5 ms·

I’m sorry to use anecdotal evidence, but I have to strongly disagree this is a straw man. I spent the first 20 years of my life surrounded by strong conservativ

I’m sorry to use anecdotal evidence, but I have to strongly disagree this is a straw man. I spent the first 20 years of my life surrounded by strong conservative influences and the belief that people getting assistance are addicts and stupid with money is key to the conservative platform. Most of conservative economic beliefs rely on the idea that poor people are poor because they’re stupid or lazy.

greenail 5y ago
I would argue that the conservative economic view is not that poor people are stupid or lazy, rather government subsidy incentives (welfare/UBI) can motivate people to act stupid or lazy which ultimately only promotes the need for more government intervention. An endless cycle which ultimately results in enriching the government bureaucracy itself.
- bena 5y ago
  I would entertain that notion if they would apply that logic more evenly. But they don't, so I won't. Because when it comes to government subsidy incentives, the argument is made that it encourages businesses and the wealthy.
- dlp211 5y ago
  That was a fine position to have prior to say 2000 when we didn't have a lot of good data and ways to analyze it. We now have data and incredible analysis tools, that outcome is not representative of what actually happens.
  - greenail 5y ago
    Can you site a source? The current employment participation rates would seem to indicate that the unemployment subsidies have a big effect. The participation rate of males 25-54 is near all time lows back to 1960. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LREM25MAUSA156S https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LREM25MAUSA156S
    - dlp211 5y ago
      It that causation held, then the opposite would also hold, that is, removing the UI subsidies would have a large effect on the employment participation rates. That turns out to not be the case: https://www.cnbc.com/2021/07/22/cuts-to-unemployment-benefits-didnt-get-people-back-to-work-study-finds.html https://www.cnbc.com/2021/07/22/cuts-to-unemployment-benefit... https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/20/business/economy/unemployment-benefits-economy-states.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/20/business/economy/unemploy... https://www.bls.gov/news.release/laus.nr0.htm https://www.bls.gov/news.release/laus.nr0.htm
      - greenail 5y ago
        UI subsidies may only be a contributing cause, I would guess there are multiple factors. What do you think is causing the terrible participation rates?
        dlp211 5y ago
        1. Labor participation rates have been expected to decline and has been forecasted for quite a while now. 2. The pandemic acted as a forcing function on those who could retire or were close to retiring into retiring. 3. The pandemic has forced change in care services, forcing workers, mostly woman, to fill in the gap and care for their children and other family members, preventing their return to the workforce. 4. People don't want to work for what amounts to slave wages with no hope of professional advancement and higher wages. 5. About 100 other things that I can't think of right now that make up our complex economic system and inform people's actions other than monetary subsidies.
        greenail 5y ago
        Things must be pretty good if folks can choose to retire before the age of 54. That also seems at odds with folks quitting due to "slave wages". Which is it? No hope of professional advancement and higher wages seems unsupportable in this country. Why do so many want to migrate here for such a grim outlook? Regarding #3 I don't think there is a massive move of male primary caregivers for children. Your examples are not a compelling explanation for the participation dip in males 25-54.
teddyh 5y ago
Well then, go and argue with those people where they are. Don’t come here with your stereotyping and anecdotes, hoping for an echo chamber of “yes, we sure all hate those other people who are bad, and surely none of them would be among us, the good and right-thinking people”. This place is for actual discussions, where we treat each other with consideration, respect, and nuance.

greenail 5y ago

I would argue that the conservative economic view is not that poor people are stupid or lazy, rather government subsidy incentives (welfare/UBI) can motivate people to act stupid or lazy which ultimately only promotes the need for more government intervention. An endless cycle which ultimately results in enriching the government bureaucracy itself.

bena 5y ago
I would entertain that notion if they would apply that logic more evenly. But they don't, so I won't. Because when it comes to government subsidy incentives, the argument is made that it encourages businesses and the wealthy.
dlp211 5y ago
That was a fine position to have prior to say 2000 when we didn't have a lot of good data and ways to analyze it. We now have data and incredible analysis tools, that outcome is not representative of what actually happens.
- greenail 5y ago
  Can you site a source? The current employment participation rates would seem to indicate that the unemployment subsidies have a big effect. The participation rate of males 25-54 is near all time lows back to 1960. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LREM25MAUSA156S https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LREM25MAUSA156S
  - dlp211 5y ago
    It that causation held, then the opposite would also hold, that is, removing the UI subsidies would have a large effect on the employment participation rates. That turns out to not be the case: https://www.cnbc.com/2021/07/22/cuts-to-unemployment-benefits-didnt-get-people-back-to-work-study-finds.html https://www.cnbc.com/2021/07/22/cuts-to-unemployment-benefit... https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/20/business/economy/unemployment-benefits-economy-states.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/20/business/economy/unemploy... https://www.bls.gov/news.release/laus.nr0.htm https://www.bls.gov/news.release/laus.nr0.htm
    - greenail 5y ago
      UI subsidies may only be a contributing cause, I would guess there are multiple factors. What do you think is causing the terrible participation rates?
      - dlp211 5y ago
        1. Labor participation rates have been expected to decline and has been forecasted for quite a while now. 2. The pandemic acted as a forcing function on those who could retire or were close to retiring into retiring. 3. The pandemic has forced change in care services, forcing workers, mostly woman, to fill in the gap and care for their children and other family members, preventing their return to the workforce. 4. People don't want to work for what amounts to slave wages with no hope of professional advancement and higher wages. 5. About 100 other things that I can't think of right now that make up our complex economic system and inform people's actions other than monetary subsidies.
        greenail 5y ago
        Things must be pretty good if folks can choose to retire before the age of 54. That also seems at odds with folks quitting due to "slave wages". Which is it? No hope of professional advancement and higher wages seems unsupportable in this country. Why do so many want to migrate here for such a grim outlook? Regarding #3 I don't think there is a massive move of male primary caregivers for children. Your examples are not a compelling explanation for the participation dip in males 25-54.

teddyh 5y ago

Well then, go and argue with those people where they are. Don’t come here with your stereotyping and anecdotes, hoping for an echo chamber of “yes, we sure all hate those other people who are bad, and surely none of them would be among us, the good and right-thinking people”. This place is for actual discussions, where we treat each other with consideration, respect, and nuance.