3 ms·

You're conflating what I said with other social issues and the Democrats failure of messaging (and slide in to racism/sexism). No one (at least not me) is talk

You're conflating what I said with other social issues and the Democrats failure of messaging (and slide in to racism/sexism). No one (at least not me) is talking about "find purpose in life outside the traditional labor culture". They should get a job and pay back that tax money! What I'm talking about is my support for the fundamental tenants of capitalism: creative desteuction and repurposing of capital to more efficient uses. That's going to happen in America and jobs are going to go obsolete. Coal is never coming back. I just also believe in social welfare for the same reason I put oil in my car: you need lubrication to keep parts from seizing and the whole thing blowing itself apart. Running an ICE without oil is foolish, and so is running an economy without social welfare. UBI is just a high-grade synthetic that requires less maintenance work to function. (It actually does more than that, as UBI serves to connect the wealth accumulation at the top with the wealth allocation at the bottom, which I would argue makes the entire system have more bang by easying the flow of wealth through the system and continuing to cycle it, which is the mechanism by which capitalism optimizes. In this sense, it's sort of like sustained fusion: you have to take part of the energy output to sustain the reaction driving the output.)

wahern 10y ago
I tend to agree with everything you said (except the slight against Democrats). The only point of departure for me is that I don't think Americans will give up on the dream of bringing back, e.g., coal jobs--basically, the imagined blue collar work life of 50 years ago. I would expect a simple UBI to only increase resentment. American culture, and especially American political culture, is built around the notion of hard work and independence and the relationship between the two. In the context of American culture, UBI is anathema to that notion. No amount of finger wagging and intellectual discourse will change that. Heck, we've known for 30 years that with the economic dislocation caused by globalization America (public and private, state and federal) would need to heavily invest in re-education and work training programs. But we failed miserably even though every single economist and business leader, liberal and conservative, substantially agreed on what had to be done. We not only failed miserably, but large swaths of working class Americans literally resented the efforts. Basically, I am intentionally conflating what you said with other social issues because my point is precisely that they're interdependent. Yes, a UBI is probably necessary to squeeze maximum wealth creation _and_ income equality out of a capitalist system. But because UBI is not tenable we'll have to settle for lesser options. That's called compromise.
- SomeStupidPoint 10y ago
  I upvoted for the detailed reply, but I disagree with one of your premises: I think Americans are willing to give up specific jobs like coal, they're just not willing to shift in to entirely service and "whitecollar" based jobs. The struggle comes from poor communication about why. That vision is a failure of a dream pushed primarily from urban centers, simply trying to replicate themselves in more of the country rather than take a more holistic view of the economy and regional needs. I personally don't agree with it, and think that "bluecollar" work is vital to economies. What troubles me is that proponents of UBI (such as yourself) conflate UBI with the end of "bluecollar" work, when the two aren't related. You're arguing, in essence, that UBI need to be part of a whole package of social change, or not happen at all. I agree we need to compromise: detach the notion of UBI from the death of "bluecollar" work! UBI is an enabler of the "bluecollar" work those people want -- not its enemy! Why are you surprised people reject UBI when you tacitly assume it destroys rather than enables their goals? That's the root of my frustration with you conflating the issues: you're projecting the failure of the messaging with some kind of fundamentalist intransigence, then throwing your hands up and going "well screw the whole thing!"
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]

wahern 10y ago

I tend to agree with everything you said (except the slight against Democrats). The only point of departure for me is that I don't think Americans will give up on the dream of bringing back, e.g., coal jobs--basically, the imagined blue collar work life of 50 years ago. I would expect a simple UBI to only increase resentment. American culture, and especially American political culture, is built around the notion of hard work and independence and the relationship between the two. In the context of American culture, UBI is anathema to that notion. No amount of finger wagging and intellectual discourse will change that. Heck, we've known for 30 years that with the economic dislocation caused by globalization America (public and private, state and federal) would need to heavily invest in re-education and work training programs. But we failed miserably even though every single economist and business leader, liberal and conservative, substantially agreed on what had to be done. We not only failed miserably, but large swaths of working class Americans literally resented the efforts. Basically, I am intentionally conflating what you said with other social issues because my point is precisely that they're interdependent. Yes, a UBI is probably necessary to squeeze maximum wealth creation _and_ income equality out of a capitalist system. But because UBI is not tenable we'll have to settle for lesser options. That's called compromise.

SomeStupidPoint 10y ago
I upvoted for the detailed reply, but I disagree with one of your premises: I think Americans are willing to give up specific jobs like coal, they're just not willing to shift in to entirely service and "whitecollar" based jobs. The struggle comes from poor communication about why. That vision is a failure of a dream pushed primarily from urban centers, simply trying to replicate themselves in more of the country rather than take a more holistic view of the economy and regional needs. I personally don't agree with it, and think that "bluecollar" work is vital to economies. What troubles me is that proponents of UBI (such as yourself) conflate UBI with the end of "bluecollar" work, when the two aren't related. You're arguing, in essence, that UBI need to be part of a whole package of social change, or not happen at all. I agree we need to compromise: detach the notion of UBI from the death of "bluecollar" work! UBI is an enabler of the "bluecollar" work those people want -- not its enemy! Why are you surprised people reject UBI when you tacitly assume it destroys rather than enables their goals? That's the root of my frustration with you conflating the issues: you're projecting the failure of the messaging with some kind of fundamentalist intransigence, then throwing your hands up and going "well screw the whole thing!"
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]