/r/antiwork: A tragedy of sanewashing and social gentrification • Hacker News Board

Re: /r/antiwork: A tragedy of sanewashing and social gentrification

#541

Post by sa1 » Tue, Feb 08, 2022, 5:19 PM UTC

monkeynotes wrote: post #191

JSavageOne wrote: post #156

I remember stumbling upon /r/antiwork a few years ago and being so happy I'd stumbled upon a thriving movement that so effectively criticized one of the core principles of society that everyone takes for granted - that everyone must effectively sell their labor to someone else (unless they're rich enough to opt out, or clever enough to create some business or invest their way out). To me anti-work is the recognition…

> We could already have this reality today if we just implemented a universal basic income This is at best naieve. How can you possibly reduce all of the complexities of a nation's multiple economic wants and needs to that conclusion? This is the problem with the movement, myopic and idealistic notions of being free from work. Universal income basically drives up inflation, if you give everyone a free $10 everything…

> if you give everyone a free $10 everything becomes $10 devalued.

Inflation happens, but the poor benefit much more, as their gains from UBI(as a percentage of their existing income) are more than the loss through inflation.

For rich people, the loss can be more, but this is how inequality is reduced.

Re: /r/antiwork: A tragedy of sanewashing and social gentrification

#542

Post by giantg2 » Tue, Feb 08, 2022, 5:39 PM UTC

totony wrote: post #534

giantg2 wrote: post #522

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah... letting the companies that provide those services, making a profit from them, determine who qualifies is probably going to rife with fraud and abuse. At best, you end up with inflated costs due to there being little incentivize keeping costs down, like we see with student loans and college.

A lot of countries nationalised these services since they're essential. Nothing stops the US from doing the same.

That's not what the proposal is suggesting, and not really part of most UBI proposals.

Re: /r/antiwork: A tragedy of sanewashing and social gentrification

#543

Post by giantg2 » Tue, Feb 08, 2022, 5:41 PM UTC

totony wrote: post #535

giantg2 wrote: post #524

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not a separate issue. One of the programs they would cut is housing assistance. So that directly affects it. You could say that housing costs are a larger issue. However that issue is largely a non-issue for the demographic we are talking about currently since they qualify for stuff like HUD assistance (which would be removed under the plan).

I think the premisr of the proposition is that UBI makes housing assistances superfluous, since UBI should cover basic needs.

That may be the premise, but as stated earlier in this chain, it appears to be false ($15k won't cover healthcare, housing, etc that would be removed under the proposal).

Re: /r/antiwork: A tragedy of sanewashing and social gentrification

#544

Post by ChrisArchitect » Tue, Feb 08, 2022, 7:07 PM UTC

TraceWoodgrains wrote: post #517

ChrisArchitect wrote: post #477

only opened this to find out what the hell sanewashing is. Still not sure/can't find a clear definition. Use real words in titles. (like, even urbandictionary entries acceptable of course)

I did link the original piece coining the term and quote the specific definition given. I think that's a sufficient standard to meet when introducing an unfamiliar term.

Not good -- having to read some additional link to a top post of a reddit thread that mentions the term over 10 times but never explicitly defines it is really tough for a reader c'mon. I saw that the link went to some reddit post without a specific comment or anything and wasn't going to click it.

So on that post after reading paragraph after paragraph I kind of get it but man it's really not explicit and just talked about even there like it's a thing. It isn't. Using the term is as wacky as the actual topic being discussed about 'normal people think Defund means Defund'.

Let's create a definition then of something like:

sanewashing • deliberately glossing over or attempting to conceal unpleasant or insane facts or actions about something or someone.

Re: /r/antiwork: A tragedy of sanewashing and social gentrification

#545

Post by merdaverse » Tue, Feb 08, 2022, 7:27 PM UTC

xtracto wrote: post #266

JSavageOne wrote: post #156

I remember stumbling upon /r/antiwork a few years ago and being so happy I'd stumbled upon a thriving movement that so effectively criticized one of the core principles of society that everyone takes for granted - that everyone must effectively sell their labor to someone else (unless they're rich enough to opt out, or clever enough to create some business or invest their way out). To me anti-work is the recognition…

> I haven't browsed the subreddit in forever but just took a look, and it's sad to see it's just a bunch of stupid memes now. Every decent subreddit eventually devolved into a bunch of stupid memes. The September that never ends. This has been a problem in the internet since its initial days (in the Usenet for example). The problem with systems like Reddit (less so news.ycombinator) is that the "ethernal september" c…

I'm not sure that real names would help much. Look at LinkedIn. Lots of personal details in each person's profile, yet it is still devolving into Facebook level low quality content.

Re: /r/antiwork: A tragedy of sanewashing and social gentrification

#546

Post by vanusa » Tue, Feb 08, 2022, 8:30 PM UTC

wutbrodo wrote: post #469

vanusa wrote: post #407

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I understand what the word means. My point, which I thought was very clear, is simply: If what the r/antiwork community attempting to do in promoting their position an instance of an (attempted) "transformation of a radical viewpoint into one that's palatable to the mainstream" ... Then is not the normalization of an unhealthy addiction to overwork (as a kind of "virtue") -- arguably an instance of a successful trans…

> instance of an (attempted) "transformation of a radical viewpoint into one that's palatable to the mainstream" ... I again think this is misunderstanding the point. The "transformation" we're talking about is one that betrays the initial goal. It didn't become palatable by convincing the mainstream, it did so by _changing its goal_ to something the mainstream already agreed with, contradicting the core beliefs of t…

Hmm - actually I was using "sane" and "radical" in the intrinsic sense, independent of their popularity at any time after another.

Hence the view that the current workaholic "normal" as a radical departure from the social contract which preceded it.

And that it's worth asking how, exactly, this came to pass -- and in effect become the "new normal", before most people were aware this shift had happened.

Re: /r/antiwork: A tragedy of sanewashing and social gentrification

#547

Post by dgreensp » Tue, Feb 08, 2022, 9:18 PM UTC

achenet wrote: post #310

dgreensp wrote: post #165

It’s a fascinating article, but it lacks respect for people taking principled positions about this social issue. Progressives are fad-chasing sheep, supposedly, while anarchists are legit, but crazy. It’s like the Jordan Peterson philosophy on climate change: People need to stop talking about it and caring about it, because anyone who does so is just virtue-signaling and basically being a shallow, useless idiot about…

disagree with the climate change thing. We need to be working on finding better solutions. My current goal is to make enough money in the software industry to go back to school so I can learn biochemistry in order to devise bio-technologies that can reverse pollution. If you've got some spare time, energy and imagination, your help would be greatly appreciated. ^_^

To be clear, I was advocating against the “individual or collective action is pointless” position on climate change. I do think people should be thinking, talking, and acting, if they want!

Re: /r/antiwork: A tragedy of sanewashing and social gentrification

#548

Post by relaxing » Tue, Feb 08, 2022, 9:28 PM UTC

giantg2 wrote: post #543

totony wrote: post #535

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the premisr of the proposition is that UBI makes housing assistances superfluous, since UBI should cover basic needs.

That may be the premise, but as stated earlier in this chain, it appears to be false ($15k won't cover healthcare, housing, etc that would be removed under the proposal).

I don’t understand. You think every homeless family gets a $7000 apartment? Do you have any idea what HUD actually spends on vouchers, section 8, etc?

Re: /r/antiwork: A tragedy of sanewashing and social gentrification

#549

Post by prepend » Tue, Feb 08, 2022, 10:00 PM UTC

kemitche wrote: post #351

prepend wrote: post #283

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Not print money. So you give everyone some amount, say 12K/year, and then support it with taxes. I’m trying to say this with utmost respect. But $12k x 330M is $4T/year. In 2021, the US collected about $4T [0]. The US spent about $7T [1]. So it would take lots of iterations to figure this out. I think there are some efficiencies so you can reduce some of this budget but introducing a UBI like this would up the spen…

> Proposing this seems less likely than just researching Star Trek replicators to reduce the need to buy food or something. The problem with that is, without UBI, replicators don't solve the problem. The corporation that invents such a thing would get rich and charge the poorest to use it. We currently HAVE enough food, shelter, and health care as a society to cover everyone, but the efficiency/productivity gains hav…

I think the answer to replicators isn’t to give people enough money to buy replicators. The issue is to make replicators free to everyone.

I think this is parallel to “free college.” I don’t think we should give everyone $20k/year to go to college. We should make college free and low cost.

I don’t think it’s fair to funnel UBI to billionaires as the goal is to help people, but make some people really rich with the new transfers.

Re: /r/antiwork: A tragedy of sanewashing and social gentrification

#550

Post by nybble41 » Tue, Feb 08, 2022, 10:24 PM UTC

relaxing wrote: post #548

giantg2 wrote: post #543

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That may be the premise, but as stated earlier in this chain, it appears to be false ($15k won't cover healthcare, housing, etc that would be removed under the proposal).

I don’t understand. You think every homeless family gets a $7000 apartment? Do you have any idea what HUD actually spends on vouchers, section 8, etc?

> Do you have any idea what HUD actually spends on vouchers, section 8, etc?

The actual amount varies by region and income, but e.g. the Housing Authority of the City of Los Angeles (which is financed by HUD) says[0]:

> For CY2020, HACLA paid more than $582 Million to private Landlords on behalf of more than 44,000 participant families.

That works out to an average (mean) of $13.2k per year per family—and they're only covering a portion of the rent. A couple living on UBI and no longer receiving Section 8 vouchers would spend about half of two UBI payments making up for the loss of Section 8, while the other $16.8k/year needs to cover the rest of their rent, food, clothing, transportation, medicine, and any other necessary expenses for both of them.

[0] http://home.hacla.org/abouts8