Profile cover photo
Profile photo
Daniel Stutzbach
About
Daniel's posts

Post has shared content
A thought about this: the essay correctly identifies dignity as a basic human need, but it glosses over the question of whether work is a method of providing dignity, or the method of providing dignity. While it is clearly true that "work is essential to many people's sense of self-worth and dignity," it is an open question of what other things could also provide those.

A failure of UBI (as of many social programs) is that it does not attempt to address the problem of people's need for self-image and dignity – a need which I believe (Masłow to the contrary) is a more fundamental need, in many cases, than even physical survival.

However, a failure of many rebuttals to UBI is that they assume that, since work is a source of dignity for many people, it is the only possible source. I do not believe that the facts bear this out – and I very much hope it is not true in general, because a simple consequence of the rise in productivity (value produced per hour of work) and the limited marginal value of supply (no matter how rich you are, there are only so many sandwiches you can eat) is that we are entering a world where there isn't enough work to go around.

Because this is happening, it is very important that we think about alternate ways to provide all of the things which work currently does – not just wages, but purpose and self-image. Wages are, in a way, the easier of the questions, because jobs are vanishing not because there isn't enough wealth, but because goods and services have become so cheap that nobody can make money making them.

A serious attempt at addressing people's need for purpose, and for dignity, is something which I think we have been ignoring for far too long, and at our peril.

h/t +Chris Jones

Post has attachment

Post has attachment

Post has attachment

Post has attachment

Post has attachment
From the article: "The Russians engage in a sloppy disinformation effort and, before the day is out, the Republican nominee for president is standing on a stage reciting the manufactured story as truth. How did this happen?"

Post has attachment

Post has attachment
“In 1995, when [Trump] offered this company, if a monkey had thrown a dart at the stock page, the monkey would have made on average 150 percent. But the people that believed in him, that listened to his siren song, came away losing well over 90 cents on the dollar.” -- Warren Buffet, world's 3rd richest man

Post has attachment
I can't recall a Presidential race where the choices were so obviously lopsided between "reasonable person who I disagree with" and "unreasonable person". Trump cites the National Enquirer as evidence and wonders why they've never won a Pulitzer. This is a magazine that has run headlines like "Obama appointed Martian ambassador" and "Is JFK alive?".

Post has attachment
From the article: the millions of people who voted for him and believe that he represents their interests will learn what anyone who deals closely with him already knows—that he couldn’t care less about them.
Wait while more posts are being loaded