4 ms·

i just don't see how UBI survives a highly polarized, segregated society pumped out by the US media. imagine the headlines by Fox News as soon as they find 4 pe

i just don't see how UBI survives a highly polarized, segregated society pumped out by the US media. imagine the headlines by Fox News as soon as they find 4 people living together playing video games all day. or smoking pot. or etc. in a weird way it dangerously exposes people as, according to "the economy", particularly not valuable. the framing will go: these people are literally doing nothing and we're supporting them financially, no questions asked. that will draw a fair amount of outrage, i assume, given that the US can't even get that done for older and poorer people. that's why i think if you buy in to UBI, you sort of need whatever else Yang brought with it - measuring societal value differently, etc. otherwise you are looking at a situation where certain persons are going to be portrayed as truly valueless, bc in the US the economy dominates so much. and i don't think that bodes well for those people.

jawns 7y ago
This is not my opinion, but I think there are many people out there who would be happy for those four people to live together off UBI and play video games and smoke pot all day and literally do nothing to contribute to society. Why? Because it contains them. Otherwise, where would they be? If they have little interest in holding down a job, they're probably out committing crimes, or sitting in jail for those crimes. So the thinking goes that UBI is a way to contain them without having to jail them. I don't think this is the right way to think about this problem, but I think it's tempting to think this way.
- ThrowawayR2 7y ago
  Any form of entertainment is going to feel empty eventually and then you're right back at square one. A universal jobs program makes more sense as a form of containment; it needn't even be particularly onerous.
overthemoon 7y ago
I agree, although I think once it happens it stands a chance of being politically bulletproof--argue about it beforehand all you want, but once people have the 1k check in their hands, regardless of their means, it might be hard to take out. I believe the Alaska Permanent Fund is similar. My objection to it is that it'll be too easy to go after social programs, which for some I assume is the point--"you have the money, you don't need SNAP/Medicare/Social Security/etc". This proposal seems too much like an opportunistic attempt to trial the UBI. It'll be moderately successful on some metric, I'm sure, and that'll be used to push a permanent UBI.
dionidium 7y ago
imagine the headlines by Fox News as soon as they find 4 people living together playing video games all day. or smoking pot. or etc. You're right that it'll require a pretty fundamental shift in attitude. Some folks will still think people like that are losers. That's fine. But maybe we'll get to a point where they won't think such people, losers that they may be, are doing anything they're not entitled to be doing. That's the kind of shift in perception that's required to make it work. We're never going to agree with everyone else's choices. We need to agree that they're entitled to those choices.
- baumy 7y ago
  This comment is very weird to me. The hypothetical group of stoned gamers being discussed are certainly entitled to choose to spend their time smoking weed and playing games. I don't see how it follows that they're entitled to me subsidizing their choices with my tax dollars. I think people who are capable of holding a job / productively contributing to society but choose not to are indeed losers, and I will continue to think that way because it seems to me to be an obvious truth. I truly hope that does not change. Can you explain why I should think otherwise? I'm genuinely curious. I realize this is just a hypothetical but I can't imagine anyone having any sympathy for those people. There's also an argument to be made that enabling them is hurting more than helping, but I'm leaving that aside entirely for the moment. People have choices, and choices have consequences.
  - dionidium 7y ago
    Can you explain why I should think otherwise? I'm genuinely curious. Others have made the case far better than I could here. I wasn't actually trying to argue for or against it, just noting that 1) social perception of "freeloaders" is indeed a barrier to acceptance of UBI (as you succinctly demonstrate); but 2) relatively small shifts in perception could open a path for it, anyway.
- tucaz 7y ago
  They are 100% entitled to those choices. I can't disagree there. The only thing I disagree with is that I should have the choice to not pay for other people's choices of not doing nothing. If they want to be like that, they can as long as they don't interfere with everyone else's choice.
look_lookatme 7y ago
People's minds will change once they get that check.

jawns 7y ago

This is not my opinion, but I think there are many people out there who would be happy for those four people to live together off UBI and play video games and smoke pot all day and literally do nothing to contribute to society. Why? Because it contains them. Otherwise, where would they be? If they have little interest in holding down a job, they're probably out committing crimes, or sitting in jail for those crimes. So the thinking goes that UBI is a way to contain them without having to jail them. I don't think this is the right way to think about this problem, but I think it's tempting to think this way.

ThrowawayR2 7y ago
Any form of entertainment is going to feel empty eventually and then you're right back at square one. A universal jobs program makes more sense as a form of containment; it needn't even be particularly onerous.

overthemoon 7y ago

I agree, although I think once it happens it stands a chance of being politically bulletproof--argue about it beforehand all you want, but once people have the 1k check in their hands, regardless of their means, it might be hard to take out. I believe the Alaska Permanent Fund is similar. My objection to it is that it'll be too easy to go after social programs, which for some I assume is the point--"you have the money, you don't need SNAP/Medicare/Social Security/etc". This proposal seems too much like an opportunistic attempt to trial the UBI. It'll be moderately successful on some metric, I'm sure, and that'll be used to push a permanent UBI.

dionidium 7y ago

imagine the headlines by Fox News as soon as they find 4 people living together playing video games all day. or smoking pot. or etc. You're right that it'll require a pretty fundamental shift in attitude. Some folks will still think people like that are losers. That's fine. But maybe we'll get to a point where they won't think such people, losers that they may be, are doing anything they're not entitled to be doing. That's the kind of shift in perception that's required to make it work. We're never going to agree with everyone else's choices. We need to agree that they're entitled to those choices.

baumy 7y ago
This comment is very weird to me. The hypothetical group of stoned gamers being discussed are certainly entitled to choose to spend their time smoking weed and playing games. I don't see how it follows that they're entitled to me subsidizing their choices with my tax dollars. I think people who are capable of holding a job / productively contributing to society but choose not to are indeed losers, and I will continue to think that way because it seems to me to be an obvious truth. I truly hope that does not change. Can you explain why I should think otherwise? I'm genuinely curious. I realize this is just a hypothetical but I can't imagine anyone having any sympathy for those people. There's also an argument to be made that enabling them is hurting more than helping, but I'm leaving that aside entirely for the moment. People have choices, and choices have consequences.
- dionidium 7y ago
  Can you explain why I should think otherwise? I'm genuinely curious. Others have made the case far better than I could here. I wasn't actually trying to argue for or against it, just noting that 1) social perception of "freeloaders" is indeed a barrier to acceptance of UBI (as you succinctly demonstrate); but 2) relatively small shifts in perception could open a path for it, anyway.
tucaz 7y ago
They are 100% entitled to those choices. I can't disagree there. The only thing I disagree with is that I should have the choice to not pay for other people's choices of not doing nothing. If they want to be like that, they can as long as they don't interfere with everyone else's choice.

look_lookatme 7y ago

People's minds will change once they get that check.