So, TYT recently covered UBI on their channel, and discussed how basic income reduced homelessness in a study. To me, this is like "yeah, no crap". I've been studying UBI for years, every time a study comes out, it's like "wow, it basically seems to solve problems without many downsides other than cost" and of course....TYT just couldn't fully give it the win.
Basically, they went on about how we don't know if it will be sustainable over the long term (which is true, but again, data is pretty consistent and if we can figure out the funding, it will be great), and of course, it won't solve EVERYTHING and we need SOME programs on top of it.
Again...all the same talking points I'd expect from a progressive such as them. So often they are very UBI curious, they're like, oh this is cool, but then when it comes to discussing the policy, the doubt and nitpicking over the details sets in. Of course the cost is the major barrier to entry, and honestly, these guys are FIXATED on pointing out other programs are needed.
It's kinda like they see the evidence for UBI...but then they wanna...talk themselves out of it. As I said the second any plan is put to paper they'll balk at the cost, and go on about welfare programs, and it's as if these guys, push comes to shove, arent really for UBI. Again, they're "UBI curious" as I call it, but the second it comes to actually implementing it, and they see the costs, and they see what cuts would be made to the safety net as we know it (even if the cuts are net positive for them), they'll be like "no we can't do that" and go back to pushing the same old flawed solutions they always do.
I mean, I'm not even saying some concerns aren't valid. I mean, I do think that the costs are an issue...but that's also when I first came across the idea, saw all of this data, and I questioned it, I went to work...trying to make the numbers work. And I eventually did. Admittedly it's not perfect, if you want my honest thoughts about my own plan, I could see falling short on projected revenue simply because of economic distortions, rich people being able to hide their money, etc., But it's something to work off of.
And of course, let's repeat what I said last night, almost no one wants to scrap the entire safety net and have only a UBI, that is a straw man made up to pigeon hole the UBI movement into the most extreme conservative position on it, something that's held by an incredibly fringe number of conservatives. Some of us might want some cuts to the safety net, but as I said, they would be redundant. And Yang's decision to choose between welfare and UBI was intended to be a compromise to tell people happy with their current benefits that they can keep them.
It's weird, welfarists will seem to go around in circles to avoid ceding any ground to the UBI activists. It's like their calculus is decided by ideology and morality, rather than rationality. Anyone who wants to cut welfare for any reason is evil and a monster so lets just reflexively defend it, and any time UBI comes up we gotta keep going on about how UBI can't do everything and we need other stuff. Even though most UBI advocates would acknowledge that and work with that to some extent. Yang did, I did. And I know some welfarists might not like any cuts to their sacred cows, at this point it's just regressive.
And of course...drug users. Drug users will just waste their UBI and need more help. Oh. My. God. TYT. Stahp. This is kinda why they get in trouble over the trans issue. Like, I get it, the far left is bonkers on it, but sometimes they tend to say alienating things and cede ground they dont need to for the sake ot winning the center, and this is one of them. This is conservative framing. And honestly....UBI advocates have looked at this, and found that most drug addicts are a lot more reasonable than given credit for. And even if they did blow their UBI on drugs...well...that's their prerogative. I know progressives are still kind of "conservative" on the issue of work and paternalism, and they feel a need to teach people the "right" way to live and work within that conservative framework, but my honest opinion is if someone wants to waste their time and money on drugs all day, as long as they aren't hurting anyone...let them.
And if they are hurting people or harassing them on the street for more money...well...with UBI being a thing, I wouldn't mind cracking down on the homeless who still decide to sit around on the street and pan handle. You got $1250 a month, do something with it to not make yourself a burden on the rest of society in such a way. And that would solve the problem one way or another. Either the homeless will find a way off of the street, or they will end up dealing with police, and I will say, if they end up dealing with police, yeah, pursuing social services would be better than imprisonment, so yeah, they'll get help either way. Same with mental illness. If the homeless cause problems because of mental illness, well, police can respond to the call, and then they get the treatment they need. So yeah. I'm not necessarily opposed to other services existing for people to use if they need them. Like drug addicts, mental illness, but honestly? I'd rather leave people alone to do their own thing until they start causing problems for others, THEN we can get someone out there to evaluate them and get them the help they need. And yes, obviously we need some level of sensitivity training for the police here so they don't have the problems the current police do.
But yeah. Generally speaking, I don't think ANYONE would say that we should have UBI and nothing else. Except for weirdo conservatives who like UBI for some reason but basically think that should be the only safety net due to their weirdo small government ideology. And yes, I understand why leftists tend to not react well to that. But no one with half a brain actually thinks that.
Okay? Can we move on from these weird disclaimers we need to discuss whenever UBI comes up? It's like these guys are trying to find reasons NOT to be pro UBI. And it's frustrating. Again, this is why I dont trust the progressive left these days and why I've fallen out with them so hard. Because it's like so many of them are actually hostile to UBI. They might at best talk about how "well maybe we can have a UBI if only we can fit it into these other 50 stipulations I have", and when it doesn't they turn against it and act like people who are more ride or die on it like me are bad people for it.
Idk man. I respect the progressive left for wanting to make the world a better place, but their approach on UBI is cringey at best.
Anyway, how they treated yang even before he "sold out" even by my standards tells me all I really need to know. The second anyone seriously pushes for UBI, they end up turning on them. It's a tale as old as time. To some extent I have to work with them because SOME of them might inevitably be allies to the idea, but to be honest, I don't TRUST them. Because again, for me, my economic ideology treats UBI as a centerpiece and I design the rest of my policies around that. Most of them do everything else other than UBI and if we can maybe fit it in maybe, but no promises. And that no promises ends up turning into a no once the actual costs and tradeoffs come into play.
Again, if I have to sum up my major difference with the progressive left on economics, it's that. I'm pro UBI first and everything else is secondary. They're everything else first with UBI being toward the bottom of their concerns. We kinda sorta have an overlap of priorities, but the order in which we'll fight for them varies. And we just don't align on what the most important issues are. This represents significantly different underlying ideologies as well.
And yeah. I just felt like writing about this again because it's a theme that keeps coming up in recent days. Between Cornel West, and Emma Vigeland, and TYT, I just don't trust much of the traditional left on UBI these days. Again, UBI-curious at best, but the second they think through the policy they just turn against it.
No comments:
Post a Comment