US Pulling Out of Paris Climate Accord

[RandyForRubio]

[MENTION=3073]JustTheTip[/MENTION]

If between you and your wife the government gave your family 42k a year; would you stop working or continue to work so that you could afford an 84k lifestyle for your family?

I would keep on working, but like I said, unique situation. I love my job, and I'll own the business someday. If somebody gave me $100 million dollars, I would still be out here working 12-16 hour days. However, with my experience, most of my peers would just take the money and go travel until they're broke.

Look, I like the idea of a UBI, I just think that there are flaws to it as well. I also don't really see what our alternative is either. At the end of the day, I don't care. I'm just gonna keep on doing what I've been doing.

 

[♪alt13]

Not in SLC. I've been looking for a house to buy and rent out. A small house in Rose Park will cost something like 250k, which is about 1.5k a month in mortgage. If you want a decent sized house in a decent area, say Sugarhouse, then you should expect to pay 400k.

Yeah I wouldn't own a home in SLC if not for the housing crisis. According to Zillow it is now worth more than double what we paid.

We need a bigger house and are leaning towards renting until my oldest moves out at which point we would probably move back into our current home.

 

[infection]

The irony is, these people work that much out of necessity, not out of love for their company. Median income in the US is something like $45k. I don't know how anyone can support a family on that. If you're making $20 an hour, and in a single-income household, then you HAVE to work 60 hours a week. And some people make even less than that!

Edit: And don't get me started on the poverty line. $18k! LOL.

Up until a couple years ago I was supporting what was then a family of 5 on $50k/yr. There certainly wasn't much savings and any unexpected expenses can be really tough but we also certainly didn't live like paupers. All the years before that we lived on quite a bit less. ~8 years ago it was family of 3 on $30k with no government assistance besides Medicaid. I'm certainly not arguing that everyone should support their family on $45k.

Regarding a universal basic income, in principle I think the idea would be interesting if it replaced every other entitlement or subsidy as it may actually be cheaper and we could eliminate a lot of bureaucracy. It would probably work great for a period of time until we as a society were conditioned to it, then we'd run in to the same problems we have now and we'd talk about the need to either increase it or to start to enact more subsidies and entitlements so that people "don't starve" or "aren't homeless," etc.

 

[Saint Cy of JFC]

I think it has to be per adult. It gets too complicated and sets up some undiserable incentives if done by household or given to children. It's probably best to deal with childhood poverty through non income programs. If we start at 18k a year we can basically eliminate "official" poverty. Most people will still want to work, but probably not overtime. Wages should increase and many current programs for the poor may no longer be necessary. For instance perhaps SLC would be closing its homeless shelter permanently rather than building 3 new ones.

At what income level would someone not receive the basic income?

 

[Siro]

At what income level would someone not receive the basic income?

None. Every adult receives it.

 

[franklin]

Not in SLC. I've been looking for a house to buy and rent out. A small house in Rose Park will cost something like 250k, which is about 1.5k a month in mortgage. If you want a decent sized house in a decent area, say Sugarhouse, then you should expect to pay 400k.

I wasn't going to butt into this one but there's a huge and very basic hole in what you're writing.

We already have UBI in essence. You are forgetting a basic economic principle: supply and demand. This whole stagnant wage stuff is nonsense to start with (and I'm sure you realize the living standard gains we've all enjoyed), but even if it weren't a UBI increase is going to do nothing but raise rent and land prices even higher and thus leaving us all at square one, except the cost of doing business and competing with other nations goes up.

We are having a Keynesian issue with "the wealth effect" being the driving decision in economic planning and I'm not sure anyone has a solution to that one. Not to be too end-of-daysish with it but nobody has figured a solution to a population that doesn't grow in perpetuity.

 

[♪alt13]

I wasn't going to butt into this one but there's a huge and very basic hole in what you're writing.

We already have UBI in essence. You are forgetting a basic economic principle: supply and demand. This whole stagnant wage stuff is nonsense to start with (and I'm sure you realize the living standard gains we've all enjoyed), but even if it weren't a UBI increase is going to do nothing but raise rent and land prices even higher and thus leaving us all at square one, except the cost of doing business and competing with other nations goes up.

We are having a Keynesian issue with "the wealth effect" being the driving decision in economic planning and I'm not sure anyone has a solution to that one. Not to be too end-of-daysish with it but nobody has figured a solution to a population that doesn't grow in perpetuity.

No

Supply and demand are not static(except in the case of land, still only kinda). Supply adjusts itself to demand. More often than not increased demand actually leads to decreased prices over the long run as the per unit cost of production decreases.

The current housing shortage along the Wasatch Front is due to pent up demand, in migration, bad zoning laws that restrict supply, a construction labor shortage as fewer people enter that field and Latin American immigration dries up, and in the case of SLC an increasingly nasty commute from the suburbs. It isn't because Utahns are making a lot more money per person.

 

[franklin]

No

Supply and demand are not static(except in the case of land, still only kinda). Supply adjusts itself to demand. More often than not increased demand actually leads to decreased prices over the long run as the per unit cost of production decreases.

The current housing shortage along the Wasatch Front is due to pent up demand, in migration, bad zoning laws that restrict supply, a construction labor shortage as fewer people enter that field and Latin American immigration dries up, and in the case of SLC an increasingly nasty commute from the suburbs. It isn't because Utahns are making a lot more money per person.

 

[♪alt13]

Don't roll your eyes at me. Your inflation mumbo jumbo makes no sense. The only way that this would cause inflation equal to the value of the payout is if it was fully funded by increasing the money supply. As long as it is funded through taxation that doesn't happen.

 

[franklin]

Don't roll your eyes at me. Your inflation mumbo jumbo makes no sense. The only way that this would cause inflation equal to the value of the payout is if it was fully funded by increasing the money supply. As long as it is funded through taxation that doesn't happen.

Milton Friedman was wrong about money supply being the sole correlation to overall inflation (meaning not even demographic specific)("inflation is always a monetary phenomenon"). That has been well proven, mostly after the the Great Recession but several economists worked on it for plenty of years prior. Ben Bernanke, who I consider one of the greatest Americans ever, even pushed in essence for basically the same thing on a quantitative basis as what you are calling for.

You want to increase M? Okay, now decrease V. What does that do to the wealth effect when you have to? Is that going to bust another bubble? Probably.

My only point is that at the end of the day, giving people who need a free check a raise over current levels is going to do nothing more than increasing their COLA. They will compete to spend their dollars. That's the reason the republicans of old (not the single brain cell hyper Christian variety today) tried to institute programs like EITC that cut back on unintended consequences.

 

[Keefe]

I rent. And it's only fair to add that my situation is unique. I work for my father, rent from him ($900/month) which is slightly below average for our area, and I will be getting shares in his LLC within the next few years. But still? It is possible to raise a family well on a low income.

Do you pay utilities?

 

[Siro]

A couple of thoughts on UBI and inflation.

UBI redistributes money in 2 ways. First, directly through taxing the rich and giving the money to the rest. Second, it creates more wage competition between employers for needed workers who might not be inclined to do a tedious job for little money otherwise.

So we should expect to see SOME inflation. Some of the money at the top is used very differently than how it is used by the vast majority. Rich people do not spend all, or even a large chunk, of their income on basic expenses and consumer goods. The price of luxury goods should be unaffected because those who can afford it will still afford it just as easily. But price for consumer goods and basic living expenses should rise. We should see higher prices for food, clothing, housing, and consumer tech
(given the larger pile in the middle). It would not completely off-set the UBI check, but it should offset some of it.

I don't know how much inflation we should expect. I'd like to see how economists address the issue. Nonetheless, something needs to be done about the move toward automation, as this time the trend will not follow what has historically happened with new technology creating more opportunity than it displaces.

 

[Saint Cy of JFC]

None. Every adult receives it.

Seems like there should be some cut off of some sort.

 

[Siro]

Seems like there should be some cut off of some sort.

No. the whole point is that everyone gets it. No conditions. No litmus test. Nothing. I don't even like using age as a cut-off.

Either way, let's say the cutoff is 200k. That's what? 1% of the population? It wouldn't make much of a difference to the cost of the plan.

 

[Beantown]

that's good news then!


lets assume for a second that this fairy tale about catastrophic man made climate change is real! seems like we do not need the government then!
because the free market always goes for more potential!

i mean if you believe coal is the way to go, your choice. you will make money now but you gotta invest in the future! ! people who want to make money will then go to clean energy industry and make their money their!

that's just simple economics!

so let the paris climate accord **** off!


their nis a built in incentive! no need to rob taxpayer sof the money! or ram globalism down my throat

So why are you not pushing to stop fossil fuel subsidies?

What do you think Trump means when he says he wants to "RE-INVEST" in coal?

All energy is subsidized you dumb ****. We've already had this discussion.

 

[Saint Cy of JFC]

No. the whole point is that everyone gets it. No conditions. No litmus test. Nothing. I don't even like using age as a cut-off.

Either way, let's say the cutoff is 200k. That's what? 1% of the population? It wouldn't make much of a difference to the cost of the plan.

Well that's about 3,000,000 people and at $18,000 per person, that is about 54,000,000,000. That's a lot of money to give to people who dont really need it.

 

[LogGrad98]

Well that's about 3,000,000 people and at $18,000 per person, that is about 54,000,000,000. That's a lot of money to give to people who dont really need it.

How do you define need in any meaningful way in this regard? I make under the 200k level (as might be proposed) but not too much under and I could absolutely use another 18k. My daughter is getting married in July. I have 4 kids to put through college. I need a new car. I have plans and could use some help in retirement. How exactly got defined need makes a huge difference in this topic when you're talking about limiting it.

 

[babe]

still will lead to slavery of the humans! under a world government that is not chosen and cant be fought!

well, not exactly.

what will lead to slavery or a servile and impoverished populace is the mass indoctrination of Big Bird/Sesame Street and public "education" controlled by the guvmint.

Ordinary people can always take control back from their managers if the mainstream media loses credibility. guns or no guns.

Freedom or liberty, in the manner of The American Experience, still persists in some aspects, where ever there is some kind of a frontier of opportunity that the government has not securely shut down.

Just passing out money to unemployed folks and letting the robots provide the necessities of life is a sterile vision of the future that presumes there in nothing else worthwhile to invent, do, or create.

It is sometimes need that drives invention, and if we have no "need" and don't roll outta bed and go to work with our abilities, talents, and creativity, we have lost an essential element of our humanity.

 

[♪alt13]

A couple of thoughts on UBI and inflation.

UBI redistributes money in 2 ways. First, directly through taxing the rich and giving the money to the rest. Second, it creates more wage competition between employers for needed workers who might not be inclined to do a tedious job for little money otherwise.

So we should expect to see SOME inflation. Some of the money at the top is used very differently than how it is used by the vast majority. Rich people do not spend all, or even a large chunk, of their income on basic expenses and consumer goods. The price of luxury goods should be unaffected because those who can afford it will still afford it just as easily. But price for consumer goods and basic living expenses should rise. We should see higher prices for food, clothing, housing, and consumer tech
(given the larger pile in the middle). It would not completely off-set the UBI check, but it should offset some of it.

I don't know how much inflation we should expect. I'd like to see how economists address the issue. Nonetheless, something needs to be done about the move toward automation, as this time the trend will not follow what has historically happened with new technology creating more opportunity than it displaces.

The inflation would be mostly temporary. There would be long term inflation for some services for which you need a human being in America but food inflation and for consumer goods would be short lived. Increased consumption will "demand" an increase in production. We saw this recently in mining and gas. Both deal in non renewable resources still the increased demand from China has already been absorbed by increased production and the inflation of those prices caused by the new demand has largely vanished. In some cases(iron ore)overproduction has drastically decreased prices.

 

[Saint Cy of JFC]

How do you define need in any meaningful way in this regard? I make under the 200k level (as might be proposed) but not too much under and I could absolutely use another 18k. My daughter is getting married in July. I have 4 kids to put through college. I need a new car. I have plans and could use some help in retirement. How exactly got defined need makes a huge difference in this topic when you're talking about limiting it.

The goal of the 18K is to help people who cant get jobs because of automation or people who have poverty line paying jobs not be broke, right? I dont think it should be for the upper-middle class who are able to support themselves.