American Political Policy Discussion Thread

[ShadowsOfParadox]

Welfare, on the other hand, demonstrably results in people working less or not at all.

...Do you have any examples of Welfare Floors instead of Welfare Ceilings?

 

[The Whispering Monk]

And yet, somehow, taxes don't seem to go down every year... somehow, taxes even go up every now and again.

Taxes went down in the last administration. I'm sure they're going up in this one.

 

[Zachowon]

It seems to loosely cut diagonally through the Reddit meme chart. Libertarian conservatives hate it because it makes government bigger and authoritarian liberals hate it because it gives people options to get away from megacorporate masters.

In reality, it's the enemy of Corporatocracy. Corporate CEOs do not like the idea of their workers being able to tell them "Take this job and shove it" at any time, and really, really don't like how it causes massive increases in small businesses to compete with them. Hence corporations put a lot of pressure against it and muddy the waters with as much propaganda as they can.

Note there's a subtle but very important difference there. The Bible calls out people unwilling to work, Communists target those unable to work. And as I pointed out by showing 85-90% of lotto winners keep working, a majority sticking to their old jobs, so we have proof most people are quite willing, but not always able. The fact that UBI is strongly correlated with people starting their own businesses shows that it actually fosters a hard-working entrepreneurial spirit. I personally see little merit in punishing 9 people who are willing but unable in order to target the 1 person who's unwilling and lazy.

I mean, maybe in history but in a modern first world country where there is a large amount who would rather not work

 

[ShadowsOfParadox]

I mean, maybe in history but in a modern first world country where there is a large amount who would rather not work

Alaska's had a 2000 dollar-per-citizen payments since the early 80s with great success. Studies show that the money absolutely doesn't make people quit working, in fact, it raised Alaska's part-time employment by 17%.

Japanese Billionaire Maezawa Otoshidama tried a trial run of giving free money to random Japanese citizens. Not only did they not quit working, they were almost four times as likely to start their own businesses, three times as likely to want to marry, and well over twice as likely to want to study abroad. Happiness was rated at 70% higher.

Canada did a trial run in Dauphin, Manitoba, where for four years, everybody got a Basic Income Guarantee. People did not quit working, but doctor visits dropped, health improved, and the rate of kids completing high school skyrocketed.

Finland ran a trial program to see if having free money increased employment or decreased it. In fact, employment numbers in aggregate weren't affected either way, however the recipients started their own businesses and generally their physical health and well-being improved. This one is tricky because they specifically selected only the unemployed and that likely introduced several confounding factors compared to a truly random selection.

Kenya tried a UBI experiment and the results were surprising, people not only didn't quit working, but ninety percent of them used their UBI to either start up their own businesses or improve an existing one they had. It caused a major economic boom even though Kenya was suffering from severe drought at the time.

Overall the evidence from actual experiments is pretty clear, no UBI has ever caused people to quit working, most have increased employment and all of them have improved the health and happiness of the people involved. UBI does have a large number of unexpected knock-on effects, however, and often what people do with the money is completely unexpected, so more experiments are required.

"People just stop working" however, is complete balderdash that has been disproven over and over again, and is mostly the domain of dedicated communists attached to the labor theory of value. It's also because UBI is strongly correlated with people starting up their own small businesses, something that's anathema to authoritarian regimes that prefer to maintain their own control rather than let the peasants be allowed to make their own decisions.

...
Can people insisting that we do small scale experiments or that UBI makes people not work actually read the thread? It's not actually that long yet people.

 

[The Whispering Monk]

260,000,000 (Adult Population 2020)
x 2,000 (UBI of 2,000 per month per adult)
=520,000,000,000 That's 520 Billion Dollars per Month Year

OR

Over 6 Trillion Dollars a Year.

I'm just using what Alaska does and extending that to ALL of America. Tell me how we afford that?

EDIT: I was mistaken on the length of time.

 

[Bacle]

260,000,000 (Adult Population 2020)
x 2,000 (UBI of 2,000 per month per adult)
=520,000,000,000 That's 520 Billion Dollars per Month

OR

Over 6 Trillion Dollars a Year.

I'm just using what Alaska does and extending that to ALL of America. Tell me how we afford that?

End oil industry subsidies.

Edit: Also, Alaska does 2k a year, not a month; you guys would know that if you had checked the links.

2k a year to help cover basics is workable, I'm not say UBI should be 2k a month.

 

[Zachowon]

...
Can people insisting that we do small scale experiments or that UBI makes people not work actually read the thread? It's not actually that long yet people.

Almost like the population of Alaska kinda bave to work to survive compared to the average city dweller.
As I. The VAST MAJORITY of the US population

 

[ShadowsOfParadox]

260,000,000 (Adult Population 2020)
x 2,000 (UBI of 2,000 per month per adult)
=520,000,000,000 That's 520 Billion Dollars per Month

OR

Over 6 Trillion Dollars a Year.

I'm just using what Alaska does and extending that to ALL of America. Tell me how we afford that?

Firstly, that number in your napkin math is 0.52 Trillion, about a twelfth of 6 Trillion, rather the opposite of "over 6 Trillion". EDIT: never mind, missed that annual part.

Secondly, there are several options, but my preferred one is, straight up, this is a replacement for all other Federal Welfare programs so you just take the money that's in that right now. And, yes, there's enough

https://www.budget.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/CRS Report - Welfare Spending The Largest Item In The Federal Budget.pdf

First Paragraph, Federal Spending in 2019 on Means Tested Welfare(aka, the stuff that's pure handout), was 1.03 Trillion, or nearly double your napkin math.

Federal Contributions to things like Social Security and Medicaid was another 746 Billion, or 226 Billion over your napkin math.

End oil industry subsidies.

No. Those keep gas prices from ballooning even more than Biden's Oil stupidity has already caused, we don't need more of that. We can end oil subsidies when we also decide to abandon the regulatory burden(atually probably not, it'd also take a rather massive tech advance) and/or have actually practical alternatives for transport. Also, even if you wanted to take the money from the Oil Subisidies, they actually DO get about 6 Trillion in Subsidies so it wouldn't even take all the money from that.

I think people are rather massively misunderstanding the sheer scale of resources the US Gov can actually put into stuff...

EDIT: hmm, maybe you actually would need to use the oil subsidies... ORRRR... hmmm where was Andrew Yang's numbers... Imma go find those.

 

[The Whispering Monk]

My mistake.

If it's just $2,000 a year...what's the point?

 

[The Whispering Monk]

Firstly, that number in your napkin math is 0.52 Trillion, about a twelfth of 6 Trillion, rather the opposite of "over 6 Trillion".

I've addressed my error.

straight up, this is a replacement for all other Federal Welfare programs so you just take the money that's in that right now. And, yes, there's enough

If you can actually get the politicians to even contemplate that you're a miracle worker. Though I still say it's a mistake to empower every citizen to be able to vote themselves more money.

Those keep gas prices from ballooning even more than Biden's Oil stupidity has already caused, we don't need more of that. We can end oil subsidies when we also decide to abandon the regulatory burden(atually probably not, it'd also take a rather massive tech advance) and/or have actually practical alternatives for transport.

I completely agree that the regulatory burden is pretty damn stupid. However, I don't know what you mean by 'alternatives for transport.' Transport of what?

Also, even if you wanted to take the money from the Oil Subisidies, they actually DO get about 6 Trillion in Subsidies so it wouldn't even take all the money from that.

Where the crap do you get that there's 6 TRILLION dollars in oil subsidies?

 

[Bacle]

My mistake.

If it's just $2,000 a year...what's the point?

It helps with food and bulk cheap food, and methods of getting food (it's Alaska, everyone has guns, moose meat is always an option).

It also helps get fishing gear fixed, which can help keep food on the table as well.

In urban and semi-urban areas in the Lower 48, it'll buy a lot of pizza deals and ramen to keep people fed with semi-decent food, and can help cover Similac or the like for newborns if the couples doesn't already qualify for WIC or Welfare.

2k a year shouldn't strain the system too much, I would think.

 

[History Learner]

The numeric definition of 'poverty' in the US has changed multiple times over the decades, and not just to keep with inflation. It's something a bureaucrat somewhere picks.

The formal definition the government uses isn't relevant though, because the root cause of the concept of poverty is not something any government policy can wipe out.

Why?

Because the root cause is humans making bad decisions.

People can be given a government check that's enough to comfortably but not luxuriously house and feed them, and some percentage of them will waste the money on 'hookers and blow,' and end up homeless. Heroin, Cocaine, Meth, gambling, alcohol, just foolish spending habits, there's a million things people will waste their money on.

There are reasons that programs to specifically subsidize housing or food were implemented, and I can tell you from both statistical analysis and personal experience that the vast, vast majority of people who are in actual poverty (especially those who are there chronically) are there because of their own bad decisions.

Throwing more money at people won't solve the problem. If it was going to, it would have done so decades ago.

I don't support government welfare at all, but if we must have it, I prefer targeted things like a specific housing subsidy or food stamps; those are harder to turn into drug and booze money. Not that people don't (food stamps are notoriously traded at 2:1 or worse ratios for actual cash), but it's at least harder.

That's all well and good, but when are you going to directly answer my question of what metrics you consider to define poverty? We're not doing this thing of hiding behind subjective terms or thoughts, I want a hard answer here and your opinion on targeted programs is not what I asked.

 

[The Whispering Monk]

I'm not arguing that it won't help cover costs. My concern is that it won't stop there, no matter how pure the motives of the people who put it in place. After they go away the vultures, charlatans and snake-oil salesman step up to ruin the nice thing.

How do you propose keeping that from happening?

 

[History Learner]

Sorry, but "they fail to account for how thing causes not just A but also B, C, and D" is consistent with admitting they accounted for A given reasonably charitable interpretation; that is, "they failed to account for B, C, and D when they accounted for A". But I do not know LordsFire's mind.

That would be a valid point if B, C and D existed, which they don't. We're not talking about different things, either they did account for it or they didn't; if you want to argue the specifics, that's different from the overall point being made here of whether they did at all.

Easier for who, precisely? It's a lot easier to see thread titles and participate or pass, than to wade through yet another bundle-thread with multiple topics discussed without actual threading and anything new buried at the bottom.

You're under no obligation to respond.

 

[Terthna]

I'm not arguing that it won't help cover costs. My concern is that it won't stop there, no matter how pure the motives of the people who put it in place. After they go away the vultures, charlatans and snake-oil salesman step up to ruin the nice thing.

How do you propose keeping that from happening?

Do you honestly think those vultures, charlatans and snake-oil salesman won't find some other way to pervert our intentions, and screw us all over; even if we decide not to go with a UBI? Because people like that are endemic to the human race; they aren't going away any time soon. The only thing for it is to be vigilant, regardless of what we end up deciding to do.

 

[History Learner]

To switch to foreign policy, the whole Second Cold War with Russia is quite frankly stupid. Moscow remains a strong regional power, but it's not the Red Hordes of the Cold War and our American foreign relations needs to come to accept that. The last decade of hostilities is entirely driven by the West sticking its nose into areas we have no vital strategic interest in (Ukraine, Georgia, etc) but which very much are of paramount importance to the Russians; we risk starting a shooting war that could easily escalate into the nuclear realm for nothing.

To that end, my personal estimation of the situation is the U.S. needs to cut ties with Ukraine and seek to establish both them-and Belarus-as a neutral buffer between European Union and Russia. Moscow in the past was content to accept exactly this and we blew that, which means restoring it will take some more finesse and concessions to the Russians. In consideration of that, and with the end of the Afghan War, we need to be realistic and entirely concede Central Asia to the Russian orbit. We can never effectively challenge the Russians or Chinese there anyway, and doing this combined with concessions in the Caucasus could allow us to come to an understanding that secures Europe entirely. This would allow us to focus entirely on China, while also giving the benefit of creating friction between said Chinese and Russians over Central Asia which can be exploited.

 

[Bear Ribs]

260,000,000 (Adult Population 2020)
x 2,000 (UBI of 2,000 per month per adult)
=520,000,000,000 That's 520 Billion Dollars per Month Year

OR

Over 6 Trillion Dollars a Year.

I'm just using what Alaska does and extending that to ALL of America. Tell me how we afford that?

EDIT: I was mistaken on the length of time.

I decided to kitbash some math going off a more sedate proposal of 500 per month. This number is going to be contentious and messy, because standards of living are so different in different countries so enough to live reasonably in rural Oklahoma would see you homeless in SanFran but there's no easy way around that. I'm presuming here that most people are going to seek employment and either live as a family or get a roommate or two. UBI isn't meant to fund extravagant lifestyles, it's meant to be, well, that classic idea of the safety net. Super-high priced cities should come with better employment options making UBI less needed, if it isn't, people with UBI will be better able to leave those cities and move to lower-priced areas where they can start their own businesses, which is also a good thing.

I also propose children get UBI as well, kids need to eat too and reducing the whole "you can't afford to have kids" deal every modern nation has that's causing population squeezes can only be a good thing. Yes, this will generate some Welfare Queens popping out kids for the money. Yes, that sucks but the actual number of Welfare Queens seems to be ridiculously overstated in histrionic arguments compared to reality I've looked at in reports, and I'm willing to allow a few bad actors to profit if it helps the significantly larger percentage of good-faith actors.

Jesus didn't demand proof of applications for employment before multiplying the fishes and bread (twice). He fed everybody.

So 500 x 330,000,000 people x 12 months yields... 1,980,000,000,000

1.98 trillion. It's fairly doable if it replaces other social programs.

We spend 1.1 trillion on Social Security. The Paycheck Protection Program is 525 billion. We spend a further 473 Billion on national unemployment. We spend over a billion on other social programs. Problem more than solved, as far as money. I'll note that I wouldn't want to see all the welfare options on @ShadowsOfParadox's list gone, UBI is no replacement for wastewater treatment plants or programs to find foster homes for orphans. There're also some features of the Paycheck Protection Program that might need to be saved separately, however, there's still more than enough actual money, though granted the political will required to touch Social Security would qualify for a Green Lantern ring.

No matter how often you (and others) repeat this, it simply is not true.

Technology has never resulted in the obsolescence of human labor, and there's no reason beyond baseless speculation to believe that it ever will.

You don't pay a machine. You pay someone else who built the machine, and either that same or another person to maintain it. When the machine makes production more efficient, so that you don't need the same amount of people to get the same amount of output, you then have money freed up to pay for other things.

Other things which are done by other human beings, which you pay for things.

Automation doesn't result in people not working, it just changes what kind of work is being done.

Welfare, on the other hand, demonstrably results in people working less or not at all. That is a fact, historically proven multiple times. You can pit your speculation based on not understanding technology and economics against actual facts and history all you want, but it's not going to accomplish anything production.

Wild assertions of opinion as fact: Present
Any shred of actual research or proof: Not Present.

 

[LordsFire]

That's all well and good, but when are you going to directly answer my question of what metrics you consider to define poverty? We're not doing this thing of hiding behind subjective terms or thoughts, I want a hard answer here and your opinion on targeted programs is not what I asked.

Me? I'd define 'poverty' as a condition where someone lacks the money/other means of acquiring to consistently have all three of these available:

1. Water.
2. Food.
3. Shelter.

I'd call 'abject poverty' a place where more often than not you don't have all three.

This is just off the top of my head though. I honestly haven't needed a technical definition of this before, an abstract 'really poor' has sufficed so far in life.

 

[History Learner]

Me? I'd define 'poverty' as a condition where someone lacks the money/other means of acquiring to consistently have all three of these available:

1. Water.
2. Food.
3. Shelter.

I'd call 'abject poverty' a place where more often than not you don't have all three.

This is just off the top of my head though. I honestly haven't needed a technical definition of this before, an abstract 'really poor' has sufficed so far in life.

Okay, my point here is thus how can you say eliminating poverty is, effectively, a pipe dream? If we can achieve, here in the United States, everyone having access to all of the above, would you say we have eliminated poverty as you define it?

 

[LordsFire]

Okay, my point here is thus how can you say eliminating poverty is, effectively, a pipe dream? If we can achieve, here in the United States, everyone having access to all of the above, would you say we have eliminated poverty as you define it?

...I already told you how I can say eliminating poverty is a pipe dream.

Because the problem is people making bad decisions. No matter how much money you give some people, they will fritter it away on luxuries and vices, then before their next paycheck or government handout, be broke all over again. I have both studied statistics around habitually-bad decision making, and seen this play out in real life.

Some people, no matter how much you give them, will just waste it all away.