4 ms·

Um, no, let's not fuck that. The way to help people get off the street is to help them access paid work instead of begging and instead of charity. Charity does

by Mz 9y ago

Um, no, let's not fuck that. The way to help people get off the street is to help them access paid work instead of begging and instead of charity. Charity does not buy one a middle class lifestyle. You get that by working for it. Why is this so very hard for so many people to comprehend?

zem 9y ago
i believe the narrative that everyone has to work for a living, and that the way to help everyone obtain the basic necessities of life is to somehow create jobs for them, is an increasingly dangerous fallacy. there is simply less and less need for everyone to be working in order to produce enough to support everyone, and the ideal producer/consumer ratio is only falling with every increase in automation. if we weren't trying to cling so desperately to this sort of capitalist setup, we'd all be better off. it's just that the incentives for it aren't yet aligned with the immediate interests of whoever has the power to make changes. as someone working and leading a middle class lifestyle, i'd be even happier, and feel a lot more productive, if i thought my work was helping other people lead the same lifestyle sans working (or even better, by working on whatever they felt like, without having to care about whether someone valued it enough to pay for it).
- Mz 9y ago
  I very, very strongly disagree with this. In the last Industrial Revolution, they introduced the 40 hour work week. We need the burden of work to be lighter for all people. But we all still need access to the option to work. Accepting that jobs will simply vanish and those who don't already have massive amounts of wealth will just get a UBI is a horrendous dystopian nightmare. If we can all work 20 hours a week and adequately support ourselves, awesome. But the current position is that the 99 percent have no inherent right to access the means to create wealth. They are merely mouths to feed, consumers who can add nothing. This is incredibly problematic and I dearly hope we get a clue before natural consequences inform us catastrophically that this simply does not work.
  - zem 9y ago
    a ubi needn't stop you from working. what it will stop, or at least sharply reduce, is low-paying jobs that are low-paying simply because everyone has to either work or starve, and because the job involves easily-replaceable skills. for example, being an amazon warehouse worker is, from all accounts, highly unpleasant, way more so than being an amazon developer. and yet the developers are paid a lot more. why? amazon absolutely needs warehouse workers; its business would collapse without them. but the price for the job is set by how easily they could replace those workers, and that in turn is set by the fact that there are more people who need jobs than there are jobs available. also, look at it this way - there are lots of people who would find it satisfying and fulfilling to be painters, or gardeners, or heck, even nursery school teachers. the only problem is that those jobs don't pay as well as less fulfilling but more valuable to the "owner" class. why is your (and many other people's!) vision of basic income a bunch of zombies sitting around as "mouths to feed", when no one thinks that about people with inherited wealth?
    - Mz 9y ago
      No, what will stop people from working is that the people currently in charge of creating jobs will not bother to create jobs for everyone because "you have your UBI." That's the problem. http://micheleincalifornia.blogspot.com/2017/05/ubi-is-pc-way-for-tech-giants-to-tell.html http://micheleincalifornia.blogspot.com/2017/05/ubi-is-pc-wa...
      - zem 9y ago
        the idea that a job is something someone has to "bother to" create and hand to you already buys into the same sort of stratified inequality that you are complaining about with charity. if either way you have to depend on the people with capital and ownership to get money, how is being made to do something for it any better than being given it via the government taxing them and paying you a basic income? also i'm afraid i had to stop reading that blog post at "poor women cranking out babies", because i seriously cannot engage with that sort of thinking right now. however, i will address your earlier point about ubhc being better than ubi - why are you framing it as an either/or thing? ubhc is absolutely the end goal of a civilised society, but it doesn't obviate the need for a basic income, nor does a basic income presuppose the rest of the existing setup continues unchanged.

by Mz 9y ago

zem 9y ago

i believe the narrative that everyone has to work for a living, and that the way to help everyone obtain the basic necessities of life is to somehow create jobs for them, is an increasingly dangerous fallacy. there is simply less and less need for everyone to be working in order to produce enough to support everyone, and the ideal producer/consumer ratio is only falling with every increase in automation. if we weren't trying to cling so desperately to this sort of capitalist setup, we'd all be better off. it's just that the incentives for it aren't yet aligned with the immediate interests of whoever has the power to make changes. as someone working and leading a middle class lifestyle, i'd be even happier, and feel a lot more productive, if i thought my work was helping other people lead the same lifestyle sans working (or even better, by working on whatever they felt like, without having to care about whether someone valued it enough to pay for it).

Mz 9y ago
I very, very strongly disagree with this. In the last Industrial Revolution, they introduced the 40 hour work week. We need the burden of work to be lighter for all people. But we all still need access to the option to work. Accepting that jobs will simply vanish and those who don't already have massive amounts of wealth will just get a UBI is a horrendous dystopian nightmare. If we can all work 20 hours a week and adequately support ourselves, awesome. But the current position is that the 99 percent have no inherent right to access the means to create wealth. They are merely mouths to feed, consumers who can add nothing. This is incredibly problematic and I dearly hope we get a clue before natural consequences inform us catastrophically that this simply does not work.
- zem 9y ago
  a ubi needn't stop you from working. what it will stop, or at least sharply reduce, is low-paying jobs that are low-paying simply because everyone has to either work or starve, and because the job involves easily-replaceable skills. for example, being an amazon warehouse worker is, from all accounts, highly unpleasant, way more so than being an amazon developer. and yet the developers are paid a lot more. why? amazon absolutely needs warehouse workers; its business would collapse without them. but the price for the job is set by how easily they could replace those workers, and that in turn is set by the fact that there are more people who need jobs than there are jobs available. also, look at it this way - there are lots of people who would find it satisfying and fulfilling to be painters, or gardeners, or heck, even nursery school teachers. the only problem is that those jobs don't pay as well as less fulfilling but more valuable to the "owner" class. why is your (and many other people's!) vision of basic income a bunch of zombies sitting around as "mouths to feed", when no one thinks that about people with inherited wealth?
  - Mz 9y ago
    No, what will stop people from working is that the people currently in charge of creating jobs will not bother to create jobs for everyone because "you have your UBI." That's the problem. http://micheleincalifornia.blogspot.com/2017/05/ubi-is-pc-way-for-tech-giants-to-tell.html http://micheleincalifornia.blogspot.com/2017/05/ubi-is-pc-wa...
    - zem 9y ago
      the idea that a job is something someone has to "bother to" create and hand to you already buys into the same sort of stratified inequality that you are complaining about with charity. if either way you have to depend on the people with capital and ownership to get money, how is being made to do something for it any better than being given it via the government taxing them and paying you a basic income? also i'm afraid i had to stop reading that blog post at "poor women cranking out babies", because i seriously cannot engage with that sort of thinking right now. however, i will address your earlier point about ubhc being better than ubi - why are you framing it as an either/or thing? ubhc is absolutely the end goal of a civilised society, but it doesn't obviate the need for a basic income, nor does a basic income presuppose the rest of the existing setup continues unchanged.