2016 US Presidential Election Thread - VIII

[Salome]

Originally Posted by BigMacPhisto

Minimum income studies have been tested before in Europe and Canada to great success,

I'm sorry, but this I just can't agree with.
The majority of these experiments didn't provide a basic income for everyone, but only to those who currently were relying on some form of benefits.

And in the random experiment that did provide everyone with a basic income the main flaw (in my mind) was that the participant knew that there would be an end to the experiment.
Of course I wouldn't quit my job if I knew that in 3 months my basic income would disappear and I'd be up shit creek.
Now, if I was guaranteed a true basic income for the rest of my life .... that might change things.

To me the only things these studies proofed successfully is that different methodologies exist to distribute social security funds. That's about it.

[BVS]

Originally Posted by 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.

Your math doesn't work. Even those that demonize welfare systems don't have us spending nearly that much monthly on these programs.

Plus, at a thousand a month I guess you're hoping the cost of living drops significantly? Which means the majority of homeowners will be upside down in their houses, what's your magic wand approach for that?

And let me get this straight, you're hoping the restaurant industry collapses?


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

[Headache in a Suitcase]

Don't worry. $12,000 a year will end crime as we know it.

Who would sell drugs when you can get $12,000 a month from the government in order to chase your dream of being a ballerina? I know I sure wouldn't.

Steal that $2,000 computer to resell on the black market? Poppycock. I make $12k a year!

I'm all for it. Let's do it tomorrow.

[anitram]

Originally Posted by Salome

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.

Bingo.

BigMacPhisto's post also assumes that as a society we would essentially be willing to prioritize basic income over everything else - meaning, all social programs would be cut, we'd magically be willing to cut down the military budget, everyone who is at the higher end of middle class and up would happily pay more in taxes, you'd probably have to make significant cuts also to education, healthcare, etc. It's just not realistic.

Separately, as much as "personal responsibility" tends to be a right wing talking point, it would be naive to assume that every person receiving a basic income and electing NOT to work would allocate that income in a responsible manner. So what happens to the people who STILL need a social safety net but now no longer have one? That assumption about the crime rate plummeting has always struck me as totally nonsensical.

[Headache in a Suitcase]

I did a search on StreetEasy for any apartment listed at $1,000 a month or less in New York.

It pulled up 8.

So once those 8 apartments are taken, that's going to leave a whole lot of people looking for a place to live.

I guess they'll have to go to public housing.

Oops, that's gone cause all the money is being pulled from those programs and put into the basic income program.

Oh well. I'm sure they'll be able to figure it out.

[womanfish]

Originally Posted by U2DMfan

Good example of why some of us have continually said Bernie Sanders and "true progressives" have some bad ideas.



Mickey D's up next.

Wendy's Serves Up Kiosks As Wages Rise, Hits Fast-Food Group | Stock News & Stock Market Analysis - IBD

You might argue this (automation) was inevitable. But all the same, there is no doubt the cost of the wage increases for low-end jobs are and would continue to be passed on to the very people the wage increase was designed to help. So you either get those jobs eliminated - or you just increase cost of living for the people on the lower end. Yay! Didn't you hear? Money is free!

On top of this, it actually fouls up the upward mobility and the relative progression within the economy for these folks. Said another way, used to be you could work at a grocery store for 5, 10 years and be rewarded within the context of that end of the employment scale. By raising the minimum wage so high you've now (almost certainly) created jobs that all pay the same. 16 year old high school student, and 45 year old cashier that busted her ass at a pretty shit job - will basically make the same hourly wage. You've demotivated the workforce. Good luck frequenting these establishments and getting good customer service. Bad enough as it is.

So yeah. $15/hr minimum wage is the brainstorm of someone without both feet planted in the real world. Adults understand these are bad ideas. And for those of us who have no interest in supporting the Authoritarian Asshole, we might not be enamored with HRC but the world is a messy place where ideals go to die. And HRC is fine if only because she doesn't need such lessons. It's Bernie and the 19 year old college students, the perpetual hippies and the intellectual children like the famous Hollywood Play-Pretenders that don't understand these basic things.

Sorry to be so condescending but it gets frustrating. I'm just glad to see so many of the smart people around here echoing similar feelings. If I could dumb down my feelings into a 'bumper sticker slogan' I'd say - the world is ugly and sometimes you're better off fighting fire with fire. It's a paradox, and that's a huge reason why it's so hard to fix. The most honorable people (Bernie Sanders) always have the worst ideas, an adherence to fantasy. And the most unlikable people (HRC) are actually the smart people in the room, that end up having to pander, contort and twist, just so we can keep the crazies out of power.

Thank god other people see the light. First off, I am a strong supporter of raising the minimum wage. BUT! HRC's plan is just so much better. I'm so tired of the black and white, spout off whatever sounds good to get the crowd riled up and send in their 27 dollar, bullshit.

15 FED minimum wage is a really bad idea. This may sound selfish to some, but it's reality - What happens with the people that are working semi-professional/professional jobs and are making say, 15, 16, 18 bucks an hour? They started at 10 or 11 bucks an hour, have a college degree and have worked hard to keep growing in their job/career?

If the person that stuffs envelopes at your company suddenly makes almost as much as the person that is a project manager, then what? I would assume that those people would start to raise hell, wanting a large increase as well, or continue working in a state of great animosity.

I see a wage of 15 in NY, LA, Seattle, Boston, etc... because the cost of living actually demands it. You need people to actually be able to live in the city to get to the jobs that need to be done.

But 15 in the tens of thousands of small rural areas across the country? Would the struggling small businesses really be able to adjust? Would rent prices then start to get pumped up immediately as a result?

I just know that it takes much more of a thought out, nuanced approach, than to just shout 15 DOLLARS AN OWWA!! to the cheers of the crowd.

It sums up almost every policy that Sanders puts out there. Great to rally a crowd, not so great on implementation, specifics, repercussions, and outcome.

[BEAL]

Agree it should be raised, but done so smartly.

$15 an hour for SF makes sense, $15/hour for Des Moines.....not so much.

It's not just the Bernie/FarLeft that seem to have tunnel vision in regards to their proposals, it's everyone. While these ideas are good, and something to strive for, I don't know what the long term impact is. Could be absolute disaster, or it could really boost economy with the thought people will spend more if they have more.

[BigMacPhisto]

Originally Posted by BVS

Plus, at a thousand a month I guess you're hoping the cost of living drops significantly? Which means the majority of homeowners will be upside down in their houses, what's your magic wand approach for that?

And let me get this straight, you're hoping the restaurant industry collapses?

I'm not assuming $1,000 a month is enough for everyone to live comfortably, but it is enough to get by in most of the country. In rural and a lot of suburban areas, rent is damn cheap. If you want to live off a minimum income in San Francisco or New York though, well, that's not going to happen.

Your point about homeowners struggling to pay for their houses makes zero sense because you're assuming said homeowners are only earning the minimum income.

Working in the restaurant industry is a job that most of its participants abhor and it's not essential in society. We don't need restaurants. I'm not saying I'm praying that the industry collapses, I'm just saying that those are the first jobs that people will flee if they no longer need to have a job. Funny enough, the extra income that people would have would presumably help a service industry like that, but I just can't see anyone wanting to actually work in that field if given a choice.

[BigMacPhisto]

Originally Posted by Headache in a Suitcase

Don't worry. $12,000 a year will end crime as we know it.

Who would sell drugs when you can get $12,000 a month from the government in order to chase your dream of being a ballerina? I know I sure wouldn't.

Steal that $2,000 computer to resell on the black market? Poppycock. I make $12k a year!

I'm all for it. Let's do it tomorrow.

It's twelve thousand times more money earned for the homeless and destitute than the zero dollars they're receiving now.

[BigMacPhisto]

Originally Posted by BEAL

Agree it should be raised, but done so smartly.

$15 an hour for SF makes sense, $15/hour for Des Moines.....not so much.

It's not just the Bernie/FarLeft that seem to have tunnel vision in regards to their proposals, it's everyone. While these ideas are good, and something to strive for, I don't know what the long term impact is. Could be absolute disaster, or it could really boost economy with the thought people will spend more if they have more.

There's been no studies that have shown that raising the minimum wage significantly increases unemployment. Most of these places will be just fine. The lowest paying jobs tend to be in the service industry, but those areas will have a lot of extra income arriving thanks to higher wages. The Republicans gravely fear major wage increases because they will be proven wrong once and for all.

And San Francisco doesn't even need to wait to be honest. They could raise it to $20 an hour here and nothing would suffer. Restaurants are the only area that would have trouble, but with the high incomes made by people that live in SF along with tourists used to paying over $400 a night now on average for a hotel room, raising the prices for food quite a bit won't really matter.

The minimum wage in Sweden for example is about $20 an hour. And they're perfectly fine. Clinton doesn't want a lower minimum wage hike because there's some economic reasoning for it...she wants a lower hike because the people footing her bills don't want to pay $15 an hour to employees. End of.

[BigMacPhisto]

Originally Posted by Headache in a Suitcase

I did a search on StreetEasy for any apartment listed at $1,000 a month or less in New York.

It pulled up 8.

So once those 8 apartments are taken, that's going to leave a whole lot of people looking for a place to live.

I guess they'll have to go to public housing.

Oops, that's gone cause all the money is being pulled from those programs and put into the basic income program.

Oh well. I'm sure they'll be able to figure it out.

Do stop trying to over exaggerate my claims. For starters, public housing is actually the key social safety net aspect that I would keep for obvious reasons, focusing mostly on major American cities as they would be unlivable at $1,000 a month.

And again, the idea is that you're provided with an amount of money, however much, to live on in most of the country. If you don't want to work and want to live in one of the highest rent areas of the country, then you're probably fucked, but that's on you. The government shouldn't be paying out $6,000 a month so some hipster can live in SF.

Also, the cost I gave earlier would obviously be a lot lower than 2.4 trillion a year in the hypothetical $1,000 a month scenario because a large share of that would be recouped via the usual business taxes. Plus, we also aren't getting into the other cost savings due to lower amounts of crime, fewer people commuting to work (so less highway maintenance and municipal transit upkeep), etc.

Another big bit of savings concerning the military is that you wouldn't have to pay the millions currently in the armed forces. Why? Because the bulk of these people would have no need to risk their lives for a paltry sum of money when they can get it through doing nothing. Effectively, you would just be shifting over every person that doesn't want to be in the military over to the civilian lifestyle and they'd be a lot cheaper to support given that there's no military expenses involved. You would quickly save hundreds of billions of dollars if you had a military with a tenth of what you have now.

[BigMacPhisto]

Finally, show of hands from the Clinton supporters in this thread. Do you support the TPP?

If you do, it's an issue of disagreement between you and Clinton.

If you don't, it's an issue of disagreement between you and Clinton once she enters the White House and makes sure it is passed and enforced anyway. Seriously would love to hear responses on this one because it seems like a completely losing situation for every Clinton supporter either now or in the future. My biggest regret from the entire campaign is her not being challenged to say in a debate whether she would ensure as President that we don't enter the TPP. Her presumably waffling answer would tell you all you need to know.

[Salome]

Originally Posted by BigMacPhisto

There's been no studies that have shown that raising the minimum wage significantly increases unemployment.

Originally Posted by BigMacPhisto

The lowest paying jobs tend to be in the service industry, but those areas will have a lot of extra income arriving thanks to higher wages.

I would wager there haves been no studies backing up that claim either.

Originally Posted by BigMacPhisto

Clinton doesn't want a lower minimum wage hike because there's some economic reasoning for it...she wants a lower hike because the people footing her bills don't want to pay $15 an hour to employees. End of.

Out of curiosity, I honestly don't know, do major US companies pay minimum wage to a lot of their employees?

[Salome]

Originally Posted by BigMacPhisto

Finally, show of hands from the Clinton supporters in this thread. Do you support the TPP?

How can one support or not support something of which the content is as of yet unknown?

[BigMacPhisto]

Originally Posted by anitram

Separately, as much as "personal responsibility" tends to be a right wing talking point, it would be naive to assume that every person receiving a basic income and electing NOT to work would allocate that income in a responsible manner.

For one, let's consider all my proposals as being a what-if if the country had certain priorities. I know actually deeply cutting the military budget, for example, is a hard sell, especially as long as Republicans play a prominent role in congress. I'm just doing all this as a hypothetical situation where the climate is nothing like it is today.

As for your above quote, I would personally raise the taxes on things like cigarettes and alcohol sky high. There really is no downside to doing so as the people it harms the most are the ones that everybody else has to pay for tremendously in terms of health care costs. They've taken this philosophy to the extreme in a lot of European countries and America is headed the same way (including with sweetened beverages). A major cigarette tax was proposed in California a few years back and nearly passed, but was thwarted in a non Presidential election year by basically every Republican in the state refusing to agree to a "tax increase" (with all the smokers on the left joining them, naturally). But that's just one idea where we can make sure those that are wasting their money on things harmful to the rest of society have to pay in for it.

On the other angle, I'm a huge proponent of wet houses. So if giving a basic income to alcoholics, for example, leads to them just drinking themselves to death, so be it. It's cheaper in the long run for society, and again, it's where we're headed as a few liberal cities have gone this direction to great success (San Francisco is currently eyeing the idea).

[BigMacPhisto]

Originally Posted by Salome

How can one support or not support something of which the content is as of yet unknown?

Then why did Clinton change her position on something that is "unknown"?

My point is, her stance on TPP is a bold faced lie because there's no way in hell that Clinton isn't going to enter us into that agreement if we're still active in negotiations when Obama leaves office. She'll just say a few modifications have made it "a gold standard" and that will be the end of it while she can drum up extra support saying it's the final bullet point in "Obama's legacy"

I think a lot of Clinton's other positions are where she'll sit as they're exactly the reason why there's such a big contrast between her and Sanders, but the TPP stance is just nonsense in my mind. Like lying about the super predators comment when she knew damn well what it was in context to or trying to blame the Iraq War vote on being tricked in the first debate. When you make a statement such as voting for a war because you want Hussein out (and it was politically expedient to do so) or sitting in countless closed door meetings to literally write the TPP, you can't just back track on something like that.

[BigMacPhisto]

Originally Posted by Salome

I would wager there haves been no studies backing up that claim either.



Out of curiosity, I honestly don't know, do major US companies pay minimum wage to a lot of their employees?

Plenty of studies showing that minimum wage increases don't lead to an increase in the unemployment rate along with studies showing that lower tax rates on the rich only increase economic inequality and benefit nobody else. And it's not like we don't have evidence at our disposal, we have years of both of these things being put into effect and always leading to the same results...

As for the minimum wage, no, most people earn more than that (and far more than that, even), but bumping up the many making below $10 an hour to $15 (and there's a huge swath of people at $7-14 that immediately benefit) would have a huge effect on getting a ton of people out of the welfare rolls and stemming poverty. Likewise, if you're being paid $15 an hour just to flip burgers, there's a lot of office workers that will be expecting to be paid at least $20 an hour for a job that requires a lot more mental effort. And believe me, there are millions of people that work office jobs around the country, temporary or otherwise, that make below $15 an hour. So, by raising the minimum wage, you basically raise up everyone's wage floor.

It would be interesting if someone did a comprehensive study on social standing when it comes to all of this...I do think there's a lot of people that would willingly work for $17 an hour in a stressful and hectic office environment than flip burgers for $15 an hour if that was an option. I find it absolutely ludicrous, but over the years, I've realized that people in this country aren't exactly rational. We're talking about the same sort of morons that go ten miles above the speed limit when they're late for work ten minutes from their house...personally, status be damned, if you're going to pay me $30 an hour to clean toilets, I'll switch my occupation immediately.

[Headache in a Suitcase]

Originally Posted by BigMacPhisto

On the other angle, I'm a huge proponent of wet houses. So if giving a basic income to alcoholics, for example, leads to them just drinking themselves to death, so be it. It's cheaper in the long run for society, and again, it's where we're headed as a few liberal cities have gone this direction to great success (San Francisco is currently eyeing the idea).

That's one way to decrease the surplus population.

[BEAL]

Wasn't it the 2012 GOP debate, where a question was posed to Ron Paul about what does a society do with it's civilians who can't pay for medical expenses....the crowd yelled, "Let them die"

I mean, it is one way to decrease the rising healthcare costs

[BVS]

Originally Posted by BigMacPhisto

Your point about homeowners struggling to pay for their houses makes zero sense because you're assuming said homeowners are only earning the minimum income.



Working in the restaurant industry is a job that most of its participants abhor and it's not essential in society. We don't need restaurants. I'm not saying I'm praying that the industry collapses, I'm just saying that those are the first jobs that people will flee if they no longer need to have a job. Funny enough, the extra income that people would have would presumably help a service industry like that, but I just can't see anyone wanting to actually work in that field if given a choice.

No, you misunderstood me. Your plan hinges on the cost of living being driven down, which would bring down the values of homes across the country.

First of all,not everyone abhors the industry. Are they essential to the survival of human existence? No. But I'd argue that they're essential to the fabric of society.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference