Stephanie Hendon, 34, lived in a shelter while her husband was living on the street, making it difficult for them to raise their four kids. After a year of payments from the Austin Guaranteed Income Pilot, she had a three-bedroom apartment, a new car, clothes for her children, a new job, and new financial strategies for the future.
This is what GOap fights against: The literal improvement of peoples existence.
Never vote Republican. They hate you!
Its selfish bullshit. Their response would be one of a handful:
“Why should I work if the government will just give me everything for free!?”
“Why should I have to pay for lazy people who made bad decisions!?”
“Why does the government not understand debt!? They’re going to bankrupt us!”
They strongly believe in survival of the fittest. Either you become wealthy or everything you did was your fault and a mistake and you should die if you can’t afford life. The only salvation you should get (I almost used the word deserve, which they 100% would argue you don’t deserve.) would be salvation dolled out by a charity that people volunteered to give of their own desire.
Of course the charities never have nearly enough money to accomplish this which they fully understand but don’t care one iota about. It’s almost entirely selfishness on their part, mixed in with a heaping dose of ignorance.
I’m a Lifelong Republican and I LOVE how the Republican Party is a CHAMPION for the Working Class! Money is NOT a Birthright unless you’re already super rich and then it’s OK to suck at the Government’s Teat!
Lol I came so close to downvoting. You really need a /s in there.
Is money required to deal with Republicans ?
Yes but not much if it’s in Rubles.
“Small government” for us librul peasants but not for them.
UBI will ultimately end up in the pockets of landlords, shareholders and offshore wealth funds anyway. Sort out the inequality first, then do it.
Source: trust me, bro.
I do agree with this, without restriction on increases that x increase will just go into basic living services, you saw that with the stimulus checks as well. but part of me wants them to do it then go after everyoje that raised for gorging but I don’t think there is actual prevention of that
I think that’s a misconception. UBI is not free money for all. There will not be appreciably more money sloshing around.
Taxation will be balanced around the average earner giving back the same amount of money in tax as they get in UBI.
People below average will be better off. People above average will be worse off. People way up in the 0.01% will be considerably worse off.
Guess which of those groups keeps inventing new reasons why UBI won’t work.
The well-off will never be not well-off unless they literally depend on the people’s exploitation. If they do, well, like they say, its like whoever the technological advances they depend on immediately put out of commission in terms of employment options off the table
The point of UBI isn’t to sit in the pockets of the working class. It’s to properly stimulate the economy while giving the working class spending money. It’s meant to be spent, meant to go up the chain.
The biggest problem right now is non competitive markets that we have to pay into like housing, communications, utilities, and groceries. We need to get The trust busting hammer out. Competitive markets keep prices low. And for markets that can’t be competitive, well they shouldn’t be markets, they should be government agencies.
UBI also addresses the welfare chasm. In many cases, people on welfare who want to work can’t, because working means they’re ineligible for welfare but their income is less than what they make on welfare. It’s a sort of trap that keeps many people in the welfare system.
UBI fills the gap, and allows people who want to work, but who are unable to work full time, or are unskilled and are qualified for only the lowest paying, entry-level jobs, to take that work, build skills and experience, and pull themselves up out of the welfare system.
UBI often assumes that it replaces welfare as we know it, but you’d get the same benefit if the bar for disqualifying welfare was higher, s.t. people could still claim welfare while working, until they reached some more sustainable income level.
It’s not the main goal is UBI, but UBI would address this one very real issue we have with the current welfare system.
Means testing means not universal.
I frankly don’t give a shit if Bezos gets a $1000 check from the government every month, as long as the old lady with cancer, the 40 year old chronic pain sufferer, the working family with a 80k/yr income, and the 35 year old jobless dude who lives with his parents all get theirs too.
And most importantly take people out of the job market.
Working class people are becoming less and less competitive in the market because too much money is being extracted from them through rent/profit/interest and given to their wealthy competitors who already have an advantage over them. Both ends of the equation need addressing, which is why I think UBI is good but not enough without taxing wealth. That’s just my opinion!
I agree. I wonder if we could create a class based Union. Like a union for anyone making x amount or less.
Sorry, helping the poor is too Christ-like for Republicans.
Basic Income as an obligation on the public sector would mean a smaller pool of residents with heavy obligation to private church groups and religious charities that recruit out of low income communities.
Nobody’s going to come to the Sermon On The Mount if you can get your loaves and fishes anywhere.
and did Jesus decree, be strategic with when ye help those in need, so that they turn to private churches. No I don’t think that’s in there.
On the contrary, I think he said something about wherever two or three of his faithful gather in his name, so there is his church.
UBI is interesting but I find that if you’re a free market traditional capitalist, its existence (as well as welfare) is kind of a distortion of market functions. The US in general seems reticent to collectivism as a concept, otherwise welfare and SS would not be looked at as a “I paid for this” entitlement. Now, the real question to ask politicians is if income inequality is a problem? I’d wager many in private would say no.
People having access to basic necessities is a distortion of market functions, so such the markets. The economy is supposed to work for us, not the other way around, so I really couldn’t care less if it’s distorted in ways that benefit ordinary people.
Don’t disagree, also pretty close to impossible to have a non distorted market place considering you’re dealing with people, not strictly rational forces. My point is more the perspective from people who may not consider a financial subsidy via UBI to be providing value as it distorts the value of income. I’m not a fan of UBI being “universal” in the sense that people who don’t need it still getting access (it’s main benefit is it simplifies access and avoids needing to prove income), but its certainly simpler and less distorting than say housing vouchers and food subsidies. That being said, I don’t think most people actually care about the well being of those less fortunate and that’s representative in our elected officials.
Regarding the idea of basic income being universal, it makes a lot more sense when you think of income tax and basic income being facets of a single system that decides how much each person owes the government in income tax; basic income is just negative tax. We already have a mechanism for making sure wealthier people pay more: tax brackets. People who don’t need basic income automatically end up with a positive tax burden. You could describe it as gradually phasing out basic income for people who make over a certain amount, but that’s mathematically equivalent to just adding a tax bracket for low income earners.
The thing I’d really want to avoid is a system where earning an extra dollar can put you over some threshold where lose all your basic income, becoming poorer as a result. A lot of real programs for low-income people work that way, and it creates what’s known as a poverty trap, where people can’t afford to get out of poverty because getting on a career track that would lead to them not needing benefits anymore leads to a short-term loss of benefits that they can’t afford to lose.
The alternative is “You can’t afford to live? Then die.” Or arguably worse, “Here, we’ll give you a pittance so that you don’t actually die, at least not immediately, but your life will be brutish and short, and treat you as though you’re beholden to us.”
Why people are fighting the unlimited inheritance right heirs have: ‘Is money a birthright now?’
we could have been living in a utopia 20 years ago or further back even but one thing stands in the way - conservatives. the solution is simple.
What is standing in the way is capitalism
and what’s standing in the way of dismantling it? conservatives. you give me a problem and i’ll show you how simple solutions are being blocked by conservatives. get rid of conservatives, fix the problem.
Depends on how you define conservatives? If you categorize the entire US political spectrum as conservatives (and economically, they are), then sure. In the prevalent usage of the term, that’s not true, because liberals are just as much a barrier because they are capitalists. The entire US political spectrum is ideologically liberal save for a few fascists on the right, and both are capitalist ideologies.
all of America is Liberal (socio-economic philosophy, not the “left” catchall) and thus they are all conservative
“ackshually”… please stop being a nerd. the problem and solution is simple. don’t over complicate it. people know wtf i’m talking about when i say conservative.
There is a neat and simple solution for every problem, and it’s always wrong
until that solution is the only thing between utopia and dystopia, where the effects of either will be felt for centuries to come. that solution then becomes a necessity. wake up.
sure thing, poindexter.
You could blame Nader and the 100k Florida Progressives who couldn’t hold their noses and punch the chad for Gore for that. And then remember it in November.
i could, maybe, but i’d rather blame jeb bush, the supreme court, and all the conservatives that voted for bush.
They all suck, but I have a special place in my heart for the 100k people who “cared so much about the environment” to vote for Nader. The final count margin was around 600 votes. Had just 2% of them realized that in no universe would Nader win and despite his flaws, Gore was better equipped for the job, the world would be a totally different place.
Is money a birthright now?
No but there are a lot of birthrights which are increasingly only available if you have money.
The system used to be to give those things away for free to people who can’t afford them - but that’s changing. Just giving money to poor people is far easier.
Also you free up a ton of people from bureaucratic administration jobs so they might do usefull, productive work.
there are a lot of birthrights which are increasingly only available if you have money
This is the logical consequence of the anti-new-deal/anti-desegregation/anti-civil-rights jurisprudence that turns on capital supremacy and property rights trumping the notion that the state has an interest in protecting any other sort of right; it’s something the capital supremacy folks have always wanted but which the desegregation crowd finally joined in on when they thought they could get segregation back by backing capital’s ability to smuggle discrimination under the skirts of its property interests.
When you look at the White Flight phenomenon and correlate it to the widespread disappearance of public 3rd places, When you notice that state colleges and universities lost funding and started hiking tuition shortly after desegregation meant black and brown people could attend them, it sure looks like Americans were faced with the decision to have desegregated public wealth or no public wealth, they chose the latter
UBI is the perfect capitalist solution to the majority of problems. It should allow for less market distortion and could have some really interesting outcomes.
I’m very excited to see a first world country use UBI.
That an externalities can go a long, long way in this world.
Capitalism depends on the threat of homelessness to function. UBI can definitely ameliorate the problems of capitalism, but capitalists will constantly fight it. UBI is also a great idea within socialist economies, where there would be no force against it. We should be doing both - eliminate capitalism and provide UBI.
Capitalism depends on the threat of homelessness to function.
No it doesn’t
UBI is also a great idea within socialist economies, where there would be no force against it.
Maybe. But socialism is a stupid inefficient system, so it’s a non starter.
UBI works very well with the market based capitalist system. That’s where I think it will shine.
Capitalism depends on the threat of homelessness to function.
No it doesn’t
Market economies don’t. Capitalism OTOH by definition has an exploitative class and that class needs a whip to enforce their status. The two have been equivocated a lot by capitalist propaganda, same as they’re equivocating free and unregulated markets (which couldn’t be further apart in reality).
And it doesn’t need to be homelessness as such, it can be many things. The actual question is one of power, whether workers have a realistic option to say “nope, not that shitty a job for that shitty a wage” and tell the bosses to shove it. Can’t exploit someone who can say “fine by me, I’ll get a table saw and start to do some carpentry”.
socialism is a stupid inefficient system, so it’s a non starter.
Socialism is a very broad political movement that works extremely well in some nations.
Sure, there are also nations where it’s a total disaster… but the same is true for capitalism. Socialism should be judged by the best implementations, not the shitty ones.
Did you know that the US does not have a capitalist system? In fact, it’s silly to think of “capitalism” and “socialism” as systems at all. They aren’t. They are broad systemic feature sets. You’ve probably heard the phrase “mixed economy”. That’s actually what nearly every nation has, a mixed economy, meaning that we have socialist, as well as capitalist, elements. In fact, without socialist elements, the capitalist elements of our economy would have self-destructed a long time ago. You clearly have no idea what capitalism or socialism even are. That’s fine, most people don’t, it’s pretty much the norm, but now that it’s been pointed out to you, you have a choice: learn, and grow, or be a stubborn fool. Hopefully you choose well.
Haha I have a degree in economics. That why I can see all the shit you tankies write as just plain wrong.
But I’m sure your youtube video on Karl Marx makes you an expert on these things.
People don’t use words as absolutes. America is largely referred to as a capitalist country. My saying that isn’t incorrect. But you can argue technicalities of words all you want, communism sucks or (mixed economies heavily leaning to communism sucks).
a class of econ 101 does not a degree make, tho it is ironic that the economists with the most predictive power tend to not favor your view on economics
Dude, if you have a degree in econ I think your uni should lose its accreditation. I am dead serious.
Where’s your degree from, Hillsdale? I can’t imagine it would be any serious school.
- If you had a legitimate degree, you probably would be able to make a coherent argument, instead of announcing that you have a degree, like it’s a magic talisman, to always make you right.
- If you had a legitimate degree, you would probably know that there are people with more education than yourself who are socialists, and not believe that having a degree in economics necessarily makes one pro-capitalist.
- If you had a legitimate degree, you would almost certainly have had at least one or two socialist professors on your way to that degree.
- If you had a legitimate degree, you probably would have learned more intellectual discipline than to call anybody who doesn’t agree with private capital a “tankie”.
- If you had a legitimate degree, you probably wouldn’t be so unwise as to assume you were the only one. This thinking shows a really sheltered life, like somebody who has never even been to a university, or encountered new ideas. It connects back to the “magic talisman” view I mentioned above.
Sure, language is complex, and it isn’t broadly wrong to refer to the US as a “capitalist country”, as capitalism is certainly the dominant economic power, here, but that’s intentionally dodging the point. You were the one speaking in absolutes, saying “But socialism is a stupid inefficient system, so it’s a non starter.” That statement alone indicates a complete lack of understanding of what socialism is, an understanding rooted in absolute systems, which in turn heavily implies a lack of understanding of what capitalism is. What do you think these words actually mean? Come on, show me what that Hillsdale degree was worth.
No it doesn’t
It kinda does. Do you think people enjoy working for near poverty wages? They don’t. But they can’t afford to say no to poor pay because it’s still better than no pay. If people weren’t worried about becoming homeless they’d demand for higher pays. In that sense capitalism does depend on the threat of homelessness to drive down the wage to make more profits.
But socialism is a stupid inefficient system, so it’s a non starter.
How to say you don’t know anything about socialism without saying you don’t know anything about socialism. I’m going to give you an example of it working on a smaller scale because US kept sabotaging most national attempts to have socialism. Worker cooperatives are socialist and I recommend looking up the history of Mondragon, a successfully ran cooperative for over half a century now.
You guys are really bad at understanding basic economy theory.
It works on supply and demand and assumes that everyone works rationally and with full knowledge.
The invisible hand of the market finding the optimal solution is basically the 0th law of capitalism.
Now economic policy, you’ll be amazed to understand is about fixing inefficiencies that do not allow for optimal conditions. Tonnes of people go learn about what are the issues with capitalism and how to make it better, that’s what economic testing is about. That’s why it’s better than socialism because it’s competitive and strives for change.
If people are forced to work for poverty wages then they are losing their true value and capitalism would be about trying to fix that value. If everyone had UBI that would equate the negotiating position of workers and they wouldn’t have to take poverty wages. That’s why UBI is the capitalist solution to that problem in capitalism. It allows to market to work the way economists want it to work.
Ah, so the economists you paid someone to tell you to read are better than the ones they read on their own.
Hey, what’s your contribution to the field?
I’m interested in reading a book of yours.
Ah, so the economists you paid someone to tell you to read are better than the ones they read on their own.
In short yes. There have been a 1000 years of development into the formal education system. That has lead to the industrial revolution and other other countless things.
Youtube videos are great but it’s not quite the same.
Hey, what’s your contribution to the field?
Fuck all. But it doesn’t mean my knowledge of the field isn’t in the top 1% of the world.
Bro, you’re out here saying Marx was a 1000 year old pre-industrial economist… Might want to reconsider your placement in the rankings.
and advanced economic theory says that basic economic theory is crap, what you consider “basic economic theory” is woefully outdated and has never been backed by any evidence.
as for the supply and demand crap, it really just boils down to the prisoner’s dilemma,
1: A lowers prices & B lowers prices = lower profits for both
2: A lowers prices & B does not lower prices = A has medium profits, B goes broke
3: A does not lower prices & B lower prices = A goes broke, B has medium profits
4: A does not lower prices & B does not lower prices = both have high profits
and remember, the people running A and B have taken some basic courses in math and logic
It works on supply and demand and assumes that everyone works rationally and with full knowledge.
So it works based on simplifying assumptions that never hold up for real.
You guys are really bad at understanding basic economy theory.
It works on supply and demand and assumes that everyone works rationally and with full knowledge.
Where that falls to shit is the assumption that “everyone works”. Only 132 million people have full time jobs in the United States for example. That’s just 40% of the population.
In reality is basic economic theory is only useful if you’re explaining economics to a child. And you should only start there - you should try to make sure they have a far more comprehensive understanding of economics before they are old enough to vote.
Everything you wrote is great in theory. But in reality…
The invisible hand of the market finding the optimal solution is basically the 0th law of capitalism.
Optimal solution for whom? It’s not an optimal solution for me to work 16 hours a day, but it would be an optimal way solution for businesses who want to maximize the work they get out of their workers. It’s not capitalism that got us 8h a day 5 days a week, it was the response to the “optimal” solution that capitalism came up with, which was to work people 16 hours a day, 6 days a week. In a broad sense our current working hours is not caused by capitalism but socialism.
The current RTO wave is another example how capitalism does not find the optimal solution. Research has shown that working from office is just as productive if not more productive than working from office (in addition to being more beneficial for the worker) and yet capital owners are demanding people return to office.
Tonnes of people go learn about what are the issues with capitalism and how to make it better, that’s what economic testing is about. That’s why it’s better than socialism because it’s competitive and strives for change.
Why do you think socialism is not competitive or striving towards change?
If people are forced to work for poverty wages then they are losing their true value and capitalism would be about trying to fix that value.
The wages are not following the inflation and wealth gap keeps growing. The so called “middle class” is eroding into “lower class” as the wealth gap keeps making people poorer. This has been happening for decades. Where’s the fix?
Where’s the fix to climate change that oil conglomerates knew about since the 70s? Oh right, the “fix” was to run a disinformation campaign until the evidence becomes irrefutable and they’re forced of oil, because it was the “optimal solution” for making a profit.
What you’re talking about is the idyllic version of Capitalism where everything is great and capital solves everything, because that’s what’s taught to you. What is not taught is that it’s not how capitalism actually works.
It’s literally a capitalist solution it’s so funny.
‘Is money a birthright now?’
Hasn’t it always been, either directly or indirectly?
How do you live in Louisiana and not realize your government hates you
Now? When was it not?
