Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Fair wages for employees

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #76
    Originally posted by Turf Doc View Post

    Can't remember what andrew yang's thoughts were but believe there are some more right-leaning thinkers who believe that. personally i think its reasonable - if you make enough with an extra 12k that you no longer qualify for benefits, you dont get benefits
    such a setup disincentivizes work

    Comment


    • #77
      Originally posted by Turf Doc View Post

      how is working and UBI break even. You get the ubi if you work or don't work. If you think you can live high on the hog at 12k/year more power to you. If you want more than that you have to work. Pretty simple. I have no clue how working is "breakeven", you're obviously working for money like everyone else does.

      What minimum wage is good? 7.25/hr? how did we come up with that? 7.25/hr is really 30k/year right?
      The same "group" have different factions, No one is willing to cut.
      UBI : 12k to 30K
      Minimum wage $60 k
      Childcare credits ?
      Healthcare is a right?

      A minimum wage person would make out very well. You can't make a decision without defining what the total package is. That is the way it works. Once you add any "benefit" it is very difficult to remove or not increase it. Every one needs to be paid for by someone. They are all related to cost of living and funds being legislated for distribution to individuals. No single piece is insurmountable. I guess.

      Comment


      • #78
        Originally posted by Turf Doc View Post

        Andrew Yang came up with 1k/month, Im not sure if anyone actually asked him why he decided 1k/mo but thats something i was wondering too... Im sure i could be convinced around 1k give or take but i havent put that much thought into it. I think it will contribute positively to the economy because most people blow whatever money they have. Without credit cards im sure our economy would be smaller.
        So why would you give money to people that wouldn't use that money to better their lives? What happens when you give fiscally irresponsible people money? The 'rich' people will find a way to get it. More people get iPhones and the more money Apple makes the more people scream about that cycle. It's pretty on brand for the government to literally throw money at a problem. Free cash isn't what the majority of these people need.

        Comment


        • #79
          one issue with UBI is whether it is regulated what it can and can't be used for. I doubt it would be regulated (too difficult). Then people (more than we would like to think about) will spend that money on booze, probably drugs, stupid sh**, etc leaving issue back at square one and probably making some issues worse. At least in our county deadly fentanyl overdoses (huge spike in cases) were closely related in time proximity to the issuance of the government covid checks. The data plot is very telling.

          Comment


          • #80
            Interesting discussion. I think the concern for welfare, UBI, etc, is based on the concept of “deserving.” I believe that most who get disability, welfare, etc don’t really have any recourse, and I don’t think most UBI payments would fund stoners. Maybe I am naive or biased since I take care of cancer patients who often lost their insurance pre diagnosis. I also have seen people who clearly don’t need what they get.

            we will never all agree on appropriate use of our tax dollars. We all have used government provided services like public school, roads, airports, etc. plus a large amount of government spending subsidizes industry, bank bail outs, emergency aid for communities that rebuild in flood zones etc.

            maybe a better than UBI is making more infrastructure and maybe subsidized childcare available for all. the fewer direct giveaways, the fewer perverse incentives

            Comment


            • #81
              Originally posted by Notsobad View Post
              maybe a better than UBI is making more infrastructure and maybe subsidized childcare available for all. the fewer direct giveaways, the fewer perverse incentives
              But it’s easier to get votes with direct giveaways.

              Comment


              • #82
                Originally posted by CordMcNally View Post

                But it’s easier to get votes with direct giveaways.
                Or calling everything you want “infrastructure”.

                Comment


                • #83
                  Originally posted by Notsobad View Post
                  Interesting discussion. I think the concern for welfare, UBI, etc, is based on the concept of “deserving.” I believe that most who get disability, welfare, etc don’t really have any recourse, and I don’t think most UBI payments would fund stoners. Maybe I am naive or biased since I take care of cancer patients who often lost their insurance pre diagnosis. I also have seen people who clearly don’t need what they get.

                  we will never all agree on appropriate use of our tax dollars. We all have used government provided services like public school, roads, airports, etc. plus a large amount of government spending subsidizes industry, bank bail outs, emergency aid for communities that rebuild in flood zones etc.

                  maybe a better than UBI is making more infrastructure and maybe subsidized childcare available for all. the fewer direct giveaways, the fewer perverse incentives
                  Yes, agree with your sentiment. Most people on welfare are not deliberately trying to game the system for scraps, some may be, but that's far from the majority. They are unfairly demonized for political reasons.

                  For example: Say there was a guy with multiple wives/divorces, who has multiple kids (aka "baby mamas"), lies, cheats, and steals from the public, and even goes as far as avoiding paying no taxes for many years. Someone on the right would see a stereotypical person living in urban area maybe. On the left: Donald Trump.
                  Last edited by xraygoggles; 10-31-2021, 04:07 PM.

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Originally posted by CordMcNally View Post

                    But it’s easier to get votes with direct giveaways.
                    Btw: this applies just as much to large corporations and wealthy individuals as much as it does poor folks.

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Originally posted by xraygoggles View Post

                      Yes, agree with your sentiment. Most people on welfare are not deliberately trying to game the system for scraps, some may be, but that's far from the majority. They are unfairly demonized for political reasons.

                      For example: Say there was a guy with multiple wives/divorces, who has multiple kids (aka "baby mamas"), lies, cheats, and steals from the public, and even goes as far as avoiding paying no taxes for many years. Someone on the right would see a stereotypical person living in urban area maybe. On the left: Donald Trump.
                      The right by and large isn’t saying people are deliberately gaming the system. The argument is that people are responding to perverse incentives. So you get an underclass that never gets out of poverty and where government (someone else’s income) is simply accepted as the norm. There is no accountability for bad decisions. And yes, that applies to poor as well as rich people. That’s why I favor SALT deduction elimination. You chose to live there, now deal with it.

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Originally posted by ENT Doc View Post

                        And yes, that applies to poor as well as rich people. That’s why I favor SALT deduction elimination. You chose to live there, now deal with it.
                        That’s actually the problem with any substantial tax law changes. We only make life decisions based on the information we have at the time. It’s only when Congress pulls the rug out from under us that we have to “deal with it.”

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Originally posted by Lithium View Post

                          That’s actually the problem with any substantial tax law changes. We only make life decisions based on the information we have at the time. It’s only when Congress pulls the rug out from under us that we have to “deal with it.”
                          Pretty sure that the math still speaks to the choice to live in a high tax state being a bad one, even with the full deduction. It’s just slightly less bad.

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Originally posted by ENT Doc View Post

                            Pretty sure that the math still speaks to the choice to live in a high tax state being a bad one, even with the full deduction. It’s just slightly less bad.
                            Well, I’m not really much of an apologist for high tax states, but if life decisions were solely about the math, we’d all be living with roommates in North Dakota.

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Originally posted by Panscan View Post

                              this kind of argument blatantly ignores real world examples. we have progressive tax rates now, do bezos and musk stop accumulating? I haven't seen them pick up their ball and go home and say, " You know what, I have enough."
                              The difference is that Bezos and Musk are not paid an income of $1B per year for which they pay $500M+ in taxes each year. Their income is probably less than mine. They get a lot of perks for some of which they pay taxes, most are on the company's dime. Their wealth is all i their stock value which has shot up thousand fold or more over the years. That is why they are still playing. BTW, Bezos has retired from running the company and is just the chairman of the board.

                              I'm not a fan of UBI but as nysoz says we are clearly heading for a world with substantially less labor requirements. We will have to do something about it. There will likely be further wealth inequality. This is the kind of preventative thinking that we need to address poverty and actually save us money long term instead of huffing and puffing and saying "
                              the current system is clearly not sustainable and will not work in the future. there can only be so many drone mechanics. Some sort of baseline security blanket/subsidy like UBI is basically a certainty. The discussion should be about the optimal ways to structure it.
                              We have had this same discussion over the past thousands of years. OMG, the wheel has been invented, the labor force will be not needed. OMG, the steam engine is gong to replace all the horse buggy and its supporting staff. OMG, the gasoline engine will replace all farm laborers and all horse buggies and all loom workers. What will they do. Call Andrew Yang and let him propose UBI for all those horse buggy workers and farm laborers and others too.

                              Stop crying wolf. Let us see what happens. People cannot expect to remain the same. Change will come. The next generation will be trained differently and the current generation of untrainable workers will soon die. Life is mortal and only thing certain in life is change. Let us see what happens before we jump the gun on free money handouts.

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Maybe the net jobs won't change yet but it may. New jobs will be created and old jobs lost. Some of these kids that previously would be flipping burgers are now making youtube videos or tiktoks.

                                It's worth having the discussion how to implement it if/when it's needed.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X