Maybe by thinking about it differently, you will discover some things we never thought of before? I will give some clarities though -
Cross-paradigmatic actions can also do things like combining biology and informatics into bioinformatics, and combing neurology and psychology into neuropsychology. Cross-paradigmatic actions can be relativistic sometimes, yes. But relativism
is the step after multiple points of view are accepted, but before one figures out how to reconcile them.
Personally I don’t think about MHC stages in terms of dumb and smart. Like I alluded to in my previous response, I think of them as different ways of thinking and doing that are good for different purposes.
Some references for statistics:
Commons, M. L., Goodheart, E. A., Pekker, A., Dawson-Tunik, T. L., Cyr, E., & Rodriguez, J. A. (2005). The relationship between orders of hierarchical complexity and Rasch scaled stage scores: Balance beam, laundry, and counselor-patient task
sequences. Journal of Applied Measurement, 10(2), 1-11.
Cook-Greuter, S. (2013). Nine levels of increasing embrace in ego development: A full-spectrum theory of vertical growth and meaning making. (unpublished manuscript)
Kegan, R., & Lahey, L. L. (2009). Immunity to change: How to overcome it and unlock the potential in yourself and your organization. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Torbert, W. R., & Associates (2004). Action inquiry: The secret of timely and transforming leadership. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.
Cory
Corey
I agree with the model
of hierarchical complexity, in the same way that you need words before you can form a sentence, and sentences before you can form a paragraph. In that sense, I have no problem with the model of hierarchical complexity.
What I objected to was the way you positioned the stages, as though cross-systematic thinking in general was always more complex than systematic thinking and that we could somehow hierarchically order ideas in general from that perspective. So that cross-systematic
ideas are somehow closer aligned with truth, than systematic thinking. In your description of the stages, you suggested that was the case. To paraphrase, you made a claim which sounded a lot like ; “Dumb people think inside a single system and doesn’t care
about other perspectives and smart people have no single perspective, but think cross-paradigmatically “
Which I in no way think you can extrapolate from the MHC itself. That is the part I am objecting to. A paragraph isn’t necessarily more complex than a sentence, just as cross-systemic thinking isn’t necessarily more complex than systematic thinking – and
also there is no inherent value to complexity, which would make it more likely to be correct.
Also people synthesize different paradigms all the time regardless of intelligence – I don’t think the donut-burger, while an arguably genius invention, was necessarily invented by a genius. I know that’s a jokey example, but there are many examples of cross-paradigmatically
thinking, which isn’t dependent on high intelligence.
Where did you even get the percentages for the different stages from ? Have there been any studies done where the ability to think cross-paradigmatically have been tested ? if so, I would like to see those studies and what exactly was tested.
Best
Elung
@ Alexander B.
The hierarchy is not motivated by intellectual flexing, the male gender, or economic status. It is a hierarchy because actions build on each other like a pyramid. It is a common misnomer for people to at first suppose that lower stage actions
are less valuable than higher stage actions. What we actually think is that different stage functions are useful for different things. And higher stage actions are only as stable as the lower stage actions they build on. Higher stage actions do coordinate
lower stage ones, that is how they are generated.
@ Alexander E.
There has been debate for quite some time about whether development stages are strictly hierarchical or not. My take is that at first they are hierarchical, but once a person gains access to a stage function, a person can use it out of order heterarchically.
Heterarchical use of stage functions can be problematic sometimes though.
@ Helen
I agree completely that the key is an open mind and continuous dialogue between different groups of people. There is always a more integrated and comprehensive view waiting to be discovered over the horizon.
Cory
I would like to add my thoughts to those of Alexander, and Cory’s reaction. Both of whom I agree with, I think. The reason I say ‘I think’ is because I am not sure whether they are saying what I think they are saying
of not. The source of my problem is I believe a problem for the social sciences.
When psychology transitioned from behaviorism to cognitive psychology, it lost something important. As least with behaviorism, concepts were tied to something tangible, some thing we could observe.
We talk about mental concepts as if they are “real” but we have nothing concrete to refer to. This leads to communication problems.
Nancy
Of course such models has bearing in real life - the ability to think across paradigms, is a fundamental question when dealing with conflict resolution, negotiation, planning and basically any interaction with more than a single
perspective. What on earth does a Puerto Rican mother has to do with anything ? I bet she understands that there exist difference of perspectives as well.
I actually quite like the model Cory shared. Sure, the language might be slightly autistic and I fundamentally disagree with the notion that we can arrange the stages as personal development - So that a person who is thinking within
a single system is somehow less evolved than a person able to think cross-paradigmatically. Everyone thinks both cross-paradigmatically and within single systems depending on what they are thinking about – it has nothing to do with stages of development –
it has more to do with what you are trying to accomplish in a given situation. If we are trying to resolve conflicts, people are more likely to seek synthesis outside their own system. If we are having a debate, people will often not go outside their system.
It’s dependent on the function of the ideas, not the development-stage of them.
The model also seems to take for granted that no paradigms are more correct than others and beg the question of some sort of relativism, which I don’t think is supported at all by any underlying arguments - But the basic idea, that the ability to think across
different paradigms is a useful tool and the stages in themselves also seem to be useful to describe some luhmanesqe levels of communication between different systems - let’s just cut the bullshit claim that total relativism is somehow the most enlightened
stage of personal development, shall we ?
Best
Elung
Dear Friends
I honestly believe that all these hierarchical pseudo-Wilberian models are total and utter middle class bullshit with no bearing at all in real life.
Pure fantasy based on an enormous need to show intellectual superiority when there is absolutely none whatsoever. Or else give me throrough and exact answers.
I agree stringly with Camille Pagliga that I trust any Puerto Rican mother of five a thousand times more than any of the (always) male middle class proponents of these models.
Come back to down to earth, boys! You can't hionestly believe that any of this nonsense has any bearing in real life. Really???
Change diapers, then talk about "superiority of paradigms" or whatever crap you can come up with. No wonder that working class people loathe this kind of nonsense.
Or did you ever meet a female Puerto Rican mother of five who cared one bit about Ken Wilber's autistic fantasies of the world? All they see are boys who can't even feed themselves for "watching the world from their fairytale towers".
And I have not even started to look at what Freud and Jung would make of these "hierarchies". Did I say Karl Marx?
Big love, and I mean it
Alexander
Thanks, Cory, this is helpful.
The concepts that Cory raises are addressed in similar ways in Hanzi Freincht’s metamodern political philosophy, which is laid in his two books, The Listening Society and Nordic Ideology. I am halfway through the second book. I am generally a big fan. Attached
is a copy of the page with the basic message of the Listening Society, and some links to metamodern philosophy.
Best,
Gregg
From: tree of knowledge system discussion <
[log in to unmask]>
On
Behalf Of Cory David Barker
Sent: Friday, October 11, 2019 11:52 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: podcast with Andrew Yang
@ All
Along with Zachary, I also bring a developmental psychology point of view. It is a bit long winded because I use a stage model to contextualize what is underpinning the large scale debates that go beyond this forum. TLDR at the bottom.
( @ Zak, feel free to amend if I have made any errors )
Individual and collective worldviews and their political structures, are outputs of cognitive and moral behavioral stage functions. The general idea behind sociocultural developmental psychology, is that people can’t think and feel about the social challenges
we face any differently than they do, because people and groups haven’t grown into the capacities to do so. And people don’t grow into those capacities because they haven’t had diverse enough experiences to see the world in any other way.
The model of hierarchical complexity is a general stage model that says that for every domain, people go up stages of development by synthesizing disparate ways of thinking and doing at one stage, into a more complex one-stage-higher way of thinking and doing.
E.g. abstractions are formed from coordinating across concrete ideas, and formal logics are formed from coordinating across abstractions. Through this lens:
Most people hit a ceiling at formal and systematic stage. This means that while a person can coordinate basic formal logic within or across a given system one at a time, the person(s) lack the skill
to coordinate uniformly across a multiplicity of systems simultaneously. People cannot see how actions they and others take in one system adversely effects another system (or don’t care), and misrepresent causes and effects. Instruments from multiple models
with different approximation what this stage is about, suggest it is somewhere around 40-50% of populations. Kegan, Torbert, and Commons have all run instruments on this.
A smaller number of people behave meta-systematically (5%), which is to say they can fully understand and coordinate principles and work across multiple systems. But the issue is that people disagree on which principles are more appropriate
fits to circumstance, and use their meta-systematic capacities to strategize against each other to outplay their opponents instead of strategizing together to find shared solutions.
An even smaller number of people can behave paradigmatically (1%). This is when people are capable of coordinating multiple disparate principles together at the same time, across multiple systems relations. Again, there is an issue, because
people fight over which paradigms are best. When attempting to construct a universal paradigm for social systems, we still will see meta-systematic challenges, such as people creating secret alliances and trying to game the paradigm as it is being created.
This is what we see happening all the time in democratic law systems.
A very tiny minority of the population can coordinate cross-paradigmatically (<.5%). This is where people attempt to synthesize multiple paradigms together, and in shared social contexts it means everyone
involved genuinely caring for all stakeholder interests. When people come together cross-paradigmatically, this is where the real positive change happens. It is very complex, a person needs to know about a lot of things in order to do it, and one needs to
be flexible as new information is presented. It takes a lot of mutual respect and trust for people coming from different points of view to work together. This is constantly undermined as people who hit ceilings at meta-systematic and paradigmatic reasoning
can see such attempts as serious threats to preservation of their identities, beliefs and profits, and try and undermine large-scale bipartisanship. People systematic stage or under end up getting gamed by rhetoric.
TLDR: Some emphasis here should be placed on how to foster cognitive and moral development in people, because people will come to better conclusions themselves as a natural function of having more developed cognitive and moral capacities, which
means less people needing to be convincing about the way forward.
If anyone is interested in this kind of lens, here are some references
Commons’ hierarchical complexity
>>>
Kegan’s orders of consciousness
>>>
Kohlberg’s moral stage theory
>>>
Torbert’s action logics
>>>
Helen,
Hence, why the Job Guarantee proposal entails being federally funded, but locally administered.
Right now, we have the federal government controlling inflation via a buffer stock of unemployed people. JG proponents turn that on its head by proposing that we control inflation via a buffer stock of employed people in their community.
I certainly don't trust corporations to be the arbiters of human value. But that's what government currently has as a default position.
Ultimately, it is the federal government which determines the unemployment rate via its policies, particularly its fiscal policies. JG proponents say this is illogical, economically unsound, impractical, and morally unjustifiable. The federal government, (or
any national government that issues its own currency, for that matter), should have a policy of full employment.
Indeed, the JG would be a necessary prerequisite to effectively transition to a more just society.
~ Jason Bessey
Hi Jason, guaranteed jobs would be great if jobs are tailored to the individual and are helpful to the world. I think I just don't trust the government to implement
a large program like that properly.
Hi Helen,
Your concerns about providing basic needs and engaging in meaningful activities are (along with other concerns) precisely addressed with the Job Guarantee proposal. It's about setting a minimum standard for how workers will be treated in society, and engaging
in meaningful work in their community that is tailored to the individual that's not about generating profit, (as opposed to tailoring individuals to the work needed by those who are trying to generate a profit)...all within the context of sound macroeconomics.
~ Jason Bessey
Thanks Gregg for your reminder.
I think everyone here hopes for a world in which everyone have the opportunity to live peaceful lives, have fulfilling careers, good relationships, etc. How we are
going to get there seems to be the source of disagreement. I really believe in a person-centered approach in that if basic needs are provided most people will naturally move towards growth and self-actualization. Just basic needs, not spoiling. From an attachment
perspective as well, it is hard to move forward/take risks without a secure base to go back to.
I do believe that there is a deep human need for contribution and reward, but this reward does not have to be money. It could just be seeing that you have contributed
to other people's happiness and as as result receive recognition and status. That's why I am not as afraid of a UBI destroying people's motivations as some people here. Time is a very valuable resource and as a society I think we overemphasize money-generating
work. If I can just work 20-30 hours a week and make a middle class salary, I would. And I would spend my free time doing other things that I find meaningful.
I also want to make the point that even if poverty rates are decreasing, I don't think people are having easier lives. The lives of people just above the poverty line
are really really hard. Our life expectancy is actually decreasing in this nation. Think about that.
Hi Folks,
Just want to send out a reminder that this list is fine with sharp disagreements, but also to keep in mind that, perhaps because the list is populated by
therapists, it has less of a “swashbuckling” culture than some other lists. I think a basic principle that we should all endorse is that the “real world” is far more complicated than either our particular perspectives or theories can account for. As such,
I don’t know that sweeping generalizations are helpful. Rather, attempting at understanding, even while agreeing is probably preferred. Consider, that the idea that there are massive inequalities and that they might be both indicative of a problem and that
it is a problem of human fairness is not fundamentally inconsistent with the idea that taking people’s money via governmental force is not a good solution.
Thanks to everyone for their contributions.
Best,
Gregg
From: tree
of knowledge system discussion <[log in to unmask]> On Behalf Of Zachary
Stein
Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2019 10:58 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: podcast with Andrew Yang
Hi Alexander Elung,
Perhaps I have mistaken you for someone else on the IDW list. Sorry.
My sense is if we slowed down we would agree on a few things:
1). There are very significant skill and capability differences between people.
2). These are differentially rewarded by the market, such that a certain amount of economic inequality is necessary.
My sense is we think differently about:
3). The dynamics of how the market rewards various skills, especially the extent to which there is a strong correlation between the amount of money someone
has and their skill levels. ….. I don’t think it is all that strong of a correlation.
4). The amount of inequality that is necessary for the social system to reflect skill differences clearly/functionally, as opposed to amounts and forms of
inequality that are result in a misrepresentation of skill differences. …. I think we are in the latter situation.
But it is possible to read 3 and 4 in terms of a “pure/perfect meritocracy” —as I think you do — which says that people get what they deserve based on their
skills and efforts. I wish this was true, and hold it as an ideal. But I do not believe that such a society has ever existed historically. Although, I think we have lived in social systems that perpetrated the idea of a pure meritocracy as if it was true....
My notion of *extreme* or “bad” inequality has to do with my take on 3 and 4. I think that the market does not reward skill differences in coherent ways, to
the extent that the social system as a whole is beginning to suffer under the strain of over-valuing the wrong things/people.
Envy is not really the issue (although when it comes to the mob/pitch forks, that is an issue). My concern is with the economy as a kind of sensor network
or distributed intelligence, the coherence of which is an aspect of social reproduction; and I am saying that we are in an increasingly confused and incoherent economic situation, *extreme* inequality being one of many bad signs.
I have never used name-calling over arguments in disagreements. However, you seem to do so right out of the gate. Calling something “introductory
level political science level stuff” is not an argument at all and you are also dead wrong.
I completely agree with Bards point "Don't fiddle with the deep deep human connection between contribution and reward “ but inheritance does not fiddle with that. Creating an inheritance for your children is a giant motivation for many people, when trying
to earn money. You claiming that is makes inequality “ extreme” is not an argument. The people who has inherited money are also not at all the problem. The problem Bard was pointing out was that giving a universal income to people might discourage them
to work and thus deflate the economy, . People who inherit money, often still works and even if they didn’t they wouldn’t drain the system for resources. You have completely, since the money has to come from something. You have misunderstood the “contribution/
rewards” connection I’m afraid – all I’m hearing is that you are envious that some people inherit money, without any argument as to why that should be a problem, other than you just subjectively think it’s bad for some people to have more than others. That’s
not an argument. That’s childish envy.
I on the other hand, just gave you a lengthy argument, that poverty actually had been decreasing for three decades and inequality therefor was meaningless in that context. You can’t just add “ extreme” to that, and expect it to cover the glaring lack of coherence
in your non-argument.
And yes Zac , there are actually skill differences which make people able to make over million times the amounts of money as other people. It’s about how much value you provide and how much the market deems that to be worth. If you are able to invent something
like paypal – that is indeed worth a million times or more than an average worker. If you are able to write harry potter, that might make you a billionaire, because people value your work that much more than the next fantasy writer. If you don’t understand
that, you don’t understand the basics of economy.
So no, Zak, social inequality is not fundamentally different – you just don’t understand how the market works.
Hi Alexander Elung,
Given how I have seen you and Bard interact on other lists, I’ll keep expectations for reasoned discourse low (and instead anticipate some name calling and
hand waving as a way of side stepping clear argumentation) ;-) [It seems to me you guys just love freaking out the liberals and leftists and the" church-lady environmentalists and social justice warriors,” as you have called them. I am sometimes all for this,
but it leads you to make some not so great arguments sometimes.]
Obviously inequality is not “bad" in principle. Inequality, by some definition, is a kind of ontological given in the structure of things, including human societies.
But I should not have to point out how flawed your basic argument is; this is like introduction to political science level stuff.
Individual differences in e.g., the ability to run fast are naturally occurring, physiologically based differentials in human capability.
Socially mediated economic and political inequalities are fundamentally different.
Socially mediated forms of inequality are not a proxy for naturally occurring skill differentials. [This is the myth of *pure meritocracy.*]
I am a developmental psychologist, so I understand this dynamic of individual capability differences quite well, and have written about it at length. Indeed,
these naturally occurring differences in ability are one of the reasons we need to ease up on how extreme we make the socially created asymmetries of choice-making power.
I.e., are there *any* skill differentials as great as the economic differentials we see in our society, e.g., can someone be a million times faster than me
in a foot race? Can they even be a hundred times faster? See where this goes?
If we want to represent naturally occurring skill differentials in socially mediated economic terms that is a great idea, let's do that. But this strategy would
begin with *drastically* chopping the (ridiculous, unconscionable) salaries of CEOs and financial service worker, and drastically raising the (shamefully low) salaries of people like teachers and nurses, etc....
The other Alexander hit the nail on the head, then I hit it again, but you went and missed it:
"Don't fiddle with the deep deep human connection between contribution and reward is my suggestion.”
Extreme inequality (not *all* inequality) disrupts the connection between contribution and reward. Total absence of inequality—i.e., pure equity—also disrupts this,
which is your moment of truth. (Yes, we know: If everyone gets a gold star, this makes gold stars are worthless.)
But radical economic inequality (especially when based largely on inheritance), is in effect, a situation where the most empowered classes are signaling that
there is no connection between contribution and reward.
As I said, this is a ticking social time bomb. Whether it is “wrong” in some ethical sense is another matter. Just look at the work of Peter Turchin, and you’ll
see an undeniable correlation between major socio-economic inequality and major social strife, war, and revolution—especially during the recent history of the modern capitalist world system.
I really think people need to get
around the idea that inequality is the problem. There is nothing inherently wrong with inequality. If we looked at human “Running speed” we would also find a very high degree of inequality, where a very little group of athletes run faster than everyone else.
That doesn’t mean there is a system of oppression keeping the average person from running fast. What it means is, that people are different and some people will do better than others. All systems has inequality, it’s part of how systems functions. The
graph about inheritance shows nothing relevant to whether or not the degree of inequality is a problem or not.
The problem is poverty, not inequality and poverty has reduced drastically in the last three decades. The poorest people in the west have access to smartphones, they for the most part aren’t starving and have access to health care. When you start measuring the
things that actually matter, we actually live in a time where real poverty is almost completely eliminated in the west.
So can we stop with the “ inequality has never been higher” narrative ? It’s meaningless.
I agree with Bard regarding cancelling welfare systems and replacing it with negative income tax. Governments are not good at spending money efficiently,
so the less money the government can spend on anti-poverty programs, the better for the poor. Give them the money in hand.
Fra: Alexander
Bard
Sendt: 9. oktober 2019 17:33
Emne: Re: podcast with Andrew Yang
I have no problem whatsoever with a negative income tax för the poor (meaning they get money, not pay taxes).
I actually think it is a lot lot better than current welfare systems. Because the poor as much as anybody know best how to spend their own money.
Then kill the rest of the welfare systems. Excellent.
As for Piketty, he promotes massively taxing the rich. That's not UBI. But then there is the issue of feasibility. I fins his ideas interesting but niave in
lack of realism and dynamism. But a great and much needed voice.
What pisses me off the most is the tech giants and their babble about UBI: While they are the biggest tax avoiders ever in history.
Have we ever seen anything more hypocritical than Silicon Valley? Currently full of "climatists" who refuse to give up even on their branded mineral water
bottles.
The techlash has hopefully only just begun.
Totally Helen. Thanks for this. I hear you, and to be clear, I am a supporter of a properly implemented set of radical socio-economic policy changes, including
a UBI.
The problem on this thread is that there are a few things unfolding. One concerns the presidential election and what is being said, by who, and what could actually be done by any elected official, etc. The other issues concern foundational problems in political
and economic theory.
I have very little to say that is not utterly radical about the 2020 election situation...
So I am sticking to the topics in political economy.
Alexander hits the nail on the head:
"Don't fiddle with the deep deep human connection between contribution and reward is my suggestion.”
But, my dear Alexander, our fiddling with this connection is already the heart of the problem. We have already deeply fucked it up... This was my point about the *the massive and ever increasing economic inequality.*(!)
Consider this data from Piketty:
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__piketty.pse.ens.fr_files_capital21c_en_pdf_F11.11.pdf&d=DwIFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=GnlnhKhfaXgzXHtv49mZRgbwzURspoigX2ZFwCDpoh4&s=aP0bq0H5DEi5te-21S342-ceKeAdEMTx75cCTWwWwoc&e=
"Within the cohorts born around 1970-1980, 12-14% of individuals receive in inheritance the equivalent of the lifetime labor income received by the bottom 50% less well paid workers.” [Let that one sink in.]
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__piketty.pse.ens.fr_files_capital21c_en_pdf_F8.8.pdf&d=DwIFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=GnlnhKhfaXgzXHtv49mZRgbwzURspoigX2ZFwCDpoh4&s=tlL1o8rQ1HMEolMt9enzpYEYuuZ38fNp0x_zj2l0MGU&e=
"The rise in the top 1% highest incomes since the 1970s is largely due to the rise in the top 1% highest wages” [Note that we have nearly surpassed the Gilded Age in inequality and its speeding up.]
This way of arranging the connection between contribution and reward (i.e., having the most empowered classes signal that there is no connection) is a ticking social time bomb.
I would say that this kind of inequality is way worse in its net effects than a UBI.
However, what if a UBI is rolled out and the rest of the situation described in the figures above does not change? Then it is like the aristocrats using cash to pay off a mob wielding pitch forks, knowing full well there is no plan to change the overall arrangement,
and that in a few years they will have better defenses.
A far as I can tell no President is capable of or interested in changing this overall arrangement (sorry Bennie, you’ll need to sell that house in Grand Isle VT). But now we are back to my radical ideas about 2020…
Crisp morning in the Green Mountains.
zak
> On Oct 9, 2019, at 8:34 AM, Helen Wu <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> This discussion makes me frustrated. $1000 a month is not enough to cancel work. We are not talking about a $50,000 per year UBI here. It is just enough so you are not going to end up on a downward spiral if there are sudden financial difficulties. Saudi
Arabia has a lot more problems than UBI. Not sure if that's the best example. Half of my family is working class and I know so many people who need some money now. They are not lazy and they are not going to lose their souls/spirit. They don't have the time
for education. They just need some help so that they can have some breathing space to move on towards their goal.
>
> Best,
> Helen
>
> On Wed, Oct 9, 2019 at 5:54 AM Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Zak,
>
> What I think we should be investing in is an education of the human soul toward the spirit…now that is a collective universal I could get behind!
>
>
>
> Of course, as a psychotherapist, most of my work is soul work, so I will leave the truly spiritual stuff to the real gurus.
>
>
> Best,
> Gregg
>
>
>
> From: tree of knowledge system discussion <[log in to unmask]> On Behalf Of Alexander Bard
> Sent: Wednesday, October 9, 2019 3:26 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: podcast with Andrew Yang
>
>
>
> I agree 100% with dear Zachary.
>
> There actually already exists one massive UBI experiment in the world and you may study it to see how it all went.
>
> It is called Saudi Arabia.
>
> Shopping centers full of 29-year-old obese diabetics while foreigners do all the meaningful paid work in the country.
>
> Is that the sort of society you would want to create?
>
> Don't fiddle with the deep deep human connection between contribution and reward is my suggestion. And forget that there won't be any jobs in the future. There will tons of them. The question what kind of experiemtial quality they will provide though. But
that's an entirely different matter and not a case for UBI (which still has to be paid, massively paid, by somebody as well).
>
> Best intentions
>
> Alexander
>
>
>
> Den tis 8 okt. 2019 kl 21:49 skrev Zachary Stein <[log in to unmask]>:
>
> Hi ToK list,
>
>
>
> Having published about UBI as a non expert (I am a philosopher of education [UBI is one of my “social miracles”]), I will say that it is dangerous when taken up in isolation from other social programs and especially educational initiatives.
>
>
>
> Indeed, there are scenarios where the UBI is a true nightmare, and I am not talking about inflation and other economic fallout — I am talking about meaninglessness, de-skilled apathy, addiction, suicide, i.e., total/catastrophic mental health crisis. (The
same holds for a so-called "guaranteed work program," if done in isolation from related social programs and educational initiatives).
>
>
>
> UBI is as much (more so?) an educational/cultural issue then a math problem in economics.
>
>
>
> Even if we can make the numbers work the real hard problem is making the idea work as a part of the current human identity structure (i.e., as part of our self-system's role-taking and social justification dynamics).
>
>
>
> Who am I if I am not a wage laborer? That is the question. If the culture and individual can’t answer that but the economists and politicians go ahead and take away the category of wage labor, well, there will be a society wide equivalent of an identity crisis
or nervous breakdown.
>
>
>
> Of course, the elephant in the room is *the massive and ever increasing economic inequality.* Remember when Piketty was a best seller? The math he laid out is still true. The whole compounding interest thing still holds. UBI may be a nonstarter but something
(somebody?) has to give.
>
>
>
> Instead of justifying UBI to people taking issue, I often ask "what else sounds good that is as radical in its admission of the need for redistribution?” My answer has something to do with an education renaissance/revolution, but that is another story.
>
>
>
> Fall colors in Vermont.
>
>
>
> zak
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Oct 8, 2019, at 2:55 PM, nysa71 <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>
>
> Gregg,
>
> Here's a link to the Job Guarantee FAQ by Pavlina Tcherneva, Associate Professor of Economics at Bard University and research scholar at the Levy Institute. She specializes in Modern Monetary Theory and public policy, and is one of the foremost experts on
the Job Guarantee proposal. Besides the FAQ, there's all kinds of publications and videos on the JG, (plus other topics, including Pavlina's issues with the UBI).
>
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.pavlina-2Dtcherneva.net_job-2Dguarantee-2Dfaq&d=DwIFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=GnlnhKhfaXgzXHtv49mZRgbwzURspoigX2ZFwCDpoh4&s=s1KIakCBK5p7I-6c0En59v_9nhxsdbJLzDPkw4NeI0w&e=
>
> ~ Jason Bessey
>
>
>
> Job Guarantee FAQ | pavlina-tcherneva
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tuesday, October 8, 2019, 09:41:00 AM EDT, Peter Lloyd Jones <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> Bad email program…
>
> Should be:
>
> Beyond that there is no substantive threat.
>
>
>
>
>
> Peter Lloyd Jones
> [log in to unmask]
> 562-209-4080
>
> Sent by determined causes that no amount of will is able to thwart.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Oct 8, 2019, at 9:37 AM, Peter Lloyd Jones <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>
>
> Thank you Joseph for your note about tempering expectations.
>
>
>
> As a former mediocre road racer, I have a lot of experience in riding around on race tracks during races. Yang is using his presidential-candidate platform to promote certain ideas. Beyond that there is substantive threat. O’Rourke has stated that he will
take away our guns. They are both introducing progressive concepts because, without blood, politics moves slowly. You need to start somewhere. They know that they have sacraficed their candidacies to mold allowable discussions moving forward. Years ago if
you just asked if weed might have medical uses, your political career was over. Today...
>
>
>
> This is about ideas, which might be good and bad ideas, but it’s not about who will be the next president.
>
>
>
> Vote early and often.
>
> Best to all,
>
> Peter
>
>
>
>
>
> Peter Lloyd Jones
> [log in to unmask]
> 562-209-4080
>
> Sent by determined causes that no amount of will is able to thwart.
>
>
>
> ############################
>
> To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to: mailto:[log in to unmask] or click the following link: http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
>
> ############################
>
> To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to: mailto:[log in to unmask] or click the following link: http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
>
>
>
> ############################
>
> To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to: mailto:[log in to unmask] or click the following link: http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
>
> ############################
>
> To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to: mailto:[log in to unmask] or click the following link: http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
>
> ############################
> To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to: mailto:[log in to unmask] or click the following link: http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
>
> ############################
> To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to: mailto:[log in to unmask] or click the following link: http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
>
############################
To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list:
write to: mailto:[log in to unmask]
or click the following link:
http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
############################
############################
############################
############################
############################
############################
############################
############################
############################
############################
############################
############################
############################
############################
############################
To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to: mailto:[log in to unmask] or
click the following link: http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
############################
To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to: mailto:[log in to unmask] or
click the following link: http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
############################
To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to: mailto:[log in to unmask] or
click the following link: http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1