|
Post by The Cap'n on Mar 12, 2019 10:46:15 GMT -5
Two things in response. 1. On UBI more specifically, if you agree it would replace all other forms of welfare, then what is the plan for the people who after receiving their UBI are homeless and hungry? Without the welfare programs that UBI replaces as a backstop, do we let them die in the streets? I’d guess that realistically speaking, we would not cancel those welfare programs: we would maintain some base level of support. And that’s why I don’t think small-government proponents would agree even though the idealistic principle of UBI is a smaller and more efficient welfare system than the one we have: it’s too easy to imagine ending up with a combination of both that is both bigger and less efficient. 2. I agree that the Industrial Revolution isn’t exactly analogous, but I do think it’s a useful analog. Details are different because details will always be different, but my main point I think holds: at that time, people didn’t see what the future of work could be, because it was outside their current and past experience. The jobs they knew—especially agricultural ones based on labor—were disappearing, and people didn’t know what would replace them. But of course not only did jobs fixing machines appear; entire industries grew where there had been none. My point is simply that by definition we do not know what kinds of work might appear that we don’t yet know about. Maybe more, better jobs than we can imagine; maybe no jobs at all. But based on history, humans are bad at predicting the future. (I don’t say this as an excuse to avoid trying to plan for the future. I just say it as a fact when you look back at humanity’s predictions more than a couple decades out.)
|
|
Departed
Former Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 12, 2019 11:00:00 GMT -5
Two things in response. 1. On UBI more specifically, if you agree it would replace all other forms of welfare, then what is the plan for the people who after receiving their UBI are homeless and hungry? Without the welfare programs that UBI replaces as a backstop, do we let them die in the streets? I’d guess that realistically speaking, we would not cancel those welfare programs: we would maintain some base level of support. And that’s why I don’t think small-government proponents would agree even though the idealistic principle of UBI is a smaller and more efficient welfare system than the one we have: it’s too easy to imagine ending up with a combination of both that is both bigger and less efficient. 2. I agree that the Industrial Revolution isn’t exactly analogous, but I do think it’s a useful analog. Details are different because details will always be different, but my main point I think holds: at that time, people didn’t see what the future of work could be, because it was outside their current and past experience. The jobs they knew—especially agricultural ones based on labor—were disappearing, and people didn’t know what would replace them. But of course not only did jobs fixing machines appear; entire industries grew where there had been none. My point is simply that by definition we do not know what kinds of work might appear that we don’t yet know about. Maybe more, better jobs than we can imagine; maybe no jobs at all. But based on history, humans are bad at predicting the future. (I don’t say this as an excuse to avoid trying to plan for the future. I just say it as a fact when you look back at humanity’s predictions more than a couple decades out.) Admittedly, I haven't delved into the specifics yet of how Id like to do things. But just speaking broadly, maybe a gradual withdrawal of those other services and gradual ramp-up of the UBI dividend so people can transition from one to the other? What makes food stamps and welfare payments more efficient or substantial than a simple UBI payment? Why not roll it out in a pilot city or two, even a pilot state or two (like with Marijuana legalization going on now)? The states, in theory, were supposed to serve as experimental labs for testing out new programs and systems like this. Why do we never actually use them that way? As far as conservatives, they're going to kick and scream no matter what we do, so we might as well cater to independents and progressives to get it passed first. Once in place, it would be like Social Security here, or Universal Healthcare everywhere else--a system so beloved that no politician dare touch it. I think people in the late 1800s, early 1900s over-estimated how quickly their machines were take over labor, but that now 100 years later we've finally reached the point where their predictions can come true. Id argue the ones being closed minded/incapable of thinking beyond their status quo are those who cannot conceive of a world beyond the 9-5, Capitalist system we have now.
|
|
|
Post by The Cap'n on Mar 12, 2019 11:26:09 GMT -5
Maybe I wasn’t clear, but food stamps, housing vouchers, etc., definitely aren’t more efficient than UBI—and that is why UBI is currently getting a certain amount of love in the conservatives’ intellectual circles. However, those existing programs have the benefit of being more or less guaranteed (fraud notwithstanding) to address the issues they are intended to address. That is part of why they became more popular than cash welfare in the first place. So if you propose to provide UBI and discontinue other benefit programs … well, the fear is that you can’t actually do that. You can’t discontinue other benefit programs because there will still be people who after receiving cash, still are hungry, still are homeless, etc. (The easiest to imagine people in this category are those with mental illnesses or addiction issues.) So at the end of the day, the fear from small-government proponents is that rather than ending up with the efficient UBI that they actually do endorse, you’d end up with a combination of that UBI on top of the existing, less efficient programs. And that—the combination of efficient UBI and less efficient individual programs—is undoubtedly less efficient than just the existing programs. As far as more localized pilot programs, that’s the obvious next step in my opinion. I certainly wouldn’t hope for a federal implementation based on the few, small international pilots that have been done or are being done now, as something of that scope is just too risky to jump into. I do think you’re mistaken in leaving conservatives out of the process though. For one thing, UBI is a relatively popular idea among them. And of course you have my typical views of trying to get a consensus wherever you can (but we’ve been down that rabbit hole before, so no need to re-litigate).
|
|
|
Post by filledeplage on Mar 12, 2019 11:28:31 GMT -5
Here is the difference. The USSR is the classic example of failed socialism (and an oppressive way of life, complete with gulags for those who protested against it) which is just a softened public relations term for communism and government micro-managing your life. If people think that this utopian model should be replacing the Constitution, they should take a field trip to a failed socialist country. Or speak with someone who survived the regime.
Recommended reading for that is One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich by Alexander Solzhenitsyn.
We The People are born with inalienable rights - and that is generally agreed upon, going back to Rousseau.
People rebel against that kind of repression such as in Venezuela right now. Talk to someone who was in the Solidarnosc union - and the break away of Poland in the early 1980's.
Reagan and Pope John Paul II were the pivotal leaders in helping that/those countries to get out from under the suppression of religion, political structure and a "rationed life" in general. Everything is rationed, food, gas, and people stand in lines all day to get basic groceries that we take for granted and in abundance. This is totalitarianism. It is unacceptable to live this way.
So while the privileged AOC struts around in her Manolos and hops out of a gas guzzling limo - she claims to the "the boss" but all she is - is a scripted actress with a great smile and great red lipstick. And she is merely an agent of Justice Democrats who are operating as a PAC (politics action committee.)
Since Obama care came into play - and lies were told about "keep your plan, keep your doctor" - healthcare is a mess, more expensive and less efficient. There is still no competition among the states for insurance rates. That is a taste of socialism's plethora of lies. It is all just an illusion of utopia. A fantasy.
|
|