What is AOC's REAL Green New Deal

[sun rise]

This is not a proposal for a law but a statement of philosophy and a frame-of-reference through which laws and administration actions would be focused. So any claim that passing this resolution would necessarily result in this or that action is at best a misunderstanding and at worst a deliberate lie.

Text - H.Res.109 - 116th Congress (2019-2020): Recognizing the duty of the Federal Government to create a Green New Deal. is the actual text of the document introduced. Here's the meat of the resolution. I've highlighted some key elements of the resolution including some that are identical to what Trump claims he wants.

And to repeat what to me is the central point, what this really calls for is this: a Green New Deal must be developed through transparent and inclusive consultation, collaboration, and partnership with frontline and vulnerable communities, labor unions, worker cooperatives, civil society groups, academia, and businesses;

Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Representatives that—

(1) it is the duty of the Federal Government to create a Green New Deal—

(A) to achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions through a fair and just transition for all communities and workers;

(B) to create millions of good, high-wage jobs and ensure prosperity and economic security for all people of the United States;

(C) to invest in the infrastructure and industry of the United States to sustainably meet the challenges of the 21st century;

(D) to secure for all people of the United States for generations to come—

(i) clean air and water;

(ii) climate and community resiliency;

(iii) healthy food;

(iv) access to nature; and

(v) a sustainable environment; and

(E) to promote justice and equity by stopping current, preventing future, and repairing historic oppression of indigenous peoples, communities of color, migrant communities, deindustrialized communities, depopulated rural communities, the poor, low-income workers, women, the elderly, the unhoused, people with disabilities, and youth (referred to in this resolution as “frontline and vulnerable communities”);

(2) the goals described in subparagraphs (A) through (E) of paragraph (1) (referred to in this resolution as the “Green New Deal goals”) should be accomplished through a 10-year national mobilization (referred to in this resolution as the “Green New Deal mobilization”) that will require the following goals and projects—

(A) building resiliency against climate change-related disasters, such as extreme weather, including by leveraging funding and providing investments for community-defined projects and strategies;

(B) repairing and upgrading the infrastructure in the United States, including—

(i) by eliminating pollution and greenhouse gas emissions as much as technologically feasible;

(ii) by guaranteeing universal access to clean water;

(iii) by reducing the risks posed by climate impacts; and

(iv) by ensuring that any infrastructure bill considered by Congress addresses climate change;

(C) meeting 100 percent of the power demand in the United States through clean, renewable, and zero-emission energy sources, including—

(i) by dramatically expanding and upgrading renewable power sources; and

(ii) by deploying new capacity;

(D) building or upgrading to energy-efficient, distributed, and “smart” power grids, and ensuring affordable access to electricity;

(E) upgrading all existing buildings in the United States and building new buildings to achieve maximum energy efficiency, water efficiency, safety, affordability, comfort, and durability, including through electrification;

(F) spurring massive growth in clean manufacturing in the United States and removing pollution and greenhouse gas emissions from manufacturing and industry as much as is technologically feasible, including by expanding renewable energy manufacturing and investing in existing manufacturing and industry;

(G) working collaboratively with farmers and ranchers in the United States to remove pollution and greenhouse gas emissions from the agricultural sector as much as is technologically feasible, including—

(i) by supporting family farming;

(ii) by investing in sustainable farming and land use practices that increase soil health; and

(iii) by building a more sustainable food system that ensures universal access to healthy food;

(H) overhauling transportation systems in the United States to remove pollution and greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation sector as much as is technologically feasible, including through investment in—

(i) zero-emission vehicle infrastructure and manufacturing;

(ii) clean, affordable, and accessible public transit; and

(iii) high-speed rail;

(I) mitigating and managing the long-term adverse health, economic, and other effects of pollution and climate change, including by providing funding for community-defined projects and strategies;

(J) removing greenhouse gases from the atmosphere and reducing pollution by restoring natural ecosystems through proven low-tech solutions that increase soil carbon storage, such as land preservation and afforestation;

(K) restoring and protecting threatened, endangered, and fragile ecosystems through locally appropriate and science-based projects that enhance biodiversity and support climate resiliency;

(L) cleaning up existing hazardous waste and abandoned sites, ensuring economic development and sustainability on those sites;

(M) identifying other emission and pollution sources and creating solutions to remove them; and

(N) promoting the international exchange of technology, expertise, products, funding, and services, with the aim of making the United States the international leader on climate action, and to help other countries achieve a Green New Deal;

(3) a Green New Deal must be developed through transparent and inclusive consultation, collaboration, and partnership with frontline and vulnerable communities, labor unions, worker cooperatives, civil society groups, academia, and businesses; and

(4) to achieve the Green New Deal goals and mobilization, a Green New Deal will require the following goals and projects—

(A) providing and leveraging, in a way that ensures that the public receives appropriate ownership stakes and returns on investment, adequate capital (including through community grants, public banks, and other public financing), technical expertise, supporting policies, and other forms of assistance to communities, organizations, Federal, State, and local government agencies, and businesses working on the Green New Deal mobilization;

(B) ensuring that the Federal Government takes into account the complete environmental and social costs and impacts of emissions through—

(i) existing laws;

(ii) new policies and programs; and

(iii) ensuring that frontline and vulnerable communities shall not be adversely affected;

(C) providing resources, training, and high-quality education, including higher education, to all people of the United States, with a focus on frontline and vulnerable communities, so that all people of the United States may be full and equal participants in the Green New Deal mobilization;

(D) making public investments in the research and development of new clean and renewable energy technologies and industries;

(E) directing investments to spur economic development, deepen and diversify industry and business in local and regional economies, and build wealth and community ownership, while prioritizing high-quality job creation and economic, social, and environmental benefits in frontline and vulnerable communities, and deindustrialized communities, that may otherwise struggle with the transition away from greenhouse gas intensive industries;

(F) ensuring the use of democratic and participatory processes that are inclusive of and led by frontline and vulnerable communities and workers to plan, implement, and administer the Green New Deal mobilization at the local level;

(G) ensuring that the Green New Deal mobilization creates high-quality union jobs that pay prevailing wages, hires local workers, offers training and advancement opportunities, and guarantees wage and benefit parity for workers affected by the transition;

(H) guaranteeing a job with a family-sustaining wage, adequate family and medical leave, paid vacations, and retirement security to all people of the United States;

(I) strengthening and protecting the right of all workers to organize, unionize, and collectively bargain free of coercion, intimidation, and harassment;

(J) strengthening and enforcing labor, workplace health and safety, antidiscrimination, and wage and hour standards across all employers, industries, and sectors;

(K) enacting and enforcing trade rules, procurement standards, and border adjustments with strong labor and environmental protections—

(i) to stop the transfer of jobs and pollution overseas; and

(ii) to grow domestic manufacturing in the United States;

(L) ensuring that public lands, waters, and oceans are protected and that eminent domain is not abused;

(M) obtaining the free, prior, and informed consent of indigenous peoples for all decisions that affect indigenous peoples and their traditional territories, honoring all treaties and agreements with indigenous peoples, and protecting and enforcing the sovereignty and land rights of indigenous peoples;

(N) ensuring a commercial environment where every businessperson is free from unfair competition and domination by domestic or international monopolies; and

(O) providing all people of the United States with—

(i) high-quality health care;

(ii) affordable, safe, and adequate housing;

(iii) economic security; and

(iv) clean water, clean air, healthy and affordable food, and access to nature.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Hopefully something like this will win over corporations who are concerned about the effects of Global Warming.
But I really do believe though we need to leave manufacturing in the past and create high-tech jobs to suit this new age of computers and technology. We can't replace it entirely just yet, but instead of focusing on creating them we need to focus on phasing them out to create better jobs and just let robots handle all the manufacturing stuff that runs a high risk of repetitive motion injuries anyways.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Myself, I'd run on "creating new jobs" instead of "clinging onto jobs already on life support."

 

[Lyndon]

the Republicans will never accept this, they're pretty much Pro Pollution in most every way.

 

[icehorse]

What's astounding is that this proposal will be mis-characterized as "radical" and "socialist", and lots of folks will buy in to those mis-characterizations.

 

[Mindmaster]

AOC is pretty much nuttier than the mad hatter, but to be concise:

1) There are a lot of jobs in the not green area that disappear, but the clear value economically of being green isn't sorted. Sure, we can agree that pollution sucks, but beyond that there's no proof that living in such a Spartan manner would improve our lives. The real answer isn't "net zero" but hybrid -- if the green options become more viable they will naturally out-mode the conventional methods because they'll win by being superior on cost, performance, quality, or upkeep. If they can't do that this is just a money pit government boondoggle.

2) Renewable power does not meet the needs, this is why it is supplemented by nuclear and coal. Solar depends on clear weather, wind on breeze, and geothermal and hydro are usable in a very limited fashion. Nuclear isn't as bad as people think -- the products used are naturally occurring, but we have to contain them for safety reasons -- they, however, are just sitting in the ground anyway, un-contained. We're not really making any additional radioactive material that doesn't already exist. It's still the most viable way to make bulk power, even though coal is certainly cheaper. Coal plants have massively improved and are improving much faster than the nuclear tech -- not just because of environmental concerns, but because of PR issues.

3) AOC thinks we should pay bums with government money if they don't want to work -- that's nuts. I fully understand helping people who are poor, disabled, or too old. Giving you money because you don't want to work? Yeah, nuts.

4) There are two techs for powering trains -- fuel, and electric. Without a nuclear power plant or coal burner you don't have enough juice to run a train. (Solar and Wind just cannot do this.) Many electric trains in deployment have an entire power facility dedicated to them. The only alternative to this is pulling it by mule (yeah, that used to be done). Good luck with that. Most modern trains are turbo diesel-electric and run at very high efficiency (there are economic reasons to this, for most operators the largest cost in their business is fuel). Diesel emissions control has been in the interest of those companies that run those trains for a long time because if a community has two gripes about trains coming through it's noise and grime. Needless to say, this is an area where things are getting better as well through tech.

So, if these ideas are great -- why are they not adopted? It's not because the companies hate people or want to make money and don't care -- it's because the math doesn't work. If they could have the green stamp and make the cash they would, but they can't. All that will happen with this nonsense is all of them will have to liquidate and close shop.

 

[Subduction Zone]

This is not a proposal for a law but a statement of philosophy and a frame-of-reference through which laws and administration actions would be focused. So any claim that passing this resolution would necessarily result in this or that action is at best a misunderstanding and at worst a deliberate lie.

Text - H.Res.109 - 116th Congress (2019-2020): Recognizing the duty of the Federal Government to create a Green New Deal. is the actual text of the document introduced. Here's the meat of the resolution. I've highlighted some key elements of the resolution including some that are identical to what Trump claims he wants.

And to repeat what to me is the central point, what this really calls for is this: a Green New Deal must be developed through transparent and inclusive consultation, collaboration, and partnership with frontline and vulnerable communities, labor unions, worker cooperatives, civil society groups, academia, and businesses;

Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Representatives that—

(1) it is the duty of the Federal Government to create a Green New Deal—

(A) to achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions through a fair and just transition for all communities and workers;

(B) to create millions of good, high-wage jobs and ensure prosperity and economic security for all people of the United States;

(C) to invest in the infrastructure and industry of the United States to sustainably meet the challenges of the 21st century;

(D) to secure for all people of the United States for generations to come—

(i) clean air and water;

(ii) climate and community resiliency;

(iii) healthy food;

(iv) access to nature; and

(v) a sustainable environment; and

(E) to promote justice and equity by stopping current, preventing future, and repairing historic oppression of indigenous peoples, communities of color, migrant communities, deindustrialized communities, depopulated rural communities, the poor, low-income workers, women, the elderly, the unhoused, people with disabilities, and youth (referred to in this resolution as “frontline and vulnerable communities”);

(2) the goals described in subparagraphs (A) through (E) of paragraph (1) (referred to in this resolution as the “Green New Deal goals”) should be accomplished through a 10-year national mobilization (referred to in this resolution as the “Green New Deal mobilization”) that will require the following goals and projects—

(A) building resiliency against climate change-related disasters, such as extreme weather, including by leveraging funding and providing investments for community-defined projects and strategies;

(B) repairing and upgrading the infrastructure in the United States, including—

(i) by eliminating pollution and greenhouse gas emissions as much as technologically feasible;

(ii) by guaranteeing universal access to clean water;

(iii) by reducing the risks posed by climate impacts; and

(iv) by ensuring that any infrastructure bill considered by Congress addresses climate change;

(C) meeting 100 percent of the power demand in the United States through clean, renewable, and zero-emission energy sources, including—

(i) by dramatically expanding and upgrading renewable power sources; and

(ii) by deploying new capacity;

(D) building or upgrading to energy-efficient, distributed, and “smart” power grids, and ensuring affordable access to electricity;

(E) upgrading all existing buildings in the United States and building new buildings to achieve maximum energy efficiency, water efficiency, safety, affordability, comfort, and durability, including through electrification;

(F) spurring massive growth in clean manufacturing in the United States and removing pollution and greenhouse gas emissions from manufacturing and industry as much as is technologically feasible, including by expanding renewable energy manufacturing and investing in existing manufacturing and industry;

(G) working collaboratively with farmers and ranchers in the United States to remove pollution and greenhouse gas emissions from the agricultural sector as much as is technologically feasible, including—

(i) by supporting family farming;

(ii) by investing in sustainable farming and land use practices that increase soil health; and

(iii) by building a more sustainable food system that ensures universal access to healthy food;

(H) overhauling transportation systems in the United States to remove pollution and greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation sector as much as is technologically feasible, including through investment in—

(i) zero-emission vehicle infrastructure and manufacturing;

(ii) clean, affordable, and accessible public transit; and

(iii) high-speed rail;

(I) mitigating and managing the long-term adverse health, economic, and other effects of pollution and climate change, including by providing funding for community-defined projects and strategies;

(J) removing greenhouse gases from the atmosphere and reducing pollution by restoring natural ecosystems through proven low-tech solutions that increase soil carbon storage, such as land preservation and afforestation;

(K) restoring and protecting threatened, endangered, and fragile ecosystems through locally appropriate and science-based projects that enhance biodiversity and support climate resiliency;

(L) cleaning up existing hazardous waste and abandoned sites, ensuring economic development and sustainability on those sites;

(M) identifying other emission and pollution sources and creating solutions to remove them; and

(N) promoting the international exchange of technology, expertise, products, funding, and services, with the aim of making the United States the international leader on climate action, and to help other countries achieve a Green New Deal;

(3) a Green New Deal must be developed through transparent and inclusive consultation, collaboration, and partnership with frontline and vulnerable communities, labor unions, worker cooperatives, civil society groups, academia, and businesses; and

(4) to achieve the Green New Deal goals and mobilization, a Green New Deal will require the following goals and projects—

(A) providing and leveraging, in a way that ensures that the public receives appropriate ownership stakes and returns on investment, adequate capital (including through community grants, public banks, and other public financing), technical expertise, supporting policies, and other forms of assistance to communities, organizations, Federal, State, and local government agencies, and businesses working on the Green New Deal mobilization;

(B) ensuring that the Federal Government takes into account the complete environmental and social costs and impacts of emissions through—

(i) existing laws;

(ii) new policies and programs; and

(iii) ensuring that frontline and vulnerable communities shall not be adversely affected;

(C) providing resources, training, and high-quality education, including higher education, to all people of the United States, with a focus on frontline and vulnerable communities, so that all people of the United States may be full and equal participants in the Green New Deal mobilization;

(D) making public investments in the research and development of new clean and renewable energy technologies and industries;

(E) directing investments to spur economic development, deepen and diversify industry and business in local and regional economies, and build wealth and community ownership, while prioritizing high-quality job creation and economic, social, and environmental benefits in frontline and vulnerable communities, and deindustrialized communities, that may otherwise struggle with the transition away from greenhouse gas intensive industries;

(F) ensuring the use of democratic and participatory processes that are inclusive of and led by frontline and vulnerable communities and workers to plan, implement, and administer the Green New Deal mobilization at the local level;

(G) ensuring that the Green New Deal mobilization creates high-quality union jobs that pay prevailing wages, hires local workers, offers training and advancement opportunities, and guarantees wage and benefit parity for workers affected by the transition;

(H) guaranteeing a job with a family-sustaining wage, adequate family and medical leave, paid vacations, and retirement security to all people of the United States;

(I) strengthening and protecting the right of all workers to organize, unionize, and collectively bargain free of coercion, intimidation, and harassment;

(J) strengthening and enforcing labor, workplace health and safety, antidiscrimination, and wage and hour standards across all employers, industries, and sectors;

(K) enacting and enforcing trade rules, procurement standards, and border adjustments with strong labor and environmental protections—

(i) to stop the transfer of jobs and pollution overseas; and

(ii) to grow domestic manufacturing in the United States;

(L) ensuring that public lands, waters, and oceans are protected and that eminent domain is not abused;

(M) obtaining the free, prior, and informed consent of indigenous peoples for all decisions that affect indigenous peoples and their traditional territories, honoring all treaties and agreements with indigenous peoples, and protecting and enforcing the sovereignty and land rights of indigenous peoples;

(N) ensuring a commercial environment where every businessperson is free from unfair competition and domination by domestic or international monopolies; and

(O) providing all people of the United States with—

(i) high-quality health care;

(ii) affordable, safe, and adequate housing;

(iii) economic security; and

(iv) clean water, clean air, healthy and affordable food, and access to nature.

Don't like it. It is so much harder to attack than the Republican strawman. That sounds rather reasonable and not lunatic left at all.

 

[icehorse]

AOC is pretty much nuttier than the mad hatter, but to be concise:

She's shifting the Overton window baby.

1) There are a lot of jobs in the not green area that disappear, but the clear value economically of being green isn't sorted.

Yours is a typical, think-only-of-the-next-quarter's-profits perspective. One thing that AOC is doing is dragging DC into the idea of thinking long term.

Your paragraph #2 is more of the same "what's-currently-true", short term thinking.

Your #3 - paying bums - is something I've heard elsewhere. I doubt that it's that black and white, but for the sake of argument, let's say it is. I'd be happy to throw that section out of the proposal and keep the rest.

 

[Revoltingest]

NPR once speculated about the similarities between Hitler & Trump.
Today I heard them speak fondly of the similarities between Trump & OAC.
By the transitive property.....you know.

 

[Twilight Hue]

All these ideas and not a single well thought out , realistic, and practical plan.

 

[Mindmaster]

Yours is a typical, think-only-of-the-next-quarter's-profits perspective. One thing that AOC is doing is dragging DC into the idea of thinking long term.

Your paragraph #2 is more of the same "what's-currently-true", short term thinking.

Your #3 - paying bums - is something I've heard elsewhere. I doubt that it's that black and white, but for the sake of argument, let's say it is. I'd be happy to throw that section out of the proposal and keep the rest.

Yeah, I'm not into some idealistic world that doesn't exist. People depend on the "non-green" jobs for their livelihood. It's not about economics solely, it's about people who are doing perfectly fine right now getting the shaft.

It's not short term thinking, it's the only thinking in regard to #2. What alternative tech exists that will bridge the gap between _now_ and some idealistic future where we don't need our fossil fuel/nuclear infrastructure? That question has to be sensibly answered or the notion she presents is just incoherent rambling. Should we keep looking for those options? Hell yes, but if they're not here we shouldn't cut off our noses to spite our faces. It's not my job to prove anything, but hers, she's making the claim that we should do X... All I am asking is why, how, and when and critiquing what is absolutely absurd.

 

[Revoltingest]

All these ideas and not a single well thought out , realistic, and practical plan.

You'll first have to pass the legislation to see what the plan is.
But hurry.....the world will end in 12 years.

 

[icehorse]

It's not my job to prove anything, but hers, she's making the claim that we should do X... All I am asking is why, how, and when and critiquing what is absolutely absurd.

What's absurd is to take a "business as usual" stance. Again, think Overton window. EVERY energy-related R&D dollar has to be aimed at non-fossil fuels. And more R&D dollars have to be spent. No one has all the answers at this point, but we have to put everything we have into finding the answers.

AOC is helping to provide a much needed, kick-DC-in-the-arse wake-up call.

 

[icehorse]

You'll first have to pass the legislation to see what the plan is.
But hurry.....the world will end in 12 years.

I'm guessing this was sarcastic? If not, I'll apologize. If so, how dare you? You and I are (relatively speaking), old farts. The folks in DC - roughly our generation - could very well have put us on a path from which we cannot recover. Just one example: I've seen credible simulations of what will happen when Greenland's glaciers melt and cool down the gulf stream. Most of western Europe's climate could turn to Siberia-like conditions within a few years.

 

[Revoltingest]

I'm guessing this was sarcastic?

Nuthin gets past you.
I mocked her claim (& more) that the world will end in 12 years.

You and I are (relatively speaking), old farts. The folks in DC - roughly our generation - could very well have put us on a path from which we cannot recover. Just one example: I've seen credible simulations of what will happen when Greenland's glaciers melt and cool down the gulf stream. Most of western Europe's climate could turn to Siberia-like conditions within a few years.

Real world solutions are best.
Hers are entertaining though.

 

[icehorse]

Nuthin gets past you.
I mocked her claim (& more) that the world will end in 12 years.

Real world solutions are best.
Hers are entertaining though.

DC isn't even trying.

And again, what she's doing is shifting the Overton window. To focus on specifics of the proposal is to miss the point.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yeah, I'm not into some idealistic world that doesn't exist. People depend on the "non-green" jobs for their livelihood. It's not about economics solely, it's about people who are doing perfectly fine right now getting the shaft.

It's not short term thinking, it's the only thinking in regard to #2. What alternative tech exists that will bridge the gap between _now_ and some idealistic future where we don't need our fossil fuel/nuclear infrastructure? That question has to be sensibly answered or the notion she presents is just incoherent rambling. Should we keep looking for those options? Hell yes, but if they're not here we shouldn't cut off our noses to spite our faces. It's not my job to prove anything, but hers, she's making the claim that we should do X... All I am asking is why, how, and when and critiquing what is absolutely absurd.

Any change in technology results in some people "getting the shaft". The development of the automobile cause buggy whip makers to "get the shaft". This initiative recognizes this and attempts to alleviate the pain of such a change. There is no doubt that man is behind our present global warming and doing nothing will only end up in many more people "getting the shaft" than not changing. Also like it or not fossil fuels are limited. They will continue to get more expensive to harvest and be ever more dirty in doing so.

Perhaps you should be trying to fight for a conservative method of combating the increase in greenhouse gases.

Quick quiz, what world leader first made the global warming crisis public? What do you think of that leader as a conservative?

 

[Mindmaster]

What's absurd is to take a "business as usual" stance. Again, think Overton window. EVERY energy-related R&D dollar has to be aimed at non-fossil fuels. And more R&D dollars have to be spent. No one has all the answers at this point, but we have to put everything we have into finding the answers.

AOC is helping to provide a much needed, kick-DC-in-the-arse wake-up call.

No, what is absurd is jumping off a cliff into unknown territory.

Also, it's often cheaper to improve the cleanliness of existing technologies -- case in point coal burning generation stations and trains have come a long way. At some point, you have to do some math -- how much "power per fuel" is X getting and what is the waste product. If you can figure out how to deal with the waste product there is no problem using the fossil fuels. We're quicker to zero emissions with that than solar (panels create swimming pools of toxic soup in their manufacture) or the environmental impacts of wind turbines. (They kill animals, disturb them with noise, and are generally eye-sores/noise nuisances.)

Most of the R&D is privately funded, and if you're in the fossil fuel business it makes more sense to throw your money at that than some untested new tech. If these "green techs" were that viable they'd have their own damn money to innovate, but it stands to reason that if we let 100 years go by fossil fuels would be more effective/safer than solar/wind STILL. Essentially, all of these technologies are locked in a Darwin-ish struggle -- the greatest of them will win, and the people that bet on the bad ones are going to lose. So, we go all green tomorrow, then the entire planet kicks our *** economically (since these alternatives can't compete) and we're boned. It seems like every Democratic idea is about trashing the country, lol.

And, no we don't have to put everything into finding the answers -- the answers will come with experience, time, and whatnot and outlay of funds probably will not produce breakthroughs-on-demand just leave us broke. If experience is anything the government wastes most of the money you give it, I don't particularly think this is the avenue for this quest.

Business as usual is fine unless there is a compelling reason to do otherwise. Change for change's sake is simply stupid. Don't fix what isn't broken, sub-optimal doesn't equate to sub-par.

 

[icehorse]

@Mindmaster I'm pretty sure future generations will revile people with your mindset.

The time for reasonableness is long past. The house really IS on fire.

 

[Stanyon]

Talking points are useless unless backed by a workable and realistic plan but empty rhetoric doesn't matter to some as long as it "feels" good.

Key finding in the free money experiment in Finland.
-People like getting paid for no work, imagine that.