- A Seattle basic income pilot gave low-income residents $500 a month, nearly doubling employment rates.
- Some participants reported getting new housing, while others saw their employment incomes rise.
- Basic income pilots nationwide have seen noteworthy success, despite conservative opposition.
Removed by mod
@theotherverion And? “Economy” ≠ capitalism.
edit: Removed an off-topic paragraph. I read you wrong and responded to something you didn’t say. My bad.
Removed by mod
@theotherverion Okay.
@OrionKidder @theotherverion Frankly, why does it matter what we call things?
The difference between (political) left and right is about what we value over what else. If we’re getting all the things, it doesn’t matter which is “more important”!
The idea that we have to choose between (e.g.) economy and regulation, healthcare and incentives, is just nonsense. (Nonsense often pushed by people who call themselves right wing, sure, but that doesn’t reflect on everyone who uses that label.)
@wizzwizz4 @theotherverion We use names for political practices and ideologies to sort them into like and unlike, to get a large-scale view. That said, I take your point. There are polices that seem to satisfy everyone. France’s “crèche” system, which supplies childcare to a third of the country and has effectively forced a sea of private competitors is hailed as socialist because it provides as service but also beloved by employers because new mothers can go back to work immediately.
@wizzwizz4 @theotherverion Of course, France also has universal healthcare, mandated maternity leave, unlimited sick days, and month-long vacations every year. There are loads of socialist measures in place as well as the crèche.
That’s why my take on what you’re saying is different. It matters what we call it because Socialism Works. Everyone benefits when we share. It even works for the rich and the employer class, if only they’d get their heads out of their asses and be honest about it.
@OrionKidder @theotherverion Yeah.
The left-wingers who are so extreme that they doubt every right-wing policy that’s not been demonstrated to work, have a lot of common cause with their counterparts.
We shouldn’t tie ourselves up in the left / right distinction. It’s useful when discussing policy, not people.
If we want more useful categories to lump people into, I propose “reality-denying ideologues, bigots, and the selfish”, “humble, obsessive truth-seekers”, and “normal people”.