Hacker News Reader

Comment by totetsu | Hacker News Reader

Doesn't the often given argument agains UBI that, 'work is important for dignity' have its roots in Christian ethics?

I's say work being part of people's identity is much older than Christianity.

If we're talking about the Western world, and in particular, the politics and culture of class (of which "work being part of people's identity" is a part) then Judeo-Christian influence is the only influence that matters.

And memes like the dignity of labor, the just world fallacy (that wealth and poverty have inherent moral dimensions) and welfare (or leftist/secular ideology) breeding laziness definitely have their basis in Christian influence. I've seen people quote the Bible directly ("If a man will not work, he shall not eat") when criticizing UBI.

The just world fallacy in particular is going to hit people hard. People who believe society owes them safety, stability, a job and a living wage simply because they worked hard and obeyed the law are going to be hit with a rude awakening when they realize how capitalism actually works.

I'm agreeing with everything you wrote (with the minor differentiation that this is mostly rooted in particular protestant branches, not Christianity per se), but in my understanding the opposition to UBI is not primarily about dignity, but about identity, hence my comment. People were displayed as their being their job, not just generic underlings to the king, on egyptian stela from 3000 BC.

> but in my understanding the opposition to UBI is not primarily about dignity,

Opposition to UBI (as well as healthcare for all, proper schooling for all, nutritional food for all, etc) is about not wanting to pay higher taxes and maintaining a competitive edge in being able to obtain resources over others in society (or the world).

Those with more wealth (or who think they are capable of gaining more wealth) want to prevent others from having it, predictably.

There's a debate around UBI that goes beyond bumper-sticker wisdom, and that's what krapp and me were talking about.

There are lots of reasons for not supporting those things. Some in-line with what you said. Others not. The issues are more complicated than you're making them out to be.

I used to think that, but over the years, in my cohort, the same group of people oppose any measures at wealth redistribution or anything that helps people who sell their labor.

Removing tax advantages of healthcare from employers? Oppose.

Removing exempt status or even raising the minimum salary under which an employer has to pay overtime? Oppose.

Lowering the cost of education? Oppose.

Parental or sick leave? Oppose.

Outlawing non competes? Oppose.

There's always some reason, which I believe to be a façade. The consistency and fervor with which they do not want labor to gain negotiating power is revealing. And, of course, always in support of tax cuts.

It's the all-too-common "temporarily embarrassed millionaire" [1] mentality. When asked about these things, people imagine themselves as millionaires and then say "Well, if I were rich I wouldn't think those things were fair, so therefore I currently don't think they are fair either!"

1: https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/John_Steinbeck

The examples you gave originally (UBI, healthcare for all, etc.) are totally different than the ones you listed here, which are much more tightly scoped.

Edit: I'm not supportive of the first group because the policies as stated are wishes, not actual policies. For example, any real healthcare for all solution has to have a plan for dealing with the millions of people who are employed by the current healthcare system (which admittedly sucks) and who will be replaced by a new one. Similarly for UBI. It requires completely overhauling massive federal and state bureaucracies that have a lot of power.

I agree with you that many people who are against those things are they way you're describing, but many are not as well.

Complete overhaul is necessary. For example, mental health facilities can only be addressed on a federal level, same as healthcare. Otherwise the governments that do address them will get swamped with benefit received from across the country without the ability to collect taxes from the whole country.

The big ideas seem like wishes, but I think it’s completely doable. But a sizeable portion of the population opposes even the baby steps I listed, and I can’t deduce any reason other than they like to imagine themselves in the owner class and want to keep down labor.

John Smith

Mark Miller

Sally Baker

etc...

There is no "west" and there is no "Judeo-Christian" culture.

There are, and has been, hundreds of different cultures. Some have similarities, some are profoundly different.

(I'm not trying to dismiss your whole point: I agree with everything else you wrote)

>There are, and has been, hundreds of different cultures. Some have similarities, some are profoundly different.

These cultures didn't emerge from a vacuum completely in isolation from one another. Their similarities and commonalities are what form the basis for these categories, broad though they may be.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com