Eh, possibly? The biggest benefit of direct payments comes from people not working as much and instead doing the shit they need to do, weather that’s get the kids handled, do their own laundry and dishes or just go out and take a walk and those are the same benefits as a ubi.
The problem with conflating compensation for domestic labor with ubi is that compensating domestic labor accomplishes more structural goals which is a huge deal because the problems of domestic labor are structural.
One example is that on a fundamental level compensating people for domestic labor values that labor. It can’t just be shit you’re expected to do if someone cares enough about it to pay you for it. That aspect also addresses lots of racial and gendered problems with domestic labor.
Another benefit is that now the state (by dint of its distributing payments) has a stake in social reproduction and families that’s direct and not mediated through the lens of moral or religious values.
The problem with ubi is that it relies on markets to figure out how to fix shit by just giving the currency of markets to people. That works pretty well, because those markets are what’s ultimately causing people to suffer, so giving them resources to not be beaten by the market helps a lot, but it’s acting without direction or state power, effectively fighting with at best one hand tied behind your back. I think it’s more accurate to say it’s like private military contracts, money spent with the hope something happens but no real goal or idea how to actually accomplish what you want.
As I said though: it would be good if people had more money.
I’m thinking more in terms of implementation. I can’t imagine a world in which accurately tracking domestic labour would be possible, or desirable. And you can see how giving women more money for domestic labour just because they’re “supposed” to do more is very flawed at the individual level, even if seems logically sound at the demographic scale. Honestly it’s been years since I gave this much thought. I know making payments to the women in households works better in LEDCs with very strict gender roles.
I don’t think the payment needs to be gendered or even tracked closely but if you’re worried about a lack of means testing you could go full clintonite demon mode, scale it against household size and distribute it as a tax credit.
E: you could also do the Industrial Revolution for housework and provide community laundry service, grocery delivery, hot meal distribution and handyman work instead of cash payments for dealing with all that crap yourself.
I think you could potentially package that as UBI.
Eh, possibly? The biggest benefit of direct payments comes from people not working as much and instead doing the shit they need to do, weather that’s get the kids handled, do their own laundry and dishes or just go out and take a walk and those are the same benefits as a ubi.
The problem with conflating compensation for domestic labor with ubi is that compensating domestic labor accomplishes more structural goals which is a huge deal because the problems of domestic labor are structural.
One example is that on a fundamental level compensating people for domestic labor values that labor. It can’t just be shit you’re expected to do if someone cares enough about it to pay you for it. That aspect also addresses lots of racial and gendered problems with domestic labor.
Another benefit is that now the state (by dint of its distributing payments) has a stake in social reproduction and families that’s direct and not mediated through the lens of moral or religious values.
The problem with ubi is that it relies on markets to figure out how to fix shit by just giving the currency of markets to people. That works pretty well, because those markets are what’s ultimately causing people to suffer, so giving them resources to not be beaten by the market helps a lot, but it’s acting without direction or state power, effectively fighting with at best one hand tied behind your back. I think it’s more accurate to say it’s like private military contracts, money spent with the hope something happens but no real goal or idea how to actually accomplish what you want.
As I said though: it would be good if people had more money.
I’m thinking more in terms of implementation. I can’t imagine a world in which accurately tracking domestic labour would be possible, or desirable. And you can see how giving women more money for domestic labour just because they’re “supposed” to do more is very flawed at the individual level, even if seems logically sound at the demographic scale. Honestly it’s been years since I gave this much thought. I know making payments to the women in households works better in LEDCs with very strict gender roles.
I don’t think the payment needs to be gendered or even tracked closely but if you’re worried about a lack of means testing you could go full clintonite demon mode, scale it against household size and distribute it as a tax credit.
E: you could also do the Industrial Revolution for housework and provide community laundry service, grocery delivery, hot meal distribution and handyman work instead of cash payments for dealing with all that crap yourself.