Pelosi and the Importance of Relief Stabilization

[Acidbaron]

Like any other job, they'd have to raise wages to attract employees, as they'd have to make it worth their effort rather than relying on desperation, like any other job. This is like half the point of a UBI.

So you're open to the idea of state subsidies for such companies or even simply nationalising them to make the UBI work?

[Masark]

So you're open to the idea of state subsidies for such companies or even simply nationalising them to make the UBI work?

If they're doing something important like infrastructure or housing or food, yes to nationalizing (or provincializing or munipizing or whatever).

If it isn't important and they can't afford to pay sufficiently get people to work for them, they have no real business existing.

[Acidbaron]

If they're doing something important like infrastructure or housing or food, yes to nationalizing (or provincializing or munipizing or whatever).

If it isn't important and they can't afford to pay sufficiently get people to work for them, they have no real business existing.

Okay, but that means taking money elsewhere to invest more into those aspects of society that is needed, some of which is needed to be funded by subsidies to remain competitive on a global stage, i am all for giving care givers higher pay but it has to come out of somewhere and not just care givers there is quite a few occupations that feel unthankful such as teachers or people who work at waste disposal.

But my concern is not limited to just that, considering the role money plays in our society as a stimulating factor to get better and achieve more something that is needed while some occupations require more of a personal investment and commitment up front. That's how our education system works right now, this mindset is slammed into us from a very young age, hence my point in my previous post that for an UBI to work you need to start altering more things.

I simply don't believe we as a society are prepared for such a system and neither are our current systems and we also cannot disconnect this system and its implications from the global economy that we need to grow and maintain or economic strength. Especially not in the middle of a crisis and especially not in the case of the US where they are dealing with a political crisis with a presidency attacking all things democratic.

[Jonnusthegreat]

Yeah. You're right. Right now would be "the best time" to pass a UBI bill... except for the fact that the GOP controls the Senate and the Presidency and any UBI Bill would be DOA. So while it might be the "best time" to implement a UBI Bill....it's the worst time to introduce a UBI bill.

Getting the conversation started now might be semi-productive, since both the senate and the president gave money to everyone with no strings attached. They already signed into law a (really shitty) UBI.

[Endus]

As always, UBI proponents ought to be worried about people trying to use UBI to create a two-class political system, since it creates such a sharp distinction between those who contribute to the system and those who do not. Constant, eternal vigilance would be required to ensure it doesn't turn into an entrenched aristocracy.

That distinction is what currently exists. A UBI addresses it, it doesn't foster it. The key component is the word "universal". Everyone receives the stipend. Taxes on the wealthy are significantly increased relative to today, whereas taxes on the poor remain nonexistent, which would tend to bring the wealthiest' net income down, not make the distinction more clear. The overall net effect is a shrinking of wealth inequality.

I'm a market socialist, so I'm not arguing to eliminate that inequality completely, or to make being wealthy impossible. Simply to raise the baseline, and largely pay for that by taxing those who gain the most from society.

There is also the concern of clientelism where one party would rise more into power by promising added benefits to certain groups or classes. This is something that is already an issue in democracies.

Again, key word "universal". Part of the point is that you eliminate any need for these various class distinctions. You establish what that UBI should be, relative to cost of living, and then you index it to that measure, so it adjusts automatically every year.

Plus, a big part of democracy is that it already works against clientelism because the majority need to back your platform in the first place.

In addition to that people who claim it is easy to do or not that more complicated also have to be aware you can't look at your country in a vacuum, you need to be able to maintain a competitive edge or else your country economy will struggle and so will your ability to maintain a working system.

That's a largely unrelated issue. The USA has such a competitive edge, on the world stage. So does China. Despite the massive economic differences between the two.

I also don't see how there would be less fraud prevention, people will still try to work tax free to earn extra on the side, people will try to cheat the system claiming disabilities for example for added benefits.

I never said it would eliminate fraud. Tax fraud would still occur, and a UBI won't change that in any real respect. But welfare fraud, and the investigative measures to protect against it, largely wouldn't exist. Are you a citizen? What's your address and bank account info so we can get you your stipend? That's all you need, rather than the current social support systems needing to ensure on a monthly basis that your income is being reported accurately, that you're meeting the prerequisites, that all the little details in those requirements are all in order. That's the kind of fraud that would nearly vanish. Not completely; people would still claim that someone's alive when they died, or try to make up a person for a bonus stipend, but it would be reduced.

As for disability; why are they getting added benefits? The kind of UBI I'm talking about is comparable to a living wage. If you can't work because of disability, the stipend has you covered already. If you have medical problems tied to that disability, that's why I also support universal healthcare. This is what I mean by eliminating some kinds of fraud; you remove the capacity to make special claims for extra benefits, because the baseline already has you covered.

Also how would you solve the need for certain manual labour jobs because like it or not money does create an incentive for those roles to be filled. You cannot replace everything with automatization or robotics and even if you could, are you suggesting that every single business and government branch gets hefty investments to make this all possible?

A UBI does not eliminate working for a wage. It creates a healthy baseline quality of life. But it's a modest quality of life, and if you want anything more, working is how you'd get additional money. You can eliminate the minimum wage because the UBI stipend already fixes that problem, but you also need to offer enough to actually entice workers, since they can just say "fuck it" and stay home if you don't.

So businesses that won't offer a competitive, attractive wage? They go under. They can be nationalized or subsidized if and only if they're an essential service and they cannot produce a profit for some reason (we currently do this already, with farmers, for instance). But if you're in construction, and you need manual labor, and nobody's taking the job? Offer higher wages. You're not offering enough to make people want to do it. Your complaint here is that people are no longer forced, by what effectively is duress, into taking a shitty job offer because they have no real choices.

[Nadiru]

That distinction is what currently exists. A UBI addresses it, it doesn't foster it. The key component is the word "universal". Everyone receives the stipend. Taxes on the wealthy are significantly increased relative to today, whereas taxes on the poor remain nonexistent, which would tend to bring the wealthiest' net income down, not make the distinction more clear. The overall net effect is a shrinking of wealth inequality.

UBI addresses it by codifying it, which is a solution that can very easily lead to reduced political rights. In fact, if UBI were implemented next week in the US unconditionally, I suspect the great issue of 2110 will be figuring out how to undo our self-imposed caste system. It might still be worth it for the century of use we'd get out of the system, but to assert that it would function in perpetuity with no people working to create multiple tiers of political rights is fantastical.

[Endus]

UBI addresses it by codifying it, which is a solution that can very easily lead to reduced political rights.

I have literally no idea how you could ever reach this conclusion. It's diametrically opposed to the principles underpinning UBI. It's like arguing that representative democracy always leads to a loss of freedom.

A UBI rejects any kind of caste system, integrally. That's what the first word in the acronym is all about.

[Nadiru]

I have literally no idea how you could ever reach this conclusion. It's diametrically opposed to the principles underpinning UBI. It's like arguing that representative democracy always leads to a loss of freedom.

A UBI rejects any kind of caste system, integrally. That's what the first word in the acronym is all about.

There will always be people who are paying well above what they receive, but under UBI the social distinction between payer and payee will become extremely sharp, and my initial assessment is it'll take about ten minutes for people to start using their payer status to lobby for enhanced legal status, or for those who subsist primarily on UBI to receive reduced political rights. To be clear, I am not recommending they receive such, but that the fight for and against it will begin, almost immediately after implementation.

[Endus]

There will always be people who are paying well above what they receive, but under UBI the social distinction between payer and payee will become extremely sharp

You have literally zero basis for this, particularly since everyone is a "payee", and more people would be "payers" than currently.

I'm not sure you even understand what we're even talking about, here; a universal basic income.

[Nadiru]

You have literally zero basis for this, particularly since everyone is a "payee", and more people would be "payers" than currently.

I'm not sure you even understand what we're even talking about, here; a universal basic income.

I absolutely understand what we're talking about, and frankly I hope you're right that nobody tries to use a shift in economic structure to shift political structures around as well. And at least, this is an argument that will cohere around 2050 or 2060.

[Muzjhath]

There will always be people who are paying well above what they receive, but under UBI the social distinction between payer and payee will become extremely sharp, and my initial assessment is it'll take about ten minutes for people to start using their payer status to lobby for enhanced legal status, or for those who subsist primarily on UBI to receive reduced political rights. To be clear, I am not recommending they receive such, but that the fight for and against it will begin, almost immediately after implementation.

Wouldn't bolded run pretty much right into most of the Bill of Rights and the 14th Amendment to the US constitution instantly?

[Felya]

It is going to get passed by people voting for it? I'm confused as to what you're trying to say.

Why would GOP vote for it and Trump sign it?

- - - Updated - - -

Getting the conversation started now might be semi-productive, since both the senate and the president gave money to everyone with no strings attached. They already signed into law a (really shitty) UBI.

You might as well argue unemployment is UBI. There is no way Trump is signing a UBI... there is no way even a single GOP member will vote for UBI. The GOP theory is that UBI happens due to trickledown. Could you compare how much Trump gave businesses vs individuals and explain how that means UBI and not corporate welfare?

[Jonnusthegreat]

Why would GOP vote for it and Trump sign it?

- - - Updated - - -



You might as well argue unemployment is UBI. There is no way Trump is signing a UBI... there is no way even a single GOP member will vote for UBI. The GOP theory is that UBI happens due to trickledown. Could you compare how much Trump gave businesses vs individuals and explain how that means UBI and not corporate welfare?

Hopefully through pressure once a large portion of their voters is starving. Often times movements win over the people before politicians. If the conversation is happening, people might listen. I know most won't, though. "Letting the other side win" is too hard for most.

Unemployment isn't universal, so it's completely different. It's also incredibly inefficient to run. Most forms of welfare have significant administrative costs. The Republican party is the party of slashing costs, although they also aren't the party of taxes. Residents of Republican states would benefit most from a UBI, as they do from certain forms of welfare. Of course their current rhetoric goes against what a UBI stands for. Here's to hoping that rhetoric can be modified when constituents are dying. *raises coffee to toast*

[Nadiru]

Wouldn't bolded run pretty much right into most of the Bill of Rights and the 14th Amendment to the US constitution instantly?

Absolutely, which doesn't mean there won't be an attempt to circumvent it as such.

[Zan15]

Why would GOP vote for it and Trump sign it?

- - - Updated - - -



You might as well argue unemployment is UBI. There is no way Trump is signing a UBI... there is no way even a single GOP member will vote for UBI. The GOP theory is that UBI happens due to trickledown. Could you compare how much Trump gave businesses vs individuals and explain how that means UBI and not corporate welfare?

Well to be fair most of the corporate money given is tied to a requirement that they must pay workers or they have to pay the money back.

So its actually a much bigger giveaway to individuals then it is to corporate welfare.

Individuals are not expected to pay any of it back.

[Felya]

Well to be fair most of the corporate money given is tied to a requirement that they must pay workers or they have to pay the money back.

So its actually a much bigger giveaway to individuals then it is to corporate welfare.

Individuals are not expected to pay any of it back.

You know the numbers better than I do. How off was I in my assumption that corporations will see more benefit? What is most by individuals vs corporate?

[Zan15]

You know the numbers better than I do. How off was I in my assumption that corporations will see more benefit? What is most by individuals vs corporate?

well out of the two PPP funding allowances that's 700 billion of which 75% must be paid to individuals or they will have to pay it all back.

the 2 trillion also have the same level of requirements or they have to pay it back. Though the treasury has the right to negotiate individual deals that vary from this but those will require payback.

Individuals also got the 1200 dollar payment which will cost 200-300 billion dollars.

Individuals also are receiving 600 dollars on top of unemployment, cost right now unknown but expected to be in the hundreds of billions (18 billion dollars a week right now based on 30 million unemployed)

Individuals who are "gig" "independent contractors" will be getting unemployment even though corporations will eventually foot the bill since they fund unemployment. These individuals don't pay into the system. Cost- Huge unknown but at least 600 million a week since min is 200 dollars@ 3 million workers.




so in the offerings corporations have/will receive(d) more money, but the Net after repayment will be squarely in favor of the individuals by a huge factor since they almost never have to pay it back unless they are caught in fraud.

[Antipathy1018]

Hopefully through pressure once a large portion of their voters is starving. Often times movements win over the people before politicians. If the conversation is happening, people might listen. I know most won't, though. "Letting the other side win" is too hard for most.

I really hope you are using that word figuratively, because if not, most of history will show you that once people get to the literal point of starvation violent revolution/violent civil unrest 99% of the time is what happens.


@Endus Never thought I would agree on much with you, but UBI would be one in principle, sadly practically most of the 1st world has too high of an expectation as to what "Basic Needs" are. I speak from experience I went from making $5k a month, to having to live off $1.2k back in 2006 when I had to be put on S.S.D.I. for the rest of my life. I can tell you that it took a few years to figure out what was really needed to live vs what I wanted. In the end it has all worked out, I own a home with no mortgage, a car, and I am able to pay my bills and have food to eat, but it took a fundamental shift in thinking about thing like QoL, savings, ect that took years to change and put into practice. Hell saving for a $25k house alone took living in my fathers house for close to 6 years before I had enough saved to buy a home outright.

Most people these days are not willing, unless forced/no other option, to cut out the things in their life that are a luxury they mistake for a "Basic Need".

[Beefhammer]

A great idea.

But sadly proposed by people who never seem to do or try more than talk about it.

What was Pelosi's last effective suggestion of aid again? Something about temporary loan payment suspensions?

Something like 400 Bill's have passed the House since the Dems have taken over 99% of them have been refused to be debated on the Senate floor by the turtle. Have you always been this detached from reality or do you purposely try to come across as a liar and someone who doesn't know what the fuck you are talking about?

[Edge-]

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/05/12/demo...ntil-2021.html

More on their proposals.

As part of the proposed $3T, Democrats are proposing sending unemployed workers an additional $600 a week until the end of the year. Because there will be lasting impacts from this.