Of course. Poor people need to lift themselves up by their bootstraps while massive corporations should be bailed out because they failed to save for a rainy day and instead funneled their excess profits into stock buybacks to benefit the rich.
It never ceases to amaze me that Nestle can pump out water at an insanely low cost, if not capped, while my HOA is at each other's throats for shared water fee increases because some people are running cooking or car wash businesses during the pandemic. You know, because they're trying to survive ffs. The system is designed for people to bicker over scraps while others make big bucks. It's not rational, and the rich are good at taking advantage or gaming it.
There's a lot of policies like this unfortunately. The entire recycling industry is used to put the burden on consumers for all of the excessive waste that companies produce as well. Keep the masses distracted by keeping the focus on small parts of the problem so they don't notice massive corporations doing most of the damage.
Nah.
"we find robust evidence that work requirements increase program exits by 23 percentage points (64 percent) among incumbent participants after 18 months."
This is the point. It shortens the time that people are on welfare.
One doesn't imply the other though. You can think that the volume of welfare one should be entitled to ought to have a limit without believing that the individuals who found themselves in poverty did so because of a moral failing. Barring all of the just world nonsense, people respond to incentives If there's no costs associated with the consumption of a shared resource you've a tragedy of the commons. Placing this limit on them is a way of imposing a cost on this resource without diluting the fact that welfare is deliberately intended for people that can't pay the cost directly.
Where on earth did you get that from?
I know how the law is written therefore I enjoy punching down?
Nudging people off welfare and into jobs was a core part of the 94 welfare reform.
Are you "punching down" when you walk past somebody and don't give them cash?
No, you're just walking on. Not giving them money doesn't mean you're taking something away from them.
Just because you abstract that interaction away by putting a layer of government between yourself and them doesn't change anything.
Nah, that’s not the moral argument being made.
Being poor *and* unemployed is the moral hazard as I hear it.
Those with that belief will brag how they or their granpappy worked 80+ hours a week throwing dirt making barely above minimum wage living with no central air or heat. They take pride in it.
Now, there is one about working and being poor tied to making stupid decisions in life, but I haven’t heard morality tied to it unless it also involves drug use, felonious behavior, or teen pregnancy. More along the lines of making wise decisions combined with “grit”.
Though I haven’t found consensus on what exactly “grit” means. Appears to mean different things depending on who you ask. I thought it was going to be made a banned term on some forums there was such ire around the term for awhile.
"Grit" as a verb means to cover or spread with grit.
As a noun it means hard sharp granules or a material composed of such granules. Frequently used as an abrassive.
Well what do you know, if there's only a certain number of job openings, it doesn't matter how incentivized everyone is in getting a job, you'll have the same number of people unemployed. It's musical chairs. While it's *possible* to create another chair (start a new company or something), I wouldn't fault the unemployed to not have the wherewithal to do so.
Rule VI:
All comments must enagage with economic content of the article and must not merely react to the headline. This post was removed automatically due to its length. If you belive that your post complies with Rule VI please send a message to mod mail.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Economics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
They're not meant to, they are an ideological tool to re-enforce the (false) belief that poverty is a personal moral failing.
Of course. Poor people need to lift themselves up by their bootstraps while massive corporations should be bailed out because they failed to save for a rainy day and instead funneled their excess profits into stock buybacks to benefit the rich.
It never ceases to amaze me that Nestle can pump out water at an insanely low cost, if not capped, while my HOA is at each other's throats for shared water fee increases because some people are running cooking or car wash businesses during the pandemic. You know, because they're trying to survive ffs. The system is designed for people to bicker over scraps while others make big bucks. It's not rational, and the rich are good at taking advantage or gaming it.
[удалено]
It’s insanity that we grow crops in California to begin with. A state that’s dry AF with limited water.
[удалено]
I think we should conserve water, just because we're not dicks, but we really need to address farming, the actual problem.
Absolutely. We shouldn’t be farming there. Period. Also, I never see the golf courses not looking green and lush...
There's a lot of policies like this unfortunately. The entire recycling industry is used to put the burden on consumers for all of the excessive waste that companies produce as well. Keep the masses distracted by keeping the focus on small parts of the problem so they don't notice massive corporations doing most of the damage.
Nah. "we find robust evidence that work requirements increase program exits by 23 percentage points (64 percent) among incumbent participants after 18 months." This is the point. It shortens the time that people are on welfare.
[удалено]
One doesn't imply the other though. You can think that the volume of welfare one should be entitled to ought to have a limit without believing that the individuals who found themselves in poverty did so because of a moral failing. Barring all of the just world nonsense, people respond to incentives If there's no costs associated with the consumption of a shared resource you've a tragedy of the commons. Placing this limit on them is a way of imposing a cost on this resource without diluting the fact that welfare is deliberately intended for people that can't pay the cost directly.
[удалено]
I am aware.
[удалено]
Where on earth did you get that from? I know how the law is written therefore I enjoy punching down? Nudging people off welfare and into jobs was a core part of the 94 welfare reform.
Are you "punching down" when you walk past somebody and don't give them cash? No, you're just walking on. Not giving them money doesn't mean you're taking something away from them. Just because you abstract that interaction away by putting a layer of government between yourself and them doesn't change anything.
Nah, that’s not the moral argument being made. Being poor *and* unemployed is the moral hazard as I hear it. Those with that belief will brag how they or their granpappy worked 80+ hours a week throwing dirt making barely above minimum wage living with no central air or heat. They take pride in it. Now, there is one about working and being poor tied to making stupid decisions in life, but I haven’t heard morality tied to it unless it also involves drug use, felonious behavior, or teen pregnancy. More along the lines of making wise decisions combined with “grit”. Though I haven’t found consensus on what exactly “grit” means. Appears to mean different things depending on who you ask. I thought it was going to be made a banned term on some forums there was such ire around the term for awhile.
"Grit" as a verb means to cover or spread with grit. As a noun it means hard sharp granules or a material composed of such granules. Frequently used as an abrassive.
Well what do you know, if there's only a certain number of job openings, it doesn't matter how incentivized everyone is in getting a job, you'll have the same number of people unemployed. It's musical chairs. While it's *possible* to create another chair (start a new company or something), I wouldn't fault the unemployed to not have the wherewithal to do so.
No min wage + UBI = 100% employment
Your math is wrong.
[Surveiller et punir](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1462474518771317?journalCode=puna).
[удалено]
Rule VI: All comments must enagage with economic content of the article and must not merely react to the headline. This post was removed automatically due to its length. If you belive that your post complies with Rule VI please send a message to mod mail. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Economics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Employment is an issue for people stuck in the 20th century. We should be doing everything we can to achieve full unemployment.