|
Zephyr Teachout won her court case against Cuomo's interns and will remain on the Democratic primary ballot in New York 
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 20:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 14:11 |
|
|
Radish posted:But big macs will be $50 each and our burger based economy will collapse. Look, Big Macs can be $5 or $50, and our burger based economy can collapse from inflation or suffocate from deflation...never anything in between, amirite?
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 20:12
|
|
|
Hell even Milton Friedman thought a negative income tax for the lowest bracket, ie. a GMI, might be a good idea.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 20:12
|
|
|
bobtheconqueror posted:Well, you wouldn't be printing it, you'd be taking it from someone else. That's probably a bit overkill, though. We've already got entitlement programs that serve as a safety net. We just need to actually fund and support them without hating the people who need them. Those systems are inefficient and outdated to our times. It is far better to provide the framework which enables freedom than it is to depend upon Congress to renew funding of individual programs. You don't 'need' to 'redistribute' wealth to raise living standards. A rising tide raises all boats, and for less energy than it takes to manually raise each boat. The value of wealth is in the perception of its future value. Inflation is a market-based national tax on all liabilities in a currency; deflation, the worst of all possible economic inactions, is an indirect tax upon debt by asset holders. Perceived wealth redistribution creates risk perception and inflation; actual wealth concentration causes deflationary pressure upon currencies. Above all, the almighty dollar cannot have risk perceived upon it. That is the global value of the dollar for the corrupt outside the West, and guarantes a high American standard of living. Therefore, it will be easiest to actually have implemented an evidence-based policy which lowers government expenditure while increasing standards of living. It is, one must say, the fiscally conservative option. E: computer parts posted:Inflation, usually. It is a genuine risk. Inflation is the market-based tax. Inflation is based upon currency perception and perceived future value. Therefore, it is necessary to implement a GMI in a manner which does not appear to be an implementation of GMI as most would perceive it: far better to implement it as a phase-out of benefits without removing those benefits from the books. This provides a legislative mechanism to increase the GMI by proxy-- raise the maximum for the bread dole, have the GMI raised to exceed that new maximum. My Imaginary GF fucked around with this message at 20:18 on Aug 11, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 20:12
|
|
|
Amergin posted:The same universe where I apparently need enough money to cover every possible bad thing that could happen to me and cost money. $18/hr might not cover that, so why not $50,000 a year? Why not double that, and double that again, just to be sure we're keeping people well-funded enough to take care of themselves. Guys, we cant literally multiply a reasonable national wage increase by like 10x, better just keep people making $5 an hour. This gimmick is pathetic.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 20:12
|
|
|
a shameful boehner posted:What are the compelling arguments behind not providing a GMI? Hard work is its own reward, be thankful.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 20:14
|
|
|
Aliquid posted:Hard work is its own reward, be thankful. Not letting me stomp on your face is just depriving you of a cool imprint.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 20:16
|
|
|
Poor people would become lazy (lazier) if they earned more money. Rich people would become vastly (more) productive if they earned more money. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 20:16
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:Those systems are inefficient and outdated to our times. It is far better to provide the framework which enables freedom than it is to depend upon Congress to renew funding of individual programs. The only one I can think of as outdated is SNAP but that's only because we have specific restrictions on what you can buy with it. Medicaid is definitely not inefficient or outdated and it would probably cost a lot more to just give them a check for insurance companies.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 20:17
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:I cannot rule out whether you post to troll, out of ignorance, or are purposefully dense. I will presume it is out of ignorance and address as so: Amergin is a troll - he reads conservative forums to repost their arguments here and then trolls those conservative forums with our counter-arguments. Amergin posted:But saying something "does happen" doesn't necessarily lead to "and we should do something about it." This can lead to over-regulation. I'm not saying that because something happens we should automatically do something about it, I'm saying that just because it doesn't fit into your model of the the world ("Someone explain to me how a fast food burger flipping job is not a stepping stone and thus needs a 'livable' wage.") doesn't mean it's ignorable. We shouldn't and don't need a 40 page praxeological proof that it's possible when we can literally see it happening. But in this case we should do something about it - corporations paying a sub-living wage results in charities and welfare spending money to subsidize their employees' survival. Amergin posted:what prevents us from simply printing enough money to give everyone $200,000 annually for doing nothing, since apparently it won't have any adverse economic effects? Find me somewhere where I or anyone else on this forum have claimed that handing out $200K annually for doing nothing would have no adverse effects. It's a strawman you've constructed yourself to beat up on, because it's a ludicrous position. Amergin posted:My point is why not go for broke and make your "minimum income" $200,000 annually, "in case poo poo happens because we need to take care of all citizens for all possible circumstances." Because that's absurd. It's like going from "we shouldn't let cars drive at 55 through the center of town, let's make a 25mph speed limit" to "well why not a 1mph speed limit, huh? Slippery slope!1!1". People who propose these sorts of numbers are generally proposing them after thorough research into the expected impacts for employees and employers. These are not numbers pulled out of folks' asses. Amergin posted:In both cases you're saying "Does happen" should lead to "and therefore we should do something about it," then you simply change the last to assume we will regulate perfectly with no unintended consequences and no over-regulation. You're basically assuming a competent government here along with what I'm arguing against, "poo poo does happen sometimes therefore we should set large blanket rules to take care of it." While this might be an argument against a novel set of regulations, we're generally pretty familiar with how to implement a minimum wage and what its consequence-range is.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 20:18
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:Yes, what I see from the large sections of the CFRs (33 and 49 especially) that I interact with, ( and I'll give you that they are poorly written and hard to read) is that they are pretty reasonable and produced by a competent government appropriately reacting to disasters and considering the repercussions on industry. The Energy CFRs aren't terrible either. The idea that the ~free market~ fixes everything is such a load of poo poo. There's just as much graft, nepotism, and incompetence in the private sector as there is in the public. E: Amergin I missed you 
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 20:18
|
|
|
zoux posted:The standard argument against any kind of government program is abuse and that Pretty much all there is to it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 20:19
|
|
|
Amergin posted:The same universe where I apparently need enough money to cover every possible bad thing that could happen to me and cost money. $18/hr might not cover that, so why not $50,000 a year? Why not double that, and double that again, just to be sure we're keeping people well-funded enough to take care of themselves. Hush now.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 20:19
|
|
|
This whole conversation about a guaranteed minimum income reminds me of the last election when people were arguing who should pay the higher tax rate, the guy making $100k a year in dividends or the guy working full time for $100k.
Sephiroth_IRA fucked around with this message at 20:23 on Aug 11, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 20:21
|
|
|
Ron Jeremy posted:Pretty much all there is to it. Yup. It polls well when you sell a GMI as reducing benefits to lazy individuals. And medicaid is very inefficient. Its rates of reimbursement do not adjust for local issues. Far better to create a framework which allows individuals to purchase insurance through a health-management non-profit and not need medicare.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 20:22
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:You don't 'need' to 'redistribute' wealth to raise living standards. A rising tide raises all boats, and for less energy than it takes to manually raise each boat. No it doesn't, we've seen that pretty clearly over the last 30-40 years. My Imaginary GF posted:It is a genuine risk. Inflation is the market-based tax. Inflation is based upon currency perception and perceived future value. Therefore, it is necessary to implement a GMI in a manner which does not appear to be an implementation of GMI as most would perceive it: far better to implement it as a phase-out of benefits without removing those benefits from the books. This provides a legislative mechanism to increase the GMI by proxy-- raise the maximum for the bread dole, have the GMI raised to exceed that new maximum. Inflation's only a serious risk if (a) the incentive to work completely collapses or (b) we literally print money to cover a GMI.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 20:22
|
|
|
anonumos posted:Poor people would become lazy (lazier) if they earned more money. Welcome to neoliberalism!
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 20:23
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:Those systems are inefficient and outdated to our times. It is far better to provide the framework which enables freedom than it is to depend upon Congress to renew funding of individual programs. Well, that's great, and I'm pretty sure we have plenty of monetary policy to try and maintain those sorts of things, but, to continue the terrain metaphor, we need a society that's maybe a bit hilly, rather than one tall thin mountain with deep plains on either side. To be honest, though, this sounds like a whole bunch of irrelevant nonsense. I get that it isn't entirely irrelevant, but it's also not really at all what I'm talking about, and it strikes me as fundamentally unstable. We only have so much control over the rest of the world, so to bank the well being of Americans on their perception of the value of a dollar sounds somewhat silly. Edit: Also, I was entertaining the idea of limited changes to current systems out of fear of overregulation. Trying to bridge the gap between the old and young, if you will. bobtheconqueror fucked around with this message at 20:27 on Aug 11, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 20:24
|
|
|
anonumos posted:Poor people would become lazy (lazier) if they earned more money. What's absurd is that this line of logic is a 1:1 route to bringing about an aristocracy. Though, to be fair, I guess the founding fathers always intended for there to be such a thing.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 20:25
|
|
|
Magres posted:There's just as much graft, nepotism, and incompetence in the private sector as there is in the public. Or more in the private sector. Insurance companies often have to hire third parties to just observe things (I get paid to do this occasionally). In general (but not always) in the US we don't have to worry about doing that when interacting with government. Don't have to pay people to watch the USCG. I mean occasionally agencies have some bad apples but mostly government inspectors for a wide assortment of things are pretty good. And the only real complaint I have is that there should be more of them.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 20:27
|
|
|
The real incompetance in the public sector seems to be when you give a blank cheque to some contracting firm along with the assurance that the government is in so deep it would cost too much to fire them and get someone else if they gently caress up.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 20:31
|
|
|
bobtheconqueror posted:Oh cool, so like $10 an hour as a minimum would be pretty decent. It would've been decent in the early 90's when I was making $4.25/hr.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 20:32
|
|
|
Sir Tonk posted:It would've been decent in the early 90's when I was making $4.25/hr. Well, I meant in my area, which is small town Iowa. In a place like New York City, or even Des Moines, IA? Yeah, it should be higher. I started working minimum wage when it was still $5.85 an hour, and I think the only reason I managed to survive was due to a bunch of money I'd saved up being deployed in the Army and the small amount I got from reserve duty. bobtheconqueror fucked around with this message at 20:37 on Aug 11, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 20:34
|
|
|
Amergin posted:How? If we make the bottom tier of pay higher, that will simply increase inflation. If everyone has an influx of spending money, there's no reason to keep prices objectively low on anything. Labor is 100% the cost of everything, also burger flippers only make one burger an hour therefore burgers will go up $5!
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 20:36
|
|
|
Radish posted:The real incompetance in the public sector seems to be when you give a blank cheque to some contracting firm along with the assurance that the government is in so deep it would cost too much to fire them and get someone else if they gently caress up. My experience as being a government worker is that graft is near impossible at the lowest levels, because higher parts of the government are WATCHING and it's only when you get to more state and national level politics where talking points can overcome the spreadsheet. Local governments have a hard time doing payola when the only way they can put up a contract without bids is if they're on a pre-approved state level contractor list.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 20:37
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:Labor is 100% the cost of everything, also burger flippers only make one burger an hour therefore burgers will go up $5! NPR did a piece a few months ago about the economic impact of Portland raising the minimum wage to $15/hr and the "anti" guy they interviewed who ran a pizza parlor was utterly exasperated when he said the new law would mean he'd have to raise his prices one whole dollar per pizza. I was like, uh, that doesn't sound like a huge harm bud. Especially since he's undoubtedly exaggerating the effects.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 20:38
|
|
|
bobtheconqueror posted:Well, I meant in my area, which is small town Iowa. In a place like New York City, or even Des Moines, IA? Yeah, it should be higher. This is also a common argument against a federal minimum wage and will be used to encourage a state-based approach and/or just abolishing it altogether. edit zoux posted:NPR did a piece a few months ago about the economic impact of Portland raising the minimum wage to $15/hr and the "anti" guy they interviewed who ran a pizza parlor was utterly exasperated when he said the new law would mean he'd have to raise his prices one whole dollar per pizza. I was like, uh, that doesn't sound like a huge harm bud. Especially since he's undoubtedly exaggerating the effects. We're all waiting for the coming hellscape since Seattle raised it to $15/hr. I'm sure it's just around the corner! Although I have heard of McDonald's outsourcing its drive-thru personnel to Idaho just to avoid paying Washington and Oregon's high wages.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 20:38
|
|
|
nutranurse posted:What's absurd is that this line of logic is a 1:1 route to bringing about an aristocracy. The more I read about early American history the more I realize this is unironically true and it makes me deeply sad.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 20:39
|
|
|
zoux posted:NPR did a piece a few months ago about the economic impact of Portland raising the minimum wage to $15/hr and the "anti" guy they interviewed who ran a pizza parlor was utterly exasperated when he said the new law would mean he'd have to raise his prices one whole dollar per pizza. I was like, uh, that doesn't sound like a huge harm bud. Especially since he's undoubtedly exaggerating the effects. He has to raise the price a dollar and sells a ton more pizzas because when people have money to eat, they buy pizza because every American in existence loves pizza. He's literally arguing against something that benefits him because he's a short-sighted idiot.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 20:41
|
|
|
Magres posted:He has to raise the price a dollar and sells a ton more pizzas because when people have money to eat, they buy pizza because every American in existence loves pizza. Well, doing the smart thing usually comes second to ideology.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 20:46
|
|
|
Saw a bunch of posts and thought maybe something big happened, but it was just Amergin's return the the thread and the subsequent stupidity of goons constantly biting on someone who has made it clear they're posting stupid poo poo just to provoke a response.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 20:47
|
|
|
Crain posted:Know what? gently caress playing fair. Kill the rich, take their money. It's my turn to stand on top of the pile. Ditto, I want to be rich while doing no work for it like the 1% born into old money wealth who just have people they pay to do all their money management for them.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 20:47
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:Saw a bunch of posts and thought maybe something big happened, but it was just Amergin's return the the thread and the subsequent stupidity of goons constantly biting on someone who has made it clear they're posting stupid poo poo just to provoke a response. Honestly, posts like this are worse than the poo poo Amergin posts. At least he tries to provide context, as toxic as it is.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 20:48
|
|
|
Sir Tonk posted:This is also a common argument against a federal minimum wage and will be used to encourage a state-based approach and/or just abolishing it altogether. It's also taking Colorado a surprisingly long time to transition to the hellscape it's doomed to become since they legalized weed. Seattle is further behind the times on that, so you know you've got another year or so to figure out where to land when the potsmoke monsters turn the town into, I don't know, lazy people or something.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 20:50
|
|
|
nutranurse posted:Honestly, posts like this are worse than the poo poo Amergin posts. At least he tries to provide context, as toxic as it is. Nah, the puppetmaster gimmick is pretty stale and tedious at this point.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 20:50
|
|
|
zoux posted:NPR did a piece a few months ago about the economic impact of Portland raising the minimum wage to $15/hr and the "anti" guy they interviewed who ran a pizza parlor was utterly exasperated when he said the new law would mean he'd have to raise his prices one whole dollar per pizza. I was like, uh, that doesn't sound like a huge harm bud. Especially since he's undoubtedly exaggerating the effects. Yeah the math basically shows that most businesses wouldn't have to raise prices that much. I think the real reason is that employers fear their employees will realize that with their increased wages comes increased leverage. I mean if a person could get by on minimum wage or without a job then employers are going to have to treat their workers a heck of a lot better if they want to keep them. "What's the point of being rich if people don't fear me?" ~Mr. Burns. Sephiroth_IRA fucked around with this message at 20:53 on Aug 11, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 20:51
|
|
|
Spun Dog posted:Nah, the puppetmaster gimmick is pretty stale and tedious at this point. Which is why I have him on ignore.  Bitching about the guy doesn't really do anything, though, unless you're a mod who has the power to ban people.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 20:52
|
|
|
Jackson Taus posted:No it doesn't, we've seen that pretty clearly over the last 30-40 years.  There hasn't been a rising tide since Nixon.(A) has already occured for certain demographics, and is finally reaching highly-educated, or, white demographics. (B) is not a literal occasion, it is the result of the perception that GMI disbursements are higher than net savings and capital inflow. BrandorKP posted:Or more in the private sector. The difference is in disclosure. Public disclosure laws make public finances appear more corrupt, yet they less so than in the private sector. bobtheconqueror posted:Well, that's great, and I'm pretty sure we have plenty of monetary policy to try and maintain those sorts of things, but, to continue the terrain metaphor, we need a society that's maybe a bit hilly, rather than one tall thin mountain with deep plains on either side. If wealth were the elevation of terrain, I'd prefer to live at Colorado's than along a hilly coast. Far better for a minimum plane from which peaks rise than to bridge a grand canyon between hills. American influence is cultural. We are rich beyond imagination from our trade; our money has worth, backed by force of arms, and is the currency of the world. It is time to acknowledge that and guarantee all American citizens the opportunity to opt-in a GMI and gain freedom from big government, from overzealous liberal handouts, from bureaucrats dictating what you can buy. We can do this without eliminating any safety-net programs, without wiping any dole rolls. We can do this by implementing GMI. You opt-in to GMI, you are disqualified from the dole roll due to your bi-monthly income. It is the conservative fiscal policy that harnesses the efficiency of direct consumer choice over direct government mandates. You want to spend your GMI solely on beer? Great, go ahead. You don't get any SNAP benefits. You'll become homeless and won't qualify for Section 8. And it will be entirely your fault. You won't buy a subsidized healthcare plan through the marketplace, and will have an automatic deduction taken out of your GMI as a tax by IRS. You'll afford less and less beer each year. Truly, this is a better system than the ones we have in place now.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 20:53
|
|
|
nutranurse posted:Which is why I have him on ignore. Yep, me too. Doesn't help when he's quoted though.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 20:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 14:11 |
|
|
BrandorKP posted:Hell even Milton Friedman thought a negative income tax for the lowest bracket, ie. a GMI, might be a good idea. IIRC, Adam Smith was also a big fan of a minimum income. anonumos posted:Poor people would become lazy (lazier) if they earned more money. This. This is literally what needs to be said when someone mentions "job creators" because they either shut up, or flat out say that rich people are better than poor people which will go over really well outside the 1% and libertarian crowds.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 20:58
|
|