Jump to content

Politics US Edition (2021-vol 2)


Recommended Posts

32 minutes ago, KaineParker said:

Where I live rent has rapidly risen up over the years without a minimum wage increase, freedom bucks, or drastic changes to median income so I'm more than a little dubious of the market producing a price people are able to pay.

You os have a demand, the prices wouldn't go up, if there were no people thinking that this is worth to pay that much to live in an area. 

Population is also not static, the number of it changes. If the amount of houses did not change, but the population doubled, then even if the median did not change, the total number of people able to pay higher prices did increase. 

 

On principle, I'm against the UBI. 

Who will pay for that? What is the limit of people in a ratio of working to non-working before it breaks? How resilient it is towards changes in demographics and productivity of the given demographics? 

@Elerondalso didn't live in the area and time, when everyone was employed (nevermind that productivity went to the crapper and everyone was overall poorer) 

Link to post
Share on other sites

You know what would really crater property values AND fix the homeless situation? Bumpods. Bumpods as far as the eye can see. Maybe we could even stack them like in a honeycomb.

Otherwise, I suppose those apartments and houses should be seized from their rightful owners and given away in a blow to fatcats everywhere. :yes:

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Gfted1 said:

You know what would really crater property values AND fix the homeless situation? Bumpods. Bumpods as far as the eye can see. Maybe we could even stack them like in a honeycomb.

Otherwise, I suppose those apartments and houses should be seized from their rightful owners and given away in a blow to fatcats everywhere. :yes:

Well I'm sure we'll end up in Judge Dredd style hab-blocks sooner or later.

Why has elegance found so little following? Elegance has the disadvantage that hard work is needed to achieve it and a good education to appreciate it. - Edsger Wybe Dijkstra

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, 213374U said:

I'm not a huge fan of UBI myself. Something like public job guarantee programs are more appealing to me on a conceptual level and they also have the advantage of preempting any "lol u just wanna stay at home playing videogames all day" arguments from neoliberal minions.

Congratulations, you've won the lottery! 🧐

"America would be unrecognizable if it had ordered the separation of corporation and state like it orders separation of church and state."

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, 213374U said:

 

I "lol u just wanna stay at home playing videogames all day" 

Funny you mention  that but that is exactly  one of the risks and concerns I have with UBI, I have no doubt this will be exactly what some people will do once on UBI

Good observation 2133, I agree 100 % :thumbsup:

  • Haha 1

"We don't stop playing because we grow old; we grow old because we stop playing.” -  George Bernard Shaw

 

"What counts in life is not the mere fact that we have lived. It is what difference we have made to the lives of others that will determine the significance of the life we lead" - Nelson Mandela

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Amentep said:

Seems legit.

 

All our dystopian fiction is just manuals for some.

  • Like 2

Why has elegance found so little following? Elegance has the disadvantage that hard work is needed to achieve it and a good education to appreciate it. - Edsger Wybe Dijkstra

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, BruceVC said:

Funny you mention  that but that is exactly  one of the risks and concerns I have with UBI, I have no doubt this will be exactly what some people will do once on UBI

Good observation 2133, I agree 100 % :thumbsup:

I am pretty sure that over 90% of population will not do that, at least if about of UBI is about minimum that you need to get by. 

Playing games all day isn't that nice when buying one means that you don't have money to eat in next two days.

I mean that we have system where you get money even if you don't do anything and still only 7.2% of Finland's population lived with our social security in 2019.

UBI would improve current system as it would mean that people could take any job without fearing losing their social security, where in current system all income that you get is deduced in amount of social security you receive, meaning that there is no point to take job where you earn less than what social security is. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Trump's lawyers wasted a good opportunity to use the Chewbacca defense in the Senate. 

  • Haha 1

Why has elegance found so little following? Elegance has the disadvantage that hard work is needed to achieve it and a good education to appreciate it. - Edsger Wybe Dijkstra

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 days into the trial and I'm approaching the point where I wish those Trumpists had gone full Gaiseric on not just the Capitol, but Washington in general.

If the CIA ever gets sick of blasting Nickleback on repeat at people at its black sites they could get an even better effect with these speeches.

  • Haha 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Skarpen said:

So what would happen in your mind if there is a set maximum price on any product and the costs to provide this product increase? You think providers will just roll with it?

There are two outcomes: either the costs have to be cut or if further costs cuts are not possible there will be no providers for such a product.

You are assuming that the costs to producers would increase such that they would eat up profits, which is hard to imagine especially in the case of pills that cost literal pennies to make. This adds up to profits that are measured in trillions industry-wide. Costs would have to increase a lot to drive an industry like that out of business. So the bottom line is yes, they would have to collectively roll with not raking in trillions. Oh, the humanity.

But for the sake of argument, if the costs of, say, building houses increase legitimately as a result of workmen's wages spiking (and not investment trusts buying up real state), prices should be adjusted accordingly. Yet somehow, I'm not fully convinced that the current housing bubble in the US and Europe is the result of a massive hike in the price of bricks and concrete.

Edited by 213374U

- When he is best, he is a little worse than a man, and when he is worst, he is little better than a beast.

Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, 213374U said:

 

But for the sake of argument, if the costs of, say, building houses increase legitimately as a result of workmen's wages spiking (and not investment trusts buying up real state), prices should be adjusted accordingly. Yet somehow, I'm not fully convinced that the current housing bubble in the US and Europe is the result of a massive hike in the price of bricks and concrete.

What do you mean? This house is clearly a work of unparalleled craftmanship!

https://abc7news.com/san-francisco-real-estate-market-bay-area-shack-for-sale/5298629/

  • Gasp! 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Elerond said:

I am pretty sure that over 90% of population will not do that, at least if about of UBI is about minimum that you need to get by. 

Playing games all day isn't that nice when buying one means that you don't have money to eat in next two days.

I mean that we have system where you get money even if you don't do anything and still only 7.2% of Finland's population lived with our social security in 2019.

UBI would improve current system as it would mean that people could take any job without fearing losing their social security, where in current system all income that you get is deduced in amount of social security you receive, meaning that there is no point to take job where you earn less than what social security is. 

Fun stuff social security. I was out of a job, didn't yet have unemployment benefits, applied for social security and it'd take two months to get it, after a month I got a temporary job from a friend for the duration of a month, so the waiting period for social security benefits was reset because I made too much money, and I couldn't attend the mandatory "classes".

  • Thanks 1
  • Gasp! 1

Civilization, in fact, grows more and more maudlin and hysterical; especially under democracy it tends to degenerate into a mere combat of crazes; the whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, most of them imaginary. - H.L. Mencken

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Elerond said:

I am pretty sure that over 90% of population will not do that, at least if about of UBI is about minimum that you need to get by. 

Playing games all day isn't that nice when buying one means that you don't have money to eat in next two days.

I mean that we have system where you get money even if you don't do anything and still only 7.2% of Finland's population lived with our social security in 2019.

UBI would improve current system as it would mean that people could take any job without fearing losing their social security, where in current system all income that you get is deduced in amount of social security you receive, meaning that there is no point to take job where you earn less than what social security is. 

It all depends on the difference between the UBI and potential salary. Usually a minimum wage. If for example you get 1000$ UBI and minimum wage is 1000$ which gives lets say 700$ after taxes and you need to spend for example 200$ to get to work (car, gas, transport) and pay 300$ for childcare then the wasting 40h a week for essentially 200$ extra might be somenthing many people would opt out of.

Also you need to consider that UBI should cover living expenses for one person, right? Now what about marriages and kids? Do UBI apply to kids? Then for a marriage with two kids you have 4 times the UBI amount. And living expenses for four people are not equal to four times that of a single person. Whould that be incentive for one of the spouses to resign from a low pay job? It happened in Poland with the 500+ for kids. People with 2-3 or more kids decide it's more beneficial to stay at home living off social handouts than working.

And it desn't take 90% of people resigning from jobs to live of social to affect the economy. 2-3% would be a huge hit because the rest would need to cover those differences. Which leads to increase of social spending while decreasing the tax income, which leads to the need of increasing taxes so maybe another 1-2% of people resigning from jobs. And I think when you hit about 8-10% the whole system atarts to collapse.

4 hours ago, 213374U said:

You are assuming that the costs to producers would increase such that they would eat up profits, which is hard to imagine especially in the case of pills that cost literal pennies to make. This adds up to profits that are measured in trillions industry-wide. Costs would have to increase a lot to drive an industry like that out of business. So the bottom line is yes, they would have to collectively roll with not raking in trillions. Oh, the humanity.

But for the sake of argument, if the costs of, say, building houses increase legitimately as a result of workmen's wages spiking (and not investment trusts buying up real state), prices should be adjusted accordingly. Yet somehow, I'm not fully convinced that the current housing bubble in the US and Europe is the result of a massive hike in the price of bricks and concrete.

I'm pretty sure we were talking rents and basic comodities? I'm pretty sure bakers don't make trillions on bread and definietely none of my previous landlords were making trillions of of my rent.

The cost of rent usually goes up when interest rates goes up on their mortgages or some taxes go up. I'm pretty sure the current cost of bricks don't affect the costs of maintaining buildings already build. 

It' hard for me to understand that people think most companies/businesses make so much money (trillions?!) that additional taxes won't eat up their profits when it does 99.9% of the time. I know many industries that were practically wiped out because it's impossible to make any profit because the costs are just to great. And usually the industries that actually could pay additional cost without noticable decrease in profits are the ones the additional tax don't apply to. 

Edited by Skarpen
  • Thanks 1

166215__front.jpg.45518d58bdab611f0e3a026d3b8c6489.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, HoonDing said:

Communism doesn't work. Amerika makes sure of that.

When I read these types of comments I almost feel like a father watching his child  take  its first step, I am proud of you my son. Well done HoonDing, its almost  cathartic to accept the truth.

But the USA didnt cause Communism to fail. It imploded on itself because it is based on a fundamentally flawed system of government and sustainable economic transformation. The collapse of the USSR as it was bankrupt is testimony to that historical fact 

The likes of the USA just continues to ensure  the world doesnt have to go through another  50 years of another failed social experiment that leads to one thing only...people becoming poorer and more inequality 🏦

"We don't stop playing because we grow old; we grow old because we stop playing.” -  George Bernard Shaw

 

"What counts in life is not the mere fact that we have lived. It is what difference we have made to the lives of others that will determine the significance of the life we lead" - Nelson Mandela

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Zoraptor said:

2 days into the trial and I'm approaching the point where I wish those Trumpists had gone full Gaiseric on not just the Capitol, but Washington in general.

If the CIA ever gets sick of blasting Nickleback on repeat at people at its black sites they could get an even better effect with these speeches.

Yeah, its incredibly boring and repetitive but  I have never enjoyed the long winded rhetoric of lawyers or people defending things like a Constitution. Its a good way to induce somnolence especially if you one of those people who battles to sleep 

I watch the highlights of these events and focus on the final outcome but the endless speeches and grandstanding I have no appetite for 

"We don't stop playing because we grow old; we grow old because we stop playing.” -  George Bernard Shaw

 

"What counts in life is not the mere fact that we have lived. It is what difference we have made to the lives of others that will determine the significance of the life we lead" - Nelson Mandela

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Skarpen said:

It all depends on the difference between the UBI and potential salary. Usually a minimum wage. If for example you get 1000$ UBI and minimum wage is 1000$ which gives lets say 700$ after taxes and you need to spend for example 200$ to get to work (car, gas, transport) and pay 300$ for childcare then the wasting 40h a week for essentially 200$ extra might be somenthing many people would opt out of.

Also you need to consider that UBI should cover living expenses for one person, right? Now what about marriages and kids? Do UBI apply to kids? Then for a marriage with two kids you have 4 times the UBI amount. And living expenses for four people are not equal to four times that of a single person. Whould that be incentive for one of the spouses to resign from a low pay job? It happened in Poland with the 500+ for kids. People with 2-3 or more kids decide it's more beneficial to stay at home living off social handouts than working.

Back in Denmark (mind you, that was almost 20 years ago, it may have changed), it used to be a proportional thing. They would look at the household income overall and number of kids etc. Calculate a pro rata amount. You get a special monthly subsidy per kid (regardless of your financial status), so having more or less kids was supposed to be less of a factor. You could also get subsidies for rent etc. if you're a low income family, renting an apartment. It was way more granular than just UBI or not. At least it used to be. If you were out of a job, the first stop would usually be the unions where most Danes I knew at the time had unemployment insurance, covering a percentage of your normal salary for a period of time (80% up to fixed limit, whichever was lower, for 2 years iirc). You could get those insurances without being part of a union too I think. Memory a bit fuzzy here. Never had the insurance, was never a member of a union.

“He who joyfully marches to music in rank and file has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would surely suffice.” - Albert Einstein

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Elerond said:

I am pretty sure that over 90% of population will not do that, at least if about of UBI is about minimum that you need to get by. 

Playing games all day isn't that nice when buying one means that you don't have money to eat in next two days.

I mean that we have system where you get money even if you don't do anything and still only 7.2% of Finland's population lived with our social security in 2019.

UBI would improve current system as it would mean that people could take any job without fearing losing their social security, where in current system all income that you get is deduced in amount of social security you receive, meaning that there is no point to take job where you earn less than what social security is. 

https://www.thebalance.com/universal-basic-income-4160668

Elerond here is a good link that discusses the feasibility of UBI, it includes examples of where their are pilot projects of limited UBI  throughout the world including Finland

For all the people in this debate who are saying " UBI can work " I would encourage them to read this article to understand the good and bad with this idea. Their is no country  in the world that currently uses UBI in a comprehensive and widespread  way yet so first question  I would have is the logical and normal one which is " where has this been implemented before " ?

But the link raises the advantages which are

  • Workers could afford to wait for a better job or better wages
  • People would have the freedom to return to school or stay home to care for a relative
  • May help remove the "poverty trap" from traditional welfare programs
  • Citizens could have simple, straightforward financial assistance that minimizes bureaucracy
  • The government would spend less to administer the program than with traditional welfare
  • Young couples would have more money to start families in countries with low birth rates
  • The payments could help stabilize the economy during recessionary periods

It also raises the disadvantages which are 

  • Inflation could be triggered because of the increase in demand for goods and services
  • There won't be an increased standard of living in the long run because of inflated prices
  • A reduced program with smaller payments won't make a real difference to poverty-stricken families
  • Free income may not incentivize people to get jobs, and could make work seem optional
  • Free income could perpetuate the falling labor force participation rate
  • There are many opposed to handouts for the unemployed

I am much more concerned with the disadvantages especially 

  • Inflation could be triggered because of the increase in demand for goods and services
  • Free income may not incentivize people to get jobs, and could make work seem optional

 

"We don't stop playing because we grow old; we grow old because we stop playing.” -  George Bernard Shaw

 

"What counts in life is not the mere fact that we have lived. It is what difference we have made to the lives of others that will determine the significance of the life we lead" - Nelson Mandela

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Higher inflation is not necessarily a bad thing. In Europe inflation is so low that it hurts the economy. Think about this: if you had debts, would you want inflation to be high or low? If you had assets that don't lose value with inflation, would you want high inflation (generally meaning higher interest rates) or low?

In all model projects I read about people did NOT lose motivation to get a job. They just could afford to take jobs they liked more but which did pay less though.

Deadfire Community Patch: Nexus Mods

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Boeroer said:

Higher inflation is not necessarily a bad thing. In Europe inflation is so low that it hurts the economy. Think about this: if you had debts, would you want inflation to be high or low? If you had assets that don't lose value with inflation, would you want high inflation (generally meaning higher interest rates) or low?

In all model projects I read about people did NOT lose motivation to get a job. They just could afford to take jobs they liked more but which did pay less though.

Yes but increased  high inflation or an artificial increase in inflation will only be  a bad thing as what you pay for things becomes more expensive. For example if you buy once a week meat, beer, cheese, petrol and vegetables and this basket costs you 10 Euro and then in 4 weeks this same basket costs you 12 Euro and in the next month it costs 14 Euro this will have an absolute negative impact on your disposable income and growth of any economy 

The benefits when you are subjected to rising inflation dont outweigh the negative. Negative inflation, or very low inflation  like you mention is something else to consider and has its own pros and cons 

So the risk with UBI and inflation is people will be buying more goods, their becomes a shortage of these goods due to demand and the price goes up which adds to the increase of inflation in an artificial and unhealthy way 

That is risk and real consideration, the article I posted summarizes this point nicely

"If everyone suddenly received a basic income, it would create inflation. Most would immediately spend the extra cash, driving up demand. Retailers would order more, and manufacturers would try to produce more. But if they couldn't increase supply, they would raise prices.

Higher prices would soon make the basics unaffordable to those at the bottom of the income pyramid. In the long run, a guaranteed income would not raise their standard of living "

 

"We don't stop playing because we grow old; we grow old because we stop playing.” -  George Bernard Shaw

 

"What counts in life is not the mere fact that we have lived. It is what difference we have made to the lives of others that will determine the significance of the life we lead" - Nelson Mandela

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's one thing to assume something in an article and another to look at the model projects where this wasn't an issue. 

Same argument was made with minimum wage (also here in Germany before it got introduced). Inflation didn't move one bit. It got even lower. I now can get a loan of 1 million € for 0.5% interest rate, fixed for 10 years. Before Minimum Wage it was around 4% iirc (already low). That was with raising employment rates also (not the assumed drop because cheap labor would become too expensive).

By the way (if this wasn't posted yet):

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_income_pilots

Only one of the pilots showed slightly less motivation for employment (one I the US I the 60s/70s). The more recent ones showed no impact on employment rates. Inflation wasn't an issue at all - since the sample sizes were simply too small. Hence my comparison with minimum wage introduction. 

 

Edited by Boeroer

Deadfire Community Patch: Nexus Mods

Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Boeroer said:

It's one thing to assume something in an article and another to look at the model projects where this wasn't an issue. 

Same argument was made with minimum wage (also here in Germany before it got introduced). Inflation didn't move one bit. It got even lower. I now can get a loan of 1 million € for 0.5% interest rate, fixed for 10 years. Before Minimum Wage it was around 4% iirc (already low). That was with raising employment rates also (not the assumed drop because cheap labor would become too expensive).

By the way (if this wasn't posted yet):

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_income_pilots

Only one of the pilots showed slightly less motivation for employment (one I the US I the 60s/70s). The more recent ones showed no impact on employment rates. Inflation wasn't an issue at all - since the sample sizes were simply too small. Hence my comparison with minimum wage introduction. 

 

Yes you make some good  points but you minimum wage is not the same as UBI because minimum wage when you have to pay it  someone is working and they will contribute in a normal, healthy way to the economy

UBI doesnt mean you will be necessarily  working and contribute in the same way. So I firmly believe if you implement UBI in a country like the USA , and many other countries, you will have many people who will be happy not to work or simply cant work and will benefit but not contribute like the minimum wage benefits. So I wouldn't expect this to have effected the German inflation negatively because in a country like Germany people are hired when their is requirement for work and services so its a positive step your government took   

Sadly  I dont need a theoretical model or article  to know this because I live in a country where I can see this. Over 30 % of our citizens live on social grants and many of them cant find work or dont find work or stop looking for work so parts of our Social grants system   perpetuates the cycle of unemployment

https://ewn.co.za/2020/02/26/here-s-all-the-social-grant-increases-for

And its not because SA is new Democracy or our government has mishandled our economy, these are true to certain degrees. This is about the nature of human beings in most countries. The risk with UBI is can lead to people less interested in working and that can absolutely lead to inflation like the article mentions

Edited by BruceVC

"We don't stop playing because we grow old; we grow old because we stop playing.” -  George Bernard Shaw

 

"What counts in life is not the mere fact that we have lived. It is what difference we have made to the lives of others that will determine the significance of the life we lead" - Nelson Mandela

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

A test run with limited number of participants is not the same as running a nationwide program.

First of all participants know it's limited time, so there is 0 incentive to quit a job. There is no data on the impact on the economy so such factors as inflation etc. will not show up. Also the longterm impact will be hard to predict. 

Basically it's like saying that taking big consumer loans is great because we tested it by giving some guys a hundred thousand for 3 months and his life was awesome in that time.

Edited by Skarpen
  • Like 1

166215__front.jpg.45518d58bdab611f0e3a026d3b8c6489.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...