The disagreement between @mattyglesias and @ddayen over whether the CARES Act 'worked' is ideological. The CARES Act replaced permanent jobs with temporary incomes. Use of terms like 'worked' obscures the disagreement. vox.com/2020/5/29/2127…
Yglesias basically likes incomes without work.
"There’s been emphasis in the media on the problems with filing for benefits and the broken-by-design underlying structure of these systems. But the message of this data is that, on the whole, it worked." vox.com/2020/5/29/2127…
"There’s been emphasis in the media on the problems with filing for benefits and the broken-by-design underlying structure of these systems. But the message of this data is that, on the whole, it worked." vox.com/2020/5/29/2127…
What @ddayen examines is the shift in power when everyone's dependent on the state for income. He's deeply uncomfortable with an architecture that strips productive power from small business and workers while giving them temporary incomes. prospect.org/coronavirus/un…
Andrew Yang is the lead talking UBI branding, but putting people on the dole is the preferred social justice solution of elite lefty technocratic thinking since the 1970s. We can see that play out with the CARES Act. Yes it's juicing incomes. It's also empowering big business.
What's also useful to recognize is @mattyglesias's assumption that most jobs are basically just busywork done to justify giving income, versus @ddayen's assumption that how we make, sell and fix things structures justice. prospect.org/coronavirus/un…
