3 ms·
The reason I think it is hard in the US is because there is a very strong "work or die" ethic in the US. Everything is driven by money. Even basic things like h
by bruce511 3mo ago
The reason I think it is hard in the US is because there is a very strong "work or die" ethic in the US. Everything is driven by money. Even basic things like healthcare are driven by money. Your life after retirement is determined by how much money you accumulated. The word-association between "poor" and "lazy" is strong. Taxation should be light. Each man should keep what he accumulates.
BI by contrast values people over money. It recognises not just the social responsibility of the rich to the poor, but also the dignity of being human.
Some countries are further along that path than others. Health care, education, unemployment benefits, are all steps towards BI. The wealthy are taxed to pay for the poor. Ultimately the suppresses the excess, while raising the floor.
From a cultural point of view, the US has many steps to take before society is really for (real) BI.
- ChrisMarshallNY 3mo agoI have an Irish friend that got a Ph.D, while on the dole. That would never happen, in the US. We have a strong “Why do they get special treatment?” thing going on.
- mikeocool 3mo agoI think I get your point, but few PhD candidates pay tuition in the US and most actually receive a living stipend. In exchange they act as teaching and/or research assistants.
- ChrisMarshallNY 3mo agoThat would be perceived differently. I guess we know that Ph.D Research/Teaching Assistants tend to be worked to death, and paid peanuts. The whiners would be OK with that.
- mlrtime 3mo agoTop 10% already pays 70.5% of all federal income taxes. US high income payers are already taxed to pay the poor. Almost half of US federal tax payers pay 0 income tax.
- ethbr1 3mo agoAnother way of looking at that is that the people who have been able to accumulate excessive gains from the capitalist system are forced to pay some of that back, to maintain the system that enriched them and those whose labor they profited from. That seems like a screwy but ultimately more than fair deal for the top 10%. Especially when the alternative is pitchforks and torches.
- cess11 3mo agoBefore you go to the capitalist in their home and torch it or beat them in front of their family, try striking for a while. Usually they soften rather quickly when labour is collectively withheld.
- ethbr1 3mo agoHence why corporate leadership is salivating over AI.
- cess11 3mo agoHow did you arrive at this conclusion?
- Ey7NFZ3P0nzAe 3mo agoYes but going on a strike without a union is hard, and they know that. > The percentage of workers belonging to a union (or total labor union "density") varies by country. In 2024 it was 9.4% in the United States, compared to 20.1% in 1983, the first year with data suitable for comparison.[2]: 1 [3] There were 14.3 million members in the U.S. in 2022, down from 17.7 million in 1983.[2][3] Union membership in the private sector has fallen to 6.0%, one fifth that of public sector workers, at 33.1% (2022).[2][3] From a global perspective, in 2016 the US had the fifth lowest labor union density of the 36 OECD member nations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_unions_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_unions_in_the_United_Sta...
- Ey7NFZ3P0nzAe 3mo agoI insist: > Cultural reasons are just a matter of spindoctoring/propaganda.