Before I had a programmer job when i was younger, i completely 100% empathize with her in having those types of thankless jobs and constantly being tired. I can't imagine being trapped in that going forward. I bootstrapped my situation but I had a nice parents, a middle-class upbringing and a decent school to start everything, and a knack for programming... but I know/met so many who do not have this leg up in whatever they do in those experiences and have to continue that scraping by. This is why I lean toward UBI. I know both people who really want to succeed but are stuck from so many things or even people that will never try. It is what it is and is only getting worse with automation. I feel sorry for people that have not experienced these things that insist of the work ethic being the answer and are blind to reality.
I come from a broken home with one parent neglectful the other with mental illness(my mum is amazing but she had massive issues for over a decade which fortunately have improved), I worked minimum wage jobs for nearly a decade before I got myself out of that trap by something that was a solace and a hobby becoming a career.
I whole heartedly support people who organise to ensure a more equitable split for people like them, I got out the trap but for every me there is a dozen who didn’t, never will.
I was fortunate to be born in the U.K. and for the last 39 years at least have never had to worry about health insurance care, that’s just the final cherry on the shit sundae isn’t it.
She works full time hours but because it’s split over two jobs neither corp provides medical insurance, what an insane inhumane system.
100% agree that something needs to happen. The way we treat less-fortunate people is shameful and undignified.
My biggest concern with UBI specifically is that it will be absorbed by landlords and other societal rent-seekers. My personal opinion is that we should democratize workplaces, through unions in the short-term and co-ops in the long term. McDonalds cashiers should have a say in their working conditions beyond the bare minimum employment regulations (that are so often ignored in retail and food services).
Keeping people constantly tired and "on the edge" might be a deliberate strategy. Or at least a very convenient coincidence. If they're too tired and too reliant on their current jobs to protest or quit, they'll stay quiet and politically compliant.
While I wouldn't be _surprised_ if it's a deliberate strategy, I think it's more likely that the incentives just align in, as you said, a very convenient coincidence for the political elite and bourgeois interests in society.
> The way we treat less-fortunate people is shameful and undignified.
i think the crux has always been separating the unfortunate from the lazy. i don't think anyone would have serious a problem with supporting the former if the latter could be sieved.
I honestly don't think this is that important, and I think means-testing or 'laziness'-testing is more effort than it's worth.
There will always be lazy people in society, and we have a lot of evidence that lazy people are a burden no matter how hard we try to make their lives. I'm happier giving people enough to get by unconditionally than having them steal or cheat enough to get by.
Trapping people in poverty means if they decided to not be lazy at some point, it's incredibly hard for them to get out of their situation and it's much more likely for them to fail. Furthermore, poverty only affects poor lazy people. Rich lazy people (those that got lucky or were born into wealth) can live on dividends their whole lives with no 'punishment'.
Lastly, attempts to distinguish lazy people from non-lazy people are easily corrupted by monied interests that don't want to pay as much into society. See the 'welfare queen' narrative that was popular under Reagan.
Teams suffer tremendously when they are forced to include lazy people. You get the additional Mythical-Man-Month complexity without any gain in productivity.
Society would be better off if lazy people were excused from the workforce. The weird obsession with forcing everyone to run on a treadmill has got to go.
The older I get the more I think labels like "lazy" are not really useful.
Some people are beaten down, discouraged, unexcited at doing hard manual labour for just enough money to get them through to the next day. And some, even if you get them to work, are not going to be much use there.
I know in my own career (have worked for decades with no sabbaticals or more than 3 weeks off at a time), I'm really lucky to do a job that I find interesting. That allows me to really dig in and work long and hard.
If I was doing a shitty manual labour job I think I'd revert from being an apparently extremely hard working person to one of the laziest ones around.
This is a very good point. Beating people down rarely results in their most productive work. Any good manager knows this.
Hell, I generally enjoy my job but go though legitimately lazy periods. These are well-contrasted by productive periods, but 9-5 work is a strange thing and people aren't machines.
My point was mostly that even if these imaginary lazy people exist, it doesn't invalidate the need for real economic freedom where you can choose not to work. You were fair to call that out as a lame take though, and I appreciate the perspective.
This makes me literally laugh. McDonald’s employees will destroy whatever they are given control over. In the past, smart people could get out. But with automation we need to change our views because then people really will be trapped in these kinds of jobs. Ubi or something.
I give a lot of credit to my success to my work ethic, which was nurtured by my parents encouraging me to work at a young age. Paper route by 10, then a soccer referee, then a janitor in a public ice arena. It’s amazing what you learn about hard work from cleaning a hockey locker room. The thing is I didn’t even “need” those jobs. The money was largely spent on a massive CD collection (which I eventually sold to buy an early iPod). Still, those jobs have had a tremendous impact on who I am and give me respect for labor of all kinds.
The key problem with UBI, as much as I love the idea, is that any UBI amount will instantly be sucked up by landlords using every trick in the book. What the landlords leave on the table, will be sucked up by rising costs for energy (petrol, electricity, gas) as honestly all three will at least double or triple by efforts to save the climate.
In the end the workers will be as fucked as they were before UBI. The problem is modern capitalism itself. Ford-era capitalism where capital owners were proud in paying employees a wage they could live on... that could possibly work for a long time, but many equate even this level with outright "communism".
I think about this a lot. I’m not a web developer but the accessibility of the tools for web development (an RPi, a keyboard/mouse, and wifi), the democratization of learning materials for web development, and the commodification of dev services (even through platforms like Fiverr and Upwork) make me feel like it could be possible to set up people of limited means with all they need to self-teach their way to a better career. I know not everybody has the knack or inclination for development work or even autodidacticism, but for those that take to it, $45 worth of hardware and a few hours of pointing in the right directions could be life-changing. Am I wrong about this? What significant barriers am I missing?
I envision an open-source disk image (likely a NOOBS) with learning materials, support resources, and community tools built-in. One could sell pre-loaded SD cards and/or full hardware packages to make it turnkey, or as turnkey as RPi gets, further reducing the barrier to entry. Perhaps even donations and grant money could subsidize hardware.
Has something like this been done? Is web dev a good fit? Thoughts?
I do wake up at night but its only since I started closing the window for winter. I have a feeling I have very low tolerance for heat (I like sleeping at <70º F).
As someone who's worked in both, I don't entirely agree. Dishwashing was just tiring in a different way. But you could just entirely shut off your mind and zone out. I remember getting into a sort of meditative state while listening to music, it was kind of cool.
Tech jobs are just mentally stressful sometimes. I can totally see a good amount of people not wanting to switch places honestly.
Yang's implementation is very regressive. You have the regressive VAT tax, but then you also have the fact that you are cutting government benefits then giving everyone $1000. So the poor just end up net poorer.
Example:
Now:
$12,000 a year + $12,000 in benefits = $24,000
$50,000 a year + $0 in benefits = $50,000
UBI:
$12,000 a year + $12,000 in UBI = $24,000
$50,000 a year + $12,000 in UBI = $62,000
The poorer person receiving benefits is actually poorer then before, relatively.
You're missing a couple of things - first, it isn't zero sum. I don't care if I'm poor relatively as long as I'm not poor absolutely.
Second, the average benefit isn't $1,000 a month and in almost all cases the $1k per month is an increase on existing benefit numbers.
Third, since it doesn't come with strings, you don't have to worry about losing your benefits when you get a job or a kid leaves the home, when you relapse or when you get sick and can't manage the tangled web of government red tape.
> I don't care if I'm poor relatively as long as I'm not poor absolutely.
This might be true for you personally, but it is not true in general; whether people are dissatisfied with their level of wealth/poverty has a great deal to do with how it compares to others.
These people need to grow up? Or, more realistically, we need to start promoting some healthy values, instead of harmful ones. This should start with: banning advertising, teaching practical philosophy (how to think about your life, how to be content with your life etc.) in schools, discouraging competition for its own sake.
We're not talking about dissatisfaction here. We're talking about meeting basic needs like food, housing, and health services. Wanting to be satisfied of these things is absolutely true in general.
It's perfectly possible to get by with rice and lentils and a few vegetables, and if that's the common lifestyle of everyone in the community/country, many people are well satisfied with it. I've lived in such places.
But if you see the people around you enjoying an endless variety of steak and sushi and lobster and so on, and you're working all hours yet still only able to stretch to rice & lentils, your satisfaction may be less.
An illogical reaction? Maybe. A human one? I think so.
> You're missing a couple of things - first, it isn't zero sum. I don't care if I'm poor relatively as long as I'm not poor absolutely.
Sure, but even people with benefits are struggling to get by. To not be poor absolutely we should be giving them $1000 a month on top of current benefits. Just $1000 a month will leave many absolutely poor. Also, I'm not an economist, but I don't think we can really predict what will happen with inflation, rent prices, etc, when the vast majority of people become $1000 richer. I find it hard to believe it won't cause increases in prices in at least some things. If that happens you aren't just poorer relatively.
> Second, the average benefit isn't $1,000 a month and in almost all cases the $1k per month is an increase on existing benefit numbers.
It doesn't really matter just changes the amounts a bit. Even if you assume benefits are $100 a month only, you still only gain $900 a month from the UBI(because you lose the $100). Everyone else is gaining $100 more then you.
> Third, since it doesn't come with strings, you don't have to worry about losing your benefits when you get a job or a kid leaves the home, when you relapse or when you get sick and can't manage the tangled web of government red tape.
Yeah fair enough, I'm not against UBI. I'm only against Yang's implementation. I think we should add it on top of existing benefits. I also think it is only a band-aid or should be a small part of the overall solution.
Or you can simply move somewhere else where life is cheaper, a place that nowadays isn't sustainable because currently the local job market is nonexistent. UBI can solve that!
$12,000 of benefits does not equal to $12,000 of UBI. UBI doesn't limit you on what you want to buy. UBI doesn't require paperwork or lengthy approval process. UBI doesn't go away as you make more money.
Your assumption is that Govt benefit starts coming your way the moment you need or ask for it. From limited personal experience AND from what I read, applying for and getting any kind of government benefit is very time labor intensive and involves long waits.
And many don't get it because they don't meet a threshold.
And those who get it, have to not work (aka not make money), in order to keep getting it.
You picked a perfect example where it seems bad, but consider an opposite one:
Now:
$12,000 a year + $12,000 in benefits = $24,000
$24,000 a year + $0 in benefits = $24,000
$50,000 a year + $0 in benefits = $50,000
UBI:
$12,000 a year + $12,000 in UBI = $24,000
$24,000 a year + $12,000 in benefits = $36,000
$50,000 a year + $12,000 in UBI = $62,000
Also keep in mind that the more well off people will end up paying more VAT because they spend more. VAT can also be tweaked to not tax on necessities like basic groceries/etc.
Many currently receiving benefits might gladly give them up in exchange for $1k/mo, cash in hand, with no risk of losing benefits due to higher income or filling out a form incorrectly.
But even if not, I think there's a case that giving everyone else UBI has ancillary benefits:
- More cash in the hand of your neighbors means more customers, which means more economic activity, which potentially means better employment prospects, in a virtuous cycle [0].
- Strain on existing benefit-granting institutions is greatly reduced, as those who opt for cash exit the system, meaning faster response times and more assistance with forms/approvals/etc.
- The working class tend to be more economically interdependent by necessity; someone who declines UBI still comes ahead from a spouse, relative, grown child, etc. who requires less economic support.
- Yang has spoken at length about the effects of economic anxiety; even someone who declines UBI may experience less anxiety (and therefore greater executive function and capacity for long-term planning), simply from knowing they have a "Plan B" for basic necessities.
In addition to offsetting costs, I think one of the motivations for the "either/or" strategy is political viability with libertarians and moderate Republicans, whose exaggerated fears of "socialism" can be assuaged by the opportunity to shrink bloated federal bureaucracies. (I'm somewhat sympathetic here: the most efficient charity is usually to write a check to the poor [1], and I suspect UBI or negative income tax has greater efficacy than most means-tested federal programs, with possibly the exception of health care.)
How does that change my point though? Either way they end up net poorer. If you're poor and don't take the $1000, you are the same and everyone else is $1000 richer. This makes you effectively $1000 poorer. Yang actually says UBI will save money compared to benefits. So if you pick UBI you're even more than $1000 poorer, if he's right.
Could be stay the same or even go down. Producer still have to compete with each other and they even might lower their price to entice buyer to spend their UBI.
There is no particular reason to believe that increases in costs would exactly match the benefits granted leaving you 1000 dollars poorer even if ssdi income was better than ubi. Furthermore ubi would not be negatively effected by a spouse earning money in a way that actually punishes families for working nor would it require suing the government for 5-10 years while they pretend your family member isn't disabled.
On net the only people who come off worse are unmarried individuals receiving ssdi who are too young for social security retirement income.
Average ssdi income is around 1200 10 million people are on ssdi aprox 6 million under 65 45% in the overall US population are unmarried.
One could reasonably suppose at least 2-3 million out of 327 million will make no more money and will see slightly to somewhat higher costs. This could be corrected by cola.
In comparison the bottom 25% is 82 million strong and will benefit substantially as will the next quartile to a lesser extent another 82 millions
> Yang's plan would require that the cashier has to choose between the "UBI" or her existing benefits.
I'm neutral on Yang's campaign, but I like the idea of a UBI because administering it will be much cheaper than running existing benefits. Means-testing has a real and very sizeable cost.
What will happen to all the guvment workers who will get laid off once existing benefits have been supplanted by the UBI? They will go home to merrily enjoy their new UBI checks.
I think UBI is definitely interesting, but it can't wholesale replace benefits. For example, a major illness like cancer now can wipe out your income, your savings, and a UBI quite easily. I think UBI might be better than a range of some lower end benefits - but the also exists a variation of needs where we should commit to helping people with, that is going to exceed almost any general UBI threshhold in many cases, and still needs to be covered as benefits.
One example might be medicaid - given it's in an incredibly barbaric and stressful way of exhausting your finances first, then trying to get onto the program all while fighting the illness.
It’s the government: They’ll just move everyone over to the new Department of UBI, with an Administrator of UBI, a Deputy Administrator of UBI, an Assistant To The Deputy Administrator, a team of consultants, inspectors, auditors, inspectors of the auditors, auditors of the inspectors of the auditors, and so on. Nobody will actually lose their job.
Yang has separate plan to tackle housing price. So essentially the choice is between food stamp or UBI. I would argue UBI is better since it allow you to buy anything you want, no paperwork/approval process required and you wouldn't lose it as you make more money.
Yang talks about this on JRE, the idea is that individuals know what they need better than the boards designing "one size fits all" benefits. The Freedom Dividend is meant to help replace complicated benefits for those receiving less than the $1k with a more flexible fund.
Cutting back existing benefit programs saves money in bureaucracy and empowers individuals to spend in ways that most benefit them.
people are still gonna end up broke and need food, but now there won’t be food stamps specifically set aside for food, or Medicaid funding specifically set aside for healthcare? Terrible choice. People need $1,000 a month on top of what they have, not a check and slashing all their present support.
