4 ms·

While it may be true for a subset of posters here, the idea of just finding a new job if it doesn't suit you is not possible for most people. The majority of pe

While it may be true for a subset of posters here, the idea of just finding a new job if it doesn't suit you is not possible for most people. The majority of people need to be able to do something mildly productive and be able to live a happy life as a result. If your economic model is leaving this many people behind--or they even feel they're being left behind it's not a good model. Everyday I find it harder to argue against things like medicare-for-all. Private healthcare only adds unneeded pressure to workers--heck even me sometimes. Even if it weren't cheaper which it should be[1], there is surely some value that soulless accountants could extract from lower stressors in the workplace. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/07/upshot/why-single-payer-health-care-saves-money.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/07/upshot/why-single-payer-h...

ergothus 8y ago
I read an interesting perspective on universal basic income recently that suggested that it was MORE capitalistic than not: by freeing people from limits imposed by needing to supply food/shelter for themselves/their families, it allows more participation in the market. That seems a radical but obvious-in-hindsight idea to me: a majority of the population cant participate in the competition the system itself needs because they cant accept the risk of failure that the system requires of us. Meanwhile anyone who is already successful chides them about thow they should just work harder.
- rbanffy 8y ago
  > that suggested that it was MORE capitalistic than not That's an awesome (but not very honest) way to sell it to the leftophobic right. But, again, capitalism doesn't mandate small government and vanishingly low taxes.
rbanffy 8y ago
> The majority of people need to be able to do something mildly productive and be able to live a happy life as a result A happy life is not a luxury most workers have.

ergothus 8y ago

I read an interesting perspective on universal basic income recently that suggested that it was MORE capitalistic than not: by freeing people from limits imposed by needing to supply food/shelter for themselves/their families, it allows more participation in the market. That seems a radical but obvious-in-hindsight idea to me: a majority of the population cant participate in the competition the system itself needs because they cant accept the risk of failure that the system requires of us. Meanwhile anyone who is already successful chides them about thow they should just work harder.

rbanffy 8y ago
> that suggested that it was MORE capitalistic than not That's an awesome (but not very honest) way to sell it to the leftophobic right. But, again, capitalism doesn't mandate small government and vanishingly low taxes.

rbanffy 8y ago

> The majority of people need to be able to do something mildly productive and be able to live a happy life as a result A happy life is not a luxury most workers have.