[bearishgurl]

[quote=FlyerInHi] . . . BG, I understand that some consumers would make bad choices… too bad. UBI would be better, and maybe cost less than the vast welfare bureaucracies we have today.[/quote]UBI will most certainly disincentivize real employment among the able-bodied masses. Even though individuals could earn more income up to a certain level and still receive UBI, I believe there is a HUGE portion of the population who will just figure out how to make their $10K stretch so they will never have to get a job. They’ll live on futons with 6 or more adults to a household (ALL with UBI) in expensive cities. They’ll take public transport and ride bicycles thereby not having to own a vehicle. They’ll share bulk food among the entire household. They’ll try to use less utilities and not use water outside.

We would all be looking at a ton of run down properties with dry yards which no landlord in expensive counties (like SD) would want to maintain (due to being forced to rent to multiple unrelated people … all with their own UBI payment). There would be a lot more rental homes (and maybe even for-sale homes) on the market as well, due to doubling and tripling of family member/friend roommates so that no one in the household would need to hold down a real job. Subsequently, RE values would go down.

In short, I believe a HUGE amount of the US population (50-60% ?) would just choose UBI over work or just work a tiny bit to supplement it (perhaps earning up to an additional $10K yr, excluding any “under the table” income, of course). Employers will go wanting for employees (especially in lower-paid service sector jobs) and few of working age will be interested in taking them. Especially in places like SD County with great weather and beaches. Throw “legal weed” into the equation and the mantra of the masses will be, “Why bother to stress ourselves? We have everything we want and need.” We can just collectively invest our “excess UBI” in fans, fertilizer and grow-lights and make more money selling our homegrown weed and enjoy life :=0

[bearishgurl]

[quote=FlyerInHi]. . . Henry Ford paid his workers well and they spent their money on his cars. win-win. everyone is richer. . . .
[/quote]Read what you wrote, brian. “… his workers …” He KNEW how much “his workers” made and gave them first dibs to finance a Ford.

New vehicles cost much more today (2.5 to 5+ times one year’s proposed “UBI”) than in Henry Ford’s era. Most of those collecting UBI are going to have bad credit or no credit. Who is going to lend them the money to buy a new vehicle today? Even those auto dealers on the radio pushing subprime auto loans want to see $350 income per week, regardless of credit.

UBI at $10K year is only an average of $194.25 week. That isn’t even enough to live on your own, much less buy a vehicle. It’s barely enough for gas (for a used car “given” to you) and food and to help out the parent/relative with whom you’re living with utilities, plus a cell phone bill (if it isn’t too high).

[bearishgurl]

[quote=FlyerInHi][quote=bearishgurl] The gubment doesn’t have the resources to pay grown adults twice monthly and make sure they have enough to eat and a roof over their heads. [/quote]

Have you heard of a company named ADP? If you pay someone a semi monthly salary, you can set it and forget it, the computer takes care of the direct deposit.

Consumers would make sure they have enough. If they don’t, they’ll just scrape by ’til the next paycheck.[/quote]How do you know this, brian?

And how much will “ADP” charge the gubment to make hundreds of millions of bimonthly “payments?”

[quote=FlyerInHi]Consumers make spending decisions, not government….[/quote]Uhhh …. yeah. This is my greatest fear. “Consumers make spending decisions.”

We already have this. And take note of how many “consumers” in the US living on the street and in homeless shelters and availing themselves of SNAP, commodities and food coops. Many in this group are still running out of month before they run out of money AND food. Ohh, but the vast majority of them have the latest cell phone and the monthly service to operate it. Problem is, they can’t live in or eat their phone.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=FlyerInHi][quote=bearishgurl] Um, FIH, if people “spend” all their UBI on consumables, how are they going to live every month and eat? $10K doesn’t go very far, ESP in CA! What am I missing, here?[/quote]

UBI is the minimum security blanket. People can still work and earn more. When people feel secure, they spend more into the real economy.

China is trying to do that with health care, minimum wages, etc… Basically what we did with New Deal and Great Society. UBI would be going to the next level.

Granted, there is an optimal level. We need to experiment and find that level.[/quote]$833.33 month isn’t an “optimal level” to live in CA and never will be …. that is, unless someone else (parents/spouse/relative) is paying your bills. It’s extremely difficult for someone to live on $833.33 month in “flyover country.” Only if one is on Medicaid/Medicare and has heavily subsidized housing can it work … and even then, it doesn’t “work” very well.

A LOT of people in the country have SS benefits or SSI equivalent to $833.33 mo. In CA, they cannot live on this paltry sum and they certainly can’t live on it and also pay the property taxes, insurance and maintenance on a house, even if they “inherited it” free and clear! (I’ve seen multiple examples of this and it’s not pretty … at all :=0) The vast majority of these very low-income Californians who aren’t longtime homeowners (w/paid-off homes) and aren’t (fortunate) “heirs” of a CA home are forced to move into a run down mobile home in the interior of the state or forced to move in with relatives who pay their bills (in or out of state) for the rest of their lives.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=bearishgurl]I don’t support UBI. Just like TANF (welfare cash aid), people are going to run out of month before they run out of money….[/quote]

Correction: I meant, “… run out of money before they run out of month.“

[bearishgurl]

[quote=FlyerInHi]. . . Concentration at the top 1% is very bad for the economy because those people don’t spend. They park money in real estate. That squeezes the lower classes who have no money left to spend on goods and services.[/quote]If a “1%er” doesn’t need to have their nails done every two weeks or to have the latest ~$800 iphone, then neither does a 20-something who has a $10K year ($833.33 mo) gubment “grant,” no earned income, student debt and who has not and is not actively looking for a job.

End of story.

[bearishgurl]

I don’t support UBI. Just like TANF (welfare cash aid), people are going to run out of month before they run out of money. The gubment doesn’t have the resources to pay grown adults twice monthly and make sure they have enough to eat and a roof over their heads. It’s just going to be another “giveaway” which will be taken out of the OASDI fund, which hardworking Americans have paid into all of their lives in exchange for a promised (modest) “monthly pension” at the age of 66, as moneymaker posted here.

It will also disincentivise millenials from ever getting their sh!t together enough to move out of parents’ homes. They’ll just party on the money, lease new vehicles, buy electronics and continue to stay in parents’ back bdrms and eat their food indefinitely whilst stiffing their student loan lenders :=0

This idea, if implemented, will surely turn out to be is a disaster, IMO.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=FlyerInHi]There will be more money spent on goods and services because people will use the transfer payments to spend. Less money will to prisons and defense contractors.

Assuming the same amount of money, put that in the hands of consumers and you have more spending, plus compounding growth resulting from it.

You should be happy, because spending will done by consumers, taking the government out of the equation.

Granted, there will need to be reforms so that State and Federal governments collect taxes and efficiently distribute UBI. But it can done with little friction thanks to computers.[/quote]Um, FIH, if people “spend” all their UBI on consumables, how are they going to live every month and eat? $10K doesn’t go very far, ESP in CA! What am I missing, here?

[bearishgurl]

[quote=SK in CV][quote=bearishgurl][quote=SK in CV][quote=bearishgurl]
flu, by your recent posts on this thread and others, you seem to the reader to be developing a chip on your shoulder as it applies to the Trump candidacy where there shouldn’t be. That’s on you … NOT Trump. Maybe you, too, SK. [/quote]

I have absolutely no idea what you mean by this. Do I think Trump is a horrible candidate? Absolutely. Do I think every single person who supports him is a complete idiot? Absolutely. The worst candidate in my lifetime from either major party. Worse by an order of magnitude. For a dozen or more reasons. His lack of experience. His lack of the right temperament. His ignorance of the law. His lack of ideas. His lack of curiosity. His disdain for knowledge. His bullying tactics. His racism. His misogyny. His lack of respect for the office. His lack of respect for the press. There’s a dozen I typed without hesitation in a minute or so. But a chip on my shoulder? It’s hardly necessary for me to be critical of his candidacy.[/quote]

Your (bolded) statement is indicative of you “developing a chip on your shoulder,” imho. You could easily find yourself surrounded by “complete idiots” in the space of just a very few days to a few months. Methinks that’s a limiting posture to take and could severely limit your day to day activities and the people you associate with. But if that kind of life suits you, far be it from me to judge.[/quote]

I didn’t bold any words. You did. In my not the least bit humble opinion, the words mean exactly what they say. And your bolding them, and describing them as you have, are indicative, (again, in my not the least bit humble opinion) of you having no clue what “chip on your shoulder” means.

I think the likelihood of Trump winning is miniscule. But that said, I’ve survived just fine, being surrounded by 30% of the population that:

A: Think gay people choose to be gay
B: Think the bible is the literal word of god
C: Think evolution never happened
D: Think global warming isn’t happening or isn’t the result of human action
E: Can’t find the pacific ocean on a map
F: Think Fox News is actually news

Thanks for your concern.[/quote]

Wow, SK, I’ve noticed over the years that plenty of “zonies” know how to find Pacific Beach (SD) just fine. I’m disappointed to hear that your peeps in AZ are as “unenlightened” and ignorant as you say they are.

[quote=SK in CV]BTW, exactly what policy of Trump’s that he’s actually presented for, is it that you like? Can you point me to the actual plan?[/quote]I’d love to discuss this with you, but I’ve asked you already 2-3 times on the “Everything Hillary” thread how long YOU think it will take for a (yet unfiled) Federal District Court civil rights case to wind its way to the Supreme Court, get accepted, get heard and obtain an opinion. You can start with a case from our very own (ultra-crowded calendar) CASD/9th Circuit and post your response over there.

If I understood you correctly on the “Everything Hillary” thread, you stated that there are 4 SC justices left (exclusive of J. Ginsburg) who would support women’s issues:

http://piggington.com/ot_everything_hillary#comment-268249

However, two of them are 78 and 79 years old but as far as you know, they don’t have any major health issues as of the present.

I don’t see the urgency that you do re: stacking the panel with the “right” justices to support women’s issues when there doesn’t seem to be any relevant cases currently in the pipeline anywhere in the country which the Supreme Court might be interested in hearing. I see Trump being allowed to replace Scalia and Ginsburg, which I’ll explain further in that thread. As I stated before, he may be out of office by January 2021 (at the age of 74) should he become our next POTUS. And Trump has stated publicly several times that he cares very much about women’s health issues.

I haven’t yet had the chance to research the names on Trump’s “SC nominee” list but I suspect that up to half of them are actually “moderates” and IIRC, at least two of them were women.

As far as “birth control” and early term abortion ever being outlawed, I just don’t see that constellation.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=flu] . . . But hey, if folks want to follow in Trump’s footsteps and teach their kids the reason why they lost a basketball game to a team that was predominantly african american was because the referee was unfair because he was black, well you can’t fix stupid. I’ll just make note of who those people are, have nothing to do with them in real life, and move on.

I didn’t use to care about politics as much, but I actually took the time and started looking at what each and every candidate has said, which has definitely been an eye opener….[/quote]flu, in the italicized portion of your post, were you referring to Trump’s remarks about Judge Curiel at CASD?

[bearishgurl]

[quote=FlyerInHi]It’s not discriminatory to wave Mexican flags. Getting offended by the Mexican flag is kinda racist though.

I’m not defending the protesters. They are like sports hooligans looking for a reason to get riled up. The violent protesters are helping Trump.

Don’t deflect, BG. Angry Trump supporters have issues. They have legitimate grievances but not against immigrants. The grievances should be directed at the Republican Party.[/quote]FIH, what makes you think “Trump supporters” are all “angry?” I don’t think they’re the “angry” ones, here.

No, it’s not “discriminatory” to wave a Mexican Flag but last time I checked, this was actually “America.” It’s fine to wave it in MX. If these “protestors” actually live and work in the US, why aren’t they waving an American flag?? Just like the ~40% of CA’s prison population who are undocumented immigrants being housed and fed by the state at $42K+ per year, per head, these “hooligans” who are causing public and private property damage and bodily harm to innocent rally-goers are costing CA’s cities, counties and the state a fortune in law enforcement costs … including having to deploy “special forces” in case of a riot! This is all unnecessary expenditure solely due to the behavior of idiot “hooligans,” some of whom are undoubtedly in this country illegally. Notice that the further Trump speaks from the international border, the less and less MX flag-waving and violent protesting we see. I wonder why this is so, people! Yesterday’s Trump rally in hot, interior “Redding, CA” (800+ miles from the int’l border) is a case in point due to the vast difference in the population of that area versus SoCal cities. As a ~40 year SD County resident (30 years of it living within 10 miles of the int’l border), it’s embarrassing to me. It makes us look on TV to the rest of the nation like we live in third-world cities! It’s disgusting beyond belief!

FIH, would YOU walk up and down the streets of Tijuana, BC waving an American Flag and shouting profanities? How about in Nogales, SO, Juarez, CI or Matamoros, TM …. or even Mexico City? Since I’ve been to all these cities myself a time or two, I just wanna know …. inquiring minds and all that :=0

[bearishgurl]

[quote=SK in CV][quote=bearishgurl]
flu, by your recent posts on this thread and others, you seem to the reader to be developing a chip on your shoulder as it applies to the Trump candidacy where there shouldn’t be. That’s on you … NOT Trump. Maybe you, too, SK. [/quote]

I have absolutely no idea what you mean by this. Do I think Trump is a horrible candidate? Absolutely. Do I think every single person who supports him is a complete idiot? Absolutely. The worst candidate in my lifetime from either major party. Worse by an order of magnitude. For a dozen or more reasons. His lack of experience. His lack of the right temperament. His ignorance of the law. His lack of ideas. His lack of curiosity. His disdain for knowledge. His bullying tactics. His racism. His misogyny. His lack of respect for the office. His lack of respect for the press. There’s a dozen I typed without hesitation in a minute or so. But a chip on my shoulder? It’s hardly necessary for me to be critical of his candidacy.[/quote]

Your (bolded) statement is indicative of you “developing a chip on your shoulder,” imho. You could easily find yourself surrounded by “complete idiots” in the space of just a very few days to a few months. Methinks that’s a limiting posture to take and could severely limit your day to day activities and the people you associate with. But if that kind of life suits you, far be it from me to judge.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=FlyerInHi]BG, discriminatory behavior is due to psychological/sociological issues. It’s based on resentment and perceived grievances. Not healthy.

As Justin Trudeau would say “sunny ways, my friends, sunny ways!”[/quote]So, are you analogizing “discriminatory behavior” with the typical “Trump supporter,” here?

What about the all the recent “Trump protesters” in CA who were waving Mexican flags in US cities and causing public and private property damage and bodily harm to innocent rally attendees? Aren’t THEY acting discriminatory? And aren’t THEY trampling on other people’s rights?

If so-called “Trump supporters” are so “discriminatory,” why haven’t they been crashing Hillary’s and Bernie’s CA rallies and making asses of themselves??

And do you honestly believe all those lame-duck idiot “Trump protesters” here in CA are actually registered to vote in this state??

[bearishgurl]

[quote=FlyerInHi]BG, i’m generalizing….[/quote]
You sure are!

[quote=FlyerInHi]Sure, there are people of all races, even immigrants who are Trump supporters. I think they have psychological/sociological issues due to their past experiences. Maybe a Latina married to a gringo and aubmitting to his culture. Or it could be an Asian who doesn’t share the high education standards of his brethren, and associates more with the average dominant White culture.[/quote]This is laughable. You made this up, right?

[bearishgurl]

[quote=FlyerInHi]Is it really a surprise? You act like Trump finally unmasked the Republican base. Either you guys are in denial or not very perceptive.

It was always there. The democrats repudiated the nativist racists decades ago and they moved over to the republican party in the southern strategy.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern…
[/quote]Um, FIH …. “nativism” and “racism” aren’t the same thing. Not even close.

And a typical “Trump voter” isn’t necessarily part of the “Republican base.” They consist of already registered Republicans PLUS Independents and Dems who have crossed over for the primaries, as well as many first-time voters.

[Author]

Posts