undefined | Better HN

0 pointspyrale3d ago0 comments

> Thus, yes, in rich countries we have collectively decided that "caring for everyone" is not the best way forward, because we see that it becomes unsustainable when you go too far.

What rich country are you talking about? Most developed countries have elected to have social safety nets, and that includes the US to some extent. "Caring for everyone" in your message looks like some form of utopia where no one would have to work, but that has never been advocated anywhere.

Also what does "we" mean in that context? To me, it looks like you’re passing your opinion as a well-accepted fact.

0 comments

david-gpu3d ago

> "Caring for everyone" in your message looks like some form of utopia where no one would have to work, but that has never been advocated anywhere.

Have you never met an advocate for UBI? How do you interpret OP's "We possess the means to care for everyone -- yet choose not to" in its context?

> Also what does "we" mean in that context

Voters. Voters have collectively decided, in all developed countries, to strike a balance between having a social net that gives people some minimum assurances while maintaining strong incentives to work. This is in opposition to OP's "We possess the means to care for everyone -- yet choose not to". I am trying to explain that there are good reasons why we do that; it is not a moral failure.

pyraleOP2d ago

UBI is based on the idea that some people will still want/need to work. It is not related to freeing people from work, but to ensure that people's basic needs (housing, food, health) are met even if, for some reason, they are unable to work. Usually, UBI proponents claim the main difference between UBI and the current nets is that it would simplify the administrative control structure.

The intent of UBI (make sure everyone has their basic needs met) isn't different from the current safety nets. And, of course, since shit has to be made in order to be consumed, UBI requires people to keep working.

> Voters. Voters have collectively decided, in all developed countries [...] I am trying to explain that there are good reasons why we do that; it is not a moral failure.

It's not a once for all choice, though. Safety nets in all countries have evolved gradually, and are still evolving. Opposing yesterday's voter choices to today or tomorrow's activist hopes is a misunderstanding of the way democracy works. Every choice voters have made about social nets in the past happened because someone started saying "we have the means to do this, why shouldn't we do it?"

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse