(Part 2) Reddit mentions: The best povery books

UBI is meant to create better incentives than current redistribution programs. Charles Murray has an excellent book that makes the libertarian argument for it. I'll attempt to summarize some of the main points (if you are skeptical, I'll expand, but keep in mind I'm doing bullet points on entire chapters).

First, a short explanation of what UBI is. It's essentially a basic income (entitlement) given to all members of society, regardless of circumstances. This (in most reasonable versions) replaces welfare...I have yet to see a version that coexists with welfare that is remotely economically viable.

I'll get some of the disadvantages out of the way:

1. Could theoretically cause inflation/may not be enough for a living wage. UBI only works if someone can live off the income without another source, including housing and food. If housing and food prices rose with the UBI, or the UBI was insufficient to cover this basic cost, the whole system collapses.
   
   
2. Limits to locations for living. On the same lines as #1, UBI is generally set as a fixed amount, however the cost of living can be vastly different between places. LA, for example, is far more expensive than Billings, MN.
   
   
3. People leaving the workforce. Since UBI has no requirements, it's entirely possible some people will simply choose to live on UBI and, for example, surf all day. While good for the individual, this is not necessarily good for the country.
   
   
4. Could lock people into bad relationships. While this is also listed under positives later, two people with UBI living together would have more income than one person alone. This could make people used to living on two UBI incomes, especially with children, stay in bad relationships for economic reasons.
   
   
5. Expensive. While welfare is already a ridiculous expense, UBI could be even more expensive, depending on implementation. There are ways to mitigate it, but you're still talking about maintaining a huge welfare state.
   
   
6. Difficult, if not impossible, to convert to under a democratic system. In order to viably change to UBI, existing entitlements would need to be scrapped. In the U.S., UBI would most likely involve completely eliminating Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, TANF, WIC, etc., and would have to be done simultaneously with implementing UBI; otherwise you risk either instantly bankrupting the country or leaving millions of people without resources they rely on to survive. It's not completely impossible, but convincing the majority of a democratic nation (especially one as big as the U.S.) to do this is extremely unlikely. The best option would likely be a state-based "opt-out, opt-in" system where UBI was instituted on a state-based level, but this is also unlikely.
   
   Sounds bad, right? Now for some of the advantages:
   
   
7. Massively less overhead. Right now a frighteningly high percentage of entitlement funds don't actually go to entitlement recipients...they go to the massive bureaucracies designed to implement them. These organizations must pay people to make sure welfare recipients are looking for a job, that people qualify for social security, that hospitals take Medicare, etc. UBI, on the other hand, requires far less checks...all you need to know is someone's age, income (assuming a staggered UBI) and citizenship...things already known by the IRS. Then you just need to mail checks (already have Post Office) or direct deposit (computer servers and some techs, also already covered by the IRS for tax refunds). This means almost all of the UBI is going directly to the beneficiaries.
   
   
8. Better economic incentives for work. Right now, welfare "cuts down" based on how much someone is earning, or cuts off completely once they get a job. In many cases, someone can go from no job to working 40 hours a week and only slightly increase their actual income...or even reduce it! This disincentives work for a minuscule benefit in reduced welfare payments. UBI, on the other hand, is typically paid in full long after the poverty line, meaning any work you do doesn't reduce your payment elsewhere. By the time UBI steps down you're already in the lower middle class and don't have a reason to go back to not working. This makes work far more attractive for someone without a job.
   
   
9. Job mobility. UBI greatly reduces the cost of switching jobs, because even if you quit, you get a form of unemployment via UBI. This means people with jobs they hate can afford to find jobs they like better without becoming homeless. This is better for the individual, of course, but it's also better for the economy, as workers better matched with jobs they enjoy and are good at are far more productive.
   
   
10. Encourages better spending practices. UBI is per-person, and doesn't take into account living conditions, children, etc. Welfare, on the other hand, tends to be per household. This means four people living in the same house getting UBI have far higher base income than people living alone, which is a better overall economic situation for the country. Likewise, it encourages cohabitation, rather than disincentivizing it. As single-parenthood is one of the greatest predictors of inter-generational poverty, a system that encourages cohabitation and discourages lots of children (due to children not counting for UBI) would likely help get people out of negative economic behavioral patterns partially induced by current welfare programs.
    
    
11. Removal of stigma. Not as big of a deal, but if everyone is getting some form of UBI, there's less inherent social stigma associated with being on "welfare." It feels like less of a handout because everyone is getting it (Murray's idea has it progressively reduced to half full benefit as your income increases, but even Bill Gates is still getting a bit). This means it's no longer a benefit only given to certain people, it's something all adult citizens get, which means there's naturally less resentment built into it.
    
    
12. Helps deal with automation and innovative/unusual occupations. This is the point most people bring up, although I'm not 100% convinced of it (that automation is going to make most work obsolete). It sort of piggybacks on #2, however, in that it works better than welfare to handle a larger unemployed population. It also means that people can choose to have a cheap lifestyle and do something they love, such as create art or try starting a business, with less risk of losing everything. While most of those that try these things will end up failing, the ones who succeed end up enriching everyone (including themselves, obviously), which in turn helps support the system. And the losers get more opportunity to try again and succeed in the future.
    
    Overall, I personally see the benefits of a proper UBI as vastly superior to the current welfare states most Western industrialized nations utilize, even with the downsides. That being said, I think the #6 obstacle in particular is too difficult to overcome without a massive shift in culture and economy, and even then total collapse of the nation state is a realistic alternative outcome in such a circumstance.
    
    This is all from a libertarian perspective. My conservative side has reservations, because in a way this is simply replacing the old community/charity system, which worked at a local level, with a nationalized, forced version, which in most cases is going to be far less efficient. Unfortunately, as the government takes over charity (which is what welfare essentially is...mandatory charity executed by the most inefficient system we have), people are less likely to bother with it culturally. Since that shift has already happened, it would be almost as difficult as implementing UBI to reverse the trend.
    
    So while I think UBI has potential in theory, I don't see any path to it in practice. It's unlikely to result in the genocidal tendancies of communist implementations, but perhaps could require the same authoritarian governmental system to implement...which is the whole reason communism ends up in genocide in the first place (people who focus on the economic side of communism rarely see communism as problematic...but it's not the economic principles, but the form of government necessary to implement communism, that is the problem).
    
    UBI is still new, so I have no idea if it would follow communism's path, and I don't think the danger is as great because UBI fits human nature a bit better (it seems more "fair" and is far more limited in scope). Whether or not that would be the case in modern countries, especially larger ones, does concern me, however.

>It depends how you define "assimilation". These days it's more of a political term describing someone who is "economically productive". There are limits to assimilation. Social cohesion in ethnically homogenous nations will always be higher than in ethnically diverse nations. One of the main reasons why US is so against all social spending (universal healthcare for example) is because it is so ethnically fragmented that people don't relate to each other as much. That's why its culture is so individualistic. This is all very well studied:
http://www.amazon.com/Welfare-Ethnicity-Altruism-Evolutionary-Nationalism/dp/0714683523
So that's why it makes sense to keep nation as homogenous as possible.

"Assimilation" means becoming a part of the nation. It often does not take place within a single generation (unless someone moved to a new nation at a very young age), but over 2-3. You have not answered my question, which was "what does "collective memory of a people" have to do with genetics?" You have not explained why people of different racial origin cannot assimilate and become part of a nation.

>Almost all of them?

Name three.

>but many times correlation does imply a causation.

And many times it doesn't. If you want to make a claim that X causes Y, you need to prove that X causes Y. Merely showing that X and Y are correlated is not sufficient. Even Mexico with its large mestizo population is richer than Serbia, Bulgaria, Albania, and many other East European "white" countries (I am not sure if East Europeans are regarded as "white" or not by fascists). With that being said, I don't think it is a mere coincidence that a largely white Canada is much richer than places like Mexico or Argentina (by the way, there is no significant difference in per capita income between these two latter countries). In my view, Western Europeans since the 18th century did inculcate superior cultural values that are conducive to building an advanced industrial economy (such as keen time-awareness, emphasis on literacy, and work ethic), but these traits are learned and are not a result of genetics, given that Western Europeans themselves did not possess such traits before modern times, and several non-Western countries (particularly East Asian ones like Japan and South Korea) have adopted these traits and outperformed Western European countries like Portugal and Spain (which remained largely illiterate and underdeveloped well into the 20th century).

Yeah, Ive read that. It was a good article.

However, the tea party was co-opted within days. Really its impossible to say what would have become of it, because it never really had a chance, as it was taken over so early.

A lot of the issues that tea partiers had are the same or similar to the issues OWS has. I am hoping that eventually people who supported the tea party will support OWS, but it really doesnt seem like there is much effort from OWS to even try and get support from those people, which I find disappointing.

If you want to read a really interesting book about many of the types of people who ended up as tea party supporters, you should check out Deer Hunting with Jesus

Here is also a good interview with the author.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n9J-Dy0OcKw

I won't lie, reading this only makes me sad. Not because I disagree (you're factually right in every way) but because it hits close to home. I've seen the end result of this type of expansion and subjugation, especially with the Spanish. Which ultimately led to the American Expansion into the west with the rail road corporations. But if we go back in history, we've seen scenario countless times whenever another country decides to invade another.

None the less, this is why I love this sub. The informative and well articulated posts. I wish they taught history like they do here in this sub.

Chris Hedges wrote a great book about what happened in Detroit. It makes for a great read if you would like to put together an informed opinion about the subject.

http://www.amazon.com/Days-Destruction-Revolt-Chris-Hedges/dp/1568586434

If any of you would like to read an entire book on race and boundary theory then this is a very good and well written one.

https://www.amazon.com/Not-Quite-White-Boundaries-Whiteness/dp/0822338734

> Do you think people cannot be assimilated into a collective? White Americans are a mongrel nation with diverse ethnic origins from across Europe (England, Scotland, Ireland, Scandinavia, Italy, Germany, Hungary, Poland, etc.) as well as from Native American populations, yet they are all assimilated into an English-speaking, Anglo-Saxon nation.

It depends how you define "assimilation". These days it's more of a political term describing someone who is "economically productive". There are limits to assimilation. Social cohesion in ethnically homogenous nations will always be higher than in ethnically diverse nations. One of the main reasons why US is so against all social spending (universal healthcare for example) is because it is so ethnically fragmented that people don't relate to each other as much. That's why its culture is so individualistic. This is all very well studied:
http://www.amazon.com/Welfare-Ethnicity-Altruism-Evolutionary-Nationalism/dp/0714683523
So that's why it makes sense to keep nation as homogenous as possible.

> Which ethnic group is racially homogeneous?

Almost all of them?

> The most basic rule of elementary statistics.

but many times correlation does imply a causation. Go over the entire new world and you'll see a correlation between European ancestry and per-capita income. I just read recently that France's average IQ has dropped by 2 points from the last time they did the study.... surely it's not because of massive immigration from Africa? Just another "correlation is not causation"? How many correlations and studies will it take for you to show causation?

You sound like you are more politically-right oriented. Here's a great recent interview with someone from the right discussing why he supports a basic income, and how he suggests we go about it.

No it doesn't have the numbers you seek, but his book certainly does, if you want to read it:

"In Our Hands : A Plan To Replace The Welfare State" by Charles Murray

9 year olds typically can't have babies. Education is important, but isn't really related to getting a high school diploma. Many people don't finish high school but get training and education in many other ways that allow them to make their living. This book is a great introduction to the lives of young mothers in the black United States. You would be surprised at how narrowly defined the dominant beliefs about what is "good" and "desirable" are. Not everyone wants to live in White Suburbia and wait until they are 30 to have children, and we should respect that desires dominant in other cultures are different and not any better or worse than ours.

http://www.amazon.com/Dont-Call-Us-Out-Name/dp/0807042099

If you're looking for something to lament, lament this: http://photoninjas.wordpress.com/2009/09/23/vulture-stalking-baby/

[Waltzing at the Doomsday Ball: The Best of Joe Bageant] (http://www.amazon.com/Waltzing-Doomsday-Ball-Best-Bageant/dp/1921844515/ref=sr_1_2?)

Most of which can still be found at [his old website] (http://www.joebageant.com/joe/essay-list.html). The late, great redneck socialist gets more relevant with every passing year.

http://www.amazon.com/Deer-Hunting-Jesus-Dispatches-Americas/dp/030733936X

buy this book with your jewels, it will help you understand some things that you will never have the joy of experiencing.

I haven't had a chance to get my hands on it but I've heard this book is also good https://www.amazon.com/Intersectional-Inequality-Class-Scores-Poverty/dp/022641440X

Check out a book called Good Company: A Tramp Life by Douglas Harper. I read it when I was at uni, it’s a very interesting read!!

The book by the author they are interviewing is very good: https://www.amazon.com/Welfare-Work-Poverty-Assistance-International/dp/0190218134/

I think this collection by Bourdieu and a bunch of his colleagues might be of interest on this front: https://www.amazon.com/Weight-World-Suffering-Contemporary-Society/dp/0804738459/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1542553848&sr=8-3&keywords=the+weight+of+the+world

I'm sure you've read....

These are long term solutions, if they are even possible, being we have a big mess in the USA with obtaining healthcare, a growing homeless population, huge debts....

in the meantime, what should we do to mitigate this immediate crisis?

​

I've only just looked up our record of providing aid in the direct form of food, and I found that someone has written a book on how we've been doing just that for awhile and if we've been doing it right:
https://www.amazon.com/Feeding-Crisis-Policy-Central-America/dp/0803260954

I like American Drean and Random Family for insightful reads targeting a lay audience.

Cutting edge work is going to be presented at WREC in a few weeks., check out the people talking, and the videos once they're posted.

No, there are homeless in small towns Here is a book documenting it. Here is another article about it. Homeless exist everywhere, they are just better hidden in small towns.

His new book with Joe Sacco, Days of Destruction, Days of Revolt is absolutely amazing, and even more revelant to this discussion.

You guys should read Ain't No Makin' It: Aspirations And Attainment In A Low-income Neighborhood by Jay Macleod.

Read this for my Social Stratification class in college.

I haven't read it, but it was my University's campus wide book club choice last year. http://www.amazon.com/Almost-Home-Helping-Kids-Homelessness/dp/1118230477/ref=sr_1_4?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1404788893&sr=1-4&keywords=almost+home

Camden's plight, and how it got that way, is a bit part of Chris Hedges (the author of the article) and Joe Sacco's excellent book "Days of Destruction, Days of Revolt".

They already have.

I asked myself the same question. Here's the answer.

http://www.amazon.com/Deer-Hunting-Jesus-Dispatches-Americas/dp/030733936X

To back up what hakuna_matata said, someone has written extensively on this topic.

Read this book:

http://www.amazon.com/Growing-Up-Empty-Epidemic-America/dp/0060195630

Homelessness: A Documentary and Reference Guide: https://www.amazon.com/dp/0313377006/

Book description on Amazon

Seems the author is somewhat aligned with Reddit's collective political stance. Looks like I've just killed the joke. Hiyoooooo

No it isn't. If you're serious about learning more about this, start with this book.

Read this book, and wonder no more. http://www.amazon.com/Deer-Hunting-Jesus-Dispatches-Americas/dp/030733936X

I'd recommend reading American Dream: Three Women, Ten Kids, and a Nation's Drive to End Welfare for a look at what Clinton's welfare "reforms" did to the poorest of the poor in your country. A humanitarian he was not.

He just SHREDDED the alt-right with his feelings when all we have are facts. We should hang our heads in shame.

https://www.amazon.com/Welfare-Ethnicity-Altruism-Evolutionary-Nationalism/dp/0714683523/

Perhaps not "hundreds," but historically the derogatory word "cracker" was used to label poor whites in the antebellum south. It was even used by white people to discuss other poor white people. It came about at the height of the eugenics movement when they thought that genetics was the determining factor of one's socioeconomic station. It has lasted ever since. Check out the book "Not Quite White: White Trash and the Boundaries of Whiteness." http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0822338734?pc_redir=1408084819&robot_redir=1

It's a really interesting read despite it's flaws.

You don't know what the hell you're talking about. You can't even imagine how rough some people have it.

I live in New York City, and take the train every day. I see at least four or five obviously homeless people a day. I probably see twice or three times as many that are living in a shelter, even though they are invisible to me. Whether you are living on a street or a shelter, homelessness destroys people. Do you think they have it "not that bad"?

Take a look at this video.

And you don't even have to be poor to experience the misery that many people go through in the US. The young psychology major with student loans she can't pay off? The father that just got laid off, supporting a family, and feeling useless while he's unemployed? The mother with frustrated, red eyes, looking at a mortgage statement over a kitchen counter? The young guy that sees another bill mailed to him from a collection company, from that time he went to the hospital for a stomach ache and they charged him thousands of dollars? The children that fail to create familial bonds because their parents are either out of the picture or work too much? The young overweight girl who's fed unhealthy food because that's what her single mother can afford, but is tortured by the images of females advertised everywhere? These are things that profoundly affect peoples lives.


Read this book about the most neglected place of the US. Watch this documentary about how the economy has destroyed families. Read this book about how neglected the poor are in the US, and what they go through. Watch this documentary about how the justice system and the drug war are like a holocaust in slow motion for minority males. Watch this interview about the slums of DC and what young black males go through there. Or this interview about the utter despair of native americans in the US. Or this documentary about children handling povierty. Read testimonials on this website of what it means and how it feels to be poor. Watch this trailer of the vicious immigration system and the oppression poor immigrants go through even though all they want to do is have a good life. Watch this interview on how tens of millions of people in the US don't have adequate access to food.

The poor are invisible. Society is naturally segregated so that you never see them, or they are too ashamed to voice their pain. You have passed them by the side of the road. But hopefully, you will notice now. And you will never say the ignorant statement you just did.