Good article, though I only got to read part and skim a lot. They're managing it well. I read a similar article about an Arizona tribe, can't remember which, and it sadly is not as good. Basically when they get access to their fund at 18, they buy a tricked-out pickup and then it's drugs and alcohol. But it was a long time ago, perhaps over a decade, maybe the tribe is making progress with education.
It's going to be interesting to see what happens. Congressional republicans seem to be married to this 'if you don't work, you don't eat' ethos, meanwhile there are horribly depressed areas where there just aren't much in the way of jobs (speaking as a person who is 17 months out of work).
The disruption is going to be tremendous as robotics and autonomous vehicles continue to improve, and Congress just isn't even thinking about what will happen.
"I'd love to change the world, but I don't know what to do. So I'll leave it up to you."
I sometimes wonder if JD Robb has some of the elements right-but doesn't really talk about some of the poorer parts and how it works.
I can tell you what happens *outside* canon because I have those who, well, their source is that place, but that doesn't necessarily count as 'established' in many people's minds, even though it would in our own.
This is a good article, however, and I gree with your assessment of 'congress doesn't think', because they don't necessarily have to. It's not even crossing their minds what would happen when autonomous cars take over and cab/lyft/uber drivers and train operators are no longer needed.
I mean, certainly some of the bigger vehicles still might, but.
>> I read a similar article about an Arizona tribe, can't remember which, and it sadly is not as good. Basically when they get access to their fund at 18, they buy a tricked-out pickup and then it's drugs and alcohol. But it was a long time ago, perhaps over a decade, maybe the tribe is making progress with education.<<
Well, when you put money into a population that's had very little of it -- and shoddy education -- they usually don't know what to do with it. But that's okay, because people can learn. A number of tribes have actually had some kind of payout, whether it's a government-owed check or comes from a tribal business. Some invest it wisely, others poorly. Over time, though, the examples have grown and improved, so smart folks can just look up the answers other tribes have found. Frex, splitting half and half between community upgrades and individual payouts has proven popular and effective -- it meshes very well with most tribal values.
>> It's going to be interesting to see what happens. Congressional republicans seem to be married to this 'if you don't work, you don't eat' ethos, <<
That only passes when there's close to enough work to go around. Too far, and society starts breaking down. We are already seeing that. The employment rate "looks good" on paper because so many people have been forced out of the workplace and aren't counted anymore. But the only place it's working is at the top.
>> meanwhile there are horribly depressed areas where there just aren't much in the way of jobs (speaking as a person who is 17 months out of work).<<
On many reservations, the unemployment rate runs around 90%. They are just getting to the point where they're starting to capitalize on local resources to fix that.
I mean, why are people poor? Just not having money doesn't make you poor. They have some skills. They have land. Most of it is crappy land, but crappy land can be improved. If you shit, you can make fertilizer. Water is more of a limitation in some places but they have to have some for there to be people at all. You can learn to do or make things. You can barter instead of using cash. Want entertainment? Make your own. Want a house that is not a fucking shack? Use local materials to make one. Some tribes have turned to traditional solutions -- raising bison has become increasingly popular. So are casinos, but they're controversial. I'm still laughing my ass off at the tribe that took their shitty little in-town allotment and put a tax-free gas station and shop right next to the white people's airport.
Congressional Republicans probably don't care about work requirements - it's just a way to show that you're putting "those people" in their place. (Though some are now True Believers, so you can't be sure!)
I've long liked the idea of an income that's just about enough to live on, if you're careful, and don't run into disasters. It puts workers on an even footing with employers - if the job is dangerous or unpleasant, and the pay isn't commensurate, they'll walk. That's the model economists use: Work (for pay) or sacrifice pay because you prefer Leisure. (Some go so far that they claim, in 2008/2009, there were a lot of people who had a great desire for Leisure.)
Some of those opposed might also change their mind if they know any coasting co-workers, doing just enough to keep their jobs. Think about it: those are the people who would just take the basic income, stay out of the work force, and make the work force better.
While this seems like pure common sense to a lot of us, it really is good to both have solid supporting data and see it publicized in popular media rather than only in academic journals. Arguing based on facts is always easier than based solely on theory.
But I think you've previously framed the question that underlies the whole discussion: are the elements necessary for survival a right or a luxury? Previous governments have historically deemed them luxuries, and have reaped the resulting bloodbath when those with nothing to lose disagreed violently. I only hope there are enough of "their own kind" saying such things to make the current crop of oligarchs listen.
>> While this seems like pure common sense to a lot of us, it really is good to both have solid supporting data and see it publicized in popular media rather than only in academic journals. <<
I agree that concrete data is useful.
>> Arguing based on facts is always easier than based solely on theory. <<
This is true if you are talking to nerds. Unfortunately facts are useless when talking to most people. This displeases me, but is a robust pattern. :/
>> But I think you've previously framed the question that underlies the whole discussion: are the elements necessary for survival a right or a luxury? <<
I consider them a right, but people in power generally do not.
>> Previous governments have historically deemed them luxuries, and have reaped the resulting bloodbath when those with nothing to lose disagreed violently.<<
Yeah, nobody likes being left to die. It doesn't matter how much of an offensive or defensive advantage you have. If they have more bodies than you have bullets, or enough people to pile over your castle wall, you lose.
>> I only hope there are enough of "their own kind" saying such things to make the current crop of oligarchs listen.<<
Historically speaking they have not. I suppose the chance must be above zero in theory, but in practice, clusters of oligarchs do not listen.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
dancing_serpent
(no subject)
Date: 2017-11-27 04:02 pm (UTC)It's going to be interesting to see what happens. Congressional republicans seem to be married to this 'if you don't work, you don't eat' ethos, meanwhile there are horribly depressed areas where there just aren't much in the way of jobs (speaking as a person who is 17 months out of work).
The disruption is going to be tremendous as robotics and autonomous vehicles continue to improve, and Congress just isn't even thinking about what will happen.
"I'd love to change the world, but I don't know what to do. So I'll leave it up to you."
(no subject)
Date: 2017-11-27 05:46 pm (UTC)I can tell you what happens *outside* canon because I have those who, well, their source is that place, but that doesn't necessarily count as 'established' in many people's minds, even though it would in our own.
This is a good article, however, and I gree with your assessment of 'congress doesn't think', because they don't necessarily have to. It's not even crossing their minds what would happen when autonomous cars take over and cab/lyft/uber drivers and train operators are no longer needed.
I mean, certainly some of the bigger vehicles still might, but.
-Fallon~
Thoughts
Date: 2017-11-28 07:19 am (UTC)Well, when you put money into a population that's had very little of it -- and shoddy education -- they usually don't know what to do with it. But that's okay, because people can learn. A number of tribes have actually had some kind of payout, whether it's a government-owed check or comes from a tribal business. Some invest it wisely, others poorly. Over time, though, the examples have grown and improved, so smart folks can just look up the answers other tribes have found. Frex, splitting half and half between community upgrades and individual payouts has proven popular and effective -- it meshes very well with most tribal values.
>> It's going to be interesting to see what happens. Congressional republicans seem to be married to this 'if you don't work, you don't eat' ethos, <<
That only passes when there's close to enough work to go around. Too far, and society starts breaking down. We are already seeing that. The employment rate "looks good" on paper because so many people have been forced out of the workplace and aren't counted anymore. But the only place it's working is at the top.
>> meanwhile there are horribly depressed areas where there just aren't much in the way of jobs (speaking as a person who is 17 months out of work).<<
On many reservations, the unemployment rate runs around 90%. They are just getting to the point where they're starting to capitalize on local resources to fix that.
I mean, why are people poor? Just not having money doesn't make you poor. They have some skills. They have land. Most of it is crappy land, but crappy land can be improved. If you shit, you can make fertilizer. Water is more of a limitation in some places but they have to have some for there to be people at all. You can learn to do or make things. You can barter instead of using cash. Want entertainment? Make your own. Want a house that is not a fucking shack? Use local materials to make one. Some tribes have turned to traditional solutions -- raising bison has become increasingly popular. So are casinos, but they're controversial. I'm still laughing my ass off at the tribe that took their shitty little in-town allotment and put a tax-free gas station and shop right next to the white people's airport.
(no subject)
Date: 2017-12-07 05:50 am (UTC)I've long liked the idea of an income that's just about enough to live on, if you're careful, and don't run into disasters. It puts workers on an even footing with employers - if the job is dangerous or unpleasant, and the pay isn't commensurate, they'll walk. That's the model economists use: Work (for pay) or sacrifice pay because you prefer Leisure. (Some go so far that they claim, in 2008/2009, there were a lot of people who had a great desire for Leisure.)
Some of those opposed might also change their mind if they know any coasting co-workers, doing just enough to keep their jobs. Think about it: those are the people who would just take the basic income, stay out of the work force, and make the work force better.
(no subject)
Date: 2017-11-28 01:35 am (UTC)But I think you've previously framed the question that underlies the whole discussion: are the elements necessary for survival a right or a luxury? Previous governments have historically deemed them luxuries, and have reaped the resulting bloodbath when those with nothing to lose disagreed violently. I only hope there are enough of "their own kind" saying such things to make the current crop of oligarchs listen.
Thoughts
Date: 2017-11-28 03:09 am (UTC)I agree that concrete data is useful.
>> Arguing based on facts is always easier than based solely on theory. <<
This is true if you are talking to nerds. Unfortunately facts are useless when talking to most people. This displeases me, but is a robust pattern. :/
>> But I think you've previously framed the question that underlies the whole discussion: are the elements necessary for survival a right or a luxury? <<
I consider them a right, but people in power generally do not.
>> Previous governments have historically deemed them luxuries, and have reaped the resulting bloodbath when those with nothing to lose disagreed violently.<<
Yeah, nobody likes being left to die. It doesn't matter how much of an offensive or defensive advantage you have. If they have more bodies than you have bullets, or enough people to pile over your castle wall, you lose.
>> I only hope there are enough of "their own kind" saying such things to make the current crop of oligarchs listen.<<
Historically speaking they have not. I suppose the chance must be above zero in theory, but in practice, clusters of oligarchs do not listen.