Essay #2
Minimum of 2 sources for your MLA Works Cited page.
Choice A
Watch Netflix documentary Ronnie Coleman: The King. Considered to be the greatest bodybuilder of all time, Coleman is now on crutches, faces a lifetime of excruciating pain, must take opioid pain medication, may have to be consigned to a wheelchair, and by most accounts the abuse he took to become a champion bodybuilder is the reason for his condition. The film celebrates Coleman’s life principle to persist in doing what he loves, but doing what he loves comes with a price: excruciating, life-altering injuries. Is doing what we love worth it? In this context, develop an argumentative thesis that addresses the notion that in order to achieve exceptional success, we are justified to make sacrifices of our body, minds, and souls. Is Coleman’s current condition justified by his success and his heroic drive to do what he loves? Answer this question and be sure to have a counterargument section.
Choice B
Read LA Times editorial “Why not let homeless college students park in campus lots?” and develop and argumentative thesis that addresses the claim that community colleges are acting in students’ best interests by providing sleeping spaces in the parking lots.
Choice C
Read Elizabeth Kolbert’s “Why Facts Don’t Change Minds” and “What’s New About Conspiracy Theories?” and develop an argumentative thesis that addresses the connection between irrational belief and the failure to change people’s minds.
Choice D
Read Jason Brennan’s “Can epistocracy, or knowledge-based voting, fix democracy?” and agree or refute Brennan's claim that we need an epistocracy.
Choice E
Read Ibram Kendi’s “White Terrorists Give Political Cover to Other American Prejudices” and develop a thesis that addresses how persuasive Kendi is in making his case that white terrorism is rooted in mainstream racism.
Choice F
Read Atossa Araxia Abrahamian’s “Money for Nothing” and develop an argumentative thesis that addresses the author’s skepticism toward Universal Basic Income. Update: I found a better essay to address: "Should the Government Give Everyone $1,000 a Month?" by Spencer Bokat-Lindell in The New York Times.
September 17 Essay 1 Due on turnitin; Ronnie Coleman; debate on providing sleepover parking lots: Read LA Times editorial “Why not let homeless college students park in campus lots?” and develop and argumentative thesis about the pros and cons of providing sleeping spaces for college students. Homework #5 for next class is to read Elizabeth Kolbert’s “Why Facts Don’t Change Minds” and “What’s New About Conspiracy Theories?” and in 200 words explain the connection between irrational belief and the failure to change people’s minds.
September 19 Go over Elizabeth Kolbert’s “Why Facts Don’t Change Minds” and “What’s New About Conspiracy Theories?” and in 200 words explain the connection between irrational belief and the failure to change people’s minds.
Homework #6 for next class is to read Jason Brennan’s “Can epistocracy, or knowledge-based voting, fix democracy?” and explain why Brennan believes we need an epistocracy.
September 24 Go over Jason Brennan’s “Can epistocracy, or knowledge-based voting, fix democracy?” and explain why Brennan believes we need an epistocracy.
Homework #7 for next class is to read Ibram Kendi’s “White Terrorists Give Political Cover to Other American Prejudices” and in 200 words explain how persuasive Kendi is in making his case that white terrorism is rooted in mainstream racism.
September 26 Go over Ibram Kendi’s “White Terrorists Give Political Cover to Other American Prejudices” and in 200 words explain how persuasive Kendi is in making his case that white terrorism is rooted in mainstream racism.
Homework #8 for next class is to read Vox essay “The case for and against universal basic income in the United States.” In 200 words, summarize the author's argument.
October 1 Go over Vox essay “The case for and against universal basic income in the United States.” Homework #9 is to read Atossa Araxia Abrahamian’s “Money for Nothing” and in 200 words explain the author’s skepticism toward Universal Basic Income.
October 3 We will watch a YouTube video that explains UBI. We will go over Atossa Araxia Abrahamian’s “Money for Nothing” and in 200 words explain the author’s skepticism toward Universal Basic Income. We will grade Portfolio #1, based on responses 1-9.
October 8 Chromebook In-Class Objective: Write introduction and thesis paragraph.
October 10 Chromebook In-Class Objective: Write 3 supporting paragraphs, your counterargument-rebuttal paragraph, and your conclusion.
October 15 Essay 2 due on turnitin.
Minimum of 2 sources for your MLA Works Cited page.
Choice F
Read Atossa Araxia Abrahamian’s “Money for Nothing” and develop an argumentative thesis that addresses the author’s skepticism toward Universal Basic Income.
Update:
I found a better essay to address: "Should the Government Give Everyone $1,000 a Month?" by Spencer Bokat-Lindell in The New York Times.
Suggested Outline:
Paragraph 1, Introduction: Summarize predicted unemployment crisis that could hit the world in the next 20-50 years.
Paragraph 2, Defend or refute the claim that UBI is an effective solution to mass unemployment.
Paragraphs 3-6: Your supporting paragraphs.
Paragraph 7: Counterargument-rebuttal
Paragraph 8: Your conclusion, a powerful restatement of your thesis.
A Primer or Introduction to Universal Basic Income
Economist gives us an introduction to UBI.
Psychology Change Needed for Universal Basic Income
Arguments Against Universal Basic Income (UBI)
One. A dependent society is a dysfunctional society.
Two. A lack of self-reliance diseases the soul and corrupts society.
Three. Acute dependence leads to totalitarianism and dehumanization. See The Giver.
Four. Acute dependence breaks down the family unit. Parents aren't responsible for their children; the government is.
Five. Being "off the grid" makes one chronically depressed, non-productive, and unemployable.
Arguments for Universal Basic Income
3 Reasons for Universal Basic Income from Brookings Institute
Pro-Work Argument for UBI
Washington Post article that argues UBI won't make America great again.
Challenging the American Work Ethic
There is a notion in America, from the beginning of its European history, that being a hard worker means being noble, virtuous, and successful.
The contrary is also assumed: If you're poor and unemployed, your life is evidence that you are a member of the damned. You are morally depraved and bankrupt.
This notion comes from a form of Protestantism called Calvinism. John Calvin said evidence of being a member of God's elect was being a hard worker. German philosopher Max Weber said this became the "Protestant Work Ethic," the fuel of American capitalism.
Read "The Protestant Work Ethic Is Real"
Sample Thesis Statements
Universal Basic Income is doomed to fail because it is a concession of a failed economic system, a surrender to the oligarchy, and a miserable fake solution to poverty and human dignity.
Failed or not, Universal Basic Income is the palliative dog treat that will be stuffed down our throats in order to pacify the masses from revolt in a new economy that will surely leave more and more people behind.
While sure to go through its growing pains, UBI must be embraced because we have no choice but to hinge our hopes for human dignity and humanitarian aid to the masses through UBI and be diligent as we perfect it over time.
UBI is the stinky monster we must go to bed with because without that stinky monster we will have to go to bed cold, wet, and hungry.
Conservatives and liberals alike rightly embrace UBI because it is the reasonable response to permanent mass unemployment and the need for a streamlined welfare program for the have-nots.
Far-left pundits are correct to reject UBI as a crappy drug designed to shut up the masses who will be getting punk-fed while the 1% laugh their way to the bank.
Even if UBI works on an economic level, human beings are not psychologically and spiritually hard-wired to live a life without structure, responsibility, and accountability, and as a result, UBI will spell the death to millions of the unemployed masses whose crap existence will be at its essence a condition of moral and intellectual dissolution.
Sample Essay on UBI
Take What Sucks Less
Sure, UBI sucks. It’s hardly enough money to create economic justice. It’s surely a pacifier for the masses who are getting punk fed the bare minimum to live a half-decent existence. I’m also certain that UBI will relegate most of us to some sweaty, dank room where we’ll intoxicate ourselves with a myriad of unsavory substances while looking on with bloodshot eyes at some entertainment or other on YouTube or Netflix.
We will grow fat, complacent, brain-dead. We’ll become less than human. We’ll become more like zombies, slogging through life without an ounce of pride or dignity as we live a sedentary life without individual goals, responsibility, or life purpose. We will be soulless pods hooked up to our private entertainment centers while the 1%, the real people, pull the strings, create technology that advances civilization and enjoy the spoils of their efforts as full human beings flourishing in some opulent environment while the rest of us poor UBI-receiving bots live like crammed sardines in shared housing with our equally depressed, brain-dead zombie roommates.
So am I arguing against UBI? Hell no. Even if our lives are as crappy as the one I described above, the life without UBI as we head for the Great Unemployment Age presents an even greater hellish existence, one with starvation, a lack of basic medical supplies and treatment, and abject homelessness.
Yeah, UBI sucks, but not getting UBI sucks even more. Don’t count on the government to share the 1%’s wealth with the rest of us. The 1% will only share as much as they have to, and they have calculated that giving us just enough UBI so that we don’t become a raging, lawless mob is worth the 4-trillion UBI annual price tag. We should just admit we lost the class war.
We are now in the unenviable position where we can either take our UBI pittance, which sucks, or not take our UBI table scraps, which sucks even more. That is our dilemma. We must take this painful truth on the chin and move on with our crappy lives. The alternative is certain death.
The Sucks Less Approach Is Hideous
The above argument, which essentially paints us as starving dogs that should be grateful for the table scraps of UBI is so full of grotesque logical fallacies that the person who wrote this specious argument should be thrown into Logical Fallacy Prison.
For one, the writer gives us a false dilemma of only two choices: A crappy life with UBI or an even crappier life without UBI. There are other possibilities that the writer does not address because those possibilities present an inconvenience to his argument. For example, some people will continue to work and use UBI to supplement their income. Others will use UBI to fund their higher education, but the above writer is too busy enjoying his despair to consider these possibilities. Secondly, the writer presents a pessimism that is unfounded on evidence. He seems to think dehumanization from UBI is inevitable, yet he presents no facts to back up his claim. Rather, he indulges in his personal crapulent attitude and wishes to impose it on the rest of us, as if he’s doing us a favor by lavishing us with some universal truth, yet he is not. He is merely a Minister of Darkness contaminating us with his gospel of despair.
Finally, he assumes the worst case scenario of UBI and paints a broad brush over the human reaction to receiving guaranteed income to fulfill our basic life needs without addressing the complexities and unknowable, tentative outcomes. In short, the above writer is a grotesque nihilist who is hell-bent on infecting us with his anguish and despair. For the truth about UBI, I suggest we look elsewhere.
Universal Basic Income Primer Part II (source: Annie Lowrey's book Give People Money)
You get a check, perhaps $1,000, every month with no questions asked and no questions. The money can help you barely survive and essentially protect you from destitution. You could live in a shared apartment, buy food, and have money for public transportation. That’s it. Everything above that would require some kind of job or side hustle.
Not all the details are ironed out. Countries haven’t agreed upon an age or a policy for recently settled immigrants.
UBI is response to shrinking middle class, shrinking real wages, unaffordable housing, overpriced education, technological-fueled unemployment, and an over complicated welfare system. Countries all over the world are seriously considering UBI. Some are already implementing it.
UBI will give workers more leverage with their employers. They won’t feel as desperate to work for a horrible boss and/or a horrible job.
UBI will give an escape route to abused spouse who needs to get out of a hellish marriage or relationship.
UBI may give protection to over 3 million jobs lost due to self-driving cars in the next 10-20 years.
Concerns
Some are concerned that UBI would motivate people to permanently drop out of job market and reduce productivity.
Lowry estimates the cost of UBI to be $3.9 trillion to US government every year.
UBI Appeal
Lowrey writes that she is less interested in policy and more interested in the ethical foundation. She writes:
“What I came to believe is this: A UBI is an ethos as much as it is a technocratic policy proposal.” It contains within it the principles of universality, unconditionality, inclusion, and simplicity, and it insists that every person is deserving of participation in the economy, freedom of choice, and a life without deprivation.”
In other words, there is an ethical message: Deprivation and starvation are morally unacceptable. A fundamental safety net, no questions asked, must be made available to the citizenry. This is the least decent thing a society can and must do.
The above is Lowrey’s central argument.
Disruption in Employment
Lowrey shows evidence that more and more jobs are being permanently lost even during recoveries as AI is becoming more and more self-regulating and less dependent on human engineers.
At the same time, what job growth there is exists in the “crummy jobs” department with fast food and temporary work being the new boom. Over 40% of fast food workers are over 25; in other words, adults are supporting their families with “crummy jobs.”
American workers are becoming more and more part of the odious, dreadful gig economy, a life of hustle without good pay, stability, or benefits.
We have a “good jobs crisis.” That crummy jobs are on the rise gives employers leverage to punk people with those jobs. But UBI will take some of that leverage away.
On page 49, we read of growing economic disparity between 1979 and 2014 in a major study.
Bottom half of earners in 1979 had 20% of income; in 2014, they had gone down to 13%.
In contrast, the 1% top earners jumped from 11% to 20% in that same time period.
Hysteresis
We have a new class of unemployed who suffer from long-term unemployment, about 2-3 years or more. They suffer from hysteresis: They lag behind in every category and has permanent lower earnings even after a recession.
Temporary Jobs on Vice News Video
Why is not working so hard for Americans?
Let us set aside the economic need for work for a second and imagine being economically independent of work. Americans have a psychological dependence on work that does not exist in other countries.
Believe it or not, America has a relationship with work that is unique in the world. In other countries, people work for money, but the job does not define them.
Not so in America. We have cultivated a work ethic that makes one’s personal identity and spiritual virtue synonymous with the kind of work one does.
We see work, or industriousness, as a “social obligation and a foundation of the good life” (70).
This mindset makes us vulnerable for a variety of reasons.
One, should we make any job define who we are? Why is industriousness a “national religion”? Why do we have this mentality but other countries do not?
Two, is this a healthy mindset when crummy jobs are on the rise and desirable jobs are on the decline?
Three, is this a wise mindset in a world where technology could lead to massive permanent unemployment?
Four, have we been brainwashed to our detriment?
Consider the ancient Greeks and Romans argued that the highest quality of life was based on leisure and philosophical contemplation, not industriousness.
But Americans are under the spell of the Puritan work ethic which says idleness leads to the work of the devil.
Therefore, always be busy. Always strive for more. Always incorporate a side hustle.
While European countries see our social and economic class as a matter of fate and circumstance, Americans subscribe to the myth of the self-made man who lifts himself out of his bootstraps.
Unlike Europeans who see poverty as a trap from an unfair system, Americans see poverty as a matter of self-blame, the result of one’s character defects.
Social Validation
Unlike others, Americans are dependent on social validation that results from their job. Identity, self-reliance, moral and social obligation, and social validation connected with job status.
Social Stigma from Joblessness
Being jobless in America leads to shame, social stigma, ignominy, and chronic depression. It becomes a sort of death.
Americans recover from death of loved one, divorce, catastrophe. But they do not recovery from joblessness.
This mental state presents a challenge to UBI and future world of mass unemployment.
Freeloaders?
There is a work mindset in America that would resist UBI: Why should people get money for free? What kind of sick morally bankrupt system would allow such a thing?
However, Lowrey points to program in Iran that is similar to UBI, and it did not result in increased unemployment as a result of making people too lazy to work (82).
Going to School, Caring for Ailing Parent, Parenthood
Another argument for UBI is that rather than make people lazy, people will have more freedom to attend college, care for a sick parent, or do the duties of parenting.
Perhaps it is too extreme to argue that UBI would destroy the labor force.
Why is the question about how UBI will affect our relationship with work “scary”?
Lowrey writes that this question is “scary” because employers won’t have as much leverage over their employees.
People wouldn’t have to do work they don’t want to do and they could gravitate to work they do want to perform.
What is the Hammock Argument?
UBI is dangerous. Why? Because when you give people a safety net, society will quickly fall asleep on a giant hammock. Handouts are the beginning of laziness and death to the soul. Drugs and a life of addiction will ensue. People need work and purpose. In their absence, people will become zombies.
But so far, UBI in Kenya and elsewhere is not having the Hammock Effect.
Lowrey says the opposite occurs: Less work abuse, less child labor, less starvation, more medical care, more school attendance (95).
Guaranteed money means less stress and a higher IQ.
Cash is superior to helping people than goods and services (108). Having villages make shoes, for example, leads to a shoe glut in the area, which hurts villages.
Hurting Poor Argument
What could be a harmful consequence of UBI to the poor?
Streamlining welfare into UBI will save the government money in various costs, including bureaucratic ones, but for many poor people, the UBI payment will be LESS than what they were making on welfare.
As we see in this Guardian article, UBI, while loved by the Left, is also loved by the Right as part of a campaign to get rid of welfare.
Some Critiques of Lowrey's Support of UBI
Statistical Analysis Lacking?
Financial Times argues Lowrey hasn’t used the data in depth enough to be convincing in her argument for UBI.
Does Lowrey Contradict Herself and the Very Premise of UBI?
Writing in the New York Times, Robert B. Reich makes this observation:
But how could America possibly afford a U.B.I.? A $1,000-a-month grant to every American would cost about $3.9 trillion a year. That’s about $1.3 trillion on top of existing welfare programs — roughly the equivalent of the entire federal budget, or about a fifth of the entire United States economy. Both Yang and Lowrey come up with laundry lists of potential funding sources — from soaking the rich (raising the top tax bracket to 55 percent, enlarging the estate tax and implementing new taxes on wealth, financial transactions and perhaps even the owners of the robots and related devices that are displacing jobs), to instituting a carbon tax or a value-added tax.
Whatever the source of funds, it seems a safe bet that increased automation will allow the economy to continue to grow, making a U.B.I. more affordable. A U.B.I. would itself generate more consumer spending, stimulating additional economic activity. And less poverty would mean less crime, incarceration and other social costs associated with deprivation. “You know what’s really expensive?” Yang asks. “Dysfunction. Revolution.”
If these measures still aren’t enough to foot the bill, Lowrey suggests making a U.B.I. less universal by taxing away U.B.I. payments to high-income earners and reducing other forms of social insurance (for example, eliminating food stamps and welfare programs). As a last resort, she writes, a U.B.I. could be implemented as a kind of negative income tax, by which government simply ensures that every person or household has a certain minimum yearly income. This is what Richard Nixon and Milton Friedman had in mind. Lowrey figures that the cost of such a guarantee would approximate the current total costs of the earned-income tax credit, supplemental security income, housing assistance, food stamps and school lunches. She notes that the simplest way to achieve this would be to transform existing antipoverty programs into unconditional cash transfers.
But there’s a logical flaw in her argument. Once a U.B.I. is no longer universal or even basic (what if the poor are worse off when other forms of assistance are stripped away?), it’s hard to see the point of having it in the first place. More troubling is Lowrey’s blurring of the distinction between a U.B.I. that redistributes resources from the superrich to the growing number of vulnerable lower-income Americans and one that merely turns programs for the poor into cash assistance. The latter may be warranted, but it wouldn’t touch America’s growing scourge of inequality and economic insecurity, which will be made worse as robots take over good jobs.
Is UBI a bad idea?
So says Josh Barro in Business Insider.
Post-Work Future a Nightmare?
Josh Barro rebukes UBI in his Business Insider article.
Annie Lowrey presents UBI on The Daily Show.
How does Lowrey argue that UBI may be superior to current welfare safety net?
We read that current safety net doesn’t catch many poor people who are left starving and destitute.
Part of the problem is a deeply rooted prejudice against the poor that says there is the deserving and the undeserving poor and this line is not clear.
She argues that the “safety net holes are not defects but design flaws but intentional features” (142).
Part of the “intentional feature” that punishes the poor are work requirements.
UBI Pro Argument: UBI is better than current welfare system, which includes work requirements.
Washington Post article addresses work requirements directly.
Economist article addresses how work requirements hurt poor children.
The Atlantic article also addresses the shortcomings of work requirements.
We see similar claim in this Washington Post article.
We see similar support of UBI in New Yorker synthesis of various UBI arguments.
Review Supports or “For” Arguments for UBI
One. UBI is better than welfare because UBI avoids the Cliff Effect in which people get trapped in cycle of poverty because welfare benefits add up to more than a job promotion or full-time job. Within ten years, we may lose one-third of the workforce.
Two. UBI would give employees more leverage to avoid hellish jobs and hellish bosses.
Three. Volunteer workers could now be compensated and be free to do their volunteer work.
Four. UBI would simplify welfare benefit labyrinth. By eliminating welfare, we can save about a trillion dollars, according to Ryan Rogers, author of The Citizens’ Dividend: A Case for Universal Basic Income (87).
Five. UBI would take a chunk out of poverty-induced stress, which is considered a huge health hazard.
Six. UBI would help people pursue higher education.
Seven. UBI would give people time and resources to pursue entrepreneurship, going into self-made business.
Eight. UBI would be necessary for future with permanent unemployment due to AI and technological advances. Engineers are developing software that will replace workers.
Nine. UBI would reduce or outright eliminate the stigma of those who get aid as “parasites.”
Ten. UBI is a moral response to people who have fallen through the welfare net’s holes and are suffering from starvation and destitution. According to United Nations, out of 10 developed countries America ranks last in creating a viable safety net for the poor. In any affluent society, many argue, abolishing poverty is a moral obligation and UBI is a necessary step in that direction.
Eleven. The tech economy is created a stratified economic world with 15-20% of Americans enjoying comfortable income while the rest slog in penury, according to Tyler Cowen of George Mason University. In the new economy, there can be economic growth while 80% of Americans suffer decline in real wages.
Cons
One. Those who are doing “necessary” work will subsidize people who are doing “optional” work and living more casual, laid-back lifestyles. You’re working in a coal mine and your tax dollars are going to a guy who is training to be a yoga instructor. How does that feel?
Two. Millions of people will make decent money and won’t need Universal Basic Income, a waste of tax dollars.
Three. Many will find UBI is a work disincentive. As a result, work productivity will go down creating less goods and services, resulting in inflation.
Four. UBI may encourage people to a life of the hammock, entertainment addiction, laziness, and spiritual emptiness. But according to Ryan Rogers, the opposite is true. Studies show people work more and have less children (89).
Five. UBI doesn’t target specific poverty and health needs the way the current welfare does and in fact UBI will result in less aid to the poor.
Six. UBI cannot address the complexities of immigration; in fact, UBI may cause more anti-immigration sentiment.
Seven. No one has a clear explanation of how society will pay for UBI.
Eight. UBI is the precursor to communism.
Vox Counterarguments Against Two Main Objections to UBI
Excellent article: Critique of UBI: “A Universal Basic Income Is a Poor Tool to Fight Poverty” by Eduardo Porter in The New York Times.
Liberal leaning Huffpost critiques UBI in “Don’t Buy the Hype.”
Argument that says Universal Basic Assets program is superior to UBI.
