7 ms·

UBI fails to take into account human nature. 1) Crime and social unrest is directly correlated to perception of relative wealth inequality. Past a certain point

UBI fails to take into account human nature. 1) Crime and social unrest is directly correlated to perception of relative wealth inequality. Past a certain point, relative wealth has a dominant effect on life expectancy! [b] 2) Given the above point, the solution would seem to be a progressive tax on the wealthy. Unfortunately, this is very hard to make workable, as the wealthy have control of most of the wealth and power, and failing that, are the most mobile. http://www.sfindicatorproject.org/indicators/view/146 http://www.sfindicatorproject.org/indicators/view/146 ([b] Ichiro Kawachi, 2000. Income Inequality and Health. In Social Epidemiology. Eds. Lisa Berkman and Ichiro Kawachi. New York: Oxford University Press. Pp. 76-94.)

devoply 8y ago
> The French Revolution was a period of far-reaching social and political upheaval in France and its colonies beginning in 1789. The Revolution overthrew the monarchy, established a republic, catalyzed violent periods of political turmoil, and finally culminated in a dictatorship under Napoleon who brought many of its principles to areas he conquered in Western Europe and beyond. Inspired by liberal and radical ideas, the Revolution profoundly altered the course of modern history, triggering the global decline of absolute monarchies while replacing them with republics and liberal democracies. Similarly you could wrestle control out of the hands of the wealthy if you wanted to... it's just a question of what will replace that and not make it worse, i.e. Venezuela.
- stcredzero 8y ago
  it's just a question of what will replace that and not make it worse Periods of widespread terror and destruction should be remembered forever. No one should want that as a price for anything.
  - devoply 8y ago
    For whom? For instance there has been massive periods of terror and destruction in the Middle East. Americans in general agree it as a price for freedom from Saddam and the Taliban -- followed by the Islamic State. This was at the behest in many ways of the American wealthy who want more wealth by rebuilding those countries and seizing their oil deposit for international corporations. So terror and destruction are not remembered at all by those who perpetuate them and many humans use it as a common place tool for politically enriching themselves.
    - stcredzero 8y ago
      For instance there has been massive periods of terror and destruction in the Middle East. Americans in general agree it as a price for freedom from Saddam and the Taliban -- followed by the Islamic State. There are many who opposed the war, and feel that the American public was sold a bill of goods and lied to. There are many that would rather all that never happened.
skybrian 8y ago
It sounds like you're arguing in favor of redistribution, and UBI would work as part of that. Some sort of increase in progressive taxation (to fund it) would be the other part.
- stcredzero 8y ago
  Basically, redistribution only works well when the wealthy do it voluntarily for their personal glory and enlightened self interest. When they fail to do this, it might not be pretty.
  - dragonwriter 8y ago
    > Basically, redistribution only works well when the wealthy do it voluntarily for their personal glory and enlightened self interest. Well, that's the only way it works well for the wealthy, sure. > When they fail to do this, it might not be pretty. True, revolution against and liquidation of the elites and their hoards isn't pretty. Which is a good reason the wealthy ought to voluntarily, in their own enlightened self-interest, act to convince the rest of society that they are committed to voluntary, ongoing redistribution; institutionalizing UBI enthusiastically would be a way of doing that.
    - stcredzero 8y ago
      Well, that's the only way it works well for the wealthy, sure. Historically, when it's done by force, it doesn't work so well for the rest of society in the long term, either.
      - dragonwriter 8y ago
        > Historically, when it's done by force, it doesn't work so well for the rest of society in the long term, either. The French Revolution seems to have worked out reasonably well in the long term; the short-to-intermediate term, perhaps not as much.
        8y ago
Reedx 8y ago
What if you don't get UBI in jail? Incentive to keep out of trouble.
swayvil 8y ago
The primary cause of crime and social unrest is stressful jobs and inability to pay the bills. Get rid of that and see the general happiness explode.
- stcredzero 8y ago
  The primary cause of crime and social unrest is stressful jobs and inability to pay the bills. In other words: perception of relative status. People who are happy in their jobs, have enough to pay the bills, who have personal dignity, and who get genuine delight from their everyman/everywoman pastimes have good perceptions of their relative status. When everyone is truly "middle class" in perception, society is healthy.
- DougN7 8y ago
  The bills for what though? A car, iphone, internet, Netflix, attending movies? 100+ years ago people were happy without that. The reason we wouldn’t be today is our relatively poor way of life without them compared to those who have. I think the parent (grandparent) poster is correct.
  - kthejoker2 8y ago
    Wow, check your privilege. https://flowingdata.com/2018/02/08/how-different-income-groups-spend-money/ https://flowingdata.com/2018/02/08/how-different-income-grou... Housing, health care, food, and transportation make up close to 75% of of all household spending. And it's an even higher percentage the lower your income level. And on average people in our lowest income brackets spend more money than make - so really it's like they spend 100% of their income on necessities and then borrow for things like the Internet, travel to their uncle's funeral, repairing their broken heater, and so on. These are basic life functions, forget about an iPhone.
rhizome 8y ago
I agree that finances affect health outcomes and that government and policy is primarily the domain of upper classes, but you leave "human nature" undefined while it does pretty much all the work of holding up your point. Care to define or otherwise elaborate on that bit? I don't think it's "hard" per se to change the tax structure to be less advantageous to the wealthy, but it does take organization, imagination, and some money. For every $1,000 a representative received from corporations supporting net neutrality, like Google or Netflix, they were 24 percent more likely to vote for it. For every $1,000 from companies opposing it, they were 2.6 percent more likely to vote against. [1] So (under this study), regardless of which side you assign to wealthy interests, politician attention is pretty cheap. Furthermore, votes are leverage here (if not a multiplier) and it's a simple fact that there are magnitudes fewer wealthy voters than non wealthy. This can help make up for a lack of press attention. Long story short, I don't agree that UBI is unworkable any more than I believe that today's robber barons are untaxable. 1. https://theintercept.com/2017/05/04/how-much-does-a-politician-cost-a-groundbreaking-study-reveals-the-influence-of-money-in-politics/ https://theintercept.com/2017/05/04/how-much-does-a-politici...
- stcredzero 8y ago
  you leave "human nature" undefined while it does pretty much all the work of holding up your point. Care to define or otherwise elaborate on that bit? I'm referring to the the body of research around the GINI coefficient. It's not absolute poverty which causes crime and social unrest. It's perception of relative status, particularly its effect on people's calculation of their viability in the mating market. If people are so far down on the hierarchy, they have no chance, that's when they upend the game board. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M3XYHPAwBzE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M3XYHPAwBzE Long story short, I don't agree that UBI is unworkable any more than I believe that today's robber barons are untaxable. I never said that UBI is unworkable and I never said that the wealthy are untaxable. We know historically the 2nd isn't the case for the US. My point is that 1) it's not directly addressing the underlying problem and that 2) it will be hard to tax away the wealth of the wealthy. We appear to disagree on 2) but not really. Historically, the wealthy either donate their wealth voluntarily (in the case of Scandinavian countries, the culture is such that the entire society volunteers through voting for policies) or they're killed and imprisoned. (In the historical case of the US, it takes an outside existential threat.) So basically, you have to have some sort of change across the entire culture, either bloody or not.

devoply 8y ago

> The French Revolution was a period of far-reaching social and political upheaval in France and its colonies beginning in 1789. The Revolution overthrew the monarchy, established a republic, catalyzed violent periods of political turmoil, and finally culminated in a dictatorship under Napoleon who brought many of its principles to areas he conquered in Western Europe and beyond. Inspired by liberal and radical ideas, the Revolution profoundly altered the course of modern history, triggering the global decline of absolute monarchies while replacing them with republics and liberal democracies. Similarly you could wrestle control out of the hands of the wealthy if you wanted to... it's just a question of what will replace that and not make it worse, i.e. Venezuela.

stcredzero 8y ago
it's just a question of what will replace that and not make it worse Periods of widespread terror and destruction should be remembered forever. No one should want that as a price for anything.
- devoply 8y ago
  For whom? For instance there has been massive periods of terror and destruction in the Middle East. Americans in general agree it as a price for freedom from Saddam and the Taliban -- followed by the Islamic State. This was at the behest in many ways of the American wealthy who want more wealth by rebuilding those countries and seizing their oil deposit for international corporations. So terror and destruction are not remembered at all by those who perpetuate them and many humans use it as a common place tool for politically enriching themselves.
  - stcredzero 8y ago
    For instance there has been massive periods of terror and destruction in the Middle East. Americans in general agree it as a price for freedom from Saddam and the Taliban -- followed by the Islamic State. There are many who opposed the war, and feel that the American public was sold a bill of goods and lied to. There are many that would rather all that never happened.

skybrian 8y ago

It sounds like you're arguing in favor of redistribution, and UBI would work as part of that. Some sort of increase in progressive taxation (to fund it) would be the other part.

stcredzero 8y ago
Basically, redistribution only works well when the wealthy do it voluntarily for their personal glory and enlightened self interest. When they fail to do this, it might not be pretty.
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  > Basically, redistribution only works well when the wealthy do it voluntarily for their personal glory and enlightened self interest. Well, that's the only way it works well for the wealthy, sure. > When they fail to do this, it might not be pretty. True, revolution against and liquidation of the elites and their hoards isn't pretty. Which is a good reason the wealthy ought to voluntarily, in their own enlightened self-interest, act to convince the rest of society that they are committed to voluntary, ongoing redistribution; institutionalizing UBI enthusiastically would be a way of doing that.
  - stcredzero 8y ago
    Well, that's the only way it works well for the wealthy, sure. Historically, when it's done by force, it doesn't work so well for the rest of society in the long term, either.
    - dragonwriter 8y ago
      > Historically, when it's done by force, it doesn't work so well for the rest of society in the long term, either. The French Revolution seems to have worked out reasonably well in the long term; the short-to-intermediate term, perhaps not as much.
      - 8y ago

Reedx 8y ago

What if you don't get UBI in jail? Incentive to keep out of trouble.

swayvil 8y ago

The primary cause of crime and social unrest is stressful jobs and inability to pay the bills. Get rid of that and see the general happiness explode.

stcredzero 8y ago
The primary cause of crime and social unrest is stressful jobs and inability to pay the bills. In other words: perception of relative status. People who are happy in their jobs, have enough to pay the bills, who have personal dignity, and who get genuine delight from their everyman/everywoman pastimes have good perceptions of their relative status. When everyone is truly "middle class" in perception, society is healthy.
DougN7 8y ago
The bills for what though? A car, iphone, internet, Netflix, attending movies? 100+ years ago people were happy without that. The reason we wouldn’t be today is our relatively poor way of life without them compared to those who have. I think the parent (grandparent) poster is correct.
- kthejoker2 8y ago
  Wow, check your privilege. https://flowingdata.com/2018/02/08/how-different-income-groups-spend-money/ https://flowingdata.com/2018/02/08/how-different-income-grou... Housing, health care, food, and transportation make up close to 75% of of all household spending. And it's an even higher percentage the lower your income level. And on average people in our lowest income brackets spend more money than make - so really it's like they spend 100% of their income on necessities and then borrow for things like the Internet, travel to their uncle's funeral, repairing their broken heater, and so on. These are basic life functions, forget about an iPhone.

rhizome 8y ago

I agree that finances affect health outcomes and that government and policy is primarily the domain of upper classes, but you leave "human nature" undefined while it does pretty much all the work of holding up your point. Care to define or otherwise elaborate on that bit? I don't think it's "hard" per se to change the tax structure to be less advantageous to the wealthy, but it does take organization, imagination, and some money. For every $1,000 a representative received from corporations supporting net neutrality, like Google or Netflix, they were 24 percent more likely to vote for it. For every $1,000 from companies opposing it, they were 2.6 percent more likely to vote against. [1] So (under this study), regardless of which side you assign to wealthy interests, politician attention is pretty cheap. Furthermore, votes are leverage here (if not a multiplier) and it's a simple fact that there are magnitudes fewer wealthy voters than non wealthy. This can help make up for a lack of press attention. Long story short, I don't agree that UBI is unworkable any more than I believe that today's robber barons are untaxable. 1. https://theintercept.com/2017/05/04/how-much-does-a-politician-cost-a-groundbreaking-study-reveals-the-influence-of-money-in-politics/ https://theintercept.com/2017/05/04/how-much-does-a-politici...

stcredzero 8y ago
you leave "human nature" undefined while it does pretty much all the work of holding up your point. Care to define or otherwise elaborate on that bit? I'm referring to the the body of research around the GINI coefficient. It's not absolute poverty which causes crime and social unrest. It's perception of relative status, particularly its effect on people's calculation of their viability in the mating market. If people are so far down on the hierarchy, they have no chance, that's when they upend the game board. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M3XYHPAwBzE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M3XYHPAwBzE Long story short, I don't agree that UBI is unworkable any more than I believe that today's robber barons are untaxable. I never said that UBI is unworkable and I never said that the wealthy are untaxable. We know historically the 2nd isn't the case for the US. My point is that 1) it's not directly addressing the underlying problem and that 2) it will be hard to tax away the wealth of the wealthy. We appear to disagree on 2) but not really. Historically, the wealthy either donate their wealth voluntarily (in the case of Scandinavian countries, the culture is such that the entire society volunteers through voting for policies) or they're killed and imprisoned. (In the historical case of the US, it takes an outside existential threat.) So basically, you have to have some sort of change across the entire culture, either bloody or not.