I can't be the only one who has noticed the huge influx of articles and comments for UBI in places like reddit and even HN, of late. It seems that the ongoing crisis is fuelling a lot of agendas.
The US government's attempts to keep people afloat have pretty clear major issues, for instance. Is it really a bad thing to suggest that we should have a system in place to handle these sorts of events, even on smaller scales, rather than trying to rush something out when every day counts? I'm not arguing for UBI per se, but if somebody thinks it's the right solution then is it a bad thing to argue for it when an example of its usefulness is fresh in everybody's mind?
Obviously there are plenty of bad faith suggestions going around too, but I can't help but think platitudes like this do more to shutdown good ideas than bad.
A lot of people who are in favour of some kind of intervention right now aren't necessarily going to want to turn this permanent.
A regular flow of such cheques compared to crisis stimulus cheques has a couple of advantages though:
- you don't have any ramp-up time, not even if you decide to up the amount in crisis time, as the system already exists
- you don't need to coordinate with multiple levels of governments, insurances, ... to hand out the checks
- regular UBI could offset/replace many struggling programs, from food assistance over child support to other financial aid, thus leading to less overhead costs
An awful lot of the wealth in Western states is based on this exploitation.
For people who can't gain sufficient employment* this is an ongoing problem. The people who won't want to make it permanent are people who do not experience this type of instability on a regular basis.
It is interesting how our first thought to say "obviously this is temporary" rather than taking an empathetic look at what it must feel like all the time for a segment of the population (I'm just as guilty here).
* i.e. 1 job, 40 hours a week or less, that allows one to live a fulfilling life
The ability to make a living(or have income) to sustain through these periods of challenges, is an agenda now?
I saw a tweet that summed it up perfectly. "Corona virus is a black light and our current world is a c*m-stained hotel room".
Given so many people are out of work, and this need for social distancing may continue for years, it's the perfect time to discuss improving society.
Just to name a few off the top of my head:
There is vastly less pollution, people are spending much more time with their loved ones, people are spending much less time in vehicles and commuting, and people have much more time to explore their passions and hobbies like instruments and drawing.
> pushing projects like UBI
Calm down. I'm not "pushing" anything, certainly not UBI. I simply said it's a great time to have discussions about the pros and cons of out current system, and any possible improvements.
Are you against discussions?
Some people. We have to be careful not to frame the discussion exclusively from our own, respective positions. I'm very fortunate, for instance, to be able to work from home very easily. This is not the case at all for many. Some have seen their hours increase if they're in the "essential" (a word I hate, but it has become the norm) job category, and/or have taken on risks to their health. Many have lost their jobs entirely.
The reduction in pollution is good. Don't get too used to it.
>Calm down.
That wasn't necessary.
>I'm not "pushing" anything, certainly not UBI.
You may not be, but there is no question that there are many who are, and that's why this thread exists.
>Are you against discussions?
You've assumed something else about me, I guess?
Maybe people are just reflexively opposed to contemplating the possibility that the next 'business as usual' won't be familiar. It is scary to contemplate revising a lot models I have of the world, if I'm honest.
"Free speech" for me, not for thee with these types.
Some people, maybe. I live by myself. The rest of my family lives two states away. I normally drive to visit them several times each year. I've already been forced to cancel one planned visit and it's difficult to say when the next one will be. My parents at least have each other, but they miss spending time with their grandchildren (my nephews). Likewise for my grandparents. The occasional group video calls are nice but just not the same.
I hardly think my case is unique. People are spending more time with people they live with, because they're forced to stay at home. That may be a good thing or a bad thing, depending on the situation. I'm sure it's caused problems for people suffering from domestic abuse, for example. One's loved ones need not live in the same house—and the people you live with may not be your loved ones.
> people have much more time to explore their passions and hobbies like instruments and drawing
Not if they're working remotely—you don't necessarily have more free time just because you're at home all day. For the rest, they could have had that time before just by quitting their jobs. Certainly the extra free time and lower pollution are something of a silver lining, but let's not pretend that this is a net improvement compared to the way things were before. Being forced to stay home is not something people would have chosen out of preference.
Those things have been true and in place for decades, and they have not destroyed the economy. There are not jobs that are unfilled because people don't want to do them. In fact Australia's economy survived the 2008 crash as well as the best in the world, and continues to be very strong.
You don't need to make guesses about what will happen if free money from the government is available to the masses, you can look at places that are almost doing it already.
Well, how many lives does the lack of pollution save? People talk about suffering from being unemployed, but if that can be dealt with by temporary wealth redistribution...