[this is probably off-topic for this forum, but I found it on HN so…]
Edit “enjoy” the discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38233810
[this is probably off-topic for this forum, but I found it on HN so…]
Edit “enjoy” the discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38233810
Everything before the last two paragraphs is just the ordinary first argument (in the author’s words, freshman economics) people throw out against any form of welfare- “what if people get lazy because they are now treading water at the poverty line, rather than drowning?” Then we get the classic “charities should handle everything so that we don’t have to pay taxes, and the rich people can allocate resources because money == IQ!”
The adjustments the author makes in the second to last paragraph are almost close to something good, in that advocating for needs to be addressed at the level of a local council makes sense. It isn’t good because his recommendations are supposed to be in the context of also having an UBI that is inadequate, which is beautifully centrist in an idiotic way.
Admittedly I don’t know much about the discourse around UBI. I understand by only its name, essentially.
The basic argument for UBI is that means-testing is a humiliating waste of resources and it would be more efficient to just hand everyone a flat payment. Basically it’s better to cut a cheque to the small number of Gates-es and Bezos-es of the world than to force a large number of people to waste time proving that they’re not, and hiring people to make that determination, etc.
In theory, it could work. However in a democracy where people care deeply about how their tax dollars are spent, it’s a very difficult pill. Witness the constant threats to remove even existing means-tested welfare.
Finally, it’s become a bit of a techbro pie in the sky fantasy because they have designs upon creating a large amount of unemployment and would like to try and keep the pitchfork mobs away from their bunkers.
in the UK some people were able to almost use the dole like a UBI during the crushing recession of the late 70s and 80s - take the payments without looking for a new job, and spend the time doing non-profit or low-profit work like art, music or political organizing. What’s changed? UK benefit system is now geared to harrass the long-term unemployed into work, the actual amount of money is much lower than it used to be, and the costs of housing has ballooned due the end of social housing and increasingly hostile laws against squatting.
Understood.
I think something like UBI will succeed but it won’t look to us like UBI. Like, maybe it seems stupid, but as far as political systems go, the key is persuasion in absurdity and narrative. To persuade people into UBI it has to be dressed up politically as --something else-- in the same way that all kinds of welfare (social and corporate) tends to get simultaneously denied and reinforced with conflicting narratives.
Once enough disparate and contradictory parties are convinced that “more of the good guys benefit from this than the bad guys”, it gets locked in and becomes political cannon. Until later when the political systems feint undoing it again for a different set of points.
As we all know, the rich have no conflicts of interest with the poor. No siree…