MrMonroepassed outon the floor nowRegistered Userregular
Many Republicans are in favor of a carbon tax that is far too low to make any difference, which $24/ton definitely would be too low.
They get to say they are doing something without doing anything that fundamentally harms their donors. (Especially if they can make it revenue neutral by mailing folks checks and therefore avoid having the federal government do anything)
An aggressive infrastructure campaign might even be "worse" than an ineffectual tax, since it represents creating actual competition for the sectors that consume dirty energy.
Many Republicans are in favor of a carbon tax that is far too low to make any difference, which $24/ton definitely would be too low.
They get to say they are doing something without doing anything that fundamentally harms their donors. (Especially if they can make it revenue neutral by mailing folks checks and therefore avoid having the federal government do anything)
An aggressive infrastructure campaign might even be "worse" than an ineffectual tax, since it represents creating actual competition for the sectors that consume dirty energy.
Fair points. I think the $24/ton is higher than what the Paris climate accords call for, but I agree they're too low.
On the other hand the current value is $0, so improvement. And probably easier to sell increasing it later than Brand New Tax!
I may be biased thanks to WA's carbon tax fiasco, which thanks in part to in fighting among activists has now been on the ballot twice and passed zero times.
Phoenix-D on
+10
Options
daveNYCWhy universe hate Waspinator?Registered Userregular
Many Republicans are in favor of a carbon tax that is far too low to make any difference, which $24/ton definitely would be too low.
They get to say they are doing something without doing anything that fundamentally harms their donors. (Especially if they can make it revenue neutral by mailing folks checks and therefore avoid having the federal government do anything)
An aggressive infrastructure campaign might even be "worse" than an ineffectual tax, since it represents creating actual competition for the sectors that consume dirty energy.
Fair points. I think the $24/ton is higher than what the Paris climate accords call for, but I agree they're too low.
From what I've read the Paris accords don't actually have a set dollar value. They're more 'achieve this goal in emissions, the details of how are up to you'.
One report I found recommended the following:
Price carbon at a minimum of USD40–80/tCO2 by 2020
and USD50–100/tCO2 by 2030 to reach the objectives of the Paris Agreement
So $24/ton is better than nothing, but it's nowhere near what it needs to be to actually get the job done. And the past year has given us copious amounts of examples of the difference between doing what is necessary and doing what is convenient.
Shut up, Mr. Burton! You were not brought upon this world to get it!
On the other hand, we've seen just how fucking cheap many rich fuckers are. So there is a slim chance that their cheapness and overly disdain for taxes could end up making this more effective that initially though, but even so probably not enough, even if it is an improvement over zero dollars. Also why something over 24 dollars would be more effective.
On the other hand, we've seen just how fucking cheap many rich fuckers are. So there is a slim chance that their cheapness and overly disdain for taxes could end up making this more effective that initially though, but even so probably not enough, even if it is an improvement over zero dollars. Also why something over 24 dollars would be more effective.
Eh... maybe, but this seems like one of those more basic econ situations where there's a pretty solid number that'll get you the result you want, and anything short of that just won't. The C-Level guys might bitch and moan, but the math on paying the tax vs. cutting emissions in some way is pretty simple, and if it's cheaper to pay the tax then that's what they'll do. Assuming they don't just go trying to cheat on their carbon taxes, pretty sure that'll be at least a few companies' plan.
Plus all the news on the climate change front can generally be summed up as 'Worse than we thought.' so lowballing on the carbon tax is failing on multiple levels.
Shut up, Mr. Burton! You were not brought upon this world to get it!
I feel like the true test of this "bipartisanship" would be if they're willing to go above the $24/ton.
I'm realizing now that I think that number is what the generic social cost of carbon was like 5 years ago. Now the feds are using $51/ton as an interim amount until their experts redo the calculations cause of the Trump admin
0
Options
daveNYCWhy universe hate Waspinator?Registered Userregular
Never assume people will be rational or smart just because they're rich.
Hell of a leap from that to thinking that enough companies will spend more on limiting emissions than they have to just to spite the tax man to the point that their efforts come even vaguely close to making up for the fact that the proposed carbon tax is roughly half of what studies suggest it should be.
Shut up, Mr. Burton! You were not brought upon this world to get it!
The number of times I have seen stuff like this has made me laugh.
The owners of Klavon’s Ice Cream Parlor had hit a wall.
For months, the 98-year-old confectionary in Pittsburgh couldn’t find applicants for the open positions it needed to fill ahead of warmer weather and, hopefully, sunnier times for the business after a rough year.
The job posting for scoopers — $7.25 an hour plus tips — did not produce a single application between January and March.
So owner Jacob Hanchar decided to more than double the starting wage to $15 an hour, plus tips, “just to see what would happen.”
The shop was suddenly flooded with applications. More than 1,000 piled in over the course of a week.
“It was like a dam broke,” Hanchar said. Media coverage that followed his decision soon pushed other candidates his way.
Pay people a good wage and they will come? Seriously amazing watching businesses discover things like this.
The number of times I have seen stuff like this has made me laugh.
The owners of Klavon’s Ice Cream Parlor had hit a wall.
For months, the 98-year-old confectionary in Pittsburgh couldn’t find applicants for the open positions it needed to fill ahead of warmer weather and, hopefully, sunnier times for the business after a rough year.
The job posting for scoopers — $7.25 an hour plus tips — did not produce a single application between January and March.
So owner Jacob Hanchar decided to more than double the starting wage to $15 an hour, plus tips, “just to see what would happen.”
The shop was suddenly flooded with applications. More than 1,000 piled in over the course of a week.
“It was like a dam broke,” Hanchar said. Media coverage that followed his decision soon pushed other candidates his way.
Pay people a good wage and they will come? Seriously amazing watching businesses discover things like this.
I'm not sure how this would work with the environmental impacts crypto has. As much as I hate crypto, the idea that banks absolutely hate it does bring me some joy.
I'm not sure how this would work with the environmental impacts crypto has. As much as I hate crypto, the idea that banks absolutely hate it does bring me some joy.
Or you could just literally have a modern banking system with a government-run payment system. Basically a debit card system run by the government. Maybe even the post office specifically.
I'm not sure how this would work with the environmental impacts crypto has. As much as I hate crypto, the idea that banks absolutely hate it does bring me some joy.
Or you could just literally have a modern banking system with a government-run payment system. Basically a debit card system run by the government. Maybe even the post office specifically.
Also just a quick point, a postal banking system like Japan doesn't get rid of private banks. Just requires they usually produce more of an incentive than existing to be used. Again in Japan everyone has a postal account because they are free and work pretty everywhere but there is a robust private banking system and people use them to for perks and stuff like cheaper money pulls from the ATM.
That could provide unwelcome competition for banks by giving depositors another safe place to put their money. A person or a business could keep their digital dollars in a virtual “wallet” and then transfer them directly to someone else without needing to use a bank account. Even if the wallet were operated by a bank, the firm wouldn’t be able to lend out the cash. But unlike other crypto assets like Bitcoin or Ether, it would be directly backed and controlled by the central bank, allowing the monetary authorities to use it, like any other form of the dollar, in its policies to guide interest rates.
Important to not understate just how big of a change the bolded would be to the economy.
That could provide unwelcome competition for banks by giving depositors another safe place to put their money. A person or a business could keep their digital dollars in a virtual “wallet” and then transfer them directly to someone else without needing to use a bank account. Even if the wallet were operated by a bank, the firm wouldn’t be able to lend out the cash. But unlike other crypto assets like Bitcoin or Ether, it would be directly backed and controlled by the central bank, allowing the monetary authorities to use it, like any other form of the dollar, in its policies to guide interest rates.
Important to not understate just how big of a change the bolded would be to the economy.
Yeah and I’m not saying don’t do it, but this basically sets us back to like early 20th century in terms of private debt
Which might be good! Probably! For most people….but would be just a gigantic fucking change
The number of times I have seen stuff like this has made me laugh.
The owners of Klavon’s Ice Cream Parlor had hit a wall.
For months, the 98-year-old confectionary in Pittsburgh couldn’t find applicants for the open positions it needed to fill ahead of warmer weather and, hopefully, sunnier times for the business after a rough year.
The job posting for scoopers — $7.25 an hour plus tips — did not produce a single application between January and March.
So owner Jacob Hanchar decided to more than double the starting wage to $15 an hour, plus tips, “just to see what would happen.”
The shop was suddenly flooded with applications. More than 1,000 piled in over the course of a week.
“It was like a dam broke,” Hanchar said. Media coverage that followed his decision soon pushed other candidates his way.
Pay people a good wage and they will come? Seriously amazing watching businesses discover things like this.
Something I feel like I never hear talked about with regards to the current labor shortage is immigration. My industry's been dealing with a driver shortage for a few years now, long before the pandemic, and a lot of that labor we're missing is immigrants. It feels like the pandemic just got other industries to notice, as people started moving to less shitty jobs with better pay.
Which is why I really don't understand Republican governors cutting unemployment benefits. Unemployment rate really ain't that high, people are mostly working and aren't sitting at home collecting government checks. If you're a business that's used to paying minimum wage and can't find employees now, you need to either lobby to bring in more low cost labor or raise your wages to compete with everyone else.
The number of times I have seen stuff like this has made me laugh.
The owners of Klavon’s Ice Cream Parlor had hit a wall.
For months, the 98-year-old confectionary in Pittsburgh couldn’t find applicants for the open positions it needed to fill ahead of warmer weather and, hopefully, sunnier times for the business after a rough year.
The job posting for scoopers — $7.25 an hour plus tips — did not produce a single application between January and March.
So owner Jacob Hanchar decided to more than double the starting wage to $15 an hour, plus tips, “just to see what would happen.”
The shop was suddenly flooded with applications. More than 1,000 piled in over the course of a week.
“It was like a dam broke,” Hanchar said. Media coverage that followed his decision soon pushed other candidates his way.
Pay people a good wage and they will come? Seriously amazing watching businesses discover things like this.
Something I feel like I never hear talked about with regards to the current labor shortage is immigration. My industry's been dealing with a driver shortage for a few years now, long before the pandemic, and a lot of that labor we're missing is immigrants. It feels like the pandemic just got other industries to notice, as people started moving to less shitty jobs with better pay.
Which is why I really don't understand Republican governors cutting unemployment benefits. Unemployment rate really ain't that high, people are mostly working and aren't sitting at home collecting government checks. If you're a business that's used to paying minimum wage and can't find employees now, you need to either lobby to bring in more low cost labor or raise your wages to compete with everyone else.
But, and bear with me here, we just cut unemployment benefits so people would HAVE to take minimum wage jobs so we could keep costs low and we don't care about those people?
Just saying, that's also an option.....................................
League of Legends: Sorakanmyworld
FFXIV: Tchel Fay
Nintendo ID: Tortalius
Steam: Tortalius
Stream: twitch.tv/tortalius
The number of times I have seen stuff like this has made me laugh.
The owners of Klavon’s Ice Cream Parlor had hit a wall.
For months, the 98-year-old confectionary in Pittsburgh couldn’t find applicants for the open positions it needed to fill ahead of warmer weather and, hopefully, sunnier times for the business after a rough year.
The job posting for scoopers — $7.25 an hour plus tips — did not produce a single application between January and March.
So owner Jacob Hanchar decided to more than double the starting wage to $15 an hour, plus tips, “just to see what would happen.”
The shop was suddenly flooded with applications. More than 1,000 piled in over the course of a week.
“It was like a dam broke,” Hanchar said. Media coverage that followed his decision soon pushed other candidates his way.
Pay people a good wage and they will come? Seriously amazing watching businesses discover things like this.
Something I feel like I never hear talked about with regards to the current labor shortage is immigration. My industry's been dealing with a driver shortage for a few years now, long before the pandemic, and a lot of that labor we're missing is immigrants. It feels like the pandemic just got other industries to notice, as people started moving to less shitty jobs with better pay.
Which is why I really don't understand Republican governors cutting unemployment benefits. Unemployment rate really ain't that high, people are mostly working and aren't sitting at home collecting government checks. If you're a business that's used to paying minimum wage and can't find employees now, you need to either lobby to bring in more low cost labor or raise your wages to compete with everyone else.
But, and bear with me here, we just cut unemployment benefits so people would HAVE to take minimum wage jobs so we could keep costs low and we don't care about those people?
Just saying, that's also an option.....................................
No, what I'm saying is even if we cut benefits and get every unemployed worker to work min wage, we still aren't filling the labor gap. We'd need to cut wages across the board to try and get a bunch of people working 2-3 jobs.
The number of times I have seen stuff like this has made me laugh.
The owners of Klavon’s Ice Cream Parlor had hit a wall.
For months, the 98-year-old confectionary in Pittsburgh couldn’t find applicants for the open positions it needed to fill ahead of warmer weather and, hopefully, sunnier times for the business after a rough year.
The job posting for scoopers — $7.25 an hour plus tips — did not produce a single application between January and March.
So owner Jacob Hanchar decided to more than double the starting wage to $15 an hour, plus tips, “just to see what would happen.”
The shop was suddenly flooded with applications. More than 1,000 piled in over the course of a week.
“It was like a dam broke,” Hanchar said. Media coverage that followed his decision soon pushed other candidates his way.
Pay people a good wage and they will come? Seriously amazing watching businesses discover things like this.
Something I feel like I never hear talked about with regards to the current labor shortage is immigration. My industry's been dealing with a driver shortage for a few years now, long before the pandemic, and a lot of that labor we're missing is immigrants. It feels like the pandemic just got other industries to notice, as people started moving to less shitty jobs with better pay.
Which is why I really don't understand Republican governors cutting unemployment benefits. Unemployment rate really ain't that high, people are mostly working and aren't sitting at home collecting government checks. If you're a business that's used to paying minimum wage and can't find employees now, you need to either lobby to bring in more low cost labor or raise your wages to compete with everyone else.
Republicans don't understand healthy business/economic functions, because they don't want to...because they don't care I guess?
The number of times I have seen stuff like this has made me laugh.
The owners of Klavon’s Ice Cream Parlor had hit a wall.
For months, the 98-year-old confectionary in Pittsburgh couldn’t find applicants for the open positions it needed to fill ahead of warmer weather and, hopefully, sunnier times for the business after a rough year.
The job posting for scoopers — $7.25 an hour plus tips — did not produce a single application between January and March.
So owner Jacob Hanchar decided to more than double the starting wage to $15 an hour, plus tips, “just to see what would happen.”
The shop was suddenly flooded with applications. More than 1,000 piled in over the course of a week.
“It was like a dam broke,” Hanchar said. Media coverage that followed his decision soon pushed other candidates his way.
Pay people a good wage and they will come? Seriously amazing watching businesses discover things like this.
Something I feel like I never hear talked about with regards to the current labor shortage is immigration. My industry's been dealing with a driver shortage for a few years now, long before the pandemic, and a lot of that labor we're missing is immigrants. It feels like the pandemic just got other industries to notice, as people started moving to less shitty jobs with better pay.
Which is why I really don't understand Republican governors cutting unemployment benefits. Unemployment rate really ain't that high, people are mostly working and aren't sitting at home collecting government checks. If you're a business that's used to paying minimum wage and can't find employees now, you need to either lobby to bring in more low cost labor or raise your wages to compete with everyone else.
It's not an economic idea, it's a moral and cultural one. They are against the idea of people getting benefits. Especially people who aren't working. (ie - the "lazy" and "entitled" and what not)
The number of times I have seen stuff like this has made me laugh.
The owners of Klavon’s Ice Cream Parlor had hit a wall.
For months, the 98-year-old confectionary in Pittsburgh couldn’t find applicants for the open positions it needed to fill ahead of warmer weather and, hopefully, sunnier times for the business after a rough year.
The job posting for scoopers — $7.25 an hour plus tips — did not produce a single application between January and March.
So owner Jacob Hanchar decided to more than double the starting wage to $15 an hour, plus tips, “just to see what would happen.”
The shop was suddenly flooded with applications. More than 1,000 piled in over the course of a week.
“It was like a dam broke,” Hanchar said. Media coverage that followed his decision soon pushed other candidates his way.
Pay people a good wage and they will come? Seriously amazing watching businesses discover things like this.
Something I feel like I never hear talked about with regards to the current labor shortage is immigration. My industry's been dealing with a driver shortage for a few years now, long before the pandemic, and a lot of that labor we're missing is immigrants. It feels like the pandemic just got other industries to notice, as people started moving to less shitty jobs with better pay.
Which is why I really don't understand Republican governors cutting unemployment benefits. Unemployment rate really ain't that high, people are mostly working and aren't sitting at home collecting government checks. If you're a business that's used to paying minimum wage and can't find employees now, you need to either lobby to bring in more low cost labor or raise your wages to compete with everyone else.
Immigration has been brought up in a few circles. Saw an article around it as Biden is opening up some of the spigots Trump closed. But at the same time if folks will work for higher pay that shows more so the pay is to low to meet the demand.
Immigration must have been reduced by both Trump being a massive racist and also Covid-19 making people not want to travel.
I assume that decreased immigration is the reason for all the restaurants suddenly gasping for employees because the people who died in Covid were mostly past retirement age.
CelestialBadger on
+2
Options
ButtersA glass of some milksRegistered Userregular
That could provide unwelcome competition for banks by giving depositors another safe place to put their money. A person or a business could keep their digital dollars in a virtual “wallet” and then transfer them directly to someone else without needing to use a bank account. Even if the wallet were operated by a bank, the firm wouldn’t be able to lend out the cash. But unlike other crypto assets like Bitcoin or Ether, it would be directly backed and controlled by the central bank, allowing the monetary authorities to use it, like any other form of the dollar, in its policies to guide interest rates.
Important to not understate just how big of a change the bolded would be to the economy.
Yeah and I’m not saying don’t do it, but this basically sets us back to like early 20th century in terms of private debt
Which might be good! Probably! For most people….but would be just a gigantic fucking change
Maybe that just means the banks would have to give real incentive to use their services instead of being the only option and constantly charging us for access to our own money? Maybe they'll actually compete with each other instead of merging to grow their customer base?
Immigration must have been reduced by both Trump being a massive racist and also Covid-19 making people not want to travel.
I assume that decreased immigration is the reason for all the restaurants suddenly gasping for immigration because the people who died in Covid were mostly past retirement age.
A lot of actions were taken to reduce or stop a lot of different temporary work status visas in the US. These are actions Biden is working to reverse.
Immigration must have been reduced by both Trump being a massive racist and also Covid-19 making people not want to travel.
I assume that decreased immigration is the reason for all the restaurants suddenly gasping for immigration because the people who died in Covid were mostly past retirement age.
COVID deaths hit frontline retail and restaurant workers the hardest.
2 million Americans also retired from the work force during the past year, so materially speaking there are simply less workers. And immigration has been a huge issue for many farmers and manufacturing facilities; they depend on cheap labor to exploit in order to operate. Trump/Covid has been a huge blow in that regard, it's nearly cutoff all legal immigration. It's simply not the same labor pool it was 2 years ago, and there was a shortage then too.
Cutting unemployment will do next to nothing on labor availability, and will actively harm the economies of those states doing it. But they seem to like cutting off their nose to spite the face.
StarZapper on
+7
Options
ButtersA glass of some milksRegistered Userregular
Immigration must have been reduced by both Trump being a massive racist and also Covid-19 making people not want to travel.
I assume that decreased immigration is the reason for all the restaurants suddenly gasping for immigration because the people who died in Covid were mostly past retirement age.
COVID deaths hit frontline retail and restaurant workers the hardest.
This and a lot of mid-to-high-level culinary talent fled to the catering industry in response to COVID. It's safer and from what I am reading less exploitative.
2 million Americans also retired from the work force during the past year, so materially speaking there are simply less workers. And immigration has been a huge issue for many farmers and manufacturing facilities; they depend on cheap labor to exploit in order to operate. Trump/Covid has been a huge blow in that regard, it's nearly cutoff all legal immigration. It's simply not the same labor pool it was 2 years ago, and there was a shortage then too.
Cutting unemployment will do next to nothing on labor availability, and will actively harm the economies of those states doing it. But they seem to like cutting off their nose to spite the face.
If anything we will have a very interesting, though no IRB would approve it, case study as it is about half the country cutting benefits early and about half the country not. And we can very much track the two against each other when it comes to employment, the recovery, and wages.
That could provide unwelcome competition for banks by giving depositors another safe place to put their money. A person or a business could keep their digital dollars in a virtual “wallet” and then transfer them directly to someone else without needing to use a bank account. Even if the wallet were operated by a bank, the firm wouldn’t be able to lend out the cash. But unlike other crypto assets like Bitcoin or Ether, it would be directly backed and controlled by the central bank, allowing the monetary authorities to use it, like any other form of the dollar, in its policies to guide interest rates.
Important to not understate just how big of a change the bolded would be to the economy.
Yeah and I’m not saying don’t do it, but this basically sets us back to like early 20th century in terms of private debt
Which might be good! Probably! For most people….but would be just a gigantic fucking change
I think it would take a lot of convincing for reducing liquidity of banks and increasing interest rates on lending would be a good thing for the average over leveraged American worker.
That could provide unwelcome competition for banks by giving depositors another safe place to put their money. A person or a business could keep their digital dollars in a virtual “wallet” and then transfer them directly to someone else without needing to use a bank account. Even if the wallet were operated by a bank, the firm wouldn’t be able to lend out the cash. But unlike other crypto assets like Bitcoin or Ether, it would be directly backed and controlled by the central bank, allowing the monetary authorities to use it, like any other form of the dollar, in its policies to guide interest rates.
Important to not understate just how big of a change the bolded would be to the economy.
Yeah and I’m not saying don’t do it, but this basically sets us back to like early 20th century in terms of private debt
Which might be good! Probably! For most people….but would be just a gigantic fucking change
I think it would take a lot of convincing for reducing liquidity of banks and increasing interest rates on lending would be a good thing for the average over leveraged American worker.
I think there are things we all just assume should be paid for with private debt when it’s not always been that way and we’ve built up parts our society around that
2 million Americans also retired from the work force during the past year, so materially speaking there are simply less workers. And immigration has been a huge issue for many farmers and manufacturing facilities; they depend on cheap labor to exploit in order to operate. Trump/Covid has been a huge blow in that regard, it's nearly cutoff all legal immigration. It's simply not the same labor pool it was 2 years ago, and there was a shortage then too.
Cutting unemployment will do next to nothing on labor availability, and will actively harm the economies of those states doing it. But they seem to like cutting off their nose to spite the face.
If anything we will have a very interesting, though IRB would approve it, case study as it is about half the country cutting benefits early and about half the country not. And we can very much track the two against each other when it comes to employment, the recovery, and wages.
The last two years are going to birth Econ PhD student papers for decades.
Immigration must have been reduced by both Trump being a massive racist and also Covid-19 making people not want to travel.
I assume that decreased immigration is the reason for all the restaurants suddenly gasping for immigration because the people who died in Covid were mostly past retirement age.
A lot of actions were taken to reduce or stop a lot of different temporary work status visas in the US. These are actions Biden is working to reverse.
An interesting question is: is he right to do so? The current worker shortage is doing to minimum wage what Democrats failed to do: raising it.
2 million Americans also retired from the work force during the past year, so materially speaking there are simply less workers. And immigration has been a huge issue for many farmers and manufacturing facilities; they depend on cheap labor to exploit in order to operate. Trump/Covid has been a huge blow in that regard, it's nearly cutoff all legal immigration. It's simply not the same labor pool it was 2 years ago, and there was a shortage then too.
Cutting unemployment will do next to nothing on labor availability, and will actively harm the economies of those states doing it. But they seem to like cutting off their nose to spite the face.
If anything we will have a very interesting, though no IRB would approve it, case study as it is about half the country cutting benefits early and about half the country not. And we can very much track the two against each other when it comes to employment, the recovery, and wages.
Except we already have 10-20 years of proof the austerity doesn't work...much of that data from those same states.
2 million Americans also retired from the work force during the past year, so materially speaking there are simply less workers. And immigration has been a huge issue for many farmers and manufacturing facilities; they depend on cheap labor to exploit in order to operate. Trump/Covid has been a huge blow in that regard, it's nearly cutoff all legal immigration. It's simply not the same labor pool it was 2 years ago, and there was a shortage then too.
Cutting unemployment will do next to nothing on labor availability, and will actively harm the economies of those states doing it. But they seem to like cutting off their nose to spite the face.
If anything we will have a very interesting, though no IRB would approve it, case study as it is about half the country cutting benefits early and about half the country not. And we can very much track the two against each other when it comes to employment, the recovery, and wages.
Except we already have 10-20 years of proof the austerity doesn't work...much of that data from those same states.
I would disagree this is a straight study on austerity. It isn't cutting for belt cinching. It is political motivated in a way that is more than traditional austerity. On top of that it is a specific type of funding they are cutting while states are still receiving a huge influx of general purpose cash from the Feds.
This will be a dramatic test on if the shortage is the unemployment benefits which is probably only part of it and not a major part after the last year, wages, and power of basically UBI on holding up an economy temporarily. Because the UEI was basically limited UBI.
2 million Americans also retired from the work force during the past year, so materially speaking there are simply less workers. And immigration has been a huge issue for many farmers and manufacturing facilities; they depend on cheap labor to exploit in order to operate. Trump/Covid has been a huge blow in that regard, it's nearly cutoff all legal immigration. It's simply not the same labor pool it was 2 years ago, and there was a shortage then too.
Cutting unemployment will do next to nothing on labor availability, and will actively harm the economies of those states doing it. But they seem to like cutting off their nose to spite the face.
If anything we will have a very interesting, though no IRB would approve it, case study as it is about half the country cutting benefits early and about half the country not. And we can very much track the two against each other when it comes to employment, the recovery, and wages.
Except we already have 10-20 years of proof the austerity doesn't work...much of that data from those same states.
I would disagree this is a straight study on austerity. It isn't cutting for belt cinching. It is political motivated in a way that is more than traditional austerity. On top of that it is a specific type of funding they are cutting while states are still receiving a huge influx of general purpose cash from the Feds.
This will be a dramatic test on if the shortage is the unemployment benefits which is probably only part of it and not a major part after the last year, wages, and power of basically UBI on holding up an economy temporarily. Because the UEI was basically limited UBI.
Plus the fact that it's literally just shorting it a couple months. It's not like the other half of the States are going to get the supplement perpetually. So compare their drop off date with the later one. Did it cause a noticeable change? Plus, you know, a lot of greek maths.
+6
Options
ButtersA glass of some milksRegistered Userregular
Ending UI benefits is a purely punitive ideological action by the pubs, nothing to do with money (but also everything to do with money)
Republicans stake a lot on being the party of economic prosperity (despite their actual history) and they are more than happy to try and tank the economy now only to blame the state of things on their opponents in the next election cycle. They learned from 2010 what you do in the minority matters much less than who's in charge when things are bad.
I mean cutting off UI benefits should impact the number of job seekers. Saying wages are too low to entice sufficient job seekers is a supply and demand thing isn’t entirely correct.
A big problem though is that wages are low enough for the UEI to have an impact- capital simply has too much control over this market and workers are forced to take multiple jobs and/or live in greatly impoverished conditions. Capital’s talking points about UEI and the actions many states are taking in response reflect this monopsony.
Posts
They get to say they are doing something without doing anything that fundamentally harms their donors. (Especially if they can make it revenue neutral by mailing folks checks and therefore avoid having the federal government do anything)
An aggressive infrastructure campaign might even be "worse" than an ineffectual tax, since it represents creating actual competition for the sectors that consume dirty energy.
Fair points. I think the $24/ton is higher than what the Paris climate accords call for, but I agree they're too low.
I may be biased thanks to WA's carbon tax fiasco, which thanks in part to in fighting among activists has now been on the ballot twice and passed zero times.
From what I've read the Paris accords don't actually have a set dollar value. They're more 'achieve this goal in emissions, the details of how are up to you'.
One report I found recommended the following: So $24/ton is better than nothing, but it's nowhere near what it needs to be to actually get the job done. And the past year has given us copious amounts of examples of the difference between doing what is necessary and doing what is convenient.
battletag: Millin#1360
Nice chart to figure out how honest a news source is.
Eh... maybe, but this seems like one of those more basic econ situations where there's a pretty solid number that'll get you the result you want, and anything short of that just won't. The C-Level guys might bitch and moan, but the math on paying the tax vs. cutting emissions in some way is pretty simple, and if it's cheaper to pay the tax then that's what they'll do. Assuming they don't just go trying to cheat on their carbon taxes, pretty sure that'll be at least a few companies' plan.
Plus all the news on the climate change front can generally be summed up as 'Worse than we thought.' so lowballing on the carbon tax is failing on multiple levels.
I'm realizing now that I think that number is what the generic social cost of carbon was like 5 years ago. Now the feds are using $51/ton as an interim amount until their experts redo the calculations cause of the Trump admin
Hell of a leap from that to thinking that enough companies will spend more on limiting emissions than they have to just to spite the tax man to the point that their efforts come even vaguely close to making up for the fact that the proposed carbon tax is roughly half of what studies suggest it should be.
The number of times I have seen stuff like this has made me laugh.
Pay people a good wage and they will come? Seriously amazing watching businesses discover things like this.
3DS: 0473-8507-2652
Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
PSN: AbEntropy
Communism
I'm not sure how this would work with the environmental impacts crypto has. As much as I hate crypto, the idea that banks absolutely hate it does bring me some joy.
Or you could just literally have a modern banking system with a government-run payment system. Basically a debit card system run by the government. Maybe even the post office specifically.
Also just a quick point, a postal banking system like Japan doesn't get rid of private banks. Just requires they usually produce more of an incentive than existing to be used. Again in Japan everyone has a postal account because they are free and work pretty everywhere but there is a robust private banking system and people use them to for perks and stuff like cheaper money pulls from the ATM.
Important to not understate just how big of a change the bolded would be to the economy.
Yeah and I’m not saying don’t do it, but this basically sets us back to like early 20th century in terms of private debt
Which might be good! Probably! For most people….but would be just a gigantic fucking change
Something I feel like I never hear talked about with regards to the current labor shortage is immigration. My industry's been dealing with a driver shortage for a few years now, long before the pandemic, and a lot of that labor we're missing is immigrants. It feels like the pandemic just got other industries to notice, as people started moving to less shitty jobs with better pay.
Which is why I really don't understand Republican governors cutting unemployment benefits. Unemployment rate really ain't that high, people are mostly working and aren't sitting at home collecting government checks. If you're a business that's used to paying minimum wage and can't find employees now, you need to either lobby to bring in more low cost labor or raise your wages to compete with everyone else.
But, and bear with me here, we just cut unemployment benefits so people would HAVE to take minimum wage jobs so we could keep costs low and we don't care about those people?
Just saying, that's also an option.....................................
FFXIV: Tchel Fay
Nintendo ID: Tortalius
Steam: Tortalius
Stream: twitch.tv/tortalius
No, what I'm saying is even if we cut benefits and get every unemployed worker to work min wage, we still aren't filling the labor gap. We'd need to cut wages across the board to try and get a bunch of people working 2-3 jobs.
Republicans don't understand healthy business/economic functions, because they don't want to...because they don't care I guess?
I also don't get it.
It's not an economic idea, it's a moral and cultural one. They are against the idea of people getting benefits. Especially people who aren't working. (ie - the "lazy" and "entitled" and what not)
Immigration has been brought up in a few circles. Saw an article around it as Biden is opening up some of the spigots Trump closed. But at the same time if folks will work for higher pay that shows more so the pay is to low to meet the demand.
I assume that decreased immigration is the reason for all the restaurants suddenly gasping for employees because the people who died in Covid were mostly past retirement age.
Maybe that just means the banks would have to give real incentive to use their services instead of being the only option and constantly charging us for access to our own money? Maybe they'll actually compete with each other instead of merging to grow their customer base?
Probably not but it would be fucking nice.
A lot of actions were taken to reduce or stop a lot of different temporary work status visas in the US. These are actions Biden is working to reverse.
COVID deaths hit frontline retail and restaurant workers the hardest.
Cutting unemployment will do next to nothing on labor availability, and will actively harm the economies of those states doing it. But they seem to like cutting off their nose to spite the face.
This and a lot of mid-to-high-level culinary talent fled to the catering industry in response to COVID. It's safer and from what I am reading less exploitative.
If anything we will have a very interesting, though no IRB would approve it, case study as it is about half the country cutting benefits early and about half the country not. And we can very much track the two against each other when it comes to employment, the recovery, and wages.
I think it would take a lot of convincing for reducing liquidity of banks and increasing interest rates on lending would be a good thing for the average over leveraged American worker.
MWO: Adamski
I think there are things we all just assume should be paid for with private debt when it’s not always been that way and we’ve built up parts our society around that
Like for example student loans
The last two years are going to birth Econ PhD student papers for decades.
An interesting question is: is he right to do so? The current worker shortage is doing to minimum wage what Democrats failed to do: raising it.
Except we already have 10-20 years of proof the austerity doesn't work...much of that data from those same states.
I would disagree this is a straight study on austerity. It isn't cutting for belt cinching. It is political motivated in a way that is more than traditional austerity. On top of that it is a specific type of funding they are cutting while states are still receiving a huge influx of general purpose cash from the Feds.
This will be a dramatic test on if the shortage is the unemployment benefits which is probably only part of it and not a major part after the last year, wages, and power of basically UBI on holding up an economy temporarily. Because the UEI was basically limited UBI.
Plus the fact that it's literally just shorting it a couple months. It's not like the other half of the States are going to get the supplement perpetually. So compare their drop off date with the later one. Did it cause a noticeable change? Plus, you know, a lot of greek maths.
Republicans stake a lot on being the party of economic prosperity (despite their actual history) and they are more than happy to try and tank the economy now only to blame the state of things on their opponents in the next election cycle. They learned from 2010 what you do in the minority matters much less than who's in charge when things are bad.
A big problem though is that wages are low enough for the UEI to have an impact- capital simply has too much control over this market and workers are forced to take multiple jobs and/or live in greatly impoverished conditions. Capital’s talking points about UEI and the actions many states are taking in response reflect this monopsony.