4 ms·

Policymaking is hard, it's never quite fair, but those seem like awfully addressable problems to me. I mean, you don't "have" to cut disability entitlements if

Policymaking is hard, it's never quite fair, but those seem like awfully addressable problems to me. I mean, you don't "have" to cut disability entitlements if that's not politically feasible. Cut what you can, and adjust as needed. It's not a reason to Refuse To Get Started On The Problem, which is what nitpicky criticism like this gets used for in practice. I mean, the core idea of the article is that direct cash benefits reduces poverty directly, in a quantifiable way (there are some numbers already!). That takes a sword directly to the Gordian knot of the policymaking kerfufflery, and that evidence and its attendent simplicity is far more (FAR more) important to achieving a solution than "getting the right solution". Better vs. Perfect, basically.

IG_Semmelweiss 6y ago
Government never gets smaller So lets see what bigger & better gets us. 1)stock market back to precovid levels... even though job and economic losses are widespread. That is not normal, but it is logical given the cash flooding all assets now. 2) sticky unemployment largely affecting minorities and the youngest. 3) the conversation has shifted from... where can we reduce the govt footprint?. To, should this new thing be done? In effect - Leaders today are leaving a legacy of destruction and misery that will be reaped by our grandchildren. Our leaders are perpetrating the largest ever robbery of future generations. Its inmoral and it is not "better"
mikepurvis 6y ago
> Cut what you can, and adjust as needed. It's not a reason to Refuse To Get Started On The Problem, which is what nitpicky criticism like this gets used for in practice. Fair, but UBI advocates very often do things like bundle up all existing social payments, divide the total dollar value by the population size, and say "look how efficient it would be if we just gave this money away rather than having a complicated set of bureaucracies charged with disbursing it fairly!" If the argument for how affordable UBI is hangs on this kind of logic, then yeah, it is pretty relevant to take an upfront look at what proportion of existing program funding (and associated bureaucracy) are actually candidates for being replaced like this. Some are obvious exclusions, like anything to do with mental or physical disabilities, and some are fairly clearly covered under UBI, like unemployment insurance. But a huge pool of them are pretty murky— think especially of things like child/family benefits, or anything to do with education or job retraining.
- newacct583 6y ago
  > UBI advocates very often do things like [play games with numbers to make a point] Which is EXACTLY why the kind of data we're deriving now, based on real world policymaking, and as described in the linked article, is so important. It's impossible to refute with more funny numbers. > If the argument for how affordable UBI is hangs on this kind of logic It doesn't! That's the amazing thing. You guys need an entirely new kind of spin, now.
  - mikepurvis 6y ago
    Not sure what you're accusing me of spinning here. I want UBI to work, and I want it to be affordable. But more than that, I want the underlying problem solved, which is income and wealth inequality. What I don't want, is to see a bunch of half-baked policies rushed out the door, only to be shuttered a few years later and tossed onto the pile of "lol communism always fails" just-so stories, with the door to change closed for another generation. Going into these kinds of major efforts with a "better vs perfect" attitude has a high risk of alienating those for whom it may well not be "better", especially if they are members of a vulnerable group that has a high reliance on the present system.

IG_Semmelweiss 6y ago

Government never gets smaller So lets see what bigger & better gets us. 1)stock market back to precovid levels... even though job and economic losses are widespread. That is not normal, but it is logical given the cash flooding all assets now. 2) sticky unemployment largely affecting minorities and the youngest. 3) the conversation has shifted from... where can we reduce the govt footprint?. To, should this new thing be done? In effect - Leaders today are leaving a legacy of destruction and misery that will be reaped by our grandchildren. Our leaders are perpetrating the largest ever robbery of future generations. Its inmoral and it is not "better"

mikepurvis 6y ago

> Cut what you can, and adjust as needed. It's not a reason to Refuse To Get Started On The Problem, which is what nitpicky criticism like this gets used for in practice. Fair, but UBI advocates very often do things like bundle up all existing social payments, divide the total dollar value by the population size, and say "look how efficient it would be if we just gave this money away rather than having a complicated set of bureaucracies charged with disbursing it fairly!" If the argument for how affordable UBI is hangs on this kind of logic, then yeah, it is pretty relevant to take an upfront look at what proportion of existing program funding (and associated bureaucracy) are actually candidates for being replaced like this. Some are obvious exclusions, like anything to do with mental or physical disabilities, and some are fairly clearly covered under UBI, like unemployment insurance. But a huge pool of them are pretty murky— think especially of things like child/family benefits, or anything to do with education or job retraining.

newacct583 6y ago
> UBI advocates very often do things like [play games with numbers to make a point] Which is EXACTLY why the kind of data we're deriving now, based on real world policymaking, and as described in the linked article, is so important. It's impossible to refute with more funny numbers. > If the argument for how affordable UBI is hangs on this kind of logic It doesn't! That's the amazing thing. You guys need an entirely new kind of spin, now.
- mikepurvis 6y ago
  Not sure what you're accusing me of spinning here. I want UBI to work, and I want it to be affordable. But more than that, I want the underlying problem solved, which is income and wealth inequality. What I don't want, is to see a bunch of half-baked policies rushed out the door, only to be shuttered a few years later and tossed onto the pile of "lol communism always fails" just-so stories, with the door to change closed for another generation. Going into these kinds of major efforts with a "better vs perfect" attitude has a high risk of alienating those for whom it may well not be "better", especially if they are members of a vulnerable group that has a high reliance on the present system.