|
rudatron posted:the reason is because there are a million and a half 'conservative think tanks', who decry every single policy aimed at helping those in poverty as economically bad, because ~<insert scary bullshit reasons>~. There's no mathematical basis for it, it all comes entirely down to virtue/moralistic bullshit, that the poor are poor because they deserve it, and making them not poor disrupts the cosmic balance or some poo poo I had an economics professor who explained it like this: If you feel the major determining factor of success in life is inherited wealth and station then your policies are likely to focus on redistribution with an eye towards equality of outcomes. If you believe the major determining factor of success is personal initiative then your policies are likely to focus on encouraging work and removing obstacles to success (regulations, taxation, etc), with an eye towards equality of opportunity. He said this gave a potentially charitable explanation of Republican rhetoric that helped him sleep at night: They want to dismantle the social safety net not because they are ravening monsters who hate the poor and cannot be stopped, but because they genuinely think its the best way to encourage individual effort and greater success. This means they are still humans who can be reached and talked with.
|
# ? May 7, 2017 07:15 |
|
|
# ? May 16, 2024 18:56 |
|
Not a Step posted:I had an economics professor who explained it like this: If you feel the major determining factor of success in life is inherited wealth and station then your policies are likely to focus on redistribution with an eye towards equality of outcomes. If you believe the major determining factor of success is personal initiative then your policies are likely to focus on encouraging work and removing obstacles to success (regulations, taxation, etc), with an eye towards equality of opportunity. He said this gave a potentially charitable explanation of Republican rhetoric that helped him sleep at night: They want to dismantle the social safety net not because they are ravening monsters who hate the poor and cannot be stopped, but because they genuinely think its the best way to encourage individual effort and greater success. This means they are still humans who can be reached and talked with. The hypothetical Republican view has no answer to the fact that social mobility is strongly correlated with the quality of a place's welfare state though.
|
# ? May 7, 2017 07:43 |
|
You're assuming that they're arguing from first principles or whatever - that's not it. They're rich, don't really care about anyone else, and they want more more more. Things like taxes and regulations and such prevent that, because it implies they have some sort of obligation to society, which they naturally want to jettison as soon as possible. Everything else - the justification for trickle-down, etc - is all an exercise in post-hoc rationalization, of justifying an already assumed conclusion. The belief that income inequality is a factor of individual virtue, rather than an arbitrary result of the system, is just part and parcel of that rationalization - if it weren't, then they might not actually deserve the insane privileges they have (they don't). They know this, deep down, and it conflicts with their conscience. So in order to maintain a sense of innocence, they must naturally come to the conclusion that the poor are dumb/stupid/evil/whatever, and therefore deserving of punishment (ie austerity). This allows them to partake in abuse and perpetuate inequality, while pretending that that is the most just outcome possible. rudatron has issued a correction as of 07:56 on May 7, 2017 |
# ? May 7, 2017 07:54 |
|
Corky Romanovsky posted:If someone is earning minimum wage and suddenly is taking home double minimum wage, they will buy double the meals, double the attire, double the abodes. Since these are all limited resources, and consumption doubles, prices must also double. -noted moron imagine 4 plebs standing on a cliff, now double their bread ration thats ubi
|
# ? May 7, 2017 14:39 |
|
Jeb! Repetition posted:The hypothetical Republican view has no answer to the fact that social mobility is strongly correlated with the quality of a place's welfare state though. the typical Republican refuses to believe that they believe that merely being smart and working hard will provide people with sufficient social mobility, and that a welfare state will simply upend their imagined merit-based class system by giving social mobility to those who don't work hard and therefore don't deserve it
|
# ? May 7, 2017 14:39 |
|
rudatron posted:mean household income will be stable because you're funding it off taxes. The average household would not need to be taxed at a higher rate in order to fund UBI
|
# ? May 7, 2017 14:59 |
|
Because we'll end up with either defacto state slavery or something like this over time: https://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/31/business/international/in-europe-fake-jobs-can-have-real-benefits.html Working for fake companies producing and selling fake products to fake buyers. In a market already automated, making people 'work' for their welfare (ostensibly as "training" for jobs that no longer exist) by living in a Matrix-esque 20th century simulation of what a work place is will just seem cruel. Soon we will have machines and software that can do any job the average person can do to a higher standard and for cheaper. Anything other than the total welfare of people who no longer have the ability to contribute in any meaningful way will fall short eventually.
|
# ? May 7, 2017 21:03 |
|
Blockade posted:Because we'll end up with either defacto state slavery or something like this over time: This honestly doesn't seem so bad, if it could be funneled into productive labor. The unemployed people participating in these programs appreciated the chance to be around other people, stay mentally engaged, etc. Why not just take it a step further - the main focus of the article was a lady engaged in secretarial work, the "fake" company she "works" at could say, take on excess administrative work from other government agencies that need it for seasonal reasons? Treat at as pool of what effectively becomes contract labor in any number of specializations for the rest of government, but is always hiring and pays salary (of course you can leave at any time to enter the private labor market, and the bonus there is that no one is going to bother for lovely hourly work - this becomes a floor for pay and labor practices). If there are more people in the program that can be reasonably put to work, just provide training - let them sit in classrooms, pick up certifications, etc, until they can be put to productive work. Or just shorten the work week for everyone. But at no point in this process does anyone have to worry about having their next paycheck come in. Now instead of this weird existence in a Potemkin village that produces nothing and yet still requires paying unemployment payments to her and a fee to the "training" company, she would be doing valuable work or gaining skills until she could. AreWeDrunkYet has issued a correction as of 22:19 on May 7, 2017 |
# ? May 7, 2017 22:13 |
|
Hasn't it been the case for a while that the inflation rate of the dollar is too low and has resisted a lot of policy decisions designed to increase it? I read that somewhere and am not going to bother verifying it.
|
# ? May 7, 2017 23:50 |
|
Fullhouse posted:there's really two ways to do this: not to mention the first would force people to come to come to work for 8 hours a day and make them revolve their entire lives around it to do the equivalent of digging holes and filling them back up again
|
# ? May 8, 2017 03:05 |
|
There are real costs to bureacray and ubi mostly sidesteps them.
|
# ? May 8, 2017 04:13 |
|
my belief is that there needs to be a guarantee of a universal standard of living, not a basic income. if the greatest dumbasses of our society like the current president or the idiots in finance who tanked our economy are living like kings, then the fundamental promise of the meritocracy and just world theory is a lie - thus wealth and power must be redistributed to protect the nation from their terror, and to instill in people's minds that we our only as great as the quality of living of our poorest person. we should want people to wake up in the morning and be proud they live in a nation where nobody is living on the streets, or starving, and our children are all receiving a quality education. thus, our nation as a whole becomes a stronger unit, and we are obligated as citizens to look out for one another's well-being. universal programs for health care and giving the homeless homes are actually cheaper on our taxpayers as well as being an overall public good. we have 6 houses to every homeless person, most of which are lovely McMansion abominations, and we throw out 40% of our food while many struggle on food stamps and others just go hungry. the "free market" is great for tech doodads and virtual reality and non-essentials, but for providing the essentials of life, it's a brutally cruel and stupid system that imposes suffering on many for the profit of a few. UBI is simply giving cash into the hands of the many poor so they can enrich the wealth of the few capital-holders in our society. we need to build a more fundamental core set of policies to challenge this idiotic shitshow we've been forced to subscribe to since birth.
|
# ? May 8, 2017 04:44 |
|
Yeah, we do, but ubi is little more realistic.Lawman 0 posted:There are real costs to bureacray and ubi mostly sidesteps them.
|
# ? May 8, 2017 07:16 |
|
Taintrunner posted:my belief is that there needs to be a guarantee of a universal standard of living, not a basic income. now, you have hit at the heart of the thing you are strong, and cool, and good, and probably a good friend to many unironically
|
# ? May 8, 2017 09:38 |
|
I mean wouldn't job guarantee make hundred-hour weeks the norm because the capitalists are required to hire you but under no obligation to make conditions good outside of existing laws that are still pretty inadequate. UBI is way less messy, still would require the overwhelming majority of folks to grind the bones of their labour into capital, but provides a tangible and reliable safety net for the hard times.
|
# ? May 8, 2017 14:35 |
|
Taintrunner posted:my belief is that there needs to be a guarantee of a universal standard of living, not a basic income. when democrats won't do what is needed, then voting the "lesser of two evils" is not the right option anymore Condiv has issued a correction as of 14:45 on May 8, 2017 |
# ? May 8, 2017 14:43 |
|
Condiv posted:when democrats won't do what is needed, then voting the "lesser of two evils" is not the right option anymore you dont really get what evils all about do you
|
# ? May 8, 2017 15:15 |
|
hey still want those papers from economists providing analyses on why ubi is good
|
# ? May 8, 2017 16:31 |
|
rudatron posted:Yeah, we do, but ubi is little more realistic. Like it's hard for me to stress how important keep it simple stupid is.
|
# ? May 8, 2017 16:36 |
|
Baloogan posted:in theory i should get canada's UBI and america's UBI according to my calculations so plz show me the money I'm all for this solution that allows me to double dip as well.
|
# ? May 8, 2017 17:08 |
|
double dip my anus
|
# ? May 8, 2017 17:09 |
|
walgreenslatino posted:because work sucks
|
# ? May 8, 2017 17:20 |
|
mrbradlymrmartin posted:you dont really get what evils all about do you zuck's evil. dems are entertaining him as pres yikes!
|
# ? May 8, 2017 17:30 |
|
I unironically think they oughta bring back the homestead act and the Great Depression labor corps
|
# ? May 11, 2017 00:25 |
|
Zajajaja posted:I'm all for this solution that allows me to double dip as well. People would probably get mad at this, but I'm like "good, more for my brother and sister proles."
|
# ? May 11, 2017 01:05 |
|
We had a program called "Job Guarantee" in , it was essentially forcing longterm unemployed people to do some hours in some government work place to get their benefits. Like being the 6th worker in an small cafeteria in a government building. Or shipping people with disabilities to chop lumber in Lapland. How would a job guarantee not create a second level class which works these "imaginary" jobs?
|
# ? May 11, 2017 16:21 |
|
Not a Step posted:I had an economics professor who explained it like this: If you feel the major determining factor of success in life is inherited wealth and station then your policies are likely to focus on redistribution with an eye towards equality of outcomes. If you believe the major determining factor of success is personal initiative then your policies are likely to focus on encouraging work and removing obstacles to success (regulations, taxation, etc), with an eye towards equality of opportunity. He said this gave a potentially charitable explanation of Republican rhetoric that helped him sleep at night: They want to dismantle the social safety net not because they are ravening monsters who hate the poor and cannot be stopped, but because they genuinely think its the best way to encourage individual effort and greater success. This means they are still humans who can be reached and talked with. Another explanation is that there are some Republicans like the DeVos who literally believes in prosperity gospel or that rich == favor from god poor ==god hates you
|
# ? May 11, 2017 17:29 |
|
why dont we make rich people work menial jobs if work for work's sake is a good thing?
|
# ? May 11, 2017 18:03 |
|
Typo posted:Another explanation is that there are some Republicans like the DeVos who literally believes in prosperity gospel or that rich == favor from god poor ==god hates you except it says calvinism
|
# ? May 11, 2017 18:15 |
|
UBI doesn't get me a job, JGs will.Blockade posted:Because we'll end up with either defacto state slavery or something like this over time: It's better than being stuck at home being asked by family why I don't have a job.
|
# ? May 11, 2017 19:56 |
|
rudatron posted:mean household income will be stable because you're funding it off taxes. My point was more that the effect of the policy is a nominal increase in income (since income is reported pretax). There's no actual change in the money supply with any redistribution which is why the inflation argument is ridiculous on its face.
|
# ? May 11, 2017 20:28 |
|
super sweet best pal posted:UBI doesn't get me a job, JGs will. if you had UBI and you stay at home doing nothing, that is your own fault and your family would be right to harass you for it. the opportunity UBI provides you is to develop your skills to get an actual job or to even go out and create your own job without worrying about dying of exposure or starvation in the process. there is no way anyone will be able to figure out what job suits you better than you, so a job guarantee is stupid on its face from both an economic perspective and from a personal liberty perspective.
|
# ? May 11, 2017 20:29 |
|
super sweet best pal posted:UBI doesn't get me a job, JGs will. With UBI could start a business selling t-shirts that say "dont talk to me" and sell them to fellow goons.
|
# ? May 12, 2017 06:10 |
|
So job guarantees are better for lazy people with no life skills and a desire not to feel worthless even though they are. Probably a good portion of the population GlyphGryph has issued a correction as of 14:07 on May 12, 2017 |
# ? May 12, 2017 14:03 |
|
if the govt flipped a coin randomly for every individual and they either got a job guarantee or ubi for the rest of their lives, which group do you think would resent the other
|
# ? May 12, 2017 14:14 |
|
Al! posted:if the govt flipped a coin randomly for every individual and they either got a job guarantee or ubi for the rest of their lives, which group do you think would resent the other Trick question. Both of them would resent each other.
|
# ? May 12, 2017 15:08 |
|
Peanut President posted:With UBI could start a business selling t-shirts that say "dont talk to me" and sell them to fellow goons. id be your best customer because i would actually change mine lol
|
# ? May 12, 2017 15:41 |
|
Coolguye posted:if you had UBI and you stay at home doing nothing, that is your own fault and your family would be right to harass you for it. it also allows people to work jobs they want over jobs that pay enough to live well. Hell if I had UBI I'd still be doing conservation corp work since I wouldn't have the economical sword of damicles that is a 400 a month stipend.
|
# ? May 12, 2017 15:42 |
|
I could get a job guarantee and have the benevolent bureaucracy decide that my best fit is in loss prevention for a reverse mortgage company or I can get UBI and jack off in a van in the woods for as long as I like this is a tough one
|
# ? May 12, 2017 16:08 |
|
|
# ? May 16, 2024 18:56 |
|
Fullhouse posted:I could get a job guarantee and have the benevolent bureaucracy decide that my best fit is in loss prevention for a reverse mortgage company or I can get UBI and jack off in a van in the woods for as long as I like https://twitter.com/nihilist_arbys/status/831499781310644224
|
# ? May 12, 2017 16:41 |