(02-08-2019 03:02 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-08-2019 01:41 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-08-2019 12:45 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-08-2019 12:09 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(02-08-2019 11:55 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  But it isn't that easy. If it was true that all minimum wage increases kill jobs, then why do we have a net increase of jobs with a minimum wage in the first place?

Net increases in population have a little to do with that when you think about it.

Quote:Why then, did we not have a mass exodus of jobs when the federal minimum wage was increased multiple times?

In the long term the minimum wage has zero effect. Everything stabilizes with a ratchet upwards. Nominally speaking everyone wins. Relatively speaking no one gains.

It is the short term effects that are pernicious. For example, the guy whom is replacing 15% of his head count with technology readily admits that he constantly 'upgrades' employees to better positions from the lowest level. Minimum wage jobs are fundamentally training grounds.

Now, instead of a 6 head count at the front, he is reducing to 3. There are now, by definition, 50% fewer people who stand the chance of being upgraded to, say, manager of straw counting (which may disappear because of other California policies).

So the left sings Hosannas over the lives they have 'uplifted' -- all the while the training grounds for further advancement for *lots* more people is being curtailed.

Idiotic.

So in the long term the minimum wage increases have a net zero effect. So in order to keep that net zero effect that is caused by inflation, shouldn't we continue to increase the federal minimum wage?

Without that, the net effect would be negative, as cost of living climbs and wages stagnate...

The minimum wage workers in 1947, 1962, 1975, 1991, 2001, 2014, et al, made differing amounts, but it did not change their standard of living very much, if any.

It is a kind of chicken and egg question as to whether the increases helped them to keep up with inflation or if the increases were contributors to inflation. I suspect it was a bit of both - more of the former at the time of increases, more of the latter a few years later.

In 1964, I could get a minimum wage of $1.25 and a BBQ sandwich for $.50. Now, the proportions are still about the same. My co-workers in 1964 did not live in the nicest housing. Ditto for MW workers today. If you want to improve the lives of MW workers, don't give them raises - give them opportunities for other jobs. Nothing will raise income and living standards like competition for labor. Stifling the incentive for people with money to put it to work in new businesses is stifling opportunities for workers. That's why 70% tax rates and wealth taxes are bad - not because they hurt the wealthy, but because they hurt the poor.

I need to eat at the BBQ places you're eating at! I can't find a $3.50 BBQ sandwich anywhere but McDonald's (heck, the McRib might even be more expensive than that). If we're talking BBQ sandwich buying power, instead of house buying power, about 1 hr of MW work = 1 bbq sandwich.

Is it that you're against raising the minimum wage at all? Or that you don't agree with the drastic increase in the minimum wage that some suggest?

I agree that the best way to help others is by increasing opportunity - that's why I think a federal job guarantee is a good idea, and some of the Green New Deal initiatives are great. Similar to the alphabet soup of admins in the 30s/40s, investing significant bucks into our own country would both provide more, technical/skilled jobs for people who are stuck in minimum wage jobs, as well as updating our crumbling infrastructure. Yet all I hear is derision about every part of the green new deal, it seems...

Because you have the classic progressive/Keynesian fixation that the best means for such action is via the government as an actor or through government regulation and control.

basic income

(02-08-2019 03:38 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(02-08-2019 03:09 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-08-2019 01:44 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Have you bothered to consider what might be a root driver of inflation in youur incisive analysis?

Here is a simple scenario to ponder. Labor is a root cost of every economic activity. What effect does a x% rise in the cost of labor do to resulting goods and service prices? Finally when the definition of inflation is the nominal increase of a "list" of goods and services, what does that change in price of goods and services do to the defined inflation rate.

Cmon man. Put your thinking cap on.

Edited to add: my original comment should have been no net *relative* change. Big nominal change.

Wait, so if we never enacted a minimum wage, we never would have seen inflation????

C'mon man, put your thinking cap on, because that is literally what you're suggesting.

Labor costs obviously have an effect on prices, and an increase in labor costs will lead to increase in prices. But there are so many other aspects of monetary policy that affect inflation, that it's strange you only focus on minimum wage. There are other factors, other than labor, that cause costs to rise, and demand for goods does too. Couple that in with policies enacted by various legislatures and a central bank, and by god, you've got a lot of reasons why inflation has occurred in the US.

I am sure we would have seen inflation of some sort. Please dont put words in my mouth. Central bank policies can very definitely do so at the very least. Tight money policies vs loose money policies.

Is it your assertion that minimum wage is not a driver of an inflation? I mean, if you say not, then is labor not a factor in any nominal price increases at all?

Take a look at the base contribution of labor to GDP. It is massive. If you arbitrarily raise it to some level, then yes, it will be one of the root drivers of inflation.

Correspondingly, if in a free market the minimum wage falls, it would be correspondingly very much a contributing factor to deflationary pressure.

Please dont write the word 'all' into the description as you seemingly wish to do above.

Getting back to your comment, do you realize that the minimum wage itself, when raised, is very much a contributing factor to inflation? Or, does lad world have the weird economic law that a non-relativistic increase in wages has zero effect on inflationary pressures?

I would say absolutely and undoubtedly that the increase in the MW in the Seattle area has fundamentally added to the local cost of living there. I would be absolutely hard-pressed to argue the counter that it had zero effect.

I know you desperately want to live in the land of unicorns, elves, and chocolate sunflowers where a governmental drawn line on a cost has zero economic effect except to give relative wealth to one class. But governmental price controls never work in that intended manner. And yes, there is zero difference between a minimum wage and any other price control enacted by any government ever. Yet the progressives seem bound and determined to charge that holy grail time after time after time after time after time.....

One saving grace is at least they cant assert a racism charge into the mix.

Yes, I’m not so dull that I don’t understand that MW increases have contributed some to inflation. But...

You know, I just read the rest of your drivel, and realized that once I got to the part saying how I was to live in a land of unicorns, it wasn’t worth my time. I appreciate that Owl#’s and George disagree with me but attempt to have an actual discussion instead of ignoring what I say half the time or talking down with such condescension.

(02-08-2019 03:02 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I think a federal job guarantee is a good idea, and some of the Green New Deal initiatives are great. Similar to the alphabet soup of admins in the 30s/40s, investing significant bucks into our own country would both provide more, technical/skilled jobs for people who are stuck in minimum wage jobs, as well as updating our crumbling infrastructure. Yet all I hear is derision about every part of the green new deal, it seems...

Lad, the derision you get is because of your faith in a big fat Keynsian system, where everyone is guaranteed a government job, and a big fat soup pot of alphabet soup roams across the nation, and price controls are de rigueur (if not by law, but by Keynesian operation).

In short, you are a proponent of not just alphabet soup jobs, but federal job guarantees. Not just 'help in getting a job', but a guarantee.

And you wonder why the **** we label this socialism? I mean, you are a huge proponent of governmental regulation of wages, government provided provision, and the government acting as a giant backstop jobs guarantee program.

Granted it is not 'government ownership' of a jobs segment, but it pretty is much an Arkansas first cousin of that. And you scream vociferously about progressives being labeled as 'socialists.' That is funnily rich.

Just to calm your nerves a tad, how does 'socialist wannabes' serve as an alternative?

I mean, you do understand why those of us more in the individualist camp think the collectivist/Progressive camp view economic control mechanisms like my great uncle looks at a Viagra these days, right? (that is now that you know that drivel like 'collectivist' has an actual and deep meaning.)

(02-08-2019 03:44 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-08-2019 03:02 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I agree that the best way to help others is by increasing opportunity - that's why I think a federal job guarantee is a good idea, and some of the Green New Deal initiatives are great. Similar to the alphabet soup of admins in the 30s/40s, investing significant bucks into our own country would both provide more, technical/skilled jobs for people who are stuck in minimum wage jobs, as well as updating our crumbling infrastructure. Yet all I hear is derision about every part of the green new deal, it seems...

And there you have the difference between you and I.

I think the jobs should come from private industry, motivated by capitalism. You want them to come from government, a la the USSR.

You think the "investment" should come from government via tax money, I think the investment should come from private enterprise, investing in their own future.

What is it about capitalism that you guys are afraid of?

Yes, I deride most of this GND as unworkable pie in the sky. I have pointed out some of the difficulties in doing it. Maybe you should explain the ease with which we will revamp every building in America in 12 years or unionize every job. Maybe you can explain where all the infrastructure for the proposed rail system will come from without polluting even more.

This would be a difficult 100 year plan for a police state. Lenin tried it. A 12 year plan?

You once again demonstrate that liberals only care about the shining ideal, not the nitty gritty of how to get it done.

yes, I agree, utopia would be nice.

So, when you or your priestess can explain HOW, to achieve utopia, come on back.

That’s a horrible summary and a significant misunderstanding of my opinion.

This harkens to my comment earlier about how some on the right want unfettered capitalism, and given that you suggest the government investing in infrastructure is similar to advocating for the USSR, or that I’m afraid of capitalism, it seems like I’m not far off.

(02-08-2019 05:10 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-08-2019 03:44 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-08-2019 03:02 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I agree that the best way to help others is by increasing opportunity - that's why I think a federal job guarantee is a good idea, and some of the Green New Deal initiatives are great. Similar to the alphabet soup of admins in the 30s/40s, investing significant bucks into our own country would both provide more, technical/skilled jobs for people who are stuck in minimum wage jobs, as well as updating our crumbling infrastructure. Yet all I hear is derision about every part of the green new deal, it seems...

And there you have the difference between you and I.
I think the jobs should come from private industry, motivated by capitalism. You want them to come from government, a la the USSR.
You think the "investment" should come from government via tax money, I think the investment should come from private enterprise, investing in their own future.
What is it about capitalism that you guys are afraid of?
Yes, I deride most of this GND as unworkable pie in the sky. I have pointed out some of the difficulties in doing it. Maybe you should explain the ease with which we will revamp every building in America in 12 years or unionize every job. Maybe you can explain where all the infrastructure for the proposed rail system will come from without polluting even more.
This would be a difficult 100 year plan for a police state. Lenin tried it. A 12 year plan?
You once again demonstrate that liberals only care about the shining ideal, not the nitty gritty of how to get it done.
yes, I agree, utopia would be nice.
So, when you or your priestess can explain HOW, to achieve utopia, come on back.

That’s a horrible summary and a significant misunderstanding of my opinion.
This harkens to my comment earlier about how some on the right want unfettered capitalism, and given that you suggest the government investing in infrastructure is similar to advocating for the USSR, or that I’m afraid of capitalism, it seems like I’m not far off.

How does a "federal job guarantee" not equate to jobs coming from the government, like the USSR? Please clarify.

(02-08-2019 05:10 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-08-2019 03:44 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-08-2019 03:02 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I agree that the best way to help others is by increasing opportunity - that's why I think a federal job guarantee is a good idea, and some of the Green New Deal initiatives are great. Similar to the alphabet soup of admins in the 30s/40s, investing significant bucks into our own country would both provide more, technical/skilled jobs for people who are stuck in minimum wage jobs, as well as updating our crumbling infrastructure. Yet all I hear is derision about every part of the green new deal, it seems...

And there you have the difference between you and I.

I think the jobs should come from private industry, motivated by capitalism. You want them to come from government, a la the USSR.

You think the "investment" should come from government via tax money, I think the investment should come from private enterprise, investing in their own future.

What is it about capitalism that you guys are afraid of?

Yes, I deride most of this GND as unworkable pie in the sky. I have pointed out some of the difficulties in doing it. Maybe you should explain the ease with which we will revamp every building in America in 12 years or unionize every job. Maybe you can explain where all the infrastructure for the proposed rail system will come from without polluting even more.

This would be a difficult 100 year plan for a police state. Lenin tried it. A 12 year plan?

You once again demonstrate that liberals only care about the shining ideal, not the nitty gritty of how to get it done.

yes, I agree, utopia would be nice.

So, when you or your priestess can explain HOW, to achieve utopia, come on back.

That’s a horrible summary and a significant misunderstanding of my opinion.

This harkens to my comment earlier about how some on the right want unfettered capitalism, and given that you suggest the government investing in infrastructure is similar to advocating for the USSR, or that I’m afraid of capitalism, it seems like I’m not far off.

Lad, you are the one that stated that you think a Federal job guarantee is real cool and awesome thing to do.

I suggest you dont directly equate your wish there with far less malignant (in fact, fairly beneficent) 'investing in infrastructure'.

Yes, we do comment on your guarantee. But dont you dare boil that nugget down into a simple 'investing in infrastructure'. Good god.

Perhaps it is a horrible summary. But the bright shining viewpoint that shines through is your comment on how good a Federal jobs guarantee would be, to be honest.

(02-08-2019 05:06 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-08-2019 03:38 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(02-08-2019 03:09 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-08-2019 01:44 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Have you bothered to consider what might be a root driver of inflation in youur incisive analysis?

Here is a simple scenario to ponder. Labor is a root cost of every economic activity. What effect does a x% rise in the cost of labor do to resulting goods and service prices? Finally when the definition of inflation is the nominal increase of a "list" of goods and services, what does that change in price of goods and services do to the defined inflation rate.

Cmon man. Put your thinking cap on.

Edited to add: my original comment should have been no net *relative* change. Big nominal change.

Wait, so if we never enacted a minimum wage, we never would have seen inflation????

C'mon man, put your thinking cap on, because that is literally what you're suggesting.

Labor costs obviously have an effect on prices, and an increase in labor costs will lead to increase in prices. But there are so many other aspects of monetary policy that affect inflation, that it's strange you only focus on minimum wage. There are other factors, other than labor, that cause costs to rise, and demand for goods does too. Couple that in with policies enacted by various legislatures and a central bank, and by god, you've got a lot of reasons why inflation has occurred in the US.

I am sure we would have seen inflation of some sort. Please dont put words in my mouth. Central bank policies can very definitely do so at the very least. Tight money policies vs loose money policies.

Is it your assertion that minimum wage is not a driver of an inflation? I mean, if you say not, then is labor not a factor in any nominal price increases at all?

Take a look at the base contribution of labor to GDP. It is massive. If you arbitrarily raise it to some level, then yes, it will be one of the root drivers of inflation.

Correspondingly, if in a free market the minimum wage falls, it would be correspondingly very much a contributing factor to deflationary pressure.

Please dont write the word 'all' into the description as you seemingly wish to do above.

Getting back to your comment, do you realize that the minimum wage itself, when raised, is very much a contributing factor to inflation? Or, does lad world have the weird economic law that a non-relativistic increase in wages has zero effect on inflationary pressures?

I would say absolutely and undoubtedly that the increase in the MW in the Seattle area has fundamentally added to the local cost of living there. I would be absolutely hard-pressed to argue the counter that it had zero effect.

I know you desperately want to live in the land of unicorns, elves, and chocolate sunflowers where a governmental drawn line on a cost has zero economic effect except to give relative wealth to one class. But governmental price controls never work in that intended manner. And yes, there is zero difference between a minimum wage and any other price control enacted by any government ever. Yet the progressives seem bound and determined to charge that holy grail time after time after time after time after time.....

One saving grace is at least they cant assert a racism charge into the mix.

Yes, I’m not so dull that I don’t understand that MW increases have contributed some to inflation. But...

You know, I just read the rest of your drivel, and realized that once I got to the part saying how I was to live in a land of unicorns, it wasn’t worth my time. I appreciate that Owl#’s and George disagree with me but attempt to have an actual discussion instead of ignoring what I say half the time or talking down with such condescension.

So you are 'not so dull that [you] don’t understand that MW increases have contributed some [to inflation]' yet feel perfectly comfortable assigning an attribution to me that I meant 'all' in context. Got it.

And you complain about me 'ignoring' what you say half the time. Again, got it.

And, while you get upset at one phrase that isnt on point on the subject (elves and unicorns), and is self-admittedly snarky on my part, you feel empowered to label the complete total what I have noted as 'drivel'. Got it.

Pot. Kettle. Black. Kind of sums it up right there in nutshell.

Is 'drivel' a step up or step down from being 'blithely ignorant' and a 'plagiarist' in your book?

(02-08-2019 05:10 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-08-2019 03:44 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-08-2019 03:02 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I agree that the best way to help others is by increasing opportunity - that's why I think a federal job guarantee is a good idea, and some of the Green New Deal initiatives are great. Similar to the alphabet soup of admins in the 30s/40s, investing significant bucks into our own country would both provide more, technical/skilled jobs for people who are stuck in minimum wage jobs, as well as updating our crumbling infrastructure. Yet all I hear is derision about every part of the green new deal, it seems...

And there you have the difference between you and I.

I think the jobs should come from private industry, motivated by capitalism. You want them to come from government, a la the USSR.

You think the "investment" should come from government via tax money, I think the investment should come from private enterprise, investing in their own future.

What is it about capitalism that you guys are afraid of?

Yes, I deride most of this GND as unworkable pie in the sky. I have pointed out some of the difficulties in doing it. Maybe you should explain the ease with which we will revamp every building in America in 12 years or unionize every job. Maybe you can explain where all the infrastructure for the proposed rail system will come from without polluting even more.

This would be a difficult 100 year plan for a police state. Lenin tried it. A 12 year plan?

You once again demonstrate that liberals only care about the shining ideal, not the nitty gritty of how to get it done.

yes, I agree, utopia would be nice.

So, when you or your priestess can explain HOW, to achieve utopia, come on back.

That’s a horrible summary and a significant misunderstanding of my opinion.

This harkens to my comment earlier about how some on the right want unfettered capitalism, and given that you suggest the government investing in infrastructure is similar to advocating for the USSR, or that I’m afraid of capitalism, it seems like I’m not far off.

The horse runs best with a light hand on the reins. So, no, not "unfettered", but lightly fettered, or minimally fettered. Things don't have to be at one extreme or the other.

We had a Federal jobs guarantee during the Great Depression. Built some nice infrastructure, some of which is serving to this day. But it took WW II to get us out of it. CCC

So, my idea of lightly fettered capitalism would be to let capitalists keep more of their money by NOT enacting confiscatory rates. One thing about rich people, they always want more, and the best way to get more is to invest it, and investing leads to new or expanded businesses, and that means jobs. maybe even provide tax incentives to start businesses and hire people.

OTOH, when the government guarantees jobs, that mean building monuments and fencing parks. They may pay enough to keep a man alive, but he won't get ahead. And the money to pay the guaranteed jobs is taken from the investor class, thus creating a spiral of less free market jobs, so more need for government guaranteed jobs.

Infrastructure is good - it's like a skeleton, providing support for the rest of the body. Which is my criticism of AOC's plan to replace air travel with rail travel. We have infrastructure in place for air travel. We can go to the airport and catach planes to New York or San Francisco or Omaha or Atlanta or any of a thousand other places. So to replace that, we need to build rail routes from Houston to New York, San Francisco, Omaha, Atlanta, and a thousand other places. That's a lot of steel rails, so we need to fire up the steel plants. What fuel do they use? It will also take a lot more engines, and a lot more cars for the passengers, so let's fire up those plants too. More steel, and a lot of power needed. So we will be using more fossil fuel at the same she is wanting to replace fossil fuel.

Every part of her proposal has these kinds of logical dead ends, and the bow on the package is the 12 year time table.

The costs are tremendous, and there is no provision to pay them, nor could there be. Our country would be bankrupt long before we reached 10% of her goals.

Of course, making all of it union labor will only raise the costs.

It not a realistic proposal, just a nice dream that in 12 years we can have a perfect world. Ice cream and lollipops for all.

(02-08-2019 05:41 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-08-2019 05:10 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-08-2019 03:44 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-08-2019 03:02 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I agree that the best way to help others is by increasing opportunity - that's why I think a federal job guarantee is a good idea, and some of the Green New Deal initiatives are great. Similar to the alphabet soup of admins in the 30s/40s, investing significant bucks into our own country would both provide more, technical/skilled jobs for people who are stuck in minimum wage jobs, as well as updating our crumbling infrastructure. Yet all I hear is derision about every part of the green new deal, it seems...

And there you have the difference between you and I.
I think the jobs should come from private industry, motivated by capitalism. You want them to come from government, a la the USSR.
You think the "investment" should come from government via tax money, I think the investment should come from private enterprise, investing in their own future.
What is it about capitalism that you guys are afraid of?
Yes, I deride most of this GND as unworkable pie in the sky. I have pointed out some of the difficulties in doing it. Maybe you should explain the ease with which we will revamp every building in America in 12 years or unionize every job. Maybe you can explain where all the infrastructure for the proposed rail system will come from without polluting even more.
This would be a difficult 100 year plan for a police state. Lenin tried it. A 12 year plan?
You once again demonstrate that liberals only care about the shining ideal, not the nitty gritty of how to get it done.
yes, I agree, utopia would be nice.
So, when you or your priestess can explain HOW, to achieve utopia, come on back.

That’s a horrible summary and a significant misunderstanding of my opinion.
This harkens to my comment earlier about how some on the right want unfettered capitalism, and given that you suggest the government investing in infrastructure is similar to advocating for the USSR, or that I’m afraid of capitalism, it seems like I’m not far off.

How does a "federal job guarantee" not equate to jobs coming from the government, like the USSR? Please clarify.

Because that’s like saying because we have NASA we’re like the USSR because their government supported their own space program.

I think that jobs should come from private industry, and that private industry should be able to pay sufficient wages to not need to think about programs like UBI, but I see that it’s not happening. So one potential solution is to leverage our resources to provide employment opportunities while investing in goods for the public’s benefit - things like infrastructure, being a perfect example.

This again goes perfectly back to my Adam Smith comment and how there is a role for governmenti. supporting endevours that benefit the public, but that aren’t necessarily profitable.

Frankly, kinda surprised a UBI proponent wouldn’t be interested in a federal work guarantee since it would provide an income while also creating something productive.

(02-08-2019 04:00 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  basic income

Bump

(02-08-2019 06:19 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Frankly, kinda surprised a UBI proponent wouldn’t be interested in a federal work guarantee since it would provide an income while also creating something productive.

I think you are misunderstanding the UBI that I have in mind. It's not enough to live well, basically just subsistence level. And it doesn't go away, everybody gets it. The bum on the street gets it, Bill and Melinda Gates get it. That can only be done if you keep it at a subsistence level, but if you do that then it really doesn't cost more than our current welfare hodgepodge. That's because the administration costs of such a program is way cheaper than the administration costs of the current program, because it does not require the legion of gate keepers that focused and "means tested" programs require.

The reason for setting it at a subsistence level is that then there is a strong incentive to go out and get a job.

The reason for not having it go away is that then you don't have the "welfare trap" problem.

The current focused and "means tested" programs could then be farmed out to the states on a voluntary basis. If we also did Bismarck health care, then the states would save way more from not having to fund Medicaid than it would cost to fund those programs, particularly considering that the UBI is going to price most people out of qualifying for them.

Finland tries Basic Income:
Finland basic income trial left people 'happier but jobless' - https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.bbc.c...e-47169549

(02-08-2019 06:51 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-08-2019 06:19 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Frankly, kinda surprised a UBI proponent wouldn’t be interested in a federal work guarantee since it would provide an income while also creating something productive.

I think you are misunderstanding the UBI that I have in mind. It's not enough to live well, basically just subsistence level. And it doesn't go away, everybody gets it. The bum on the street gets it, Bill and Melinda Gates get it. That can only be done if you keep it at a subsistence level, but if you do that then it really doesn't cost more than our current welfare hodgepodge. That's because the administration costs of such a program is way cheaper than the administration costs of the current program, because it does not require the legion of gate keepers that focused and "means tested" programs require.

The reason for setting it at a subsistence level is that then there is a strong incentive to go out and get a job.

The reason for not having it go away is that then you don't have the "welfare trap" problem.

The current focused and "means tested" programs could then be farmed out to the states on a voluntary basis. If we also did Bismarck health care, then the states would save way more from not having to fund Medicaid than it would cost to fund those programs, particularly considering that the UBI is going to price most people out of qualifying for them.

I 100% understand why you’re a proponent of UBI. I don’t understand why a jobs guarantee wouldn’t have similar support. It would also be open to anyone who wanted it, there wouldn’t be gate keepers, and it would go towards productive projects.

I don’t view a federal job guarantee as being in the same vein as our current welfare system that suffers from some of the problems you highlight.

(02-08-2019 09:24 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-08-2019 06:51 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-08-2019 06:19 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Frankly, kinda surprised a UBI proponent wouldn’t be interested in a federal work guarantee since it would provide an income while also creating something productive.

I think you are misunderstanding the UBI that I have in mind. It's not enough to live well, basically just subsistence level. And it doesn't go away, everybody gets it. The bum on the street gets it, Bill and Melinda Gates get it. That can only be done if you keep it at a subsistence level, but if you do that then it really doesn't cost more than our current welfare hodgepodge. That's because the administration costs of such a program is way cheaper than the administration costs of the current program, because it does not require the legion of gate keepers that focused and "means tested" programs require.
The reason for setting it at a subsistence level is that then there is a strong incentive to go out and get a job.
The reason for not having it go away is that then you don't have the "welfare trap" problem.
The current focused and "means tested" programs could then be farmed out to the states on a voluntary basis. If we also did Bismarck health care, then the states would save way more from not having to fund Medicaid than it would cost to fund those programs, particularly considering that the UBI is going to price most people out of qualifying for them.

I 100% understand why you’re a proponent of UBI. I don’t understand why a jobs guarantee wouldn’t have similar support. It would also be open to anyone who wanted it, there wouldn’t be gate keepers, and it would go towards productive projects.
I don’t view a federal job guarantee as being in the same vein as our current welfare system that suffers from some of the problems you highlight.

I've actually thought about doing something similar for unemployment. If you are unemployed, you go down to the unemployment office, and they give you a place to report tomorrow. You do infrastructure maintenance, stuff like that, get paid minimum wage, work 32 hours a week, spend 8 in documented job search or skills improvement, get paid 40 hours at minimum wage.

Went into my local Target to get some cough and cold medicine (OTC). Can you believe those racists asked for my ID!!!

It made me think, what if one of those tens of thousands of poor people who cannot afford a free ID caught a cold? Must they suffer for the lack of it?

(02-11-2019 10:06 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Went into my local Target to get some cough and cold medicine (OTC). Can you believe those racists asked for my ID!!!

It made me think, what if one of those tens of thousands of poor people who cannot afford a free ID caught a cold? Must they suffer for the lack of it?

Cold suppressant suppression!

(02-12-2019 06:13 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(02-11-2019 10:06 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Went into my local Target to get some cough and cold medicine (OTC). Can you believe those racists asked for my ID!!!

It made me think, what if one of those tens of thousands of poor people who cannot afford a free ID caught a cold? Must they suffer for the lack of it?

Cold suppressant suppression!

They just hate old white people. Luckily, I had spent the $16 and 10 minutes to get my ID, just in case they tried to hold me down. But there were hundreds of people of color outside the store, weeping and sneezing. Not a one of them could go the two miles to the DMV to get their free ID. Oh, the racism!! This is the discrimination Lad was born to correct.

(02-12-2019 06:13 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(02-11-2019 10:06 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Went into my local Target to get some cough and cold medicine (OTC). Can you believe those racists asked for my ID!!!

It made me think, what if one of those tens of thousands of poor people who cannot afford a free ID caught a cold? Must they suffer for the lack of it?

Cold suppressant suppression!

They just hate old white people. Luckily, I had spent the $16 and 10 minutes to get my ID, just in case they tried to hold me down. But there were hundreds of people of color outside the store, weeping and sneezing. Not a one of them could go the two miles to the DMV to get their free ID. Oh, the racism!! This is the discrimination Lad was born to correct.

(02-12-2019 06:13 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(02-11-2019 10:06 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Went into my local Target to get some cough and cold medicine (OTC). Can you believe those racists asked for my ID!!!

It made me think, what if one of those tens of thousands of poor people who cannot afford a free ID caught a cold? Must they suffer for the lack of it?

Cold suppressant suppression!

Suppress cold suppressant suppression!

Edited to add: this clip seems lexicologically on point.

Gary Busey Motorcycle Helmet ad -- SNL

You need to disable ad block to see it.