|
If this thread turns into a USPMT 2.0, we will not hesitate to shut it down. Do not even bother posting if all you're going to do is shit on the Democratic candidates while adding nothing of value.
Rules:
- Don't post meaningless one-liners.
- Don't turn this into a X doesn't stand a chance against Trump debate.
- Sources MUST have a supporting comment that summarizes the source beforehand.
- Do NOT turn this thread into a Republicans vs. Democrats shit-storm.
This thread will be heavily moderated. Expect the same kind of strictness as the USPMT. |
On May 14 2019 07:31 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2019 22:31 Grumbels wrote:On May 12 2019 22:28 Neneu wrote:On May 12 2019 14:59 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On May 12 2019 12:07 Bourgeois wrote:
Late in replying to a post earlier, but for those who don't think Andrew Yang is relying on the fact that he is Asian, consider this: It fits the exact stereotype that Asians are computer nerds that his main policy relates to Asian nerd stuff. He's the How is UBI Asian nerd stuff? They trialled it in Norway and had a referendum on it in Switzerland. Yang is just offering a solution to the issue of AI and automation.It’s good to bring the discussion out but if gaming addict neets think it’ll make them happy they’re only fooling themselves. I think you are talking about Canada. Or Finland. Who knows, everything is so far north it is hard to know which country is which. Alaska has a UBI program ( link). Eh, barely. I like most of what Andrew Yang says about UBI, but it makes me cringe when he says Alaska has been doing it for years as any sort of argument for it being "successful". There are no meaningful Alaskan results, because the amount isn't substantial. Alaska has been paying people like a thousand bucks per year, a far cry from the $1,000+ per month Yang (and most UBI advocates) promote. A thousand dollars every 365 days isn't even remotely close to a basic income... it's basically a week and a half of the championed $15/hour minimum wage goal, or 3 weeks at a $7.50 40-hour work week.
I'm reading a bit about UBI, but it seems somewhat ambiguous to me, mostly dependent on the specifics of the proposal. You might voice a criticism about how it won't work and the response is: no, because the government can then do X to solve this problem. Which raises the question of why they're not solving various other problems with simple solutions to begin with, with the obvious answer that there are entrenched interests that seek to prevent it. And UBI proponents offer nothing to overcome these obstacles, which seem to me to be by far the more serious concerns. After all, if UBI is just some sort of safety net which guarantees a minimum existence (which is a really dystopic aim but whatever), then there are already many examples of countries with good safety nets without rampant homelessness and with great security for the population. And there exists a relatively straightforward path to such an arrangement for the USA, but it would include reforms such as M4A, free college, child benefits and a host of other reforms. The political establishment, which represents the interests of the wealthy, is by and large opposed to such changes, but there is little reason to believe they wouldn't then also oppose any particulars of an UBI that would lead to actual improvements in the well-being of the population.
And it seems intuitively the case to me that rents and health insurance costs would increase after the implementation of an UBI of >10k$/y. If you mention this to UBI people they will tell you this is wrong. Someone linked this piece to me to assuage my concerns, but it seems mostly gibberish to me. Here is a quote:
+ Show Spoiler +Rising rent is a particularly worrisome fear for many when first introduced to the idea of basic income. However, two very important things in particular need to be understood when it comes to housing.
1. There are five times more vacant homes than homeless people in the United States today. This represents a large unused supply that need only be made available. The reason many people are not living in these homes is because they were at one time but couldn’t afford to keep them. Basic income rectifies this and puts people back in homes.
2. Technology represents a major factor in future housing prices, especially a future where everyone has a basic income. Everyone will receive a monthly check to afford rent, and will want to spend as little of it as possible on rent. Meanwhile, owners will want to compete for this money with other owners. Those offering the lowest rents will win. One example of this would be Google deciding to create Google Homes and leasing them out to people for a fraction of what people are paying now. Another example would be super affordable WikiHouses.
For these two reasons in particular, in combination with the ability of everyone to truly live anywhere for the first time in history, a nationwide market for ultra-affordable housing will be created, and smart businesses will step into this space in hopes of dominating it.
All of this represents theoretical evidence to counter any fear of inflation.
So we have a fantasy that the the market will make currently unused housing available to home seekers, despite the fact that it's not actually doing this currently. And another fantasy that the market will lead to lower rent as landlords compete for customers, despite the fact that this is currently not happening. And finally we have the exciting future of WikiHouses and GoogleHomes, to end this in an embarrassing fashion. This is essentially a religious piece, dreaming that big corporations and the market will mysteriously solve the housing crisis and increase living standards just because some money was redirected via UBI, without actually committing to any sort of structural reforms to address the root causes of income inequality and dysfunctional institutions.
But who knows...
|
?
Why are tee ell dot net users voting for Gulsi Gabbard? Who dat?
|
On May 12 2019 22:28 Neneu wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2019 14:59 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On May 12 2019 12:07 Bourgeois wrote:
Late in replying to a post earlier, but for those who don't think Andrew Yang is relying on the fact that he is Asian, consider this: It fits the exact stereotype that Asians are computer nerds that his main policy relates to Asian nerd stuff. He's the How is UBI Asian nerd stuff? They trialled it in Norway and had a referendum on it in Switzerland. Yang is just offering a solution to the issue of AI and automation.It’s good to bring the discussion out but if gaming addict neets think it’ll make them happy they’re only fooling themselves. I think you are talking about Canada. Or Finland. Who knows, everything is so far north it is hard to know which country is which.
Was Finland not Norway, my mistake.They ended the program recently.
Gabbard is the most anti-war, thats why i voted her.She has 0 chance though.
|
I come from a Communist country, so I'm happy with this year's Democratic lineup. I love taking from the rich and distributing it fairly among the people. I think it's a welcome change that America is waking up to the benefits of Communism (Socialism).
|
|
|
Vietnam, Northern of course.
|
|
|
So, it is time to play the broken US election system, right? The choice should depend on a single criteria:
"Who has the best chance of beating Trump in the swingatates."
I wonder if the huge majority of US-citezens who are not benefitting from this will force a reform at some point.
|
|
|
I like that Bernie Sanders is basically a European style social democrat.
I've never seen one of those in American politics before. And since many things that I like about my own home country comes from the social democrats, like free education (which makes the society 100% meritocratic) and not paying private middlemen extra for healthcare. I think the US needs a guy like him.
|
On May 14 2019 19:18 KungKras wrote:
I like that Bernie Sanders is basically a European style social democrat.
I've never seen one of those in American politics before. And since many things that I like about my own home country comes from the social democrats, like free education (which makes the society 100% meritocratic) and not paying private middlemen extra for healthcare. I think the US needs a guy like him.
It takes a bit more than free education to make a society 100% meritocratic. But it does at least even the playing field a lot.
I'm one of the few people seemingly who's not sure about Bernie versus Trump. I'd love to be wrong, but I feel he's too easily attackable as a 'communist' and that Americans still get into an insane panic over those associations. It seems like something Trump could wield even more effectively than Hilary's e-mails.
|
If you talk about chances vs. Trump, is Bernie's age a big topic in the US? He is actually only 5 years older then Trump, but he looks much more frail and I am afraid this could be something Trump loves to abuse. Moreover, who would be his vicepresident? There again may be a risk of people not liking to vote for him in case they pick some "establishment democrat" as vice to appease moderates, or someone outright bad (aka the Palin effect).
Also, can someone once for all explain to me if it is sure that Trump will be the republican nominee or not?
|
I don’t think age is going to play too much of a factor, as long as the not-Trump candidate manages to get people excited to vote they’ll likely win. Whatever edges Trump started with as someone with no experience in politics making big promises is basically gone, so it’ll be a steeper climb for him this time around assuming any vaguely charismatic democrat runs against him.
|
On May 14 2019 20:33 opisska wrote:
Also, can someone once for all explain to me if it is sure that Trump will be the republican nominee or not?
The incumbent is almost always the front runner, if he chooses to pursue a second term.
|
On May 14 2019 20:33 opisska wrote:
He is actually only 5 years older then Trump, but he looks much more frail
That's because he isn't as fat as a house and doesn't wear tonnes of make-up.
I bet you anything that he's much more active and cognitively / physically healthier than Trump.
It's incredible to me that someone as fat as Trump can even get to his age, I'll give him that.
|
|
|
On May 14 2019 20:05 iamthedave wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2019 19:18 KungKras wrote:
I like that Bernie Sanders is basically a European style social democrat.
I've never seen one of those in American politics before. And since many things that I like about my own home country comes from the social democrats, like free education (which makes the society 100% meritocratic) and not paying private middlemen extra for healthcare. I think the US needs a guy like him. It takes a bit more than free education to make a society 100% meritocratic. But it does at least even the playing field a lot. I'm one of the few people seemingly who's not sure about Bernie versus Trump. I'd love to be wrong, but I feel he's too easily attackable as a 'communist' and that Americans still get into an insane panic over those associations. It seems like something Trump could wield even more effectively than Hilary's e-mails. Honestly, with the direction rhetoric has been heading, I fully expect the Republicans to go full-on McCarthyism and accuse whoever the Democrat candidate is of being a communist or a socialist, or really any other buzzword that instills fear in the base. Bernie would be by far the easiest target for that, but I doubt that would stop them from doing so with other candidates, especially Elizabeth Warren.
|
On May 14 2019 20:05 iamthedave wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2019 19:18 KungKras wrote:
I like that Bernie Sanders is basically a European style social democrat.
I've never seen one of those in American politics before. And since many things that I like about my own home country comes from the social democrats, like free education (which makes the society 100% meritocratic) and not paying private middlemen extra for healthcare. I think the US needs a guy like him. It takes a bit more than free education to make a society 100% meritocratic. But it does at least even the playing field a lot. I'm one of the few people seemingly who's not sure about Bernie versus Trump. I'd love to be wrong, but I feel he's too easily attackable as a 'communist' and that Americans still get into an insane panic over those associations. It seems like something Trump could wield even more effectively than Hilary's e-mails.
A 100% meritocratic society is impossible. Bad parents generally have kids who become bad parents and vica versa. In countries with free education, the kids still follow in their parents' tracks, as parents with long education tend to pass that on. Furthermore, parents who were happy getting a steady income at 18 pass that on.
But I agree the educational system should not enhance the priviliges which will be there anyway no matter what you do.
Research has shown that even in free public HC Norway, rich people get better HC than average, even though it is not written anywhere they are entitled to it. Idk if they know their rights better, the doctors respect them more or their families are better at pushing the doctors to get their way, but the priviliges are there 100%!
|
Norway28804 Posts
On May 14 2019 06:28 BisuDagger wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2019 21:47 Liquid`Drone wrote:
It's a good thing if people are disincentivized from making more than a million or two per year anyway, that's not a 'bug' of a system of extremely high taxation levels for absurdly high income makers, it's a feature. I know that for CEOs and the top income earners, they're not making the most money out of 'salary' but other sources, but for simplicity, let's just pretend that all income is the same. (I know that you can't do this when designing policy, but you can for a philosophical thought experiment aimed at discovering 'what is right and just').
Amazon employs 566,000 people. In 2017, those people had a median salary of $28000. In 2018, Jeff Bezos made $84 billion. That translates to him having made $148409 per employee. I mean, this mostly stems from stocks, which means it fluctuates, which means that sometimes Bezos' income will look significantly lower. But even if you choose the worst time of 2018 to calculate his income, the day he lost $11 billion, you're left with him making $87500 per minute for the entire year. Even the most generous estimates (to him) estimates would leave Jeff Bezos making more than $50000 per employee while those employees had a median salary below $30k for full time work. (https://www.businessinsider.com/how-much-jeff-bezos-makes-per-minute-2018-12?r=US&IR=T for some of these numbers).
I think this is absolutely abhorrent. It's abhorrent from a moral point of view (nobody deserves a million times more than any other human being), and it's hugely damaging to the social fabric. Society would be far better off if those 566000 people each made $20000 more and Bezos made $11 billion less. If Bezos, or other CEOs knew that they were only gonna get 10% of income above a certain threshold (I'm honestly down for 0%), then from my perspective, what that would lead to would be that workers of the company would be compensated in a fundamentally much more fair and just manner.
If you wanna argue that a doctor should make 3x a nurse, then I disagree with you, I think something like 1.5x-2x is more fair, but I don't really mind or care if someone thinks 3x is more appropriate. From the doctors I know, they're all very well off and none of them are lamenting their situation, so it doesn't seem like it's a social group with a particularly big set of problems. The nurses I know are mostly fine too though. But when people are targeting the ultra-rich, they're not talking about doctors, they're not talking about some people with longer hours, more education, more responsibility making 3x what other people make. They're talking about bosses making more than 100 times average workers. And my honest opinion is that that shit is an absolute perversion. There's nothing fair or just about that, it's just a stupid society rewarding greed in a way that is hugely damaging to the people living in said society. Nothing wrong with that statement. But why does the government feel it should be the one to tax and take the money to distribute as they see fit. I believe there are better ways to make it fair while still letting him earn money.
The government does it because the other people don't. There are occasional sunshine stories of bosses sharing unexpected profits with all the workers of a company, there are examples of worker-owned enterprises (which I absolutely love!), and there are a lot of bosses that genuinely care about the welfare of their workers. But the former two are extreme outliers, and the latter seems to happen more frequently the smaller the company. (Which makes sense, as having fewer employees means you will logically be more attached to each individual.) The more of a capitalist you are, the more you are in favor of undercutting workers as much as it is possible to undercut them. For skilled workers part of a limited work force, the system works out fairly well, because they are not easily replaced and thus they end up being paid more in line with their actual contribution. For unskilled labor, it's a fucking disaster of a system. And as a skilled worker myself, I will absolutely argue that my daily hours are worth much more to me than my education is; I'm paid about 20% more per hour as a teacher than I was doing manual labor in a warehouse. And while I'm happy about those 20% - and think it's fair that I make more now, doing a more difficult job with more responsibilities, I think that number is pretty much spot on. It's enough of an incentive to make me want to use my skills in a way that benefits society more, but it's not so much more that there's a sea of luxury distancing myself from my former coworkers.
I would far, far prefer if CEOs self-policed and operated everywhere based on a rule of 'I can only make 4 times as much as an entry level worker' (meaning they would have to increase entry level salary to increase their own salary, meaning a thriving company would have a thriving work force), or whatever, but they don't. So the government has to do it. I'm not a fan of government redistribution, but it's far better than growing inequality and no redistribution. And I'm not really a fan of government giving money to people period - I'm a fan of government building infrastructure throughout society in a way that gives equal opportunity to succeed regardless of your luck drawing the birth lottery ticket. In a country like Norway, where even the lowest paid workers make $35k per year assuming they work 37.5 hour weeks, you can fund this through collective, not all that progressive taxation. In a country like the US, where people can work full time and still need food stamps and where the top 0.01% make 5% of the total income (not even mentioning wealth), significantly more progressive taxation must be enforced to have any hope of building a more meritocratic society.
Because that's the real joke of it all. You have a fundamentally unjust society where part of the population is convinced of its meritocracy, all while lineage greatly determines future success. I mean, lineage greatly determines future success in Norway, too, but firstly, less so than the US, and secondly, failing isn't as big of a disaster.
![[image loading]](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/80/The_Great_Gatsby_Curve.png/1024px-The_Great_Gatsby_Curve.png)
This is a graph indicating social mobility by country. The further left, the less inequality, and the closer to the bottom, the more social mobility (= more meritocratic). While inequality cannot be deemed the sole factor, it's fairly easy to spot the trendline.
|
Why yall trippin, we got the most Communist Socialist lineup in history, this is the dream. Keep calm, it's gone be an easy election, the voter base only getting younger.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
