2016 US Presidential Election Thread - VIII

[trojanchick99]

I use self checkout all the time for groceries unless I'm buying alcohol which had to be bought from a cashier here in CA.

For food, I order by app or online quite a bit but if I'm in store then I prefer going to a person.

Sent from my SM-G920V using U2 Interference mobile app

[Moonlit_Angel]

I just go with whichever one's quicker and has less of a line, myself. If I've only got a small group of items, or the regular cashier lines are super long, I'll use self-checkout. If I've got a lot of stuff, to the point where I need a cart, I'll go to a cashier.

[mikal]

I go with the cashier every time because I enjoy the interaction and occasional consultation I receive from them regarding my purchases.

[Hewson]

Originally Posted by mikal

I go with the cashier every time because I enjoy the interaction and occasional consultation I receive from them regarding my purchases.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0PP5ENgXLiI

[BoMac]

I go to whichever aisle has the prettiest cashier.

[DaveC]

Originally Posted by BoMac

I go to whichever aisle has the prettiest cashier.

same here, that's why i always end up in the self checkout

[Irvine511]

A dream awaits in aisle number two.

[corianderstem]

This is enthralling conversation.

[BVS]

Originally Posted by corianderstem

This is enthralling conversation.

See? Some days that cashier is pretty enticing.

[deep]

self check, unless the cashier with the big boobs is working,

[corianderstem]

You guys actually bother checking out and paying? Suckers.

[deep]

I'll

Pay for your groceries little girl

[BVS]

Originally Posted by corianderstem

You guys actually bother checking out and paying? Suckers.

[LuckyNumber7]

Originally Posted by corianderstem

You guys actually bother checking out and paying? Suckers.

Walmart brought back greeters, cori. Beware.

[BigMacPhisto]

Minimum income sounds like the answer...the service industry isn't going to just lose jobs because of self checkout, but more so because physical stores will continue to go the way of the dinosaur thanks to the internet. Minimum income works because you can pay less in welfare benefits by cutting out the middle men of government and simply giving a cash amount to everyone. Effectively, you can put more people on the welfare roles by simplifying the entire process.

Of course, the shittiest jobs such as working in the fast food industry will mostly disappear (or just like one dude will be heating up burgers for $30 an hour and putting them into a vending machine type apparatus that's common over in Europe), but that's no real loss. Most people are still going to work because the, say, $1300 a month from minimum income won't be nearly enough for most middle class people who want a nice house, car, etc. But in the meantime, you can eliminate poverty pretty quickly.

[anitram]

Originally Posted by BigMacPhisto

Minimum income sounds like the answer....

You already have minimum income, what you're talking about is a universal basic income (guaranteed to all citizens in lieu of the social safety net).

This is a completely unfeasible thing in the US (I believe the requirement to just keep people at the poverty level, which is less than $1K/month exceeds the entirety of the current US annual federal budget). To say nothing of the many other negative consequences.

[BigMacPhisto]

It's referred to as minimum income as well, actually, not to be confused with the minimum wage.

You have to keep in mind that under such a system, the United States would suddenly save hundreds of billions, if not trillions, annually by basically not having to pay for a lot of the welfare net that they currently do such as the extra costs associated with things like running a food stamp program (along with the giving of food stamp money in the first place), etc.

The working age population is about 200 million people at most (18-62 in my eyes). 200 million x $1,000 a month = 200 billion per month. 12 months in a year means it would cost 2.4 trillion a year to run such a program. However, take into account the hundreds of billions of dollars in government savings, the hundreds of billions more you could save by drastically cutting the bloated military budget and the hundreds of billions you could raise by increasing the effective tax rate on high income earners (higher marginal tax rate and elimination of various loopholes). Suddenly, it really doesn't look all that expensive.

Basically, if you ensure that the program itself is cutting down on government costs while eliminating the pointlessness of, say, having a military that could blow up the world a thousand times over (especially in the era of automated drone based warfare), it can work as a cost neutral wealth redistribution scheme. In other words, the money is already there, just in the hands of a few.

And again, people will continue to work. But plenty that see other avenues will be free to do whatever they want with their lives while the shittiest jobs are now going to have to pay a hell of a lot more in order to make it worth people's while. I imagine we would immediately see an elimination of the most pointless jobs in our society.

That near-jailbait restaurant hostess who is merely paid to sit at the front of the restaurant and lure in middle aged creeps? Gone. No longer affordable to pay her a now competitive wage of $40 an hour for doing fuck all in an industry that's likely to collapse immediately as few want to work in restaurants and fast food when given money to avoid it.

Private security guards posted everywhere because those wallowing in poverty want to commit crimes? No longer necessary now that people have a stable income and aren't walking America's city streets at night in hopelessness.

People working their ass off butchering animals in terrible conditions? Gonna have to get paid a hell of a lot more if you expect anyone to do it. Work will then be redefined with essential jobs paying high wages and inessential sectors and jobs being eliminated completely as employers can't just throw money around at nonsense now that the work force will be smaller. For once, business will compete for workers instead of taking advantage of a constant unemployment trough to scare everybody.

And plenty of conservatives are starting to rally behind the idea because it can drastically shrink the size of government. Cut people checks and say goodbye to hundreds of thousands of government workers. Oh, all those people are out of work? No big deal because they at least have the minimum income to fall back on while pursuing a career in something else.



Minimum income studies have been tested before in Europe and Canada to great success, even if the results were just kind of ignored by the mainstream up until the last couple of years when the idea has begun to take hold again. Plenty of European countries are starting smaller studies or having referendums on the idea and they're even going through with it in communities in Africa. Common results are barely a downtick in people not working, improved health, lower crime rates, etc. And stop with saying that "they can do that somewhere else, but not in the United States"...if it works in one place, it can work somewhere else once it's implemented. It's writing out checks for god's sake, there's nothing else to it.

[Salome]

Originally Posted by BigMacPhisto

And plenty of conservatives are starting to rally behind the idea because it can drastically shrink the size of government. Cut people checks and say goodbye to hundreds of thousands of government workers. Oh, all those people are out of work? No big deal because they at least have the minimum income to fall back on while pursuing a career in something else.

I am an avid reader of anything related to universal basic income and I have never come across anything where the numbers made actual sense.
The plans that came closest to making sense from a budget perspective would result in anyone actual unable to work due to sickness etc. being left behind in a shocking manner.
And even in those plans you have to wonder whether people really love their jobs that much that they would be willing to pay the increased tax rates necessary to (partially) fund all of this.

[Axver]

Originally Posted by Salome

And even in those plans you have to wonder whether people really love their jobs that much that they would be willing to pay the increased tax rates necessary to (partially) fund all of this.

Well I can't speak for anybody else, but I fucking adore my work and I'd be doing it whether I'm paid nothing or a million bucks.

(Please pay me a million bucks, somebody.)

This is unlikely true for most workers, but the resistance of many people to retirement speaks to a feeling that work provides people with some form of satisfaction. Now, whether this is just a cultural thing, particularly drawing on the Protestant work ethic, is a wider discussion...

[Salome]

Even if just 2.5% of the population would not like their job as much as you do, then it still means that somehow the rest would have to pay extra to fund this loss of tax income.
Theoretically this could end up in a spiral until only those who indeed truly fucking love their work are left working.

But my main problem is that in most calculations they pretend that the basic income will be enough for everyone. It won't, e.g. people with health issues grave enough to prevent them to work at all will need more to pay for the extra care they need. As a result I truly doubt you will be able to get rid of as many government workers as some want to believe. Which seems to be presented as the miracle solution to pay for a huge chunk of the extra outgoing funds.