2016 USA Presidential election thread II: And. Here. We. Go!

[kuronosan]

So your argument that "unskilled workers don't work hard" fails, and argue for a free market while simultaneously saying some jobs matter less than others.

Mmkay. All jobs matter. If unskilled workers didn't bust their ass harvesting coffee beans with Jose there'd be no coffee shop which means people would have to make it at home and lose productivity as a result.

So yes, a happy worker is a hard worker.

[Yuri-G]

I mean honestly, I've probably cost my company more money in lost revenue due to a lack of work ethic that arose from seeing increasing success both within my sector and within the company as a whole combined with insufficient to non existent raises, slashed benefits, etc. than they saved in making those cuts. We're doing better and better, record profits every quarter, and yet we can't pay you any more than we already are and we also have to cut your health insurance and increase the premiums sorry not sorry. And even if that's not the case I am taking my talent and my capabilities elsewhere, a net loss for the company after all the time they invested in training me, simply because I do not feel and have not felt respected or valued for years now.


Now that's pure anecdote, and I'm not saying it works that way in every case, but - yes - as Kuro said, a happy worker is a hard worker.

[Ksandra]

The crux of my argument is that people are wrongly saying raising the minimum wage is the best way to give these people decent standards of living because it's unfairly asking the service sector and certain other businesses to provide social welfare.

I don't think necessarily it is the best way per se, but it is the easiest/most-likely-to-pass way because of how much businesses are designed around capitalism.

I think a more honest way is to have some sort of ratio that a CEO can make vs. his/her lowest paid worker. But that is a fucking pipe dream. Min wage is something that we can actually change.

The jobs these people do are not worth as much as is necessary for them to live a standard of living in-line with how prosperous of a country america is.

What makes you say this? Why are these jobs not worth a standard of living?

We're asking for social welfare for these people, not fair compensation with respect to what the market actually prizes/wants, right?

No, we are asking to start figuring out how to make more businesses like Costco because they technically can be like Costco, but have no reason whatsoever to.

It's not even social welfare for these people, it's social welfare for the whole country. If people get paid more:

They can spend it on consumer goods, which helps other business.

They are less likely to get into debt. Meaning, again, having more money to spend on both consumer goods, and not to forget preventative health services which would help to lower ACA costs.

They can pay taxes that can go towards funding schools, police, fire, etc..


How is that not a good thing for everyone?

[Thunder]

Yet you have companies like Walmart that love to help their workers get set up on welfare/food stamps so they can continue to slave away for minimum wage while lining the higher ups pockets. Hell the owner of Costco is constantly under fire from stock holders to cut wages/benefits to increase profits and thus inflate the value of stock

What do you mean by "yet"? I'm talking about expanding what the gov. provides for those workers being better than the gov. forcing the company to try and do empathetic things. Because it's no surprise that those companies will either be under fire to be as exploitative as possible or just be as exploitative as possible. Asking the lion to be nice to the gazelle is silly and I'm not sure why you began with "yet" as if it's a counter to my argument that the solution is better kept in the hands of the government than in the hands of corporations being forced to pay higher wages

If the jobs are not worth as much as is necessary for the employees to have a decent standard of living then by definition we have a class of jobs which a) still need to get done and b) are not worth doing. That is an untenable situation. No job that is necessary for the functioning of a corporation is worth less than the minimum that would meet the cost of living or the job itself ceases to be valuable enough for the employee to do the work.


That is, of course, unless you create a class of people who live below an acceptable standard of living, a concept I find to be morally repugnant but which can and in fact does happen on a sadly frequent basis in our economy.

But people do work those jobs so obviously it's worth it to those employees to get paid a little bit vs nothing at all. That's where a lot of people get it wrong. Capitalism, or nature, has already shown that people will actually work, and even compete, for crappy paying jobs that make it difficult to properly live (care for children, medical care, even things like preschool, school supplies, and forget about higher education).

And we both agree what should happen (for different reasons I bet) - these people should get help. You're all saying the gov. should mandate their employers pay extra. I'm saying that will cause a bunch of problems that can barely be foreseen by all the people clamoring for it. Instead, if the gov. just did the redistribution of wealth themselves through taxes it would keep everyone's incentive in line (business maximizes earnings, gov. keeps people safe/healthy/etc) and businesses, all businesses, can pick up the slack, instead of exclusively the businesses that use unskilled labor

So your argument that "unskilled workers don't work hard" fails, and argue for a free market while simultaneously saying some jobs matter less than others.

Mmkay. All jobs matter. If unskilled workers didn't bust their ass harvesting coffee beans with Jose there'd be no coffee shop which means people would have to make it at home and lose productivity as a result.

So yes, a happy worker is a hard worker.

my argument has never been unskilled workers don't work hard. C'mon, that was a reply to Niiro who jumped in after I asked gred to specify if he believed paying people more guaranteed higher earnings at the kind of businesses we're talking about and implied that paying minimum wage gets minimum results, as if the bottom line at walmart would go up proportionately if they're paid more

Yes, all jobs matter, I really don't understand how someone thinks I have said some jobs literally don't matter, or that these people don't deserve a higher standard of living. Weird straw mans, but whatever.

It's pretty simple, we all seemingly want the same thing? except I want the government to be the one to be handling it because mandating the increased cost of only one type of labor is either dangerous to the economy or will have market balancing effects reduce your efforts to nothing

I don't think necessarily it is the best way per se, but it is the easiest/most-likely-to-pass way because of how much businesses are designed around capitalism.

I think a more honest way is to have some sort of ratio that a CEO can make vs. his/her lowest paid worker. But that is a fucking pipe dream. Min wage is something that we can actually change.



What makes you say this? Why are these jobs not worth a standard of living?



No, we are asking to start figuring out how to make more businesses like Costco because they technically can be like Costco, but have no reason whatsoever to.

It's not even social welfare for these people, it's social welfare for the whole country. If people get paid more:

They can spend it on consumer goods, which helps other business.

They are less likely to get into debt. Meaning, again, having more money to spend on both consumer goods, and not to forget preventative health services which would help to lower ACA costs.

They can pay taxes that can go towards funding schools, police, fire, etc..


How is that not a good thing for everyone?

Those jobs are not worth the standard of living because the workforce has decided so. People have been competing for the crappy paying jobs, if there weren't people to fill those jobs then businesses would have to rise rates naturally to accommodate, we both see that's not happening and so something needs to be done

Other part,
I mentioned this all before - but you cannot say increase in min. wage increases the amount of money going into the economy because they would just spend it on consumer goods. That money came from someone else's paycheck, literally, since productivity hasn't increased (unless you mean to tell me walmart would sell more stuff, have better prices, or anything else if their cashiers/etc were paid more)
And less debt doesn't mean more money, either. Just means you can get more debt - and in this case the people from whom that money came from would be able to get less debt. Debt is an important part of the economy and we don't want to get rid of it, and none of this really has a net effect on debt anyway

These people already pay very little (or 0 effective) taxes.

It could be a good thing because these people would be able to better afford important things in their, and their children's lives that would make their lives, and everyone they come into contact with live's better. But there's just too much that can go wrong. Most likely the market will correct itself by raising the cost of living a proportionate amount and your raise in min. wage has done fuck all for these people. At least with the gov. stepping in and doing it themselves by raising taxes on every business/individual and literally giving it to the people who need it there is very little that can go wrong with the market as a whole vs all that gets distorted in the market by forcing a specific type of labor to cost more

[Yuri-G]

Well as long as we can both agree that people working shit jobs for crappy pay as long as it benefits the corporation is not a good thing, I will be ok with that.

[Ezek]

http://dailycaller.com/2016/12/23/tu...-ivanka-video/

Fox News host Tucker Carlson embarrassed Teen Vogue writer Lauren Duca Friday night after she defended the man who harassed Ivanka Trump on a JetBlue flight the day before.

After Ivanka was harassed, Duca said on Twitter that “Ivanka Trump is poised to become the most powerful woman in the world. Don’t let her off the hook because she looks like she smells good.”

“She looks like she smells like vanilla?” Carlson asked. “I mean, who’s objectifying women here?”

Carlson then called Duca out for a tweet in which she wrote, “eat shit [Donald Trump].” Duca denied that she ever wrote the tweet but TheDC saved a screenshot of it.

Ugh, that video was hard to watch.

[Gredival]

Do you mean to say that the rise in worker productivity from an increase in wages would result in higher earnings for the company?

My argument is that raising the minimum is helpful, but it will be ultimately undermined when companies are just absolutely dead set against any consideration besides their own profit margins will find ways in order to compensate.

I'm not necessarily saying it's more profitable for companies to treat their employees like, you know, humans, but that there are in fact benefits for doing so. Unfortunately those benefits aren't $$$ on the financial report, but they are enough such that it's completely possible to create a successful business while still rewarding employees with more than you have to. See my examples about Costco and In-N-Out.

Given that, it should be possible to make it so that the national economy can survive without treating the majority of people as expendable means of labor. But the problem is that basically our entire market is acting like the airline industry. They established a new norm that put burdens on the customers/employees saying that it's necessary for things to be like this in order for companies to stay afloat, but in reality it's only necessary in order for them to make record profit margins.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/05/bu...ges-slide.html

It's not just an issue for unskilled labor btw. Studies have shown that there are many ways in which we can improve the way salaried workers are treated and that it actually increases productivity and employee happiness. For instance allowing employees to do 4x 10hr days rather than 5x 8hr days (thus giving them a weekday off to do tasks during business hours) is a boon, but many companies don't want to deal with having to create unique schedules or potentially not having an employee around on one specific day. Studies have also shown that requiring employees to stay to the end of the day everyday because they are being paid to be there, rather than their presence being dictated by task assignment and completion, doesn't net the company anything and can actually be counter-productive.

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/...orkday/383380/
http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/169/5/596.full

Other countries are able to maintain high wealth without working their employees to the ground. It's a uniquely American issue

http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DatasetCode=ANHRS

Basically everyone else is approaching the way people thought America would go (towards 30~ hr averages), while America goes towards more work.

http://www.amazon.com/Century-Differ.../dp/0871543680
http://www.epi.org/publication/ib348...ges-1979-2007/
http://www.econ.yale.edu/smith/econ116a/keynes1.pdf
http://www.theatlantic.com/video/ind...hour-workweek/

But just like when we went from 10hr days and 6 day workweeks to today's 8hr days and 5 day weeks, it requires people to stand up and fight for it. Unfortunately that doesn't happen when we have an entire group of people, most of which would benefit from expanded workers' rights, whose first reaction is to justify companies squeezing more profit. It's just like the people on Obamacare who voted for Trump; they are so concerned with making sure other people don't get something for free that they will have to pay for that they don't realize how the system is already exploiting them.

[Krandor]

My dad (lives and breathes Fox News) was watching that earlier today, and that video is cutting off the very end which imo was fucking hilarious.

Carlson : "Stick to the thigh-high boots, you're better at that"

Duca : "You're a sexist p-" mic cuts off

Tucker Carlson is a gigantic assclown, but I'll be damned if watching him trigger the fuck out of her wasn't amusing.

[Ksandra]

Those jobs are not worth the standard of living because the workforce has decided so.

So insane low factory wages in extremely unsafe conditions were where they should have been because the market was saying it was ok because people (and children) were desperate enough to work in those conditions?

Your statement is a great example of why the free market is utter shit and shouldn't be used as a bar for anything. Humans are not numbers. The numbers don't tell the full story, and you shouldn't limit it to that.

[Gredival]

Wages below the standard of living would be fine if we had strong robust public assistance to close the gap for those unable to make ends' meet. But the fact that the system needs certain jobs filled but makes it such that those who fill them literally can't make a living is problematic to say the least.

[Xantavia]

Theoretically

As Gred said though, companies will do whatever they can to uphold their profit margins. Either:
A- your 15/hr will take you as far as your 10/hr was before as everyone raised their costs of goods and services.
B-your hours are getting cut so youll be making 15/hr but will only be working 25hrs/wk instead of 40.
C-you will be working short staffed as another cost cutting measure, expect to do extra work for that extra pay.

Well, B & C already seem to be the common practice around me. We've actually been told to cut BELOW bare-bones staffing levels before, passed down from our CEO through the email chain. Then they'll send guest survey results and wonder why the scores for service keep dropping company wide.

[Thunder]

My argument is that raising the minimum is helpful, but it will be ultimately undermined when companies are just absolutely dead set against any consideration besides their own profit margins will find ways in order to compensate.

I'm not necessarily saying it's more profitable for companies to treat their employees like, you know, humans, but that there are in fact benefits for doing so. Unfortunately those benefits aren't $$$ on the financial report, but they are enough such that it's completely possible to create a successful business while still rewarding employees with more than you have to. See my examples about Costco and In-N-Out.

Given that, it should be possible to make it so that the national economy can survive without treating the majority of people as expendable means of labor. But the problem is that basically our entire market is acting like the airline industry. They established a new norm that put burdens on the customers/employees saying that it's necessary for things to be like this in order for companies to stay afloat, but in reality it's only necessary in order for them to make record profit margins.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/05/bu...ges-slide.html

It's not just an issue for unskilled labor btw. Studies have shown that there are many ways in which we can improve the way salaried workers are treated and that it actually increases productivity and employee happiness. For instance allowing employees to do 4x 10hr days rather than 5x 8hr days (thus giving them a weekday off to do tasks during business hours) is a boon, but many companies don't want to deal with having to create unique schedules or potentially not having an employee around on one specific day. Studies have also shown that requiring employees to stay to the end of the day everyday because they are being paid to be there, rather than their presence being dictated by task assignment and completion, doesn't net the company anything and can actually be counter-productive.

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/...orkday/383380/
http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/169/5/596.full

Other countries are able to maintain high wealth without working their employees to the ground. It's a uniquely American issue

http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DatasetCode=ANHRS

Basically everyone else is approaching the way people thought America would go (towards 30~ hr averages), while America goes towards more work.

http://www.amazon.com/Century-Differ.../dp/0871543680
http://www.epi.org/publication/ib348...ges-1979-2007/
http://www.econ.yale.edu/smith/econ116a/keynes1.pdf
http://www.theatlantic.com/video/ind...hour-workweek/

But just like when we went from 10hr days and 6 day workweeks to today's 8hr days and 5 day weeks, it requires people to stand up and fight for it. Unfortunately that doesn't happen when we have an entire group of people, most of which would benefit from expanded workers' rights, whose first reaction is to justify companies squeezing more profit. It's just like the people on Obamacare who voted for Trump; they are so concerned with making sure other people don't get something for free that they will have to pay for that they don't realize how the system is already exploiting them.

Good post, I'll have to take some time to look through those links, studies, and deeper into the structure of other countries' economies to comment on much of what you wrote (I suspect those countries have inequality issues hidden at other locations in the economic chain, cursory searches show that, in general, things are more expensive in norway but w/e).

I think you're getting at another issue that I haven't mentioned yet and an important part to consider for posters like ksan. And that is the type of people we want to help are not capable of that help themselves. They have the poorest representation, nonexistant lobbying force relative to other large sectors of the workforce, and consistently vote against themselves (or are plainly uninformed). The entire market is acting like an airline (and by entire let's be clear that we mean these low paying jobs... there are plenty of free lunches out there, but maybe I'm not catching on to what you mean exactly by acting like an airline - I assume it's competition running margins to nothing) because the market has decided it should. The workers want those shit paying jobs, the business wants to pay less, and the consumer wants cheaper goods/services. And small btw, why do you say it's bad for customers in your airline quip? I see how it's bad for airlines and/or airline investors but it's pretty rad a ticket from NY to LA is 150 bucks on a machine that costs several dozen million to make and then more to maintain/regulate over the years

Best case scenario, and let me know if I'm off base, is that min wage gets increased to some set amount that guarantees people have decent lives (call it 15) and it's set so that it increases at some rate proportional to the rate of increase of standard of living. That way, we can get around the whole issue of "hey you did 15/hr and that's cool but now it's time for 20/hr" or the fact that 15/hr will come by the time that 20/hr is required

And that's where I see the issue - the cost of that program is being paid exclusively businesses who use cheap labor which causes severe distortions in the market which can lead to problems like described by people above. Tell me why it's better for ONLY THOSE businesses to pay the cost, vs the entire market to be paying it through increased taxes?

Do you not worry that businesses will out-maneuver these changes and screw the worker anyway since the worker can't be trusted to adequately represent himself and his interests?

And this is all besides the fact that increase in wages is going to do nothing when human productivity is not required elsewhere as automation fills in. And those issues might start burdening us hard sooner than 15/hr comes

All in all, your facts on work loads might be awesome and true, but we're not talking about whether or not it would be beneficial to restructure law on what makes a full time employee, or giving that distinction to private businesses to determine, or whatever else (I too think that would be beneficial across the board btw). It's how to mot effectively/realistically provide an amount of money to people who do not currently benefit from the prosperity of the united states... and I'm pretty certain just raising minimum wage is a shit way of doing it.

So insane low factory wages in extremely unsafe conditions were where they should have been because the market was saying it was ok because people (and children) were desperate enough to work in those conditions?

basically yes

but should have been? Should have been for what? We know that's where they should have been because that's... where they were. That's kind of how the market works, it's a mashing together of a bunch of forces, many of which are the decision-making of people. I see how you can be empathetic towards those factory workers back then, but realize it's a different time, and everything was pretty bad then and we might not have had the capabilities to care for everyone to the degree that would have made you comfortable.

And is it perfect.. well, no, almost by definition the market isn't perfect because so many inputs are literally human decision-making and we know how perfect that is. But show me a better system. Saying the market is utter shit and shouldn't be used as a bar for anything is kind of like saying democracy is shit and shouldn't be used as a bar for anything. But hey, it's the best we've got, and you can either try and work in it or be welcome in a fantasy world along with bern bros, marx fanboys, etc

Your statement is a great example of why the free market is utter shit and shouldn't be used as a bar for anything. Humans are not numbers. The numbers don't tell the full story, and you shouldn't limit it to that.

I'm pretty sure I know what you're saying here... and that's even though the market has decided it so... it isn't what would be best for the people on the bottom of the ladder of skills/talents that are prized in the market?

Well... no shit <_< isn't that what we've been discussing? Do you think that's news to me, when I, too, have been posting about compensating those people? When I say the market's decided - I'm not saying that's what's best. I'm saying that's what IS. We're discussing what's the, most likely, best plan moving forward in the world that IS. Sorry the factory kids had to work so hard, I didn't want them doing that either. But they did it. Just like people now are working many hours for crap pay.

Do you think the way we fix that is to mandate their employers pay more. Or compensate them by having everyone chip in. Because humans aren't numbers, and their stories are more complex than that! isn't relevant to either scenario that I think you're part of discussing


hm, I think I've exhausted a majority of what I reasonably have got on the issue but nobody's giving me push back on what I thought I had outlined to be the heart of the discussion here: why should it be select businesses paying for closing the gap VS everyone, through government taxing.

[Uzor]

Reading this thread makes me so happy I don't work in America. Yesterday my employers took me out for Christmas dinner and pretty much demanded I take some days off next week to spend time with family and friends so that I don't work myself too hard. They also took the time to ask if there's anything they can do to make work more enjoyable and if there's any equipment I need to make work easier.

I'll be damned if I don't work my hardest with employers who actually care and take time to make sure I enjoy the working for them.

[Emphasis]

I envy you. I personally don't know anyone who can even say close to the same thing.

[Zealot]

Thunder, you make good points but you're coming from a flawed premise.

Artificially inflating wages would be a bad move, but right now they're artificially deflated. Employers are making more money than ever, employees haven't seen a change.

This same argument came up here years ago. The Congressional Research Service has a wealth of information on the topic. I was working on the issue at the time and remember seeing that if Wal-Mart paid all of its minimum wage employees $12.50 an hour and decided not to absorb a penny of that in profit margin, just pass 100% of the costs onto consumers, the average Wal-Mart shopper would pay an additional $7 a year. Maybe less, I don't remember it exactly at this point.

The argument that a minimum wage hike would disrupt the market is flawed because it assumes The Invisible Hand is still a thing. Big business whittled the Hand down to the Invisible Middle Finger a long time ago.

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

[tyven]

why should someone have to pay 7 dollars a year so Jethro can move out his mom's trailer tho. Doesn't he have boot straps?

[Day]

My dad (lives and breathes Fox News) was watching that earlier today, and that video is cutting off the very end which imo was fucking hilarious.

Carlson : "Stick to the thigh-high boots, you're better at that"

Duca : "You're a sexist p-" mic cuts off

Tucker Carlson is a gigantic assclown, but I'll be damned if watching him trigger the fuck out of her wasn't amusing.

Tucker is my favorite anchor on any of these shows, he was pushing his shtick a bit hard in this one but still hilarious, idk why people go on thinking they are gonna "own" him, Ive seen some college kids just get absolutely shit on this year on his show lol.

[Thunder]

It's not flawed, or at least you aren't proving to me that it is. You're using the most well established and successful discount retail brand in the world as a baseline for the question "can they take it?". Of course the answer is yes, they can - the waltons themselves could bridge the gap we're talking about for some time. What will actually happen is another story, and more importantly, what will happen to the less lucrative businesses that rely on unskilled labor is unanswered by walmart stats

Idk how to find the data you worked on at CRS but looked up walmart's numbers and I see that if they're making ~37 million dollars an hour and have ~million min. wage employees be given a raise from (apparently it's 10 now, was 9 last year) 10 to 15 would just be 5 million dollars an hour. Or an increase in price of stuff at walmart by 13.5%... which is a not-so-small deal in discount retail. Going to your 12.50 from the current 10 would be exactly half that.But the point is that walmart has one of the best profit margins around in all the world and they wouldn't be hit the hardest - the least, actually. SMall point, your fact about "average walmart shopper" spending an extra 7 a year is missing a "what do they spend a year" to make it really substantive because it's a big difference if the average spent by someone is 1 dollar a year vs 5,000 a year

Don't understand your invisible hand metaphor. Market forces are no longer a thing thanks to big business somehow?

In any case.... even if the impact on the cost of those goods/services going up is "small" to you, then you'd have to see that the impact on those goods/services would be even smaller if we instead had everyone foot the bill and redistribute that impact across all businesses, not just those that use min. wage labor. And that would even be better for the people we're trying to help because their cost of living is heavily influenced by the prices at places with min. wage labor (supermarkets, restaurants, auto repair, retail, etc). Those places would be influenced much more heavily by a min. wage increase than walmart and to be fair not all of them are all that profitable in the first place. And a much of the US has people rely on small(er) business for their services/goods - I talked about this before but if you're cool with all those having another disadvantage levied on them vs big corporations then so be it, let the best business win. But I don't think that's the best way forward

That isn't even to say that these businesses/corporations wont just out-maneuver the rate at which you can keep fighting to raise min wage with sneaky business practices by manipulating employees and/or laws (which is what I was alluding to by italicizing can in can walmart provide the money and not be put out of business). I realize the same could be said by a government organized program taxing the more profitable people/businesses but at least that way the workers who have historically not been able to properly act in their interests would be taken out of the equation because even if the business would pay them 0 then theoretically the gov. would bridge that gap and fuck that business up themselves however much necessary to meet whatever quota of livable income needs to be met for that area

It's just so much better to have the government do it because it's more flexible, less unpredictable due to market uncertainty, safer to the employee, better long-term (would be the beginnings of basic income, basically), idk how else I can say it

[Vandalhart]

Sorry, this first section was to Tyven:

There are situations where "because it's the right thing to do" is the correct answer. That being said, it's a lot harder to justify those reasons when you yourself may be having a hard time making ends meet.

Universal Basic Income has been coming up quite a bit more lately. Personally, I'd rather see ways of getting people the support they need for things that are required than just hand them money. Lowering utility rates, housing costs, and grocery costs, or at least finding ways to subsidize them, seems like a way to do it where they would be less likely to be wasted or abused.


There's been a few things locally that have come up lately that I'm having trouble being excited or happy about. They just said here in my province that University is now going to be free... for households making under 60k a year. That's good, not for my kid, but fine. The problems I have with that is
1. Making university free isn't going to stop the university from raising tuition.
2. We're not exactly a high populated province, and we have trouble keeping the services we currently have properly upkept/staff.. where is the money going to come from?
3. They're getting rid of all the other income tax programs for all people when they introduce it. If anything, they should have kept those programs in place along with it, or made it free for everyone.

There's some other stuff I'm keeping my eyes on in terms of internet service providers. I'd love to see the government purchase the infrastructure, offer training on creation/upkeep of said structure and get it out of the iron grip of Bell or Rogers. If I had any faith that the government would actually upkeep it and grow it properly I'd be all for it. They wouldn't get it cheap though. I'm sure Bell/Rogers would make sure to get their money.

[tyven]

Sorry, this first section was to Tyven:

There are situations where "because it's the right thing to do" is the correct answer. That being said, it's a lot harder to justify those reasons when you yourself may be having a hard time making ends meet.

Universal Basic Income has been coming up quite a bit more lately. Personally, I'd rather see ways of getting people the support they need for things that are required than just hand them money. Lowering utility rates, housing costs, and grocery costs, or at least finding ways to subsidize them, seems like a way to do it where they would be less likely to be wasted or abused.


There's been a few things locally that have come up lately that I'm having trouble being excited or happy about. They just said here in my province that University is now going to be free... for households making under 60k a year. That's good, not for my kid, but fine. The problems I have with that is
1. Making university free isn't going to stop the university from raising tuition.
2. We're not exactly a high populated province, and we have trouble keeping the services we currently have properly upkept/staff.. where is the money going to come from?
3. They're getting rid of all the other income tax programs for all people when they introduce it. If anything, they should have kept those programs in place along with it, or made it free for everyone.

There's some other stuff I'm keeping my eyes on in terms of internet service providers. I'd love to see the government purchase the infrastructure, offer training on creation/upkeep of said structure and get it out of the iron grip of Bell or Rogers. If I had any faith that the government would actually upkeep it and grow it properly I'd be all for it. They wouldn't get it cheap though. I'm sure Bell/Rogers would make sure to get their money.

sorry i was joking also I don't shop at walmart