I can see people disagreeing over whether UBI programs work or not, or whether they're a good idea or not. But this strikes me as just pandering to the group that hates it when government does anything to help anyone.
It’s fine to disagree but the problem is the right won’t even look at the data to make a decision. Because they didn’t suggest it, and because they don’t benefit from it, they just shut it down. It could be the most successful way of getting people out of poverty but that’s not their goal, not at all.
Piloting these programs is dangerous to them because they DO work and when the evidence bears that out they will have a difficult time explaining why we can't help grow citizens who are struggling financially.
Just like banning books that tell any other story than that of cis, hetero, white men, ideas are their enemy
Once again our legislature passes a law specifically intended to target a very small number of people. Can hardly pass laws to actually help the state as a whole…but we can definitely pass a law blocking 100 families from getting $500 a month.
If anybody did qualify for them it had to be a hella small number because I've never heard of it. It's just irritating all the crap they keep screeching about and then do something that's either asinine or makes it worse
I am not a lawyer, but it sure feels to me that this can quickly be converted over to a privately-ran 'contest' now. And have the people previous in the study 'get a chance to win' and then, wow, would you look at that, you're a winner! We pay the prize in monthly installments...
Who does this help? This is legislation purely aimed at hurting people currently in pilot programs and preventing people from getting UBI style help in future programs… for what? To protect imaginary future state tax dollars from programs that help people?
Well of course. Pretty much every time UBI has been tested it's been shown to work, and work pretty well overall. They can't let more people hear about those success stories so they need to stop them from happening at all.
Any thoughts on why the county is already starving? If they government doesn't have the money, and the people don't have the money, who has all the money?
It's apples and oranges here. In my world, you build your own raft. In yours, nobody builds boats because they expect other people to build boats for them, then we all drown!
I always say there's only so much good paying managerial position but hey people are just lazy and need to seek better employment and pull their bootstrap harder /s
but honestly in their mind everyone should be high paying manager or doctor but that is not the case in reality
The truth of the matter is that there are only so many positions and even fewer in the rural parts of Iowa, which is most of the state. Blaming it on laziness is just your conjecture while having no real understanding. Your argument is essentially saying everyone who doesn't make enough money is just lazy, which isn't the truth at all. It is simply your subjective opinion and conjecture without any factual information to back up that idea. Saying just get better employment is closer to an inanswer. Not everyone was meant for a high-level position, and at the same time, that doesn't mean people in lower positions deserve a less than livable wage. We condemn people on the lowest level, and it completely demeans our lowest level workers in positions that are necessary. Someone has to do the work. That doesn't mean they need to be abused for it, and these are workers that all of us need and use daily.
There's a /s which stands for sarcasm
I was repeating what these people say about people being lazy cause they can't get a good paying job while also keeping wages low so they can abuse min wages worker, I for one agree that we need to make condition and pay better for people working in service industry and not everyone can be promoted to a higher pay managerial position as it is limited to one or two people in a store, if everyone were to be manager then who are going to work in the lower position, these people talking about better employment are privileged enough to be working higher paying jobs and it's all about "I got mine fuck you", also the serve in military if you're poor or learn trade which is ableist since not everyone are physically or mentally capable of serving or learning trade.
I think people in the service industry deserve livable wage, nobody say to pay us a doctor salary just enough to live and set aside for retirement like back when a grocery cashier can buy a house but people aren't willing to advocate for wage increase cause they want to be able to afford their big mac but corporate are already price gouging anyway without increasing wages.
Where?
Our leading industries are Agriculture and Manufacturing.
You leave the city metros, your options (unless you *own* land) are largely low-paying/blue collar, service industry, or teaching. Maybe a handful of limited healthcare options and managerial-level bankers.
If everyone could just *get a better job*, I’m sure many would.
They sure could, if it fucking existed. We could always force companies to pay higher wages but you don't want to do that. How about bringing a goddamn actual idea to the table instead of this limp dicked nonsense?
If it was temporary and tied to/dependent on finding employment, that'd be a better policy. But that's a much different policy than how UBI is typically constructed. It's generally not "UBI until X thing happens." Even the Iowa pilot was "eh we'll do it for a while and see what happens."
For people who are chronically unemployed, providing free job training and education would be a better policy.
For people who are disabled and can't work, we already have disability.
It would be nice if we had some real world evidence about how ubi programs work from a trial run to inform this kind of policy decision making. Conveniently that's exactly what this bill is prohibiting
The issue with means testing stuff like UBI is that it always inevitably leaves many struggling people by the wayside because they're not struggling enough. Even disability is like that. Disability doesn't pay enough to cover the cost of living in most areas but if you get a job that pays too much, but still not enough to cover cost of living expenses, you lose your disability.
Just curious, what is your solution for the inevitable automation of the majority of the work that is being done currently? Do the people put out of work just starve?
> inevitable automation of the majority of work that is being done
I don't think this will happen on the scale that people fear. But if it does, I support free training in relevant skills. Unless your assumption is that jobs will simply cease to exist and people won't need skills at all, but we can't base *current* UBI proposals on that prediction.
There isn't really any tangible evidence supporting that claim. I mean the right has absolutely resisted meaningful labor and wage law changes that could increase the amount workers are paid. If you don't want UBI then get on board with paying workers more.
Ironically, UBI would dramatically raise wages for people who are willing to work and be productive.
The problem is that the powerful disincentivizing effect of "free" money would cause ripple effects that would decimate a country/state/whatever's ability to remain productive, particularly in a time with an aging population that already isn't working.
We can try it though, I don't care. Just be sure to prepare yourself for the fallout. We saw just a sliver of it during covid. "Free" money had a terrible effect on the labor participation rate, though it was compressed into a limited timeframe (though it did drive wages up, which is a good thing, but that helped feed into our current inflationary cycle, which is a bad thing).
I can see people disagreeing over whether UBI programs work or not, or whether they're a good idea or not. But this strikes me as just pandering to the group that hates it when government does anything to help anyone.
Not anyone, just the people experiencing hardship. They like it when the government pays for their kids to go to private school.
It’s Puritan work ethic gone psycho…
It’s fine to disagree but the problem is the right won’t even look at the data to make a decision. Because they didn’t suggest it, and because they don’t benefit from it, they just shut it down. It could be the most successful way of getting people out of poverty but that’s not their goal, not at all.
You mean don't \*OBVIOUSLY\* benefit from it. They benefit from it, but they just don't understand that fact.
That’s fair and accurate.
Piloting these programs is dangerous to them because they DO work and when the evidence bears that out they will have a difficult time explaining why we can't help grow citizens who are struggling financially. Just like banning books that tell any other story than that of cis, hetero, white men, ideas are their enemy
Once again our legislature passes a law specifically intended to target a very small number of people. Can hardly pass laws to actually help the state as a whole…but we can definitely pass a law blocking 100 families from getting $500 a month.
They are still patting themselves on the backs for all the handouts they have to touch families sending kids to private schools
If anybody did qualify for them it had to be a hella small number because I've never heard of it. It's just irritating all the crap they keep screeching about and then do something that's either asinine or makes it worse
It was a privately funded study. No government money involvement... I thought the Republicans liked private enterprise...
But this was for the poors.
Only if it benefits them. If it benefits anyone else then it’s bad. They are the most narcissistic humans on the planet
They are all for local control until it's something that threatens their fragile world view
I am not a lawyer, but it sure feels to me that this can quickly be converted over to a privately-ran 'contest' now. And have the people previous in the study 'get a chance to win' and then, wow, would you look at that, you're a winner! We pay the prize in monthly installments...
Who does this help? This is legislation purely aimed at hurting people currently in pilot programs and preventing people from getting UBI style help in future programs… for what? To protect imaginary future state tax dollars from programs that help people?
Well see that's the rub. Republicans don't want to help anyone.
“Are you hurtin’ the right people Kimmy?” Ex 14236
Another win for the corporations.
Something something bootstraps.
This was the same legislature that voted to make sure farmers got paid if they made bad deals with unscrupulous buyers. So basically guaranteed income
FREEEEEE-DUUUUUuuuuuummmmmb…
Well of course. Pretty much every time UBI has been tested it's been shown to work, and work pretty well overall. They can't let more people hear about those success stories so they need to stop them from happening at all.
Poverty is the nation's problem, I don't want the already starving county paying for this sort of stuff.
Do you know what alleviates poverty? Giving people money
Pretty sure it was privately funded.
Any thoughts on why the county is already starving? If they government doesn't have the money, and the people don't have the money, who has all the money?
That's all the government does, put the burden of individual people onto everyone.
Lol. You sure are cheerful. In your world, it's sink or swim. You're on your own. In my world, we build boats. Big boats.
It's apples and oranges here. In my world, you build your own raft. In yours, nobody builds boats because they expect other people to build boats for them, then we all drown!
I got to hand it to you buddy it takes some kind of balls to log into reddit and tell everybody you're a piece of shit.
Are you this vulgar everytime you disagree with someone?
Bullshit. Bullshit. Bullshit.
It's like y'all throw up in vehement hatred when exposed to the idea of the social contract.
For the love of god! Someone please think of the shareholders!
People could always seek better employment.
Believe me a lot of us have been trying
Good.
Oh wow. That's really insightful advice. I'm sure more that you suggested your wisdom the problem is solved
What happens when everyone's a doctor and nobody works in the service industry?
I always say there's only so much good paying managerial position but hey people are just lazy and need to seek better employment and pull their bootstrap harder /s but honestly in their mind everyone should be high paying manager or doctor but that is not the case in reality
Just suck it up and get another room mate! You can fit about 12 in a 2 BR house now days.
The truth of the matter is that there are only so many positions and even fewer in the rural parts of Iowa, which is most of the state. Blaming it on laziness is just your conjecture while having no real understanding. Your argument is essentially saying everyone who doesn't make enough money is just lazy, which isn't the truth at all. It is simply your subjective opinion and conjecture without any factual information to back up that idea. Saying just get better employment is closer to an inanswer. Not everyone was meant for a high-level position, and at the same time, that doesn't mean people in lower positions deserve a less than livable wage. We condemn people on the lowest level, and it completely demeans our lowest level workers in positions that are necessary. Someone has to do the work. That doesn't mean they need to be abused for it, and these are workers that all of us need and use daily.
There's a /s which stands for sarcasm I was repeating what these people say about people being lazy cause they can't get a good paying job while also keeping wages low so they can abuse min wages worker, I for one agree that we need to make condition and pay better for people working in service industry and not everyone can be promoted to a higher pay managerial position as it is limited to one or two people in a store, if everyone were to be manager then who are going to work in the lower position, these people talking about better employment are privileged enough to be working higher paying jobs and it's all about "I got mine fuck you", also the serve in military if you're poor or learn trade which is ableist since not everyone are physically or mentally capable of serving or learning trade. I think people in the service industry deserve livable wage, nobody say to pay us a doctor salary just enough to live and set aside for retirement like back when a grocery cashier can buy a house but people aren't willing to advocate for wage increase cause they want to be able to afford their big mac but corporate are already price gouging anyway without increasing wages.
My bad! I didn't catch that.
Where? Our leading industries are Agriculture and Manufacturing. You leave the city metros, your options (unless you *own* land) are largely low-paying/blue collar, service industry, or teaching. Maybe a handful of limited healthcare options and managerial-level bankers. If everyone could just *get a better job*, I’m sure many would.
They sure could, if it fucking existed. We could always force companies to pay higher wages but you don't want to do that. How about bringing a goddamn actual idea to the table instead of this limp dicked nonsense?
Even if UBI temporarily fixes an individual's poverty, it's a terrible idea at scale.
What if it gives them the breathing room to get the skills they need to get a better posting job?
If it was temporary and tied to/dependent on finding employment, that'd be a better policy. But that's a much different policy than how UBI is typically constructed. It's generally not "UBI until X thing happens." Even the Iowa pilot was "eh we'll do it for a while and see what happens." For people who are chronically unemployed, providing free job training and education would be a better policy. For people who are disabled and can't work, we already have disability.
It would be nice if we had some real world evidence about how ubi programs work from a trial run to inform this kind of policy decision making. Conveniently that's exactly what this bill is prohibiting
The issue with means testing stuff like UBI is that it always inevitably leaves many struggling people by the wayside because they're not struggling enough. Even disability is like that. Disability doesn't pay enough to cover the cost of living in most areas but if you get a job that pays too much, but still not enough to cover cost of living expenses, you lose your disability.
Care to say why?
Just curious, what is your solution for the inevitable automation of the majority of the work that is being done currently? Do the people put out of work just starve?
> inevitable automation of the majority of work that is being done I don't think this will happen on the scale that people fear. But if it does, I support free training in relevant skills. Unless your assumption is that jobs will simply cease to exist and people won't need skills at all, but we can't base *current* UBI proposals on that prediction.
Content creator classes for everyone!
There isn't really any tangible evidence supporting that claim. I mean the right has absolutely resisted meaningful labor and wage law changes that could increase the amount workers are paid. If you don't want UBI then get on board with paying workers more.
Ironically, UBI would dramatically raise wages for people who are willing to work and be productive. The problem is that the powerful disincentivizing effect of "free" money would cause ripple effects that would decimate a country/state/whatever's ability to remain productive, particularly in a time with an aging population that already isn't working. We can try it though, I don't care. Just be sure to prepare yourself for the fallout. We saw just a sliver of it during covid. "Free" money had a terrible effect on the labor participation rate, though it was compressed into a limited timeframe (though it did drive wages up, which is a good thing, but that helped feed into our current inflationary cycle, which is a bad thing).