During two years, and the sample size was plenty for statistical analysis.
Also, if it was only pressure from the program ending that made them get jobs, the rate at which they got jobs would have been different - there would have been a large surge at the end in the UBI group, and no such surge in the control group. That didn't happen.
It's not just the tax rate, it's that the high taxes are paying for things that people in NYC want the taxes spent on rather than things that benefit the taxpayers in Utica.
I'd like you to explain how spending taxes "better" will stop lake effect snow. 'Cause that's part of the problem with the infrastructure.
Also, the people in Utica weren't asking for "better" spending. They were asking for lower taxes as if that alone would magically create jobs. Heck, it's what the local politicians spent their money on: tax breaks for businesses. Not, say, making SUNY-IT competitive.
So why do we promote basic-income programs for younger, healthy people?
Because humans are a wee bit more complicated than animals, and have desires beyond mere survival.
The experiment showed the UBI group got jobs at the same rate as the control group. That means the program did not make those people lose their "foraging skills".
TFA does not state if they saw any cost savings from running the program.
That's because they didn't alter any other programs.
What they were hoping is that when people were guaranteed a basic income they would take more risks with unreliable jobs, aka "the gig economy". And that didn't work out. The interesting thing is the UBI people didn't just sit on their butts. They got jobs at the same rate as the control group.
People who can not shower or wash their clothes tend to not do well in job interviews. Since showers and laundry are tied to having money, not having money makes it harder to find a job.
Also, if you're so very worried about this you can rest easy: the study showed that the UBI group got jobs at the same rate as the control group. So UBI doesn't make people sit around and do nothing.
There is another law, so self-evident that no one writes it down. It's that people substitute their personal beliefs and prejudices into any story, and refuse to believe the story when it doesn't match.
'cause this:
You want more joblessness, you give out rewards (in the form of cash payment) for being jobless.
Was demonstrated to be false by this study. The UBI group got jobs at the same rate as the control group.
The headline writer as well as the story writer were unfortunately afflicted with the same issue.
Fucking disabled people, leaching off your hard-earned money!!!!! They should just go off and die like in the old days!!!!
or Earned Income Tax Credit...
Are you under the illusion that this is a monthly check? And that you can get the Earned Income tax credit with no income? 'Cause neither of those are true.
Also, TANF programs are implemented at the state-level, and vary wildly. California, for instance, can last up to 4 years and doesn't require you to be "practically homeless"....
Nope, TANF is a federal program, which states administer but must comply with federal guidelines. That's why it only lasts 4 years in CA.
Also, I'm wondering how you think a program that only pays you for 4 years total over your entire lifetime can be the basis for doing nothing for your entire lifetime. Just how long is the life expectancy of the people you are maligning?
but sustaining (i.e. gives them what amounts to an annuity of something resembling a UBI, or is enough to basically replace their pre-winnings salary).
Lotteries let you choose between a lump sum payout and the annuity. Virtually everyone chooses the lump sum because it makes way more financial sense (you can buy your own annuity with part of it)
If it was taxes, then NYC would be doing worse than upstate, because NYC has higher taxes.
Pretend I'm looking for a place to build my factory. Manufacturing is more high-tech than it used to be, so I need employees that have at least a good high school education.
I'm trying to pick between Utica and oh, let's say Huntsville, AL. And let's pretend I've negotiated a sweetheart deal where I pay no state taxes so we take those completely out of the decision.
Why do I pick Utica for my factory? The weather's worse. The transportation network I need for my supply chain is worse. The nearest airport is an hour away. The schools are worse. The dream of the local high school students is to move as far away as possible, leaving me with the ones that couldn't pull that off. So I need to do more on-the-job-training. The houses are old and not being replaced. The supermarkets are all competing for the cheapest place to use food stamps.
The gas station in my neighborhood started selling crack pipes at the registers (you had to ask for the stuff to go into the pipes. At least according to the multiple arrests there). The owners of the gas station decided to lose their branding instead of no longer selling crack pipes, so it's no longer a Chevron station. It is considered the nice part of town.
Taxes are not the problem with upstate NY. Infrastructure and weather are. Infrastructure is not just roads. It's schools and workers too.
I lived in upstate NY for a while. The area was a former manufacturing center that has been economically destroyed by the same things that hit the rest of the rust belt. The local politicians were sure the techies would follow the jobs, so they had several programs to try and recruit companies to the area. And hey, housing is really cheap so cost-of-living is low. So clearly techies would flock to the area.
It failed. The area is just too shitty now. The schools are awful, the roads are barely maintained, there's little to do outside your own house, drug use and it's accompanying problems are rampant and overall quality of life is bad. Recruiting and maintaining a high-tech workforce there is very difficult, even with NY city pay scales and rural cost-of-living.
That's why NY leads the country in population loss.
New York State is not New York City.
Upstate NY is doing very poorly, decimated by the same manufacturing sector ills that have hit the rest of the rust belt. It is suffering large-scale population loss, not because of taxes, but because there's zero reason to build a factory there. Why build your factory in a place famous for massive winter snowfall when Alabama exists? Or Juarez? Low taxes do not stop lake effect snow. If anything, low taxes would make lake effect snow worse since they would start to have trouble affording plows.
New York City is doing quite well, and attracting a lot of people....despite having an even higher tax rate than upstate NY.
I see no authority in the constitution for a federally funded energy policy.
The energy grid is interstate commerce. Which makes it fit very nicely in the Constitution's description of federal powers.
The federal government doesn't much care if Miami sinks into the sea, they will just realign the House seats to benefit their voting base after the next census.
The Federal government is the entity that will be paying the trillions of dollars in disaster relief as well as quelling the massive domestic uprisings. As a result, they have an extremely vested interest in that disaster not happening.
The problem of nuclear power not competing is because of government subsidies of wind power, at least in the American Midwest where I live.
1) those subsidies have expired, and 2) Nuclear plants receive far larger subsidies and still can't compete.
Get rid of the subsidies on energy and nuclear power will look real nice
You seem to not understand which energy technologies receive the largest subsidies. Hint: it's nuclear.
You do realize that the deadliest disaster in nuclear power was at a nationally operated nuclear power plant?
You do realize that there are tens of thousands of deadlier disasters from non-nuclear private industry right?
The reason we haven't had worse in nuclear plants is government oversight. Otherwise it would be like mining or oil exploration.
If it "goes boom" then those greedy capitalists aren't making money. They make money when it's operating, not when it's on fire and spreading radiation.
Why has this failed to prevent every industrial disaster? Mine collapses, oil well blow-outs, refinery fires, heck even back to Triangle Shirtwaist. All of those were 100% preventable if private industry had installed relevant safety equipment and thus could keep the plant running.....yet they all happened.
It's almost like those greedy capitalists are far more interested in their short-term profit....
That just proves the government is operating outside of it's bounds. They use the threat of imprisonment to make people work for nothing
Pssst....The TVA is a corporation. The government owns the stock. TVA workers got paid during the shutdown because they aren't government employees.
Um, if the operator isn't getting paid to operate then what happens?
Why wouldn't they be getting paid? Again, the TVA is a corporation. They get paid by billing their customers. Government funding was used to pay the up-front capital costs to build their power plants. The plants are already built, so continued government funding is not required.
It's almost like you have no idea what you're talking about.
Why would Google want to go through the effort of creating and maintaining a waiver system? Google doesn't care if they're serving up EU news sites or US news sites.
The point of this bill is not to actually implement something RIGHT NOW. The point is to hold a vote which can then be used to shape future elections.
Because there is no possible way to get any sort of "green" program past McConnell. But voting "no" on this can make it more difficult for members of his caucus, especially the ones who have been lying to coal country for decades about "bringing coal jobs back".
Slashdot Mirror
LPT: Your life situation may change. So something that was at one time affordable, may suddenly become unaffordable.
During two years, and the sample size was plenty for statistical analysis.
Also, if it was only pressure from the program ending that made them get jobs, the rate at which they got jobs would have been different - there would have been a large surge at the end in the UBI group, and no such surge in the control group. That didn't happen.
This is false. Treaties can not override the Constitution. They can only override laws (by effectively being a law).
Both the PTC and ITC are sizable
Not anymore. They're in their "phaseout" stage, where the credit is being reduced before 2020 cut-off. At least for utilities.
It's not just the tax rate, it's that the high taxes are paying for things that people in NYC want the taxes spent on rather than things that benefit the taxpayers in Utica.
I'd like you to explain how spending taxes "better" will stop lake effect snow. 'Cause that's part of the problem with the infrastructure.
Also, the people in Utica weren't asking for "better" spending. They were asking for lower taxes as if that alone would magically create jobs. Heck, it's what the local politicians spent their money on: tax breaks for businesses. Not, say, making SUNY-IT competitive.
So why do we promote basic-income programs for younger, healthy people?
Because humans are a wee bit more complicated than animals, and have desires beyond mere survival.
The experiment showed the UBI group got jobs at the same rate as the control group. That means the program did not make those people lose their "foraging skills".
The bigger thing we learned is that UBI had no effect on the rate at which people took jobs.
One would expect the UBI group to happily sit on their butts collecting their checks. They didn't. Those checks had no effect on how many got jobs.
This study shows the opposite. The UBI group got jobs at the same rate as the control group.
TFA does not state if they saw any cost savings from running the program.
That's because they didn't alter any other programs.
What they were hoping is that when people were guaranteed a basic income they would take more risks with unreliable jobs, aka "the gig economy". And that didn't work out. The interesting thing is the UBI people didn't just sit on their butts. They got jobs at the same rate as the control group.
People who can not shower or wash their clothes tend to not do well in job interviews. Since showers and laundry are tied to having money, not having money makes it harder to find a job.
Also, if you're so very worried about this you can rest easy: the study showed that the UBI group got jobs at the same rate as the control group. So UBI doesn't make people sit around and do nothing.
A lot of people like to point out that basic income will not motivate people to work, yet we're subsidizing that laziness, and that's certainly true.
Actually, this experiment demonstrated this claim is actually false. The UBI group found jobs at the same rate as the control group.
So that actually isn't true, or more likely falls into the realm of "it's complicated".
There is another law, so self-evident that no one writes it down. It's that people substitute their personal beliefs and prejudices into any story, and refuse to believe the story when it doesn't match.
'cause this:
You want more joblessness, you give out rewards (in the form of cash payment) for being jobless.
Was demonstrated to be false by this study. The UBI group got jobs at the same rate as the control group.
The headline writer as well as the story writer were unfortunately afflicted with the same issue.
Unless you count Supplemental Security Income...
Fucking disabled people, leaching off your hard-earned money!!!!! They should just go off and die like in the old days!!!!
or Earned Income Tax Credit...
Are you under the illusion that this is a monthly check? And that you can get the Earned Income tax credit with no income? 'Cause neither of those are true.
Also, TANF programs are implemented at the state-level, and vary wildly. California, for instance, can last up to 4 years and doesn't require you to be "practically homeless"....
Nope, TANF is a federal program, which states administer but must comply with federal guidelines. That's why it only lasts 4 years in CA.
Also, I'm wondering how you think a program that only pays you for 4 years total over your entire lifetime can be the basis for doing nothing for your entire lifetime. Just how long is the life expectancy of the people you are maligning?
Have you considered the stress that people experience when they need to pony up the money when taxes are being paid?
If this causes you as much stress as "my children are starving and homeless", you need to re-evaluate your life.
Stress about money can be a useful driver to get off your fat backside and go get a job.
Well, this is a study that shows it isn't. The UBI group and the control group got jobs at the same rate.
Yes the outcome was fairly predictable but sometimes what seems obvious actually isn't correct.
In fact, it was so much of this they botched the headline.
The UBI group found work at the same rate as the control group. So basically UBI had no effect on the rate at which people took jobs.
Which means the headline (and TFSummary) got the results wrong, choose to write what seemed obvious instead.
but sustaining (i.e. gives them what amounts to an annuity of something resembling a UBI, or is enough to basically replace their pre-winnings salary).
Lotteries let you choose between a lump sum payout and the annuity. Virtually everyone chooses the lump sum because it makes way more financial sense (you can buy your own annuity with part of it)
So there isn't really a good-sized sample.
Then there is nothing the government needs to do
So you were literally unable to read the very next sentence. Here, I'll quote it for you:
The problem is they're not moving fast enough to avert the worst problems.
If it was taxes, then NYC would be doing worse than upstate, because NYC has higher taxes.
Pretend I'm looking for a place to build my factory. Manufacturing is more high-tech than it used to be, so I need employees that have at least a good high school education.
I'm trying to pick between Utica and oh, let's say Huntsville, AL. And let's pretend I've negotiated a sweetheart deal where I pay no state taxes so we take those completely out of the decision.
Why do I pick Utica for my factory? The weather's worse. The transportation network I need for my supply chain is worse. The nearest airport is an hour away. The schools are worse. The dream of the local high school students is to move as far away as possible, leaving me with the ones that couldn't pull that off. So I need to do more on-the-job-training. The houses are old and not being replaced. The supermarkets are all competing for the cheapest place to use food stamps.
The gas station in my neighborhood started selling crack pipes at the registers (you had to ask for the stuff to go into the pipes. At least according to the multiple arrests there). The owners of the gas station decided to lose their branding instead of no longer selling crack pipes, so it's no longer a Chevron station. It is considered the nice part of town.
Taxes are not the problem with upstate NY. Infrastructure and weather are. Infrastructure is not just roads. It's schools and workers too.
Techies will follow the jobs.
Only to a limited extent.
I lived in upstate NY for a while. The area was a former manufacturing center that has been economically destroyed by the same things that hit the rest of the rust belt. The local politicians were sure the techies would follow the jobs, so they had several programs to try and recruit companies to the area. And hey, housing is really cheap so cost-of-living is low. So clearly techies would flock to the area.
It failed. The area is just too shitty now. The schools are awful, the roads are barely maintained, there's little to do outside your own house, drug use and it's accompanying problems are rampant and overall quality of life is bad. Recruiting and maintaining a high-tech workforce there is very difficult, even with NY city pay scales and rural cost-of-living.
AWS is making heavy plays into government contracts. You have to be in the DC area for that, so there's no way they're leaving Crystal City.
That's why NY leads the country in population loss.
New York State is not New York City.
Upstate NY is doing very poorly, decimated by the same manufacturing sector ills that have hit the rest of the rust belt. It is suffering large-scale population loss, not because of taxes, but because there's zero reason to build a factory there. Why build your factory in a place famous for massive winter snowfall when Alabama exists? Or Juarez? Low taxes do not stop lake effect snow. If anything, low taxes would make lake effect snow worse since they would start to have trouble affording plows.
New York City is doing quite well, and attracting a lot of people....despite having an even higher tax rate than upstate NY.
I made no such argument.
You do right here:
I see no authority in the constitution for a federally funded energy policy.
The energy grid is interstate commerce. Which makes it fit very nicely in the Constitution's description of federal powers.
The federal government doesn't much care if Miami sinks into the sea, they will just realign the House seats to benefit their voting base after the next census.
The Federal government is the entity that will be paying the trillions of dollars in disaster relief as well as quelling the massive domestic uprisings. As a result, they have an extremely vested interest in that disaster not happening.
The problem of nuclear power not competing is because of government subsidies of wind power, at least in the American Midwest where I live.
1) those subsidies have expired, and 2) Nuclear plants receive far larger subsidies and still can't compete.
Get rid of the subsidies on energy and nuclear power will look real nice
You seem to not understand which energy technologies receive the largest subsidies. Hint: it's nuclear.
You do realize that the deadliest disaster in nuclear power was at a nationally operated nuclear power plant?
You do realize that there are tens of thousands of deadlier disasters from non-nuclear private industry right?
The reason we haven't had worse in nuclear plants is government oversight. Otherwise it would be like mining or oil exploration.
If it "goes boom" then those greedy capitalists aren't making money. They make money when it's operating, not when it's on fire and spreading radiation.
Why has this failed to prevent every industrial disaster? Mine collapses, oil well blow-outs, refinery fires, heck even back to Triangle Shirtwaist. All of those were 100% preventable if private industry had installed relevant safety equipment and thus could keep the plant running.....yet they all happened.
It's almost like those greedy capitalists are far more interested in their short-term profit....
That just proves the government is operating outside of it's bounds. They use the threat of imprisonment to make people work for nothing
Pssst....The TVA is a corporation. The government owns the stock. TVA workers got paid during the shutdown because they aren't government employees.
Um, if the operator isn't getting paid to operate then what happens?
Why wouldn't they be getting paid? Again, the TVA is a corporation. They get paid by billing their customers. Government funding was used to pay the up-front capital costs to build their power plants. The plants are already built, so continued government funding is not required.
It's almost like you have no idea what you're talking about.
Why would Google want to go through the effort of creating and maintaining a waiver system? Google doesn't care if they're serving up EU news sites or US news sites.
The point of this bill is not to actually implement something RIGHT NOW. The point is to hold a vote which can then be used to shape future elections.
Because there is no possible way to get any sort of "green" program past McConnell. But voting "no" on this can make it more difficult for members of his caucus, especially the ones who have been lying to coal country for decades about "bringing coal jobs back".