4 ms·

It's fascinating how (at least in the US) support for coal mining has become a conservative position: you now have people who claim to be staunchly against welf

It's fascinating how (at least in the US) support for coal mining has become a conservative position: you now have people who claim to be staunchly against welfare payments demanding taxpayer money to prop up increasingly unnecessary jobs. It's the Protestant work ethic, I guess: work is inherently virtuous and deserving of reward even if it serves no purpose, and not working deserves punishment even if there's nothing useful for you to do.

dragonwriter 8y ago
> It's the Protestant work ethic, I guess: work is inherently virtuous and deserving of reward even if it serves no purpose If it was that, the same people wouldn't oppose solar subsidies that support jobs in that industry.
kevin_thibedeau 8y ago
It is vote pandering. The people the GoP actually serves are too few to win anything on their own via democratic vote. Their platform is constructed to appeal to the disenfranchised by singing them a song that never rings true.
unethical_ban 8y ago
You have very well phrased the jist of arguments against basic income that I have heard from relatives. Essentially, that people MUST work to derive value from their life. What would you do if you didn't work? How would you be fulfilled? These are non-ironic questions I have gotten from people.
- PeterisP 8y ago
  Lots of useful work isn't economically valuable enough to be done as a job. For example, caring for the needy, many forms of art, and a large portion of journalism are among such jobs; where there's some demand but not much willingness to pay, while the job grants fulfilment and is a net positive for society - though not enough to pay a liveable wage, often because it gives fulfilment, so some people are willing to do it for near-free. Apparently mining coal is also such a job - it's not economically worth it to pay people to go down a mine and dig out coal. In that regard, why not pay people basic income and let them choose whether they want to find fulfilment by spending their time doing gov't subsidized (by paying them liveable income for activities that aren't worth it) coal mining, or spend that time in a similarly subsidized alternative rock band? Both of these activities have some benefit to the people themselves and the potential customers, but aren't economically needed anyway, both of them literally aren't worth their time, so why is one better than the other?
  - waterhouse 8y ago
    If they have basic income, then would they need to be paid "livable" subsidized income for any activities they chose to do? I thought basic income was meant to be livable in itself.
kodablah 8y ago
It's worth separating what is a "conservative politician position" and a "conservative position". People are more nuanced than their parties. Also, their problems and approaches to solve them (i.e. taxes vs not) may differ even if they agree on the end goal.
swebs 8y ago
Eh, it's more of a central Pennsylvania and West Virginia thing than a conservative thing. Those regions are peppered with towns that were propped up by coal mining, then had the rug pulled out from under them when the industry changed. It's similar to Detroit and the auto industry, or Pittsburgh and the steel industry. If you could bring everything back and revitalize your town, wouldn't you want to make that choice?
- PhasmaFelis 8y ago
  Absolutely, and I would actually like to see more of my tax dollars spent to assist struggling people and communities in general. What confuses me is that many of the people calling for the government to help unemployed coal miners are the same people who sneer and spit if you say the government should help unemployed people in general.
  - yostrovs 8y ago
    They're actually different people in most cases. It's just that you probably lump everyone together that is far from you on the political spectrum. Don't worry, most people do the same as you, and in the process nuance is lost and stupid decisions are made.
    - PhasmaFelis 8y ago
      What I posted is literally the position of the President of the United States and a good portion of the Republican Congress. Maybe those people don't actually represent their constituents' views (which is a different problem) but they are absolutely a force in modern American politics. What you describe does happen, and I won't pretend that I don't do it too, despite my best efforts. But don't imagine that there aren't powerful legislators working from the position of "coal good, welfare bad".
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

dragonwriter 8y ago

> It's the Protestant work ethic, I guess: work is inherently virtuous and deserving of reward even if it serves no purpose If it was that, the same people wouldn't oppose solar subsidies that support jobs in that industry.

kevin_thibedeau 8y ago

It is vote pandering. The people the GoP actually serves are too few to win anything on their own via democratic vote. Their platform is constructed to appeal to the disenfranchised by singing them a song that never rings true.

unethical_ban 8y ago

You have very well phrased the jist of arguments against basic income that I have heard from relatives. Essentially, that people MUST work to derive value from their life. What would you do if you didn't work? How would you be fulfilled? These are non-ironic questions I have gotten from people.

PeterisP 8y ago
Lots of useful work isn't economically valuable enough to be done as a job. For example, caring for the needy, many forms of art, and a large portion of journalism are among such jobs; where there's some demand but not much willingness to pay, while the job grants fulfilment and is a net positive for society - though not enough to pay a liveable wage, often because it gives fulfilment, so some people are willing to do it for near-free. Apparently mining coal is also such a job - it's not economically worth it to pay people to go down a mine and dig out coal. In that regard, why not pay people basic income and let them choose whether they want to find fulfilment by spending their time doing gov't subsidized (by paying them liveable income for activities that aren't worth it) coal mining, or spend that time in a similarly subsidized alternative rock band? Both of these activities have some benefit to the people themselves and the potential customers, but aren't economically needed anyway, both of them literally aren't worth their time, so why is one better than the other?
- waterhouse 8y ago
  If they have basic income, then would they need to be paid "livable" subsidized income for any activities they chose to do? I thought basic income was meant to be livable in itself.

kodablah 8y ago

It's worth separating what is a "conservative politician position" and a "conservative position". People are more nuanced than their parties. Also, their problems and approaches to solve them (i.e. taxes vs not) may differ even if they agree on the end goal.

swebs 8y ago

Eh, it's more of a central Pennsylvania and West Virginia thing than a conservative thing. Those regions are peppered with towns that were propped up by coal mining, then had the rug pulled out from under them when the industry changed. It's similar to Detroit and the auto industry, or Pittsburgh and the steel industry. If you could bring everything back and revitalize your town, wouldn't you want to make that choice?

PhasmaFelis 8y ago
Absolutely, and I would actually like to see more of my tax dollars spent to assist struggling people and communities in general. What confuses me is that many of the people calling for the government to help unemployed coal miners are the same people who sneer and spit if you say the government should help unemployed people in general.
- yostrovs 8y ago
  They're actually different people in most cases. It's just that you probably lump everyone together that is far from you on the political spectrum. Don't worry, most people do the same as you, and in the process nuance is lost and stupid decisions are made.
  - PhasmaFelis 8y ago
    What I posted is literally the position of the President of the United States and a good portion of the Republican Congress. Maybe those people don't actually represent their constituents' views (which is a different problem) but they are absolutely a force in modern American politics. What you describe does happen, and I won't pretend that I don't do it too, despite my best efforts. But don't imagine that there aren't powerful legislators working from the position of "coal good, welfare bad".

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]