
The feminist argument for a universal basic income - pavornyoh
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/10/opinion/sunday/payback-time-for-women.html?ref=opinion&_r=0
======
mastazi
I am actually convinced that men (especially a specific class of men, defined
by a certain level of income and education) will be more likely than women to
need assistance from a UBI program, as their jobs will be replaced by
technology at a higher pace.

In addition, women (at least heterosexual women) are likely to have the
significant advantage of having more choice when selecting a partner, because
of the global imbalance in the male/female ratio; this gives them a stronger
position than their male counterparts within their relationships.

References

[http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21652323-blue-
collar-m...](http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21652323-blue-collar-men-
rich-countries-are-trouble-they-must-learn-adapt-weaker-sex)

[http://www.economist.com/news/international/21645759-boys-
ar...](http://www.economist.com/news/international/21645759-boys-are-being-
outclassed-girls-both-school-and-university-and-gap)

[http://www.brookings.edu/research/reports/2015/03/24-gender-...](http://www.brookings.edu/research/reports/2015/03/24-gender-
gap-loveless)

[http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/social-mobility-
memos/posts/2...](http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/social-mobility-
memos/posts/2014/10/08-marriageability-employment-childbearing-sawhill)

[http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-
explains/2015/04/ec...](http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-
explains/2015/04/economist-explains-23)

~~~
erikpukinskis
What do you mean more likely? Like two men for every one woman who needs
assistance?

------
Mz
I have very serious reservations about the UBI. (I have blogged about that a
bit.) I keep reading these articles that give glowing reports about how it
fixes things for women or whatever, and I am incredibly skeptical of that
fact. Historically, when you infuse a system with more cash without that cash
being connected to increased productivity, the result is inflation. In fact,
that is basically the definition of inflation: Needing more money to pay for
the same goods and services.

I realize that people are arguing that machines and the like are producing
labor, thereby infusing the system with productivity, and the problem we have
is redistributing the wealth it produces. But I am very skeptical that a UBI
is a good solution to that problem.

I have a lot of half formed thoughts in reaction to reading this piece. I
don't know how to begin to back up my opinions when they are based on decades
of reading books and articles that, in many cases, I no longer recall the
titles of. It is not like I kept a written list of everything I ever read. I
was reading these things for personal reasons. But I really am not comfortable
with some of the premises of the arguments being made, such as "Basic income
helps undermine sexism." I see no reason to believe that. They did away with
slavery in the American South and, from what I have read, blacks had it worse
in the years after slavery was abolished. They couldn't get jobs, laws were
written to deny them the right to vote, etc. We are still, to this day, trying
to redress the matter. Blacks in America still, overall, make less money, get
arrested more, etc.

I have also known women who had jobs who struck me as more enslaved than I
felt as a homemaker. Their jobs did not significantly relieve them of the
"women's work" at home, so their jobs were often more relief for their
husband, who no longer felt 100% responsible for paying the bills, yet did not
see any real reason to buck up and do housework.

I have seen many stories over the years where people thought that giving money
would right some social ill, only to see it not work. Money seems to never be
able to really fix social ills. Those battles are fought in the hearts and
minds of the people, in the establishment of new cultural norms, and in the
courts where we determine rights.

Everything I have ever seen suggests to me that financial security or wealth
grow out of rights/privilege, not the other way around.

~~~
dllthomas
UBI proposals typically do not print new cash for distribution, but rather pay
for it with taxes. I actually _do_ expect some inflationary pressure from a
BI, but not because there is more money.

~~~
DonaldFisk
It's revenue neutral, if used as a replacement of existing benefits when the
recipient doesn't work (e.g. child benefit, unemployment benefit, and old-age
pensions), and paid for by raising taxes by the same amount as the basic
income when the recipient does work.

~~~
dllthomas
I don't think I follow. I've read over your comment a few times, and come away
either with a statement that seems incorrect or a proposal that isn't UBI...
The failure may well be mine, but could you clarify?

~~~
DonaldFisk
I'm assuming the existence of some kind of welfare state. I'm also assuming,
at least initially, basic income is the same as existing benefits.

Everyone gets basic income: children, to replace child benefit; people in
work, paid for by increasing the tax they pay by exactly the same amount as
their basic income; unemployed people, to replace their unemployment benefit;
and those above retirement age, to replace their non-contributory pensions. I
should also have included dependent spouses and full-time students. Their BI
can be paid for by further increases in taxation, as well as by administrative
savings, rather than by printing money.

~~~
dllthomas
If all you're saying is that tax increases will be less than they might be, if
we repurpose money currently spent on other programs, I certainly agree. The
repurposed money is still presumably funded through taxation, though, so this
doesn't conflict at all with what I'd said.

If you were saying more, then I'm still not clear on what it is.

------
gdix
There's a lot of work that I do free of charge. Wash my car. Go grocery
shopping. Do my laundry. I walk my dog out of a sense of love and duty.
Shouldn't I be paid for this? Why isn't the government paying me for this
invisible labor that I chose to do?

I cut back my hours and quit my job because I have so much to do so, what the
hell society, where's my compensation?

~~~
danbruc
All the things you named are things you are doing for yourself in order to
have a clean car, to have something to eat, to have clean cloths, to have a
dog. Having children is certainly to some extend also something you do for
yourself because you enjoy raising children but beyond that it is also a
service to the society because this is what keeps it running in the long term.
In the past having children was probably more driven by selfish motives, e.g.
having someone to care for you when you are old and the like, but nowadays
this is no longer true and you can quite easily forgo the costs associated
with having children. Therefore it seems not unreasonable to me that a society
supports the part of it that takes the burden to sustain it.

~~~
Mz
In the past, having children was probably more driven by _lack of birth
control_.

~~~
danbruc
I won't argue against that, it is certainly true, but I think my point still
stands that it was beneficial to have more children even if it was not always
a concessions decision because of the lack of birth control.

~~~
Mz
Everything I have ever read suggests that birth control and limiting the
number of children you have improves quality of life. Having scads of kids is
generally the mark of a culture that a) either has no means to prevent
conception (and people are screwing anyway) or b) has very high child
mortality rates because the culture as a whole is poor, uneducated, lacks
infrastructure, etc. Across the globe, as child mortality rates go down, birth
rates fall _following_ the fall of death rates. From what I have read, this is
statistically consistent.

If there is anything "selfish" going on, it is "sex feels good, so I am going
to get laid, and the consequences be damned." I have met damn few people who
were able to have exactly as many kids as they wanted, exactly when they
wanted them. The vast majority of the time, kids seem to fall into one of two
categories: 1) "Oops" or 2) "We tried for this one forever."

~~~
danbruc
What time frame are we talking about? The last hundred or three hundred years?
The last two thousand years? The last million years?

~~~
Mz
What part of my comment are you asking about?

The falling birth rates following falling death rates is a global trend in my
lifetime. Limiting kids to keep you out of poverty and keep you middle class
is an observation that goes back at least a few hundred years in Europe. The
"most kids are a case of Oops or We tried forever" is personal observation of
discussions I have had with people: Any time you get the back story, it is
typically one of those situations (tbf, my second child was a case of "we
skipped birth control 2 or 3 times" \-- which almost felt like an Oops because
I was surrounded by people talking about how very long it took them to get
child 2 or their latest).

Does that help clarify any?

------
JohnLeTigre
I'm pretty much for universal basic income, but in light of how our society
functions it won't fix anything structurally.

People will realize that the potential for demand is greater, they will rise
their prices and then the cost of live will raise accordingly. Then the rich
will get richer quickly and the poor will stagnate, all proportions
maintained.

If you want to diminish the gap, you would also need to regulate how people
determine prices in order to maintain a reasonable cost of living, I'm not
sure that hard capitalists will enjoy this.

------
monksy
Essentially this argument equates women to being disabled and deserving of
payment due to their gender.

Problems with this argument:

1\. They assume that women don't choose to do this work and are forced to.

2\. Women should have no reason to work (As that they should be paid without
any outcome expected)

3\. Women are always honest and productive workers. (Thus deserving of the
money)

This isn't equality. That's blatant sexism.

~~~
comrh
I don't see how you get all that at all. How are they suggesting women are
disabled? They suggest women do a lot of work valuable to society but not
historically paid and not only paying women but both sexes would help breaking
out of traditional work roles.

"The feminist argument for a U.B.I. is that it’s a way to reimburse mothers
and other caregivers for the heavy lifting they now do free of charge. "

Also why isn't the post the title of the article? So clickbaity now.

~~~
monksy
They are suggesting that women should receive funds on the condition that they
are women. (I did not intend to infer that women are disabled, but for the
argument that they're trying to justify is that the person should recieve
money because they have a condition, not because they did something).

\----

"Breaking out of traditional work roles" So that means that you're asking a
handout to change social roles in a society?

~~~
comrh
I suggesting we give funds to people who raise children, who are traditionally
women, because they preform a very important role in society without any
financial compensation. And the article suggests this can (or has) lead to
worse gender imbalances. It is certainly a job and rewarding it wouldn't be a
"handout".

The quote I even referenced included "and other caregivers". This isn't "let's
just pay women cause they're women" even if people want to get all up in arms
about that and make a strawman. I'm thinking you didn't even bother to read
the article.

------
PaulHoule
A core issue behind ubi is that fear of "future shock" may make the population
ungovernable and it will be a small price to pay for continued public support
of social, business and technological innovation.

