Autism, exploitation and Capitalism

[kandrathe]

Good for you. Unfortunately, that doesn't change the fact the system oppresses, discriminates and in general treats Autistic people and other disabled people like doodoo because they are viewed as inferior, and a danger to profits.

I too, am on the spectrum. The lecture is riddled with false equivalences. The core issue is the value of a person's contribution to society.

LOL moment...

Because of this devaluation, people with disabilities have been neglected, abused and killed since the dawn of class society.

Ever heard of "Caeadas of Taygetus" near Sparti? Or, child abandonment & infanticide in pre-Christian Nordic culture. But, not limited to the advent of the class system. It was common thought across the political left/right in the US, during the Progressive Era (early - mid-1900's), that "undesirables" should be sterilized (even here in rural Minnesota).

Using his example, being blind. If the person becomes trained in using their remaining senses to offer value, such as Jack Chen, then our society is able to fit them in.

Jack Chen would not fit in the majority of jobs available since he lacks a sense necessary for most jobs. But, he, as did I, have overcome our disabilities to find a niche within the system. But, more and more, due to laws like the ADA, employers are encouraged (aka. required ) to accommodate people with disabilities. My employer has a schedule of alterations needed across these ancient buildings built in 1902 that will cost millions of dollars. Our web site maintainers have spent thousands of hours making our sites accessible to the sight impaired.

The sociological issue is not disability. It is that we have a portion of our society that does not fit the free market model of Pre-K to 12th grade mandatory public education, optional post-secondary education, then to find work for 90,000 hours to provide an income for yourself (and optional family) until retirement. Then, depending on how much you saved or invested, you may or may not be above the poverty line until you die. The challenge to ushering us all into the communist utopia is that people like to remain free to make their own decisions on how they lead their lives.

Have you heard of the UBI proposal by Charles Murray?

The UBI has brought together odd bedfellows. Its advocates on the left see it as a move toward social justice; its libertarian supporters (like Friedman) see it as the least damaging way for the government to transfer wealth from some citizens to others. Either way, the UBI is an idea whose time has finally come, but it has to be done right.

First, my big caveat: A UBI will do the good things I claim only if it replaces all other transfer payments and the bureaucracies that oversee them. If the guaranteed income is an add-on to the existing system, it will be as destructive as its critics fear.

Second, the system has to be designed with certain key features. In my version, every American citizen age 21 and older would get a $13,000 annual grant deposited electronically into a bank account in monthly installments. Three thousand dollars must be used for health insurance (a complicated provision I won’t try to explain here), leaving every adult with $10,000 in disposable annual income for the rest of their lives.

People can make up to $30,000 in earned income without losing a penny of the grant. After $30,000, a graduated surtax reimburses part of the grant, which would drop to $6,500 (but no lower) when an individual reaches $60,000 of earned income. Why should people making good incomes retain any part of the UBI? Because they will be losing Social Security and Medicare, and they need to be compensated.

I'm not entirely opposed to this line of thinking. One of my main concerns regarding the cold hard free market is the societal need for the old, disabled, and the increasing number of employables who are becoming less able to offer a contribution to the growing wealth machine. Automation, robots, AI, etc. are taking over more and more jobs that vast numbers of people used to hold. What work remains is not necessary for basic sustenance, and is optional work (e.g. arts, services), and yielding the lowest of compensation (with growing competition). Also, I feel we (in the US) are well past our limit for a consumption based economy. We can not sustainably rely on increased global consumption to sustain economic growth.

Where we probably differ on this UBI idea is that while there will be a large number of people living on the minimum, most people will still have the freedom to acquire wealth without restraint.

What I believe outrages the communists, is the thought of anyone doing better than anyone else. Their grand theory is to mandate that everyone toss their contribution of effort into a large pot (usually government controlled), then doll it out as needed. See, that seems fair, unless you are in anyway gifted, and can contribute much more to the pot than the average comrade. Eventually what kills it, is the entire lack of motivation to excel without reward (and corruption/mismanagement by the ones holding the pot). Hence, the failed Soviet/Cuban dictatorship model, where slackers and other undesirables get sent off to gulag prison camps, or subsist in barrios until they die.

The cold hard reality is that our system doesn't really need as many people anymore, so we'll need to craft a society that can thrive without requiring them to work everyday in order to survive. I'm on the pro-freedom side of this.