[GT] US election - It's 2020, what could possibly go wrong?

[calculoso]

Originally Posted by Flashpoint

He was the one that said it!

In response to a “what if rents go up” series of questions. The entire line of thinking was speculative in nature already and in no way guaranteed. To me, the underlying message is that there are options no matter what happens, no matter if the options are palatable to all people or even any person. Demeaning and dismissing his proposal based on a thought bubble to a what if is irrresponsible.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

yes but as everyone is being paid more they will pay 20 dollars, that's literally how inflation works, you have more money so you are prepared to spend more money

In most instances, the arguments for UBI (and demand side economics in general)are twofold:

1. More people have more money in their pockets, which increases demand and stimulates the consumer economy.
2. Mass production, economies of scale are as such that ramping up production to meet the increased has a negligible effect on companies' bottom lines.

So for McDonald's a 5-10% increase in wages is easily offset by an equal increase in demand for their products. Whereas if McDonald's raises the price of their products, they likely see a decrease in demand.

[calculoso]

Originally Posted by Flashpoint

Alright, I'll shove off then. Until someone can answer how UBI solves basic questions about wealth distribution (which he didn't in the video you provided, and I tried to break down with time stamps as to why), I can't say I think I could ever support it. I'm open to having my mind changed.

I don't see the need for MSNBC to give a platform to a candidate who can't refute a pretty basic criticism.

Tax breaks are held to the same standard?

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

You can rent one for less than that. You can also pay a mortgage on one for less than that. And if it's 3 families living there, it's a lot more than $3000, because UBI is on an individual basis, not a family basis.

Ultimately, the point is that if you have this money in your pocket, you have additional housing options, which increases choice, which in turn limits the amount landlords renting apartments can actually raise rents without sending tenants elsewhere. But I'm sure you knew that.

I do think housing is the one area that UBI isn't going to help so long as we continue to let speculation run rampant. Unlike other industries/markets, housing is finite.

That said, qualifying for a mortgage likely becomes easier with UBI in place.

[direwolf]

Excellent piece on the crazy shenanigans that went on in Michigan post-election night and leading up to certification. It's long, but well worth a read.

https://www.politico.com/news/magazi...mocracy-440475

In the end, it wasn’t a senator or a judge or a general who stood up to the leader of the free world. There was no dramatic, made-for-Hollywood collision of cosmic egos. Rather, the death knell of Trump’s presidency was sounded by a baby-faced lawyer, looking over his glasses on a grainy Zoom feed on a gloomy Monday afternoon, reading from a statement that reflected a courage and moral clarity that has gone AWOL from his party, pleading with the tens of thousands of people watching online to understand that some lines can never be uncrossed.

“We must not attempt to exercise power we simply don’t have,” declared Van Langevelde, a member of Michigan’s board of state canvassers, the ministerial body with sole authority to make official Joe Biden’s victory over Trump. “As John Adams once said, 'We are a government of laws, not men.' This board needs to adhere to that principle here today. This board must do its part to uphold the rule of law and comply with our legal duty to certify this election.”

Having long been advised by his legal team that state legislators would be his ace in the hole—particularly in Republican-controlled states with close elections—the president called Chatfield and Shirkey the morning after the Wayne board meeting. He invited them to the White House for a briefing on the state of play in Michigan. Both Chatfield and Shirkey are talented and ambitious, self-grooming for future runs at higher office. Both could see the obvious problems of meeting with the president at such a precarious moment—and both could also see how spurning Trump could torpedo their careers in the GOP.

Ultimately, the GOP lawmakers felt they were obligated to go. This was the president calling on them—and besides, they joked, it might be a long time before a Republican occupied the Oval Office again. But precautions were taken. In a savvy move, Chatfield and Shirkey prepared a letter addressing concerns over funding to deal with Covid-19 in Michigan. They also brought along their general counsels. These two maneuvers—one to soothe the outcry over Michigan lawmakers meeting with a president whose legal team was calling for them to overturn the state’s election results; the other to insulate them from improper discussions about doing exactly that—were sufficient to sidestep any major crisis.

The president asked them about allegations of fraud, and the legislators told him about various probes they had authorized to look into reports of irregularities. But Trump, perhaps sensing the nervous reticence of his guests, did not make the ask they feared.

As the meeting went on, it became apparent to some people in the room that more than anything, Trump had called his Michigan allies to Washington to get an honest assessment of what had happened there. He wanted to know if there was any pathway to victory. They told him there was not.

“I don’t get it,” the president said, venting confusion and frustration. “All these other Republicans, all over the country, they all win their races. And I’m the only guy that loses?”

In GOP circles, there were immediate calls for Van Langevelde to lose his seat on the board; to lose his job in the House of Representatives; to be censured on the floor of the Legislature and exiled from the party forever. Actionable threats against him and his family began to be reported. The Michigan State Police worked with local law enforcement to arrange a security detail.

All for doing his job. All for upholding the rule of law. All for following his conscience and defying the wishes of Donald Trump.

“It took a lot of courage for him to do what he thought was right and appropriate, given the amount of pressure he was under,” said Brian Calley, the GOP former lieutenant governor, who told me days earlier that he had never heard the name Aaron Van Langevelde.

“He carried himself as well as anybody I’ve seen in that type of setting, including people with decades and decades of experience. He showed an awful lot of poise.”

Republicans in Michigan and across America have spent the past three weeks promoting baseless allegations of corruption at the ballot box, the rabid responses to which they use as justification to continue to question the fundamental integrity of our elections. It’s a vicious new playbook—one designed to stroke egos and rationalize defeats, but with unintended consequences that could spell the unraveling of America’s democratic experiment.

There is little cause for optimism. If the majority of GOP politicians couldn’t be bothered to do the easy work of debunking crackpot conspiracy theories, how likely are they to do the hard work of hardening our democracy?

“A lot of our leaders in this country ought to be ashamed of themselves,” said Thomas, the nonpartisan elections guru who kept Michigan’s governing class guessing his political affiliation for the past several decades. “They have propagated this narrative of massive fraud, and it’s simply not true. They’ve leapt from some human error to massive fraud. It’s like a leap to Never Neverland. And people are believing them.”

He exhaled with a disgusted groan.

“The people of this country really need to wake up and start thinking for themselves and looking for facts—not conspiracy theories being peddled by people who are supposed to be responsible leaders, but facts,” Thomas said. “If they’re not going to be responsible leaders, people need to seek out the truth for themselves. If people don’t do that—if they no longer trust how we elect the president of the United States—we’re going to be in real trouble.”

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by rubecube

I do think housing is the one area that UBI isn't going to help so long as we continue to let speculation run rampant. Unlike other industries/markets, housing is finite.

It's not the solution in the housing area, no. But the housing issue doesn't somehow undermine all the other benefits it provides, as suggested by people who are predisposed to dismiss it saying things like "well everyone everywhere will just raise rent by $1000". The response is threefold. First, based on the pilot programs that have been implemented, the problem isn't anywhere near as bad as you think it is. Second, the additional economic and geographic freedom you get when your basic subsistence isn't tied to your job allows for more mobility which itself is a downward pressure on housing prices. Third, there are other solutions that can and should be implemented (including rent controls) to further offset any housing cost increases that do ultimately occur.

But to simplistically exaggerate a challenge faced by a policy proposal, and when the response is "yeah, that's an issue, but we can ameliorate it in the following ways", to dismiss the whole idea for lack of a silver bullet solution, and then say that it's therefore totally fine if a major media outlet effectively blacklists the candidate proposing it, suggests to me that one is being... less than intellectually honest.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Flashpoint

Agreed, but good luck with that when the local politicians are so heavily influenced by real estate developers and political campaign contributions (at least here in the US).

I'm open to UBI as a concept. I just don't see how it improves things for your average joe when the system is currently set up to transfer wealth from the lower income groups to the higher income groups.

The fact that there has been no effective refutation of the "jack the rent" scenario indicates to me that it's a simplistic answer to a much more complex problem.

As a society we'd be better served to take tax money and put it into free education and health care to lift people up, than cash that even Yang acknowledges a substantial portion of will go straight into the pockets of the wealthy.

This doesn't really make sense, his answer was based on both common sense and logic based on the market, your concerns seem based on an extreme hypothetical that you simply believe to be true because... reasons?

If you don't think the answer was effective, then you might not be looking at the problem in a realistic way. If you give everyone $1000, you're also giving the landlord $1000. So you're saying that every landlord will give way to greed and take their $1000 along with the $1000 of the one or more renters they have. That's a very pessimistic view of humanity, which generally sure, we're all terrible, whatever, but it's not reasonable. And in the event that there are some landlords like that, there will be many more who aren't. Not just out of the goodness of their hearts, but to be competitive in a competitive market. You're applying what would likely be unique circumstances across the board.

Even your refute that these people can't move, or are living paycheque to paycheque ignores the concept entirely. Give someone $1000 or a couple $2000 over their regular paycheque and they're no longer living paycheque to paycheque, that's common sense. They gain mobility. It also depresses vacancy rates, as you're adding more individuals to the rental market who otherwise could not afford housing.

People generally charge the maximum they can get away with or some degree less to maximize their customer base, not the maximum they could collect. There's a distinct and important difference.

This one hypothetical problem also says nothing about the millions of people who, with extra income, could start businesses, keep their kids in school, donate to charities, spend money on preventative health measures, support local economies instead of multinationals that charge the least with suspect business practices, etc.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

It's not the solution in the housing area, no. But the housing issue doesn't somehow undermine all the other benefits it provides, as suggested by people who are predisposed to dismiss it saying things like "well everyone everywhere will just raise rent by $1000". The response is threefold. First, based on the pilot programs that have been implemented, the problem isn't anywhere near as bad as you think it is. Second, the additional economic and geographic freedom you get when your basic subsistence isn't tied to your job allows for more mobility which itself is a downward pressure on housing prices. Third, there are other solutions that can and should be implemented (including rent controls) to further offset any housing cost increases that do ultimately occur.

But to simplistically exaggerate a challenge faced by a policy proposal, and when the response is "yeah, that's an issue, but we can ameliorate it in the following ways", to dismiss the whole idea for lack of a silver bullet solution, and then say that it's therefore totally fine if a major media outlet effectively blacklists the candidate proposing it, suggests to me that one is being... less than intellectually honest.

And to the point regarding economic freedom (and I know you likely include this your definition of that), it gives workers more bargaining power to request working conditions that are more beneficial to them, one being the ability to work remotely and thus having greater housing options.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by rubecube

You realize you've just kind of contradicted your own argument though, right? McDonald's hasn't attempted to raise their employees' wages and thus their prices to compete with CERB or whatever. They're just happy to make their customers wait a bit longer.

No, right now they are happy to take a vast payment from the Government to make up for any covid losses, they like all of us are pretty much waiting to see how it all shakes out, they have also stripped their menu back to reduce costs.

[JohnnyB]

Originally Posted by New Era

^^^ Who cares? Andrew Yang was a blip. He wasn't even winning with Asian voters. There is only so much airtime available and you can't give space to everyone. Yang was a bad candidate and has been a worse surrogate.

There are multiple 24/7/365 news networks, not to mention their on-demand online news services. The networks constantly rehash news and fill enormous amounts of time with waffling analysis. The argument that there's only so much time is kind of silly.

[JohnnyB]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

oh no they cant keep staff right now, the demand hasnt changed, the line ups are around the block, I dont even blame the kids, no one would work a #### job if they had the money not to but those jobs have to be done

Less cost in wages and lines around the block with people still buying the product doesn't sound so bad for the franchise owner.

How many of those jobs have long futures anyways? Cost of automation is dropping, and will eventually reach the point where it costs less than their wages, so many of those jobs are likely gone soon regardless of covid. I remember when they first brought in the touchscreens for ordering at McDonald's in Hong Kong. There were some franchises where you would go in and it was pretty much only staff in the back doing food prep. The cashiers were gone. Food prep will be the same, and will ultimately deliver on the consistency of the McDonald's food prepping manuals better than the human staff do. These are the ahit jobs that are ideal for automation. If franchise owners need to pay more to motivate people to do the work now, they won't have to for many more years.

[activeStick]

Originally Posted by New Era

^^^ Who cares? Andrew Yang was a blip. He wasn't even winning with Asian voters. There is only so much airtime available and you can't give space to everyone. Yang was a bad candidate and has been a worse surrogate.

Why so angry and agitated? Lol. Just thought I'd share as it's never a good thing any time there's direction to not give a candidate in the primaries any airtime by the media.

[greyshep]

Interesting discussion, but isnt there a general US politics thread or a specific UBI thread we could be using to discuss that rather than cluttering up the election thread with this?

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by greyshep

Interesting discussion, but isnt there a general US politics thread or a specific UBI thread we could be using to discuss that rather than cluttering up the election thread with this?

Thank you. We just had an election that proved beyond a reasonable doubt that voters have no taste for programs that scream socialism, like UBI. If you want to talk about that craziness take it to the UBI thread. There's enough insanity in the United States to talk about. So forget the progressives, forget the crazy liberals, and forget socialistic ideas that have no hope of gaining traction. We need to focus on getting the country back on the road to sanity and finding the center before we can even think about some of these far left ideas. I just want to feel safe walking down the street again.

[activeStick]

Trump has pardoned Michael Flynn (already plead guilty to lying to the FBI). No doubt many more pardons to come in the coming weeks.

https://twitter.com/user/status/1331710416620294147

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by New Era

Thank you. We just had an election that proved beyond a reasonable doubt that voters have no taste for programs that scream socialism, like UBI. If you want to talk about that craziness take it to the UBI thread. There's enough insanity in the United States to talk about. So forget the progressives, forget the crazy liberals, and forget socialistic ideas that have no hope of gaining traction. We need to focus on getting the country back on the road to sanity and finding the center before we can even think about some of these far left ideas. I just want to feel safe walking down the street again.

Every house Democratic candidate who was in favour of M4A won their seat and every Democrat that lost was of the centrist/corporatist variety, but sure, keep spinning that easily debunked narrative.

EDIT: That "crazy progressive" idea of $15/h minimum wage also won handily in Florida, a State that Biden lost.

[KootenayFlamesFan]

This, x1000

https://twitter.com/user/status/1331721038502223874

[Johnny Makarov]

Originally Posted by KootenayFlamesFan

This, x1000

https://twitter.com/user/status/1331721038502223874

Is pardoning a US thing? Does any other country in the world do this? well other than dictatorships.

[Swift]

Originally Posted by KootenayFlamesFan

This, x1000

https://twitter.com/user/status/1331721038502223874

It does seem bizarre. Theoretically you could hire someone to take out your ex-wife, a political opponent or a journalist and then pardon them a year later.

[jayswin]

nm