected increase in annual income. They were members of the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians, and a casino had just been built on the reservation. From that point on every tribal citizen earned a share of the profits, meaning about an extra $4,000 a year per capita.
Quote:
As part of the original study, the children and parents were asked a series of questions, designed to measure, among other things, a number of personality traits. The same questions were posed every other year, for a decade. Akee's goal was to observe any changes—positive or negative—resulting from the extra household income. Their findings, published by the National Bureau of Economic Research last month, are nothing short of remarkable.

"This was hugely important to the development of the children, to their wellbeing” said Akee. "And the effect wasn’t small either—it was actually fairly large."
Quote:
They know, based on the interviews with parents, that the relationship between spouses tended to improve as a result. They also know that the relationship between the parents and their children tended to improve. And they know that parents tended to drink less alcohol.

"There is a lot of literature that shows in order to change outcomes among children you are best off treating the parents first," said Simeonova. "And these are really clear changes in the parents."

There's also the question of stress, which the extra money helps relieve—even if only a little. While the added income wasn't enough to allow parents to quit their jobs, it's a base level that helped with rent and food and other basic expenses. That, Akee said, is powerful enough itself.

"We know that the thing poor couples fight about the most is money," he said. "Off the bat, this means a more harmonious family environment."

And some of the families, given the boost, even moved to areas with slightly better census tracts in terms of both income and education. They were, in other words, able to expose their children to a different group of peers.
  #70  
Old 02-09-2019, 03:51 AM
Heffalump and Roo Heffalump and Roo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,050
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Stone View Post
I grew up in a family of blue collar laborers. I was the only kid in my whole extended family to go to college. To people like that, work isn't 'empowering', it's what you have to do to survive. It's hard, dirty work that is no fun at all. But it's necessary work, and it's honorable. Those people have no dreams of being writers or artists - they have dreams of having a boat and fishing instead of working, or just being able to watch TV and drink a few beers.
It would make sense for people who did hard, dirty work not to be motivated to do it.

A couple questions.

How did you (or someone like you if you don't want to share personal information) take a different path than the people who no longer have dreams? That might give lessons on how others could do it.

What would be wrong with those people fishing on a boat or watching TV and drinking beers all day? (You may have partially answered in the next post I'm quoting. Is that the total answer?) I'm not saying they should. I'm just wondering about the downside if they did.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Stone View Post
The utility curve of money means that if you gave people a UBI, they would demand to be paid even more for the same work. $30K per year when you're making zero looks a lot different than an additional $30K when you're already getting a $25K UBI. If I absolutely need a job, and I can get one at Tim Horton's for $25K per year and nothing else, well, I'll take that job. But if I'm already getting $25K without working at all, doubling it to 50K at the expense of having to work every day is going to look a lot different.

And if you are going to means-test the UBI in any way, rather than sending a check every month to Jeff Bezos, there will come a point where the marginal taxation of income in your new job makes it even less appealing. If every dollar I earn over, say, $100K gets clawed back out of my UBI 1:1, guess what? I'll never make more than $100K. And if you only claw it back at 50%, that's essentially a 50% marginal tax on income over $100K, on top of whatever other income taxes I might have to pay.
OK, how is this a negative to society?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Stone View Post
Then you have the problem that at first, a lot of people might be seduced by the money to just lay around. Then later they might get restless and want to work, but they'll find that their layoff from the job market makes them unemployable. Then they'll be stuck with UBI with no prospects for better.
Would a jobs guarantee program, along with free job training or free education help to solve that problem?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Stone View Post
Now ask yourself what would have happened if someone had said to them, "We feel your pain. It's impossible for you to survive without our help, so here is an income for life." What would have happened is that we would STILL have masses of people living on defunct farms, essentially on welfare, but convinced that their lives were hopeless. It would be a cruel thing to do to them in the long run.

We don't have to guess about this, because we've seen it played out over and over again in the inner cities, on native reservations, and anywhere else where people have been incentivized with free money to drop out of society and live off the public purse.
I'm still learning about UBI, so I've only seen people talk about a few studies. But one guy I saw talked about how giving money to everyone made UBI better than other systems of distribution even if that meant giving money back to millionaires and billionaires because if it was equal to everyone then the people at the bottom still had their dignity, which is one of the big problems of handout programs, which leave people stigmatized. UBI was seen as just pushing the level of subsistence up a notch.

Might that solve at least some of the problems in your examples?

Last edited by Heffalump and Roo; 02-09-2019 at 03:52 AM.
  #71  
Old 02-09-2019, 11:29 AM
eschereal's Avatar
eschereal eschereal is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Frogstar World B
Posts: 15,620
Quote:
Originally Posted by GIGObuster View Post
That link does not work, here is one that goes to the point:

https://www.vox.com/2014/5/30/576409...s-than-to-keep
Dammit, I have to pay attention to what I am doing. this was what I meant to link to. I have heard that Vox has a LW bias, not sure about phys•org.
  #72  
Old 02-09-2019, 12:50 PM
Frankenstein Monster Frankenstein Monster is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Europe
Posts: 644
Finland ran a two-year UBI experiment and the preliminary results of the first year are in.

Vox link

BBC link

The people in the experiment did not find more paid employment than the control group but neither did they find less. The former was a disappointment to some but the latter indicates that UBI does not make people lazy, either. Plus this only looked at official, government-reported paid work. It did not consider whether the people took more care of relatives, stayed with their children, helped their neighbours, volunteered, cooked and cleaned their homes better......

The other reported preliminary result was that the people in the experiment felt happier and healthier. I think the percentage difference was rather small. But surely a good and important (if obvious) outcome, too.

I think the survey didn't ask whether the participants sat on their sofas watching TV more. Would have been interesting if they had asked.

Last edited by Frankenstein Monster; 02-09-2019 at 12:53 PM.
  #73  
Old 02-09-2019, 01:14 PM
eschereal's Avatar
eschereal eschereal is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Frogstar World B
Posts: 15,620
A couple of RW sites are saying that Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has removed the faq from her official HoR website – but they are just showing a hastily assemble image of a 404, with no link to the missing page.
  #74  
Old 02-09-2019, 01:27 PM
BeenJammin BeenJammin is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Posts: 592
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Stone View Post
...they'll find that their layoff from the job market makes them unemployable. Then they'll be stuck with UBI with no prospects for better.
Panhandlers with lotsa bling.
  #75  
Old 02-09-2019, 02:06 PM
eschereal's Avatar
eschereal eschereal is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Frogstar World B
Posts: 15,620
Hmm, if society offers full economic security, why would there be panhandlers?
  #76  
Old 02-09-2019, 02:33 PM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster GIGObuster is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 28,354
Quote:
Originally Posted by eschereal View Post
Dammit, I have to pay attention to what I am doing. this was what I meant to link to. I have heard that Vox has a LW bias, not sure about phys•org.
Just more evidence that reality has a liberal bias.

More seriously, I know enough history to know that being closer to reality now is just a happy coincidence; eventually, some day, a political party other than the Democratic one will have more evidence to support most of their policies, it is just that right now the Republicans in power are running with the idiot ball and the idiot in chief.
  #77  
Old 02-09-2019, 03:10 PM
Brown Eyed Girl Brown Eyed Girl is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Outtastate
Posts: 4,534
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
The Green New Deal proposed by Ocasio-Cortez contains an interesting part: "Economic security for those unwilling to work."


There needs to be a strong social net for those who are unable to work or temporarily out of work, no doubt. But for those who are unwilling to work, this opens up a huge can of worms. Many workers in America - perhaps even the majority - do not enjoy their jobs and work their jobs only because they have to make financial ends meet. If we provide enough financial assistance that Americans who don't want to work, don't have to work another day in their lives, then many millions of people (especially, those who work in minimum-wage industries, such as janitors, fast food, cashiers etc) would retire on the spot. That would be catastrophic for the economy.

Perhaps one could argue that this is just another word for Universal Basic Income. But UBI would also be problematic if it is so generous that many people simply quit working altogether and leave a gaping hole in the workforce. (Unless Ocasio-Cortez is proposing massive automation that would let tens of millions of workers not have to work, but I don't think she is suggesting that at all.)
Oh my gosh, it might mean that employers would have to start paying people a living wage to retain their staff! That would be tragic!

So, I'm a career retail worker. I do it because I mostly enjoy what I do, I'm good at it and feel like I make an impact on the quality of my customers' experiences, and I find it's less stressful and more rewarding on a personal level. When our company did a wage adjustment to account for the fast-paced rise of cost-of-living vs. income, my wage went up slightly, but my hours went down significantly. This means I actually make less now after the raise than I did before. Still I'm told that if I want more hours, I have to keep my availability open. For those who try to juggle a second job with the same expectations, it's balancing act that often fails in some critical way. I haven't found a way to make it work yet.

We have no appreciable savings that doesn't routinely get tapped to cover bills or minor unexpected expenses. I get by but I can't afford a car, because when it broke down I couldn't afford to fix it or replace it. I have bikes to get around. I take cheap vacations backpacking in nearby forests. Though I'm insured, my credit is crap because medical care is costly after insurance pays. I have no consumer debt, all medical and I'm relatively healthy when we don't have to rely on food assistance. Because I'm not dirt poor, I still pay taxes, but I don't own a home and rent and utilities is near 65-70% of our income. We don't live in a hovel, but it's a meager space. Either one of us losing our job would be catastrophic. I went back to college (community) for awhile but did not complete because the financial stress on our household of a reduced income was too much to handle. I'm dumping as much as I can manage into my 401(k) because I'm scared about what my aged future looks like.

I have strong work ethic. I strive to make do my job as professionally and effectively as I can because I take pride in my efforts. But yeah, if I could earn the same amount of money I'm making now and spend my time on other pursuits like my volunteer work on trails or my efforts to advocate for safer bicycling infrastructure and improving livability in my community or going back to school to expand my knowledge and skills, I would leave my job in a heartbeat. But if they offered me more money to stay, so that my quality of life improved and I could afford to establish a nest egg for my future or maybe visit another country, that would probably be enough incentive to stay because again, I actually like my job. But just because I don't have a college degree and I'm not in a "professional" job, I'm not working out of the kindness of my heart. I don't owe my employer anymore loyalty than they owe me. The reality of life is that I have bills to pay that I can't avoid without being a homeless vagabond. I should at least be able to reap some reward for my hard work and dedication to doing a job well.
__________________
"I can't for the life of me understand what's so great about being stupid." ~ George Herbert Walker Bush
  #78  
Old 02-09-2019, 03:26 PM
k9bfriender k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 10,234
Quote:
Originally Posted by running coach View Post
Why the quote marks? I didn't say that. They're not paid what they're worth.
Few are. But that does not mean that they are not paid what they are worth based on what they are able to produce for their company
Quote:
I'll bet you wouldn't be too thrilled to clean the office bathroom yourself or wash your own dishes at a restaurant.
As a business owner, I find myself cleaning the bathroom nearly every night, and I've moved out of food service, but I did quite a number of dishes in my time.
Quote:
What the employer is willing to pay does not determine the employee's worth only the power the employer has over the employees.
What an employer is willing to pay is also related to what a customer is willing to pay for the product or service produced.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Stone View Post
Chronos, not everyone is a frustrated artist with an MFA working in an unsatisfying job. The vast majority of of people, if given a free income, will spend their time watching TV, surfing the net, drinking, smoking pot, or otherwise just chilling.

I grew up in a welfare neighborhood, and I never saw anyone on welfare following their dreams to be an artist. I DID see a lot of people sitting around on sofas smoking, drinking, and watching TV.
That's because you were there, with them, sitting around on sofas, smoking, drinking, and watching TV. You were not there with the other people who were not doing these things.

This is called sampling bias.
Quote:
The idea that we will become a nation of artists and thinkers is ridiculous.
I don't see why. I know a number of people who are writing books or short stories or poems or screenplays who do not have the time to devote to doing them well, as they spend 40-60 hours a week in a poor paying job that completely drains them of energy, both physically and mentally.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Broomstick View Post
Then again, if employers can not convince anyone to do a particular job for what the employers consider a "fair" wage the employers just might have to raise wages sufficiently to attract workers willing to do that job.
Which means raising prices.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Stone View Post
The utility curve of money means that if you gave people a UBI, they would demand to be paid even more for the same work. $30K per year when you're making zero looks a lot different than an additional $30K when you're already getting a $25K UBI. If I absolutely need a job, and I can get one at Tim Horton's for $25K per year and nothing else, well, I'll take that job. But if I'm already getting $25K without working at all, doubling it to 50K at the expense of having to work every day is going to look a lot different.
So, what you are saying is that with a UBI, an employee and an employer are coming together in the labor market as equals, rather than the employer having the majority of the negotiating power? That's not a bad thing, IMHO.
Quote:
And if you are going to means-test the UBI in any way, rather than sending a check every month to Jeff Bezos, there will come a point where the marginal taxation of income in your new job makes it even less appealing. If every dollar I earn over, say, $100K gets clawed back out of my UBI 1:1, guess what? I'll never make more than $100K. And if you only claw it back at 50%, that's essentially a 50% marginal tax on income over $100K, on top of whatever other income taxes I might have to pay.
Right, but what you are saying is that if we implement it poorly, then it will be poorly implemented.

Even without UBI, I am against most of the cliffs that exist. I have employees complain about making "too much" money, as that will cause them to be disqualified from benefits, and the amount of money that I am paying them over that doesn't make up for it.

I see no reason to have "claw backs" at all.
Quote:
Then you have the problem that at first, a lot of people might be seduced by the money to just lay around. Then later they might get restless and want to work, but they'll find that their layoff from the job market makes them unemployable. Then they'll be stuck with UBI with no prospects for better.
The would only be unemployable if they lost skills. Your first complaint is that everyone will stop working, leaving the work force empty, then you complain that if people come back to work, then they will not be hireable because they have a gap in their resume.

If it comes to pass as you say, that the labor market is devastated by people laying about collecting UBI, then a gap in a resume will not prevent an employer from hiring a desperately needed employee.

A gap in a resume is a black mark to some employers now because it is not common. If it is common that people take a year or two off from time to time, then such a gap would not be remarkable.
  #79  
Old 02-09-2019, 04:35 PM
Budget Player Cadet's Avatar
Budget Player Cadet Budget Player Cadet is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 8,814
So here's something weird.

https://twitter.com/JStein_WaPo/stat...38690782646272

Quote:

Incredibly strange dynamic rn. A zillion outlets have run w/ GND = mystery FAQ sheet, which includes things like $ for those "unwilling to work"

But thats not in the plan the Senators signed off on. Now AOC is retweeting her adviser telling Fox the sheet is itself not theirs
And AOC responds:

Quote:

There are multiple doctored GND resolutions and FAQs floating around. There was also a draft version that got uploaded + taken down. There’s also draft versions floating out there.

Point is, the real one is our submitted resolution, H.Res. 109: https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-...ution/109/text

Full text here: https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-...ution/109/text When I talk about the GND, this is what I’m referring to - nothing else.
So... That's interesting. It seems like this isn't actually in the text of the bill (ctrl+f "work" and "economic security" both came up with nothing like what the articles describe).

I'd like to think the multiple news outlets who reported on this were going off of something, but this particular controversial proposal is not in the bill itself, and has been disavowed by AOC, so... definitely not something to actually be concerned about.
  #80  
Old 02-09-2019, 04:43 PM
Fiddle Peghead's Avatar
Fiddle Peghead Fiddle Peghead is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Harlem, New York, NY
Posts: 3,693
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Stone View Post
If you must know, my father left us when I was two, and spent his life mostly sitting on a barstool. He lived in a room in the Elk's club. My mother worked her ass off, because that's how she was raised. But we were one of very few families in the neighborhood who were not on welfare. Most of my friends had mothers on welfare, and they mostly sat around and smoked and talked with each other all day, if they weren't parked in front of a TV watching their 'stories'.

And I knew plenty of young men who didn't work, or who only worked sporadically when they absolutely needed the money, then would blow off work for partying. Those are the ones I really worry about, because it was hard to live that way so most eventually figured out that they needed a career of some sort and straightened out. If they had had a UBI, that might not have happened.
This is purely anecdotal evidence. Now, in my hometown, I did not see this. I saw that most people were raised to work their asses off too, including my mom, and my Dad, who literally never called in sick a day of his life. Also anecdotal evidence.

Last edited by Fiddle Peghead; 02-09-2019 at 04:44 PM.
  #81  
Old 02-09-2019, 04:53 PM
Snowboarder Bo's Avatar
Snowboarder Bo Snowboarder Bo is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 24,904
Quote:
Originally Posted by Airbeck View Post
You have such a terrible opinion of humanity.
And a serious non-understanding of what poverty does to a person, their outlook, their ability to conceive of a future (let alone plan for one) and a whole host of other related issues.
  #82  
Old 02-09-2019, 05:46 PM
Dacien Dacien is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2018
Posts: 306
Interesting turn of events over the last 24 hours.

AOC puts up a FAQ on her website describing economic security for those "unwilling to work".

They change this pretty much overnight to say simply, "Economic security for all", removing the "unwilling to work" line. Policy Adviser to AOC comes on to Tucker Carlson to pretend it never existed, and suggests Republicans doctored the document. Finally, AOC herself says it was just an early draft that accidentally got posted.

Credit to @AG_Conservative for pointing this out, but this is not unlike Trump's Muslim Ban that was unpalatable at first, then was changed to something more defensible, and afterwards they tried to pretend like the first version never happened. The only difference is in how the media will cover it.

Last edited by Dacien; 02-09-2019 at 05:47 PM.
  #83  
Old 02-09-2019, 06:20 PM
eschereal's Avatar
eschereal eschereal is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Frogstar World B
Posts: 15,620
Odd, though. When you use the web archive site, it does show up, but there is no link-path to it from anywhere else on her subdomain. Someone must have been watching her verrrry closely.
  #84  
Old 02-09-2019, 06:47 PM
Budget Player Cadet's Avatar
Budget Player Cadet Budget Player Cadet is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 8,814
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dacien View Post
Credit to @AG_Conservative for pointing this out, but this is not unlike Trump's Muslim Ban that was unpalatable at first, then was changed to something more defensible, and afterwards they tried to pretend like the first version never happened.
...No...? Not at all? This is yet another extremely misguided comparison between AOC and Trump that makes no sense. There's a difference between "we're still unsure about what goes in the draft of our law's PR page and the wrong version went up for a few minutes" and "we want to ban Muslims, our legal strategy is predicated on pretending that this isn't actually what we want to do, let's keep modifying it bit by bit until the courts can't strike it down".

Why are people so eager to force this bizarre comparison? AOC is not actually a whole lot like Trump.
  #85  
Old 02-09-2019, 06:56 PM
Jas09 Jas09 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 5,673
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dacien View Post
Credit to @AG_Conservative for pointing this out, but this is not unlike Trump's Muslim Ban that was unpalatable at first, then was changed to something more defensible, and afterwards they tried to pretend like the first version never happened. The only difference is in how the media will cover it.
I have no idea why folks are comparing Universal Basic Income, a relatively mainstream Democratic Socialist policy that is being testing in the real world right now (and is very similar to a Negative Income Tax which was supported by Milton F'in Friedman) to something like the Muslim Ban.

I get that many fiscal conservatives and especially Libertarians don't like UBI (and I'm not sure I'm 100% sold on it either), but it's not completely whack-a-doodle either. And it is rather popular across the political spectrum, particularly in some of the white working class areas that Trump swung away from the Democrats in 2016. Economic populism will always sell.

It seems pretty clear that AOC, and likely a few others in the progressive caucus support UBI. It also seems like she (or her staffers) tried to shoe-horn it in the GND and it got yanked. But this idea that UBI somehow paints AOC as crazy is absurd.
  #86  
Old 02-09-2019, 06:58 PM
Gatopescado's Avatar
Gatopescado Gatopescado is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: on your last raw nerve
Posts: 21,241
Quote:
Originally Posted by eschereal View Post
When you use the web archive site, it does show up, but there is no link-path to it from anywhere else on her subdomain.
Sometimes I wished I knew what this meant.
  #87  
Old 02-09-2019, 07:34 PM
bump bump is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 16,816
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm View Post
Human beings are not just a commodity like any other. They're not oil or steel or electricity; they're human beings.

Economies exist to serve the needs of people, not the other way around. Thinking of people as a commodity can lead to a very dark place.

I don't have all of the answers and I don't know if a UBI is a workable economic model but I do know that in a post-scarcity world it's wrong to let market forces alone determine people's fate.
There's a big difference between thinking of people as a commodity, and recognizing that people's (in the aggregate) labor behaves much as any other good with respect to market forces.

All this stuff about dignity, etc... is kind of orthogonal to whether or not labor behaves as a market (which it definitely does).
  #88  
Old 02-09-2019, 07:40 PM
eschereal's Avatar
eschereal eschereal is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Frogstar World B
Posts: 15,620
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatopescado View Post
Sometimes I wished I knew what this meant.
It means that you would have to know the exact url of the page in order to see it. Its presence was advertised nowhere.
  #89  
Old 02-09-2019, 07:47 PM
eschereal's Avatar
eschereal eschereal is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Frogstar World B
Posts: 15,620
Here is the archive of the page that was taken down. You can see that it is significantly different from the pdf that was being circulated.
  #90  
Old 02-10-2019, 02:37 AM
Evil Economist Evil Economist is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 4,074
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Stone View Post
My favorite is the plan to replace all air travel with high speed rail.
Quote:
Originally Posted by scr4 View Post
What it actually says is:
Quote:
(H) overhauling transportation systems in the United States to remove pollution and greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation sector as much as is technologically feasible, including through investment in—
(i) zero-emission vehicle infrastructure and manufacturing;
(ii) clean, affordable, and accessible public transit; and
(iii) high-speed rail
Sam Stone, could you clarify for me? It seems as though you're pretty badly misrepresenting what was in the bill. Was this because: 1) the bit you claimed was in the bill actually is in the bill, but in a different area (and if so, could you quote it); 2) you honestly thought the bit you claimed was in the bill was in the bill, you just didn't understand it; or 3) you deliberately misrepresented what was in the bill?

Is there another alternative explanation I'm missing?
__________________
According to the Anti-Defamation League, "In 2018, domestic extremists killed at least 50 people in the US, a sharp increase from the 37 extremist-related murders documented in 2017....every single extremist killing — from Pittsburgh to Parkland — had a link to right-wing extremism."

Last edited by Evil Economist; 02-10-2019 at 02:37 AM.
  #91  
Old 02-10-2019, 03:35 AM
Ambivalid's Avatar
Ambivalid Ambivalid is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: In my head
Posts: 13,415
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jas09 View Post
I have no idea why folks are comparing Universal Basic Income, a relatively mainstream Democratic Socialist policy that is being testing in the real world right now (and is very similar to a Negative Income Tax which was supported by Milton F'in Friedman) to something like the Muslim Ban.

I get that many fiscal conservatives and especially Libertarians don't like UBI (and I'm not sure I'm 100% sold on it either), but it's not completely whack-a-doodle either. And it is rather popular across the political spectrum, particularly in some of the white working class areas that Trump swung away from the Democrats in 2016. Economic populism will always sell.

It seems pretty clear that AOC, and likely a few others in the progressive caucus support UBI. It also seems like she (or her staffers) tried to shoe-horn it in the GND and it got yanked. But this idea that UBI somehow paints AOC as crazy is absurd.
Universal Basic Income strikes me as a lazy, unengaged and wasteful method of trying to lift people out of/prevent poverty without really ever having to understand why those people are in poverty in the first place, what keeps them in poverty and what such lifelong predicaments have influenced outside of the crunchable numbers and dollar figures.
  #92  
Old 02-10-2019, 04:23 AM
Broomstick's Avatar
Broomstick Broomstick is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NW Indiana
Posts: 27,570
A really basic cause of poverty is people unable to find work that pays a living wage. That part of it isn't rocket science. It might stem from living in an economically depressed area, or having skills that, while adequate for a decade or two, are now obsolete due to outsourcing and/or automation. Additional factors are things like physical or mental disabilities that make getting and keeping a job much harder.

Why people are poor, and how long they're poor, aren't really deep unfathomable mysteries.
  #93  
Old 02-10-2019, 05:24 AM
Budget Player Cadet's Avatar
Budget Player Cadet Budget Player Cadet is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 8,814
Quote:
Originally Posted by Evil Economist View Post
Sam Stone, could you clarify for me? It seems as though you're pretty badly misrepresenting what was in the bill. Was this because: 1) the bit you claimed was in the bill actually is in the bill, but in a different area (and if so, could you quote it); 2) you honestly thought the bit you claimed was in the bill was in the bill, you just didn't understand it; or 3) you deliberately misrepresented what was in the bill?

Is there another alternative explanation I'm missing?
I can't speak for Sam Stone, but my favorite part about the bill is that we've apparently collectively forgotten (well, okay, some of us have forgotten) that over the past decade or two, there has been a consistent drive by those against action on climate change to intentionally misinform the public. To intentionally downplay the costs and consequences of climate change (when not outright denying that it's happening at all) while dismissing any attempt to mitigate or address the issue as impossibly expensive, laughable, socialism, et cetera. They have no compulsion to be honest, no interest in honest debate, and are absolutely willing to lie their asses off in defense of their financial interests.

And we're seeing that again here. The right-wing line on the Green New Deal is... I think it's fair to say mostly bullshit. There may be the odd real critique in there, but for the most part? Expect a ton of intentional misinformation and propaganda surrounding this - just like there was for every single other proposal we've ever seen having to do with climate change. Because this is how they work. Oil companies know what they're doing, and they're good at it. So if you can't personally validate any given negative take on this law (by, say, citing the actual text of the article), you should take it as a given that it's probably bullshit.

Just like this thread - the premise of this thread was based on an unpublished PR blurb that was retracted, had nothing to do with the actual proposed text, and which everyone from CNBC to Tucker Carlson picked up and fucking ran with as though it was the most important thing about this resolution. It's not. It's not even in the text, so it's probably not the most important thing here.

On a side note, while I was looking up articles about this, I came across this little piece of absolute fucking dog shit.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/202...g-private-jets
Top Democrats running for president in 2020 have jumped on and endorsed Democratic Socialist Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s radical Green New Deal that aims, among other things, to eliminate air travel.

But the elimination of air travel strikes particularly close to the homes of Sens. Kirsten Gillibrand, Cory Booker, Bernie Sanders, and Kamala Harris – all of whom extensively used air travel, including private jets – throughout the years in office.
So we take the lie that the bill wants to eliminate air travel as a given, and then add an extra helping of noxious bullshit in the typical "You want to improve society? But you LIVE in society! Checkmate, socialist!" canard that for some reason people find convincing. And its just so fucking stupid.
Yet Harris herself is far from following what she preaches. Since 2015, her campaign has spent around $300,000 on air travel.

Harris’ FEC records also show that she spent less than $7,000 on trains, even though the Green New Deal proposes making trains the main means of transport “at a scale where air travel stops becoming necessary.”
If you cannot figure out what's wrong with the above two paragraphs, please, do us all a favor, don't vote. Or breed. I mean... Yikes. "Gosh, I can't imagine why a politician endorsing a bill to massively upgrade our rail system would have spent much more money on air travel than on our shitty, basically non-existent trains!" It boggles the mind, truly.

It's our job to, collectively, not fall for this shit. We have 12 years to do something about climate change before the more extreme effects become inescapable. The cost of climate change is calculated in the trillions. Is the Green New Deal perfect? Probably not. It's not binding legislation, either - rather, it's a resolution for things for the house to address with legislation, with many of the details to be ironed out. It is, however, the first thing even approaching a real attempt to grapple with the problem. It is the first attempt at legislation that even comes close to recognizing the scope of the problem. And if we don't deal with the problem... Well, fuck everyone younger than 40, I guess.
  #94  
Old 02-10-2019, 05:39 AM
Ambivalid's Avatar
Ambivalid Ambivalid is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: In my head
Posts: 13,415
Quote:
Originally Posted by Broomstick View Post
A really basic cause of poverty is people unable to find work that pays a living wage. That part of it isn't rocket science. It might stem from living in an economically depressed area, or having skills that, while adequate for a decade or two, are now obsolete due to outsourcing and/or automation. Additional factors are things like physical or mental disabilities that make getting and keeping a job much harder.

Why people are poor, and how long they're poor, aren't really deep unfathomable mysteries.
I think that UBI is a lazy ineffective approach because I dont see it being proposed as part of a comprehensive plan to combat poverty but as more of a stand-alone idea. I cam see it being a positive tool when used as as one facet of a larger vision for ending poverty. But I never really hear much of substance about that larger vision.

Last edited by Ambivalid; 02-10-2019 at 05:41 AM.
  #95  
Old 02-10-2019, 07:17 AM
Heffalump and Roo Heffalump and Roo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,050
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ambivalid View Post
I think that UBI is a lazy ineffective approach because I dont see it being proposed as part of a comprehensive plan to combat poverty but as more of a stand-alone idea. I cam see it being a positive tool when used as as one facet of a larger vision for ending poverty. But I never really hear much of substance about that larger vision.
Could you explain a bit more what you mean by a larger vision? Or maybe who is proposing it as a standalone idea?

Your question is in a thread on the Green New Deal which is a plan to add more jobs to the economy to help combat poverty. That's more comprehensive than straight UBI.
  #96  
Old 02-10-2019, 09:39 AM
Jas09 Jas09 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 5,673
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ambivalid View Post
Universal Basic Income strikes me as a lazy, unengaged and wasteful method of trying to lift people out of/prevent poverty without really ever having to understand why those people are in poverty in the first place, what keeps them in poverty and what such lifelong predicaments have influenced outside of the crunchable numbers and dollar figures.
I don't necessarily disagree, but I think that one of the most fundamental causes of poverty is, to be blunt, lack of money. When folks have to work multiple minimum-wage jobs just to make ends meet they often lack both time and mental capacity to expand their skills. Then you add in knock-on effects of poverty (physical health, mental health, social stigma, educational gaps) and it's not hard to see how it snowballs.

There is some merit, I think, in the idea that when very basic needs are met (a place to live, some clothes, and subsistence food) then we open opportunities for actually disrupting the poverty cycle. It also can reduce wasteful duplication and bureaucratic overhead of the various slap-dash anti-poverty programs we have (and those funds can be used either for UBI or meeting other higher-level needs).

Again, I'm not 100% sold on UBI or the Negative Income Tax, but it's not a psychotic idea and using it to poke fun at AOC seems very incorrect. Especially as an attack on the Green New Deal since it's not even in that resolution.
  #97  
Old 02-10-2019, 10:11 AM
eschereal's Avatar
eschereal eschereal is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Frogstar World B
Posts: 15,620
Part of the point of the economic security clause in the Resolution (it is not a bill for an act, so passing et would not carry the weight of legally binding legislation) is that taking the extreme steps needed to brake or mitigate climate change would also involve reshaping our economy in order to make the changes mean something. As it is, our economy is not sustainable, so just "going green" would be pointless if its end result adds up to the same thing as what we are doing right now anyway.
  #98  
Old 02-10-2019, 11:45 AM
k9bfriender k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 10,234
Quote:
Originally Posted by bump View Post
There's a big difference between thinking of people as a commodity, and recognizing that people's (in the aggregate) labor behaves much as any other good with respect to market forces.

All this stuff about dignity, etc... is kind of orthogonal to whether or not labor behaves as a market (which it definitely does).
And that is a problem. Labor does act as a market, but the labor market is made of human beings. The labor market does not treat these human beings any different than it treats a barrel of oil or an apple.

We need to accept that, when people are treated as commodities, then some of them will be treated inhumanely, and we should do our best to reduce and ultimately eliminate that.
  #99  
Old 02-10-2019, 12:20 PM
octopus's Avatar
octopus octopus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 8,009
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
And that is a problem. Labor does act as a market, but the labor market is made of human beings. The labor market does not treat these human beings any different than it treats a barrel of oil or an apple.

We need to accept that, when people are treated as commodities, then some of them will be treated inhumanely, and we should do our best to reduce and ultimately eliminate that.
And that is best done with targeted direct assistance and not strategically counterproductive wage floors.
  #100  
Old 02-10-2019, 12:37 PM
eschereal's Avatar
eschereal eschereal is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Frogstar World B
Posts: 15,620
Quote:
Originally Posted by octopus View Post
And that is best done with targeted direct assistance and not strategically counterproductive wage floors.
So UBI becomes a subsidy for employers. If they want to hire me, they have to pay me enough to make it worth my while to work for them, but I already get $30K/year for being a citizen, so they can get by paying me $30K for what would have been a $60K job – and I can easily say fuck this shit because I can get by on the $30K, so they have to be decent to me.

Now, if the distribution of the UBI becomes part of your paycheck, as in your employer collects your income credit from the government and puts it into your pay, I could see some seriously bad shit developing from that.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:21 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017