I just had a giant response typed out, and then in the process of shuffling windows on my cell phone, lost it. I only post here from my phone. I do not use a desktop or laptop and home, and that's a large reason why my response isn't data driven. I apologize for that. I'll retype the gist of my longer comment. It probably will suck compared to what I had. If that seems like a copout, that's fine. The first article states that 2/3 of people receiving the UI were making more than 100% of their salary. That's the whole premise of this thread. In times of pandemic, and on the verge of economic collapse, do we really need to be just literally printing money to hand to people and give them a raise for not working? Unequivocally, no. I realize it's not their choice to be at home, but make them whole at 100% and no more. That's crazy talk. This money is not backed up anywhere. It's not coming from anywhere. It's just being printed. By definition, that causes inflation. This, everybody loses, at least a little bit. And of course less people are in poverty right now. You're literally handing them money. If they weren't, I'd be shocked. We don't need academic papers to flaunt that. It should be a given. The question is how do you make that last? I'm not against it. The answer has to be UBI. If anything, this whole UI thing is a trial run, and shows the long term answer is UBI. It just should absolutely not result in people getting a raise. All that will do is make the bubble burst even worse. And most importantly, you've got to find a way to pay for it all to sustain it. The second article, I had some quotes I had posted from to make some points. Basically what Sam didn't quote is that while the article says poverty rates have gone down (of course they have, again. Not something to flaunt as they will eventually rise again, which was my point in saying that was a fake data set), what he doesn't say is that in the article, they literally say they've created a metric to show this, because there isn't enough long term data to show the true effects of UI. The rest of the article basically goes on to tout this new metric and saying that perhaps this could be the new way to get on-the-fly data. The third article talks about how people want to go back to work. Of course they do. Some do not. Those that are making more money will question it. As @Major has pointed out. If you pull their benefits, they have to go back. But if you do, you're the bad guy. I think the worrying about people going back is, for the most part, and in most of the country, overblown. My point to this response? While he posted "data" it's meaningless data. It says that poverty has gone down during this pandemic. Of course it has. As I said, people that were in poverty, that are getting unemployment benefits, are most likely now making more than they were before. So, his big fancy, data driven articles....they're common sense. And they mean nothing over time. They're hollow. They're empty. They're meaningless. What would be more meaningful? Pay these people what they make in full,find a way to get that UBI rolling (Yang will tell you), and get UBI rolling. That will help lessen the bubble burst. It will also give you a long term solution to keeping poverty levels from rising. Instead, we're puffing our chests about giving people raises, and data will tell you that some of these people won't save money from these raises, they'll simply get used to spending more than they actually make, and poverty and debt is going to start widening that gap even more. That's the point of this thread. Despite all of this, and despite our views actually not being all that different, I was singled out as a "horrible one." That was the basis of my alt left comment.
So in essence you got pissed at Sam and thought it would be good to label him and others alt left and then paint the alt left as fanatics. That does not seem productive to having a conversation. I have railed against the alt left and Bernie supporters as being condescending but that's not what is going on here Sam has been discussing things with data even though he is a bit sarcastic.
It wasn't specifically about what is being discussed here. It's about the alt left in general. He's a part of that, though, for sure. Not saying you are, at all, though. It's sad because I like Bernie, I just wasn't sure how he was going to pay for his stuff. To be honest, we'd be better off if the $6 trillion in unbacked funds had gone towards Medicare for all. If we can pull that out of thin air, why can't we have universal healthcare? Just print the cash. Get it done. At least those unemployed would be able to pay for their hospital bills if they got covid. The data he posted, as I've pointed it, is junk science, as well. Haven't seen anyone refute that.
No matter how much you study the game and practice at basketball, you just aren't going to make it as a pro with the amount of competition out there. Same can be said for why we need a UBI, just look at how poorly formed and nonsensical the arguments made by posters like edwardc, andre0087 are. All the edumacation in the world won't change that
It's determined on a case-by-case basis. Laid off employees have are able to decline employment and retain UE benefits if they are considered high-risk to get very sick if exposed to COVID-19. Those people (high-risk individuals or also those who take care of high-risk individuals) shouldn't be working nowadays unless they absolutely have to. I feel bad for the grocery store and other front-line workers who don't make enough, care for a high-risk individuals or who are high-risk themselves, but need to continue working right now. I'm sure we're all going stir crazy working from home, but we got it pretty easy compared to others.
my dog **** out something with fewer words this morning that was less crappy than this response. Modeling out or surveying the impact of things like expanded UI isn't a "common sense" exercise but a quantitative one, which is why its its done by JPMorgan, Chicago-Booth, Zandi, NBER and other groups who do this kind of research for a living. Part of the reason why they do this is "common sense" isn't really a very good way to gauge impact, and internet idiots with a personal bone to pick who are mad at @DVauthrin is living high on the unemployed hog in the middle of a depression and a pandemic by having the gall to pay rent and buy groceries -- tend to spread egregious misconceptions. But keep tagging Major maybe he will ride to your rescue.
While I don't agree with everything Eddie said, I feel like the poster has taken far more time to listen and discuss the topic moreso than Sam. At some point, it gets frustrating debating with someone who twists your words and isn't debating in good faith.
That's the pot calling the kettle black. i don't think you've followed the entire conversation and if you have then we have different opinions then.
I see you're now "following me" on clutchfans. Why don't you take a stab at unpacking the argument then As far as i can tell its that the $600 ui boost is bad because its not extended until the heat death of the universe - which a bizarre argument to someone like me who, along with literally every single person surveyed not including the dipshit GOP/Trumpsters/econihlists - supports extending the UI boost that @EddieWasSnubbed and, i guess, you - oppose
Nope, just following along the conversation. Why don't you take a stab at a better response than "galaxy brains argument"...... What is exactly unclear about the argument? Maybe if you spend less time coming up with mediocre retorts like the bolded, it would be easier to follow.... Clearly Eddie is a UBI proponent and is telling you the downsides of the current plan and its causing you lose your mind. Personally, I prefer more of a taper of unemployment benefits but I do agree with many of the consequences that Eddie outlined.
I don't know if I can agree with this statement. The reason is, yes people will spend more temporarily, but I am willing to bet the majority will use it to pay back debt that they own, therefore, decreasing their "negative" net worth or maybe even increasing their net worth. Some will use it to buy something that which also helps the economy. Lets face it, the folks that know the economy is in the shithole, those people are likely holding back, not pumping money into the economy. They are quietly sitting in the background just waiting for the moment to purchase depreciated assets. The people that have a little extra money are likely using it to help the economy. There is a reason the economy as a whole has not collapsed during these last few months. There are definitely pros and cons to the situation. As of now, small businesses are ****ed either way. Consumers are going out less, purchasing less, so small businesses don't necessarily have the amount of hours to get their workforce back, nor do employees have an incentive to go back to work. UBI could be an excellent driver, but lets not kid ourselves, this isn't going to happen in the immediate future. Additionally, these $1,200 stimulus checks I feel have such a short term impact on the economy, I really don't understand what's the point in spending our tax dollars on those. I'd be willing to funnel those $1,200 stimulus checks to individuals working true essential jobs, afterall, they deserve a bonus for allowing our country to continue moving forward at the potential expense of their health, but just distributing them as a whole, I feel they are mostly worthless. UI is a temporary powerful tool to prevent the economy from further damage. I didn't necessarily support extending higher wages to those that lost their jobs, but then I saw the results of these last few months and it tells me that removing this benefit doesn't make sense for the time being. Lets face it, many lost higher wage jobs and will make a fraction of their pay with UI with no federal kick-in. This $600 bonus allows those individuals to avoid being ruined while searching for their next decently paying job. I think even though it has unintended consequences for small businesses, it has prevented more ****ed up consequences.
Why don't you unpack this a bit - tell me exactly what parts you agree with and why. thanks. For reference, you're arguing that the $600 UI benefit is bad because it's -- temporarily raising the poverty rate? Redistributing benefits? Keeping us from falling down a cliff? Supported by data saying that it's actually very very good? Only the most missing-the-point Bernie Bro would find himself on the internet arguing that unemployed should be ground into the dirt and evicted, because @EddieWasSnubbed said so because he's mad he's not hooked up to the sweet, sweet teat of being unemployed right now - but - the floor is yours.
If you want people to default on their mortgages and the food bank lines to be longer - you should support the slashign of UI benefits right now., because of concern about phantom labor shortages for jobs that don't exist and would be bad for public health if they even did. Right now that's a pretty short list of people. Unfortunately it includes half the Senate and a couple of clutchfans dead end bernie/UBI bros whose friends uncle's brothers cousin would be Assistant Managing Pin Setter down at BowlAmerica right now except for the sweet nectar of $600 UI supplement....and this *******
This is what Republicans mean by "makin' money." The stock market is so high coz it's sitting on a stack of that **** they're holding in their hands.
