Arguing About Universal Basic Income
Jan. 15th, 2020 01:47 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
ysabetwordsmithNeither of these plans sound like a good idea, but one element does: removing the tax cap. People who make absurd amounts of money should be taxed sufficiently to keep it in circulation, not just sitting in their pocket. America has had that before, and was in better shape when it did.
Also, in order to work properly, a UBI payment must put people just above the poverty line. It doesn't have to be lavish, but does have to provide subsistence. The proposed amount of the lower payment wouldn't even cover housing in most places, and the higher isn't much more. The idea is to make employment optional, not a survival need, so that businesses can't abuse employees with impunity. Imagine all the women who'd quit if they didn't have to put up with sexual abuse just to survive. "Jane, get your sweet buns over here and make me some coffee." "I'm sorry, Dave, I can't do that. I'm going to go write a novel. Also, fuck you."
Regarding the argument about discouraging people from employment: we actually need that now, and will need it more and more if we continue automating jobs away. We've already shut many people out of the job market; it just doesn't show in official numbers because those are manipulated to hide most of the people who wish to be working but can't. This trend is rising rapidly. So either America finds some other way to support people, it stops automating jobs away, it invents a vast number of new jobs using similar skills as the lost ones, or something will seriously break down.
As for the only worth coming from employment, that claim is ridiculous. Employment has only been the norm for a century or so. Before that, most people lived outside the cities and most were farmers working for themselves. Even the early cities consisted mostly of family businesses. This idea of working for someone else is pretty new in human history, and not all that great. Most of history, most people either lived a subsistence style or worked for themselves in practical fields. The modern disjunction from practicalities has created whole new psychological risks, as it serves poorly for meeting people's needs. Provide survival needs without that, and humans would go right back to occupying their time with matters of family, faith, personal interest -- like they used to do before they invented agriculture and its time-consuming requirements. UBI makes a lot more sense if you've studied history and anthropology.
Also, in order to work properly, a UBI payment must put people just above the poverty line. It doesn't have to be lavish, but does have to provide subsistence. The proposed amount of the lower payment wouldn't even cover housing in most places, and the higher isn't much more. The idea is to make employment optional, not a survival need, so that businesses can't abuse employees with impunity. Imagine all the women who'd quit if they didn't have to put up with sexual abuse just to survive. "Jane, get your sweet buns over here and make me some coffee." "I'm sorry, Dave, I can't do that. I'm going to go write a novel. Also, fuck you."
Regarding the argument about discouraging people from employment: we actually need that now, and will need it more and more if we continue automating jobs away. We've already shut many people out of the job market; it just doesn't show in official numbers because those are manipulated to hide most of the people who wish to be working but can't. This trend is rising rapidly. So either America finds some other way to support people, it stops automating jobs away, it invents a vast number of new jobs using similar skills as the lost ones, or something will seriously break down.
As for the only worth coming from employment, that claim is ridiculous. Employment has only been the norm for a century or so. Before that, most people lived outside the cities and most were farmers working for themselves. Even the early cities consisted mostly of family businesses. This idea of working for someone else is pretty new in human history, and not all that great. Most of history, most people either lived a subsistence style or worked for themselves in practical fields. The modern disjunction from practicalities has created whole new psychological risks, as it serves poorly for meeting people's needs. Provide survival needs without that, and humans would go right back to occupying their time with matters of family, faith, personal interest -- like they used to do before they invented agriculture and its time-consuming requirements. UBI makes a lot more sense if you've studied history and anthropology.
