So, this is chapter 6 is the book I'm reading, and uh...this one is a bit all over the place for me.
First the positives, I feel like this guy fairly considers both sides of the argument. For example, he goes into the social value of work, but then he acknowledges that it might be coercive. He talks about different philosophies toward work and how some are positive and some are negative, and unlike a lot of the more bootlicky articles going all in on work being great and blah blah blah, he does acknowledge that some deem it unpleasant, that perhaps it doesn't give social meaning, and perhaps it is exploitative. In a sense he kinda does discuss a combination of what I'd consider my views and more marxist views toward the negative aspects of work, acknowledging UBI might give people more freedom, but also seemingly implying workplace democracy might be worth considering (again, not OPPOSED to the idea, just dont think it's the end all be all).
But then, this essay just seems to lack self awareness. It kind of has the detached apathy and lack of attention to some details that I might expect from a bored student writing a college paper on the subject. You know, like he'll just throw in counter points in a rote fashion, without seriously thinking about what he's saying. Like after talking about how work is coercive, he's like, but UBI is incompatible with both capitalism and socialism in that they both have a social requirement to work and UBI might allow people to not work. Thatsthepoint.jpg. I mean, look, we all know that work disincentives with UBI arent very high, but for me, the fact that it does allow that opt out option is a huge reason I'm for it. Rather than a socialist who merely thinks we should reform work, I explicitly reject the idea that people should be forced by society to work, in a set of conditions that doesn't call for it. As he said earlier in the article, whenever technology grows the economy, we could choose, instead of pursing higher productivity at the same hours, to pursue the same productivity with fewer hours. But, the incentives are such where that is never an option, because people don't have choice. I mean, the reason UBI as freedom as the power to say no is so important is because opting out is an important part of capitalism. Hell, I'd say opting out is actually essential for free market values to fully be realized. I mean, under capitalism, people are supposed to be free to participate or NOT participate as they please. Forced participation is, from a purely economic perspective, where I feel like capitalism just goes completely wrong. But this guy kinda just...misses the point somewhat. I mean, despite very clearly writing about the flaws of capitalism in that sense, for him to say that "but UBI might allow people to not work at all" just comes off as tone deaf. Again, it's like a bored college student wrote this and just threw together all of the talking points on both sides of the argument without arguing for a side.
He also makes some rather cringey observations toward the end that also seem to lack awareness. Like he mentions UBI might not decrease inequality because everyone gets the check. Yeah...but...taxes. How are you going to pay for it? Sure if you just give everyone helicopter money, that is true. You also can create an inflationary crisis that way. But if you tax people PROPERLY for it, yeah it will increase income inequality quite massively.
He also fears it might create an environmental crisis by causing people to consume more. Sure, again, if you do helicopter money, but in practice what it would do, if people also work less, is create an inflationary spiral. Which is why I'm again, careful with how we implement this. More money might mean more consumption, but less work means less to go around. A combination of the two can cause an inflationary spiral of the economy pursuing goods that aren't there.
This is why we need to be careful and be mindful both of how we pay for it. Ideally, we want a tax that redistributes income, which also redistributes demand within the economy. And while there might be a mild net aggregate increase in demand as the poor spend more money than the rich, it should be mitigated by taxes and reductions of existing social services elsewhere in the economy. So it evens out. Income is better distributed, but demand doesn't change a ton.
On the work side this is why we must be mindful of work reductions. yes yes, long term, I want people to work less. But....I think it's better that the effects of this happen slowly over time. UBI should be implemented slowly to not cause a mass exodus from the labor market all at once, and work reductions should come at the expense, mostly, of future growth, rather than existing productivity. Because if you reduce the supply of goods and services in the economy while demand stays the same or increases, well...that's the crux of what happened with our economy since 2020. First we laid off a third of our workers and GDP tanked by a similar amount, and then we just reopened and expected everyone to rehire everyone all at once. ANd then we had snags with supply chains, and "worker shortages" (jobs surpluses, really), and blah blah blah. And that's not good. You dont wanna spike the economy. You want changes to happen slowly and subtlely. it's better to, from this moment forward, reduce our working hours at the expense of GDP growth and keep a rather stagnant GDP per capita, than to grow our economy by 50%, and then cut working hours by 33% to compensate. The former would have stable, albeit stagnant economy, rather the latter would lead to economic whiplash that just destroys peoples' livelihoods. You want the economy to remain stable while you make these changes. You dont wanna just suddenly tax people at 20% more and give people a UBI of $15k and see what happens. One day we dont have the policy, and next day we do. We dont really know what would happen, despite experimental data, and we could suddenly see mass labor exoduses that set off an inflationary spiral. Instead you wanna implement these changes slowly. Tax people 4% more and give people a UBI of $3k. Next year tax them at 8% more and give them 6k, etc. Ya know?
And as far as the consumption issue, I actually think that some level of trading GDP growth for working hours might be necessary for the long term stability of our societies. if youre concerned about environmental degradation from more consumption, maybe you should really be worried about economic growth. After all, it's that growth, with higher demand for higher living standards combined with an economy that produces more at the expense of the environment, that drives environmental degradation in the first place. If we instead worked less, and consumed less than we would if we kept going with the infinite growth + 40 hour a week paradigm, maybe that would be better for the environment long term?
Again, it's like these points were just listed in a rote fashion without him really engaging with him. Like he's writing a college paper. Ya know?
Either way, this is one of the better essays I've read in this book. It beats the constant virtue signalling for how great work is I see from most people out there. Really. I think the biggest obstacle to a UBI is cultural and it's directly related to this work fetishism we got going on in our society. The practical considerations can be overcome. There are concerns with the exact tax rates, and the exact amounts and whether this will be sufficient. People will quibble over policy details. But ultimately whether you accept or reject UBI comes down to your values. Some just crap on it from the right, and some do so from the left. Because they have different values than me, and different priorities. This is why I'm fairly combative on this blog when dealing with other left wing factions. Despite our similiarities at times, I do recognize our value systems are often different. And as Bob Black would say, all of the old ideologies are conservative because they all believe in work.
Which is why I go all in with the anti work framing here. Because I recognize if I don't, I can just be outflanked by these other ideologies pushing for different policies. I like UBI specifically BECAUSE it provides people freedom as no other policy does, and BECAUSE it takes on work culture the way no other policy does, and it actually DOES broach that one subject that no other ideology wants to broach, because while they can't seem to agree on anything else, they all, at the end of the day, agree that we should be forced to work. I actually "go there", where no one else really wants to go. And I do it unashamed at this point. Screw work, work is evil, it should be abolished, and UBI is the mechanism by which we move that way, or at least secure freedom for the dissenters from this crazy train. Anti work versions of libertarianism need more prominence in modern society, and I'm trying to do my part to advance those causes.
No comments:
Post a Comment