4 ms·

UBI has not been implemented on a large scale anywhere yet, so I give you that, but the USA is hostile even to the most basic social programs, like single payer

UBI has not been implemented on a large scale anywhere yet, so I give you that, but the USA is hostile even to the most basic social programs, like single payer, because of the 'unfettered capitalism' ideology of many in Washington, which is heavily skewed to the right and does not represent the opinion of the population as a whole, (single payer has majority backing). Tell me where am wrong on this, because you can't start talking about UBI in the USA, while the political class in the country is super hostile even to the concept of universal healthcare, a policy that is uncontroversial in much of the developed, (even developing!) world. What about paid sick leave, maternity leave, paternity leave etc.? Here the USA does even worse, since not only does practically every developed and developing country have these, but in fact almost every country has some form of these. If USA is hostile to implementing social policies common in much of the rest of the world, you can't start talking about UBI in any serious manner anyway.

JoeAltmaier 8y ago
UBI not tried yet... Alaska? Social Security? Pensions? The idle rich?
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  The Alaska Permanent Fund is the only one of those that even hits both of the U and I points of UBI (the rest are just I); it doesn't even target the B, though.
  - JoeAltmaier 8y ago
    Of course they are basic. Many people live on social security, pensions. And they're a segment of the population. To study the result of a population receiving a BI, there's plenty of data.
    - dragonwriter 8y ago
      > Of course they are basic. Which of them completely displaces means-tested welfare to provide the support floor for all who are in the eligible population. Social Security doesn't. Pensions don't. Being idly rich might, I suppose, in that that is just “living of capital” but ignoring all the people who don't have a lot to live on. > And they're a segment of the population. To study the result of a population receiving a BI, there's plenty of data. Not relevant to UBI there isn't. Some segment of the population receiving income varying a Ross indiciduals based on their past work and investments isn't even loosely similar to the whole population of a community receiving equal unconditional UBI, and there is little reason to expect the former to provide much insight on the latter.
      - JoeAltmaier 8y ago
        and yet folks are studying UBI already by supplying individuals with a basic income and measuring their behavior. Including YC. You can't of course study the impact on the economy, but you can surely understand how people change with the UBI.
skrowl 8y ago
> because of the 'unfettered capitalism' ideology of many in Washington, which is heavily skewed to the right I'm going to assume you're not in the USA. Washington DC is over 70% Democrat (which is our left wing party) https://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/news/housing-complex/blog/13124106/mapping-d-c-s-party-affiliations-from-republican-georgetown-to-democratic-washington-highlands https://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/news/housing-complex/blo... Washington DC hasn't elected a Republican (our right wing party, about 6% of the population there) since the 1870s https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_party_strength_in_Washington,_D.C https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_party_strength_in_Wa....
- tom_ 8y ago
  It's probably a figure of speech, not to be taken literally. See, e.g., https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metonymy#Places_and_institutions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metonymy#Places_and_institutio...
  - AsyncAwait 8y ago
    Correct. That's how I meant it.
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  > I'm going to assume you're not in the USA. Washington DC is over 70% Democrat (which is our left wing party) In American English, in political contexts, “Washington” is a frequently used idiom for “decision-makers in the US Federal Government”. (This applies mutatis mutandis, to the names of political capitals generally, which stand in for the leadership of the government seared their; in the context of discussions of a particular corporation or other organization, this also applies to the names of cities wherein regional or central HQs are related). Anyone who misses this has really no place commenting that other people must not be American because of ignorance free of the partisan alignment of the electorate in the capital district.
  - drcoopster 8y ago
    > electorate in the capital district You know they don't have any real federal representation, right? Calling them an electorate when referring to anything other than local DC politics is probably not appropriate.

JoeAltmaier 8y ago

UBI not tried yet... Alaska? Social Security? Pensions? The idle rich?

dragonwriter 8y ago
The Alaska Permanent Fund is the only one of those that even hits both of the U and I points of UBI (the rest are just I); it doesn't even target the B, though.
- JoeAltmaier 8y ago
  Of course they are basic. Many people live on social security, pensions. And they're a segment of the population. To study the result of a population receiving a BI, there's plenty of data.
  - dragonwriter 8y ago
    > Of course they are basic. Which of them completely displaces means-tested welfare to provide the support floor for all who are in the eligible population. Social Security doesn't. Pensions don't. Being idly rich might, I suppose, in that that is just “living of capital” but ignoring all the people who don't have a lot to live on. > And they're a segment of the population. To study the result of a population receiving a BI, there's plenty of data. Not relevant to UBI there isn't. Some segment of the population receiving income varying a Ross indiciduals based on their past work and investments isn't even loosely similar to the whole population of a community receiving equal unconditional UBI, and there is little reason to expect the former to provide much insight on the latter.
    - JoeAltmaier 8y ago
      and yet folks are studying UBI already by supplying individuals with a basic income and measuring their behavior. Including YC. You can't of course study the impact on the economy, but you can surely understand how people change with the UBI.

skrowl 8y ago

> because of the 'unfettered capitalism' ideology of many in Washington, which is heavily skewed to the right I'm going to assume you're not in the USA. Washington DC is over 70% Democrat (which is our left wing party) https://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/news/housing-complex/blog/13124106/mapping-d-c-s-party-affiliations-from-republican-georgetown-to-democratic-washington-highlands https://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/news/housing-complex/blo... Washington DC hasn't elected a Republican (our right wing party, about 6% of the population there) since the 1870s https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_party_strength_in_Washington,_D.C https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_party_strength_in_Wa....

tom_ 8y ago
It's probably a figure of speech, not to be taken literally. See, e.g., https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metonymy#Places_and_institutions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metonymy#Places_and_institutio...
- AsyncAwait 8y ago
  Correct. That's how I meant it.
dragonwriter 8y ago
> I'm going to assume you're not in the USA. Washington DC is over 70% Democrat (which is our left wing party) In American English, in political contexts, “Washington” is a frequently used idiom for “decision-makers in the US Federal Government”. (This applies mutatis mutandis, to the names of political capitals generally, which stand in for the leadership of the government seared their; in the context of discussions of a particular corporation or other organization, this also applies to the names of cities wherein regional or central HQs are related). Anyone who misses this has really no place commenting that other people must not be American because of ignorance free of the partisan alignment of the electorate in the capital district.
- drcoopster 8y ago
  > electorate in the capital district You know they don't have any real federal representation, right? Calling them an electorate when referring to anything other than local DC politics is probably not appropriate.