6 ms·

It's a great argument for UBI. Sanders-style minimum wage hikes won't do us much good when there's 20, 30, or even 40% unemployment, which will soon be a reali

by scout4 7y ago

It's a great argument for UBI. Sanders-style minimum wage hikes won't do us much good when there's 20, 30, or even 40% unemployment, which will soon be a reality if these lockdowns persist.

dabbledash 7y ago
If there’s 50% unemployment because we’ve stopped the economy, handing out dollars won’t help. There won’t be anything to buy.
- perl4ever 7y ago
  I don't think that's true, because most of the economy doesn't involve things needed for subsistence. I mean, look around, everyone's talking about "essential" things. You could simply give every household in the US $5000 for next month, and another $5000 for the month after that, and the total would be under $2 trillion. Easily absorbed by the size of the US economy once it's going again. People saying we can't afford this is like a parent with a diabetic kid who's going on about all the reasons why candy is bad for him but he's got low blood sugar right now. A piece of candy won't cure the diabetes, and infinite candy is obviously not a good idea, but it is what is needed right now before irreversible damage sets in.
  - dabbledash 7y ago
    I’m not saying we can’t afford it, or that we shouldn’t do it. I think in the immediate term we probably have to. I’m only saying that dollars won’t fix things if this goes on for very long at all. A dollar represents some portion of current economic output. If there’s no economic output, you might as well burn your dollars for heat.
    - perl4ever 7y ago
      The economic output that we don't have right now is the "nonessential" stuff. Giving people money right now is just a loan based on the "nonessential" stuff coming back online in the future. It makes perfect economic sense, I'm getting really upset at the idea that people dismiss this as futile or impossible. The point of giving people money is so we can preserve the means of producing both essential and nonessential things going forward. In any reasonably wealthy modern country, a small fraction of the output is used for subsistance. The idea that we can't save things scares the shit out of me because the way I interpret several historical examples of countries or societies being destroyed is not that they went unaccountably crazy or evil, but that they had superficially logical economic theories that made them destroy everything on purpose as everyone accepted there was no alternative.
      - dabbledash 7y ago
        We have to do what we can, and dollars may help us in the short term. But “destroying everything on purpose” is exactly what I’m afraid of. Shutting down the economy for 18 months while we hope for a vaccine is not feasible, and printing money won’t make up for actual shortages.
        perl4ever 7y ago
        Nobody is or would be shutting down everything until there is a vaccine. At the current rate, everyone in the world will be infected in two months. If we succeed in slowing things down, it might peak lower but slower. But I don't see how this can last a year plus. And anyway, we aren't or wouldn't be shutting down everything, just "nonessential" things. By the way, cannabis and alcohol are "essential".
        dabbledash 7y ago
        Well, despite a long back and forth, I’m pretty sure we agree on all the things (although I may be a little less confidant that we can turn off the “non-essentials” without damaging everything else - as long as it’s very short term we’ll deal with it.)
airstrike 7y ago
It's also a great counterargument against UBI
Twixes 7y ago
Yang-style UBI would not be livable without a job anyway, it'd just allow landlords to pocket even more dollars from urban dwellers. That would not help the unemployed and minimum wage folks at all – especially if we cut other benefits and implemented VAT (a tax based on consumption, which is basically regressive) to pay for this. For the unemployed there should simply be a solid state safety net with livable unemployment benefits. Although in this crisis it's critical that we keep jobs so that it's possible to restart economic activity as smoothly as possible when the danger passes.
- erik_seaberg 7y ago
  A lot of urban dwellers are only there for the job market. There's plenty of space in the US where $1K/month is enough, but if you can't find work you get $0.
  - Twixes 7y ago
    That's true, but nobody's going to move now with all the hazard and uncertainty, and when the world boots up again, the distribution of jobs is rather going to stay similar.
    - erik_seaberg 7y ago
      Oh yeah, temporary cash now isn't going to do what Yang-style UBI might.

by scout4 7y ago

It's a great argument for UBI. Sanders-style minimum wage hikes won't do us much good when there's 20, 30, or even 40% unemployment, which will soon be a reality if these lockdowns persist.

dabbledash 7y ago

If there’s 50% unemployment because we’ve stopped the economy, handing out dollars won’t help. There won’t be anything to buy.

perl4ever 7y ago
I don't think that's true, because most of the economy doesn't involve things needed for subsistence. I mean, look around, everyone's talking about "essential" things. You could simply give every household in the US $5000 for next month, and another $5000 for the month after that, and the total would be under $2 trillion. Easily absorbed by the size of the US economy once it's going again. People saying we can't afford this is like a parent with a diabetic kid who's going on about all the reasons why candy is bad for him but he's got low blood sugar right now. A piece of candy won't cure the diabetes, and infinite candy is obviously not a good idea, but it is what is needed right now before irreversible damage sets in.
- dabbledash 7y ago
  I’m not saying we can’t afford it, or that we shouldn’t do it. I think in the immediate term we probably have to. I’m only saying that dollars won’t fix things if this goes on for very long at all. A dollar represents some portion of current economic output. If there’s no economic output, you might as well burn your dollars for heat.
  - perl4ever 7y ago
    The economic output that we don't have right now is the "nonessential" stuff. Giving people money right now is just a loan based on the "nonessential" stuff coming back online in the future. It makes perfect economic sense, I'm getting really upset at the idea that people dismiss this as futile or impossible. The point of giving people money is so we can preserve the means of producing both essential and nonessential things going forward. In any reasonably wealthy modern country, a small fraction of the output is used for subsistance. The idea that we can't save things scares the shit out of me because the way I interpret several historical examples of countries or societies being destroyed is not that they went unaccountably crazy or evil, but that they had superficially logical economic theories that made them destroy everything on purpose as everyone accepted there was no alternative.
    - dabbledash 7y ago
      We have to do what we can, and dollars may help us in the short term. But “destroying everything on purpose” is exactly what I’m afraid of. Shutting down the economy for 18 months while we hope for a vaccine is not feasible, and printing money won’t make up for actual shortages.
      - perl4ever 7y ago
        Nobody is or would be shutting down everything until there is a vaccine. At the current rate, everyone in the world will be infected in two months. If we succeed in slowing things down, it might peak lower but slower. But I don't see how this can last a year plus. And anyway, we aren't or wouldn't be shutting down everything, just "nonessential" things. By the way, cannabis and alcohol are "essential".
        dabbledash 7y ago
        Well, despite a long back and forth, I’m pretty sure we agree on all the things (although I may be a little less confidant that we can turn off the “non-essentials” without damaging everything else - as long as it’s very short term we’ll deal with it.)

airstrike 7y ago

It's also a great counterargument against UBI

Twixes 7y ago

Yang-style UBI would not be livable without a job anyway, it'd just allow landlords to pocket even more dollars from urban dwellers. That would not help the unemployed and minimum wage folks at all – especially if we cut other benefits and implemented VAT (a tax based on consumption, which is basically regressive) to pay for this. For the unemployed there should simply be a solid state safety net with livable unemployment benefits. Although in this crisis it's critical that we keep jobs so that it's possible to restart economic activity as smoothly as possible when the danger passes.

erik_seaberg 7y ago
A lot of urban dwellers are only there for the job market. There's plenty of space in the US where $1K/month is enough, but if you can't find work you get $0.
- Twixes 7y ago
  That's true, but nobody's going to move now with all the hazard and uncertainty, and when the world boots up again, the distribution of jobs is rather going to stay similar.
  - erik_seaberg 7y ago
    Oh yeah, temporary cash now isn't going to do what Yang-style UBI might.