Recent comments in /f/pittsburgh

pgh1197 t1_jakjz8k wrote

I lost my favorite windbreaker last year and was heading back up to the North Face outlet to buy one. Decided to stop there and got a great Columbia one there for only $8 … can’t beat it

Also, I collect baseball jerseys and I would’ve definitely picked that up

2

imouttahereta t1_jakbvmo wrote

I'm aware of the small-scale studies on UBI, but firstly I doubt they would be effective at larger scales, and secondly I don't find employment status on its own to be a good measure of productivity. Personally, if I could live reasonably comfortably without investing time and effort into acquiring valuable skills, I probably wouldn't have bothered going to university, let alone migrating to the US for better opportunities. I don't think it's a coincidence that countries with more "socialist" policies tend to stagnate economically, don't innovate as much and fail to remain competitive on the world stage. But of course correlation =/= causation. I would like to see UBI attempted at the scale of a country, but I'd rather see it from a distance than be roped into it.

1

-Zipp- t1_jakb0td wrote

It absolutely can though? If someone is in a very tight financial position, 3k can get them so much. it could give them breathing room on certain bills, pay of debt, secure FOOD that you NEED to LIVE, keep the rent paid, or even just straight up save/invest, all of this allows them to not be under constant stress and worry that can really hurt their day to day life.

1

datcheezeburger1 t1_jak6zlk wrote

Below this I attached one of the many studies that shows how universal basic income doesn’t raise unemployment, it actually results in more people getting jobs. If you have any research that disputes that point I’m happy to read it but we’re not gonna get very far on just opinions when we’re talking policy.

As for your points about most politicians supporting money for ukraine or for phizer/moderna, I’m firmly against the citizens united decision and think money should be out of politics so those companies can’t own our government in those fields, plus energy, tech, entertainment, etc. Just because they’re corrupt doesn’t give me an excuse to give up on what I think is right

link

1

imouttahereta t1_jak5f2t wrote

Like I said in another comment, replacing bad spending practices with different ones is not much of an improvement. Entitlements (like social security, food stamps, housing assistance, etc.) are one of the top three expenditures of the federal government if I remember correctly, but there's a difference between having programmes to help people who need support, and disincentivising people from working and lowering the value of money by sending everyone a cheque, which screws the people that this is theoretically helping anyway.

I find it ironic that you mention military funding and pharmaceutical companies even though I generally agree with you, considering the last 3 or so years were spent shunning, demonizing, banning, and in some cases firing whoever was critical of Pfizer, Moderna & co. while they were, like you said, making record profits (from our taxes) while lying left and right and asking for more. And military funding? I am not a big fan either, but I'm willing to bet most Americans are in favour of all the aid we are sending to Ukraine, which wouldn't be possible without those investments. So I feel like people point at the spending in those areas pretty often, but when push comes to shove, whether it's thanks to government and media propaganda or simply from circumstances, the public is actually pretty wishy-washy about it. Who would propose cutting military spending in 2023, with even Zelenskyy seemingly laying out bait for World War III? Who would have said anything about pharmaceutical companies in 2021? Definitely not any politician who wanted to get or stay elected. Once federal debt becomes THE big concern, maybe that will change, but I don't expect that to happen any time soon.

0

datcheezeburger1 t1_jak1rh8 wrote

I’m much less worried about the money we give to regular Americans than I am about the billions we send to military contractors for endless wars, the $30 billion in foreign aid that goes out to help prop up dictatorships in developing countries, or that our government pays to pharmaceutical companies in subsidies and unbelievable drug prices because they know they’ll get a spot on the board of directors after their terms end. There are plenty of pools to pick from, and if you think all that spending is necessary, let’s take a look at the companies making record profits while they pay poverty wages. My taxes just end up subsidizing their shitty wages with social security, medicare, welfare, food stamps and everything else that even a minimum wage job used to pay for 50 years ago. I don’t need to see extra handouts, I’m plenty happy to just redirect some of the ones I see as useless. It won’t introduce any new dollars to the economy, just take them out of the hedge funds invested in these companies.

3

imouttahereta t1_jajx2sf wrote

Don't tell me you believe the government propaganda about inflation being caused solely by "supply chains" (which I will point out is a problem that was exacerbated by the government paying a lot of people for not working) and "Putin's war in Ukraine".

When you give most people money unconditionally, the value of money goes down, i.e. you get inflation. That is a tautology. Taken to the extreme, unconditional handouts decrease productivity and labour force participation. Can you guess what direction they have been trending in since 2020?

Temporary handouts may have been necessary at the beginning of the pandemic, but they were given to far too many people (I got some and definitely did not need it) and for far too long, and as a result now we're stagflating. I don't see how implementing such programmes permanently could be positive in any way when we have a perfect example of what it leads to right here, today.

−1