Author Topic: Trickle Up Economics at it's finest!  (Read 5004 times)

Capt j-rod

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 247
Trickle Up Economics at it's finest!
« on: February 07, 2018, 10:54:31 AM »
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/02/07/post-bankruptcy-california-city-tests-universal-income-for-residents.html

If you give a mustacian $500 they will invest it because they already have their finances under control. The newbies would pay off debt. Give it to the morons and there will be a sweet party! There is about to be a serious run on liquor, smokes, scratch-offs, shoes, sunglasses, smart phones, junk food, fast food, and other financial fuckery!

bacchi

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2419
Re: Trickle Up Economics at it's finest!
« Reply #1 on: February 07, 2018, 01:17:20 PM »
Mincome studies around the world have found that poor people, overwhelmingly, spend their money wisely. They pay off debt or start businesses or go back to school. Even the homeless who have been given money, without any constraints, find apartments and spend less on alcohol and drugs.

ketchup

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3099
  • Age: 26
Re: Trickle Up Economics at it's finest!
« Reply #2 on: February 07, 2018, 01:36:43 PM »
Also, any proponents I've read of a universal basic income have it replacing welfare, food stamps, etc., not supplementing it.  In theory it'd be a lot simpler than the current system, and not prone to welfare-cliff traps which are huge disincentives to earning more and upward mobility.

Dabnasty

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 439
  • Age: 28
  • Location: North Carolina
Re: Trickle Up Economics at it's finest!
« Reply #3 on: February 08, 2018, 02:44:16 PM »
Shame and Comedy? I don't get it, social experiment hoping to be the early stages of solving one of the biggest issues facing the world?

Thanks for the link though, I'm interested in seeing what they find.

a1pharm

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 62
Re: Trickle Up Economics at it's finest!
« Reply #4 on: February 08, 2018, 03:44:11 PM »
Headline: Post-bankruptcy California city tests ‘universal’ income for residents

Excerpt: "Several-dozen families will be given $500 a month, and monitored to see what they do with the money and how it affects self-esteem and identity."

a1pharm's conclusion: clickbait

Seriously though, it almost sounds like the person/people funding this "experiment" are just voyeurs wanting to find out what poor people spend money on. 

It's kinda fucked up.

WhiteTrashCash

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1050
Re: Trickle Up Economics at it's finest!
« Reply #5 on: February 08, 2018, 04:16:58 PM »
When I was a child and I didn't get enough to eat, it was because I didn't have any money. If I had had money, I could have gone to the store and bought myself some food. That's how money works. You exchange it for goods and services.

bacchi

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2419
Re: Trickle Up Economics at it's finest!
« Reply #6 on: February 08, 2018, 11:04:36 PM »
Poor people are poor because they have no money. It's pretty simple, really.

GiveDirectly gives the impoverished money. It works when they've done it.

Now, will it work in Stockton where inequity is much higher than a village in Africa? Where the temptation to buy the latest iPhone is much greater? That's what an experiment will show.

The article headline is definitely clickbait. What does it matter if the city declared bankruptcy recently? It's not city money; it's funded by a non-profit.

JLee

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4317
Re: Trickle Up Economics at it's finest!
« Reply #7 on: February 08, 2018, 11:45:39 PM »
I have yet to see any studies that indicate UBI would result in "morons buying liquor, smokes, scratch-offs, shoes, sunglasses, smart phones, junk food, fast food, and other financial fuckery."  OP, you appear exceptionally judgmental of massive swathes of people, and also uneducated as to what studies have shown on this topic to date.

We need more data before anything conclusive can be drawn, but it was tested in Canada many years ago:
https://www.marketplace.org/2016/12/20/world/dauphin
Quote
The initial results are striking: the vast majority of Mincome participants kept working.

Primary wage earners worked a little less, but only slightly.

Married women backed off too, but mostly to take longer maternity leaves.

There was a drop in work by teenage boys, but Forget says many simply were able to stay in high school longer. Their families weren’t as desperate for another breadwinner.

Forget said the income helped people live beyond the next paycheck. “The idea was to create a little bit of cushion," she said.

Forget said Mincome also appears to have boosted well-being. Hospitalizations fell significantly, especially for mental health problems. That extra money may have relieved some of the stress of “getting by.”

“It doesn’t surprise me,” she said. “The amount of stress that a family operates under is strongly related to the amount of money a family has.”


A more current research project:

Quote
http://rooseveltinstitute.org/modeling-macroeconomic-effects-ubi/
How would a massive federal spending program like a universal basic income (UBI) affect the macroeconomy? We use the Levy Institute macroeconometric model to estimate the impact of three versions of such an unconditional cash assistance program over an eight-year time horizon. Overall, we find that the economy can not only withstand large increases in federal spending, but could also grow thanks to the stimulative effects of cash transfers on the economy.

I think it's important to plan ahead for some form of universal income due to the increase in automation and efficiency we have as a society.  There's going to be a point where we simply have to invent worthless "jobs" just to keep people "working" so they "earn" a paycheck...when we could just have a machine replace them for a tiny fraction of the cost. No productivity is lost, and now there are a bunch of people who have to go find something else to do.  That point is made here:

Quote
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/universal-basic-income/
It’s not just governments and charities attracted to the idea of basic income. The private sector is curious, too. Silicon Valley in particular. These enthusiasts are motivated less by an interest in improving the welfare state and more by a desire to guard against much bigger economic changes coming down the pike. In a much-written-about 2013 paper, two Oxford economists estimated that 47 percent of all U.S. jobs were at risk of computerization. Increasingly, technologists envision basic income as a “hack,” or fix, to the system — it offers a way of coping with an economic future dominated by automation, a fallback plan for when most human labor isn’t valued or needed.

“We think there could be a possibility where 95 percent — or a vast majority — of people won’t be able to contribute to the workforce,” said Matt Krisiloff, the manager of Y Combinator’s basic income project. “We need to start preparing for that transformation.”


WhiteTrashCash

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1050
Re: Trickle Up Economics at it's finest!
« Reply #8 on: February 09, 2018, 04:30:20 AM »
"Oh, man. I wish I had more income, so I could pay for an apartment or some food in the fridge. I'm so hungry and I have nowhere to live."

"Here's $500."

"Hooray! Now I can get a new iPhone!"

Do you see how ridiculous that looks? They are poor people. Not insane people.

Just Joe

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1403
Re: Trickle Up Economics at it's finest!
« Reply #9 on: February 09, 2018, 07:30:50 AM »
Are poor Americans different than poor Europeans or poor Canadians?

I've seen some people do some really stupid stuff that they could not afford. Hell, I've done some stupid stuff that I could not afford in my younger days.

Somehow I expect the Americans to do some of the very stuff detailed in earlier comments. We seem to be a rather short sighted breed of people. No long game at all in a portion of the population.

Dabnasty

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 439
  • Age: 28
  • Location: North Carolina
Re: Trickle Up Economics at it's finest!
« Reply #10 on: February 09, 2018, 08:43:24 AM »
Certainly there would be a mix. Some people are going to waste the money and some are going to use it to improve their lives but that's the point of the experiment, see what happens. It's important that they find a way to not select recipients who are more responsible than average for the study to have any meaning.

I don't think comparing this to a windfall like winning the lottery where people are likely to blow the money on crap is justified though. In those cases someone who has very little may see a $10,000 pay day and think "wow, I've never had so much money. How could it possibly run out?" But $500/month for someone who is hungry and behind on their bills? I suspect most of those people would put the money to good use.

I've only read about a few similar studies which were very small scale but their conclusions were generally that no strings attached money improved lives more than current welfare programs. Here's one example which is quite different than the Stockton study but nonetheless is rather surprising.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/free-money-might-be-the-best-way-to-end-poverty/2013/12/29/679c8344-5ec8-11e3-95c2-13623eb2b0e1_story.html?utm_term=.d349e20edd66

Capt j-rod

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 247
Re: Trickle Up Economics at it's finest!
« Reply #11 on: February 09, 2018, 05:30:29 PM »
I have rental property. I have seen it first hand. Those on assistance are usually spending every dime they have. Those who are working to get by cook food, walk or bike to work, ask me for odd jobs and work to subsidize their rent. My metro property leaves the door open in winter, eats all fast food, and have no desire or need to do otherwise. Of course there are exceptions. I have a younger couple and he is laid off for winter. He has shoveled the drive way and is literally asking me every week if I have any work or know someone who does. Last year they grew a garden and borrowed my pressure canner to preserve it. Rent is NEVER late. Might be $50 short but he ALWAYS pays it back. They are now musicians thanks to my suggestion and the inputs of this site. I too would like to see these results of this study.

Finances_With_Purpose

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 374
    • Finances With Purpose: deploying resources wisely to live vigorously
Re: Trickle Up Economics at it's finest!
« Reply #12 on: February 09, 2018, 09:34:21 PM »
I have rental property. I have seen it first hand. Those on assistance are usually spending every dime they have. Those who are working to get by cook food, walk or bike to work, ask me for odd jobs and work to subsidize their rent. My metro property leaves the door open in winter, eats all fast food, and have no desire or need to do otherwise. Of course there are exceptions. I have a younger couple and he is laid off for winter. He has shoveled the drive way and is literally asking me every week if I have any work or know someone who does. Last year they grew a garden and borrowed my pressure canner to preserve it. Rent is NEVER late. Might be $50 short but he ALWAYS pays it back. They are now musicians thanks to my suggestion and the inputs of this site. I too would like to see these results of this study.

Kudos to you for giving those folks a chance.  Paying short but on time late takes a certain kind of humility and hard work at the same time.  Plus asking for jobs.  I hope to hear they're doing well somewhere years hence...

Capt j-rod

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 247
Re: Trickle Up Economics at it's finest!
« Reply #13 on: February 10, 2018, 01:45:21 PM »
This year has been much better for them. They had a good savings built up but then some medical bills and car trouble came up. Not only did they tell me in advance, but insisted I see the bills as well as where they paid them so that I didn't think they were making up excuses. They are young and in their early 20's. He is a concrete worker so winter is hard. The light bulb has definitely come on and they now understand how this game of life works. I had him cleaning my basement and garage last week. The guy is a machine. Their drive is what makes me dislike the programs described in the thread. The answer isn't cash and prizes, the answer is living with what you have and making it work.

JLee

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4317
Re: Trickle Up Economics at it's finest!
« Reply #14 on: February 11, 2018, 04:14:11 PM »
This year has been much better for them. They had a good savings built up but then some medical bills and car trouble came up. Not only did they tell me in advance, but insisted I see the bills as well as where they paid them so that I didn't think they were making up excuses. They are young and in their early 20's. He is a concrete worker so winter is hard. The light bulb has definitely come on and they now understand how this game of life works. I had him cleaning my basement and garage last week. The guy is a machine. Their drive is what makes me dislike the programs described in the thread. The answer isn't cash and prizes, the answer is living with what you have and making it work.

He is a concrete worker, so presumably in good health. What happens if he's injured?

SwordGuy

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3672
  • Location: Fayetteville, NC
    • Flipping Fayetteville
Re: Trickle Up Economics at it's finest!
« Reply #15 on: February 11, 2018, 04:52:52 PM »
"Oh, man. I wish I had more income, so I could pay for an apartment or some food in the fridge. I'm so hungry and I have nowhere to live."

"Here's $500."

"Hooray! Now I can get a new iPhone!"

Do you see how ridiculous that looks? They are poor people. Not insane people.

Well, I worked and lived in downtown DC for a few years during the work-week.  My company won a big contract that morning.  I was walking down the street and was accosted by someone with a sob story.   Feeling extra generous I handed the person two $20 bills.   They ran off down the street like a rocket, shouting for their drinking buddy to join them, and ran straight into the liquor store.   Shouted "We got the money!  We got the money!" the whole way.

So, yep.   It sure looked ridiculous, I'll grant you.   But that doesn't make it any less true.

A week later she hit me up for more money with the same sob story.   You can guess what I told her.

The truth is somewhere between both your positions.  Some poor folks are poor because of bad luck, or bad choices in the past that they are working hard to overcome.   Others are poor because of past and current bad choices they have absolutely no intention of changing.


partgypsy

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1722
Re: Trickle Up Economics at it's finest!
« Reply #16 on: February 12, 2018, 07:05:07 AM »
There is definitely a "poor" mentality. People who have been poor for a long time, that even if they get money it is not a tool to get into a better situation, but seen as a transient good luck to be blown as soon a possible, before someone else does. My sister is usually employed but goes from one job to the next. She lived with my mom and my older brother for years. They all smoke, and Mom and brother drinks (he's an alcoholic). Whenever they find out she has any little money, they will not stop bugging her. So she gives in, buys the groceries, smokes, booze, etc to get them off her back. Or, knowing that the money will soon be gone, she spends it first, buying cheap fashion clothes or nutritional supplements, stuff that gives her a temporary happiness boost. The end result is, even when she made OK money and didn't have to pay rent, she never accrued any savings. And whenever shelost her job, or had a big bill (medical, car) she would quickly go into debt and be unable to pay it. I just don't know at this point, if she can change. She is now living with my brother, not working or contributing towards household bills, and unable to pay her cell and car payments. It makes me sad for her, and my lil brother, who has a mortgage and his own financial concerns who could really use the help of a paying roommate. So what is she doing? my Mom recently sold her house. So now she (and other people in my family) are bugging my Mom to borrow money. Sigh.
« Last Edit: February 12, 2018, 07:07:02 AM by partgypsy »

Roe

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 175
Re: Trickle Up Economics at it's finest!
« Reply #17 on: February 12, 2018, 07:28:29 AM »
As several people have pointed out there is a certain mindset that comes from stress of not knowing, stress from too many setbacks and similar situations. If you have been in Poor-land too long, or too deep, a sudden windfall runs a high risk of being squandered on something "useless".

It kind of makes sense. I wasn't able to pay all bills on time last month, and I wont be able to next month. Wasting this money on bills wont change anything in the long run. But if I buy the latest smartphone, I will have something nice that's otherwise out of reach.

I suspect that the "free" money experiment won't turn out as well as it would as a long time thing. Im hoping for automation to, in the end, result in a universal basic income. While a high reaching dream, the mentality of spending while it's there would not grab hold of as many people as today. 
Beans&rice, my love!

Just Joe

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1403
Re: Trickle Up Economics at it's finest!
« Reply #18 on: February 12, 2018, 07:37:00 AM »
You don't think that if the money was reliable that people would eventually stabilize and live on a "budget"?

...or would they take on payment books until all the easy money was spent each month?
« Last Edit: February 12, 2018, 07:47:08 AM by Just Joe »

TheGrimSqueaker

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1746
  • Location: A desert wasteland, where none but the weird survive
  • www.theliveinlandlord.com
    • The Live-In Landlord
Re: Trickle Up Economics at it's finest!
« Reply #19 on: February 12, 2018, 07:56:07 AM »
There is definitely a "poor" mentality. People who have been poor for a long time, that even if they get money it is not a tool to get into a better situation, but seen as a transient good luck to be blown as soon a possible, before someone else does. My sister is usually employed but goes from one job to the next. She lived with my mom and my older brother for years. They all smoke, and Mom and brother drinks (he's an alcoholic). Whenever they find out she has any little money, they will not stop bugging her. So she gives in, buys the groceries, smokes, booze, etc to get them off her back. Or, knowing that the money will soon be gone, she spends it first, buying cheap fashion clothes or nutritional supplements, stuff that gives her a temporary happiness boost. The end result is, even when she made OK money and didn't have to pay rent, she never accrued any savings. And whenever shelost her job, or had a big bill (medical, car) she would quickly go into debt and be unable to pay it. I just don't know at this point, if she can change. She is now living with my brother, not working or contributing towards household bills, and unable to pay her cell and car payments. It makes me sad for her, and my lil brother, who has a mortgage and his own financial concerns who could really use the help of a paying roommate. So what is she doing? my Mom recently sold her house. So now she (and other people in my family) are bugging my Mom to borrow money. Sigh.

I've bolded one of the key problems that productive individuals have in generationally poor families. In a normal family with maybe three generations there's generally a set of kids, a set of elders, and a set of working-aged adults. The working-aged adults can, under normal circumstances, provide for themselves, their own kids, and a little extra to the elders who have already paid for their homes and/or secured their retirement income. From time to time an elder moves in with working-aged adults to provide child care. But when one or more of the working-aged adults are defective in some way, it causes a chain reaction. By "defective" I don't mean a low IQ, a disability, or something similar. I'm referring to an active addiction, an unmanaged mental health problem, or anything else that causes an otherwise able-bodied individual to either not earn or to spend through whatever they earn.

A working-aged adult is *way* better at getting resources out of the family than a child or sick elder is: they do not take time off from it except to feed their own addictions, impulse purchases, or whatever else is causing them to be defective, and it does eventually wear down the family members who give to them just to make them go away. The only effective defense against people like that-- many of whom will gladly steal what you don't willingly give-- is to not be reachable or to not actually have what they're asking for.
I squeak softly, but carry a big schtick.

Roe

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 175
Re: Trickle Up Economics at it's finest!
« Reply #20 on: February 12, 2018, 08:05:03 AM »
There is definitely a "poor" mentality. People who have been poor for a long time, that even if they get money it is not a tool to get into a better situation, but seen as a transient good luck to be blown as soon a possible, before someone else does. My sister is usually employed but goes from one job to the next. She lived with my mom and my older brother for years. They all smoke, and Mom and brother drinks (he's an alcoholic). Whenever they find out she has any little money, they will not stop bugging her. So she gives in, buys the groceries, smokes, booze, etc to get them off her back. Or, knowing that the money will soon be gone, she spends it first, buying cheap fashion clothes or nutritional supplements, stuff that gives her a temporary happiness boost. The end result is, even when she made OK money and didn't have to pay rent, she never accrued any savings. And whenever shelost her job, or had a big bill (medical, car) she would quickly go into debt and be unable to pay it. I just don't know at this point, if she can change. She is now living with my brother, not working or contributing towards household bills, and unable to pay her cell and car payments. It makes me sad for her, and my lil brother, who has a mortgage and his own financial concerns who could really use the help of a paying roommate. So what is she doing? my Mom recently sold her house. So now she (and other people in my family) are bugging my Mom to borrow money. Sigh.

I've bolded one of the key problems that productive individuals have in generationally poor families. In a normal family with maybe three generations there's generally a set of kids, a set of elders, and a set of working-aged adults. The working-aged adults can, under normal circumstances, provide for themselves, their own kids, and a little extra to the elders who have already paid for their homes and/or secured their retirement income. From time to time an elder moves in with working-aged adults to provide child care. But when one or more of the working-aged adults are defective in some way, it causes a chain reaction. By "defective" I don't mean a low IQ, a disability, or something similar. I'm referring to an active addiction, an unmanaged mental health problem, or anything else that causes an otherwise able-bodied individual to either not earn or to spend through whatever they earn.

A working-aged adult is *way* better at getting resources out of the family than a child or sick elder is: they do not take time off from it except to feed their own addictions, impulse purchases, or whatever else is causing them to be defective, and it does eventually wear down the family members who give to them just to make them go away. The only effective defense against people like that-- many of whom will gladly steal what you don't willingly give-- is to not be reachable or to not actually have what they're asking for.

I read an article about a gypsy in her late teens. She had traveled with her family to my country, where the family intended to beg. It was quite an uplifting article, she was very firm about wanting something better for herself. She had her eyes on a career and studied to get there.

A relatively short while later they did a follow up interview with her. She had stopped studying, and seemed to have given up on her dream. Reason being that when people went out to beg, they demanded she watched their children. In the end she didn't have any time for her studies, and gave up.

Maybe not quite the same situation as you described, but another sad example of how someone is held back due to family/background. 
Beans&rice, my love!

mm1970

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5000
Re: Trickle Up Economics at it's finest!
« Reply #21 on: February 12, 2018, 11:06:49 AM »
"Oh, man. I wish I had more income, so I could pay for an apartment or some food in the fridge. I'm so hungry and I have nowhere to live."

"Here's $500."

"Hooray! Now I can get a new iPhone!"

Do you see how ridiculous that looks? They are poor people. Not insane people.

Well, I worked and lived in downtown DC for a few years during the work-week.  My company won a big contract that morning.  I was walking down the street and was accosted by someone with a sob story.   Feeling extra generous I handed the person two $20 bills.   They ran off down the street like a rocket, shouting for their drinking buddy to join them, and ran straight into the liquor store.   Shouted "We got the money!  We got the money!" the whole way.

So, yep.   It sure looked ridiculous, I'll grant you.   But that doesn't make it any less true.

A week later she hit me up for more money with the same sob story.   You can guess what I told her.

The truth is somewhere between both your positions.  Some poor folks are poor because of bad luck, or bad choices in the past that they are working hard to overcome.   Others are poor because of past and current bad choices they have absolutely no intention of changing.
It's her job.

There are, quite literally, people in my town whose families panhandle for a living.  I've been hit up at the gas station by a reasonably dressed, middle aged woman driving a minivan "on a business trip and I need gas money".  I was post-partum, on my way to work, and exhausted, so I said "I don't have any money".

My town has such a wide variety of people - bleeding hearts who give money to everyone because it's the right thing to do, and they are sympathetic, and what if they really need it, to people who are way more skeptical and give nothing, to the in between, like us, who donate to charities.

Anyway, there was an article in our paper a few years ago profiling some families who brought in close to six figures by panhandling.

A few years ago, a friend had his identity stolen, right when he and his wife were trying to get a mortgage.  What a mess to cancel the illegal credit cards.  I said "get a job!" but you know, that IS their job, really.  Which is sad.

Scandium

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2061
  • Location: EastCoast
Re: Trickle Up Economics at it's finest!
« Reply #22 on: February 12, 2018, 12:34:11 PM »
nice! Can we please have more anecdotal stories to dehumanize poor people? Once we really hammer home the point that they are sub-human scum unworthy of help and basic respect, who will squander the riches we shower on them, then we can finally take away all social benefits and start harvesting their organs.
Everything is going as planned..
« Last Edit: February 12, 2018, 01:39:42 PM by Scandium »

Roe

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 175
Re: Trickle Up Economics at it's finest!
« Reply #23 on: February 12, 2018, 02:29:14 PM »
nice! Can we please have more anecdotal stories to dehumanize poor people? Once we really hammer home the point that they are sub-human scum unworthy of help and basic respect, who will squander the riches we shower on them, then we can finally take away all social benefits and start harvesting their organs.
Everything is going as planned..

Im sorry if any of my posts came across that way, that was not my intention.

I was commenting on how long term poverty makes it harder to make rational decisions, and maybe even how long term poverty changes what, objectively, is a good decision.

I believe that a lot of people in the mentioned experiment will run out and blow the money, because it is short term and all their life has taught them to use it while you can. If it was a more long term thing, less people would use it on short term happiness. Still some wouldn't be able to change, due to habit, and the mechanics that TGS describes so well. However, if it was truly long term thing, the next generation would not get the depravity mindset from their parents, and would be able to make more rational decision about the money and their future.

It's like the exampel with the sugar cane farmers, a truly universal basic income would lift us above that. I hope to see it in my lifetime.
Beans&rice, my love!

WhiteTrashCash

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1050
Re: Trickle Up Economics at it's finest!
« Reply #24 on: February 12, 2018, 02:44:44 PM »
I'm going to contain my white trash rage and just leave this for some of you folks on this thread. It's the full text of Jonathan Swift's "A Modest Proposal". http://emotionalliteracyeducation.com/classic_books_online/mdprp10.htm

Seems like you should probably read it.

RFAAOATB

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 529
Re: Trickle Up Economics at it's finest!
« Reply #25 on: February 12, 2018, 03:16:52 PM »
nice! Can we please have more anecdotal stories to dehumanize poor people? Once we really hammer home the point that they are sub-human scum unworthy of help and basic respect, who will squander the riches we shower on them, then we can finally take away all social benefits and start harvesting their organs.
Everything is going as planned..

I've noticed the more my net worth increases, the easier it is to dehumanize the poor.  I mean, if the poor are happy good for them, but why should we keep subsidizing their poor decisions? 

one piece at a time

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 54
Re: Trickle Up Economics at it's finest!
« Reply #26 on: February 12, 2018, 03:23:45 PM »
It is a chicken and egg problem. Poor people don't make good decisions because they are poor...

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5641572/

extract....

Cognitive load refers to the presence of a burden on the cognitive system of an individual. An increase in cognitive load can occur when dealing with a problem and focusing attention on certain stimuli, thus leading to a reduced ability to attend to other stimuli (Paas and Van Merrienboer, 1994; Sweller et al., 1998). From the point of poverty research, an increase in cognitive load has been found to be associated with negative experiences related to long-term poverty (Shah et al., 2012). Moreover, a study by Haushofer and Fehr (2014) found that people living in poverty are more likely to experience cognitive load in the form of stress and negative affect, due to protracted exposures to adverse economic and social phenomena. Hence, negative affect and stress could be the bridging factor between poverty and its effect on economic decision-making (Haushofer and Fehr, 2014). From an economic context, cognitive load can arise from a person living in poverty having to deal with constant uncertainties in current and future economic situations. As coping with the resulting negative affect reduces one’s cognitive resources, this can lead to a deterioration of executive functions, thus causing an individual to become enmeshed in a cycle of focusing on poverty-related problems (see Shah et al., 2012).

Capt j-rod

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 247
Re: Trickle Up Economics at it's finest!
« Reply #27 on: February 12, 2018, 03:31:23 PM »
wow... that's deep bro.

ohsnap

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 214
Re: Trickle Up Economics at it's finest!
« Reply #28 on: February 12, 2018, 05:06:36 PM »
It is a chicken and egg problem. Poor people don't make good decisions because they are poor...

...

The book Evicted had many examples of this - it was almost painful to read.  Someone living in poverty makes a bad decision which makes their poverty worse...which leads to more bad decisions...which leads to worse poverty.  It is a sad book.

I'm not sure what the answer is - I'm not sure if any of us, or the "experts" even know.  But I don't think UBI is it.

Roe

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 175
Re: Trickle Up Economics at it's finest!
« Reply #29 on: February 12, 2018, 05:23:07 PM »

The book Evicted had many examples of this - it was almost painful to read.  Someone living in poverty makes a bad decision which makes their poverty worse...which leads to more bad decisions...which leads to worse poverty.  It is a sad book.

I'm not sure what the answer is - I'm not sure if any of us, or the "experts" even know.  But I don't think UBI is it.

I found Evicted to be very insightful, sad is a fitting name for it.

Im curious to know why you don't think UBI would be a solution? I see the main obstacles to be logistics and practical, if there is enough money for it etc. If we had the option for a guaranteed, long term UBI my guess is a lot of our problems would be solved.
Beans&rice, my love!

JLee

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4317
Re: Trickle Up Economics at it's finest!
« Reply #30 on: February 12, 2018, 05:53:34 PM »

The book Evicted had many examples of this - it was almost painful to read.  Someone living in poverty makes a bad decision which makes their poverty worse...which leads to more bad decisions...which leads to worse poverty.  It is a sad book.

I'm not sure what the answer is - I'm not sure if any of us, or the "experts" even know.  But I don't think UBI is it.

I found Evicted to be very insightful, sad is a fitting name for it.

Im curious to know why you don't think UBI would be a solution? I see the main obstacles to be logistics and practical, if there is enough money for it etc. If we had the option for a guaranteed, long term UBI my guess is a lot of our problems would be solved.

I think it's eventually going to be inevitable.  We can't manufacture jobs indefinitely -- if we can have one machine doing the work of 100 people, we can't keep inventing new jobs forever to keep the other 99 busy so they're "earning" a wage.

Roe

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 175
Re: Trickle Up Economics at it's finest!
« Reply #31 on: February 12, 2018, 06:07:06 PM »

The book Evicted had many examples of this - it was almost painful to read.  Someone living in poverty makes a bad decision which makes their poverty worse...which leads to more bad decisions...which leads to worse poverty.  It is a sad book.

I'm not sure what the answer is - I'm not sure if any of us, or the "experts" even know.  But I don't think UBI is it.

I found Evicted to be very insightful, sad is a fitting name for it.

Im curious to know why you don't think UBI would be a solution? I see the main obstacles to be logistics and practical, if there is enough money for it etc. If we had the option for a guaranteed, long term UBI my guess is a lot of our problems would be solved.

I think it's eventually going to be inevitable.  We can't manufacture jobs indefinitely -- if we can have one machine doing the work of 100 people, we can't keep inventing new jobs forever to keep the other 99 busy so they're "earning" a wage.

I hope you are right.

From my point of view UBI, or similar, is our way forward. The question is if we will take it, or keep acting like the completely FI 70-yo that refuses to retire, addicted to the temporary highs and scared what will happen if we slow down.

We could probably already have gotten there. Instead we cashed out on our progress by changing our views on what is normal consumption.
Beans&rice, my love!

mm1970

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5000
Re: Trickle Up Economics at it's finest!
« Reply #32 on: February 13, 2018, 01:37:40 PM »
It is a chicken and egg problem. Poor people don't make good decisions because they are poor...

...

The book Evicted had many examples of this - it was almost painful to read.  Someone living in poverty makes a bad decision which makes their poverty worse...which leads to more bad decisions...which leads to worse poverty.  It is a sad book.

I'm not sure what the answer is - I'm not sure if any of us, or the "experts" even know.  But I don't think UBI is it.
This book was in the little free library on my block for about a month.  I almost picked it up a few times.  But I feel like ... it would just make me sad and angry.  It's not there anymore, but the author is coming here to speak soon.  Thinking about going.

Being poor is really really hard.  I grew up poor.  But by no means was I the worst off.  My parents were hard working, were not addicted to any substances (at the time), we had a large extended family and room for a garden.  I talk to people and read stories about growing up with abuse, addiction, being evicted, going seriously hungry every single day (as opposed to once every 2 weeks), and it makes me really sad.

A lot of people don't even really think about stupid little details.  If you are poor and you bounce a check, you get charged $30 or $40.  If you get a parking ticket and can't get down to pay it, the cost goes up.  If you lose power you lose the food in your fridge and freezer.  Those are only really small examples.  Meanwhile, in middle class land, I get free coffee and tea at work.  My spouse gets free lunch once a month.  If my water gets shut off for any reason (water main break), I have a gym to shower at or my workplace.  I have a job where I can work at home if my kid is sick, not get fired.

Kyle Schuant

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 225
  • Location: Melbourne, Australia
Re: Trickle Up Economics at it's finest!
« Reply #33 on: February 13, 2018, 05:22:56 PM »
There's going to be a point where we simply have to invent worthless "jobs" just to keep people "working" so they "earn" a paycheck...

A while back I talked to my local MP, at that time Simon Crean. Decent and smart man, been involved in government at high level, led his party, father was a federal Treasurer who said, "with taxes you buy civilisation", which I fully agree with.

One day I said to him, "Look, this tax system is rather complicated. Let's say the government gets on average 20% of people's income - progressive taxation is fine, we'll just talk averages to keep it simple though. And let's say on average all their various deductions take the government's revenue from 20 to 15% of people's income. Why not just lower the rate to 15% and abolish all the deductions? It'd be much simpler."

He looked slightly surprised and said, "That'd be reasonable. But then what would all the tax accountants and tax lawyers do?"

So the complex taxation system is an employment scheme for accountants and lawyers. We already invent worthless jobs to keep people working so they can get paid. For centuries society has had people who draw an income but do nothing productive. Landlords, priests, most academics, most managers, and Barry down the road smoking his bong while playing Call of Duty. The only new thing about UBI is the name and the lack of moral judgment.
Athletic Club East - curing iron deficiency

JLee

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4317
Re: Trickle Up Economics at it's finest!
« Reply #34 on: February 13, 2018, 05:29:49 PM »
There's going to be a point where we simply have to invent worthless "jobs" just to keep people "working" so they "earn" a paycheck...

A while back I talked to my local MP, at that time Simon Crean. Decent and smart man, been involved in government at high level, led his party, father was a federal Treasurer who said, "with taxes you buy civilisation", which I fully agree with.

One day I said to him, "Look, this tax system is rather complicated. Let's say the government gets on average 20% of people's income - progressive taxation is fine, we'll just talk averages to keep it simple though. And let's say on average all their various deductions take the government's revenue from 20 to 15% of people's income. Why not just lower the rate to 15% and abolish all the deductions? It'd be much simpler."

He looked slightly surprised and said, "That'd be reasonable. But then what would all the tax accountants and tax lawyers do?"

So the complex taxation system is an employment scheme for accountants and lawyers. We already invent worthless jobs to keep people working so they can get paid. For centuries society has had people who draw an income but do nothing productive. Landlords, priests, most academics, most managers, and Barry down the road smoking his bong while playing Call of Duty. The only new thing about UBI is the name and the lack of moral judgment.

I would argue that the complex taxation system is a scheme to lower taxes for absurdly rich people who have this nasty habit of buying the government, but I digress...

Kyle Schuant

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 225
  • Location: Melbourne, Australia
Re: Trickle Up Economics at it's finest!
« Reply #35 on: February 13, 2018, 06:02:56 PM »
That, too. It just came out today all these big companies who have paid literally zero tax for years.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-02-14/corporate-tax-australian-companies-havent-paid-in-10-years/9443840

But my point was less about tax, and more about the fact that we already do and always have make up bullshit jobs to keep people busy despite their producing nothing useful. So the idea of UBI isn't that radical, we're just hosing away the bullshit covering the idleness.
Athletic Club East - curing iron deficiency

JLee

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4317
Re: Trickle Up Economics at it's finest!
« Reply #36 on: February 13, 2018, 06:07:53 PM »
That, too. It just came out today all these big companies who have paid literally zero tax for years.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-02-14/corporate-tax-australian-companies-havent-paid-in-10-years/9443840

But my point was less about tax, and more about the fact that we already do and always have make up bullshit jobs to keep people busy despite their producing nothing useful. So the idea of UBI isn't that radical, we're just hosing away the bullshit covering the idleness.

Sure, there are a lot of people who are worthless at their jobs - but the job wasn't created with the intent of being worthless simply in order to pay someone. 

I don't think the idea is that radical either, but given how I'm 100% confident there are a lot of people who would rather see "lazy poor people" manually digging ditches for $8/hour to "earn a living" while an excavator is idle than they would have the excavator do the job in 3 minutes and then pay the would-be diggers anyway...it will probably be a problem to implement.

bacchi

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2419
Re: Trickle Up Economics at it's finest!
« Reply #37 on: February 13, 2018, 07:13:23 PM »
Oregon's gas pumpers are created jobs just to pay someone. (Cue Oregon defenders in 3..2..1...)

We first need to separate the idea that "working" is moral and, if you're not working, you're amoral and deserve to be poor. There are plenty of people who work and still struggle to make ends meet. There's also that one unfortunate event and you lose a job and you're SOL, as described above. Is Alice amoral because her beater car broke down and she can't get to work on time? Is Bob amoral because his son is vomity sick and he doesn't have a sitter?

A UBI is not linked to work. It's linked to being a citizen of the richest countries on earth with excess labor and excess production.

JLee

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4317
Re: Trickle Up Economics at it's finest!
« Reply #38 on: February 13, 2018, 07:36:05 PM »
Oregon's gas pumpers are created jobs just to pay someone. (Cue Oregon defenders in 3..2..1...)

We first need to separate the idea that "working" is moral and, if you're not working, you're amoral and deserve to be poor. There are plenty of people who work and still struggle to make ends meet. There's also that one unfortunate event and you lose a job and you're SOL, as described above. Is Alice amoral because her beater car broke down and she can't get to work on time? Is Bob amoral because his son is vomity sick and he doesn't have a sitter?

A UBI is not linked to work. It's linked to being a citizen of the richest countries on earth with excess labor and excess production.

That's literally providing a service, though. If you're going to say people pumping gas are jobs that exist just to pay someone, then house cleaning, lawn care, babysitters, you name it...all of those jobs were simply created in order to pay someone.

I'm talking about when we run out of jobs because fast food joints are automated, factories and warehouses are using robots instead of people, cars are automated, etc. There are only so many jobs we can invent.

bacchi

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2419
Re: Trickle Up Economics at it's finest!
« Reply #39 on: February 13, 2018, 07:52:36 PM »
Oregon's gas pumpers are created jobs just to pay someone. (Cue Oregon defenders in 3..2..1...)

That's literally providing a service, though. If you're going to say people pumping gas are jobs that exist just to pay someone, then house cleaning, lawn care, babysitters, you name it...all of those jobs were simply created in order to pay someone.

True but gas pumpers are* were mandated by law in Oregon. A driver can't just drive up to a pump and start pumping. Unlike the jobs you mentioned, you need to be certified to pump gas. It's completely a job creator law and resisted many attempts to get rid of it based on that.

* As of this year, Oregonians can pump their own gas.

Quote
I'm talking about when we run out of jobs because fast food joints are automated, factories and warehouses are using robots instead of people, cars are automated, etc. There are only so many jobs we can invent.

I know. It was just an aside.

We can all become artists selling our art to each other.

JLee

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4317
Re: Trickle Up Economics at it's finest!
« Reply #40 on: February 13, 2018, 07:57:17 PM »
Oregon's gas pumpers are created jobs just to pay someone. (Cue Oregon defenders in 3..2..1...)

That's literally providing a service, though. If you're going to say people pumping gas are jobs that exist just to pay someone, then house cleaning, lawn care, babysitters, you name it...all of those jobs were simply created in order to pay someone.

True but gas pumpers are* were mandated by law in Oregon. A driver can't just drive up to a pump and start pumping. Unlike the jobs you mentioned, you need to be certified to pump gas. It's completely a job creator law and resisted many attempts to get rid of it based on that.

* As of this year, Oregonians can pump their own gas.

Quote
I'm talking about when we run out of jobs because fast food joints are automated, factories and warehouses are using robots instead of people, cars are automated, etc. There are only so many jobs we can invent.

I know. It was just an aside.

We can all become artists selling our art to each other.

The Oregon law was created in 1951, allegedly because the state was concerned about untrained people spilling fuel.  Apparently gas station liability insurance is (was?) cheaper in Oregon as a result. Many people in Oregon want full service, so they don't have to get outside of the car and pump their own gas.  It's still providing a service, and I can't find any evidence stating that it was created simply to manufacture jobs.

bacchi

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2419
Re: Trickle Up Economics at it's finest!
« Reply #41 on: February 13, 2018, 08:19:47 PM »
Many people in Oregon want full service, so they don't have to get outside of the car and pump their own gas.

And many people didn't want full service but couldn't pump their own gas because they weren't certified.

Quote
It's still providing a service

Every job provides a service, including BS jobs. Hiring ditch diggers to use shovels instead of an operable excavator right next to them is silly, wasteful, and a BS job, but they're still providing a service.

Quote
and I can't find any evidence stating that it was created simply to manufacture jobs.

There were 17 reasons in the 1951 law about gas pumping. One of them is about unemployment. The law resisted many attempts at getting rid of it because of "jobs!" From the article you linked,

Quote
Supporters of the ban on self-service have also cited the economic benefits, particularly with regards to employment.


Next you'll be arguing that Portland really didn't have to cover their reservoirs because their water was so "pure." ;)

JLee

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4317
Re: Trickle Up Economics at it's finest!
« Reply #42 on: February 13, 2018, 09:19:59 PM »
Many people in Oregon want full service, so they don't have to get outside of the car and pump their own gas.

And many people didn't want full service but couldn't pump their own gas because they weren't certified.

Quote
It's still providing a service

Every job provides a service, including BS jobs. Hiring ditch diggers to use shovels instead of an operable excavator right next to them is silly, wasteful, and a BS job, but they're still providing a service.

Quote
and I can't find any evidence stating that it was created simply to manufacture jobs.

There were 17 reasons in the 1951 law about gas pumping. One of them is about unemployment. The law resisted many attempts at getting rid of it because of "jobs!" From the article you linked,

Quote
Supporters of the ban on self-service have also cited the economic benefits, particularly with regards to employment.

Next you'll be arguing that Portland really didn't have to cover their reservoirs because their water was so "pure." ;)

Your claim was that it was "completely a job creator law," which is obviously not the case because you just proved it was a 5.88% job creator law. ;)

The act of a gas station attendant putting gas in a customer's car removes the requirement from the customer to perform the same act.  It's a thing that the customer no longer has to do themselves, i.e provides a service that otherwise would not exist.

Ditch diggers manually digging ditches instead of an excavator operator digging ditches makes no difference to the customer. The customer pays for a ditch to get dug and the ditch gets dug.  The end result is the same, except the excavator's process will be dramatically faster. 

Comparing the two is a false equivalency.

bacchi

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2419
Re: Trickle Up Economics at it's finest!
« Reply #43 on: February 13, 2018, 09:38:48 PM »
Your claim was that it was "completely a job creator law," which is obviously not the case because you just proved it was a 5.88% job creator law. ;)

Ha. Fair enough.

Quote
The act of a gas station attendant putting gas in a customer's car removes the requirement from the customer to perform the same act.  It's a thing that the customer no longer has to do themselves, i.e provides a service that otherwise would not exist.

The service does exist; it's called self-service and millions of people in 48 states do it every day. A job that replaces what a customer can do, with little efficiency gain and no gain to civilization, is the very definition of a BS job.*

Quote
Ditch diggers manually digging ditches instead of an excavator operator digging ditches makes no difference to the customer. The customer pays for a ditch to get dug and the ditch gets dug.  The end result is the same, except the excavator's process will be dramatically faster. 

Comparing the two is a false equivalency.

That's a faulty application of the false equivalency. We're discussing job creation and the customer is the U-6 rate.

They're both BS jobs created to give someone employment when it would be far better to give them a real job or just to give them a UBI if a real job wasn't available.



* A better definition is from the Guardian. "'Is the job you're doing, or applying for, one the world would be fine without?"
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2013/sep/07/column-change-life-bullshit-job

And the answer is emphatically yes for a gas pumper. What would happen if they all quit? Oregonians would pump their own gas and life would go on.

Or David Graeber at https://www.strikemag.org/bullshit-jobs:

"Again, an objective measure is hard to find, but one easy way to get a sense is to ask: what would happen were this entire class of people to simply disappear?"
« Last Edit: February 13, 2018, 09:50:34 PM by bacchi »

JLee

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4317
Re: Trickle Up Economics at it's finest!
« Reply #44 on: February 13, 2018, 09:50:32 PM »
Your claim was that it was "completely a job creator law," which is obviously not the case because you just proved it was a 5.88% job creator law. ;)

Ha. Fair enough.

Quote
The act of a gas station attendant putting gas in a customer's car removes the requirement from the customer to perform the same act.  It's a thing that the customer no longer has to do themselves, i.e provides a service that otherwise would not exist.

The service does exist; it's called self-service and millions of people in 48 states do it every day. A job that replaces what a customer can do, with little efficiency gain and no gain to civilization, is the very definition of a BS job.

Quote
Ditch diggers manually digging ditches instead of an excavator operator digging ditches makes no difference to the customer. The customer pays for a ditch to get dug and the ditch gets dug.  The end result is the same, except the excavator's process will be dramatically faster. 

Comparing the two is a false equivalency.

That's a faulty application of the false equivalency. We're discussing job creation and the customer is the U-6 rate.

They're both BS jobs* created to give someone employment when it would be far better to give them a real job or just to give them a UBI if a real job wasn't available.

Yes, and millions of people also clean their houses. That's not "providing a service" like a maid service does.

bacchi

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2419
Re: Trickle Up Economics at it's finest!
« Reply #45 on: February 13, 2018, 09:53:27 PM »
https://www.strikemag.org/bullshit-jobs:

Quote from: Graeber
Again, an objective measure is hard to find, but one easy way to get a sense is to ask: what would happen were this entire class of people to simply disappear?

If gas pumpers disappeared, would the entire economy of Oregon grind to a halt? Would Oregonians be unable to commute? Would food disappear from grocery stores because trucks couldn't fill their tanks (actually, diesel trucks were exempt I believe)?

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2013/sep/07/column-change-life-bullshit-job


JLee

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4317
Re: Trickle Up Economics at it's finest!
« Reply #46 on: February 13, 2018, 10:03:13 PM »
https://www.strikemag.org/bullshit-jobs:

Quote from: Graeber
Again, an objective measure is hard to find, but one easy way to get a sense is to ask: what would happen were this entire class of people to simply disappear?

If gas pumpers disappeared, would the entire economy of Oregon grind to a halt? Would Oregonians be unable to commute? Would food disappear from grocery stores because trucks couldn't fill their tanks (actually, diesel trucks were exempt I believe)?

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2013/sep/07/column-change-life-bullshit-job

And in a dramatic movement of the goalposts, we're now talking about something else entirely!

I think we're on the same side of the argument and you just haven't figured it out yet. ;)
« Last Edit: February 13, 2018, 10:05:41 PM by JLee »

Goldielocks

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5137
  • Location: BC
Re: Trickle Up Economics at it's finest!
« Reply #47 on: February 13, 2018, 10:31:03 PM »
Link to the major Manitoba Minimum Income study ($17 Million, including one entire town, plus several cohorts and a control group in the urban city).

The study was 1977..  They wanted to see if people would stop working if given more "free" money.

Has links to the actual database for data mining..
https://www.winnipegfreepress.com/opinion/analysis/revisiting-manitobas-basic-income-experiment-411490895.html  Press article

https://dataverse.lib.umanitoba.ca/dataset.xhtml?persistentId=doi:10.5203/FK2/JWVHEJ  Study report to download.

gregorymason.ca/mincome/   Access to study data

Result -- a key finding was that women in two adult households with children, especially preschoolers, reduced their work outside of the home.   Men, however, did not reduce work overall, and those with preschoolers may have increased their work as their wives stayed home more.   Many women actually took educational upgrading for future work opportunities, as well as choosing to be with their children rather than using daycare.

Another large impact was that children (teenagers) worked a lot less.  Presumably they stayed in school / studied more when family income did not require their labour.   


Another interesting result was that when made universally available to everyone in the small town below an income threshold, only 40% signed up for it.  It was well advertised and more money than the welfare programs, but not everyone wants change, I guess, or government involvement represented by all the surveys that they needed to complete.

Healthcare outcomes improved, but it was not measured directly, just anecdotes.


Anyway,  download the study report.  It also has comparisons to 4 US based Minimum income studies between 1970 and 1990 (Gary, Seattle, rural communities, New Jersery).   Results for all studies except Seattle were similar....> Guaranteed  Minimum income programs have minor impacts on labour workforce participation rates...  especially for men.
« Last Edit: February 13, 2018, 10:33:55 PM by Goldielocks »

Dabnasty

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 439
  • Age: 28
  • Location: North Carolina
Re: Trickle Up Economics at it's finest!
« Reply #48 on: February 14, 2018, 08:14:57 AM »
Your claim was that it was "completely a job creator law," which is obviously not the case because you just proved it was a 5.88% job creator law. ;)

Ha. Fair enough.

Quote
The act of a gas station attendant putting gas in a customer's car removes the requirement from the customer to perform the same act.  It's a thing that the customer no longer has to do themselves, i.e provides a service that otherwise would not exist.

The service does exist; it's called self-service and millions of people in 48 states do it every day. A job that replaces what a customer can do, with little efficiency gain and no gain to civilization, is the very definition of a BS job.

Quote
Ditch diggers manually digging ditches instead of an excavator operator digging ditches makes no difference to the customer. The customer pays for a ditch to get dug and the ditch gets dug.  The end result is the same, except the excavator's process will be dramatically faster. 

Comparing the two is a false equivalency.

That's a faulty application of the false equivalency. We're discussing job creation and the customer is the U-6 rate.

They're both BS jobs* created to give someone employment when it would be far better to give them a real job or just to give them a UBI if a real job wasn't available.

Yes, and millions of people also clean their houses. That's not "providing a service" like a maid service does.

People who have a maid service do so by choice. The gas station attendants that started this discussion were mandated so even people who would prefer to pump their own gas were using them and in turn paying their wages. I would not be ok with that. If Oregon residents were required to have a maid service once a week this would be an apt comparison.

New Jersey has a similar law still in effect and typically the reasons cited are safety and jobs. So maybe it's as much as 50% of the reason?

Brazil more recently instituted a ban on pumping your own gas in 2000 and as far as I can tell the primary goal was saving jobs.

the_clevelander

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 1
Re: Trickle Up Economics at it's finest!
« Reply #49 on: February 14, 2018, 08:21:39 AM »
Alaska has had a small version of the UBI for years.  As far as I know, they don't blow it on cigarettes, booze, and drugs