4 ms·

Literally the entirety of that "argument" falls apart when one takes into consideration that unemployment benefits are regularly limited to a short time span an

Literally the entirety of that "argument" falls apart when one takes into consideration that unemployment benefits are regularly limited to a short time span and a fraction of your recent income, qualified by lay offs, not being fired or voluntarily leaving work, and even when they were extended due to something as disruptive as a GLOBAL PANDEMIC, the payments were still limited and are no longer in effect. And the fact that the most anyone could make was capped under 24,000 USD a year - if you consider anything above poverty level in the US in 2020/2021, then this conversation should stop here...

mlyle 5y ago
Look, this whole argument is terribly messy-- made so by entrenched political positions and lack of constructive dialog. The thing is, a terrible feature of current poverty programs in North America is the existence of cliffs, where the net resources of a household can decrease -- especially in the short to intermediate term-- if one pursues more lucrative careers. See https://www.atlantafed.org/economic-mobility-and-resilience/advancing-careers-for-low-income-families/what-are-benefits-cliffs https://www.atlantafed.org/economic-mobility-and-resilience/... This is at baseline. Some of the pandemic response measures have further worsened the picture. Work, in the short term, is punished. We need a (small) basic income, and to structure the rest of poverty programs to make sure these kinds of perverse incentives no longer exist.
- DarylZero 5y ago
  The cliffs are designed to divide the population on the issue of the benefits. Making benefits universal is understood as a way to make the population unite behind them long-term, a political danger to capitalist elites who benefit from worker precarity. Having no benefits at all is another political danger. The obvious cruelty of total economic exclusion results in social movements for reform. Crippled benefits gate-kept by a punitive bureaucratic layer are the stable compromise.
  - cplusplusfellow 5y ago
    > a political danger to capitalist elites who benefit from worker precarity. This seems like an unusually pejorative way of describing the desire to have a functioning economy, where workers actually have an incentive to work instead of being paid to Netflix and chill. And this article and its commentary are replete with examples that defy the usual straw men associated with arguments for UBI, if that helps. CERB at $2k a month is the prime example and the source of the original article.
    - DarylZero 5y ago
      I used objective, neutral language. You called it pejorative, then you used pejorative language. Ideological defense of capitalism often takes the same forms as denial of interpersonal abuse.
      - cplusplusfellow 5y ago
        Rather, “capitalist elites who benefit from precarious workers”, is not neutral or objective. That’s an editorialized and oversimplified view of what are the motivations and needs of people actually creating the jobs in the first place. There are likely more unproductive (deliberately) workers on balance who are siphoning wages from companies than there are “capitalist elites” who prey on their workers needing a job. The entire article and thread of comments demonstrate that people would prefer to stay at home and be paid than to work and be paid. It’s not hard to imagine why and see the negative downsides unless you’re one of the people trying to justify being paid to stay at home.
        DarylZero 5y ago
        > That’s an editorialized and oversimplified view of what are the motivations and needs I literally did not say anything about "motivations and needs." I referred to "benefit," as in their interests. Interests, motivations, and needs aren't all the same thing. You should know this and recognize it all by yourself! I'm really not interested in refuting your sociopathic little distortions. > people actually creating the jobs ROFL

mlyle 5y ago

Look, this whole argument is terribly messy-- made so by entrenched political positions and lack of constructive dialog. The thing is, a terrible feature of current poverty programs in North America is the existence of cliffs, where the net resources of a household can decrease -- especially in the short to intermediate term-- if one pursues more lucrative careers. See https://www.atlantafed.org/economic-mobility-and-resilience/advancing-careers-for-low-income-families/what-are-benefits-cliffs https://www.atlantafed.org/economic-mobility-and-resilience/... This is at baseline. Some of the pandemic response measures have further worsened the picture. Work, in the short term, is punished. We need a (small) basic income, and to structure the rest of poverty programs to make sure these kinds of perverse incentives no longer exist.

DarylZero 5y ago
The cliffs are designed to divide the population on the issue of the benefits. Making benefits universal is understood as a way to make the population unite behind them long-term, a political danger to capitalist elites who benefit from worker precarity. Having no benefits at all is another political danger. The obvious cruelty of total economic exclusion results in social movements for reform. Crippled benefits gate-kept by a punitive bureaucratic layer are the stable compromise.
- cplusplusfellow 5y ago
  > a political danger to capitalist elites who benefit from worker precarity. This seems like an unusually pejorative way of describing the desire to have a functioning economy, where workers actually have an incentive to work instead of being paid to Netflix and chill. And this article and its commentary are replete with examples that defy the usual straw men associated with arguments for UBI, if that helps. CERB at $2k a month is the prime example and the source of the original article.
  - DarylZero 5y ago
    I used objective, neutral language. You called it pejorative, then you used pejorative language. Ideological defense of capitalism often takes the same forms as denial of interpersonal abuse.
    - cplusplusfellow 5y ago
      Rather, “capitalist elites who benefit from precarious workers”, is not neutral or objective. That’s an editorialized and oversimplified view of what are the motivations and needs of people actually creating the jobs in the first place. There are likely more unproductive (deliberately) workers on balance who are siphoning wages from companies than there are “capitalist elites” who prey on their workers needing a job. The entire article and thread of comments demonstrate that people would prefer to stay at home and be paid than to work and be paid. It’s not hard to imagine why and see the negative downsides unless you’re one of the people trying to justify being paid to stay at home.
      - DarylZero 5y ago
        > That’s an editorialized and oversimplified view of what are the motivations and needs I literally did not say anything about "motivations and needs." I referred to "benefit," as in their interests. Interests, motivations, and needs aren't all the same thing. You should know this and recognize it all by yourself! I'm really not interested in refuting your sociopathic little distortions. > people actually creating the jobs ROFL