What the Heck?! Thread (Closed)

[Lethe]

There are always differing historical narratives born of differing experiences. That is not to claim that all narratives are equally valid, because ignorance and prejudice are certainly two of the factors that shape historical narratives, but nonetheless we should not be so shocked to encounter narratives that differ from our own.

The reaction in the western press to these stories of Hitler and Nazism being regarded with something other than horror -- because they

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

-- actually demonstrates a more underlying problem. That is to say, on a great many subjects, most members of a society share a common perspective, yet we are often unfamiliar with that subject beyond a handful of talking points favoured by our shared narrative. And so when we hear, for example, that in Russia Joseph Stalin is regarded as one of the greatest Russians ever, we react with outrage and disbelief rather than attempting to understand why this is so. Encountering alternate perspectives presents us with an opportunity to learn. There are any number of figures and issues around the world whose legacies are disputed. The recent death of Fidel Castro prompted one such public tussle. And unless we, individually, believe ourselves to be very well informed about those figures, I think we should approach such questions with a degree of humility and a willingness to lean, and to hear especially from "the other side".

 

[AssassinsMace]

The New York Times brought up in a story of Shanghai Jews during WWII that they should sue China for reparations for being kicked out when the communists took over. That's the Western perspective continuing the narrative that the Jews are the worst treated people in the history of the world that only deserve accommodation. Are they to the West the worse treated because they were the worse treated? No because from all perspectives other can say the same for themselves. The West created the victim culture not because they wanted to triage the worst victims to get attention first. They established the victim culture because they wanted to control who was labelled a victim meaning they wanted other victims of oppression to be ignored namely their victims. That's what's happening here where a victim of no Far East Asian culture now all of the sudden has to pay attention because someone else committed a crime against them. And guess who is giving criticism on Asians? The culture that did lead to the victimization of the Jewish people. It would be perverted to demand reparations from the Chinese who were kicked out of their homes onto the streets in Shanghai to make way for Jewish refugees fleeing Hitler. To do so would only give reason to those who have no history of anti-Semitism to be anti-Semitic. That's why the reasonable don't dare entertain this stupidity.

 

[AssassinsMace]

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Maybe people should look in the mirror before they make such comments since one is judging just by looks.

 

[Jura The idiot]

LOL
Finland to begin paying basic income to unemployed citizens

Scandinavian country becomes first to adopt policy with new trial of 2,000 unemployed people

Finland is to introduce a basic income for some citizens from next month, becoming the first country to adopt the policy.

Two thousand unemployed people will be given €560 (£480) every month for two years, without any restrictions or conditions attached. Leaders hope the move will improve life quality, reduce unemployment and create jobs.

Recipients will not need to prove they are looking for work and the money will be given regardless of any other income the person earns.

The Finnish government is planning to study whether the policy helps recipients find work. It suspects many unemployed people are put off getting a job because they will lose unemployment benefits and therefore be worse off financially – a similar problem to that which tax credits were designed to solve in the UK.

The Swedish Ministry of Social Affairs and Health said in a statement: “The Government proposes the implementation of a basic income experiment. The experiment [will] be carried out in 2017 and 2018, and its aim is to show whether basic income can be used to reform social security so that incentive traps relating to work are eliminated.

“The primary goal of the basic income experiment is related to promoting employment. The experiment, including follow-up research, aims to find out whether basic income promotes employment."

The 2,000 unemployed people will be selected at random. They will not have a choice as to whether they take part in the trial but will automatically be given the money each month.

If successful, the experiment could lead to a basic income being given to more Finnish people.

A number of other countries are believed to be exploring the idea of a universal basic income. Earlier this year the Swiss government held a referendum on whether to pay every citizen around 2,500 Swiss francs (£2,000) per month, but the policy was decisively rejected by Swiss voters.

In the UK, John McDonnell, Labour’s Shadow Chancellor, has expressed support for a universal basic income but the Conservatives have called it "unaffordable".

There are different variations of a universal basic income but the core principle is the government giving everyone a certain amount of money each month.

Supporters of the idea claim it will enable people to work less if they choose to, reduce inequality and cut total welfare spending.

Others say it is likely to be excessively expensive and disincentivise hard work.

source:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

 

[solarz]

Two thousand unemployed people will be given €560 (£480) every month for two years, without any restrictions or conditions attached. Leaders hope the move will improve life quality, reduce unemployment and create jobs.

Recipients will not need to prove they are looking for work and the money will be given regardless of any other income the person earns.

The Finnish government is planning to study whether the policy helps recipients find work. It suspects many unemployed people are put off getting a job because they will lose unemployment benefits and therefore be worse off financially – a similar problem to that which tax credits were designed to solve in the UK.

See, this is the part I have a problem with. Who is eligible for this money? Is it everyone, or is it only people below a certain income? If it's the latter, then you're still going to get the same problem of people not working because they will lose benefits.

 

[Jura The idiot]

See, this is the part I have a problem with. Who is eligible for this money? Is it everyone, or is it only people below a certain income? ...

I originally read it in Polish Internet, with additional info (for example about recent related referendum in Switzerland etc.) where they said 'everyone IF this and extended experiments worked' (not an exact quote, plus I won't bother with finding the Polish link, as for me it's typical
What the Heck?!
since my opinion can be summarized by a Central European saying which goes like
(S)he That Doesn't Work, Shall Not Eat
in reference to people dodging a job

 

[PanAsian]

LOL
Finland to begin paying basic income to unemployed citizens

source:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

It makes no sense to think that will cause people to look for work. Much better to have a high enough minimum wage.

 

[plawolf]

See, this is the part I have a problem with. Who is eligible for this money? Is it everyone, or is it only people below a certain income? If it's the latter, then you're still going to get the same problem of people not working because they will lose benefits.

It's a small scale trial run to gather data to see if it is beneficial to roll this out large scale.

The 2000 were just selected from the pool of unemployed people seeking benefits, and they will instead be given this basic allowance.

The whole point is that this is a basic income, so earning more will not see this income cut (although they will need to do careful calculations with tax to make sure that doesn't become an indirect disincentive to work).

This is the opposite of the current mainstream western economic orthodox of trickle down economics, which has proven to be exceptional ineffective and seems largely responsible for the massive spike in western geni coefficient (measures inequality in an economy) in recent decades since trickle down become established.

The idea behind it is that poor people spend a much large percentage of any additional 'free' income they get compared to the already well off (who seems determined to stash as much of it away as possible in offshore tax havens and/or 'invest' the money in property or shares, inflating prices and creating bubbles). Having this additional free income could also help a lot of people to get out of the hand-to-mouth poverty trap they find themselves in and can afford to buy a car (which will allow them to get some jobs they would otherwise not be able to take); take a course to boost their skills and employability etc. Even if they just spend it on food and shopping, that is increased economic activity, which will help stimulate the economy.

As much, in terms of government stimulus designed to boost economic activity and improve the quality of life for the most number of its citizens, it's actually better to give 1000 people $1000 each as opposed to giving one (already mega rich) person $1,000,000, which is what a lot of orthodox government stimulus effectively amounts to under trickle down economics, such as big tax breaks for the mega rich.

This is actually very similar to some of the policies China enacted with subsidies to farmers, who were the poorest demographic in China.

Granted in China it was extra money for crops, so it wasn't literally free money, but in terms of the wider macroeconomic impact, the effects should be broadly similar.

The main difference would have been how to implement it, because in China's case, it was easier because farmers were so easy to identify and single out as a segment in society that really needed help. In the case of a developed western society, it would not be so easy or neat to identify those most in need to help.

So the solution, which is aimed to avoid all the red tape and disincentives to work traditional means tested benefits tend to create, by simply giving everyone $xxx amount of money to do as they see fit.

It will be very inefficient, but, in my view, it will still be vastly more efficient then trickle down economics have proven to be.

 

[plawolf]

It makes no sense to think that will cause people to look for work. Much better to have a high enough minimum wage.

High minimum wages have been proven to be ineffective.

Firms typically respond to minimum wage increases by cutting headcount and expecting everyone to work harder, so they are paying the same amount of money in wages, just to fewer people.

Alternatively, they shut down altogether and outsource the work to cheaper foreign countries and export the goods/services (being on the EU makes Finland especially vulnerable to this, as there would be minimal extra costs for a company to move operations to a cheaper EU country, like Poland for example, and just ship the finished goods back to Finland with zero import duties or taxes).

Or they just pass on the extra costs to the consumers through higher prices, which will disproportionately affect the poor.

 

[PanAsian]

High minimum wages have been proven to be ineffective.

Firms typically respond to minimum wage increases by cutting headcount and expecting everyone to work harder, so they are paying the same amount of money in wages, just to fewer people.

Alternatively, they shut down altogether and outsource the work to cheaper foreign countries and export the goods/services (being on the EU makes Finland especially vulnerable to this, as there would be minimal extra costs for a company to move operations to a cheaper EU country, like Poland for example, and just ship the finished goods back to Finland with zero import duties or taxes).

Or they just pass on the extra costs to the consumers through higher prices, which will disproportionately affect the poor.

I am just talking about incentive for people who are capable of work to want to look for work, in which case it is guaranteed to be more effective than giving them money.

Blaming labor costs, especially minimum wage, regardless of the relative size of its influence on business versus other factors is the very definition of "trickle down" economics.

Everything you mentioned are employer excuses to keep labor costs down for their lowest tier workers and neglect more demand being generated when more people can afford more.

How about cutting pay to highly paid employees like CEOs or management? Why must regulations allow for outsourcing of production or import of labor or foreign goods/services? So what if the cost gets passed on to consumers, as if the cost doesn't get passed on to consumers if other factors increase costs. What is an acceptable profit margin for a business, defined by whom?