Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Locked thread
Nix Panicus
Feb 25, 2007

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

"inflation!!!" just happens to be the boogeyman that bulgogi has landed on, but he could just have easily landed 'laziness!!' or 'incentive to succeed!!' - they all have exactly the same empirical basis (ie none).

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.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Jewel Repetition
Dec 24, 2012

Ask me about Briar Rose and Chicken Chaser.

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.

rudatron
May 31, 2011

by Fluffdaddy
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

Brother Friendship
Jul 12, 2013

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

Main Paineframe
Oct 27, 2010

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

Venom Snake
Feb 19, 2014

by Nyc_Tattoo

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

Blockade
Oct 22, 2008

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.

AreWeDrunkYet
Jul 8, 2006

Blockade posted:

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.

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

Ocean Book
Sep 27, 2010

:yum: - hi
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.

Typo
Aug 19, 2009

Chernigov Military Aviation Lyceum
The Fighting Slowpokes

Fullhouse posted:

there's really two ways to do this:

create a federal Bureau of Jobs or whatever that either employs people directly or coordinates with state + local bureaus to do whatever socially useful thing the government can imagine (or when they run out of such things they can just make poo poo up, as in the USSR)

or come up with some insane neoliberal scheme for private industry to be able to fully employ the population through tax incentives and thousands of pages of crazy legislation - the Obamacare of jobs, basically

the first is essentially UBI with an absolutely enormous layer of bureaucracy on top of it and the second would be the most massive corporate welfare project ever witnessed in the history of mankind. maybe the truth is in the middle

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

Lawman 0
Aug 17, 2010

There are real costs to bureacray and ubi mostly sidesteps them.

Taintrunner
Apr 10, 2017

by Jeffrey of YOSPOS
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.

rudatron
May 31, 2011

by Fluffdaddy
Yeah, we do, but ubi is little more realistic.

Lawman 0 posted:

There are real costs to bureacray and ubi mostly sidesteps them.
This to, the simplest schemes are often just the best. It's also a harder system to defraud.

Lindsey O. Graham
Dec 31, 2016

"We're not generating enough angry white guys to stay in business for the long term."

- The Chief

Taintrunner posted:

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.

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

ScrubLeague
Feb 11, 2007

Nap Ghost
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.

Condiv
May 7, 2008

Sorry to undo the effort of paying a domestic abuser $10 to own this poster, but I am going to lose my dang mind if I keep seeing multiple posters who appear to be Baloogan.

With love,
a mod


Taintrunner posted:

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.

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

byob historian
Nov 5, 2008

I'm an animal abusing piece of shit! I deliberately poisoned my dog to death and think it's funny! I'm an irredeemable sack of human shit!

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

Coolguye
Jul 6, 2011

Required by his programming!
hey still want those papers from economists providing analyses on why ubi is good

Lawman 0
Aug 17, 2010

rudatron posted:

Yeah, we do, but ubi is little more realistic.

This to, the simplest schemes are often just the best. It's also a harder system to defraud.

Like it's hard for me to stress how important keep it simple stupid is.

Zajajaja
Jan 10, 2008

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.

Coolguye
Jul 6, 2011

Required by his programming!
double dip my anus

got any sevens
Feb 9, 2013

by Cyrano4747

walgreenslatino posted:

because work sucks

Condiv
May 7, 2008

Sorry to undo the effort of paying a domestic abuser $10 to own this poster, but I am going to lose my dang mind if I keep seeing multiple posters who appear to be Baloogan.

With love,
a mod


mrbradlymrmartin posted:

you dont really get what evils all about do you

zuck's evil. dems are entertaining him as pres

yikes!

Larry Parrish
Jul 9, 2012

by Jeffrey of YOSPOS
I unironically think they oughta bring back the homestead act and the Great Depression labor corps

Hodgepodge
Jan 29, 2006
Probation
Can't post for 273 days!

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."

White Rock
Jul 14, 2007
Creativity flows in the bored and the angry!
We had a program called "Job Guarantee" in :sweden:, 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?

Typo
Aug 19, 2009

Chernigov Military Aviation Lyceum
The Fighting Slowpokes

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

nopants
May 29, 2004
why dont we make rich people work menial jobs if work for work's sake is a good thing?

the bitcoin of weed
Nov 1, 2014

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

:capitalism: except it says calvinism

super sweet best pal
Nov 18, 2009

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:

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.

It's better than being stuck at home being asked by family why I don't have a job.

Agnostalgia
Dec 22, 2009

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.

Coolguye
Jul 6, 2011

Required by his programming!

super sweet best pal posted:

UBI doesn't get me a job, JGs will.


It's better than being stuck at home being asked by family why I don't have a job.

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.

Peanut President
Nov 5, 2008



super sweet best pal posted:

UBI doesn't get me a job, JGs will.


It's better than being stuck at home being asked by family why I don't have a job.

With UBI could start a business selling t-shirts that say "dont talk to me" and sell them to fellow goons.

GlyphGryph
Jun 23, 2013

Down came the glitches and burned us in ditches and we slept after eating our dead.
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

Al!
Apr 2, 2010

:coolspot::coolspot::coolspot::coolspot::coolspot:
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

GlyphGryph
Jun 23, 2013

Down came the glitches and burned us in ditches and we slept after eating our dead.

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.

byob historian
Nov 5, 2008

I'm an animal abusing piece of shit! I deliberately poisoned my dog to death and think it's funny! I'm an irredeemable sack of human shit!

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

Agean90
Jun 28, 2008


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.

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.

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.

the bitcoin of weed
Nov 1, 2014

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

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Coolguye
Jul 6, 2011

Required by his programming!

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

this is a tough one

https://twitter.com/nihilist_arbys/status/831499781310644224

  • Locked thread