Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register

Green New Deal

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Mitt Romney and Ross Douhat are on board !!?!

Why the U.S. Needs the Romney Family Plan Opinion | Why the U.S. Needs the Romney Family Plan

Family policy, the way that America supports (or doesn’t) parenthood and child rearing, has always presented the best opportunity for serious bipartisanship in Joe Biden’s presidency. It’s an issue with real overlap between the left and right: Feminists and social conservatives, left-wing antipoverty activists and right-wing pro-natalists all agree that it’s too hard to raise kids in America today. And it’s an issue where the relevant interest group, the American family, isn’t a partisan force or a pre-mobilized constituency — which is usually a weakness for its interests, but in a polarized moment might actually make legislation easier. This week Mitt Romney put that theory to the test: His office rolled out a big proposal to reform the current hodgepodge of programs that help parents, the mix of tax credits and welfare benefits, by rolling them into a single family benefit that would provide $350 a month for kids 5 and under, and $250 a month for kids up to 17, up to a certain income level and benefit cap. (The cap effectively discriminates against large families, which means Romney can’t be accused of Latter-day Saint self-dealing.)
 
  • Informative
Reactions: navguy12
I guess this is where I disagree. I would disagree that $20/hr is a low wage job, it is a farm workers salary. Is it hard work? Sure, less hard than my job. People rather sit at home on welfare than take it. Rather smoke meth on welfare than take it. Mom and dad with no college education, maybe no HS education making 80k a year and free housing. That's not a terrible life. I don't see exploitation there. Obviously it requires that a person is willing to move to where this is possible. Why do 4 generations of welfare recipients stay in WV? Why not move to Cali and go get after it? They are not illegal, they speak the language, they have better education than the guy walking up from Honduras.

Frankly I don't buy into the education argument, we have more degrees than you can shake a stick at (our family) and even a short listed nobel prize candidate, I don't see any correlation that is meaningful other than that jobs simply require a college degree and in college you may meet someone with better connections. I think that most of the work being performed by people with "degrees" is basically simple work that does not require a degree but a willingness to learn and work hard. Take bankers - they used to go into banking with no degree, pretty recent that it was a requirement. Most office work the same. Why can't a kid out of HS do most of this work when they can do that in Europe? Or Korea & Japan. Having lived many years overseas and having worked in big consultancies and big companies I completely reject the "they need education" argument. Then take the Mennonite and Amish community. Hard work and very good incomes. Almost all of Ohio Amish are down in Sarasota on vacation during the winter. Over a bus a day just from one company I know about. Every day but Sunday all winter. Full of these poor, uneducated, people being forced to do low paid work. Or they are full of fairly wealthy people without a single higher education degree, heading from farms to spend a month or two week or 4 months in the family vacation home in a warm sunny spot.

One gentleman that runs a table factory buys logs from us, Amish. Sharp guy. He can run and fix anything in his factory. He purchases some 7 million bdft of lumber a year (that's say $7 million min) to build tables and table parts, he buys logs for special tables. Our forest are good so he travels 6 hours one way to buy from us. You know what the difference is between that factory owner and the college educated factory owner in NC that shut down his factory because he couldn't compete? The guy in NC could do literally nothing but work a telephone and meet with his banker. They both bought from us. The difference is that the Amish owner can literally do anything, he shows up early, works late, his son is being taught to do the same (12) working with dad when not in school, does everything with him. This past weekend they were changing all the fluids in a wheel loader, fluid and filter changes are critical to keeping the equipment running in top shape for long periods of time. So the kid, not even a teen really, is learning to do something that the NC factory owner could not begin to do. It's not that the Amish guy does not have a mechanic. It is that his son needs to learn to do everything, balance books, buy logs, negotiate a contract, work hard, fix equipment, understand the complexity of solvents and finish that impacts customer experiences, arrange a complex logistical challenge of moving sawn lumber, logs, people, equipment and finished goods. He'll learn it all. By 18 I would put that kid up against harvard kid and I would win 9/10 when it came time to starting and running any manufacturing business. 1/10 is when someone figures out how to change faster than the Amish can change. Our buyer comes with an ipad strapped on his arm and a bluetooth headset. But really fast change ...that's hard for them. Mostly, hard work wins out, combined with an ability to create change then you'll be on to something. When the Amish get FSD robo teslas they'll be in heaven. Amish have plenty of issues but I find it sad that in today's technologically dependent world, with education in any field almost free for the taking, that simple repressive religious group can out compete.

How many families in the US get to take a few weeks off and everyone goes on vacation. Seriously, only the 1% of 1% do a month vacation in winter.

My computer savvy programming and math problem solving son is learning to fell trees, how to identify tree diseases, how to plan around the conundrum of regeneration and death and aesthetics in a forest, how to negotiate with lawyers, NGOs, Board of Appeals, Fox Hunts Clubs (yes, just like the english red jacketed type of hunt), how to plant a tree, how to recognize a healthy seedling vs one to toss. Etc etc.

We are implementing some monitoring and measurement practices that are literally state of the art, people have talked about it but we'll do it. We have a rough beta of a block chain based chain of custody to provide attestation on our sustainable harvested wood products. He has no college degree. In 6 years I'll put him up against any forest management company executive in the US, maybe not Finland but he'd hold his own I hope. Once you strip off the social relationships that you develop in college, instead of learning to work, many people literally gain nothing from college. Obviously this does not hold true for some things such as Engineering. Don't get me wrong either, I'm a huge fan of education. I wish we as a nation invested much more in fundamental science. I also wish we would make a distinction between education and college degrees. Education is a pursuit.. a degree is a certificate .


Rant over... apologies
Farm wage $20/hr?
Please spend a minute to get your facts straight. Exaggerating negates your arguments.

Farm Worker Hourly Pay | PayScale
 
  • Informative
Reactions: navguy12
I guess this is where I disagree. I would disagree that $20/hr is a low wage job, it is a farm workers salary. Is it hard work? Sure, less hard than my job. People rather sit at home on welfare than take it. Rather smoke meth on welfare than take it. Mom and dad with no college education, maybe no HS education making 80k a year and free housing. That's not a terrible life. I don't see exploitation there. Obviously it requires that a person is willing to move to where this is possible. Why do 4 generations of welfare recipients stay in WV? Why not move to Cali and go get after it? They are not illegal, they speak the language, they have better education than the guy walking up from Honduras.
This works very well in situations where the parents have the knowledge, wealth, and time to put it into action. It doesn't works so well when both parents have to work two jobs just to pay rent and groceries. The drug problem that everyone complains about could be dealt with by removing the profit motive. The War on Drugs that has been around for years is just as stupid a plan as the Volstead Act--it can't work because there is too much money to be made. Treat drugs similar to how alcohol is treated. Provide treatment for those who have a drug problem. There will always be a few individuals that get hooked anyway, just as there are always a few alcoholics, but with no profit motive there will be no reason to pressure people into taking drugs. (I suspect there are too many politicians and law enforcement personnel on the take to ever make this happen, but it's a nice thought.)
 
  • Like
Reactions: navguy12 and JRP3
Mitt Romney and Ross Douhat are on board !!?!

Why the U.S. Needs the Romney Family Plan Opinion | Why the U.S. Needs the Romney Family Plan

Family policy, the way that America supports (or doesn’t) parenthood and child rearing, has always presented the best opportunity for serious bipartisanship in Joe Biden’s presidency. It’s an issue with real overlap between the left and right: Feminists and social conservatives, left-wing antipoverty activists and right-wing pro-natalists all agree that it’s too hard to raise kids in America today. And it’s an issue where the relevant interest group, the American family, isn’t a partisan force or a pre-mobilized constituency — which is usually a weakness for its interests, but in a polarized moment might actually make legislation easier. This week Mitt Romney put that theory to the test: His office rolled out a big proposal to reform the current hodgepodge of programs that help parents, the mix of tax credits and welfare benefits, by rolling them into a single family benefit that would provide $350 a month for kids 5 and under, and $250 a month for kids up to 17, up to a certain income level and benefit cap. (The cap effectively discriminates against large families, which means Romney can’t be accused of Latter-day Saint self-dealing.)

This concept has been around since Milton Friedman suggested something similar in 1962. For the pros and cons, see the attached. The big negative is the effective marginal tax rate as recipients go back to work.

Negative income tax, explained | MIT Sloan
 
This works very well in situations where the parents have the knowledge, wealth, and time to put it into action. It doesn't works so well when both parents have to work two jobs just to pay rent and groceries. The drug problem that everyone complains about could be dealt with by removing the profit motive. The War on Drugs that has been around for years is just as stupid a plan as the Volstead Act--it can't work because there is too much money to be made. Treat drugs similar to how alcohol is treated. Provide treatment for those who have a drug problem. There will always be a few individuals that get hooked anyway, just as there are always a few alcoholics, but with no profit motive there will be no reason to pressure people into taking drugs. (I suspect there are too many politicians and law enforcement personnel on the take to ever make this happen, but it's a nice thought.)
Oregon just decriminalized all drugs.
 
This concept has been around since Milton Friedman suggested something similar in 1962. For the pros and cons, see the attached. The big negative is the effective marginal tax rate as recipients go back to work.

Negative income tax, explained | MIT Sloan
"But the Romney subsidy phases out only at high incomes, so there’s no disincentive for a low-income parent to take a job. Meanwhile, the plan also tweaks the earned-income tax credit to make it more pro-marriage and pro-work, potentially balancing out any disincentives created by the child benefit."
 
Can I have that $10k? I mean I am over 30 and have 1 kid. I suppose you would income test it? Pretty slippery slope....

The US is in a very challenging position. There is no easy answer. I prefer to focus on the environment because that is more important in the long term and an easier solution.

Income inequality and poverty has been a problem since the beginning of time. Of course we need to work on it but there isn't a simple solution. Technological revolution is going to put a huge portion of the population out of work. We need a solution but UBI in 2021 is not going to fly. Even raising the minimum wage is just going to accelerate the automation. Covid already accelerated things and got us used to avoiding humans.

Probably a federal jobs program is needed. Not sure how capitalism gets this to work. Carbon tax and credits for hiring would help.
Yes, you can. And no I would not income test.

Spend a day in juvenile court when you see the number of women come in with 6 , 7 + kids ALL by different men. Or the ones who are there because of their drug addiction the kid was a premie and air flighted to a major hospital for $1 million in care and as that one was taken away from her she is already in court pregnant again. And the guys with multiple kids by multiple women and cannot support any of them. Go watch the movie Idiocracy - because that is where we are headed - if we are not already there.
 
Yes, you can. And no I would not income test.

Spend a day in juvenile court when you see the number of women come in with 6 , 7 + kids ALL by different men. Or the ones who are there because of their drug addiction the kid was a premie and air flighted to a major hospital for $1 million in care and as that one was taken away from her she is already in court pregnant again. And the guys with multiple kids by multiple women and cannot support any of them. Go watch the movie Idiocracy - because that is where we are headed - if we are not already there.
I think a regular income would help these situations
 
  • Like
Reactions: navguy12
So would de-politicizing access to various family planning tools.
But if they did that, it would give the poorer sections of society a chance to move upwards because they wouldn't have children they were forced to have but can't afford (or aren't mentally mature enough to raise properly)--so the poverty cycle will continue. Really, you shouldn't have children until you are financially and mentally able to care for them properly.
 
  • Like
Reactions: navguy12
America #1? LOL

Biden climate actions to jolt electricity prices
But if they did that, it would give the poorer sections of society a chance to move upwards because they wouldn't have children they were forced to have but can't afford (or aren't mentally mature enough to raise properly)--so the poverty cycle will continue. Really, you shouldn't have children until you are financially and mentally able to care for them properly.

 
Biden's new conservation corps stirs hopes of nature-focused hiring spree

In the 1930s, when US unemployment was at 25% and flooding and deforestation were rife, Roosevelt created the Civilian Conservation Corps, which put 3 millions Americans to work and planted more than 3bn trees. Fast forward almost a century, and Biden has announced the creation of a Civilian Climate Corps Initiative, offering well-paid conservation jobs. Could this tackle unemployment and the climate crisis in one fell swoop? Paola Rosa-Aquino learns more.

Through its nine-year existence, Roosevelt’s “Tree Army” put an impressive 3 million jobless Americans to work. All in all, CCC enrollees planted more than 3bn trees, paved 125,000 miles of roadways, erected 3,000 fire lookouts, and spent 6m workdays fighting forest fires. The artifacts from this ambitious effort – from trails and structures dotting the Grand Canyon national park or the Pacific Coast Trail – are beloved today.

The transition to a renewable energy economy at the scale needed to keep warming under 2C is going to require an unprecedented investment in workforce training,” Sprenkel says. “A Civilian Climate Corps can be that program that engages workers in hands-on learning, so they are prepared to enter solar, wind, habitat resiliency, disaster response and other essential industries such investment in those industries come to fruition.”
 
The birth rate in the US has declined. One reason is economics not moral failure | Moira Donegan
But the reality of why American families are smaller is not about a failing national character or a decline in women’s femininity. It’s about money. Because while many more women are choosing to have no children or fewer children, others are having fewer children than they would like. And for these women, their own smaller families are the result not of their own personal selfishness or moral degradation, but of economic constraints. For all of the pro-natalist handwringing over America’s shrinking tax base, the United States has spent shockingly little of its annual tax revenues on creating accessible and effective support for mothers. For years, the US has made domestic policy that has punished women for becoming mothers, and by extension, de-incentivized those who want to have as many children as they would like. This is one reason why the birth rate has declined so much: women are not given enough material support by the state to be able to raise children while still leading prosperous, economically productive lives.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: jerry33
Convicted or not, Trump is history – it's Biden who's changing America | Robert Reich
While most of official Washington has been focused on the Senate impeachment trial, another part of Washington is preparing the most far-ranging changes in American social policy in a generation. The Capitol attack film was brutal. That's why it must be watched | Francine Prose Congress is moving ahead with Joe Biden’s American Rescue Plan, which expands healthcare and unemployment benefits and contains one of the most ambitious efforts to reduce child poverty since the New Deal. Right behind it is Biden’s plan for infrastructure and jobs.

Another conservative bromide is that a larger national debt crowds out private investment and slows growth. This view hamstrung the Clinton and Obama administrations as deficit hawks warned against public spending unaccompanied by tax increases to pay for it. (I still have some old injuries inflicted by those hawks.) Fortunately, Biden isn’t buying this, either. Four decades of chronic underemployment and stagnant wages have shown how important public spending is for sustained growth. Not incidentally, growth reduces the debt as a share of the overall economy. The real danger is the opposite: fiscal austerity shrinks economies and causes national debts to grow in proportion.Another conservative bromide is that a larger national debt crowds out private investment and slows growth. This view hamstrung the Clinton and Obama administrations as deficit hawks warned against public spending unaccompanied by tax increases to pay for it. (I still have some old injuries inflicted by those hawks.) Fortunately, Biden isn’t buying this, either. Four decades of chronic underemployment and stagnant wages have shown how important public spending is for sustained growth. Not incidentally, growth reduces the debt as a share of the overall economy. The real danger is the opposite: fiscal austerity shrinks economies and causes national debts to grow in proportion.
Not Biden. His proposal would not only expand jobless benefits but also provide assistance to parents who are not working, thereby extending relief to 27 million children, including about half of all Black and Latino children. Republican senator Mitt Romney of Utah has put forward a similar plan.
 
The birth rate in the US has declined. One reason is economics not moral failure | Moira Donegan
But the reality of why American families are smaller is not about a failing national character or a decline in women’s femininity. It’s about money. Because while many more women are choosing to have no children or fewer children, others are having fewer children than they would like. And for these women, their own smaller families are the result not of their own personal selfishness or moral degradation, but of economic constraints. For all of the pro-natalist handwringing over America’s shrinking tax base, the United States has spent shockingly little of its annual tax revenues on creating accessible and effective support for mothers. For years, the US has made domestic policy that has punished women for becoming mothers, and by extension, de-incentivized those who want to have as many children as they would like. This is one reason why the birth rate has declined so much: women are not given enough material support by the state to be able to raise children while still leading prosperous, economically productive lives.

So the idea is to pay folks that can't afford kids money so they will have more kids. I'm sure this will work great.
 
Four decades of chronic underemployment and stagnant wages...


Methinks the good academic needs to go back and look at the data from pre-COVID:

BLS: Employment grew in 2019; unemployment rate fell to lowest level since 1969

NYT: Why Wages are Finally Rising...

CNN: Wage Growth Hot and More Raises Coming...

Brookings: Black Household Income is Rising Across US

Bloomberg: Wage Growth Among Non-Whites Surges in US

Economic Policy Institute: In 2019, black wages exceeded their 2000 and 2007 levels across the wage distribution for the first time in this recovery.

So, the fact is unemployment was at the lowest rate in decades and real wages were rising for everyone pre-covid. Other than than, the Professor is correct.

fwiw: I used to be a big fan of Reich since he was always analytical with real data, now he is just an academic hack.



 
I think you can still make the case that growth has been fairly low and wage growth fairly stagnant over the last 40 years.
The fact that in 2019 we were finally recovering from the 2007/2008 financial crisis doesn't change the long term trend.

That being said, it is really hard to blame one thing for stagnant wage growth and growing inequality. The lack of public spending probably isn't the reason - and it certainly isn't the only reason.

I think, analytically, you can comfortably say that inequality has risen over the last 4 decades (or pick 5 or 3 or 2). That a disproportionate amount of economic growth went to those at the top of the income scale. Growth has been modest - but that maybe reality for where we are in history. When you take that growth and "give' nearly all of the benefit to the top 20%, then you have a stagnant wage problem for the bottom 80%.

Cherry picking numbers from a decade out from a financial crisis - and a financial crisis usually holds down growth for a decade - doesn't solve the long term issue.

If things are so great for everyone, why all the immigrant scapegoating? Why did 47% (or whatever 2016 number was) think we had to "MAGA"? Because they felt that we weren't G anymore. Most of that is because many were/are underemployed. There has been economic disruption with decreased high paying blue collar work. 2019 was no different in that regard.

The issues are complex. Reich knows this but does spend a lot of his writing trying to influence people. He does a fair amount of dumbing down/over simplification. Still a very smart guy. There is no easy answer - I think any reasonable person can agree on this. Just like a reasonable person can state that 2019 was one year and does not reverse 40 years of trends.
 
  • Like
Reactions: navguy12 and mspohr
Status
Not open for further replies.