The United States Implements Universal Basic Income- temporarily.

N&P: Discuss governments, nations, politics and recent related news here.

Moderators: Alyrium Denryle, Edi, K. A. Pital

Post Reply
User avatar
The Romulan Republic
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 21014
Joined: 2008-10-15 01:37am

The United States Implements Universal Basic Income- temporarily.

Post by The Romulan Republic » 2020-03-20 12:33am

Mnuchin has announced the US coronavirus aid plan to give every American adult 1,000 dollars, 500 per child, within the next three weeks- and do it again if Trump's state of emergency declaration continues six weeks later.

https://cnbc.com/2020/03/19/coronavirus ... -kids.html
“The first one would be $1,000 per person, $500 per child,” Mnuchin said. “So for a family of four, that’s a $3,000 payment.”

“As soon as Congress passes this, we get this out in three weeks. And then, six weeks later, if the president still has a national emergency, we’ll deliver another $3,000,” Mnuchin said.

The Trump administration’s proposal comes as stocks continue to fall, jobless claims start to rise and the number of Americans infected with or killed by the COVID-19 virus continues to expand.

Mnuchin said the White House’s plan would also allocate $300 billion for small businesses, noting that “there will be loan forgiveness” for employees who keep their workers on the payroll. $200 billion would also be used for “more facilities” with the Federal Reserve, as well as secured lending to airlines and other critical industries being strangled by the crisis.

The administration’s plan may face opposition on Capitol Hill, however. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., argued on the floor of his chamber Wednesday that sending one-or-two-time checks would not provide enough to support people who lose their jobs.

Schumer suggested instead that providing expanded and “beefed-up” unemployment insurance would cover Americans “for a much longer time and would provide a much bigger safety net.”

Mnuchin has spoken with Schumer multiple times over the past few days.

President Donald Trump has already approved multiple emergency aid packages aimed at slowing the spread of the virus and helping Americans who could lose their jobs or otherwise be affected. An increasing number of cities and states have banned large gatherings of people and have forced many businesses to limit their services, sparking fears that mass unemployment could follow.

Earlier this month, the president signed into law an $8.3 billion bill that sailed through Congress with near-unanimous support. On Wednesday, Trump signed an additional $100 billion package that includes provisions for emergency paid leave for workers as well as free testing for the deadly virus.
I have to admit, of all the things I thought Donald Trump would do, "implement UBI", even temporarily, was not one of them.

He's still a fascist rapist piece of climate denying shit who let the crisis get this bad in the first place, of course- but just this once, it looks like he was forced to do the right thing. Of course, his main concern is probably "this will buy me votes", not "this will help Americans", and I don't like it being tied to the continuation of his state of emergency either.

This is going to be fucking massive for UBI, though, especially if it ends up being more than a one time thing (its highly unlikely this will settle back to anything like normal in less than three months, at this point). People are going to remember how much having a guaranteed income helped them through this, and with Yang and AOC simultaneously giving UBI high-profile political support for probably the first time in the US since McGovern, its going to be hard to put the genie back in the bottle, so to speak.
"I know its easy to be defeatist here because nothing has seemingly reigned Trump in so far. But I will say this: every asshole succeeds until finally, they don't. Again, 18 months before he resigned, Nixon had a sky-high approval rating of 67%. Harvey Weinstein was winning Oscars until one day, he definitely wasn't."-John Oliver

"The greatest enemy of a good plan is the dream of a perfect plan."-General Von Clauswitz, describing my opinion of Bernie or Busters and third partiers in a nutshell.

I SUPPORT A NATIONAL GENERAL STRIKE TO REMOVE TRUMP FROM OFFICE.

User avatar
The Romulan Republic
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 21014
Joined: 2008-10-15 01:37am

Re: The United States Implements Universal Basic Income- temporarily.

Post by The Romulan Republic » 2020-03-20 12:38am

I'll add that 2,000 dollars over nine weeks, if I understand the time table correctly, is very, very close to the 1,000 a month Andrew Yang based his Presidential primary campaign on.

I'm just glad that the people are getting a bailout, a really substantial one, and not just the corporations. Nothing like a crisis to force innovation and reform on people who would otherwise never consider it.
"I know its easy to be defeatist here because nothing has seemingly reigned Trump in so far. But I will say this: every asshole succeeds until finally, they don't. Again, 18 months before he resigned, Nixon had a sky-high approval rating of 67%. Harvey Weinstein was winning Oscars until one day, he definitely wasn't."-John Oliver

"The greatest enemy of a good plan is the dream of a perfect plan."-General Von Clauswitz, describing my opinion of Bernie or Busters and third partiers in a nutshell.

I SUPPORT A NATIONAL GENERAL STRIKE TO REMOVE TRUMP FROM OFFICE.

User avatar
aerius
Charismatic Cult Leader
Posts: 14622
Joined: 2002-08-18 07:27pm
Location: YHM

Re: The United States Implements Universal Basic Income- temporarily.

Post by aerius » 2020-03-20 01:03am

Someone sat him down and explained to him that with most of the country shut down or shutting down, the entire country is at high risk of literally going up in flames since the vast majority of people are just 1 paycheck away from starving in the streets. If the checks don't go out, you will likely have '92 LA riots in every single sizable city before the lockdowns are due to be lifted. The problem is this just blew a nice hole in the budget and it's completely unsustainable, the Treasury markets will only tolerate so much of this before it dislocates and sets off a chain reaction that makes the past few weeks of market action look like a picnic. The 2nd order effects from that will be...interesting...
Image
aerius: I'll vote for you if you sleep with me. :)
Lusankya: Deal!
Say, do you want it to be a threesome with your wife? Or a foursome with your wife and sister-in-law? I'm up for either. :P

Ralin
Sith Devotee
Posts: 2975
Joined: 2008-08-28 04:23am

Re: The United States Implements Universal Basic Income- temporarily.

Post by Ralin » 2020-03-20 01:03am

So, how would one go about applying for and receiving this money? Especially if they live abroad and don't have a US address?

User avatar
The Romulan Republic
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 21014
Joined: 2008-10-15 01:37am

Re: The United States Implements Universal Basic Income- temporarily.

Post by The Romulan Republic » 2020-03-20 01:17am

Ralin wrote:
2020-03-20 01:03am
So, how would one go about applying for and receiving this money? Especially if they live abroad and don't have a US address?
Yeah, that's a pressing question for me too, as a citizen living in Canada (it does also piss me off that this will probably only be for citizens, not permanent residents). Presuming its available to US citizens living abroad, you'll probably have to file a US tax return to get it, even if you wouldn't otherwise owe taxes- I believe that was the case with Bush's payout in 2008.
aerius wrote:
2020-03-20 01:03am
Someone sat him down and explained to him that with most of the country shut down or shutting down, the entire country is at high risk of literally going up in flames since the vast majority of people are just 1 paycheck away from starving in the streets. If the checks don't go out, you will likely have '92 LA riots in every single sizable city before the lockdowns are due to be lifted. The problem is this just blew a nice hole in the budget and it's completely unsustainable, the Treasury markets will only tolerate so much of this before it dislocates and sets off a chain reaction that makes the past few weeks of market action look like a picnic. The 2nd order effects from that will be...interesting...
Nothing like necessity to force assholes to do the right thing. Remember that the Black Death gets a lot of credit for ending feudalism. Humanity in general is really good at coming together and thinking outside the box when their survival is on the line- and really bad at doing it before things get that bad.

No, I don't imagine it is sustainable long-term, unless taxes are hiked considerably and/or major cuts are made elsewhere. Those are both things progressives will need to keep fighting hard for.

But its a start. For perhaps the first time since Biden wiped out Sanders in SC, I'm really feeling some hope for change for the better, even if the circumstances that brought it about are awful. But there are still so many ways it could go wrong in the coming months (not least being voters being blinded by the prospect of free cash into reelecting Trump in November).
"I know its easy to be defeatist here because nothing has seemingly reigned Trump in so far. But I will say this: every asshole succeeds until finally, they don't. Again, 18 months before he resigned, Nixon had a sky-high approval rating of 67%. Harvey Weinstein was winning Oscars until one day, he definitely wasn't."-John Oliver

"The greatest enemy of a good plan is the dream of a perfect plan."-General Von Clauswitz, describing my opinion of Bernie or Busters and third partiers in a nutshell.

I SUPPORT A NATIONAL GENERAL STRIKE TO REMOVE TRUMP FROM OFFICE.

User avatar
loomer
Sith Marauder
Posts: 3855
Joined: 2005-11-20 07:57am
Contact:

Re: The United States Implements Universal Basic Income- temporarily.

Post by loomer » 2020-03-20 10:07am

Ah, taking a leaf out of the Labor party playbook, eh?
"Doctors keep their scalpels and other instruments handy, for emergencies. Keep your philosophy ready too—ready to understand heaven and earth. In everything you do, even the smallest thing, remember the chain that links them. Nothing earthly succeeds by ignoring heaven, nothing heavenly by ignoring the earth." M.A.A.A

User avatar
The Romulan Republic
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 21014
Joined: 2008-10-15 01:37am

Re: The United States Implements Universal Basic Income- temporarily.

Post by The Romulan Republic » 2020-03-20 10:48am

Its gaining traction everywhere, at frankly stunning speed. Over 170 British MPs and Lords just called for UBI for the duration of the pandemic:

https://independent.co.uk/news/uk/polit ... 13046.html
"I know its easy to be defeatist here because nothing has seemingly reigned Trump in so far. But I will say this: every asshole succeeds until finally, they don't. Again, 18 months before he resigned, Nixon had a sky-high approval rating of 67%. Harvey Weinstein was winning Oscars until one day, he definitely wasn't."-John Oliver

"The greatest enemy of a good plan is the dream of a perfect plan."-General Von Clauswitz, describing my opinion of Bernie or Busters and third partiers in a nutshell.

I SUPPORT A NATIONAL GENERAL STRIKE TO REMOVE TRUMP FROM OFFICE.

User avatar
The Romulan Republic
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 21014
Joined: 2008-10-15 01:37am

Re: The United States Implements Universal Basic Income- temporarily.

Post by The Romulan Republic » 2020-03-20 10:40pm

Well, Republicans have managed to wreck it already:

https://newyorker.com/news/our-columnis ... l-of-holes
n Thursday afternoon, Mitch McConnell, the Senate Majority Leader, released a two-hundred-and-forty-seven-page spending bill designed to stabilize the economy during the great covid-19 shutdown. It would provide financial assistance to individuals and businesses, including direct payments of up to twelve hundred dollars for Americans who earn less than a hundred thousand dollars a year. Although the bill didn’t come with an official price tag, analysts estimated the total cost of its proposals was roughly eight hundred billion dollars.

Despite the bill’s length, its publication is merely the opening bid in a set of negotiations that will begin on Friday. With McConnell seven short of the sixty votes necessary to pass the measure, he will have to engage in some horse-trading with Democrats. As the economic fallout from the coronavirus spreads, virtually everyone on Capitol Hill now agrees that a larger-scale fiscal package is necessary. (On Wednesday, the Senate passed an emergency spending bill worth about a hundred billion dollars.) But there is a lot less agreement on what the big package should contain. The McConnell bill is slanted toward helping small businesses and large corporations. Democrats want more money for people who are losing their jobs and for states that are fighting the virus.

The New Yorker’s coronavirus news coverage and analysis are free for all readers.
On Thursday night, I spoke with Gene Sperling, who served as the head of the National Economic Council at the White House under Bill Clinton and Barack Obama. He was closely involved in discussions about the 2009 stimulus package, the bailout of Chrysler, and the payroll-tax cut of 2010. When I reached him, he had just finished reading McConnell’s bill. “As far as I can see,” Sperling said, “it has four big holes.”

The first is that the bill fails to expand paid sick leave, which was included in legislation that the Senate passed on Wednesday. Democrats had been pushing for a twelve-week eligibility period, but Republicans insisted on limiting it to two weeks with exemptions for businesses with more than five hundred employees. “If you stay home to look after a family member and at the end of two weeks you fall sick yourself, your sick leave will have run out, so you will have an incentive to return to work and infect people there,” Sperling pointed out.

That doesn’t make any sense. Neither does the fact that, under McConnell’s proposal, low-income people and the disabled would receive smaller cash payments than everybody else—as little as six hundred dollars. Sperling rightly described this feature as inexcusable. On Thursday night, even some Republicans, including Senator Josh Hawley, of Missouri, distanced themselves from the bill.

The third hole that Sperling identified is the bill’s failure to provide sufficient financial aid to states and municipalities that are in desperate need of medical supplies, protective equipment, and additional hospital capacity. With the number of covid-19 cases rising dramatically, there is also an urgent need to bolster the federal share of Medicaid, the federal health-care program that covers seventy-five million low-income American adults and children, which the states administer and partly finance. At the end of last week, I wrote about a detailed plan from a group of public-health experts and former health officials that addresses these needs. The Senate bill barely addresses them.

Given Republican recalcitrance, it may not be easy to fill these three holes. At least in theory, though, doing so would be straightforward. But the fourth issue that Sperling identified raises fundamental questions about how to deal with what is rapidly emerging as one of the biggest problems of all: mass joblessness. In California on Tuesday, eighty thousand people applied for unemployment benefits, the Los Angeles Times reported. That’s about forty times the normal rate of applications, and it won’t be long before we see similar trends in other states.

The unemployment-insurance system, which dates back to the New Deal, is the first line of defense against mass joblessness. In its current form, however, it isn’t up to the huge task at hand. Qualified workers are entitled to receive roughly half of their previous earnings, up to a certain cap, for a period of six months. But the system doesn’t cover gig workers and other self-employed individuals. To be eligible for benefits, you need to have been categorized as a wage employee at the job you lost, and, in today’s economy, many workers aren’t categorized that way. Sperling believes unemployment insurance should cover a hundred per cent of the labor force for at least the next few months.

“I’m talking to people—Uber drivers, tutors, domestic workers, people who teach yoga—and they are telling me they are losing about ninety per cent of their business through no fault of their own,” Sperling told me. Under the Republican proposal, most of these people—as well as other types of workers—would qualify to receive a direct payment of up to twelve hundred dollars, more if they have children. But, as Sperling pointed out, such a payment “is never going to be enough” for people who are likely to be out of work for months to cover the cost of their rents or mortgage payments, food, and other expenses. Last week, I raised the idea of sending out monthly checks of a thousand dollars to all Americans, which would amount to adopting a temporary version of Andrew Yang’s universal-basic-income proposal. The Senate bill only proposes a one-time payment, which would be woefully inadequate for those being hitting hardest by the virus shutdown.

Sperling and a number of other experts believe it would be quicker and fairer to enroll self-employed people in the unemployment-insurance system, at least temporarily. Emmanuel Saez and Gabriel Zucman, two economists at the University of California, Berkeley, who worked on Elizabeth Warren’s wealth tax, have put forward a plan along these lines. Under their proposal, self-employed “individuals (such as gig workers) could report themselves as idle and be eligible for this special unemployment insurance” for a limited time period.

It’s not clear whether Chuck Schumer and other prominent Democrats will get behind this suggestion. “It is one of those proposals that was considered a far-out idea a short while ago but is quickly becoming regarded as reasonable,” Mike Konczal, the director for progressive thought at the Roosevelt Institute, who has written a useful guide to the stimulus debate, told me on Thursday evening. After a remarkable couple of weeks, that analysis applies to a lot of policy proposals. At this stage, it remains unclear which ones will make it into the final stimulus legislation, even though both sides say they want to get it passed rapidly.

One item virtually certain to be included is a loan package for large companies whose businesses the pandemic has battered, such as airlines. McConnell’s bill sets aside more than two hundred billion dollars for this purpose. Companies that receive government loans would have to limit the pay of their senior executives. But this stipulation stops far short of Democratic demands that loan recipients should be required to maintain their payrolls, refrain from stock buybacks, and pay their workers a minimum wage of fifteen dollars an hour. “Any bailout should be conditioned on a set of reforms that make workers and businesses more resilient to future external shocks, and to prevent the kind of broad-based political distrust that followed from the poorly structured bailouts during the financial crisis,” Konczal wrote in his paper.

Finally, there is the question of whether this stimulus is big enough. If the covid-19 shutdown extends beyond a few weeks, which seems highly likely, it probably isn’t. Some economists are talking about an economic-rescue package of two trillion dollars, or even three trillion dollars, being needed. In other words, whatever happens in Washington during the next few days, we will likely be back here again very soon.
Yeah, Moscow Mitch literally put forward a bill where the poorer you are, the less money you get. Fucking Hell. The good news is its so awful that even some Republicans are finding it hard to stomach.

#eattherich
"I know its easy to be defeatist here because nothing has seemingly reigned Trump in so far. But I will say this: every asshole succeeds until finally, they don't. Again, 18 months before he resigned, Nixon had a sky-high approval rating of 67%. Harvey Weinstein was winning Oscars until one day, he definitely wasn't."-John Oliver

"The greatest enemy of a good plan is the dream of a perfect plan."-General Von Clauswitz, describing my opinion of Bernie or Busters and third partiers in a nutshell.

I SUPPORT A NATIONAL GENERAL STRIKE TO REMOVE TRUMP FROM OFFICE.

Nicholas
Youngling
Posts: 77
Joined: 2018-07-17 09:03am

Re: The United States Implements Universal Basic Income- temporarily.

Post by Nicholas » 2020-03-21 04:23pm

This should not be that much of a surprise. Only the stupid and ideologues who have completely lost touch with reality believe that the same action is appropriate for every situation. The best arguments against UBI have always been the entirely predictable psychological, social, political and moral effects it will have on those for whom it is the primary source of income. As long as the government is encouraging people to engage in the extremely unhealthy behaviors of not leaving their house and seeing no one because of fear of COVID-19 those arguments don't work. So in this situation UBI makes sense.

Add in the following facts.

1)Trump has changed the class affiliation of the political parties.
2)The core of the Republican Party today is people who live on a paycheck.
3) Competent politicians protect the economic interests of their voters.

And Republics supporting UBI in this situation is fairly predictable.

Nicholas

User avatar
Ziggy Stardust
Sith Devotee
Posts: 3046
Joined: 2006-09-10 10:16pm
Location: Research Triangle, NC

Re: The United States Implements Universal Basic Income- temporarily.

Post by Ziggy Stardust » 2020-03-21 05:59pm

Wait, are you seriously claiming that UBI would result in some sort of "psychological, social, political, and moral" decay? And then somehow moving from that thought into intimating that the social distancing / self-quarantine policies being used to combat the pandemic are "extremely unhealthy"? I'm not sure whether there is some sort of medication you're supposed to be taking or if you're taking too much of something you're not supposed to.

Nicholas
Youngling
Posts: 77
Joined: 2018-07-17 09:03am

Re: The United States Implements Universal Basic Income- temporarily.

Post by Nicholas » 2020-03-21 08:16pm

Ziggy Stardust wrote:
2020-03-21 05:59pm
Wait, are you seriously claiming that UBI would result in some sort of "psychological, social, political, and moral" decay? And then somehow moving from that thought into intimating that the social distancing / self-quarantine policies being used to combat the pandemic are "extremely unhealthy"? I'm not sure whether there is some sort of medication you're supposed to be taking or if you're taking too much of something you're not supposed to.
They are two completely unrelated arguments neither of which I bothered to develop since I assumed people here would know them even if they didn't agree with them. Since that is apparently untrue...

Yes, I think UBI would result in "psychological, social, political and moral" decay among those who rely on it as their principle source of income. Please, note the qualifier I am not predicting that society as a whole would collapse as a result of UBI. What I am saying is that humans are social animals who have an innate need to contribute to the society in which they live and an innate need to feel respected within that society. In our society both of those needs are generally met through work (this is why society is unlikely to collapse most people will keep working for these benefits even if their need to work for self support is reduced). But not everyone will and those who do not will have large amounts of free time on there hands and a declining sense of self respect (since not paying the UBI back at tax time will imply that you are living on the charity of others and charity always humiliates). Most of the time the result of this is self destructive behavior of all types. The second most common response is political activism, violent political parties recruit most successfully among those wealthy enough (either through inheritance or charity) not to need a job but in desperate need of a way to give meaning to their lives (meaning is a synonym in this context for contributing to society). The first group will experience psychological and moral decay personally and their own decay will weaken society. The second will experience political decay as they become more extreme and violent and their violence will harm society. The pattern is fairly consistent across all forms of welfare and I don't see any reason to expect UBI to be different. This of course does not mean that we should let the poor starve instead of helping them.

As social distancing / self-quarantining being "extremely unhealthy" I was referring to the policies enacted in many places to keep people in their homes for weeks on end. Humans are social animals who need to interact with others and get exercise and natural light for their mental and physical health. Staying home like this interferes with all of these. I really can't believe it is necessary to lay out why staying home for weeks is bad for people so I won't I will simply make a prediction. When we get the data we will find that areas that had multi-week periods where people were forbidden from going outside experienced a significant increase in suicide, obesity, drug use, domestic violence and psychological problems. Do you disagree with that, if so on what basis? This of course does not mean that social distancing / self-quarantining is more unhealthy then getting COVID-19 but that is a really really low bar.

Nicholas

User avatar
Jub
Sith Marauder
Posts: 3887
Joined: 2012-08-06 07:58pm
Location: British Columbia, Canada

Re: The United States Implements Universal Basic Income- temporarily.

Post by Jub » 2020-03-21 08:58pm

Nicholas wrote:
2020-03-21 08:16pm
Yes, I think UBI would result in "psychological, social, political and moral" decay among those who rely on it as their principle source of income.
Please, show me any cases of this happening in places where UBI has been trialed and that such 'decay' isn't offset by the increased wellbeing of the majority of UBI recipients. As well, shouldn't these effects also be noticeable in people who already depend on government income to survive such as those on disability? How about those wealthy enough to either never have worked at all or who have retired young?

Also factor in that, now having money to spend, these same people may actually interact with society more than they are currently. Then consider those for whom a regular work schedule isn't tenable but for who irregular volunteer positions allow them to meaningfully engage with and benefit society.

In short, you're a narrow mind jackass who's never put a second of thought into UBI and who's just parroting ideas that those against UBI have been spouting for decades now.

User avatar
Zaune
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 6725
Joined: 2010-06-21 11:05am
Location: In Transit
Contact:

Re: The United States Implements Universal Basic Income- temporarily.

Post by Zaune » 2020-03-21 09:44pm

Ziggy Stardust wrote:
2020-03-21 05:59pm
Wait, are you seriously claiming that UBI would result in some sort of "psychological, social, political, and moral" decay? And then somehow moving from that thought into intimating that the social distancing / self-quarantine policies being used to combat the pandemic are "extremely unhealthy"? I'm not sure whether there is some sort of medication you're supposed to be taking or if you're taking too much of something you're not supposed to.
He's not wrong about the second point; social distancing and self-isolating are not something that humans can keep up indefinitely without psychological harm, and that's a problem we're going to have to deal with if this crisis lasts long enough.

But even if long-term unemployment did cause psychological, social, political, and moral decay then I guarantee that adding poverty and victim-blaming to the problem will be the exact opposite of helpful.
There are hardly any excesses of the most crazed psychopath that cannot easily be duplicated by a normal kindly family man who just comes in to work every day and has a job to do.
-- (Terry Pratchett, Small Gods)


Replace "ginger" with "n*gger," and suddenly it become a lot less funny, doesn't it?
-- fgalkin


Like my writing? Tip me on Patreon

I Have A Blog

User avatar
The Romulan Republic
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 21014
Joined: 2008-10-15 01:37am

Re: The United States Implements Universal Basic Income- temporarily.

Post by The Romulan Republic » 2020-03-21 09:52pm

Zaune wrote:
2020-03-21 09:44pm
Ziggy Stardust wrote:
2020-03-21 05:59pm
Wait, are you seriously claiming that UBI would result in some sort of "psychological, social, political, and moral" decay? And then somehow moving from that thought into intimating that the social distancing / self-quarantine policies being used to combat the pandemic are "extremely unhealthy"? I'm not sure whether there is some sort of medication you're supposed to be taking or if you're taking too much of something you're not supposed to.
He's not wrong about the second point; social distancing and self-isolating are not something that humans can keep up indefinitely without psychological harm, and that's a problem we're going to have to deal with if this crisis lasts long enough.

But even if long-term unemployment did cause psychological, social, political, and moral decay then I guarantee that adding poverty and victim-blaming to the problem will be the exact opposite of helpful.
The other point here is that not having a traditional job is not the same as inactivity. The idea that most people will be content to lounge around being lazy and doing nothing if they don't have to work is not one I buy. Its just part and parcel of the Right's blame the poor rhetoric. From personal experience, there are few states more horrible than prolonged inactivity- which is why most people will find something productive to do, even if they don't have to. What UBI does is give them a safety net of guranteed income (which probably won't be enough to live comfortably on for long by itself), thus freeing them to volunteer, to take a risk and try to start their own business, to, in short, do something they love, something meaningful to them, rather than have to find their meaning in working eight or ten or fifteen hours a day at minimum wage to make businessmen they've never met richer.

Which of those is more fulfilling, and which is more degrading? The answer should be obvious to anyone who isn't a complete tool of the corporatist system, or one of its beneficiaries in the one percent.
"I know its easy to be defeatist here because nothing has seemingly reigned Trump in so far. But I will say this: every asshole succeeds until finally, they don't. Again, 18 months before he resigned, Nixon had a sky-high approval rating of 67%. Harvey Weinstein was winning Oscars until one day, he definitely wasn't."-John Oliver

"The greatest enemy of a good plan is the dream of a perfect plan."-General Von Clauswitz, describing my opinion of Bernie or Busters and third partiers in a nutshell.

I SUPPORT A NATIONAL GENERAL STRIKE TO REMOVE TRUMP FROM OFFICE.

User avatar
Zaune
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 6725
Joined: 2010-06-21 11:05am
Location: In Transit
Contact:

Re: The United States Implements Universal Basic Income- temporarily.

Post by Zaune » 2020-03-22 08:39am

The Romulan Republic wrote:
2020-03-21 09:52pm
The other point here is that not having a traditional job is not the same as inactivity. The idea that most people will be content to lounge around being lazy and doing nothing if they don't have to work is not one I buy. Its just part and parcel of the Right's blame the poor rhetoric. From personal experience, there are few states more horrible than prolonged inactivity- which is why most people will find something productive to do, even if they don't have to. What UBI does is give them a safety net of guranteed income (which probably won't be enough to live comfortably on for long by itself), thus freeing them to volunteer, to take a risk and try to start their own business, to, in short, do something they love, something meaningful to them, rather than have to find their meaning in working eight or ten or fifteen hours a day at minimum wage to make businessmen they've never met richer.

Which of those is more fulfilling, and which is more degrading? The answer should be obvious to anyone who isn't a complete tool of the corporatist system, or one of its beneficiaries in the one percent.
I don't disagree, but I find it better to focus primarily on the purely pragmatic argument that technological unemployment isn't going to go away and we don't have any convenient colonies to dump our surplus population in, so we're going to have to do something with everyone whose labour no longer has value in a capitalist society.
There are hardly any excesses of the most crazed psychopath that cannot easily be duplicated by a normal kindly family man who just comes in to work every day and has a job to do.
-- (Terry Pratchett, Small Gods)


Replace "ginger" with "n*gger," and suddenly it become a lot less funny, doesn't it?
-- fgalkin


Like my writing? Tip me on Patreon

I Have A Blog

Post Reply