# Green New Deal: "Economic security for those unwilling to work"
**URL:** https://boards.straightdope.com/t/green-new-deal-economic-security-for-those-unwilling-to-work/829189
**Category:** Politics & Elections
**Created:** [February 8, 2019, 5:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/green-new-deal-economic-security-for-those-unwilling-to-work/829189 "2019-02-08T17:53:32Z")
**Posts on this page:** 20
**Page:** 8
### Author:  [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)
#### Post date: [February 12, 2019, 6:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/green-new-deal-economic-security-for-those-unwilling-to-work/829189/141 "2019-02-12T18:48:22Z")
> [@Evil\_Economist](#):
>
> No, there need to be very stringent assumptions to get to a market equilibrium result, even with commodity objects.
In that, I am not talking about market equilibrium, but a race to the bottom.
The biggest assumption needed to get to equilibrium is that everyone and everything stops and does nothing, and nothing at all changes until this one supply/demand curve finds its optimal point.
As things are always changing, there is no equilibrium to be had, or if there is, it’s different from the equilibrium point a year ago, a month ago, yesterday, or even an hour ago.
What does Keynes have to say about this?
> [@John Maynard Keynes](#):
>
> In the long run we are all dead
---
### Author:  [@msmith537](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/msmith537)
#### Post date: [February 12, 2019, 11:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/green-new-deal-economic-security-for-those-unwilling-to-work/829189/142 "2019-02-12T23:03:50Z")
> [@JcWoman](#):
>
> One variable left out of this equation is that it’s become a LOT harder to get through the job interviewing gatekeepers to get a job. Speaking as someone who recently changed jobs, I can attest to this. Employers act like they’re still holding out for the “best and brightest” or that it’s impossible to fire a bad hire. (Yeah, yeah, documentation and blah blah. Those excuses are in direct contradiction with “at will” labor laws that exist in most states.) I still read the jobs subreddit and other internet forums for job seekers and it’s brutal out there even for highly skilled people. Today’s normal is to send out something like 200 resumes/applications, resulting in 8 phone interviews, followed by face to face interviews with only 3 companies, landing you one job offer. And this generally takes place over 6 months to 1.5 years depending on where you are. Many more companies are also requiring their candidates to do projects to “prove” they have the needed skills - all unpaid of course.
>
> I’d say that tons of people WANT to contribute but can’t because of this. Many just give up after a year or so.
As someone looking for a job, I can attest to this, along with several members of the tech Meetup I am involved with. I don’t know what it is, but it seems like companies just string the process along forever and then just stop calling you.
> [@k9bfriender](#):
>
> The biggest assumption needed to get to equilibrium is that everyone and everything stops and does nothing, and nothing at all changes until this one supply/demand curve finds its optimal point.
No one said that the equilibrium point isn’t constantly changing.
---
### Author:  [@Chisquirrel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chisquirrel)
#### Post date: [February 12, 2019, 11:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/green-new-deal-economic-security-for-those-unwilling-to-work/829189/143 "2019-02-12T23:24:15Z")
> [@Shodan](#):
>
> Well, OK, but the point of the cite was that hardly anybody is working two jobs at any wage level, federal or state.
>
> 0.2% of the workforce is working two jobs. X = the percentage of the US workforce working for the MW in their state. Y = the percentage of the US workforce working for the federal MW.
>
> 0.2 \> X \> Y. Unless every single person in Y works in Tennessee, Mississippi, Alabama, Louisiana or South Carolina.
>
> This suggestion that people are slaving away for 80 hours a week at starvation wages is wrong at least 99.8% of the time.
>
> Regards,
> Shodan
Taking out the cherry-picked 0.2% of people working two FULL TIME jobs, the multiple job rate is actually roughly 5%. Please try to be correct.
---
### Author:  [@Quartz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Quartz)
#### Post date: [February 12, 2019, 11:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/green-new-deal-economic-security-for-those-unwilling-to-work/829189/144 "2019-02-12T23:30:05Z")
> [@Evil\_Economist](#):
>
> I think the real takeaway from that experiment is that UBI didn’t lower employment rates,
I’m not sure how you get that, because those to be on UBI were selected. I didn’t see that new people were given UBI. The aim was to get them back to work. And it didn’t work.
---
### Author:  [@msmith537](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/msmith537)
#### Post date: [February 13, 2019, 12:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/green-new-deal-economic-security-for-those-unwilling-to-work/829189/145 "2019-02-13T00:34:59Z")
> [@Quartz](#):
>
> I’m not sure how you get that, because those to be on UBI were selected. I didn’t see that new people were given UBI. The aim was to get them back to work. And it didn’t work.
I’m not sure the point of UBI is to get people back to work. I think it’s to keep them from being homeless if they are out of work. It’s also to relieve the stress of being out of work, which indirectly may make it easier to look for a job.
---
### Author:  [@eschereal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eschereal)
#### Post date: [February 13, 2019, 1:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/green-new-deal-economic-security-for-those-unwilling-to-work/829189/146 "2019-02-13T01:13:34Z")
> [@Quartz](#):
>
> I’m not sure how you get that, because those to be on UBI were selected. I didn’t see that new people were given UBI. The aim was to get them back to work. And it didn’t work.
Selected random-ish-ly, because the program was not an effort to get people back to work but a study to determine what effect UBI would have on the employment rate of the sample. Turns out that it had no effect at all: the per-person rate was the same as the average. That does not sound like a failure, in that the participants were not less inclined on average to seek employment than anyone else.
---
### Author:  [@Evil\_Economist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Economist)
#### Post date: [February 13, 2019, 1:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/green-new-deal-economic-security-for-those-unwilling-to-work/829189/147 "2019-02-13T01:52:58Z")
> [@Quartz](#):
>
> I’m not sure how you get that, because those to be on UBI were selected. I didn’t see that new people were given UBI. The aim was to get them back to work. And it didn’t work.
> [@eschereal](#):
>
> Selected random-ish-ly, because the program was not an effort to get people back to work but a study to determine what effect UBI would have on the employment rate of the sample. Turns out that it had no effect at all: the per-person rate was the same as the average. That does not sound like a failure, in that the participants were not less inclined on average to seek employment than anyone else.
Right.
**Quartz** , I don’t think you understood the article you linked. Rates of finding jobs for people on UBI were the same as people not on UBI (i.e., employment rates were the same for equivalent groups of people on UBI and not on UBI), which means people don’t stop looking for jobs and just sit around if they go on UBI.
---
### Author:  [@bump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bump)
#### Post date: [February 13, 2019, 4:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/green-new-deal-economic-security-for-those-unwilling-to-work/829189/148 "2019-02-13T16:24:22Z")
I’d figure that UBI recipients would kind of fall into a handful of categories (there’s some overlap between categories):
[ul]
[li]Low income recipients who choose not to work, as the UBI is close enough, and their jobs suck.[/li][li]Recipients of any income who use the UBI as supplemental income. In other words it’s basically free money on top of the job they already have.[/li][li]Recipients of any income who use the UBI as a sort of enabling mechanism to help them find jobs they want, rather than jobs they need. The idea here is that if you need $50k to live the lifestyle you want, UBI might mean that you could get a job that you loved for $35k and still live that lifestyle due to UBI making up that difference.[/li][li]Recipients for who it doesn’t really make much difference- the difference between the amount they’re taxed and the amount they give back is similar to what they paid in taxes before UBI.[/li][li]Recipients for who it’s a net loss- the difference between taxation and UBI refund is still more than they were previously paying in taxes.[/li][/ul]
I’d imagine the first group is fairly small, mostly because just about any effort throws you into the second group- even with minimum wage or part time jobs, you’d still be considerably better off than solely subsisting on the UBI.
The enabling mechanism is probably the largest one- I imagine that it’s really the bigger “follow your own star” sort of thing rather than the idea that we’d get a bunch of arts and culture giants out of it. By taking some significant chunk out of what people would need to make in order to live the lifestyles they need to live, that frees them up to choose jobs/careers that they might not consider due to lower pay. For example, I bet if new teachers made 53k at a minimum with UBI, a lot more people would seriously consider teaching as a career relative to now, where the average new teacher salary is $38k. Or some people might scale down to part time to better care for children, etc…
The biggest question marks for me are how large the UBI would be, and what the tax structure and who/how that’s going to impact people.
---
### Author:  [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)
#### Post date: [February 13, 2019, 9:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/green-new-deal-economic-security-for-those-unwilling-to-work/829189/149 "2019-02-13T21:07:31Z")
> [@bump](#):
>
> I’d figure that UBI recipients would kind of fall into a handful of categories (there’s some overlap between categories):
>
> [ul]
> [li]Low income recipients who choose not to work, as the UBI is close enough, and their jobs suck.[/li][li]Recipients of any income who use the UBI as supplemental income. In other words it’s basically free money on top of the job they already have.[/li][li]Recipients of any income who use the UBI as a sort of enabling mechanism to help them find jobs they want, rather than jobs they need. The idea here is that if you need $50k to live the lifestyle you want, UBI might mean that you could get a job that you loved for $35k and still live that lifestyle due to UBI making up that difference.[/li][li]Recipients for who it doesn’t really make much difference- the difference between the amount they’re taxed and the amount they give back is similar to what they paid in taxes before UBI.[/li][li]Recipients for who it’s a net loss- the difference between taxation and UBI refund is still more than they were previously paying in taxes.[/li][/ul]
I’d agree that those are some of the categories that people would fall into.
But, I would add a few more.
People taking care of family, whether they are taking care of elderly relatives, their own children, the children of others, or adults with disabilities.
People who want to travel for a bit.
People who want to learn a subject or subjects.
People who want to write a book, a poem, a sonnet, a song, a play, or a movie.
People who just want a bit of time off before they go back to work.
---
### Author:  [@slash2k](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/slash2k)
#### Post date: [February 14, 2019, 12:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/green-new-deal-economic-security-for-those-unwilling-to-work/829189/150 "2019-02-14T00:23:45Z")
I’d add one more category: people who would like a job, but who really don’t have much or anything to offer on the labor market today, and who therefore can’t get a job even in a tight market. A lot of these folks have physical and/or mental impediments that aren’t quite “disabling” but sure aren’t what employers are looking for, e.g., or who don’t have the social skills or the mental acuity to keep a job.
---
### Author:  [@bump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bump)
#### Post date: [February 14, 2019, 3:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/green-new-deal-economic-security-for-those-unwilling-to-work/829189/151 "2019-02-14T15:27:20Z")
I don’t know… I still think most people would fall into the second or third category. I don’t know many people who would give up their lifestyle to become an artist and live on the dole at $15k a year (or whatever). But I know plenty who might downgrade to a job that pays say… 20k less in order to get less work hours, closer to home, etc… for any number of reasons- more time with kids, ability to spend extra time on avocations, whatever.
I think we’d see that second category a lot among graduating students- UBI would be a good buffer between having to get a job to live and having the time to get a job they’re satisfied with.
---
### Author:  [@bump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bump)
#### Post date: [February 14, 2019, 3:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/green-new-deal-economic-security-for-those-unwilling-to-work/829189/152 "2019-02-14T15:44:12Z")
A bit of follow up thinking…
I suppose category 1 is really more “People who choose not to work for whatever reason, not necessarily low income”) That way, we cover the people who choose not to work because of family caregiver committments, stay-at-home moms, lazy stoners, etc… without getting into a category for each specific situation.
My intuition tells me that the final category would be the biggest surprise for people- I’m not seeing how we’d pay for a UBI for every person without having to tax the bejeezus out of everyone with a well paying job. I mean, at a UBI of 15k, a family of four would receive 60k in UBI. That’s right at the median household income. So right there, you’d have to come up with more cash to pay that UBI than half of all families MAKE, much less pay out in taxes. Even assuming that median income 4 person family pays roughly 25% of their income in taxes that they would essentially receive back, it would still mean that the government would have to produce 45k for that family. For a family making 100k, who let’s say pays 35% in taxes, we’re still looking at having to cough up 25k for that family in UBI. I don’t know where that break-even is, but it seems to be very high.
The other thing I haven’t figured out yet is what it would mean in terms of the remaining social safety net. Proponents often claim that it would take the place of a lot of things, but we’d still need all the stuff we currently have and then some- a low 15k UBI wouldn’t obviate the need for health insurance or universal health care. We’d still need a lot of social service type stuff for flat out dumb people who spend their UBI unwisely, or get into a lot of debt, or whatever. I can completely see situations where people basically sign their UBI payments over to monthly payments and are still stuck without enough cash to feed their kids, etc… and would need public assistance. Assuming that we don’t suddenly take a callous tack and throw them to the wolves, because, hey UBI!, then we’d still need programs to help the unfortunate and the stupid.
It sounds great in theory, but it also sounds like something we can’t pay for. I’d be more in favor of a negative income tax scheme whereby people get boosted to the poverty line (or whatever arbitrary threshold), but where say… a family of four making that median 61k doesn’t get any assistance, nor would the family making 100k.
---
### Author:  [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Elendil_s_Heir)
#### Post date: [February 14, 2019, 4:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/green-new-deal-economic-security-for-those-unwilling-to-work/829189/153 "2019-02-14T16:06:23Z")
CNN has a concise overview of the Green New Deal: [Green New Deal: Here's what the climate change proposal actually says | CNN Politics](https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/14/politics/green-new-deal-proposal-breakdown/index.html)
For SEO: Greennewdeal
---
### Author:  [@Irishman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Irishman)
#### Post date: [February 14, 2019, 5:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/green-new-deal-economic-security-for-those-unwilling-to-work/829189/154 "2019-02-14T17:02:08Z")
> [@Evil\_Economist](#):
>
> **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?
He probably read it in the summary [FAQ](https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/5729035/Green-New-Deal-FAQ.pdf):
> [@](#):
>
> We set a goal to get to net-zero, rather than zero emissions, in 10 years because we aren’t sure that we’ll be able to fully get rid of farting cows and airplanes that fast,
> [@](#):
>
> o Totally overhaul transportation by massively expanding electric vehicle manufacturing, build charging stations everywhere, build out highspeed rail at a scale where air travel stops becoming necessary, create affordable public transit available to all, with goal to replace every combustion-engine vehicle
Or [here](https://web.archive.org/web/20190207191119/https://ocasio-cortez.house.gov/media/blog-posts/green-new-deal-faq):
> [@](#):
>
> The Green New Deal sets a goal to get to net-zero, rather than zero emissions, at the end of this 10-year plan because we aren’t sure that we will be able to fully get rid of, for example, emissions from cows or air travel before then.
These are AOC released documents, though they have been pulled. But it’s not a total ass-pull by **Sam Stone**.
> [@Ambivalid](#):
>
> 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.
> [@Ambivalid](#):
>
> Well, just to very briefly mention a few aspects i would imagine going into this larger vision is working to change the long-entrenched (both as individuals and culturally) health and lifestyle behaviors and habits that in part work to keep a person in stasis, to keep them in poverty. [snip]
> So we need to understand better these already mentioned issues hindering many people in poor communities when trying to improve the quality of their lives. This should allow, through cooperation with and input from the local communities and people in them, plans and policy to be crafted that would help foster an environment where the people in these poor communities have access to the education, information, training, and/or medical treatment whose previous lack thereof had been a direct influence on perpetuating the poor decision making that strengthen the vicious cycle that keeps them in a failure to launch scenario.
The Green New Deal tries to address this:
> [@](#):
>
> Whereas climate change, pollution, and environmental destruction have exacerbated systemic racial, regional, social, environmental, and economic injustices (referred to in this preamble as “systemic injustices”) by disproportionately affecting indigenous peoples, communities of color, migrant communities, deindustrialized communities, depopulated rural communities, the poor, low-income workers, women, the elderly, the unhoused, people with disabilities, and youth (referred to in this preamble as “frontline and vulnerable communities”);
> [@](#):
>
> (1) it is the duty of the Federal Government to create a Green New Deal— [snip]
>
> (E) to promote justice and equity by stopping current, preventing future, and repairing historic oppression of indigenous peoples, communities of color, migrant communities, deindustrialized communities, depopulated rural communities, the poor, low-income workers, women, the elderly, the unhoused, people with disabilities, and youth (referred to in this resolution as “frontline and vulnerable communities”);
> [@](#):
>
> (3) a Green New Deal must be developed through transparent and inclusive consultation, collaboration, and partnership with frontline and vulnerable communities, labor unions, worker cooperatives, civil society groups, academia, and businesses; and [snip]
>
> (C) providing resources, training, and high-quality education, including higher education, to all people of the United States, with a focus on frontline and vulnerable communities, so that all people of the United States may be full and equal participants in the Green New Deal mobilization; [snip]
>
> (E) directing investments to spur economic development, deepen and diversify industry and business in local and regional economies, and build wealth and community ownership, while prioritizing high-quality job creation and economic, social, and environmental benefits in frontline and vulnerable communities, and deindustrialized communities, that may otherwise struggle with the transition away from greenhouse gas intensive industries;
>
> (F) ensuring the use of democratic and participatory processes that are inclusive of and led by frontline and vulnerable communities and workers to plan, implement, and administer the Green New Deal mobilization at the local level;
> [@Shodan](#):
>
> Good thing almost nobody in the US works multiple MW jobs just to make ends meet, then.
Many people either work long hours on one low wage job, or work multiple low wage jobs that add up to long hours. Others work only one low wage job for limited hours and struggle even worse to get by, requiring government subsidies even though they work.
> [@Quartz](#):
>
> I’m not sure how you get that, because those to be on UBI were selected. I didn’t see that new people were given UBI. The aim was to get them back to work. And it didn’t work.
The experiment was to see what would happen. True, they did not have higher employment rates than the control group, but they did not have lower employment rates, which is what many conservatives claim would happen.
---
### Author:  [@bump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bump)
#### Post date: [February 14, 2019, 7:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/green-new-deal-economic-security-for-those-unwilling-to-work/829189/155 "2019-02-14T19:06:01Z")
I still think that she’d have got a lot more traction had she limited the scope to strictly environmental remedies. Throwing all that social justice stuff in there probably managed to alienate a lot of people who might have been on board for climate change/environmental reasons, but who weren’t ready to commit to UBI and all the other stuff.
Maybe split it off and give the environmental stuff one name, and the social justice/economic stuff something to do with the New Deal.
---
### Author:  [@Grim\_Render](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grim_Render)
#### Post date: [February 14, 2019, 8:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/green-new-deal-economic-security-for-those-unwilling-to-work/829189/156 "2019-02-14T20:38:33Z")
Parts of this are what we already have in Scandinavia, but dialed up to 11. Everyone has a right to education and the necessities of life -food, healthcare, a place to live. If they are unable to provide it for themselves.
This just sounds like it would like to take that further. I am doubtful about that. We do the things we do for good economic reasons. Maybe there is another island of stability beyond us again but we haven’t seen the outlines of it yet.
---
### Author:  [@BwanaBob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BwanaBob)
#### Post date: [February 14, 2019, 9:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/green-new-deal-economic-security-for-those-unwilling-to-work/829189/157 "2019-02-14T21:24:41Z")
I’m hoping that some genius out there is perfecting AI such that it can replace a manager. It too is a skill that can be replaced.
---
### Author:  [@slash2k](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/slash2k)
#### Post date: [February 14, 2019, 11:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/green-new-deal-economic-security-for-those-unwilling-to-work/829189/158 "2019-02-14T23:57:23Z")
> [@bump](#):
>
> I mean, at a UBI of 15k, a family of four would receive 60k in UBI. That’s right at the median household income. So right there, you’d have to come up with more cash to pay that UBI than half of all families MAKE, much less pay out in taxes.
As I understand it, UBI is intended primarily for ADULT citizens, people who would theoretically be in the labor force, rather than all family members. A four-person family wouldn’t get $60K unless all four are over 18 (or 16 or 21 or whatever age is set). For example, the Ontario pilot scheme used 18-64 as the age range; the Finnish study used 25 to 58. That would change your calculations significantly.
---
### Author:  [@eschereal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eschereal)
#### Post date: [February 15, 2019, 1:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/green-new-deal-economic-security-for-those-unwilling-to-work/829189/159 "2019-02-15T01:16:00Z")
Apart from that, there is nothing that says that UBI would be uniform per capita. Your check would have to be anchored to your residence: if there are multiple accounts based at one residence, there would probably be a reduction in each, since it is well-established that sharing accommodations will be a little or a lot less expensive than one-person-one-dwelling. But the check would almost certainly not be halved, because it would be idiotic in terms of a _green_ new deal to discourage people from sharing digs.
---
### Author:  [@asahi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/asahi)
#### Post date: [February 15, 2019, 5:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/green-new-deal-economic-security-for-those-unwilling-to-work/829189/160 "2019-02-15T05:01:49Z")
> [@Velocity](#):
>
> The Green New Deal proposed by Ocasio-Cortez contains an interesting part:[“Economic security for those unwilling to work.”](https://www.cnbc.com/2019/02/07/ocasio-cortezs-green-new-deal-offers-economic-security-for-those-unwilling-to-work.html)
> 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.)
Question: where in her resolution does it say that it’s going to cast a social safety net for those who are unwilling to work?
[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/green-new-deal-economic-security-for-those-unwilling-to-work/829189.md?page=7)
[Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/green-new-deal-economic-security-for-those-unwilling-to-work/829189.md?page=9)