"We keep learning over and over again that when we invest in people, we get positive results like this, and to ignore that is foolish."
When the economists tell you to treat humans as resources, they don't mean resources like tools, vehicles, or clothing; they mean resources like coal and ice-cream. You need to use it or lose it! Burn that employee at both ends, at three or four ends if you can figure out how! The economists will make sure that unemployment stays high enough that you can easily replace them with even more anxious chattel! And you should be using your tools the same way! Don't maintain or repair them, use them until they break and then replace them! The profit margins are much lower when you allow repairs, so the economists will work hard to put computer chips in each and every tool so they can control exactly when it breaks.
It works everywhere. It saves the system money. It lifts people out of poverty. It's morally good and ethically correct. So of course Republicans hate it, even though they used to love it (UBI used to be a conservative think-tank idea, back when they weren't all in the tank).
I mean, I hope this is all true, and quite possibly it is, but allowing beneficiaries to self-report makes it impossible to conclude anything. Of course nobody is going to say "I spent the $500 on beer and hot Cheetos." Come on.
Seems like, if poverty makes for hard workers, then businesses should always hire the most broke down, hard up, filthy clothed workers, the people with beat up cars who slept in the backseat last night, who are super desperate, wild eyed, who would kill for their next meal. Those people would make the best employees, while the dingus driving the nice car, who slept in a real bed last night, who bathed this morning, wearing their so-called interview clothes, would be shit out of luck because they obviously won't work hard.
I never know in an interview if I'm supposed to present myself as a down-and-out human who's desperate for work, or an upstanding citizen who's desperate for work.
I own a home (OK, I have a mortgage) because my father freed up a bunch of money to help with a down payment. My annual household income is nowhere NEAR the poverty line but we would have been renting (and enduring the massive increases) for the past 5 years if he hadn't helped. Instead we're in a home that has seen an increase in value of a third in that span.
Having room to breathe and save and not die of stress MATTERS.
We have the ability to make life better for the citizens of this nation (and really further than that, but good luck convincing anyone to help globally when they're being squeezed) and choose to actively not pursue solutions because rich people will get less rich...
The mayor downside of homes increasing in value over time is of course that your kids will never own a home that way: House prices are rising faster than wages. It means there's something seriously broken about the asset part of the market.
Regarding retail: I have no proof for this, but I'm getting the impression that more clothing and shoe stores are going to the "let the customer find it themselves" model.
Just now, I bought a leather jacket at Burlington Coat Factory. I'm very happy with it -- a Calvin Klein with quilted lining and double breast pockets, for only $60. But all of their outerwear was jumbled together on the rack, sorted only by size, and it was nothing but pure luck that I found the jacket. The floor employees seemed to stay busy just straightening out the messes the customers left behind as they looked for stuff.
No complaints from me, if that's what it took to get me that great deal. But things may not be trending well for retail employment, at least at low- and mid-level apparel stores.
Most stores like Burlington, Marshalls, TJ Maxx have always been merchandised like that — I worked in higher-end retail stores so it was a lot different.
I was shopping for clothes just today and finding it the usual frustrating crap. Digging through the piles here and there, didn't see anything remotely usual. Let with nothing. Then it hit me - where are the salesclerks? Long ago someone would guide me to what I wanted, nowadays you're on your own.
Of course they would never dream of substantially increasing their shit wages to attract more employees. That might interfere with the stock buybacks and CEO bonuses. Plus if they have to raise prices to cover the higher wages, the customers would never agree to pay $3 more for a coat.
And a lot of folks who "made it on their own" (myself included) knew they had parents in the background who could be called on if it really hit the fan (me too). So many have nobody at their back and that's a profoundly different experience.
I thankfully don't live in a position where I'm paycheck to paycheck, but living that way makes things more expensive.
Just the simple things. Servicing your car so that something major doesn't happen. Not getting overdraft fees. Fixing something in your house before it quits on you.
People actually getting more education/qualifications and finding better jobs is the icing on top.
I think these programs are wonderful experiments and if they work I'm willing to pay more in taxes.
Stuff like this is how I explain to people about why I support Democrats.
Conservatives always find examples of poor people wasting their money on things that don’t help them and argue that’s why money should go to the rich so it can “trickle down”. Okay, not fair, but let’s say a certain percentage of people are just going to waste the free money they get on bullshit. Well then we have to assume rich people will do the same thing at the same percentage. To make it simple let’s say 20 percent.
So I have 1 million tax dollars.
Republicans would give 100,000 dollars to 10 rich families and end up helping 8 (to buy European vacays I guess)
You should walk them through an example each of trickle down and trickle up. Follow the money twenty imaginary steps. See how often it ends up in the pockets of the rich and how often in the pockets of the poor.
i would prefer to assist those who need it, knowing there will always be some cheats (at a lower dollar value) than assist those who would steal teacher's pensions or little old ladies' investments.
i'm not sure i said this as elegantly as i would prefer, but it's the best i can do for now.
Y'know, it's like free lunches for school kids. Just give them to everyone. Sure someone who 'doesn't need it' may get a free meal, but all the performative bullshit to 'avoid free riders' is invariably turned into policing the dwindling group of 'deserving' kids.
Exactly! Ordering twice as many potatoes isn't all that expensive, especially since you can make preparing the meals an 'educational opportunity', i.e. free labour. On the other hand, hiring deservedness inspectors and forensic accountants sounds a lot more expensive.
Phys. ed.? Unloading the food truck.
Home ec.? Preparing the meals.
And I'm sure you can cram in some physics, biology, and chemistry lessons in there as well. Fire is physics, right? pest control is biology, and cooking is basically chemistry anyway. Have the kids sing traditional working songs while they work and you've got art and history added in in one stroke.
... I don't entirely understand how I made this into a dystopia, but it still sounds better than normal school so... I'll leave it in.
"We keep learning over and over again that when we invest in people, we get positive results like this, and to ignore that is foolish."
When the economists tell you to treat humans as resources, they don't mean resources like tools, vehicles, or clothing; they mean resources like coal and ice-cream. You need to use it or lose it! Burn that employee at both ends, at three or four ends if you can figure out how! The economists will make sure that unemployment stays high enough that you can easily replace them with even more anxious chattel! And you should be using your tools the same way! Don't maintain or repair them, use them until they break and then replace them! The profit margins are much lower when you allow repairs, so the economists will work hard to put computer chips in each and every tool so they can control exactly when it breaks.
It works everywhere. It saves the system money. It lifts people out of poverty. It's morally good and ethically correct. So of course Republicans hate it, even though they used to love it (UBI used to be a conservative think-tank idea, back when they weren't all in the tank).
Formerly poor person here. Everything Robyn says here is trie. 10 out of 10, no notes.
True. Is true.
Trie is probably some fancy smelly cheese.
I mean, I hope this is all true, and quite possibly it is, but allowing beneficiaries to self-report makes it impossible to conclude anything. Of course nobody is going to say "I spent the $500 on beer and hot Cheetos." Come on.
The positive results above sure seem indicative. H
And here’s some research results for GiveDirectly, an organization who does this same kind of no strings cash internationally.
https://www.givedirectly.org/research-at-give-directly/
I hope this helps.
Fuck Reagan and and anyone who voted for that assclown.
Seems like, if poverty makes for hard workers, then businesses should always hire the most broke down, hard up, filthy clothed workers, the people with beat up cars who slept in the backseat last night, who are super desperate, wild eyed, who would kill for their next meal. Those people would make the best employees, while the dingus driving the nice car, who slept in a real bed last night, who bathed this morning, wearing their so-called interview clothes, would be shit out of luck because they obviously won't work hard.
The problem, though, is that sometimes they do hire the broke person, but pay so little that they're stuck living in the beat up car.
I never know in an interview if I'm supposed to present myself as a down-and-out human who's desperate for work, or an upstanding citizen who's desperate for work.
Supply side jeebus sez — better to spend on boats and real estate than drugs
Elon Musk needs 56 billion dollars for 5 years, or a bit over 30 million dollars a day to get by. How does he do it? Must be a real struggle.
Ta, Robyn. It's beyond time we got on board with Universal Basic Income. It works.
I own a home (OK, I have a mortgage) because my father freed up a bunch of money to help with a down payment. My annual household income is nowhere NEAR the poverty line but we would have been renting (and enduring the massive increases) for the past 5 years if he hadn't helped. Instead we're in a home that has seen an increase in value of a third in that span.
Having room to breathe and save and not die of stress MATTERS.
We have the ability to make life better for the citizens of this nation (and really further than that, but good luck convincing anyone to help globally when they're being squeezed) and choose to actively not pursue solutions because rich people will get less rich...
The mayor downside of homes increasing in value over time is of course that your kids will never own a home that way: House prices are rising faster than wages. It means there's something seriously broken about the asset part of the market.
Regarding retail: I have no proof for this, but I'm getting the impression that more clothing and shoe stores are going to the "let the customer find it themselves" model.
Just now, I bought a leather jacket at Burlington Coat Factory. I'm very happy with it -- a Calvin Klein with quilted lining and double breast pockets, for only $60. But all of their outerwear was jumbled together on the rack, sorted only by size, and it was nothing but pure luck that I found the jacket. The floor employees seemed to stay busy just straightening out the messes the customers left behind as they looked for stuff.
No complaints from me, if that's what it took to get me that great deal. But things may not be trending well for retail employment, at least at low- and mid-level apparel stores.
Most stores like Burlington, Marshalls, TJ Maxx have always been merchandised like that — I worked in higher-end retail stores so it was a lot different.
I was shopping for clothes just today and finding it the usual frustrating crap. Digging through the piles here and there, didn't see anything remotely usual. Let with nothing. Then it hit me - where are the salesclerks? Long ago someone would guide me to what I wanted, nowadays you're on your own.
They seem to just not be hiring enough people to adequately staff their stores.
Our local Target looks like ass. Shit strewn everywhere and when you need an employee they are nowhere to be found.
Of course they would never dream of substantially increasing their shit wages to attract more employees. That might interfere with the stock buybacks and CEO bonuses. Plus if they have to raise prices to cover the higher wages, the customers would never agree to pay $3 more for a coat.
And a lot of folks who "made it on their own" (myself included) knew they had parents in the background who could be called on if it really hit the fan (me too). So many have nobody at their back and that's a profoundly different experience.
Exactly. I mean, I haven't had to do it in a very very long time, but if an emergency came up I could always ask my parents.
Yeah, my parents said, half jokingly, that they wished my sister lived as far away from home as I do...
I thankfully don't live in a position where I'm paycheck to paycheck, but living that way makes things more expensive.
Just the simple things. Servicing your car so that something major doesn't happen. Not getting overdraft fees. Fixing something in your house before it quits on you.
People actually getting more education/qualifications and finding better jobs is the icing on top.
I think these programs are wonderful experiments and if they work I'm willing to pay more in taxes.
I've started to put my money where my mouth is and donate to charities that just give money directly to people who need it.
E.g. GiveDirectly
https://www.givedirectly.org/research-at-give-directly/
“Why, in MY old Virginny, any surplus value workers made would go to their owners! This is an outrage!”
-Angry Old Zombie General Lee
Stuff like this is how I explain to people about why I support Democrats.
Conservatives always find examples of poor people wasting their money on things that don’t help them and argue that’s why money should go to the rich so it can “trickle down”. Okay, not fair, but let’s say a certain percentage of people are just going to waste the free money they get on bullshit. Well then we have to assume rich people will do the same thing at the same percentage. To make it simple let’s say 20 percent.
So I have 1 million tax dollars.
Republicans would give 100,000 dollars to 10 rich families and end up helping 8 (to buy European vacays I guess)
Democrats would give 10,000 dollars to 100 poor
families helping 80 (to eat and not be homeless)
Seems pretty simple.
You should walk them through an example each of trickle down and trickle up. Follow the money twenty imaginary steps. See how often it ends up in the pockets of the rich and how often in the pockets of the poor.
i would prefer to assist those who need it, knowing there will always be some cheats (at a lower dollar value) than assist those who would steal teacher's pensions or little old ladies' investments.
i'm not sure i said this as elegantly as i would prefer, but it's the best i can do for now.
Y'know, it's like free lunches for school kids. Just give them to everyone. Sure someone who 'doesn't need it' may get a free meal, but all the performative bullshit to 'avoid free riders' is invariably turned into policing the dwindling group of 'deserving' kids.
Not to mention, the cost of the policing is almost always higher than the cost of just feeding everyone.
Exactly! Ordering twice as many potatoes isn't all that expensive, especially since you can make preparing the meals an 'educational opportunity', i.e. free labour. On the other hand, hiring deservedness inspectors and forensic accountants sounds a lot more expensive.
Phys. ed.? Unloading the food truck.
Home ec.? Preparing the meals.
And I'm sure you can cram in some physics, biology, and chemistry lessons in there as well. Fire is physics, right? pest control is biology, and cooking is basically chemistry anyway. Have the kids sing traditional working songs while they work and you've got art and history added in in one stroke.
... I don't entirely understand how I made this into a dystopia, but it still sounds better than normal school so... I'll leave it in.