I think this goes to something I’ve been seeing a lot of lately. People will hold an opinion for emotional reasons instead of logical reasons, and those speaking to them will get frustrated trying to “logic” them out of it (evidence, studies, facts, etc). It doesn’t work because they came to the opinion first and veneered it with logic afterwards. If you tear down the logic, the emotional substructure is still there. I have no idea how to solve this. The only people who have abandoned emotional beliefs I’ve seen have to come to that realization on their own.
Why don’t fascist regimes push for UBI? Wouldn’t it be in their best interest to pay off the population unless they risk being “demonetised” completely?
Edit: I guess the oil kingdoms in the ME are kinda that
The problem that UBI will never get over is the fact that it just smells like something suspicious. It smells like something capitalists can exploit.
Landlords and other oligopolistic goods-sellers with a lot of leverage and cartel-like dynamics can now count on a base income for everyone. I don’t see how low income housing doesn’t instantly becomes more expensive across the board, with profits funneled to established landlords.
At least with SNAP/EBT, your landlord can’t take that money.
UBI is sold as a cheap program to run because it eliminates the application and verification processes involved with existing benefits programs. But those same concepts could be applied to existing programs.
Other pro-worker reforms could also replace the whole UBI idea, where UBI just feels like a band-aid for a society with worsening income inequality and increasing corporate control. It has a “fix the symptom” vibe.
How about a "pseudo UBI" that only pays for basic necessities like rent, utilities, groceries and basic healthcare?
Any kind of a universal safety net would allow human civilization as a whole to chill out a bit, and could also reduce various petty scams and/or the damage they cause to people.
The problem UBI boosters have is not understanding how basic social welfare programs work, or somehow pretending their one weird trick replaces them (that’s why they’re always vague about the actual amount of the UBI).
>UBI-related experiments consistently find evidence that no participant responds to UBI experiments by dropping out of the labor force.
I'm not familiar with the details of these experiments but the first thing that strikes me is that this cannot be experimentally tested without guaranteeing participants a lifetime of UBI. They don't drop out of the labor force because they know it's temporary.
You wouldn't quit your job if you're only promised 2 years of UBI, because the cost that resigning has upon your future employability may be greater than the money from the UBI experiment. Or if you did quit, it would be to make a gambit (such as going back into schooling or training) that will leave you better off once the experiment is over.
The only reliable experiment design would be putting a few million per participant into some guaranteed annuities fund.
Ctrl-F "work ethic": the key obstacle is Christian/Protestant work ethic that determines
the "worthiness" of welfare/labor through spiritual lens and labels
the UBI as undeserving/lazy/idle, creating a moral doctrine of "spiritually purifying work" vs "moral hazard of idleness", which alllows capitalism to exploit people eager to work(noted by Max Weber).
This seems a bit muddled - he seems to say UBI boosters should avoid debating "no one will work" and "we can't afford it" because then critics will ask "Did the people who got the UBI ‘work’ as much as the people who didn’t?".
I don't see why you shouldn't debate such stuff. My take is UBI wouldn't be a good idea just now for such reasons but in the future we may be able to answer that that's fine because the robots will do the work as needed.
13 comments
[ 0.67 ms ] story [ 31.6 ms ] threadStuff like "why should I pay for this", or "why should they get to be lazy while I work" or "I don't feel like I should work as hard"
So they find other arguments, in a doth-protest-too-much-other-logic-arguments way.
Edit: I guess the oil kingdoms in the ME are kinda that
Landlords and other oligopolistic goods-sellers with a lot of leverage and cartel-like dynamics can now count on a base income for everyone. I don’t see how low income housing doesn’t instantly becomes more expensive across the board, with profits funneled to established landlords.
At least with SNAP/EBT, your landlord can’t take that money.
UBI is sold as a cheap program to run because it eliminates the application and verification processes involved with existing benefits programs. But those same concepts could be applied to existing programs.
Other pro-worker reforms could also replace the whole UBI idea, where UBI just feels like a band-aid for a society with worsening income inequality and increasing corporate control. It has a “fix the symptom” vibe.
Any kind of a universal safety net would allow human civilization as a whole to chill out a bit, and could also reduce various petty scams and/or the damage they cause to people.
I'm interested in answers that mostly preserve the status quo, and in answers that propose more radical shifts.
I'm not familiar with the details of these experiments but the first thing that strikes me is that this cannot be experimentally tested without guaranteeing participants a lifetime of UBI. They don't drop out of the labor force because they know it's temporary.
You wouldn't quit your job if you're only promised 2 years of UBI, because the cost that resigning has upon your future employability may be greater than the money from the UBI experiment. Or if you did quit, it would be to make a gambit (such as going back into schooling or training) that will leave you better off once the experiment is over.
The only reliable experiment design would be putting a few million per participant into some guaranteed annuities fund.
I don't see why you shouldn't debate such stuff. My take is UBI wouldn't be a good idea just now for such reasons but in the future we may be able to answer that that's fine because the robots will do the work as needed.