Asklemmy

43901 readers

2182 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

Open-ended question
Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

Lemmyverse: community search
sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
!lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

Why does a state like California that has supermajorities in both houses of the legislature not have a livable wage, housing guarantees, universal healthcare, and other very progressive policies? (lemmy.world)

submitted 6 months ago by return2ozma@lemmy.world to c/asklemmy@lemmy.ml

8 comments fedilink hide all child comments

I keep being told it's because of the Republicans that we can't have nice things. So what gives in California? We should be overflowing with progressive policies.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] lemmefixdat4u@lemmy.world 1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

They are trying. AB 2200 aims at laying the groundwork for universal healthcare. Minimum wage just went up to $16 for everyone and $20 for fast food workers. There are experiments going on in several cities with guaranteed income. But everything comes with a cost, and the state is having budget problems. There have been job losses associated with the wage increases. Employers have begun to get very picky about who they hire for even minimum wage jobs. Hours have been cut.

Even Democrats realize one state can't offer free stuff without attracting every freeloader in the country. Someone has to pay for the benefits, and if they tax those folks too heavily, they'll find another place to live. There's a real limit to how many social programs can be offered before they break the piggy bank.

[–] novibe@lemmy.ml -1 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

Your conclusion makes no sense. California can’t afford the policies because states don’t print their money, the federal government does. And California doesn’t get much help from the federal government. So it’s constrained by what it can tax locally.

Those policies would work perfectly and cause no budgetary issues if the federal government paid for them by printing money.

The massive printing of money from 2008 to COVID really not make people realise that? We CAN pay for everything. The government just has to print for the money, and use it for that instead of bailing out the capitalists over and over.