anemoiac

What exactly don’t you like about this type of writing?

"Employment" is actually below 62%, if we look at the percentage of the working age population that is employed. [1]

1. https://www.bls.gov/charts/employment-situation/civilian-lab...

Ok, then let’s abolish all laws regarding economic activity (including private property) and abandon any related social conventions. Apparently they’re superfluous.

> ...where is the proof that it won't hurt long term productivity, and where is the proof that it doesn't cause inflation[?]

Assuming we could obtain reliable proof that UBI reduces productivity and/or increases inflation, that doesn't necessarily imply that it's an undesirable policy. The economy exists to serve humanity, not to maximize productivity or minimize inflation. It's certainly possible that a policy could provide an overall benefit to humanity while simultaneously reducing economic productivity and/or increasing inflation by some amount.

Ah, that makes more sense.

Is the Economic Policy Institute actually anti-immigration, or are you claiming that they oppose the H-1B system and are, therefore, “anti-immigration?”

I agree with the sentiments expressed by the author, however redefining sustainable fishing before it’s been implemented widely seems a bit premature. Not that we can’t pursue that implementation alongside efforts to raise the bar, but, at current rates of exploitation, many parts of our oceans may not even survive long enough to see the impact of that redefinition.

Is there any reason to believe that the issues you describe would unfairly benefit one “side” over the other? It seems like restricting vote-by-mail certainly could.

The JAMStack is a thing, and it seems to be gaining momentum.

I assume that means providing financing to developing nations for the construction of coal plants.