I thought it was from where Daniel Boone was born/raised. Apparently not, but selling off national lands leaves a funny taste in my mouth. A bad funny taste.
I don't disagree with you on that point. I'm actually more environmentalist than most conservatives, I think. It's probably from reading National Geographic. We do need real hardwood for some things though. Maybe if we rotated Federal Lands and leased them instead of selling them we could make the lumber industry more sustainable. It would really suck to sell those forests off, have them clear-cut all the good wood and convert that virgin forest to Poplar and fast-growing pine for the paper industry. Harvest only some of the good stuff and replant oak, maple and white pine. Give it 50-100 years before repeating. Just an idea off the top of my head. Don't know for sure if it would work...
I hope it would. I find selling any kind of public lands very distasteful. Most industries will clear-cut and leave it looking like a disaster area. I don't think you should treat public lands that way- that would be a disgrace. What they do nowadays is to leave a small section nearest the roads intact, and beyond the part you can see from there, they clearcut so it looks pristine, but isn't.
I hope it would. I find selling any kind of public lands very distasteful. Most industries will clear-cut and leave it looking like a disaster area. I don't think you should treat public lands that way- that would be a disgrace. What they do nowadays is to leave a small section nearest the roads intact, and beyond the part you can see from there, they clearcut so it looks pristine, but isn't.
I think they do replant fast-growing shit wood for paper though. Certainly not as majestic as the old-growth trees...
Edit: I've driven off-road on some of the logging trails in the Michigan Upper Peninsula and it is pretty sad when you get away from the highways.
Unless I'm mistaken, I don't think it's possible to clear-cut an entire forest and then replant the good hardwood trees on barren land and just have it regrow. That's why I suggested leaving some of the good stuff uncut as a base. That's what I'm not sure would work or not. Maybe we have somebody here who knows more about forest management than I do?
This is why laws tend to be very long, and are usually the product of lots of experts working in concert. A bill like this would have to be very complicated to make sure it had only the intended effect.
That sounds nice, but I'm not sure that it's realistic. Making something more complicated can actually increase the possibilities for manipulating it rather than the reverse. There are other potentially undesirable effects - like meaning only experts can interpret what the law says and increasing the compliance costs both by citizens and the government.
I'd prefer to see tax law made simpler and not more complex. If you want to change the tax balance in relation to hiring labor I think it would be more effective to just reduce payroll taxes.
You've also been referring to the idea of a universal basic income recently. One of the great attractions of that for me is its simplicity and the way that helps avoid perverse outcomes. To illustrate the argument I'll use a topical example from the UK about the introduction of Universal Credit. That's a single benefit intended to replace 6 separate existing benefits and part of the original rationale was that the simplicity would make managing benefits much easier for both individuals and government. However, since its first announcement in 2010 the policy has faced repeated delays and has been vastly more costly to administer than expected - and had considerable perverse effects on individuals.
I'm not an expert on Universal Credit, but I rather suspect it's a case study in the difficulty of managing complex law. Rather than go with the original idea of a simple benefit, there has been a whole series of complications added to try and incorporate anti-avoidance measures. This though just spawns a new industry of people looking for ways to manipulate the benefit - requiring new legislative tweaks in a never-ending spiral. Meanwhile a lot of people who should be claiming the benefit are not (as a result of being put off by the complexity of the process), meaning that the policy has not produced the expected benefits.
This is why laws tend to be very long, and are usually the product of lots of experts working in concert. A bill like this would have to be very complicated to make sure it had only the intended effect.
That sounds nice, but I'm not sure that it's realistic. Making something more complicated can actually increase the possibilities for manipulating it rather than the reverse. There are other potentially undesirable effects - like meaning only experts can interpret what the law says and increasing the compliance costs both by citizens and the government.
I'd prefer to see tax law made simpler and not more complex. If you want to change the tax balance in relation to hiring labor I think it would be more effective to just reduce payroll taxes.
You've also been referring to the idea of a universal basic income recently. One of the great attractions of that for me is its simplicity and the way that helps avoid perverse outcomes. To illustrate the argument I'll use a topical example from the UK about the introduction of Universal Credit. That's a single benefit intended to replace 6 separate existing benefits and part of the original rationale was that the simplicity would make managing benefits much easier for both individuals and government. However, since its first announcement in 2010 the policy has faced repeated delays and has been vastly more costly to administer than expected - and had considerable perverse effects on individuals.
I'm not an expert on Universal Credit, but I rather suspect it's a case study in the difficulty of managing complex law. Rather than go with the original idea of a simple benefit, there has been a whole series of complications added to try and incorporate anti-avoidance measures. This though just spawns a new industry of people looking for ways to manipulate the benefit - requiring new legislative tweaks in a never-ending spiral. Meanwhile a lot of people who should be claiming the benefit are not (as a result of being put off by the complexity of the process), meaning that the policy has not produced the expected benefits.
What would be the inflationary consequences of a universal credit? I'm wondering if it would just devalue the money to the point of being useless as a credit. It's similar to the 'living wage' argument. If people start making $20/hr to flip burgers, wouldn't that just make everybody else's money worth less? I think we'd start to see skilled workers complaining about not being to afford McDonald's anymore as a likely result. Simple answers aren't usually the best answers to complex questions.
Here's a Wikipedia clip of what I'm referring to by 'old growth' or 'virgin' forest. It's increasingly scarce and it's not clear if it can ever recover from clear-cutting (at least for possibly centuries). If there were a way to sustainably take some of that wood without destroying the forests themselves that would be an awesome discovery for mankind. Can it be done? Can the forests destroyed already be (at least partially) restored? That's what I'm wondering aloud...
This is why laws tend to be very long, and are usually the product of lots of experts working in concert. A bill like this would have to be very complicated to make sure it had only the intended effect.
That sounds nice, but I'm not sure that it's realistic. Making something more complicated can actually increase the possibilities for manipulating it rather than the reverse. There are other potentially undesirable effects - like meaning only experts can interpret what the law says and increasing the compliance costs both by citizens and the government.
I'd prefer to see tax law made simpler and not more complex. If you want to change the tax balance in relation to hiring labor I think it would be more effective to just reduce payroll taxes.
You've also been referring to the idea of a universal basic income recently. One of the great attractions of that for me is its simplicity and the way that helps avoid perverse outcomes. To illustrate the argument I'll use a topical example from the UK about the introduction of Universal Credit. That's a single benefit intended to replace 6 separate existing benefits and part of the original rationale was that the simplicity would make managing benefits much easier for both individuals and government. However, since its first announcement in 2010 the policy has faced repeated delays and has been vastly more costly to administer than expected - and had considerable perverse effects on individuals.
I'm not an expert on Universal Credit, but I rather suspect it's a case study in the difficulty of managing complex law. Rather than go with the original idea of a simple benefit, there has been a whole series of complications added to try and incorporate anti-avoidance measures. This though just spawns a new industry of people looking for ways to manipulate the benefit - requiring new legislative tweaks in a never-ending spiral. Meanwhile a lot of people who should be claiming the benefit are not (as a result of being put off by the complexity of the process), meaning that the policy has not produced the expected benefits.
What would be the inflationary consequences of a universal credit? I'm wondering if it would just devalue the money to the point of being useless as a credit. It's similar to the 'living wage' argument. If people start making $20/hr to flip burgers, wouldn't that just make everybody else's money worth less? I think we'd start to see skilled workers complaining about not being to afford McDonald's anymore as a likely result. Simple answers aren't usually the best answers to complex questions.
I don't think inflation should be much of a concern for a universal basic income scheme. The net additional resource put into the economy would be expected to be fairly modest. The effect could even be to reduce resources depending on the design of a particular scheme (some schemes propose UBI at levels below existing benefits entitlements, though I think it's unlikely they would be implemented). The intention of UBI would not be to try and make everyone better off (as you suggest that would lead to a moving target), but there are plenty of other potential benefits, e.g.:
- give more certainty to people about the income they have.
- reduce the compliance costs associated with benefit claims.
- reduce benefit 'cheating'.
- reduce the proportion of people who don't claim benefits aimed at them.
- reduce the dependence of some family members currently without an income.
I don't remember inflation being raised as an issue in relation to the recent tax cuts in the US, which did significantly increase available resources in the economy. I accept though that, as the benefits went mainly to those already wealthy, it would be expected the inflation impact would be smaller for a given increase in resources (as wealthy people are less likely to spend any additional resources gained than poor people).
Over time, there's an argument that UBI would lead to more people seeking work or becoming more entrepreneurial. The initial findings from the Finnish experiment don't suggest any change in those in work and that was similar to a 2010 study in Iran (the latter did though suggest an increase in entrepreneurial activity and it's possible the same will be seen in Finland once the full analysis is completed).
I think lower-end prices have been falling due to globalization though. Stop by any dollar store to see what I mean. Even though wage increases have stagnated, we're still better off regarding the cheaper resources (gasoline, energy, clothing, food & toys/household goods/sundries) because of abusing cheap labor in developing countries. That's what I mean by a shell-game though. Try to buy a new vehicle, house, property, boat or even high-end furniture or precious metals/stones and that's when you'll see how badly we're being screwed!
I think lower-end prices have been falling due to globalization though. Stop by any dollar store to see what I mean. Even though wage increases have stagnated, we're still better off regarding the cheaper resources (gasoline, energy, clothing, food & toys/household goods/sundries) because of abusing cheap labor in developing countries. That's what I mean by a shell-game though. Try to buy a new vehicle, house, property, boat or even high-end furniture or precious metals/stones and that's when you'll see how badly we're being screwed!
True. Same deal with food. Unhealthy crap food is cheap, healthy food costs more money. It's more expensive to eat healthy.
I think lower-end prices have been falling due to globalization though. Stop by any dollar store to see what I mean. Even though wage increases have stagnated, we're still better off regarding the cheaper resources (gasoline, energy, clothing, food & toys/household goods/sundries) because of abusing cheap labor in developing countries. That's what I mean by a shell-game though. Try to buy a new vehicle, house, property, boat or even high-end furniture or precious metals/stones and that's when you'll see how badly we're being screwed!
True. Same deal with food. Unhealthy crap food is cheap, healthy food costs more money. It's more expensive to eat healthy.
Is it though? I see this claim pop up time and again but rarely with any evidence.
I don't know anything about the UBI and I didn't read your links, but it was mentioned above that increasing the wages for "common workers" could be an incentive for reduced taxes and then some talk about inflation.
I'm no expert at all, but I have studied macro economics as part of my university exam and I think I know enough to state that it's erroneous to think that a general increase in salary levels for the main bulk of workers won't have an impact on inflation. It surely will. An average person, working class/middle class, spend a much greater portion of their income every month compared to the top tier "1%-ers", so if you increase their disposable income, they will spend it to a higher degree bringing two very tangible effects on slightly more short term and in the very long term a third:
1: Increase in consumption meaning an increased GNP
2: Increase in consumption leading to inflation
3: market adapts (longterm) leading to increased prices, leading to reduced purchasing power again.
This doesn't happen over night of course, and not in all markets (ie houses vs candy will be different), but eventually it will happen.
I don't think inflation should be much of a concern for a universal basic income scheme. The net additional resource put into the economy would be expected to be fairly modest. The effect could even be to reduce resources depending on the design of a particular scheme (some schemes propose UBI at levels below existing benefits entitlements, though I think it's unlikely they would be implemented). The intention of UBI would not be to try and make everyone better off (as you suggest that would lead to a moving target), but there are plenty of other potential benefits, e.g.:
- give more certainty to people about the income they have.
- reduce the compliance costs associated with benefit claims.
- reduce benefit 'cheating'.
- reduce the proportion of people who don't claim benefits aimed at them.
- reduce the dependence of some family members currently without an income.
Yes there are many benefits of UBI to economies. In addition to those you mentioned, UBI has proven in previous experiments:
- to bring about increases in purchasing power,
- to create more jobs (as a result of those increases in purchasing power), and
- to lower crime rates.
I haven't read about its effects on public health, but I expect improvement as well. And I mean physical and mental health: more people will be able to afford healthier lifestyles, while stress-related health problems should become less common.
These effects all save costs (apart from the other benefits they offer society).
I don't know anything about the UBI and I didn't read your links, but it was mentioned above that increasing the wages for "common workers" could be an incentive for reduced taxes and then some talk about inflation.
I'm no expert at all, but I have studied macro economics as part of my university exam and I think I know enough to state that it's erroneous to think that a general increase in salary levels for the main bulk of workers won't have an impact on inflation. It surely will. An average person, working class/middle class, spend a much greater portion of their income every month compared to the top tier "1%-ers", so if you increase their disposable income, they will spend it to a higher degree bringing two very tangible effects on slightly more short term and in the very long term a third:
1: Increase in consumption meaning an increased GNP
2: Increase in consumption leading to inflation
3: market adapts (longterm) leading to increased prices, leading to reduced purchasing power again.
This doesn't happen over night of course, and not in all markets (ie houses vs candy will be different), but eventually it will happen.
True, but UBI isn't the same as "a general increase in salary levels for the main bulk of workers". The cases and proposals I know of seek to maintain a labor incentive, meaning UBI will be lower than the minimum wage, but enough to cover essential expenses. If UBI were to be much higher than that or if a nation has a significant amount of citizens who'd go from about 0 to say $1k a month, then yes (hyper-)inflation could occur I guess.
People who currently rely on social welfare, unemployment benefits etc would see such benefits replaced by UBI. People who are unhappy in their jobs may see UBI as a way out. They will have less income than they used to in their jobs though, but they'll enjoy the security of a guaranteed income while they can figure out what makes them happy. I expect UBI to foster creativity and initiative.
I've read about a plan in Alaska by which an Alaska state fund pays out (fluctuating) dividends to Alaskan citizens, and while saving and spending increases around dividend payouts, I have read no reports of inflation undoing the effect of the system.
And that shows it's impossible to find a healthy diet which doesn't cost more than an unhealthy one? Come on.
I'm sure those were just some examples. I don't know about your country, but where I live organic vegetables are more expensive than non-organic vegetables, whole grain bread is more expensive than white bread, free-range eggs are more expensive than battery cage eggs, natural fruit juice is more expensive than cola etc. Maybe you can explain what makes you question the truthfulness of the claim that healthier food tends to be more expensive? There must be something that makes you question this no? (Unless you're just arguing for argument's sake.)
Edit: free-range eggs aren't the best example, as there's probably no evidence they're healthier. But instead of free-range eggs I can mention organic fruits vs non-organic fruits, or even non-organic fruits vs candy, or I could have compared different types of sandwich spreads and fillings.
Trump's Nuremberg Rallies reached a fever-pitch last night in El Paso. In the warm-up act, Don Jr. literally called teachers "losers". In the main event, a man assaulted a BBC cameraman. Minutes later, Trump was back to directing his ire at the media.
And that shows it's impossible to find a healthy diet which doesn't cost more than an unhealthy one? Come on.
I'm sure those were just some examples. I don't know about your country, but where I live organic vegetables are more expensive than non-organic vegetables, whole grain bread is more expensive than white bread, free-range eggs are more expensive than battery cage eggs, natural fruit juice is more expensive than cola etc. Maybe you can explain what makes you question the truthfulness of the claim that healthier food tends to be more expensive? There must be something that makes you question this no? (Unless you're just arguing for argument's sake.)
Edit: free-range eggs aren't the best example, as there's probably no evidence they're healthier. But instead of free-range eggs I can mention organic fruits vs non-organic fruits, or even non-organic fruits vs candy, or I could have compared different types of sandwich spreads and fillings.
What makes me question the claim is simply the fact that no supporting evidence was offered. Why would there have to be anything beyond that?
And that shows it's impossible to find a healthy diet which doesn't cost more than an unhealthy one? Come on.
I'm sure those were just some examples. I don't know about your country, but where I live organic vegetables are more expensive than non-organic vegetables, whole grain bread is more expensive than white bread, free-range eggs are more expensive than battery cage eggs, natural fruit juice is more expensive than cola etc. Maybe you can explain what makes you question the truthfulness of the claim that healthier food tends to be more expensive? There must be something that makes you question this no? (Unless you're just arguing for argument's sake.)
Edit: free-range eggs aren't the best example, as there's probably no evidence they're healthier. But instead of free-range eggs I can mention organic fruits vs non-organic fruits, or even non-organic fruits vs candy, or I could have compared different types of sandwich spreads and fillings.
What makes me question the claim is simply the fact that no supporting evidence was offered. Why would there have to be anything beyond that?
And that shows it's impossible to find a healthy diet which doesn't cost more than an unhealthy one? Come on.
I'm sure those were just some examples. I don't know about your country, but where I live organic vegetables are more expensive than non-organic vegetables, whole grain bread is more expensive than white bread, free-range eggs are more expensive than battery cage eggs, natural fruit juice is more expensive than cola etc. Maybe you can explain what makes you question the truthfulness of the claim that healthier food tends to be more expensive? There must be something that makes you question this no? (Unless you're just arguing for argument's sake.)
Edit: free-range eggs aren't the best example, as there's probably no evidence they're healthier. But instead of free-range eggs I can mention organic fruits vs non-organic fruits, or even non-organic fruits vs candy, or I could have compared different types of sandwich spreads and fillings.
What makes me question the claim is simply the fact that no supporting evidence was offered. Why would there have to be anything beyond that?
It depends on how you do your comparison. If you look at price per calorie (which is the typical international comparison because it tends to be used in relation to food-poor societies) then healthy foods do look expensive as they are typically much less calorie-dense than unhealthy foods. If you look at price per unit weight of the food item you don't get the same relationship.
I think the other major issue is that healthy foods tend to be much less processed. Unhealthy foods are able to be sold cheaply because the mass processing is largely automated and cost-efficient, but it's still cheaper to buy materials and prepare them yourself if you don't count the cost of your own time.
If you put additional restrictions on producing food then that tends to increase costs. For instance:
- welfare requirements such as for free-range eggs
- avoiding GM materials
- promoting bio-diversity through growing organic.
I tend to support all the above, but I don't think there's significant evidence that they have a direct link to health.
And that shows it's impossible to find a healthy diet which doesn't cost more than an unhealthy one? Come on.
Impossible? No, but for people with jobs just making ends meet yes it's cheaper and easier to open a can of something or east unhealthy fast food than to go to the organic grocery store and pay more and prepare fresh food.
What makes me question the claim is simply the fact that no supporting evidence was offered. Why would there have to be anything beyond that?
It's not like you call for evidence for every uncorroborated claim you encounter. You didn't with my claim that healthy foods in my country tend to be more expensive than unhealthy foods for example. So the fact that you did ask for evidence for @deltago's claim, suggests that your findings regarding affordability of healthy foods may have been different. I was merely interested in knowing your findings.
BTW I don't think the point was that it's "impossible to find a healthy diet", but time constraints as @Grond0 mentioned and space constraints (not all people can run their own organic garden) can make a healthy DIY diet prohibitively difficult to realize.
The cost of eating "healthy" food is not just in the cost of the ingredients but more (for me) in the energy cost of cooking them. For example, when I was still cooking 'properly', baking a loaf of bread cost me three times what it did to buy one from a shop.
It's much, much cheaper for me to run a microwave for 5 minutes than a couple of hot plates for 10 or 20 minutes - and I don't even think about switching on the oven these days.
What makes me question the claim is simply the fact that no supporting evidence was offered. Why would there have to be anything beyond that?
It's not like you call for evidence for every uncorroborated claim you encounter. You didn't with my claim that healthy foods in my country tend to be more expensive than unhealthy foods for example. So the fact that you did ask for evidence for @deltago's claim, suggests that your findings regarding affordability of healthy foods may have been different. I was merely interested in knowing your findings.
BTW I don't think the point was that it's "impossible to find a healthy diet", but time constraints as @Grond0 mentioned and space constraints (not all people can run their own organic garden) can make a healthy DIY diet prohibitively difficult to realize.
Obviously I only ask for evidence if it's something I care about.
The claim I was responding to was a categorical assertion that healthy diets are more expensive than unhealthy ones. I believe it was @smeagolheart who said but as I'm on mobile now I can't be arsed to find the exact post.
Oh yeah and as for me personally I know for a fact I could both save money and make healthier choices compared to my current diet. I would be spending more time on preparation for sure though.
Time is definitely a factor. I'm simply not patient enough to spend time cooking (I don't enjoy the process; I have other things I can do with that time), so a lot of my food choices involve what is simplest to prepare. I already have a fairly healthy diet, but even I could make it healthier if I took the time to cook.
Healthy diets can be cheaper if you invest time in them, but even then, I think the absolute cheapest diet--the diet that simply fulfilled your calorie needs and kept you alive, if not healthy--would probably involve relying on sugar-heavy products or rice. A big bag of rice can feed you for days and only cost a few bucks (I don't know about the fuel cost in cooking it); a bulk bag of cereal can do the same. If we go strictly by calories, you can get LOTS of calories from peanut butter at a fairly low price. The calorie-to-cost ratio can be very high for certain foods.
Looks like a tub of Peter Pan Peanut Butter costs $5.69 at Target and yields 7600 calories. If you wanted to die young, you could live off of $1.50 a day!
And that shows it's impossible to find a healthy diet which doesn't cost more than an unhealthy one? Come on.
I'm sure those were just some examples. I don't know about your country, but where I live organic vegetables are more expensive than non-organic vegetables, whole grain bread is more expensive than white bread, free-range eggs are more expensive than battery cage eggs, natural fruit juice is more expensive than cola etc. Maybe you can explain what makes you question the truthfulness of the claim that healthier food tends to be more expensive? There must be something that makes you question this no? (Unless you're just arguing for argument's sake.)
Edit: free-range eggs aren't the best example, as there's probably no evidence they're healthier. But instead of free-range eggs I can mention organic fruits vs non-organic fruits, or even non-organic fruits vs candy, or I could have compared different types of sandwich spreads and fillings.
What makes me question the claim is simply the fact that no supporting evidence was offered. Why would there have to be anything beyond that?
There is also the issue of access. In the US, poorer people have a greater probability of living in a "food desert", where they do not have easy access to a place to buy whole foods instead of processed food.
Comments
I don't disagree with you on that point. I'm actually more environmentalist than most conservatives, I think. It's probably from reading National Geographic. We do need real hardwood for some things though. Maybe if we rotated Federal Lands and leased them instead of selling them we could make the lumber industry more sustainable. It would really suck to sell those forests off, have them clear-cut all the good wood and convert that virgin forest to Poplar and fast-growing pine for the paper industry. Harvest only some of the good stuff and replant oak, maple and white pine. Give it 50-100 years before repeating. Just an idea off the top of my head. Don't know for sure if it would work...
I think they do replant fast-growing shit wood for paper though. Certainly not as majestic as the old-growth trees...
Edit: I've driven off-road on some of the logging trails in the Michigan Upper Peninsula and it is pretty sad when you get away from the highways.
That sounds nice, but I'm not sure that it's realistic. Making something more complicated can actually increase the possibilities for manipulating it rather than the reverse. There are other potentially undesirable effects - like meaning only experts can interpret what the law says and increasing the compliance costs both by citizens and the government.
I'd prefer to see tax law made simpler and not more complex. If you want to change the tax balance in relation to hiring labor I think it would be more effective to just reduce payroll taxes.
You've also been referring to the idea of a universal basic income recently. One of the great attractions of that for me is its simplicity and the way that helps avoid perverse outcomes. To illustrate the argument I'll use a topical example from the UK about the introduction of Universal Credit. That's a single benefit intended to replace 6 separate existing benefits and part of the original rationale was that the simplicity would make managing benefits much easier for both individuals and government. However, since its first announcement in 2010 the policy has faced repeated delays and has been vastly more costly to administer than expected - and had considerable perverse effects on individuals.
I'm not an expert on Universal Credit, but I rather suspect it's a case study in the difficulty of managing complex law. Rather than go with the original idea of a simple benefit, there has been a whole series of complications added to try and incorporate anti-avoidance measures. This though just spawns a new industry of people looking for ways to manipulate the benefit - requiring new legislative tweaks in a never-ending spiral. Meanwhile a lot of people who should be claiming the benefit are not (as a result of being put off by the complexity of the process), meaning that the policy has not produced the expected benefits.
What would be the inflationary consequences of a universal credit? I'm wondering if it would just devalue the money to the point of being useless as a credit. It's similar to the 'living wage' argument. If people start making $20/hr to flip burgers, wouldn't that just make everybody else's money worth less? I think we'd start to see skilled workers complaining about not being to afford McDonald's anymore as a likely result. Simple answers aren't usually the best answers to complex questions.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old-growth_forest
Edit: Crap, my 50-100 years hypothesis may be far too soon. It might take 200 years or more between harvesting...
Prices have been rising even though wages have been stagnant since about the 80s.
CEO wages have skyrocketed to about 361 times the average worker in 2018 while it used to be "only" about 20 times higher in the 60-70s.
CEO pay chart from cnbc
https://sc.cnbcfm.com/applications/cnbc.com/resources/files/2018/01/22/ceopay.JPG
For most U.S. workers, real wages have barely budged in decades
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/08/07/for-most-us-workers-real-wages-have-barely-budged-for-decades/
I don't think inflation should be much of a concern for a universal basic income scheme. The net additional resource put into the economy would be expected to be fairly modest. The effect could even be to reduce resources depending on the design of a particular scheme (some schemes propose UBI at levels below existing benefits entitlements, though I think it's unlikely they would be implemented). The intention of UBI would not be to try and make everyone better off (as you suggest that would lead to a moving target), but there are plenty of other potential benefits, e.g.:
- give more certainty to people about the income they have.
- reduce the compliance costs associated with benefit claims.
- reduce benefit 'cheating'.
- reduce the proportion of people who don't claim benefits aimed at them.
- reduce the dependence of some family members currently without an income.
I don't remember inflation being raised as an issue in relation to the recent tax cuts in the US, which did significantly increase available resources in the economy. I accept though that, as the benefits went mainly to those already wealthy, it would be expected the inflation impact would be smaller for a given increase in resources (as wealthy people are less likely to spend any additional resources gained than poor people).
Over time, there's an argument that UBI would lead to more people seeking work or becoming more entrepreneurial. The initial findings from the Finnish experiment don't suggest any change in those in work and that was similar to a 2010 study in Iran (the latter did though suggest an increase in entrepreneurial activity and it's possible the same will be seen in Finland once the full analysis is completed).
I think lower-end prices have been falling due to globalization though. Stop by any dollar store to see what I mean. Even though wage increases have stagnated, we're still better off regarding the cheaper resources (gasoline, energy, clothing, food & toys/household goods/sundries) because of abusing cheap labor in developing countries. That's what I mean by a shell-game though. Try to buy a new vehicle, house, property, boat or even high-end furniture or precious metals/stones and that's when you'll see how badly we're being screwed!
True. Same deal with food. Unhealthy crap food is cheap, healthy food costs more money. It's more expensive to eat healthy.
Out west, More farms are going under because of Trump's Trade War. Soybeans aren't being bought by China, the largest buyer of Soy. Farm Bankruptcies are at the highest rate ever .https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trade-war-record-farm-bankruptcy_us_5c611dcee4b0910c63f251ad?fbclid=IwAR0apFAMtJDDewXbq5GjMJD7rOQ0l7gBmtRZxcN2MIBT1UpMU1te0-ji-5I
Is it though? I see this claim pop up time and again but rarely with any evidence.
I'm no expert at all, but I have studied macro economics as part of my university exam and I think I know enough to state that it's erroneous to think that a general increase in salary levels for the main bulk of workers won't have an impact on inflation. It surely will. An average person, working class/middle class, spend a much greater portion of their income every month compared to the top tier "1%-ers", so if you increase their disposable income, they will spend it to a higher degree bringing two very tangible effects on slightly more short term and in the very long term a third:
1: Increase in consumption meaning an increased GNP
2: Increase in consumption leading to inflation
3: market adapts (longterm) leading to increased prices, leading to reduced purchasing power again.
This doesn't happen over night of course, and not in all markets (ie houses vs candy will be different), but eventually it will happen.
Yes there are many benefits of UBI to economies. In addition to those you mentioned, UBI has proven in previous experiments:
- to bring about increases in purchasing power,
- to create more jobs (as a result of those increases in purchasing power), and
- to lower crime rates.
I haven't read about its effects on public health, but I expect improvement as well. And I mean physical and mental health: more people will be able to afford healthier lifestyles, while stress-related health problems should become less common.
These effects all save costs (apart from the other benefits they offer society).
OK lets compare: Make it easy, even though I don't shop there Walmart.ca
two litres of milk vs Coca Cola $3.87 - $2.97 (that's brand as well 97 cents for the cheaper stuff)
Chicken vs boxed Chicken Strips $11 vs $5.77
Bag 'o Broccoli vs 18 Bags of Chips $5.97 vs $5.47
And that shows it's impossible to find a healthy diet which doesn't cost more than an unhealthy one? Come on.
True, but UBI isn't the same as "a general increase in salary levels for the main bulk of workers". The cases and proposals I know of seek to maintain a labor incentive, meaning UBI will be lower than the minimum wage, but enough to cover essential expenses. If UBI were to be much higher than that or if a nation has a significant amount of citizens who'd go from about 0 to say $1k a month, then yes (hyper-)inflation could occur I guess.
People who currently rely on social welfare, unemployment benefits etc would see such benefits replaced by UBI. People who are unhappy in their jobs may see UBI as a way out. They will have less income than they used to in their jobs though, but they'll enjoy the security of a guaranteed income while they can figure out what makes them happy. I expect UBI to foster creativity and initiative.
I've read about a plan in Alaska by which an Alaska state fund pays out (fluctuating) dividends to Alaskan citizens, and while saving and spending increases around dividend payouts, I have read no reports of inflation undoing the effect of the system.
I'm sure those were just some examples. I don't know about your country, but where I live organic vegetables are more expensive than non-organic vegetables, whole grain bread is more expensive than white bread, free-range eggs are more expensive than battery cage eggs, natural fruit juice is more expensive than cola etc. Maybe you can explain what makes you question the truthfulness of the claim that healthier food tends to be more expensive? There must be something that makes you question this no? (Unless you're just arguing for argument's sake.)
Edit: free-range eggs aren't the best example, as there's probably no evidence they're healthier. But instead of free-range eggs I can mention organic fruits vs non-organic fruits, or even non-organic fruits vs candy, or I could have compared different types of sandwich spreads and fillings.
What makes me question the claim is simply the fact that no supporting evidence was offered. Why would there have to be anything beyond that?
https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/press-releases/healthy-vs-unhealthy-diet-costs-1-50-more/
Would a Harvard Study suffice?
It depends on how you do your comparison. If you look at price per calorie (which is the typical international comparison because it tends to be used in relation to food-poor societies) then healthy foods do look expensive as they are typically much less calorie-dense than unhealthy foods. If you look at price per unit weight of the food item you don't get the same relationship.
I think the other major issue is that healthy foods tend to be much less processed. Unhealthy foods are able to be sold cheaply because the mass processing is largely automated and cost-efficient, but it's still cheaper to buy materials and prepare them yourself if you don't count the cost of your own time.
If you put additional restrictions on producing food then that tends to increase costs. For instance:
- welfare requirements such as for free-range eggs
- avoiding GM materials
- promoting bio-diversity through growing organic.
I tend to support all the above, but I don't think there's significant evidence that they have a direct link to health.
"Italy's Deputy Prime Minister Matteo Salvini has called for the Italian Central Bank to be eliminated, declaring that the bankers involved in fraudulent activity will "end up in prison for a long time.""
source : https://neonnettle.com/news/6474-italy-calls-to-eliminate-central-bank-and-jail-bankers
Impossible? No, but for people with jobs just making ends meet yes it's cheaper and easier to open a can of something or east unhealthy fast food than to go to the organic grocery store and pay more and prepare fresh food.
It's not like you call for evidence for every uncorroborated claim you encounter. You didn't with my claim that healthy foods in my country tend to be more expensive than unhealthy foods for example. So the fact that you did ask for evidence for @deltago's claim, suggests that your findings regarding affordability of healthy foods may have been different. I was merely interested in knowing your findings.
BTW I don't think the point was that it's "impossible to find a healthy diet", but time constraints as @Grond0 mentioned and space constraints (not all people can run their own organic garden) can make a healthy DIY diet prohibitively difficult to realize.
It's much, much cheaper for me to run a microwave for 5 minutes than a couple of hot plates for 10 or 20 minutes - and I don't even think about switching on the oven these days.
Obviously I only ask for evidence if it's something I care about.
The claim I was responding to was a categorical assertion that healthy diets are more expensive than unhealthy ones. I believe it was @smeagolheart who said but as I'm on mobile now I can't be arsed to find the exact post.
Oh yeah and as for me personally I know for a fact I could both save money and make healthier choices compared to my current diet. I would be spending more time on preparation for sure though.
Think I'll just leave this here. Much better than the real thing, too.
Healthy diets can be cheaper if you invest time in them, but even then, I think the absolute cheapest diet--the diet that simply fulfilled your calorie needs and kept you alive, if not healthy--would probably involve relying on sugar-heavy products or rice. A big bag of rice can feed you for days and only cost a few bucks (I don't know about the fuel cost in cooking it); a bulk bag of cereal can do the same. If we go strictly by calories, you can get LOTS of calories from peanut butter at a fairly low price. The calorie-to-cost ratio can be very high for certain foods.
Looks like a tub of Peter Pan Peanut Butter costs $5.69 at Target and yields 7600 calories. If you wanted to die young, you could live off of $1.50 a day!
There is also the issue of access. In the US, poorer people have a greater probability of living in a "food desert", where they do not have easy access to a place to buy whole foods instead of processed food.
http://americannutritionassociation.org/newsletter/usda-defines-food-deserts