|
Neurolimal posted:Because our food stamp program is pretty good and usually well funded, whereas government support in other fields is much less so. People selling food stamps usually aren't doing it to buy different food. If you add the caveat the the UBI cannot possibly be enough to pay for food and housing, well then dang it sure is a lousy system. But, again, if someone is given the choice between $1,000 in cash and $1,000 in food stamps, I believe the vast majority would choose the cash. If we posit that the benefit amount is enough to pay for housing and food and it is indexed to a housing/food specific inflation measure, I haven't seen any argument for direct food/housing vs cash that doesn't boil down to "I think they'd make decisions with the cash I disagree with."
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2017 18:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 20:40 |
|
|
https://twitter.com/lesleyclark/status/912718210725707776
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2017 18:06
|
|
|
Hellblazer187 posted:Every dollar you give in some type of specific assistance is less valuable than a dollar given in cash. Total benefit amount is most important, of course. Is 10k in cash and 10k in food/housing good? Of course, but not as good as 20k in cash. This ignores the way power is distributed in any given market. Take pharmacare systems, for example - the reason prescription drugs are so cheap in countries with nationalized pharmacare is because having a single buyer stand in for the entire market (the government) provides the buyer with massive power in terms of setting prices, which benefits the final purchaser. Just distributing a bunch of money and hoping it'll be enough for people to acquire necessary drugs doesn't have nearly the benefits, and always runs the risk of inflation eating away at whatever good you were hoping to achieve.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2017 18:14
|
|
|
Pembroke Fuse posted:Your resources (whether in terms of humans trained to perform the operation, processed nuclear material required to run diagnostics of that particular type, etc) are in fact limited by the decisions you've made up to that point and the upper bounds on the kinds of resources you have available. quote:This is not the argument I am making. The argument isn't "we should make complicated things scarce", it's that scarcity is inherent the higher up the relative chain of complexity that you go.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2017 18:14
|
|
|
Hellblazer187 posted:If you add the caveat the the UBI cannot possibly be enough to pay for food and housing, well then dang it sure is a lousy system. But, again, if someone is given the choice between $1,000 in cash and $1,000 in food stamps, I believe the vast majority would choose the cash. If we posit that the benefit amount is enough to pay for housing and food and it is indexed to a housing/food specific inflation measure, I haven't seen any argument for direct food/housing vs cash that doesn't boil down to "I think they'd make decisions with the cash I disagree with." The majority would choose cash because the majority would have needs beyond food that they'd use it for instead. Food stamps are far more likely to withstand market fluctuations than hard cash. This applies to every scenario with similar competing programs. It puts the burden of negotiating living conditions with the state than with the individual, and the state will often be far more competent at it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2017 18:23
|
|
|
Falstaff posted:This ignores the way power is distributed in any given market. Take pharmacare systems, for example - the reason prescription drugs are so cheap in countries with nationalized pharmacare is because having a single buyer stand in for the entire market (the government) provides the buyer with massive power in terms of setting prices, which benefits the final purchaser. Just distributing a bunch of money and hoping it'll be enough for people to acquire necessary drugs doesn't have nearly the benefits, and always runs the risk of inflation eating away at whatever good you were hoping to achieve. Part of the reason that healthcare should be separate from any other system is because it doesn't work like other markets - if you need insulin, you need insulin and you're captive to the pharma co. That's why UHC is and should be a separate benefit. If you are hungry and the rice makers put up the price of rice, then you buy corn. There aren't nearly as many substitutes. I've said a number of times that my ideal UBI would replace food and housing subsidy only and go in tandem with some form of UHC. That said, the purchase power argument has validity I hadn't thought of. Per pound of [staple food] the government can get a better price than an individual buyer. That brings us back to my original concern about variety and choice. To provide a base level of calories to every man woman and child, direct government purchase or production would be cheaper. I don't think this idea works quite as well in housing, though, since there's no real bulk purchase power option. I don't think the price of an existing house changes if you buy three of them. Possibly there are arrangements for new builds. And, again, any UBI system that doesn't have an automatic index for inflation is unacceptable. It seems the inflation argument is again just a presupposition of insufficiency of benefit. My argument is that given the same benefit levels, which includes the same adjustments for price variance, cash is preferable to restricted assistance.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2017 18:24
|
|
|
Neurolimal posted:The majority would choose cash because the majority would have needs beyond food that they'd use it for instead. I can't see this as anything more than a point in favor of UBI. I'm not grasping how this is a point in favor of food stamps. Neurolimal posted:Food stamps are far more likely to withstand market fluctuations than hard cash. This applies to every scenario with similar competing programs. It puts the burden of negotiating living conditions with the state than with the individual, and the state will often be far more competent at it. This again seems like an argument that presupposes insufficiency. The cash benefit would need to be adjusted for inflation in the price of food. I also don't think that the food stamps would be better in times of unpredictable market changes. Food stamps as they exist restrict which foods you can buy with them. If the price of an "acceptable" food goes up, the value of the food stamp goes down. If substitute that is not on the "acceptable" list exists, this puts the food stamp recipient in a bad position relative to someone receiving an equivalent cash benefit. Hellblazer187 fucked around with this message at 18:29 on Sep 26, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2017 18:26
|
|
|
Hellblazer187 posted:I can't see this as anything more than a point in favor of UBI. I'm not grasping how this is a point in favor of food stamps. Because Food Stamps + other specialized assistance programs is more efficient and resillient to change than a general UBI, and ensures that a poor family isn't forced to choose between rent or food. I speak from experience. quote:This again seems like an argument that presupposes insufficiency. This is because a UBI would operate on private supplier's terms, negotiated on a per-citizen basis. Significant profit margins is a basic factor in such a system, and said profit would be pocketed by the class least likely to use it. You're rewarding a broken system for creating the need for additional assistance. quote:The cash benefit would need to be adjusted for inflation in the price of food Inflation isn't the only factor in price hikes.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2017 18:39
|
|
|
"not to be sexist but... to be sexist:"
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2017 18:43
|
|
|
Inflation doesn't climb at an even rate across all markets. Even if you set up UBI to scale with inflation, that's not necessarily going to be able to account for e.g. dramatic, short-term rises in housing costs. It's the classic "let them eat their iPads" thing. Which is not to argue that UBI is an inherently bad idea, just that it's not exactly sufficient to replace all (or even most, I would argue) of the social safety net. Hellblazer187 posted:I don't think this idea works quite as well in housing, though, since there's no real bulk purchase power option. I don't think the price of an existing house changes if you buy three of them. Possibly there are arrangements for new builds. It's a bit different with housing, but even there state-owned housing can work well because it allows the state to set prices based on societal good rather than prices based on the landlords' profit. In a system that mixes private and public housing, it also puts downward pressure on market prices in much the same way that, say, a public option is meant to work on the private health insurance market.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2017 18:52
|
|
|
Neurolimal posted:This is because a UBI would operate on private supplier's terms, negotiated on a per-citizen basis. Significant profit margins is a basic factor in such a system, and said profit would be pocketed by the class least likely to use it. You're rewarding a broken system for creating the need for additional assistance. Food stamps work the same way, though. The grocery store still makes a profit on the food purchased with the food stamps, and so does the producer. However, to pay for the UBI (or an expanded foodstamp program) you'd need to tax those profits more, so it's reducing that side of it as well. If your alternative is for the Government to buy up enough farm land to grow enough grain to feed everyone, that's different. But food stamps still work in the same capitalist system. Food stamps are a cash equivalent that is restricted to buying only certain foodstuffs. Neurolimal posted:Because Food Stamps + other specialized assistance programs is more efficient and resillient to change than a general UBI, and ensures that a poor family isn't forced to choose between rent or food. I speak from experience. A UBI that provided equivalent value wouldn't force the between rent and food. If rent is $500 and food is $500, a UBI of $1,000 covers both. Your experience is in receiving insufficient benefits, and I'm sorry that you had to experience that. Nobody should. But it doesn't mean the average poor family can't make their own decisions.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2017 18:53
|
|
|
Falstaff posted:Inflation doesn't climb at an even rate across all markets. Even if you set up UBI to scale with inflation, that's not necessarily going to be able to account for e.g. dramatic, short-term rises in housing costs. It's the classic "let them eat their iPads" thing. Granted, but an inflation measure could be tied specifically to food and housing. Falstaff posted:It's a bit different with housing, but even there state-owned housing can work well because it allows the state to set prices based on societal good rather than prices based on the landlords' profit. In a system that mixes private and public housing, it also puts downward pressure on market prices in much the same way that, say, a public option is meant to work on the private health insurance market. Then we're back to creating strong limits on choice. What if the government doesn't buy housing where jobs are popping up? What if the government owned area falls into disrepair? Like I said regarding the food producers when replying to the other poster, if we're taking this system all the way then the landlords profit is going to be taxed much more heavily if it puts them into an upper income range so it's not as though it's just going to feed back into the capital class. Hellblazer187 fucked around with this message at 18:58 on Sep 26, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2017 18:55
|
|
|
Neurolimal posted:Because Food Stamps + other specialized assistance programs is more efficient and resillient to change than a general UBI, and ensures that a poor family isn't forced to choose between rent or food. I speak from experience.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2017 18:56
|
|
|
Neurolimal posted:The majority would choose cash because the majority would have needs beyond food that they'd use it for instead. I don't think you know how EBT/Food Stamps work or you are confusing terminology. EBT is a fixed dollar value. It is literally the same thing as giving someone cash that they can only spend at the grocery store. EBT is not "far more likely to withstand market fluctuations than cash" because it is literally a form of restricted cash. Your EBT allowance doesn't go up next month because the price of beef went up 5% or inflation rose from 1.2% to 1.5%.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2017 18:59
|
|
|
Hellblazer187 posted:Food stamps work the same way, though. The grocery store still makes a profit on the food purchased with the food stamps, and so does the producer. However, to pay for the UBI (or an expanded foodstamp program) you'd need to tax those profits more, so it's reducing that side of it as well. Take note that in my original post I was okay with food stamps, but ideally would like something better. Also of note is that SNAP doesn't operate the same way in every state (as states develop sister programs under SNAP, and just call those SNAP as well); many have arrangements with certain food brands for reduced price (in exchange for the bulk purchase). That is not a value that UBI could provide. Because UBI leaves the task of price negotiation with the citizen. quote:If your alternative is for the Government to buy up enough farm land to grow enough grain to feed everyone, that's different. But food stamps still work in the same capitalist system. Food stamps are a cash equivalent that is restricted to buying only certain foodstuffs. And thanks to this specialized focus they can develop new systems and studies to improve their program. You're pushing for the F-35 of social programs. quote:A UBI that provided equivalent value wouldn't force the between rent and food. If rent is $500 and food is $500, a UBI of $1,000 covers both. Your experience is in receiving insufficient benefits, and I'm sorry that you had to experience that. Nobody should. But it doesn't mean the average poor family can't make their own decisions. More likely is that the UBI will fail to provide for all needs, and as a result people will need to make hard decisions harmful to their health. Especially considering that the cost of housing is not uniform across the country. Neurolimal fucked around with this message at 19:04 on Sep 26, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2017 19:02
|
|
|
If you're making six or seven figures and you suddenly have to replace your car's alternator because it's got an open diode, well there's a financial hit but it's not going to affect your quality of life in a significant way. On the other hand, if you're paycheck to paycheck and you get same problem, well replacing an alternator would have to wait until you have the money to do it, and in the mean time you'd be running down the battery until that needs replacing to, so that's another expense. And if paying for that so you can still go to work and make money means avoiding your electricity bill that month until you can pay it on your next paycheck, if you get your power shut off even if it's only for a day would mean that all the perishables in your fridge are toast, so now those need replacing.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2017 19:04
|
|
|
Something of note: before my mom lost our card, they had actually cut down our EBT balance. This was state wide from what I understand. Which reminds me again, I need to call my social worker and reapply ugh.
Koalas March fucked around with this message at 19:29 on Sep 26, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2017 19:05
|
|
|
Koalas March posted:can't be said enough but, gently caress zuck Why? I see this get posted a lot.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2017 19:06
|
|
|
Enigma89 posted:Why? I see this get posted a lot. Being rich is a crime against humanity and he is complicit in the undermining of the Republic. Also he's a nerd who is seriously overdue for an atomic wedgie.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2017 19:10
|
|
|
But he's not sexist, so he wouldn't say that.... out loud... to a reporter.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2017 19:23
|
|
|
Welp.quote:Senate Republicans do not intend to vote on the Graham-Cassidy bill, putting an end to their Obamacare repeal effort for now.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2017 19:24
|
|
|
Enigma89 posted:Why? I see this get posted a lot. He performed psychological experiments on his users without their consent
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2017 19:29
|
|
|
Koalas March posted:Something of note: before my mom lost our card, they had actually cut down our EBT balance. This was state wide from what I understand. Which reminds me again, I need to call my social worker and reapply ugh. I mean that's the other thing, that wasn't even touched on - with a UBI there's no application. It's just universal. I suppose there could be a UEBT as well but a bit flaw in the programs now is making people go through the hassle of applying for benefits.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2017 19:42
|
|
|
 i hate the new dems logo it's so uninspired
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2017 19:50
|
|
|
Condiv posted:
I hate the weird unnecessary barbs at Sanders. That whole impulse to hate him personally is just bizarre to me.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2017 19:55
|
|
|
Majorian posted:I hate the weird unnecessary barbs at Sanders. That whole impulse to hate him personally is just bizarre to me. (That's not an infographic from the DNC/Unity Com. but aimed at the Unity Com.)
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2017 19:56
|
|
|
Hellblazer187 posted:I mean that's the other thing, that wasn't even touched on - with a UBI there's no application. It's just universal. I suppose there could be a UEBT as well but a bit flaw in the programs now is making people go through the hassle of applying for benefits. This is an issue with the entire idea of means testing, and you wont find any objection wrt that ITT Every means-test study has found that the number of people fraudulently using poor benefits is hilariously miniscule, it seems entirely based off rich people assuming everyone is as terrible as them.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2017 19:56
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:(That's not an infographic from the DNC/Unity Com. but aimed at the Unity Com.) Yes, I know. Still weird to me.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2017 19:58
|
|
|
e: nm
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2017 19:58
|
|
|
Majorian posted:I hate the weird unnecessary barbs at Sanders. That whole impulse to hate him personally is just bizarre to me. I hate how nobody's sourced this image and thus it's being used to make it sound like this is something all Democrats want. By the way, the Unity Reform Commission is something that consists of people appointed by Sanders, Clinton, and the DNC. It's not just a group of one side or aspect of the party. It's something designed to at least attempt to fix the problems that led to 2016's debacle. So the idea that the URC would listen to this because "lol Dems bad" is hilariously shortsighted. Angry_Ed fucked around with this message at 20:01 on Sep 26, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2017 19:58
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:(That's not an infographic from the DNC/Unity Com. but aimed at the Unity Com.) Aimed by whom? I have to wonder if there aren't malicious groups deliberately trying to sow discord between Sanders and the establishment left, because Sanders leading the establishment left is a nightmare scenario for a lot of power blocs.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2017 20:00
|
|
|
They won't listen to it, but the idea there are people making and spreading these petty messages is funny as hell.Hieronymous Alloy posted:Aimed by whom? There is a network of people who share the same basic beliefs about Bernie being a Trojan horse, they don't need to be organized into a secret cabal to make a jpg.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2017 20:00
|
|
|
Angry_Ed posted:I hate how nobody's sourced this image and thus it' being used to make it sound like this is something all Democrats want. By the way, the Unity Reform Commission is something that consists of people appointed by Sanders, Clinton, and the DNC. It's not just a group of one side or aspect of the party. It's something designed to at least attempt to fix the problems that led to 2016's debacle. So the idea that the URC would listen to this because "lol Dems bad" is hilariously shortsighted. I don't think they're going to listen to it, and I didn't think it was an official Democratic Party thing. I just found the saltiness weird. That's more of a discussion for the primaries thread though, probably.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2017 20:01
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:They won't listen to it, but the idea there are people making and spreading these petty messages is funny as hell. Trojan horse for what exactly? Oh no the progressives will seize control of the party oh no
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2017 20:05
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Aimed by whom? Aimed by whatever weirdo on twitter made it originally. I mean, I'm totally willing to believe that there are hella-online hillary supporters who spout inane poo poo like that and believe it honestly, because every campaign attracts crazies, remember the HillaryIs44 people? But you're right, the beauty of our post-Poe's Law world is that it is impossible to tell the fake dumb-poo poo from the real dumb-poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2017 20:06
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Trojan horse for what exactly? A lot of folks on twitter think that Sanders is going to take over and make the Democratic message entirely about economic justice and kick social justice, people of color, LGBT groups, etc, to the curb.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2017 20:07
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Trojan horse for what exactly? There is a weird class of self styled politican wonks who have latched onto the current Dem establishment to an unhealthy degree. I don't think it goes beyond cheerleading for a political team at this point, really.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2017 20:08
|
|
|
Majorian posted:A lot of folks on twitter think that Sanders is going to take over and make the Democratic message entirely about economic justice and kick social justice, people of color, LGBT groups, etc, to the curb. Reason infinity +1 to end Twitter.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2017 20:08
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:There is a weird class of self styled politican wonks who have latched onto the current Dem establishment to an unhealthy degree. I don't think it goes beyond cheerleading for a political team at this point, really. Except even dumber, they're latched onto the former Dem establishment. That's part of why they want to end the current Dem establishment's Unity Committee. But yeah, this is all Posting as a means to give agency to small sad lives being crushed by a system they're so embedded in they've lost hope they can escape. Or, everyday in America.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2017 20:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 20:40 |
|
|
RuanGacho posted:Reason infinity +1 to end Twitter. Yeah, for some terrific examples, have a look at the replies to Tom Perez's (genuinely good and encouraging) tweet yesterday: https://twitter.com/TomPerez/status/911332070311555072
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2017 20:15
|
|