OBAMA/TRUMPCARE MEGATHREAD

[Jenksismyhero]

Still requires payments for 25 years. On $15k, I'm struggling to see how student loans fit into your budget.

 

40k loan with a 15k/year job on that plan is a little less than $60/month on student loans. That's doable in my scenario.

[StrangeSox]

That's 95% of the country though. That's our system. We work, we get paid, we hopefully can make our income and/purchases make us additional money, and then we die. Whether you make 10 bucks an hour or 40, you generally spend according to what you make and are still a slave to your employment. What's the alternative? Forcing an employer you pay you a base amount isn't going to change that.

 

A UBI wouldn't be provided by an employer.

 

I know that's 95% of the country. That's a big portion of people globally these days. I know that's "our system," but I believe that systems should work for humanity, not the other way around, and that our current system leads to or at least allows an awful lot of unnecessary human suffering for the benefit of a few.

 

Being forced to take that minimum wage job and still struggling like hell just to get by while having to put up with a s***ty, abusive workplace or a manager who harasses and belittles you is a s***ty system. A UBI would allow people the real option of saying "f*** this job, I don't need it and won't work it until you treat me like a human being."

[Jenksismyhero]

I'd be all in favor of a multi-year, stepped phase-in of minimum wage increases to be similar to those 1960's levels, then tie annual increases to a standard market basket measure. I guess that is too easy.

 

And I think that is a heck of a lot better solution then "providing" a minimum income, which I am wholly against.

 

Not to mention, who is providing it? The employer? The government making up the difference?

[Jenksismyhero]

A UBI wouldn't be provided by an employer.

 

I know that's 95% of the country. That's a big portion of people globally these days. I know that's "our system," but I believe that systems should work for humanity, not the other way around, and that our current system leads to or at least allows an awful lot of unnecessary human suffering for the benefit of a few.

 

Being forced to take that minimum wage job and still struggling like hell just to get by while having to put up with a s***ty, abusive workplace or a manager who harasses and belittles you is a s***ty system. A UBI would allow people the real option of saying "f*** this job, I don't need it and won't work it until you treat me like a human being."

 

This is where we fundamentally disagree. The current system allows the VAST majority to live amazing lives. It's a relative few who can't jump aboard the train.

[southsider2k5]

One could argue that college is a luxury.

 

Odds are pretty good you wouldn't be stuck with a 15k job if you had a college degree. Even if you had to work one for a while, it probably wouldn't be a lifetime thing.

[NorthSideSox72]

Not taking a side on this particular argument, but about these discussions of 15k being enough to live on...

 

1. Definitely does not work nationally.

 

2. All the budgeting people are doing are assuming nothing goes wrong, ever. And no life insurance or home insurance or the like.

 

Number 2 is key to understanding something - those are the people that, when someting DOES go wrong (which at some point it will), they have no safety net, and immediately become a cost and drag on government monies. So some degree of safety net is going to have some positive effect in negating that.

 

Thus, PPACA. A very imperfect solution. But, providing some basic health insurance for cheap does in fact help mitigate one significant chunk of those disaster scenarios for individuals and families. It will certainly have some positive effect in that regard, though I'd say it is nearly impossible to say how much.

 

[StrangeSox]

They probably do.

 

Maybe. I know it's frequently argued that minimum wages lead to more unemployment because employers will still have the same overall pool of "wages money," it'll just get split up across less people now, but real-world studies haven't found that effect.

 

I guess it's possible that overqualified college students who'd otherwise not be working would take jobs at retail and fast food places if the wages were bumped up to $10-12/hr, but like Balta said, there's a lot more people working minimum wage (or near-minimum wage) jobs than there are non-working college students who'd suddenly take one of these jobs part-time if it paid a few more dollars an hour.

[Jenksismyhero]

Also, let's assume we implement this plan, do we get rid of the rest of welfare? No more public housing, no more food stamps, no medicaid?

[Y2HH]

Maybe. I know it's frequently argued that minimum wages lead to more unemployment because employers will still have the same overall pool of "wages money," it'll just get split up across less people now, but real-world studies haven't found that effect.

 

I guess it's possible that overqualified college students who'd otherwise not be working would take jobs at retail and fast food places if the wages were bumped up to $10-12/hr, but like Balta said, there's a lot more people working minimum wage (or near-minimum wage) jobs than there are non-working college students who'd suddenly take one of these jobs part-time if it paid a few more dollars an hour.

 

I can't find anything on it, but I don't have much time to check, but it wouldn't surprise me at all to find Australia's minorities have the same exact unemployment problems that we have here. Of course, the %'s would be on a smaller scale as the country is over 90% white.

[StrangeSox]

Not taking a side on this particular argument, but about these discussions of 15k being enough to live on...

 

1. Definitely does not work nationally.

 

2. All the budgeting people are doing are assuming nothing goes wrong, ever. And no life insurance or home insurance or the like.

 

Number 2 is key to understanding something - those are the people that, when someting DOES go wrong (which at some point it will), they have no safety net, and immediately become a cost and drag on government monies. So some degree of safety net is going to have some positive effect in negating that.

 

Thus, PPACA. A very imperfect solution. But, providing some basic health insurance for cheap does in fact help mitigate one significant chunk of those disaster scenarios for individuals and families. It will certainly have some positive effect in that regard, though I'd say it is nearly impossible to say how much.

 

Being poor in this country is expensive. It means never really having enough to cover the basics, and definitely not enough to cover emergencies, which leads to the payday loan/check-cashing/credit card debt spiral. Cash flow is zero or negative basically at all times, and something we'd consider minor and annoying could be devastating. That old beater you have to get to work blows a headgasket and you don't have $1000 to get it fixed? Well, you're probably going to lose your job now unless you can find a way to bum rides. Get sick for a week? Sorry, your employer probably doesn't provide paid sick leave. You're not going to be able to pay your bills this week, and you may even be fired.

 

That's what a UBI could mitigate. A UBI would also incorporate food stamps, housing assistance, etc., not be an additional program.

[Iwritecode]

Not to mention, who is providing it? The employer? The government making up the difference?

 

Yes

 

A universal basic income would simplify it greatly, and it would be a check from the government, not wage restrictions on an employer. Every single person would be entitled to $X, and that could vary based on location.

 

We sort of do that with the Earned Income Tax Credit already.

 

I'm not sure I like this idea either.

 

[Jenksismyhero]

Being poor in this country is expensive. It means never really having enough to cover the basics, and definitely not enough to cover emergencies, which leads to the payday loan/check-cashing/credit card debt spiral. Cash flow is zero or negative basically at all times, and something we'd consider minor and annoying could be devastating. That old beater you have to get to work blows a headgasket and you don't have $1000 to get it fixed? Well, you're probably going to lose your job now unless you can find a way to bum rides. Get sick for a week? Sorry, your employer probably doesn't provide paid sick leave. You're not going to be able to pay your bills this week, and you may even be fired.

 

That's what a UBI could mitigate. A UBI would also incorporate food stamps, housing assistance, etc., not be an additional program.

 

Then you're talking about a lot more than 15k.

 

Here are the equivalents of welfare programs already:

 

http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2013/08/19/...what-pays-more/

 

 

[StrangeSox]

Also, let's assume we implement this plan, do we get rid of the rest of welfare? No more public housing, no more food stamps, no medicaid?

Probably yes to everything but the bolded unless we enact a full-blown socialized health care access system in addition to the UBI.

 

Alaska already has a small basic income thanks to its natural resources. Every Alaskan citizen who spends at least half of the year in the state gets a check from the state government that's a result of the state's lease of the peoples' collective natural resources rights.

 

Here's a quick wiki recap with some links of the "Mincome" experiment in Dauphine, Canada from the 1970's.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mincome

[StrangeSox]

Then you're talking about a lot more than 15k.

 

Here are the equivalents of welfare programs already:

 

http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2013/08/19/...what-pays-more/

 

Potentially, but I'm not going to trust an editorial blog at the WSJ as an accurate source of information.

[Jenksismyhero]

What if people aren't working. Do they still get the income? What if they only work part time?

[Iwritecode]

Probably yes to everything but the bolded unless we enact a full-blown socialized health care access system in addition to the UBI.

 

Alaska already has a small basic income thanks to its natural resources. Every Alaskan citizen who spends at least half of the year in the state gets a check from the state government that's a result of the state's lease of the peoples' collective natural resources rights.

 

Here's a quick wiki recap with some links of the "Mincome" experiment in Dauphine, Canada from the 1970's.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mincome

 

Who would get it? Everyone over 18? Would there be a cutoff based on current income?

 

[StrangeSox]

Yes, that's the idea behind it being a universal basic income. It's not tied to you being employed. What this does it remove a substantial amount of coercive power that employers have over the labor market because the labor market doesn't suddenly need to depend on them for basic subsistence. The obvious concern is long-term sustainability and voluntary joblessness, but in at least the limited study in Dauphine and comparisons to other related real-world examples, the decrease in employment was minimal and the overall societal effects were highly positive.

 

I haven't read it before, but this page seems to give a pretty decent summary of the concept.

 

http://www.usbig.net/whatisbig.php

[StrangeSox]

Who would get it? Everyone over 18? Would there be a cutoff based on current income?

 

Everyone. It would not be means-tested. Children would also receive it, as opposed to their parents or guardian receiving a larger basic income to cover the costs of a dependent. Alaska's Permanent Fund functions this way. http://pfd.alaska.gov/application/ApplyingForAChild

 

edit: thus ends my day of socialist rhetoric, back to work, comrades!

Edited November 21, 2013 by StrangeSox

[Jenksismyhero]

So you're going to pay someone not working the same salary as a teacher or other lower level public employee that IS working. Why would anyone start working?

 

And who is funding this?

[Iwritecode]

Yes, that's the idea behind it being a universal basic income. It's not tied to you being employed. What this does it remove a substantial amount of coercive power that employers have over the labor market because the labor market doesn't suddenly need to depend on them for basic subsistence. The obvious concern is long-term sustainability and voluntary joblessness, but in at least the limited study in Dauphine and comparisons to other related real-world examples, the decrease in employment was minimal and the overall societal effects were highly positive.

 

I haven't read it before, but this page seems to give a pretty decent summary of the concept.

 

http://www.usbig.net/whatisbig.php

 

The wiki link mentioned that the fact that the study was temporary might have had an affect. If you told people that they would suddenly get $15K every year for the rest of their life, I would think many would quit working or at least reduce their working hours. A higher percentage than what the study showed.

 

[Jenksismyhero]

The wiki link mentioned that the fact that the study was temporary might have had an affect. If you told people that they would suddenly get $15K every year for the rest of their life, I would think many would quit working or at least reduce their working hours. A higher percentage than what the study showed.

 

Yeah, if you're promising me 30k a year without having to do anything, i'm outta here. I'm building a log cabin in the woods and you won't see me again.

[Iwritecode]

Everyone. It would not be means-tested. Children would also receive it, as opposed to their parents or guardian receiving a larger basic income to cover the costs of a dependent. Alaska's Permanent Fund functions this way. http://pfd.alaska.gov/application/ApplyingForAChild

 

edit: thus ends my day of socialist rhetoric, back to work, comrades!

 

So with my family of 5 we'd get 75K? My wife would probably retire immediately and we'd move into a much bigger house.

[StrangeSox]

So you're going to pay someone not working the same salary as a teacher or other lower level public employee that IS working. Why would anyone start working?

 

What? No, of course not.You're still coupling income with employment, when a UBI specifically decouples them. Everyone gets a basic income check from the government, enough to ensure a basic or subsistence-level life style. Whatever other employment you have on top of that is your own issue.

 

People would start working because most people want to be and enjoy being productive, active members of society. I could quit my current job, reduce my stress levels and take a less-taxing job earning less money, but I don't because I generally enjoy what I do and the added income. They might not work horrible jobs for s*** pay with asshole bosses and companies that treat them like dirt, but I see that as a 100% positive thing.

[StrangeSox]

So with my family of 5 we'd get 75K? My wife would probably retire immediately and we'd move into a much bigger house.

 

I don't know specifically what an individual in Rockford, IL would get that would meet their "basic needs."

[StrangeSox]

The wiki link mentioned that the fact that the study was temporary might have had an affect. If you told people that they would suddenly get $15K every year for the rest of their life, I would think many would quit working or at least reduce their working hours. A higher percentage than what the study showed.

 

Some might quit, if their jobs were s*** and didn't pay much more than $15k in the first place, or their employers treated them poorly. An employer would need to offer better wages or a better work environment in order to continue to attract people. I think it's a good thing when the difference in power in the labor market is lessened.

Edited November 21, 2013 by StrangeSox