5 ms·

I wonder if UBI could be marketed politically in this way, e.g. "Finally paying for all the things you've already been using" or "Finally paying for the free la

I wonder if UBI could be marketed politically in this way, e.g. "Finally paying for all the things you've already been using" or "Finally paying for the free labor you've based your life on" etc. type of messaging. I mean, it should be less guilt-y of course (I'm not in marketing) and somehow capture it's _society_ finally paying for the things generated by free/underpaid labor, not individual citizens, and not imply that people have been selfish etc.

jimkleiber 6y ago
I love this! This thread got me thinking that nurturing/feeding/raising a child could be seen as something a parent does not just for their family but for society, and if it were for society, is it now a paid job that requires minimum wage? And all of the other things that are "volunteer labor" but for corporations, which technically in the US one can't very legally volunteer for a for-profit company without compensation. I like the spin on seeing this from a new marketing angle, new framing.
- luckylion 6y ago
  Remember that, if you make it a job, you're no longer free to decide how you want to raise your children, what values to teach them etc, you're now just a caretaker that produces a labor source for their employer. I'm not sure that's such an attractive thought.
  - eulenteufel 6y ago
    There are a lot of self employed that have freedom on how to do their work. We could see it as self-employed contribution to the future of society. Also raising new citizens with a diverse set of values & beliefs is exactly what I would want to see. It would be horrible if their was some kind of institution that would dictate the same kind of upbringing for every child. However, in the end parenting is really not a job even though it provides value to society. That doesn't mean it doesn't have to be financially supported just because it is not like the kind of work that typically gets paid.
    - luckylion 6y ago
      Self employed people aren't disconnected from society though, they don't "work for themselves", they still need to offer something that others consider to have value. I don't think we want parenting to be judged in that regard, it does very much change the relationship between the individual and the state (and not in a good way imho).
path411 6y ago
Sadly I think the people who are against UBI now, really don't care about anything like that. If someone is so devoid of empathy that they don't want to provide such a basic financial safety net for people in their own country from living in homelessness/poverty, I don't think they really care about paying people who's work they've used unknowingly.
- trav4225 6y ago
  I'm pretty sure that most opposition to UBI has little to do with lack of empathy, but rather with practical economic reasoning and general beliefs about the role of government in society.
  - path411 6y ago
    Maybe I'm just too indoctrinated by reddit at this point, but someone would really have to give me a lot of real world evidence counter to not only the examples where UBI and other programs targeted towards the poor have benefited the economy. But even just to counter the pretty basic logic that more productive members of society helps the economy, and more money in the hands of people spending money, not hoarding money, means a better economy.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - kortilla 6y ago
      The counter evidence is simple, it costs $300 billion a month to provide 300 million adults with $1,000 a month. That’s $3.6 trillion a year. That’s the entire federal tax revenue consumed by UBI. So you need to double everyone’s income tax to get back to even. Of course there is evidence giving people free stuff improves their lives. The problem is that’s an insane amount of money that has to come from somewhere. To put that in context, the top 1% have an aggregate wealth in the US of about 34 trillion. So we could take all of the net worth from doctors, lawyers, business owners, CEOs, FAANG employees, etc and pay for this for about 10 years. Then we’re left with consuming the middle class and then we’ll just be out of wealth period. There is just no reasonable explanation for how this will be paid for. Even wealthy countries favorable to socialist policies (e.g. Norway) have nothing like UBI. Let me turn the question to you. What makes you think UBI is sustainable? You have to have some pretty damn good evidence when you’re betting the entire federal government budget on it.
kortilla 6y ago
That’s terrible messaging for UBI because it’s universal. It’s literally for people who haven’t meaningfully contributed anything to society as much as it is for the struggling underpaid artist. Framing it as “finally paying for something you’ve been getting for free” is an amazing way to kill it because you’re paying to support drunks, spouse abusers, racists, etc. That will immediately lead to discussions about criteria to receive it and it will no longer be UBI.

jimkleiber 6y ago

I love this! This thread got me thinking that nurturing/feeding/raising a child could be seen as something a parent does not just for their family but for society, and if it were for society, is it now a paid job that requires minimum wage? And all of the other things that are "volunteer labor" but for corporations, which technically in the US one can't very legally volunteer for a for-profit company without compensation. I like the spin on seeing this from a new marketing angle, new framing.

luckylion 6y ago
Remember that, if you make it a job, you're no longer free to decide how you want to raise your children, what values to teach them etc, you're now just a caretaker that produces a labor source for their employer. I'm not sure that's such an attractive thought.
- eulenteufel 6y ago
  There are a lot of self employed that have freedom on how to do their work. We could see it as self-employed contribution to the future of society. Also raising new citizens with a diverse set of values & beliefs is exactly what I would want to see. It would be horrible if their was some kind of institution that would dictate the same kind of upbringing for every child. However, in the end parenting is really not a job even though it provides value to society. That doesn't mean it doesn't have to be financially supported just because it is not like the kind of work that typically gets paid.
  - luckylion 6y ago
    Self employed people aren't disconnected from society though, they don't "work for themselves", they still need to offer something that others consider to have value. I don't think we want parenting to be judged in that regard, it does very much change the relationship between the individual and the state (and not in a good way imho).

path411 6y ago

Sadly I think the people who are against UBI now, really don't care about anything like that. If someone is so devoid of empathy that they don't want to provide such a basic financial safety net for people in their own country from living in homelessness/poverty, I don't think they really care about paying people who's work they've used unknowingly.

trav4225 6y ago
I'm pretty sure that most opposition to UBI has little to do with lack of empathy, but rather with practical economic reasoning and general beliefs about the role of government in society.
- path411 6y ago
  Maybe I'm just too indoctrinated by reddit at this point, but someone would really have to give me a lot of real world evidence counter to not only the examples where UBI and other programs targeted towards the poor have benefited the economy. But even just to counter the pretty basic logic that more productive members of society helps the economy, and more money in the hands of people spending money, not hoarding money, means a better economy.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - kortilla 6y ago
    The counter evidence is simple, it costs $300 billion a month to provide 300 million adults with $1,000 a month. That’s $3.6 trillion a year. That’s the entire federal tax revenue consumed by UBI. So you need to double everyone’s income tax to get back to even. Of course there is evidence giving people free stuff improves their lives. The problem is that’s an insane amount of money that has to come from somewhere. To put that in context, the top 1% have an aggregate wealth in the US of about 34 trillion. So we could take all of the net worth from doctors, lawyers, business owners, CEOs, FAANG employees, etc and pay for this for about 10 years. Then we’re left with consuming the middle class and then we’ll just be out of wealth period. There is just no reasonable explanation for how this will be paid for. Even wealthy countries favorable to socialist policies (e.g. Norway) have nothing like UBI. Let me turn the question to you. What makes you think UBI is sustainable? You have to have some pretty damn good evidence when you’re betting the entire federal government budget on it.

kortilla 6y ago

That’s terrible messaging for UBI because it’s universal. It’s literally for people who haven’t meaningfully contributed anything to society as much as it is for the struggling underpaid artist. Framing it as “finally paying for something you’ve been getting for free” is an amazing way to kill it because you’re paying to support drunks, spouse abusers, racists, etc. That will immediately lead to discussions about criteria to receive it and it will no longer be UBI.