Friday, 7 June 2019

Getting poorer while working harder: The 'cliff effect'

quote [ This complicated and frustrating challenge is just one symptom of an overarching problem. In addition to boosting wages, it will take major policy changes, like making child care more universally available and affordable, to offset the skyrocketing costs of living for American workers. ]

Is it getting hot or what?
[SFW] [business] [+7]
[by Paracetamol@7:14pmGMT]


snowfox said[1] @ 8:20pm GMT on 7th Jun [Score:1 Underrated]
Anecdote time!

A man my mother was engaged to has a daughter with Down's Syndrome. Having a job would have been good for her confidence and built a sense of independence, but the amount she would have made would have been counted against her disability benefits, so she never got that job.

She lives in assisted living now, has her own apartment and a helper who stops by once a week to assist with errands and other things she might need. She is much happier and her sister no longer has to look after her.

That's just one of so many ways to end up in a position where working has no or negative economic benefit. Working itself is a virtue only in the sense that people want to do something; it's essential to our mental health to do things. When we encourage people not to do things, the drop in their well-being costs us something too.
BUGGERLUGS123 said @ 7:54pm GMT on 8th Jun
What the worlds economy needs is a universal income for every person, a sum of money which is what the average person needs to provide for themselves, to pay for a home, all bills and insurances, and not to be penalized for working. Then those who worked for a pittance in low paid jobs could improve their lives. Currently there is no incentive, the poorest are generally taxed the highest and the wealthiest benefit from them in every aspect. Things need changing, so there isn't a 1%, but a 100%
steele said @ 9:36pm GMT on 7th Jun
It's called means testing and it's a bullshit (and largely neoliberal) method of attacking social safety nets. When Democratic Party candidates refuse to support Medicare 4 All, but talk about how we need to make healthcare "affordable" they are talking about means testing. When Hillary Clinton was against free college for all because then rich people might get a free college eduction, that was means testing. (And frankly bullshit, a number of rich people would benefit from slumming it with the rest of us.) When Bill Clinton attacked welfare more than many Republican had in years he was implementing means testing. When i'm ranting about people being neoliberals, it's because rather than people attacking means testing we often get these obfuscated "resources" to help people navigate these fucking clusterfucks which are fucking clustered by design. /endrant
snowfox said @ 10:36pm GMT on 7th Jun [Score:2 Underrated]
Left or right, the majority don't want to see the undeserving get something. So to people on the left, that's rich people maybe benefiting from a program that would definitely benefit poor people. To people on the right, that's the lazy and morally inferior (they mean minorities) maybe benefiting from something that good, white, Christian Americans would benefit from.

We have different views of who deserves what and why, but the answer is always to give no one anything just in case we give the wrong person something. We don't politic on who we're going to give something to, but who we won't give it to at YOUR expense.

That's tribalism at its finest. Not sure if we can disabuse people of that habit. Probably best to find a way to use it to trick people into doing the optimal thing.
steele said @ 11:25pm GMT on 7th Jun [Score:-1 WTF]
filtered comment under your threshold
snowfox said @ 12:07am GMT on 8th Jun [Score:1 Underrated]
You knew precisely what I meant, but here's your answer.

The majority who identify as left. It isn't my left or your left. Neither of us owns leftism and ideas like that are what divide the left against eachother. Do you to save the world or do you want to crow about being better than me? It's not likely you'll get both.

I proposed finding a solution that takes advantage of human nature. You are not going to change how humans think and behave that drastically. If that's your plan, you will fail. People are selfish and feel that what others receive was somehow taken from them; that is human nature as demonstrated. So how do we twist that to get people to give people something? How do we make them feel like they're getting something out of it? The Church sells salvation and social standing in exchange for charity, so it CAN be done.
steele said @ 12:29am GMT on 8th Jun
Yeah, no, we're not on the same side then. It's not about being better. It's about policy and outcome. You're taking the same neoliberal shit the democratic party has been shoveling around for the past 30 years and saying that's leftism now. Fine you can have "left" and "leftism", we'll go with "counter-capitalist" instead until the next election cycle when some politician doesn't come anywhere close to the ideals of being "counter-capitalist" calls themselves "counter-capitalist" and we can have this whole conversation all over again. And then we'll just add it to growing list of labels that don't mean shit anymore.

You can call yourself whatever you want, but if the ideals and platform you are proposing doesn't match what I'm talking about, (and you repeatedly haven't) then we're not on the same side and you shouldn't be surprised when people who are on my side don't get in line.

And, your nihilist take really doesn't stand up to what's happening right now either. Medicare 4 All went from being some thing "Crazy Bernie" was talking about, towards mainstream acceptance in the course of like 3 years. Y'all blame human nature while ignoring the massive media machine pumping out this neoliberal crap 24/7. A relative small number of people have been upending that shit by going directly to the people via social media and grassroots organizing. Imagine if they didn't have to fight against you as well.
snowfox said @ 2:14am GMT on 8th Jun [Score:2 Underrated]
I'm not fighting against you, I just won't adopt your revolutionary language and identity. I am in favor of single payer. The majority of America isn't yet. Browbeating them the way you are doing to me right now isn't going to convince anyone or get them behind you. It isn't what a leader does.

What might convince the majority of voters is knowing that it would be cheaper to buy out the pharmaceutical companies than what we pay now to subsidize people who can't afford medicine. That's not a big idea, it's not the revolution you want, but it is a single point on which we can sell people.

Stop trying to sell a movement and a political identity and start trying to sell single ideas that show selfish people that their selfishness would be better served by something that happens to serve the greater good as a biproduct of being better for them.
foobar said[1] @ 6:49am GMT on 8th Jun [Score:2]
The thing of it is that browbeating recalcitrants actually is the only strategy that works in the long term. This lame capitulant compromise never gets anywhere. The only time the left actually makes progress is when it's willing to scream at people until they either fuck off and get out of the way, or get with the program.

Obamacare was an attempt to buy out the insurance industry. It was a massive failure, because it's opponents where never interested in compromise. Grow a fucking spine, rip their throats out and leave them in the dustbin of history. That's what they're trying to do to you.
steele said[1] @ 1:30pm GMT on 8th Jun
This video is us right now.

You over and over pull out lame undermining tripe about incrementalism being the only way and telling people they can't let perfection be the enemy of good or whatever and then think I'm gonna buy anything you have to say about selling ideas... Are you kidding me?
snowfox said[1] @ 4:36am GMT on 9th Jun
Are you kidding me? I've made it clear that the way you address me is never going to win me over. So am I just like everyone who disagrees with you, or am I a special, unique case? If it's the former, you aren't going to win. If it's the latter, then there is no "my left" and I'm a total outlier.

I wasn't even talking about incrementalism there. I was talking about specific actions with specific plans rather than a broad, sweeping concept. If you want to sell your sweeping change, it is made up of many parts, each of which has to be a major selling point to the American voter.

I am trying to come up with actual solutions. You're selling a label. An identity. A lifestyle brand. All style, no substance.
steele said @ 5:20pm GMT on 9th Jun

I don't think I can make that any more clear. The entire point of this conversation is about communicating to you that we're not on the same side. You, in fact, stand in the way of people on my side. Like, HOLY SHIT, how you can still be talking about this being about nothing but labels after watching that video, I don't know. I really think you're ignorant of what's happening in this country right now. You keep going to the same talking points and I'm really not interested in them. They're not relevant in any way to what I'm talking about. There are people out there doing and making this shit happen (introducing legislation, having town halls, running ad campaigns, starting local advocacy groups, running on actual policy) and you undermine them with the same lame crap while claiming to be on their side.

snowfox said @ 9:14pm GMT on 9th Jun
I generally vote for and donate to those people. How am I undermining them by looking to create solid plans?

"I really think you're ignorant of what's happening in this country right now. You keep going to the same talking points and I'm really not interested in them. They're not relevant in any way to what I'm talking about."

Funny. You read my mind. I could say the same to you.

It is clear you are not interested in a real conversation about how to actually get things done. You just want to deride me. I made the first comment I did in this thread as an opening of a dialog to figure out how we get people to act in their own best interests, but you thwarted my every attempt at something constructive, something actionable.

YOU: I want this.
ME: Ok! We will need a multi-step plan to accomplish that. Let's get starte-
steele said @ 10:37pm GMT on 9th Jun
It is clear you are not interested in a real conversation about how to actually get things done.

I am not. I don't want to deride, but I am not interested in your opinions on the matter. If you like I could happily run through the db real quick and pm you a list of your shitty takes regarding incrementalism and the perfectionist crap I was complaining about before. Then you could go back to complaining about me caring about labels no matter how many time I talk about the importance of policy and ideology.
Hugh E. said @ 7:11pm GMT on 10th Jun [Score:2 Underrated]
"If you like I could happily run through the db real quick and pm you a list of your shitty takes ..."

Yeah, that's kinda creepy.
steele said @ 7:28pm GMT on 10th Jun
We have a search feature for a reason you know? It amazes me how many people seem to go from thread to thread like goldfish, completely forgetting things they said and responded to just days earlier. For example, I wonder if snowfox would be so quick to downmod me as trolling her if she bothered to search the comments for: dark money

I encourage everyone to do that btw. It's quite the sight. :D
snowfox said @ 8:12pm GMT on 10th Jun
Views can evolve and change. And, yes, you're acting creepy.

I agree with you on many issues, but I believe you need a concrete plan for the reforms you want, and that plan has to include how you get the American people to do it. My belief before was that it simply wasn't possible. I am willing to consider that maybe it is. But how do we do it?

Instead of having a productive conversation about that... we got this.
steele said[1] @ 8:26pm GMT on 10th Jun [Score:-1 Troll]
filtered comment under your threshold
snowfox said @ 8:43pm GMT on 10th Jun [Score:-1]
filtered comment under your threshold
steele said @ 9:39pm GMT on 10th Jun [Score:-1]
filtered comment under your threshold
snowfox said @ 9:47pm GMT on 10th Jun [Score:0 Underrated]
Where have I talked shit about you today? Last night I made a comment about your guillotine reference, and that was after a lot of shade from you. I apologize for doing it. I'm not perfect and I get annoyed sometimes. Did I mention you anywhere else? I honestly can't even keep track of this anymore. I've been down-modding to discourage you from sharing your opinions with me if you don't care about mine. I don't want to engage in a one-way street like that.

Why can't we just be friends? You're talking about looking back at all the comments, so look back before 2016, look at when this site started. We used to focus on what we had in common and be nice to eachother. I would prefer being nice and respectful to what's going on now. We both used to be better than this. What happened to us?
steele said @ 10:03pm GMT on 10th Jun [Score:-1]
filtered comment under your threshold
snowfox said @ 10:24pm GMT on 10th Jun [Score:-2 Old]
filtered comment under your threshold
1111 said @ 10:53pm GMT on 9th Jun [Score:-1 Boring]
filtered comment under your threshold
Hugh E. said @ 11:30pm GMT on 7th Jun
How about a graduated approach to no means testing? Because, after all, we're still dealing with horrible selfish mean petty racist greedy people.
steele said[1] @ 11:47pm GMT on 7th Jun
Why start from a place of compromise? Are you looking to lose the battle before it has even begun? Y'all act like it's always been this way, as if there hasn't been millions, if not billions, of dollars being poured into the system to shift the entire country and world to the right. The beginning of 20th century had a pretty decent left wing movement that has been all but erased from the US's imagination. I mean geez, the New Deal pretty much was the compromise, compare that to the lame incremental shit being asked for now.
Hugh E. said @ 11:34am GMT on 8th Jun
We need equity before equality. Many of the public assistance programs, even in the mid 20th century were doled out in ways that favored whites over others. Welfare monies even today are going to programs that benefit the middle class over the poor. Relief should target the most aggrieved first.
steele said @ 1:26pm GMT on 8th Jun
Welfare monies even today are going to programs that benefit the middle class over the poor

And means testing is one of the ways they make that happen.
foobar said @ 3:33pm GMT on 8th Jun
If relief should target the most aggrieved first, then no one in the west would receive any. Sometimes you just have to choose what kind of society you want to live in, and that means picking your battles. Even within the US, the homeless are far more aggrieved than the uninsured, but the greater good is pushing for universal health care before trying to solve homelessness.
Hugh E. said @ 6:25pm GMT on 8th Jun
Universal healthcare isn't even part of the discussion. It's a given.

Basic housing for homeless has been proven time and time again to be a workable, economical correction for homelessness. Fortunately, we can do more than one thing at a time, so we save costs by preventing homelessness through helping those almost homeless.
lilmookieesquire said @ 5:33pm GMT on 8th Jun
There is more than enough money to address that all though. But even just companies paying a small amount of tax would be a massive boon.

There was a very interesting comment about FDR. He made America a little socialist so that it didn't become a LOT socialist (or fascist) I think the rich of America will see that wisdom of that in a few generations.
Hugh E. said @ 6:28pm GMT on 8th Jun
I agree that there is enough money, and with your summation of what FDR said (though unfamiliar with the quote). However, I may quibble a bit with the assumption of the perception of wisdom from the rich of American.
JWWargo said @ 7:53am GMT on 8th Jun [Score:0 Underrated]
Except for those who get the guillotine. TBD.

Joking about murdering people, even greedy assholes who exploit the system, for political gain is abhorrent.
snowfox said @ 9:21pm GMT on 9th Jun [Score:1]
It's also appropriative. The guillotine is French and a symbol of the revolution. I am French, I have a passport and can vote in the elections. As far as I know, steele is not and can't. He also seems to think he'll be the one in charge of the guillotine, a revolutionary, a hero for the history books. He clearly forgot the part where we guillotined the people in charge of the guillotinings for guillotining too many people >_>

The talk of revolution, of violence, is just talk. He will never do anything significant. I doubt he has the nerve to follow through on any of it, and none of his compatriots do either because their beliefs are a lifestyle brand. Even so, it lowers the level of discourse and makes us all sound like the angry rednecks the rest of the world thinks we are.
steele said[2] @ 1:24pm GMT on 8th Jun [Score:-1]
filtered comment under your threshold
1111 said @ 3:34pm GMT on 8th Jun [Score:-2 Boring]
filtered comment under your threshold
JWWargo said[1] @ 7:51am GMT on 8th Jun [Score:-1]
filtered comment under your threshold
steele said @ 2:26am GMT on 10th Jun
mechanical contrivance said @ 2:30pm GMT on 10th Jun
Why is he naked?
steele said @ 7:53pm GMT on 10th Jun [Score:1 Insightful]

Post a comment
[note: if you are replying to a specific comment, then click the reply link on that comment instead]

You must be logged in to comment on posts.

Posts of Import
If you got logged out, log back in.
4 More Years!
SE v2 Closed BETA
First Post
Subscriptions and Things
AskSE: What do you look like?

Karma Rankings