4 ms·

From Reddit, posted by 'AlarmedScholar': The most significant goals: - Reaching 100 percent renewable energy for electricity and transportation by no later th

by achow 7y ago

From Reddit, posted by 'AlarmedScholar': The most significant goals: - Reaching 100 percent renewable energy for electricity and transportation by no later than 2030 and complete decarbonization by at least 2050 - Ending unemployment by creating 20 million jobs - Directly invest an historic $16.3 trillion public investment - A fair transition for workers - Declaring climate change a national emergency - Saving American families money - Supporting small family farms by investing in ecologically regenerative and sustainable agriculture - Justice for frontline communities - Commit to reducing emissions throughout the world - Meeting and exceeding our fair share of global emissions reductions - Making massive investments in research and development - Expanding the climate justice movement - Investing in conservation and public lands to heal our soils, forests, and prairie lands - This plan will pay for itself over 15 years https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/ctvmwp/bernie_sanders_unveils_16_trillion_green_new_deal/ https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/ctvmwp/bernie_san...

marricks 7y ago
Given how cities that transitioned to $15 minimum wage workers did better* after implementation maybe it's time to try investing in infrastructure and the working class rather than the 30 years of trickle down economics and stagnate wages we've suffered from both Republican and Democratic administrations...
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- mcorning 7y ago
  We can dream
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
- rdevsrex 7y ago
  Do you have any links to those stats? I’ve only ever heard partisan talking points and haven’t looked at the data myself.
- heartbreak 7y ago
  I'm asking this in good faith. Does the success of a $15/hr minimum wage in specific cities indicate that it would be successful across the US? In other words, A) does the local cost of living matter to its success? and B) does the limited rollout keep inflation in check? Is YC still studying UBE in an attempt to answer questions like these?
  - Tade0 7y ago
    B) does the limited rollout keep inflation in check Even a full scale rollout probably would as well - minimum wage workers are not only a small part of the overall workforce but also the ones that obviously make the less, so they can't possibly increase total consumption significantly.
  - ericd 7y ago
    I think what keeps inflation in check is that we no longer manufacture most things locally, and things which are made locally are heavily automated, so wages aren’t the primary driver of their costs. So incomes are largely decoupled from the prices of consumer goods. Housing and other assets, on the other hand, have been exploding.
  - notus 7y ago
    Yes the local cost of living matters, however it also depends on how you define success. If the minimum wage constitutes an overall increase in wages then you could consider that successful by some metrics. However if success is defined by people not living paycheck to paycheck and feeling financially secure then it would be unsuccessful...even at 15 an hour. We're setting such a low bar for ourselves still at 15 an hour IMO. People will still live paycheck to paycheck at that wage.
    - swsieber 7y ago
      If people live paycheck to paycheck despite wage increases, doesn't that indicate that wages aren't the root cause?
- slowmovintarget 7y ago
  Please define "did better" because small businesses in those cities generally took a beating. https://www.forbes.com/sites/jackkelly/2019/07/10/the-unintended-consequences-of-the-15-minimum-wage https://www.forbes.com/sites/jackkelly/2019/07/10/the-uninte... > ...reduced hours worked in low-wage jobs by 6-7 percent, while hourly wages in such jobs increased by 3 percent ... consequently, total payroll for such jobs decreased. > ... > Those who were already working more hours before the wage increase saw “essentially all of the earnings increases,” while the workers who had fewer hours saw their hours go down, but wages go up enough so that their overall earnings didn’t really change https://www.vox.com/the-highlight/2019/7/13/20690266/seattle-minimum-wage-15-dollars https://www.vox.com/the-highlight/2019/7/13/20690266/seattle... Seems like its a mixed bag, and depends on circumstances.
greenail 7y ago
Please don't use Hacker News for political or ideological battle. That destroys intellectual curiosity, which is what the site exists for.
- notus 7y ago
  They are just reposting a summary of the goals of the plan.
fragsworth 7y ago
If his goal is 2050, how is he going to ensure that the deal is maintained for long enough to last until then? Maybe the Democrats happen to gain control of the House, Senate, and President in 2020, and he's capable of getting it passed as a result. Or maybe it's close enough that he gains a few votes from the Republicans with a bit of effort. If Republicans gain control of the President at any point between 2024 and 2050, they will make every effort to ruin it as much as possible. And if they also get the House and Senate, they will dismantle the whole thing. Then what? Will it all be for nothing? They've already dismantled Obamacare by removing the individual mandate. It's just a matter of time - Obamacare will inevitably collapse because the economics are unsustainable. They'll do the same to Bernie's deal. Is there anything Bernie can do to stop this?
- antisthenes 7y ago
  No offense, but you're misinformed about the individual mandate. It was nothing but a tax on healthy people without fixing any of the underling issues like runaway cost, incentive incompatibility and predatory billing by providers. The only reason it worked for the short period that it did is because many insurance plans significantly raised their deductibles. It was a half measure that only further entrenched insurance companies. Healthcare needs to be single payer, period. Allowing for individuals to purchase plans to supplement single payer if they choose to do so, but it needs to be single payer at its core. And the US govt. needs to be able to strong-arm providers into lowering costs. The green deal would, hopefully, be mostly infrastructure. Solar power plants, battery installations, maintenance jobs for those fields.
  - fragsworth 7y ago
    > No offense, but you're misinformed about the individual mandate. I'm not sure how I am misinformed about the individual mandate. I see nothing that I disagree with in your comment, so I think you missed my point, or misread something I said?

by achow 7y ago

marricks 7y ago

Given how cities that transitioned to $15 minimum wage workers did better* after implementation maybe it's time to try investing in infrastructure and the working class rather than the 30 years of trickle down economics and stagnate wages we've suffered from both Republican and Democratic administrations...

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
mcorning 7y ago
We can dream
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
rdevsrex 7y ago
Do you have any links to those stats? I’ve only ever heard partisan talking points and haven’t looked at the data myself.
heartbreak 7y ago
I'm asking this in good faith. Does the success of a $15/hr minimum wage in specific cities indicate that it would be successful across the US? In other words, A) does the local cost of living matter to its success? and B) does the limited rollout keep inflation in check? Is YC still studying UBE in an attempt to answer questions like these?
- Tade0 7y ago
  B) does the limited rollout keep inflation in check Even a full scale rollout probably would as well - minimum wage workers are not only a small part of the overall workforce but also the ones that obviously make the less, so they can't possibly increase total consumption significantly.
- ericd 7y ago
  I think what keeps inflation in check is that we no longer manufacture most things locally, and things which are made locally are heavily automated, so wages aren’t the primary driver of their costs. So incomes are largely decoupled from the prices of consumer goods. Housing and other assets, on the other hand, have been exploding.
- notus 7y ago
  Yes the local cost of living matters, however it also depends on how you define success. If the minimum wage constitutes an overall increase in wages then you could consider that successful by some metrics. However if success is defined by people not living paycheck to paycheck and feeling financially secure then it would be unsuccessful...even at 15 an hour. We're setting such a low bar for ourselves still at 15 an hour IMO. People will still live paycheck to paycheck at that wage.
  - swsieber 7y ago
    If people live paycheck to paycheck despite wage increases, doesn't that indicate that wages aren't the root cause?
slowmovintarget 7y ago
Please define "did better" because small businesses in those cities generally took a beating. https://www.forbes.com/sites/jackkelly/2019/07/10/the-unintended-consequences-of-the-15-minimum-wage https://www.forbes.com/sites/jackkelly/2019/07/10/the-uninte... > ...reduced hours worked in low-wage jobs by 6-7 percent, while hourly wages in such jobs increased by 3 percent ... consequently, total payroll for such jobs decreased. > ... > Those who were already working more hours before the wage increase saw “essentially all of the earnings increases,” while the workers who had fewer hours saw their hours go down, but wages go up enough so that their overall earnings didn’t really change https://www.vox.com/the-highlight/2019/7/13/20690266/seattle-minimum-wage-15-dollars https://www.vox.com/the-highlight/2019/7/13/20690266/seattle... Seems like its a mixed bag, and depends on circumstances.

greenail 7y ago

Please don't use Hacker News for political or ideological battle. That destroys intellectual curiosity, which is what the site exists for.

notus 7y ago
They are just reposting a summary of the goals of the plan.

fragsworth 7y ago

If his goal is 2050, how is he going to ensure that the deal is maintained for long enough to last until then? Maybe the Democrats happen to gain control of the House, Senate, and President in 2020, and he's capable of getting it passed as a result. Or maybe it's close enough that he gains a few votes from the Republicans with a bit of effort. If Republicans gain control of the President at any point between 2024 and 2050, they will make every effort to ruin it as much as possible. And if they also get the House and Senate, they will dismantle the whole thing. Then what? Will it all be for nothing? They've already dismantled Obamacare by removing the individual mandate. It's just a matter of time - Obamacare will inevitably collapse because the economics are unsustainable. They'll do the same to Bernie's deal. Is there anything Bernie can do to stop this?

antisthenes 7y ago
No offense, but you're misinformed about the individual mandate. It was nothing but a tax on healthy people without fixing any of the underling issues like runaway cost, incentive incompatibility and predatory billing by providers. The only reason it worked for the short period that it did is because many insurance plans significantly raised their deductibles. It was a half measure that only further entrenched insurance companies. Healthcare needs to be single payer, period. Allowing for individuals to purchase plans to supplement single payer if they choose to do so, but it needs to be single payer at its core. And the US govt. needs to be able to strong-arm providers into lowering costs. The green deal would, hopefully, be mostly infrastructure. Solar power plants, battery installations, maintenance jobs for those fields.
- fragsworth 7y ago
  > No offense, but you're misinformed about the individual mandate. I'm not sure how I am misinformed about the individual mandate. I see nothing that I disagree with in your comment, so I think you missed my point, or misread something I said?