Kinja reply list

Discussion

Read More
Wayward ApologyHamilton Nolan
12/28/15 1:04pm
How is it that when you give more money to the wealthy it trickles down bringing prosperity to everyone but you give a poor person enough money to feed their family and and have enough leftover to subscribe to Netflix and the money just vanishes out of the economy.
Reply
- Read More
  toothpetardWayward Apology
  12/28/15 1:07pm
  Merit!
  
  Reply
- Read More
  Donnie who loved bowlingWayward Apology
  12/28/15 1:08pm
  Is this a serious question you’re asking?
  Reply
Read More
BDCBHamilton Nolan
12/28/15 1:10pm
Here was a good recent discussion on the topic. Loomis’ point was interesting:

My own feelings on UBI is skepticism because it runs counter to the American psyche going back to the American Revolution of the white male freeholding republic where one rises or falls based upon their own personal value, however construed at the time. I would go so far as to argue that this ideology is a big part of the reason why the Founding Fathers’ attempt to create a patrician republic based upon the deference of the poor collapsed so quickly. And it certainly hasn’t faded. Combined with racial ideology that makes a large number of the recipients of welfare people of color, and there’s the root of your stigma.
But I don’t see UBI solving that problem to begin with. Don’t get me wrong–I think UBI is a good idea, better than the minimum wage. But I think it runs so counter to American mythology that it’s unlikely to ever gain policy steam outside of leftist intellectual and labor circles. I think federal jobs programs combined with aggressive minimum wage hikes have a more reasonable chance of succeeding because they revolve around work. Americans are probably never going to support widespread economic programs that are not based around labor. So to me, jobs programs are a less efficient and probably less effective path than UBI, but a more realistic one.

Thoughts?
Reply
- Read More
  nopunin10didBDCB
  12/28/15 1:18pm
  I definitely appreciate it when people bring the political longevity of programs into play. While a guaranteed income for all would be great, maintaining the poltical support to keep it properly funded would be a nightmare.
  Reply
- Read More
  ThisismyBurnerBDCB
  12/28/15 1:20pm
  He is not wrong. We LOVE bootstrap stories. We cum buckets with every feel good “I worked my ass off and got ahead story” published on some content generator linked on facebook. We hate the lazy as long as the lazy is not US and in that case there are just outside influences making MY life hard.
  
  The US just cant deal with the truth. Truth is socialism works. Truth is that politicians and corporations are not out friends until we legally make them work for us and only us. I lived in Finland and saw firsthand the benefits of the welfare system. There were no worries about homelessness and people were free to make themselves better or worse people. I saw people free to continue their education and feed their souls and minds instead of some CEO. I saw more people take risks with starting businesses because they knew if they failed they would not be out on the street homeless.
  Reply
Read More
Kony TornheiserHamilton Nolan
12/28/15 1:20pm
I’m a liberal guy who is part-owner of 4 fast casual restaurants, so this is an issue that is important to me. Currently, we pay new employees more than minimum wage, but less than $15 an hour (we’re in a relatively low cost midwestern city). This is due to the fact that yes, many businesses operate on thin margins, and this industry is one of them. I’m not opposed to raising the minimum wage to a level that will help stimulate growth, and raise people out of poverty, but I think what many people realize is the costs of the goods and services they utilize will go up. So, yes, some business owners could be hurt, but in reality, as long as we’re all agreeing to bear this cost together, and realize that it’s A) not only the right thing to do, but B) if the numbers are done correctly, this will actually stimulate growth, then I’m all for it. But I think it’s important to note that people like this fast food CEO aren’t wrong about the margin argument. I think he’s simply wrong in the sense that people will be able to bear the slightly higher prices of their goods.

As for a guaranteed living wage, most Libertarians will have their mind blown to discover that Milton Friedman proposed something similar in 1962 with the ‘negative income tax.’ While there is something about the idea that bothers me at a basic level (due to the fact that I think incentives really do matter), I’m a pragmatist at the end of the day, so if it can work - fantastic. Although I give it a 0% chance of happening here in the States anytime soon.
Reply
- Read More
  BrocephalusKony Tornheiser
  12/28/15 1:28pm
  Yeah, that’s the issue with this subject. There’s never a conversation of the after effects of raising the minimum wage to 15 an hour on anyone besides the people getting said raise, and no one ever digs into how the raise will affect them. People are out of their fucking minds if they think that corporations won’t immediately raise prices on EVERYTHING if they have to pay their lowest paid employees more money.
  
  I’m for a much higher minimum wage, I just wish people would be honest about it.
  Reply
- Read More
  thatguywhodidthatthingKony Tornheiser
  12/28/15 1:38pm
  My little libertarian mind remains intact - most of us know that fact and understand why it was offered. Don’t confuse us with Republicans, (big L) Libertarians and/or Trump voters. Thanks!
  Reply
Read More
ChuckBarrisDanceAcademyHamilton Nolan
12/28/15 1:05pm
There are may studies that show that a GMI does not dimish the number of persons willing to work. The stimulative effects on the economy would be enormous as people have a sustainable income to fall back on when they try entrepreneurial endeavors. They may find needs THAT WE NEVER KNEW that we had, just by trial and error.
Reply
- Read More
  AcrobackChuckBarrisDanceAcademy
  12/28/15 1:17pm
  This is an excellent point that I didn’t even consider when I first read this piece. If people know they are no longer choosing directly between feeding themselves and pursuing their dream, innovations can shoot up as people chase a dream.
  Reply
- Read More
  BeyondtheTechChuckBarrisDanceAcademy
  12/28/15 1:23pm
  Just think of all the fast food service workers who could’ve already come up with the cure for cancer, the common cold, peace in the Middle East, and climate change. But no, he’s stuck helping his mother pay the electric bill and the rent.
  Reply
Read More
benjaminalloverHamilton Nolan
12/28/15 1:10pm
I had to look up the minimum wage in Ontario, because the only businesses who pay it in my town are the two restaurant chains; all the independent restaurants pay considerably more, to attain the good staff. “We can’t afford it” you say, giant corporations? Then you are shitty at your business, and you will have to adapt to compete, or die.

On the issue of guaranteed minimum income, I’m very excited that my government is seriously considering it, because it seems like it would eliminate a massive amount of bureaucracy in the complex social safety net, and associated costs. If we as a society have committed to supporting everyone in their basic standard of living- and I believe in Canada we have, the odd greedy malcontent aside- let’s do it in the most efficient and rational way possible, which also happens to be the most humane.
Reply
- Read More
  EmotionalFriendbenjaminallover
  12/28/15 2:22pm
  Then you are shitty at your business, and you will have to adapt to compete, or die.
  
  Most giant corporations have been shitty for a long time and for a long time we haven’t cared and haven’t given them any reason to care about paying more to get the “good staff”. The product is more important than the service and therefor we hardly care about the quality of the staff providing the service. I get crappy, slow inaccurate service service EVERY time I go to Taco Bell, but I love my chicken mini quesadillas so I put up with the garbage service. Ultimately they’re right, if they raised their prices relative to my wages I’d strongly consider just making quesadillas myself or getting them from a real Mexican restaurant.
  Reply
- Read More
  benjaminalloverEmotionalFriend
  12/28/15 2:41pm
  I’m not super familiar with Taco Bell but if it’s like the rest of the chains their profit model has gotten sloppy because they are dependent on a ridiculously low wage. Where I live, the independent restaurants figured out a quality level and price point and level of service that on the balance was a better value than the corporate chains. In addition, in Canada the chains have raised their prices such that they are comparable to the independent restaurants. Would you rather a homemade local-ingredient breakfast from the mom-n-pop diner or a Tim Horton’s Breakfast Sandwich (an egg McMuffin) for only a dollar less? If they had to pay a higher wage and raise their prices again, why on earth would anyone eat there? It’s shit that has one redeeming quality; it is marginally cheaper than real food.
  Reply
Read More
Max ContrarianHamilton Nolan
12/28/15 1:19pm
I like the concept of GMI over convoluted welfare programs. There are issues to sort out, however.

What is your proposed number for the GMI? What will the total cost be per year? How do you propose to keep people from wasting it on nonessentials, and what happens when they do? Will we need to rethink the entire tax code to treat income above the GMI differently? Will the GMI be considered a tax credit for some? Will illegal immigrants receive a GMI? Will we have to put additional constraints on immigration to keep expenses in check? If it doesn't work, will we ever be able to make it go away?
Reply
- Read More
  You might be wrong.Max Contrarian
  12/28/15 1:44pm
  The amount floated in Canada is basically the amount being spent on all the social support networks that it would replace divided up among everyone and it would then be treated as taxable income. Anyone that doesn’t have other income would make so little (but still enough to get by on in most places) that they would be in the tax bracket that pays no income tax. Since most people who receive a basic income keep their job, it would not be any sort of increase in tax burden.
  Reply
- Read More
  Max ContrarianYou might be wrong.
  12/28/15 2:44pm
  This makes sense. How about the other items?
  Reply
Read More
jimboskiHamilton Nolan
12/28/15 1:33pm
A minimum basic income would allow us to dismantle vast bureaucracies that exist to police welfare recipients, and just cut everyone a check.

If you could dismantle the whole system, then yes, this would be a net benefit. But a large part of that system is intended to help people find work, get retrained, etc.

And, since this is The Government, at best you’d hear that payroll / headcount would be reduced to a level lower than the prior projection (i.e., grow more slowly, but continue to grow).

Try getting approval for this idea, even from the left, when part of the solution is cutting government jobs.

The other part of this idea that I haven’t heard outlined yet is whether these larger checks are restricted (like SNAP benefits) or whether this is really just cash in someone’s account to do with as they wish.

99% of SNAP recipients aren’t buying lobster and steak, but I would expect more opposition from the middle and perhaps on the left too to a no-strings policy.

It’s a neat idea to try when you’ve got a clean slate and I would support it for the Mars colony.
Reply
- Read More
  Hamilton Nolanjimboski
  12/28/15 1:45pm
  The part of the bureaucracy that should be dismantled is the part that vindictively sets forth and enforces a maze of regulations and penalties for welfare recipients, not the part that gives job training.
  Reply
- Read More
  ThisismyBurnerjimboski
  12/28/15 2:29pm
  In Scandinavia it goes into your account straight away. It is the individuals job to make sure it lasts them up to their next payment(buying budget conscious foods, easing up guilty pleasures, etc etc)
  Reply
Read More
sour duckHamilton Nolan
12/28/15 1:07pm
It’s a great idea but this country can’t even properly fund new roads let alone an entire social support system from scratch. Minimum wages should be where effort is spent. Corporations like fast food don’t have slim profit margins because they pay their employees more, it’s because no one wants their shitty product anymore. Increasing the minimum wage would force these companies to actually enhance/change their business model. A good thing in my opinion.
Reply
- Read More
  DVA1sour duck
  12/28/15 1:19pm
  They also have slim profit margins because they pay their CEO’s so freaking much. The CEO of McDonald’s makes about $8M. Lets cut that to $2M. When he quits, promote the most senior person making less than $2M or willing to take a paycut to $2M and commit to 5 years with the company as CEO (as a stepping stone to perhaps becoming an executive somewhere else). Redistribute that $6M to the lowest paid workers. Let’s use that model basically everywhere that relies on minimum wage workers, of course decreasing the compensation for the CFO, CIO, COO, etc. accordingly. Between the money saved on executive compensation and the additional revenue from low-wage workers having more income to spend at these companies, we can probably make at least some improvement in the lives of low-income earners.
  
  (I’m also down for more taxing of the rich and a guaranteed minimum income. But all these people bitching about their small profit margins are completely ignoring how much of a salary cut they could afford. If you only make $2M a year, you still have enough money to look down on almost all of the rest of your fellow countrymen/-women. That should suffice.)
  Reply
- Read More
  You might be wrong.sour duck
  12/28/15 1:30pm
  It wouldn’t be built from scratch. It would be built on the foundation of the existing social support networks that it would replace. Even if the initial cost of switching is high, the ongoing costs would be the same or lower.
  Reply
Read More
BrtStlndHamilton Nolan
12/28/15 1:07pm
If we pay fast food service workers more, would we really be worse off if/when McDonald’s, etc, raised their prices?

It would really have a double benefit of putting money in pockets of the working poor and incentivizing people to NOT eat fast food.
Reply
- Read More
  NoButWait Hates Your GoT Fan TheoriesBrtStlnd
  12/28/15 1:12pm
  Not to mention fast food prices tend to go up anyway, whether or not workers make more money. Hardly anything on the “dollar” menu costs a dollar anymore. If a wage increase meant a price increase of a couple dollars (or more likely, some few dozen cents) per item, it would really just be par for the course.
  Reply
- Read More
  MrshimanoNoButWait Hates Your GoT Fan Theories
  12/28/15 1:23pm
  Haha fast food prices go up very, very slowly. The fact that the fast food industry was able to offer a hamburger for a dollar is incredible. Prices are still very low.
  Reply
Read More
ejdHamilton Nolan
12/28/15 1:11pm
According to the OECD, once you account for tax breaks, the USA has one of the highest rates of social spending in the world. Actually it is second only to France. Most people are surprised when they find that out but it is true, long story short I don’t think you can afford it.
Reply
- Read More
  You might be wrong.ejd
  12/28/15 1:39pm
  The reason it’s so high is because it’s so inefficient.
  Reply
- Read More
  SirIanMcKellenIsDangedTerrificejd
  12/28/15 2:10pm
  That just means they’re wasting the money on bureaucracy, and stuff like drug tests for people on welfare. Clearly the money isn’t doing much good, compared to other countries.
  Reply