Green New Deal: "Economic security for those unwilling to work"

[Ambivalid]

@Heffalump_and_Roo

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.

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. Basically, we need to do more than do things like build and provide affordable healthy grocery stores that include fresh vegetables, fruits, nuts, etc to these poverty stricken people to shop at in their own neighborhoods…

What objective empirical data has shown is that putting a (for example) Whole Foods in every run down poor neighborhood does not affect changes/improvements in these poor people’s health issues or poor dietary choices and decision making. They buy the same groceries at Whole Foods that they bought at Sam’s Liquor & Hot Dogs Shoppe. They just now probably have to drive a tiny bit farther.

This is what a comprehensive vision would include: yes, the UBI is a crucial component no doubt. But its strength lies in its connection to something more. A plan that helps ensure that this modest UBI that the government disperses has the best chance at substantially improving the health, wellness and achievement of life goals for the people to whom it is dispered.

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.

Its a conundrum, i will admit. A conundrum with no easy, obvious answers. But just because we are faced with a vexing societal illness that has proven itself hard to kill doesnt mean we disengage and give less than 100% in our efforts to ultimately prevail in the name of humanity.

[BeenJammin]

Has it yet occurred to anyone that “life” (Just the word, those 4 letters: L - I - F - E) in the human vernacular, just might be a little too easy to begin with? I mean, generally speaking - not singling out anyone’s personal hardships - macro level here. Might that not explain at the most fundamental level why there seems to be just too many and more coming all the time? With (now, as always) not enough jobs paying high enough to keep everyone gainfully employed at a decent living level?

If you can’t see where this is going, you might re-consider trying to get there faster, if not a sea-change in direction.

[Shodan]

@Jas09

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.

Good thing almost nobody in the US works multiple MW jobs just to make ends meet, then.

Regards,
Shodan

[Broomstick]

@Broomstick

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.

@k9bfriender

Which means raising prices.

Or lower profits for owners.

Yes, very small businesses the owners aren’t getting terribly wealthy, but there are numerous corporations where the disparity between executive compensation and the rank and file’s compensation is huge - in those companies workers COULD be paid more without raising prices… except that the folks at the top demand 7, 8, or even larger figure salaries.

[k9bfriender]

@octopus

And that is best done with targeted direct assistance and not strategically counterproductive wage floors.

Keep it on the taxpayer’s dime, rather than on the employer who gets the benefit of the worker?

I can see how that could work.

Lets implement a UBI, then we can get rid of MW.

Otherwise, we will get rid of MW, then replace it with nothing.

@Shodan

Good thing almost nobody in the US works multiple MW jobs just to make ends meet, then.

Of course, that stat that you like to trot out, that only a small percentage of people literally make the federal minimum wage does not take into account all the people who are making their state’s MW, or anyone who makes $0.05 over MW.

You are literally talking about only the people who make exactly $7.25 an hour, and ignoring the people who make 7.30, 7.50, or even $8 an hour.

When people say, “MW job”, they are not being as literally pedantic as you. They often mean low wage jobs near MW.

If you would like to pedantically correct them, and point out that many of these people make as much as $9 an hour, then that’s probably useful in its own little way.

But the way that you come across makes it seem as though you are trying to indicate that there are not that many people in low wage jobs, rather than the actual claim that you are making, in that there are not that many jobs that pay exactly $7.25

@Broomstick

Or lower profits for owners.

Yeah, but some of us already have low, low profits, and cannot really take much lower.

Yes, very small businesses the owners aren’t getting terribly wealthy, but there are numerous corporations where the disparity between executive compensation and the rank and file’s compensation is huge - in those companies workers COULD be paid more without raising prices… except that the folks at the top demand 7, 8, or even larger figure salaries.

To be honest, that kinda helps out the small businesses. If they didn’t pay their execs the big bucks, then given their economies of scale, they would have the resources to keep their prices low and their wages high.

That would mean that small businesses would have to try to match their price point and payscale, and would have a much harder time of it.

Not necessarily he best from a macroeconomic perspective, but I will admit that everyone hating on PetSmart opens up room for other groomers to thrive.

[eschereal]

@k9bfriender

Of course, that stat that you like to trot out, that only a small percentage of people literally make the federal minimum wage does not take into account all the people who are making their state’s MW, or anyone who makes $0.05 over MW.

You are literally talking about only the people who make exactly $7.25 an hour, and ignoring the people who make 7.30, 7.50, or even $8 an hour.

How about we define “minimum wage job” based on the average of the minimum wages of the three West Coast states. I have not checked lately, but it seems to me that that average would be in excess of $9/hr – with no tip credit allowed in any of those states. There are plenty of states where a minimum like that would be mathematically reasonable.

[bump]

@k9bfriender

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.

Fair enough. I guess where I’m struggling a bit with the idea of poverty reduction is with the idea of mandating wages. First, because the labor does operate like a market, and fiddling around with markets rarely has the hoped-for effects.

Second, because what people need is more related to circumstances such as location, number of children, etc… and we can’t solve all that through the really blunt instrument of a minimum wage hike.

Third, the main goal shouldn’t be temporary relief. That’s all well and good, but until we manage to actually relieve or eliminate the causes of poverty beyond the facile “they don’t have enough cash” type things, we’re throwing money away- we’re temporarily relieving someone’s current situation without actually changing that situation in the long term. It’s putting band-aids on a gash, without stopping the bleeding first.

One thing to consider- many states have significantly higher minimum wages than the Federally mandated one- California for example has an $11 minimum wage (soon to go to $12). Has this done much to alleviate poverty in California? Or are the California poor still poor, in part because everything else has gone up in price relative to the extra $3.75/hr people get?

I’d like to see proof that this is doing something other than just cause price inflation before I’ll be on board with it.

[msmith537]

@bump

That’s not the company being dicks; developing skills and experience (and hard work is definitely a skill) is the main way you differentiate yourself in the job market. Luck plays a large role as well, but as far as things you can control, that’s how you raise the perceived value of your labor. That’s why education is important- it’s a way to differentiate yourself. So are things like summer jobs, internships, etc… And stuff like criminal records also differentiate you, except negatively.

Being currently in the middle of a job search myself, I can kind of see both sides. No, we shouldn’t have some sort of global welfare system for people to sit on their ass smoking pot all day watching Netflix.

OTOH, do we want a system that is so mercenary that you can be let go at a moment’s notice for any reason whatsoever and then find it nearly impossible to land a similar job for any number of reasons beyond your control? Or maybe simply because there is always at least one person who is a better “fit”?

Yes, your brilliant Ivy League grads with perfect grades in the right degrees and the right internships will probably always find a job. And there will always be some segment of the population content to do nothing if they could. But I’d like to see some solution for the vast population in the middle who want to work, but maybe don’t want to be treated like disposable cogs, easily replaced when their perceived value to the organization slips.

[RickJay]

@Sam_Stone

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.

Doesn’t that depend on how much income it is?

For $25,000 a year, no thanks. I’ll continue doing my job.

For $250,000 a year, sure, I’ll quit my job.

[John_Bredin]

@Jas09

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.

IMHO, UBI is not shoehorned into the GND but a pragmatic political consideration. Look at Clinton and the coal-miners kerfuffle: she made a speech talking about coal mining as an industry that is and should be receding, the Republicans and Trumpists cut out the parts of her speech where she talked about retraining and assisting displaced miners, and voila, a talking point for Trump. :rolleyes: By putting UBI squarely into the GND, AOC & the other supporters of a GND are trying to neutralize that “what about my job!? what about my family?!” resistance to the GND. In fact, the more the Republicans emphasize UBI for the “helping lazy people” narrative, the less they can use the “they’re putting you out on the street because you’re miners/oil workers/etc” narrative.

[BeenJammin]

@RickJay

Doesn’t that depend on how much income it is.

No. It depends on how the individual perceives their lot in life. There are tiny, tiny minorities at the extreme on both ends of the spectrum, with the fabulously rich on one end and pockets of agrarian subsistence on the other. Both can be happy in their own way, with enough income to do what they want - even if that is merely surviving, because that is what they know, and all they know.

But now, we have this huge working class population left over from the post-industrial techno boom that “knows better.” They also know they are basically shut out of any sort of upward mobility, without alot of that “luck” factor involved. Wadda ya gonna do?

[Shodan]

@k9bfriender

Of course, that stat that you like to trot out, that only a small percentage of people literally make the federal minimum wage does not take into account all the people who are making their state’s MW, or anyone who makes $0.05 over MW.

No, this is incorrect. The 0.2% of the US workforce that works multiple jobs refers to all the workforce, not just those who make MW or close to it. So the percent of those working multiple MW jobs is even lower than 0.2%.

Also -

all the people who are making their state’s MW…

There are no states where the MW is lower than the federally mandated rate, so that doesn’t change the calculations at all.

Regards,
Shodan

[Evil_Economist]

@Sam_Stone

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.

The evidence suggests that this is wrong. Finland tried out universal guaranteed income, and there was no impact on unemployment rates.

[Eonwe]

@Shodan

No, this is incorrect. The 0.2% of the US workforce that works multiple jobs refers to all the workforce, not just those who make MW or close to it.

Are you suggesting that 0.2% of the workforce work more than one job?

[Evil_Economist]

@Shodan

Also - There are no states where the MW is lower than the federally mandated rate, so that doesn’t change the calculations at all.

You may want to think about this objection of yours. Specifically: What does it say about people who make the state MW (in those states where it’s different than the fed MW)? Are they making the federal minimum wage?

[Shodan]

@Evil_Economist

You may want to think about this objection of yours. Specifically: What does it say about people who make the state MW (in those states where it’s different than the fed MW)? Are they making the federal minimum wage?

In states where the MW is different from the federal MW, they are making more than the federal MW. In states where they are the same, they are making the same as the federal MW.

According to the U.S. Department of Labor, where both federal and state minimum wage laws apply, an employer must pay the employee at the higher rate. At the time of publication, only Tennessee, Mississippi, Alabama, Louisiana and South Carolina do not have minimum wage laws. In these cases, employers apply the federal minimum wage.

Cite. Is that what you mean? I feel like I am not understanding you.

Regards,
Shodan

[Brayne_Ded]

@Chronos

There are very, very few people who are unwilling to do any work at all. What you actually get is people who don’t want the work that pays them enough to live on. If we had universal basic income, then you’d see a lot more people following their dreams and becoming artists, philosophers, or other sorts of unprofitable workers.

Well, maybe. The next post after Chronos neatly states one obvious point of view: welfare recipients. However, look at the latest issue of New Scientist, which has an article about a UBI experiment in Finland. Possibly a flawed experiment, but the results are interesting.

And was the "unwilling to work"part tagged on, and is not in the original proposal? Could it be fake news?

[Brayne_Ded]

… and I have my doubts about it. What do we do with a growing number of unemployed who will probably never get any sort of real job? Automation has taken over a lot of manufacturing jobs, admin will be next because it is so routine and formulaic that a computer can do it, and doesn’t goof off or fall sick. Seriously, while it may sound the stuff of a sci-fi fantasy, what do we do when the labor force is relatively tiny? Of course, we still need people to deal with people, unless jobs such as nursing and entertainment also get digitized.

[D_Anconia]

@k9bfriender

When people say, “MW job”, they are not being as literally pedantic as you. They often mean low wage jobs near MW.

On a message board dedicated to fighting ignorance, pointing out the actual facts is not being pedantic.

[Evil_Economist]

@Shodan

In states where the MW is different from the federal MW, they are making more than the federal MW.

Right, so they’re not making the federal MW. The number of people making federal MW does not include those people making MW in states where the MW is higher than the federal MW.

So the following conversation occurred:

“[your claim that] only a small percentage of people literally make the federal minimum wage does not take into account all the people who are making their state’s MW”

to which you replied:

“There are no states where the MW is lower than the federally mandated rate, so that doesn’t change the calculations at all.”

But it does change the calculation. If you are trying to determine the number of people who are making minimum wage, and you count only the people who are making the federal minimum wage, then you are undercounting by all the people who are making minimum wage in states where the minimum wage is higher than the federal minimum wage. (I assume you agree that the number of people who make the federal minimum wage exactly is a meaningless number in this context)
P.s. GA has a lower minimum wage than the federal minimum wage (though of course the federal rate controls)