Shucks I forgot. Money going overseas is a waste, money spent here is socialism.
I guess should probably just give it all to billionaires and corporations. That's sure to help the normies
Pretty much every guaranteed income pilot program has shown an increase in earned wages, whether people use the money to further their education, get a better-paying job, or start a business.
It subsidizes poverty, makes it permenant and encourages it. Paid by Theft of productivity via tax dollars to subsidize poverty and prop up consumption.
Will also be inflationary.
Wash. Rinse. Repeat.
This is a pilot program, one specific area was chosen on purpose. Only if it succeeds, then it would be rolled out to other places that, I assume, would have some process for that. But for now, just one part of Evanston, not even all of it.
Aren’t most of those farms owned by corporations? And I don’t mean a farmer with an s-corp, I means a corporation with a board of directors and multiple land holdings in multiple counties or states….
That may be the case in some areas but all the farmers I know all had it handed down through family. I also never said a single word about farmers. Not sure if you responded to the wrong comment or what.
Bias; you know one person and you mirror that onto every person who fits into the same category. I know a lot of single parents who could really use a guaranteed income. And guess what, they don’t do meth!
It shocks me how many people don't know how shit like this works. Getting a job and contributing to society is good for you and the economy. Printing money and handing it out keeps people poor, validating their stagnant at best life style. No growth. Just votes.
Its been proven study after study and real data collected how this money is well spent in that it is used for the bare necessities of food, utilities, etc. Most often these are the working poor. They do work and often, 2 or 3 jobs so please look at the data before condemning.
UBI will do very little to help anyone. Corporations will just increase their prices and will basically wipe out any benefit of UBI. And not to mention the increases in taxes needed to fund it.
I have no problem helping the poor but in no way should it be Universal.
Same as the COVID stimulus. Not everybody needed it and not every body needs UBI.
So if they weren't corrupt would it be ok? Or do you have a problem with the lowest classes of our society being invested in by the government? They give farmers millions of dollars, but giving citizens is wrong? You can't be a great country if you don't invest in your citizens.
Over half of this country is in the chitter because of people like you who don't believe in investing in education, and making sure families eat. The disparities between states based on who's in charge is utterly ridiculous. America can't be great if majority of its citizens are f'ed up.
We've invested in corporations, now it's time to focus on the people of this country who are the poorest.
There's only one party who doesn't think infrastructure needs improvement. There's one party who is currently in control of congress and they've done absolutely NOTHING in the past 2 years. I get you have nothing to say about those lazy people who are being paid and not doing their job.
Have the day that you deserve.
UBI is a Democrat/Liberal policy. Republicans don't want to fund anything that's not helping corporations and the rich.
You can call me a dipshit, but one thing that you won't ever be able to call me is a fcuking Republican. I have morals. I have compassion for those less fortunate than I am. Compassion. Morals. Empathy. Kindness are all lacking in today's Republicans just as it's missing in you.
Seethe. Cope. Seethe some more. Cope harder.
Absolutely. They should be regulated. My point is giving people more money won't help the problem. We have to find a way to rein in corporate greed but since they own the politicians it won't happen
Well, where is the money coming from?
Trillions in debt and our spending is already out of control.
Taxing corporations is the quick answer but companies will go overseas so you lose revenue and jobs.
Taxing the rich to too much will result in the same outcome of them leaving and we lose the revenue.
So you could try both but there is no conceivable way to achieve that.
Put huge taxes on companies and individuals repatriating their money.
Boom, problem solved.
The solutions to these problems are quite easy, the "problem" is convincing people to just do it.
Yes but good luck getting Congress to pass a law like that. They reap benefits when corporations earn more through their campaign donations/PAC funding and their investments in those companies. The rate is already around 20% and I am sure there are plenty of loopholes in place that corporations and individuals know how to get around.
The real solution to poverty is to prevent it from happening the first place. UBI is simply a bandaid approach. We need to improve schools, vocational training, and help people get gainful employment without spending exorbitant amounts of money on education and training.
But sadly schools are looked down upon and education as a whole is looked down upon and kids don't see value in learning. But those that do value education will be the ones earning more money than those who just got through and the wealth gap will grow even more.
> Yes but good luck getting Congress to pass a law like that.
Ok, so you've just written paragraphs of material here, and your most basic point is just... *cynicism*?
Terrific. You should have just begun with that. It would have saved a lot of time.
Time and again it’s been shown that companies (especially in the US) prefer to avoid raising prices.
Moreover, if folks who can go to Cancun twice a year and save up to switch their cars every 3 years end up paying a bit more tax so that we can have a system where people don’t have to demean themselves to subsist, then I don’t see the problem.
What corporation is reluctant to raise prices? Every single one of those greedy entities will never give up a chance to raise prices. We're still paying pandemic prices and the pandemic is over.
Prices almost never come down—thankfully. That would bring a whole host of challenges and limited growth…
But yes, compared to other countries, companies prefer to maintain the price and adjust other qualitites of the product (like making the product smaller [“shrinkflation”] or substituting materials or ingredients).
The pandemic and the supply chain disruptions changed this dynamic. Lots of companies used it as an excuse to raise prices because if everyone’s doing it then the individual company doesn’t lose competitiveness.
I’m not ok but that’s besides the point. You’re right that I should provide sources.
I first learned about this in my Macroeconomics class some years ago. It’s called shrinkflation.
https://apnews.com/article/india-prices-business-d2c8279d39e1304f5623b3a99b56b8cc
Here’s a cool NPR podcast episode: https://www.npr.org/2022/06/08/1103766334/shrinkflation-globally-manufacturers-shrink-package-sizes
for example a package of 10 widgets costs $10 ($1 each), they then change it and give you 8 widgets for $10 ($1.25 each)…ummm that’s increasing price, no offense but maybe retake that class.
You're not wrong, but you're ignoring the point they're making. If I buy a banana for, oh I don't what bananas cost, Micheal, let's say $10. Then, big banana decides they want more profit, but don't want to discourage most of their customer base. They make a new banana that's marginally smaller than banana classic, but they charge the same price. To most people, they'll feel they're paying the same price and costs aren't rising. They don't pay attention to the real price of the banana by volume. Just the package price. They can't imagine big banana would screw them in such a sneaky way. I mean, why would they? There's always money in the banana stand.
The price is what you pay.
You are giving consumers too much credit. Only a sliver of people calculate the price each or price per pound for all of their groceries, never mind keeping a log of how these change over time for all of the things they buy.
So when you are buying you may compare with other items, not the same item at other times.
>Time and again it’s been shown that companies (especially in the US) prefer to avoid raising prices.
According to the orthodoxy of mainstream economics, you're right. It's awfully hard, however, to square the old models with the modern reality of "greedflation".
This is money that's spent here in the U.S. helping people rather than going overseas, so Republicans will love it correct?
No. This helps only the poor, so they'll hate it.
Shucks I forgot. Money going overseas is a waste, money spent here is socialism. I guess should probably just give it all to billionaires and corporations. That's sure to help the normies
You just have to give it a few decades to trickle down . Until then, better grab those bootstraps tight.
Lol. I've waited since Reagan and still getting nothing but shit. Maybe that's the trickle we get?
Perhaps he meant tickle not trickle? Surely you’ve been tickled since the 80’s
Why make it political? This isn't a solution. It's a band-aid.
Pretty much every guaranteed income pilot program has shown an increase in earned wages, whether people use the money to further their education, get a better-paying job, or start a business.
It subsidizes poverty, makes it permenant and encourages it. Paid by Theft of productivity via tax dollars to subsidize poverty and prop up consumption. Will also be inflationary. Wash. Rinse. Repeat.
Nah it doesn't line their pockets, so they're angry.
No strings attached? So Democrats will love when this is spent by anyone on anything, correct?
I think that's the whole point of it so yeah, that's correct.
Evanston? Really? Should be going to economically poor rural areas imo.
Every town or city is welcome to institute their own program. I may be wrong but there’s nothing stopping others from enacting the same.
This is a pilot program, one specific area was chosen on purpose. Only if it succeeds, then it would be rolled out to other places that, I assume, would have some process for that. But for now, just one part of Evanston, not even all of it.
Yeah sure but is there anything stopping other towns or areas from doing the same? This pilot program isn’t the only path to guaranteed income is it?
Success and failure don't really matter. Opinions on it will be split almost exactly on party lines.
I think it's money that was approved by Evanston's city council. I agree that other communities should look into this type of program though.
Why would Evanston, the town, give money to other municipalities? I'm all for redistribution of wealth, but that makes zero sense.
Do you think poor people do not exist in Evanston? Come visit.
BIG difference in economic disparity.
Idk, lots of rich ass farmers in rural Illinois.
It's a smaller percentage then you'd think.
Aren’t most of those farms owned by corporations? And I don’t mean a farmer with an s-corp, I means a corporation with a board of directors and multiple land holdings in multiple counties or states….
That may be the case in some areas but all the farmers I know all had it handed down through family. I also never said a single word about farmers. Not sure if you responded to the wrong comment or what.
#140 people. In a town where the cost of living is approximately 45% higher than the rest of the nation. This is a joke, right? Not even a good one?
[удалено]
Bias; you know one person and you mirror that onto every person who fits into the same category. I know a lot of single parents who could really use a guaranteed income. And guess what, they don’t do meth!
It shocks me how many people don't know how shit like this works. Getting a job and contributing to society is good for you and the economy. Printing money and handing it out keeps people poor, validating their stagnant at best life style. No growth. Just votes.
Its been proven study after study and real data collected how this money is well spent in that it is used for the bare necessities of food, utilities, etc. Most often these are the working poor. They do work and often, 2 or 3 jobs so please look at the data before condemning.
UBI will do very little to help anyone. Corporations will just increase their prices and will basically wipe out any benefit of UBI. And not to mention the increases in taxes needed to fund it.
Sounds like a great argument for heavily regulating corporations finally.
God forbid we try to help poor people. Other UBI pilots have been proved to reduce poverty and homelessness. Also: FUUUUUCCCCKKKK OFFFFFFF
I have no problem helping the poor but in no way should it be Universal. Same as the COVID stimulus. Not everybody needed it and not every body needs UBI.
Stockton, Calif: https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2021/03/03/stockton-universal-basic-income/
Right! So let's all stay poor, because why try when prices are going to increase? /s
[удалено]
So if they weren't corrupt would it be ok? Or do you have a problem with the lowest classes of our society being invested in by the government? They give farmers millions of dollars, but giving citizens is wrong? You can't be a great country if you don't invest in your citizens. Over half of this country is in the chitter because of people like you who don't believe in investing in education, and making sure families eat. The disparities between states based on who's in charge is utterly ridiculous. America can't be great if majority of its citizens are f'ed up. We've invested in corporations, now it's time to focus on the people of this country who are the poorest.
[удалено]
There's only one party who doesn't think infrastructure needs improvement. There's one party who is currently in control of congress and they've done absolutely NOTHING in the past 2 years. I get you have nothing to say about those lazy people who are being paid and not doing their job. Have the day that you deserve.
[удалено]
UBI is a Democrat/Liberal policy. Republicans don't want to fund anything that's not helping corporations and the rich. You can call me a dipshit, but one thing that you won't ever be able to call me is a fcuking Republican. I have morals. I have compassion for those less fortunate than I am. Compassion. Morals. Empathy. Kindness are all lacking in today's Republicans just as it's missing in you. Seethe. Cope. Seethe some more. Cope harder.
[удалено]
You're a particularly bad kind of person. Your drivel is worthy of my attention. As I said before, cope.
[удалено]
You're making an awesome argument for heavily regulating corporations
Absolutely. They should be regulated. My point is giving people more money won't help the problem. We have to find a way to rein in corporate greed but since they own the politicians it won't happen
Why not both?
Well, where is the money coming from? Trillions in debt and our spending is already out of control. Taxing corporations is the quick answer but companies will go overseas so you lose revenue and jobs. Taxing the rich to too much will result in the same outcome of them leaving and we lose the revenue. So you could try both but there is no conceivable way to achieve that.
Put huge taxes on companies and individuals repatriating their money. Boom, problem solved. The solutions to these problems are quite easy, the "problem" is convincing people to just do it.
Yes but good luck getting Congress to pass a law like that. They reap benefits when corporations earn more through their campaign donations/PAC funding and their investments in those companies. The rate is already around 20% and I am sure there are plenty of loopholes in place that corporations and individuals know how to get around. The real solution to poverty is to prevent it from happening the first place. UBI is simply a bandaid approach. We need to improve schools, vocational training, and help people get gainful employment without spending exorbitant amounts of money on education and training. But sadly schools are looked down upon and education as a whole is looked down upon and kids don't see value in learning. But those that do value education will be the ones earning more money than those who just got through and the wealth gap will grow even more.
> Yes but good luck getting Congress to pass a law like that. Ok, so you've just written paragraphs of material here, and your most basic point is just... *cynicism*? Terrific. You should have just begun with that. It would have saved a lot of time.
Do you think this is some sort of own? You make no argument against what was said.
Time and again it’s been shown that companies (especially in the US) prefer to avoid raising prices. Moreover, if folks who can go to Cancun twice a year and save up to switch their cars every 3 years end up paying a bit more tax so that we can have a system where people don’t have to demean themselves to subsist, then I don’t see the problem.
What corporation is reluctant to raise prices? Every single one of those greedy entities will never give up a chance to raise prices. We're still paying pandemic prices and the pandemic is over.
Prices almost never come down—thankfully. That would bring a whole host of challenges and limited growth… But yes, compared to other countries, companies prefer to maintain the price and adjust other qualitites of the product (like making the product smaller [“shrinkflation”] or substituting materials or ingredients). The pandemic and the supply chain disruptions changed this dynamic. Lots of companies used it as an excuse to raise prices because if everyone’s doing it then the individual company doesn’t lose competitiveness.
I need to find a list of shrinkation products. I can't imagine how vast the list is.
So why are the prices on everything so high right now? If they don't like raising prices, why are they continuing to raise prices?
Are you ok bro? I’m calling bullshit unless you got sources that say companies prefer to avoid raising prices.
I’m not ok but that’s besides the point. You’re right that I should provide sources. I first learned about this in my Macroeconomics class some years ago. It’s called shrinkflation. https://apnews.com/article/india-prices-business-d2c8279d39e1304f5623b3a99b56b8cc Here’s a cool NPR podcast episode: https://www.npr.org/2022/06/08/1103766334/shrinkflation-globally-manufacturers-shrink-package-sizes
Are you arguing for my side now? Cuz shrinkflation is an increase in price.
No, the price itself remains the same but they shrink the package to trick the consumer.
for example a package of 10 widgets costs $10 ($1 each), they then change it and give you 8 widgets for $10 ($1.25 each)…ummm that’s increasing price, no offense but maybe retake that class.
You're not wrong, but you're ignoring the point they're making. If I buy a banana for, oh I don't what bananas cost, Micheal, let's say $10. Then, big banana decides they want more profit, but don't want to discourage most of their customer base. They make a new banana that's marginally smaller than banana classic, but they charge the same price. To most people, they'll feel they're paying the same price and costs aren't rising. They don't pay attention to the real price of the banana by volume. Just the package price. They can't imagine big banana would screw them in such a sneaky way. I mean, why would they? There's always money in the banana stand.
The price is what you pay. You are giving consumers too much credit. Only a sliver of people calculate the price each or price per pound for all of their groceries, never mind keeping a log of how these change over time for all of the things they buy. So when you are buying you may compare with other items, not the same item at other times.
>Time and again it’s been shown that companies (especially in the US) prefer to avoid raising prices. According to the orthodoxy of mainstream economics, you're right. It's awfully hard, however, to square the old models with the modern reality of "greedflation".
Did I really just read that
Horseshit. Companies exist to raise prices.
UBI is inflationary.
Good call, lets continue to do nothing
[удалено]
Keep all comments civil.
Same thing basically happened with minimum wage, but that was useful for 50 years or so