What's the progressive argument against the UBI again? Doesn't the same
argument apply to, say, Social Security?

I understand well the argument against an *inadequately low UBI*, but
surely, in principle, a decent basic guaranteed standard of living is the
socialist ideal, right?

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need"?
-raghu.





On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 1:19 PM, Eugene Coyle <[email protected]> wrote:

> There is a consistent and powerful conservative policy threat to left
> unity.  Not about supporting or not supporting the Democrats but more
> fundamental.
>
> Conservatives  — and the establishment economists whether they consider
> themselves liberals or conservative — see the Guaranteed Annual Income or
> Basic Income Guarantee or Universal Basic Income as a way to deal with lack
> of jobs and the advance of robots, digitization and artificial intelligence.
>
> This I find frightening, for it appeals as well to those with poor job
> prospects or no job prospects, pacifying them in the struggle over fair
> income distribution.  It splits the population into those willing to settle
> for scraps and those with a profound resentment of those willing to settle
> for scraps.  Endless resentment on both sides, yet not directed at
> capitalism.
>
> Milton Friedman was a champion of Negative Income Taxes.  The Earned
> Income Tax Credit (EITC) was and is an introduction to this but only for
> those with  income in  the first place.  A more recent proposal, popular in
> the WSJ, was a plan to head off a fight against globalization by reducing
> the employees’ share of payroll tax.  Many economists have even more
> recently proposed a universal income as a way to deal with productivity
> gains eating jobs.
>
> The Universal Basic Income (UBI) as it is being called in today’s NYT
> http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/03/technology/plan-to-fight-robot-invasion-at-work-give-everyone-a-paycheck.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=mini-moth&region=top-stories-below&WT.nav=top-stories-below
>
> Conservatives recognize the income distribution issue as a deep threat and
> seek to have the public discussion about UBI rather than the alternative of
> cutting working hours with no cut in pay.  The 1% can keep their money and
> let the 99% fight over who gets a decent job and who gets subsistence.  And
> fight as well about what is the minimum subsistence to keep the pitchforks
> from coming out.
>
> Even worse, the UBI does not lead on to changing the system but preserves
> it.  Cutting working hours is a path to system change.
>
> On these lists we spend much time disputing supporting or not supporting
> Sanders as a Democrat.
>
> Supporting or not supporting Universal Basic Income is a discussion we
> should be having.  The alternative for dealing with the job shortage is to
> sharply reduce standard working hours to raise wages and redistribute
> income.
>
> Separately, cutting working hours is the most promising way, the only
> promising way to deal with global warming.
>
> Gene
> _______________________________________________
> pen-l mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
>
_______________________________________________
pen-l mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l

Reply via email to