In the News II

Quote: kenarman

And that is the result of Covid, thanks for proving my point. A generation has lost its way.

This does not prove your point, it just shows that employees have a right to do what is best for them since layoffs are nonstop.

Biggest workforce effect of all that free Covid money is it’s allowed a bunch of people to retire earlier than they otherwise would have and then proceed to immediately start whining about nobody wanting to work.

Quote: rquiredusername

Biggest workforce effect of all that free Covid money is it’s allowed a bunch of people to retire earlier than they otherwise would have and then proceed to immediately start whining about nobody wanting to work.

""Seniors aged 65 to 69, past the standard retirement age, are actually more likely to have a job than teenagers. A full 32 percent of these post-retirement-age seniors have jobs, up from less than one-quarter in 2000."May 9, 2023" Imagine how bad the worker shortage would be if the seniors hadn't stepped up.

Quote: rquiredusername

Biggest workforce effect of all that free Covid money is it’s allowed a bunch of people to retire earlier than they otherwise would have and then proceed to immediately start whining about nobody wanting to work.

""Seniors aged 65 to 69, past the standard retirement age, are actually more likely to have a job than teenagers. A full 32 percent of these post-retirement-age seniors have jobs, up from less than one-quarter in 2000."May 9, 2023" Imagine how bad the worker shortage would be if the seniors hadn't stepped up.

Pew research center:
55 year+ retired
2019 Q3: 48.1% retired
2021 Q3: 50.3 % retired
65-74:
2019 Q3: 64.0% retired
2021: Q3 66.9% retired

That’s the immediate effect of the time period in question, why would you pick quarter century trends in place BEFORE COVID if you were trying to show the effect of COVID money? Your 32% is included in the data above, but that number is a decrease after Covid money gassed the markets.

But no, the only reason is because not enough kids will drop out of school to make your hamburger or bag your groceries.

Quote: Gandler

Quote: AZDuffman

Quote: Gandler

Quote: kenarman

Quote: ams288

Quote: Tanko

'Oakland Resilient Families' is a two year guaranteed income pilot project to provide $500 per month to 600 'Black Indigenous People of Color' families. A second phase added 300 more families to the project.

It excludes poor whites, but the program is privately funded.

The project ends this month.

So kenarman has been spamming this thread with his panties in a twist over some privately funded program?!

The horror!!!!

"Oakland Resilient Families began with Mayor Libby Schaaf’s pledge to bring a guaranteed income pilot to Oakland when she joined Mayors for a Guaranteed Income as a founding mayor in the summer of 2020. Oakland Resilient Families is 100% funded through philanthropic donations and run by a collaboration of local community-based organizations."

I guess the mayor couldn't get support for taxpayers dollars, YET. Run this is a pilot with to see if it helps the families. Wonder what that answer will be since I am sure it will be an unbiased report. Then with that 'proof' they expand it to government money.

It 100% should be government funded. There have been many similar experiments in both America and various other countries (including Finland), and in every study the family receiving the money views the results as positive.

I am all for Andrew Yang's 1K a month for all.

I do agree that such programs being targeted to one race is silly. It should either be for all, or for specific income parameters.

And how exactly to you propose we do this? To give $1000 you need to tax at least $1100 probably to pull it off.

Only a complete idiot would think we can do this. Same kind of idiots who think a male is a female because they "identify" as such. No wonder Putin was not afraid of our response to his invasion.

In a number of ways, a Value Added Tax is the most mainstream example for a single way to cover the cost. This is probably also the most efficient tax because there is no way to avoid it, if a product/service is sold within the U.S. it must be paid (unlike income and corporate taxes which there are a lot of ways to get out of). A national sales tax (similar in some regards) would be another example (though unlike VAT this tends to effect low income the most as it only applies at the point of sale).

So, you get $1,000 in "free" money but your cost of living goes up by $1100. Do you see the problem here?

The best word I can think of for people who think this kind of scheme can work is "science deniers." You cannot make wealth appear out of nowhere, it must be created.

The money has to be repaid plus the interest must be funded which is more debt.

It seems like free money when rates are low, low inflation, exchange rates are favorable, and the economy is thriving.

But it will eventually hurt the poor the most in the future when events reverse, as they cycle.


Committing to new debt to pay debt is like kicking the can down the road.

It forces labor as buying power declines for the masses.

Increasing debt should only be used in an emergency situation.


For freedom (as opposed to slave labor), the answer is removing the middlemen between the people and the government.

Then the 99% would substantially gain relative to the 1%.

Socialism and communism don't work.

History is full of examples.

The reason is because capitalism conserves resources.


But capitalism must operate without the middlemen between the people and the government.

The politicians are riding the gravy train.

Some even trade stocks on privileged insider information to supplement their income.

Plus, many get a nice pension and a six figure salary and other perks like health insurance, etc.


They have no motive to fix the underlying issue of the middlemen between the government and the people.

So it looks like red versus blue nitpicking over line items and ideologies.

But we're all losing, less the 1%.


They know what the issue is but refuse to do anything about it.

Quote: AZDuffman

Quote: Gandler

Quote: AZDuffman

Quote: Gandler

Quote: kenarman

Quote: ams288

Quote: Tanko

'Oakland Resilient Families' is a two year guaranteed income pilot project to provide $500 per month to 600 'Black Indigenous People of Color' families. A second phase added 300 more families to the project.

It excludes poor whites, but the program is privately funded.

The project ends this month.

So kenarman has been spamming this thread with his panties in a twist over some privately funded program?!

The horror!!!!

"Oakland Resilient Families began with Mayor Libby Schaaf’s pledge to bring a guaranteed income pilot to Oakland when she joined Mayors for a Guaranteed Income as a founding mayor in the summer of 2020. Oakland Resilient Families is 100% funded through philanthropic donations and run by a collaboration of local community-based organizations."

I guess the mayor couldn't get support for taxpayers dollars, YET. Run this is a pilot with to see if it helps the families. Wonder what that answer will be since I am sure it will be an unbiased report. Then with that 'proof' they expand it to government money.

It 100% should be government funded. There have been many similar experiments in both America and various other countries (including Finland), and in every study the family receiving the money views the results as positive.

I am all for Andrew Yang's 1K a month for all.

I do agree that such programs being targeted to one race is silly. It should either be for all, or for specific income parameters.

And how exactly to you propose we do this? To give $1000 you need to tax at least $1100 probably to pull it off.

Only a complete idiot would think we can do this. Same kind of idiots who think a male is a female because they "identify" as such. No wonder Putin was not afraid of our response to his invasion.

In a number of ways, a Value Added Tax is the most mainstream example for a single way to cover the cost. This is probably also the most efficient tax because there is no way to avoid it, if a product/service is sold within the U.S. it must be paid (unlike income and corporate taxes which there are a lot of ways to get out of). A national sales tax (similar in some regards) would be another example (though unlike VAT this tends to effect low income the most as it only applies at the point of sale).

So, you get $1,000 in "free" money but your cost of living goes up by $1100. Do you see the problem here?

The best word I can think of for people who think this kind of scheme can work is "science deniers." You cannot make wealth appear out of nowhere, it must be created.

Nobody thinks wealth can be made from nothing, but it can be redistributed.