3 ms·

Stimulus cheques handed out at an actual time of crisis is not the same thing as an unending flow of such cheques during times of low unemployment and economic

Stimulus cheques handed out at an actual time of crisis is not the same thing as an unending flow of such cheques during times of low unemployment and economic stability. I think that distinction is being lost in this discussion. A lot of people who are in favour of some kind of intervention right now aren't necessarily going to want to turn this permanent.

charlesu 6y ago
Is low employment meaningful in a low wage environment?
mschuster91 6y ago
> Stimulus cheques handed out at an actual time of crisis is not the same thing as an unending flow of such cheques during times of low unemployment and economic stability. A regular flow of such cheques compared to crisis stimulus cheques has a couple of advantages though: - you don't have any ramp-up time, not even if you decide to up the amount in crisis time, as the system already exists - you don't need to coordinate with multiple levels of governments, insurances, ... to hand out the checks - regular UBI could offset/replace many struggling programs, from food assistance over child support to other financial aid, thus leading to less overhead costs
- SuoDuanDao 6y ago
  Most importantly, they provide a level of economic stability to the working poor that wouldn't happen with emergency measures.
  - mschuster91 6y ago
    ... which is probably the reason so many wealthy-ish are against UBI. A lot of jobs would have to be paid their actual worth and in improved conditions (farming, nurses, education, trash/sewage, "nannies", cleaning, meatpacking) if those working the jobs would do it out of passion instead out of the need to survive. An awful lot of the wealth in Western states is based on this exploitation.
arrosenberg 6y ago
> Stimulus cheques handed out at an actual time of crisis is not the same thing as an unending flow of such cheques during times of low unemployment and economic stability. I think that distinction is being lost in this discussion. For people who can't gain sufficient employment* this is an ongoing problem. The people who won't want to make it permanent are people who do not experience this type of instability on a regular basis. It is interesting how our first thought to say "obviously this is temporary" rather than taking an empathetic look at what it must feel like all the time for a segment of the population (I'm just as guilty here). * i.e. 1 job, 40 hours a week or less, that allows one to live a fulfilling life

charlesu 6y ago

Is low employment meaningful in a low wage environment?

mschuster91 6y ago

> Stimulus cheques handed out at an actual time of crisis is not the same thing as an unending flow of such cheques during times of low unemployment and economic stability. A regular flow of such cheques compared to crisis stimulus cheques has a couple of advantages though: - you don't have any ramp-up time, not even if you decide to up the amount in crisis time, as the system already exists - you don't need to coordinate with multiple levels of governments, insurances, ... to hand out the checks - regular UBI could offset/replace many struggling programs, from food assistance over child support to other financial aid, thus leading to less overhead costs

SuoDuanDao 6y ago
Most importantly, they provide a level of economic stability to the working poor that wouldn't happen with emergency measures.
- mschuster91 6y ago
  ... which is probably the reason so many wealthy-ish are against UBI. A lot of jobs would have to be paid their actual worth and in improved conditions (farming, nurses, education, trash/sewage, "nannies", cleaning, meatpacking) if those working the jobs would do it out of passion instead out of the need to survive. An awful lot of the wealth in Western states is based on this exploitation.

arrosenberg 6y ago

> Stimulus cheques handed out at an actual time of crisis is not the same thing as an unending flow of such cheques during times of low unemployment and economic stability. I think that distinction is being lost in this discussion. For people who can't gain sufficient employment* this is an ongoing problem. The people who won't want to make it permanent are people who do not experience this type of instability on a regular basis. It is interesting how our first thought to say "obviously this is temporary" rather than taking an empathetic look at what it must feel like all the time for a segment of the population (I'm just as guilty here). * i.e. 1 job, 40 hours a week or less, that allows one to live a fulfilling life