U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Covid-19 Information Page
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 06-04-2020, 08:19 AM
 
3,125 posts, read 3,193,962 times
Reputation: 1220

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by RJ312 View Post
Coronavirus has demonstrated the need for safety nets. The United States has a safety net problem that the conservatives are ignoring. Conservatives are actually purposefully attacking the unemployed right now, hoping that they will die in the streets after August 1, just like the indigent of third world countries. Additionally, liberals/leftists/progressives have done a poor job with not protecting the worker from layoffs. Right to Work states are an absolute abomination. I believe that there should have been better initiatives in place to protect workers from layoffs.

Given some of the technological changes forthcoming like automation and AI, as well as the various policy failures of the past, there's a good case to be made for UBI. I was against UBI prior to the pandemic. My view has now changed. The United States' corporatist economy has failed on a massive scale for the 2nd time in 13 years. Either pure capitalism like Chile post 1973 needs to be put into place or something like UBI needs to exist to replace the myriad of safety net programs out there, some of which are not working well enough.

I'm more for helping the indigent and the unemployable ranks than giving everyone money. Some people make too much money to get supplemental income. Right now, the $600/week going to the unemployed on top of their standard unemployment makes sense. That's actually getting to a living wage in a lot of cases.
Why is your lack of saving other people’s problems?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-04-2020, 09:25 AM
 
2,129 posts, read 572,116 times
Reputation: 3424
Quote:
Originally Posted by cw30000 View Post
Why is your lack of saving other people’s problems?
If you carry the idea that all people have the opportunity to save any meaningful amount, you're thanked and excused here.

Unless, say, you want to explain how your hoarding of wealth doesn't affect anyone else.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-04-2020, 09:39 AM
 
3,125 posts, read 3,193,962 times
Reputation: 1220
Quote:
Originally Posted by Therblig View Post
If you carry the idea that all people have the opportunity to save any meaningful amount, you're thanked and excused here.

Unless, say, you want to explain how your hoarding of wealth doesn't affect anyone else.
Why not? My parents came here 30 years ago with no money and 3 kids. They were never on welfare. If they can make it, so can anyone.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-04-2020, 09:41 AM
 
2,129 posts, read 572,116 times
Reputation: 3424
Quote:
Originally Posted by cw30000 View Post
Why not? My parents came here 30 years ago with no money and 3 kids. They were never on welfare. If they can make it, so can anyone.
Thanked and excused.

This has nothing to do with this discussion. There are plenty of "worthy people save and stupid people spend" threads to take your points to, though.

Last edited by Therblig; 06-04-2020 at 10:36 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-04-2020, 11:40 AM
 
Location: The Triad (NC)
30,293 posts, read 66,879,688 times
Reputation: 35849
Quote:
Originally Posted by cw30000 View Post
Why not? My parents came here 30 years ago with no money and 3 kids.
They were never on welfare. If they can make it, so can anyone.
Edit that 'anyone' down to the portion who really can't, even include those who won't, and you have a deal.
That covers the worthy vs stupid distinction as well.

The problem is that those who can't or won't didn't just pop up one day.
They almost all come from a long heritage where can't and won't gets shared around.

The discussion (as I see it) is about what we'll do with them and for their progeny.
Or should we just keep perpetuating the same basic problems until the kettle boils over?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-04-2020, 02:04 PM
 
2,129 posts, read 572,116 times
Reputation: 3424
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrRational View Post
EThe discussion (as I see it) is about what we'll do with them and for their progeny.
Or should we just keep perpetuating the same basic problems until the kettle boils over?
It's close enough to drag in. Just not too much or too far, given that there are nine or thirty-'leven more or less existing threads on the topic.

Mic's yours. So what do we "do with them" etc.?

And how do you distinguish between, say...
  • those who would take a job if it were available with significant effort (long relocation, say);
  • those who would take a job if it were available without major life rearrangement;
  • and those who will do pretty much anything to avoid working?
FWIW, I think the last class is much smaller than most vaguely assert, since few arguments allow for any limitations whatsover on "taking one of these jobs no one can fill"... which are often in sh*thole locations, jobs, seasons, etc. that no one in their right mind would choose, especially not with relocation across states.

The topic is still UBI, and how it would affect "these people." And I'll again maintain that the pool of those willing to settle for minimal life support is a lot smaller than handwave-handwave.

And let's say my tin foil radar is right and we will have huge "unemployment" in 15 years. What's your alternative for this bottom class? Starve them into finding jobs that don't exist?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-04-2020, 02:17 PM
 
Location: The Triad (NC)
30,293 posts, read 66,879,688 times
Reputation: 35849
Quote:
Originally Posted by Therblig View Post
Mic's yours. So what do we "do with them" etc.?
And how do you distinguish between, say...
No thanks. Not my job. Above my pay grade. Etc.

Getting the broad strokes agreed to by enough to make an actual real difference
is tough enough without cluttering that discussion with the details of what it might entail.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-04-2020, 02:26 PM
 
2,129 posts, read 572,116 times
Reputation: 3424
Well, if you're going to redefine the topic as "what do we do about those losers," it kinda comes with the obligation to have some answer.

But I don't think that redefining some form of "how do we support a population that increasingly lacks the means and opportunity to support itself" into the above is productive. Yep, there will be losers under UBI, just as there are now. The good news is that they will be essentially bought off, warehoused and set aside, fairly cheaply, leaving the shrunken job pool to fewer candidates and what might be called the "productively subsidized" population to achieve better things.

The issue of shrinking that pool to some minimum is an open question, though.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-05-2020, 06:03 PM
 
Location: Oregon, formerly Texas
6,438 posts, read 4,351,078 times
Reputation: 11157
I was skeptical before, but in the wake of covid I'm coming around to the idea much more. It would solve a lot of problems, e.g.: I think it would be great for allowing families who wanted to do so become single-income again, allowing a parent to stay home.

I think what would make UBI more politically palatable is connecting it to some kind of work or service. You have to put in so many years into.... something... to get it. Americans are very much against people getting something for nothing.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-05-2020, 07:07 PM
 
Location: Right here; Right now
10,812 posts, read 5,077,963 times
Reputation: 1710
Quote:
Originally Posted by redguard57 View Post
I was skeptical before, but in the wake of covid I'm coming around to the idea much more. It would solve a lot of problems, e.g.: I think it would be great for allowing families who wanted to do so become single-income again, allowing a parent to stay home.

I think what would make UBI more politically palatable is connecting it to some kind of work or service. You have to put in so many years into.... something... to get it. Americans are very much against people getting something for nothing.
Quote:
I think what would make UBI more politically palatable is connecting it to some kind of work or service.
According to the Basic Income Earth Network (BIEN), there are five defining characteristics of basic income and one of those five rules is Unconditional: there is no requirement to work or willingness to work.

The federal government has been moving in the direction of work to gain access to assistant programs, since Trump has been in office, it has now come to fruition.

SNAP Work Requirements


and here is an article that addresses the issues with that requirement.


Nearly 700,000 will lose food stamps with USDA work requirement change

“The policy targets very poor people struggling to work — some of whom are homeless or living with health conditions,” said Stacy Dean, the food assistance policy vice president at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. "Taking away basic food assistance from these individuals will only increase hardship and hunger, while doing nothing to help them find steady full-time work.”


If a person is in a transition stage of job search --- the chances of them falling through that big gaping crack in the system is huge.
Quote:
Americans are very much against people getting something for nothing.
I know that's right, even if it can be proven that in doing so it helps local economies, they will cut their nose off to spite their face. I suspect within the next 10 to 15 years, the u.s. will not have an immigration problem, but an emigration problem in its place. People will be looking at countries where technology is moving at a slower place and where restriction on assistance isn't rigid ... Mexico, comes to mind. [the u.s. does not track emigration for a reason]
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2020, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top