Michael Roberts October 23 2016

Political demands aren't disconnected from societal demands.

It seemed like you mistook demand for full employment as a political movement, and demand for employment on the labor market

Why not? Silicon Valley bourgs are already subtly talking about it in a positive light. Do you seriously believe UBI is an anti-capitalist project? It's a neoliberal project that fights absolute poverty rather than relative poverty (=inequality), because they want people to be integrated into the market.

Yeah, because precarious underemployed work with no worker's rights and with just enough money to still be a happy consumer is such a socialist thing.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumstances_prior_to_the_Malayan_Emergency

Being able to walk away from shitty jobs/employer abuse would be tremendous.

No. That's just not how it works. That's the whole fucking point.

You could honestly say similar things about a number of other welfare programs like food stamps, unemployment insurance, public housing etc. The thing is with basic income you're going to get 10,000 dollars in NEETbux and that's it–no more. It replaces all previously existing programs and welfare spending.

Take the example of social security, it hasn't been keeping up with inflation and the rise in the cost of living–and the point is to keep it that way. Now the question is why does the capitalist class keep shelling out for welfare programs when they'd obviously like to get rid of them or neuter them to the point their practically useless? Because, it acts as a subsidy for the work-force, which is an indirect subsidy for the big capitalists themselves-they do in fact, know that the going wages aren't really enough to get by on especially for low-wage workers. Importantly, its a cost they try to saddle the petit-bourgeoisie or the workers themselves for while they do their best to escape taxes altogether.

I would point out that the social welfare programs that capitalists like the most almost always tend to be money-payment based. That's because it allows workers to spend money on their goods and other FIRE sector charges, whose prices they can always connive a way to raise. Consider the fact that very little public housing has been built since the 70s and much of it has actually been torn down and you might see my point.

Employers squeeze their employees hard when they know they have high rent or a mortgage to pay, its one of the reasons why the "every burger should own a home" meme was invented in the 30s.

What fantasists are demanding full employment?

Really pisses me of that certain leftists reject thing that will help in the short term cause they aren't FULL COMMUNISM NOW. Does it not make some kind of sense to fight for what is attainable under the current system? This doesn't mean you can't fight the powah at the same time. It just means you may actually accomplish something.

Some on the right support this too. If you could get over yourself there is a large receptive audience for UBI.

A sensible minimum wage along side UBI is the way to go. Sensible. So somebody working full time hours will make substantially more than UBI (to keep jobs worthwhile)

The whole fucking point of UBI is that we have a lot of underemployed people now, so we need to keep them afloat and integrated. It's a cushion to allow even more deregulation.

what other solutions are there that are currently practical?

t. some ignorant prole in the 60s.

Yeah, just give em money instead of public services, so you can privatize everything. Then people can decide which competitor on the market they prefer ("don't you want to have a choice?"). It's a way to extend the free market.

Presumably you'd rather see this 10k a year given as vouchers for state services?

More traditional welfare state and more worker's protection. We still have that in Europe to some extent, it's not controversial, we just need to increase it instead of reducing it further.

I'm Europe too. Wouldn't you support UBI over here? I mean the essentials (health and education) are already covered.

Idk. Public housing, reduction of the working day, rent control, state-run banking providing spending money at low or no interest, food security programs, public works programs, a national healthcare program that actually works.

You can take your pick out of any of those. I'm not very excited for a program where I'm gonna get a fixed income that my landlord is going to siphon off by racking the rent. I already can't afford to rent an apartment or lease a house or whatever.

Though I really can't blame anyone whose interested in UBI cause they hate capitalism and/or their lazy tbh.

With UBI they're going to cut back on that, do you think they are going to give you UBI out of generosity and keep public services as they are? They just want to soften the self-destructive effects of already existing privatization and deregulation campaigns, which will then continue more smoothly. It's a way to make the mess we're in more acceptable, instead of fighting it.

Couldn't agree more here but I wouldn't say this had to be a choice of one or the other

How? Legally mandate 30 hours full time and anything else overtime? This could potentially help relieve unemployment but would likely increase underemployment.

Again agreed but again not mutually exclusive RE UBI

Interest is basically zero in the UK and there are numerous schemes to encourage lending.

Public works as in job guarentee? Like those who aren't working put to work on litter, painting, redoing roads. That type of thing?

I like the idea of UBI mostly cause it gives people the option to either risk a new career, go into retraining or set up themselves doing something they enjoy. I see it as better than a public works scheme cause there's no coercion.

You do raise a bunch of other issues that I agree need sorting. Bit I don't see why they couldn't sit alongside UBI.

Okay, I get it, people's argument against basic income is basically "but then other government programs will be abandoned!".

Which is a complete non-sequitur.

hamfistedly*

It's not a non-sequitur, in Europe it's a reality already happening. UBI is obviously a way for the welfare state to adapt itself to the neoliberal reality, to be an answer to (and an enabler of) the privatization and removal of workers' rights (of course the rhetoric they use is that this will liberate the workers and consumers). All this is very explicit when you listen to the so called progressive economists that call for UBI. Actual neoliberal society of entrepreneurship, flexible work, free market, etc… (not what some people mean when they complain about corruption and the 1%) is generally accepted by these economists as something progressive that needs to be improved and stabilized. Of course the people themselves support UBI for simple reasons of survival or convenience, but we need to look at it politically too.
First European neoliberal thinkers of the 20th century, particularly in France, had a similar idea as well. They called it "negative tax", which means simply giving people enough money to keep their income above certain level. The point was that you're not solving inequality and not having public services ("not limiting the competition") while keeping people integrated into the market - which is essential under neoliberalism where society is regulated through the market (not working that well currently in PIIGS countries). And when I hear economists and political scientists on my national TV making arguments for UBI I hear a similar ideology behind it, except now it's not about future neoliberal utopia, it's instead a kind of complementary neoliberal policy to previously too limited policies of just deregulation and privatization.

I think it's fair for us leftists to remind liberals that there isn't some magic proportion of wages to profits that keeps demand high enough to prevent capitalist crisis.