|
archangelwar posted:Additionally you have not used empirical evidence to arrive at the conclusion that the status quo is better than the alternative. Empirical evidence suddenly becomes necessary when a policy disagrees with your preconceived bias. Before we implement the status quo we need empirical evidence that it doesn't have any negative effects. National GMI now, then we can take it away from Kansas and see how they do.
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 06:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 21:20 |
|
|
archangelwar posted:Control group != group subject to different economic conditions. Control would be identical group subject to one less variable. Nebraska might be better comparatively than New York but it has been established time and again under economic study that minor policy differences have hugely compounding effects. Lack of ability to perform controlled experiments is the lament of economists everywhere. This is why meta-analysis is critical, and why scale and risk pooling matter in economic policy. You're unlikely to get perfect controls. That doesn't undermine the importance of controls. The reason we can know that modest increases in minimum wage have few deleterious effects is exactly because of state and local experiments. VitalSigns posted:No, not really, if there aren't enough studies on the GBI to draw a conclusion then you really had no reason to think it's better than the minimum wage. The theoretical downsides to a GBI are less troublesome than the theoretical downsides to a minimum wage. Given no actual data on both and bring forced choose, I would still choose a GBI. Given data that a minimum wage is bad but no data on GBI I'd choose GBI. Given data that modest minimum wage increases are not harmful I would favor that over a GBI. I mean I think these are pretty measured positions here. archangelwar posted:Additionally you have not used empirical evidence to arrive at the conclusion that the status quo is better than the alternative. Empirical evidence suddenly becomes necessary when a policy disagrees with your preconceived bias. I don't think a status quo is preferable. I'm in favor of a modest minimum wage increase. I think i said 11/hr was well supported by the literature when we last talked about it. Nitrousoxide fucked around with this message at 06:17 on Sep 7, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 06:05
|
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:You don't compare a Kansas GBI to NY. You compare them to Nebraska. And ideally you'd experiment with different levels of GBI to see the effects of different payouts. That's where different experiments with different funding levels helps as well rather than just one data point at a national level. This is inherently untrue. Economic variations between regions introduce an unknown amount of systematic uncertainty into the analysis. You can beat down this uncertainty by introducing the effect to more regions. Restricting the number of regions really just reduces your SNR without giving you the control group that you desire The closest thing that you can get to a control group would be to not offer the GBI benefits to a subset of every region.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 06:06
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:This is inherently untrue. Economic variations between regions introduce an unknown amount of systematic uncertainty into the analysis. You can beat down this uncertainty by introducing the effect to more regions. Restricting the number of regions really just reduces your SNR without giving you the control group that you desire This is how they analysed the benefits and harm for minimum wage increases. Are you saying that the data purporting to establish that minimum wage increases are not harmful is not good? Are you saying I should reconsider my position that modest minimum wage are not harmful?
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 06:10
|
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:This is how they analysed the benefits and harm for minimum wage increases. Are you saying that the data purporting to establish that minimum wage increases are not harmful is not good? I'm saying that the best data for analyzing the effects of minimum wage increases actually came from federally-mandated minimum wage increases
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 06:13
|
|
|
Nationwide minimum wage laws are cool and fine, because we've done it a million times and all the doomsday scenarios naysayers always bring up don't happen. Mincome/UBI/GMI (why are there so many different terms for this) is actually a novel idea, and there's been like one test on them in one small town in Canada or something, so being hesitant about full scale implementation is understandable. Personally I think a gradual fade-in would be a good way to do things, so that we can ease it back or pull the plug if the predicted negative effects come into play. What are the negative effects you're worried about, by the way, Nitrous? e: I will be busy setting off incendiaries made by teenagers today, so I may be too distracted to respond quickly. Goon Danton fucked around with this message at 11:54 on Sep 7, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 11:32
|
|
|
A big negative effect of a broad implementation of any welfare policy is the risk of large numbers of people either benefiting from it, or having friends who benefit from it, and thus coming to support it. And once that policy becomes normalized and entrenched, some day an even more encompassing one will be passed, and then another, and another! Step 2: .... Step 3: Serfdom!
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 13:57
|
|
|
Goon Danton posted:What are the negative effects you're worried about, by the way, Nitrous? There are a few. Price is one. That one is pretty certain even without a study just by multiplying the number of adults in the US by the proposed GBI. ~235 million. People here seem to want around a 30k a year GBI which would require 7 trillion dollars. Keep in mind the USA GDP is around 16-17 trillion. That'd mean this one program would require 42% of the entire economic output of the USA to fund -- not including implementation costs. This could obviously be alleviated by reducing the payout. But would people be okay with a 15k GBI at 21% of the GDP. That's not enough live on. Encouraging under employment or unemployment is another. Take me as an example, were I to get 30k a year, and the prices for the other stuff in the economy remained the same, I'd quit my job as an attorney, move out west to some North Western Pacific state out of Florida, and go do a job that requires me to work outside for around 20-30k a year as I enjoy being outside a lot more than being cooped up in my office all day. As an attorney that's obviously not an economically efficient use of my time as I'd be doing stuff I don't have a comparative advantage in. Similar sorts of decisions could be made nation wide by individuals ultimately resulting in a less productive society.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 14:05
|
|
|
Also I like the quick change in position that has never before been acknowledged you're good at this
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 14:27
|
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:There are a few. Price is one. That one is pretty certain even without a study just by multiplying the number of adults in the US by the proposed GBI. ~235 million. People here seem to want around a 30k a year GBI which would require 7 trillion dollars. Keep in mind the USA GDP is around 16-17 trillion. That'd mean this one program would require 42% of the entire economic output of the USA to fund -- not including implementation costs. This could obviously be alleviated by reducing the payout. But would people be okay with a 15k GBI at 21% of the GDP. That's not enough live on. I love that you think having a fulfilling job is somehow a horrible negative. My god, you might actually be happy! The horror! The horrrroooooor!
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 14:34
|
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:There are a few. Price is one. That one is pretty certain even without a study just by multiplying the number of adults in the US by the proposed GBI. ~235 million. People here seem to want around a 30k a year GBI which would require 7 trillion dollars. Keep in mind the USA GDP is around 16-17 trillion. That'd mean this one program would require 42% of the entire economic output of the USA to fund -- not including implementation costs. This could obviously be alleviated by reducing the payout. But would people be okay with a 15k GBI at 21% of the GDP. That's not enough live on. You are forgetting, of course, that most GBI proposals come with an attached tax hike on higher earners and also tax away the GBI after a certain threshold so that it primarily benefits low income earners. GBI can also be rolled out in a slowly increasing fashion, the same way that minimum wage increases are rolled out over a period of years; this allows for the benefits of increased spending power for the poorer members of society to start benefiting the economy and helping to offset the cost. But you knew all of this before posting, being intelligent enough to be an attorney who can't afford to waste time and all. I wonder why you didn't mention it? And before you put in some jab about people like me wanting to vote in more income for ourselves, I'm an engineer, and by the time any GBI shows up, I'll likely be making too much money to get anything out of it. The only self-interest voting I can do is mandatory overtime wage laws so that I actually get paid for the 9-11 hours I work each day.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 14:39
|
|
|
Goon Danton posted:Mincome/UBI/GMI (why are there so many different terms for this) is actually a novel idea, and there's been like one test on them in one small town in Canada or something, so being hesitant about full scale implementation is understandable. There have been others besides that one, though. There was one in Nambia (the BIG), there were some in the US (the NIT experiments), and people cite Alaska's oil dividends as effectively being a minimum income. It's hard to find a single compendium of all the experiments and examples, though. I can ask a friend who's looked into it a lot whether he has or knows of a "master list" of them. They haven't been on a national scale, but from what I remember, they have not borne out any disastrous consequences so I kinda feel like the "It's never really been tested in X scale" thing is kinda becoming a self-fulfilling prophesy.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 15:10
|
|
|
Wait, who's argued for a $30K mincome? That's, uh, real high. I live in a populated part of California and could be reasonably comfortable on my own for half that.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 15:36
|
|
|
Dirk the Average posted:You are forgetting, of course, that most GBI proposals come with an attached tax hike on higher earners and also tax away the GBI after a certain threshold so that it primarily benefits low income earners. There's also the question of how much of that would be direct replacements for programs we're already funding to pay the costs of poverty now.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 15:41
|
|
|
GunnerJ posted:There have been others besides that one, though. There was one in Nambia (the BIG), there were some in the US (the NIT experiments), and people cite Alaska's oil dividends as effectively being a minimum income. It's hard to find a single compendium of all the experiments and examples, though. I can ask a friend who's looked into it a lot whether he has or knows of a "master list" of them. They haven't been on a national scale, but from what I remember, they have not borne out any disastrous consequences so I kinda feel like the "It's never really been tested in X scale" thing is kinda becoming a self-fulfilling prophesy. I actually was not aware of the other studies. Interesting! I'll need to track them down.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 16:25
|
|
|
I am a ~utilitarian~ that doesn't want everyone to be happy AMA
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 17:02
|
|
|
You need to understand the outcomes of a policy to see if it's the right thing to do under utilitarianism dude. It shouldn't shock you that I'm focused on outcomes here. Edit: Like I don't know why you guys are making the assumption that I'm being an evil bastard here. I changed my mind when presented with sufficient data on minimum wage effects. I just don't think the data is there to support a GBI policy yet. Nitrousoxide fucked around with this message at 17:20 on Sep 7, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 17:13
|
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:You need to understand the outcomes of a policy to see if it's the right thing to do under utilitarianism dude. Explain how being happy with your job is a negative under utilitarianism.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 17:24
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Explain how being happy with your job is a negative under utilitarianism. It's not in a vacuum. But if it results in lots of people taking less profitable jobs it undermines the economy and makes funding the project even less feasible. Say it resulted in a 20% shrinking of the GDP, that would have ENORMOUS macro economic effects.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 17:42
|
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:You need to understand the outcomes of a policy to see if it's the right thing to do under utilitarianism dude. I know you think this is some sort of self-evident intelligent position to take, but there are entire areas of philosophy and sociology that deal with the cognitive human biases toward resisting and fearing change. Once again, we have not arrived at our current economic position through a series of carefully controlled studies and have little in the way of empirical evidence to support the conclusions that were used to derive current policy. You are not expressing "healthy skepticism" this is nothing more than a rationalization of a cognitive bias. If everyone operated in this capacity, then we would be paralyzed, and it manifests itself in negative human behavior: bystanders unwilling to intervene in assault, xenophobia, and people like you who would prefer to allow human suffering rather than address it. Here, put your money where your mouth is... You claim a belief in GBI at the local level, which state politicians do you support that have run on a platform of GBI? You believe that raising the minimum wage is an empirically proven concept, so which national politicians do you support that have a platform of increasing the minimum wage? Do reject the candidacy of Libertarians who philosophically oppose the minimum wage and in fact campaign on a promise to abolish it? Do you reject the contributors to Mises.org who reject empiricism and embrace praxeology? Utilitarianism would ultimately dictate that you act on policy that you believe to provide greater utility, and react according to the results. It does not require every decision to be paralyzed by waiting for someone else to perform all of the social experiments for you. It also recognizes that it is immoral to stand by while human suffer takes place when we have the means to directly address it. You are just a coward.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 17:53
|
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:It's not in a vacuum. But if it results in lots of people taking less profitable jobs it undermines the economy and makes funding the project even less feasible. I keep trying to type up a long explanation of exactly why you're a moron, but I can't put it into words. Suffice it to say, you're a moron and this is the stupidest hypothetical that I have ever seen. In no way would this possibly be a reflection of reality.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 17:53
|
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:It's not in a vacuum. But if it results in lots of people taking less profitable jobs it undermines the economy and makes funding the project even less feasible. I fail to see how everyone being able to actually afford goods and services would result in the economy shrinking. If anything mincome bypasses the problem of underemployment.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 17:55
|
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:It's not in a vacuum. But if it results in lots of people taking less profitable jobs it undermines the economy and makes funding the project even less feasible. If people were abandoning these extremely profitable jobs, I have no doubt at all that others would move in and take them. And don't try to say that no one could do them. If for some reason all the doctors quit to get GMI, the nurse practitioners and whatnot would train up a bit then become doctors.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 17:55
|
|
|
And there could be plenty of people working half time - both in high income and low income jobs - to make the economy go. Why should everyone suffer?
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 17:59
|
|
|
If a doctor hates being a doctor so much that he runs off to grow turnips as soon as that becomes a feasible option, then they really shouldn't be a doctor in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 18:10
|
|
|
paragon1 posted:If a doctor hates being a doctor so much that he runs off to grow turnips as soon as that becomes a feasible option, then they really shouldn't be a doctor in the first place. Or maybe she would like being a doctor if she could see her kids off to school in the morning. Edit: not to take away from your point, paragon, which is also a good one. I'm just befuddled by this idea that working fewer hours is going to destroy everything.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 18:12
|
|
|
Also, whether through phasing out benefits as you're able to better afford things on your own (a common feature of such plans), or just the upward pressure GMI would put on wages, doctors and lawyers and engineers would certainly remain highly paid enough most people who got into those professions in the first place would stay there.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 18:15
|
|
|
archangelwar posted:I know you think this is some sort of self-evident intelligent position to take, but there are entire areas of philosophy and sociology that deal with the cognitive human biases toward resisting and fearing change. Once again, we have not arrived at our current economic position through a series of carefully controlled studies and have little in the way of empirical evidence to support the conclusions that were used to derive current policy. You are not expressing "healthy skepticism" this is nothing more than a rationalization of a cognitive bias. If everyone operated in this capacity, then we would be paralyzed, and it manifests itself in negative human behavior: bystanders unwilling to intervene in assault, xenophobia, and people like you who would prefer to allow human suffering rather than address it. Can I empty quote in this thread
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 18:15
|
|
|
WrenP-Complete posted:Or maybe she would like being a doctor if she could see her kids off to school in the morning. That too. Working class people might actually be able to engage in gasp! parenting and volunteer work and leisure time in healthy amounts thanks to being able to quit that second job. Makes me sick just thinking about it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 18:22
|
|
|
A shame 8-Bit Scholar isn't around anymore. Jacobin magazine just did an article on Gary Johnson, and he's actually worse than this thread thinks.quote:After inaugurating New Mexico’s use of private prisons, Johnson made it his top political priority to install a school voucher system (an effort that failed because of the legislature’s opposition). He also annulled public employees’ collective-bargaining rights, slashed funding for social programs, reduced taxes for the wealthy, implemented one of the country’s strictest welfare-reform programs, and pushed for harsher sentencing laws. It just keeps going like that. Johnson was that special class of Republican rear end in a top hat. My favorite part though: quote:the Economist reported that he once shut himself in a freezer “to prove he could withstand the cold.”
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 18:33
|
|
|
Dirk the Average posted:I keep trying to type up a long explanation of exactly why you're a moron, but I can't put it into words. Suffice it to say, you're a moron and this is the stupidest hypothetical that I have ever seen. In no way would this possibly be a reflection of reality. Totally not empty quoting, libertarians bad, all of recorded history, something something
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 18:40
|
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:It's not in a vacuum. But if it results in lots of people taking less profitable jobs it undermines the economy and makes funding the project even less feasible. Say it resulted in a 20% increasing of the GDP. I mean, if we're just pulling numbers out of our rear end.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 18:41
|
|
|
Curvature of Earth posted:A shame 8-Bit Scholar isn't around anymore. Jacobin magazine just did an article on Gary Johnson, and he's actually worse than this thread thinks. seriously,  , no,  at all the idiot young bernouts who say they're voting for gary johnsoni guess there's a lot of young white edgelords who just want to be sucked into some old white messiah figure's cult of personality
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 18:45
|
|
|
archangelwar posted:I know you think this is some sort of self-evident intelligent position to take, but there are entire areas of philosophy and sociology that deal with the cognitive human biases toward resisting and fearing change. Once again, we have not arrived at our current economic position through a series of carefully controlled studies and have little in the way of empirical evidence to support the conclusions that were used to derive current policy. You are not expressing "healthy skepticism" this is nothing more than a rationalization of a cognitive bias. If everyone operated in this capacity, then we would be paralyzed, and it manifests itself in negative human behavior: bystanders unwilling to intervene in assault, xenophobia, and people like you who would prefer to allow human suffering rather than address it. I think I'm exhibiting exactly as much skepticism as is necessary for such an enormous policy. A 30k GBI would almost equal the entire current US Federal Budget. Imagine the macro economic effects of eliminating or doubling the federal government. This is the order of magnitude we are talking about here. Going on your gut is not the way to go. There's literally never been such a single enormous expenditure in the entire history is the world. You'd be a fool to not be cautious. Far more limited approaches I would be far more generous in allowing, which is why local and state attempts at this are completely fine in my book and i could encourage.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 18:52
|
|
|
archangelwar posted:You are not expressing "healthy skepticism" this is nothing more than a rationalization of a cognitive bias. Typically people just call it "conservatism".
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 18:53
|
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:There's literally never been such a single enormous expenditure in the entire history is the world. And there never will be. Even if we did somehow implement a national minimum income, you know that poo poo would be phased in slowly over several years, it wouldn't just be "Okay, on January 1st, you all start getting checks for $2100 a month!"
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 18:57
|
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:I think I'm exhibiting exactly as much skepticism as is necessary for such an enormous policy. A 30k GBI would almost equal the entire current US Federal Budget. Seriously, who is advocating that? Two people living together would be making more than the current median household income without doing anything at all. You can't just take the yearly pre-tax wages of a person making $15/hour working full time and set that as the minimum, that's dumb.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 19:00
|
|
|
Jack of Hearts posted:Wait, who's argued for a $30K mincome? That's, uh, real high. I live in a populated part of California and could be reasonably comfortable on my own for half that. That's one thing people always use to argue against it. It's like hey we're just saying you get enough to buy food and not sleep in the cold. That's it. A warm place to sleep, enough to eat, and maybe a bus pass or some such. It isn't meant for luxuries it's meant for basics. You want more? You go work. Then you throw in free education so people can actually become qualified for decent jobs and get out of poverty. Oh hey there's still motivation for people to get jobs. How did that happen? But really it offers the poor a way out and this is America where we won't be loving having that. gently caress the poors, they should just hurry up and starve to death.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 19:01
|
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:I think I'm exhibiting exactly as much skepticism as is necessary for such an enormous policy. A 30k GBI would almost equal the entire current US Federal Budget. Imagine the macro economic effects of eliminating or doubling the federal government. This is the order of magnitude we are talking about here. Going on your gut is not the way to go. There's literally never been such a single enormous expenditure in the entire history is the world. Problem: you are bad at math. Not everyone would receive the entire 30k GBI because a good chunk of that would get taxed out after a certain income threshold is reached. It would also necessarily be enacted alongside tax increases and alongside reduction in other types of benefits, as a GBI would replace the majority of such benefits.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 19:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 21:20 |
|
|
paragon1 posted:That too. Working class people might actually be able to engage in gasp! parenting and volunteer work and leisure time in healthy amounts thanks to being able to quit that second job. Makes me sick just thinking about it. Again we see that the average person being happy and fulfilled is a non-existent concern when compared to the the ever-growing savings find of the upperclass when viewed from the eyes of the libertarian. As always they think they will be the feudal lords, and not the lowly serfs.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 19:04
|
|