In our hands
This book reveals the ineffectiveness of government redistribution plans and offers a radical new approach to social policy.
Stats for nerds
1recommend
10mentions
6people
2008–2021years
10% recommend90% neutral
Mentions per year
What Hacker News says
- I see no one in this active discussion has mentioned yet Charles Murray's book In Our Hands: A Plan to Replace the Welfare State,
http://www.amazon.com/books/dp/0844742236
in which Murray goes into detail about how much a program of guaranteed income for everyone would cost in the United States, and some probable effects that would have on everyone's everyday behavior. I read the book a year or two after it was published.
Murray's own summary of his argument
http://www.irp.wisc.edu/publications/focus/pdfs/foc242a.pdf
and reviews of his book
http://www.aei.org/article/society-and-culture/poverty/in-ou...
http://www.conallboyle.com/BasicIncomeNewEcon/MurrayReview.p...
http://www.richmondfed.org/publications/research/region_focu...
http://mises.org/misesreview_detail.aspx?control=296
may inform the discussion here. Big public policy proposals are not easy to discuss, but the big public policy proposal of a guaranteed basic income for all is a response to existing policy of supposedly targeted social welfare programs that are just about equally expensive, but more costly to administer.
- Abominable as it is, my views are not just based on the Bell Curve's race-IQ discussion.
* In Losing Ground, Murray talks about about how welfare should be restricted because Black people are having too many kids. His book had a great deal of influence on the "welfare reform" instituted in the mid-1990s in the US.
* In In Our Hands, Murray proposes replacing all government assistance with "an annual $10,000 cash grant to everyone age twenty-one or older". Not only is this eugenics because everyone, abled or not, with medical needs or not, must be able to survive on $10,000 a year; but note the absence of a UBI for kids: the proposal would punish poorer people--who are disproportionately Black for historical reasons rooted in racist institutions like slavery, redlining and the War on Drugs--for having too many kids.
All of this is pretty textbook social Darwinist white supremacism--all of these views are regularly espoused at Stormfront and other such places.
Charles Murray is quite clearly a white supremacist, and the race-IQ stuff is only a small part of the case for it.
---
Edit: I'm "posting too fast" so responding here: I didn't know about Nathan Cofnas so I googled him and he appears to be standard-issue IDW: writes for Quillette, defends bigots like Kathleen Stock, etc. Any blowback they got is well-deserved.
From https://quillette.com/2021/01/14/philosophers-smear-one-of-t...:
> Stock argues that, for example, it is okay for cis women to object to a lesbian with a penis—what in ye olden days of 2014 was known as a heterosexual man
This is of course a complete lie: trans people have been recognized and understood across many cultures for thousands of years, sometimes as a third gender but usually not as the gender they were assigned at birth. This is both ignorant and hateful. Cofnas deserves to be "cancelled", as does anyone else who writes for Quillette to be frank (for the same guilt-by-association reason, which remains just as valid for Quillette as it is for Murray).
- I posted an article about a guaranteed basic income a bit more than a year ago,[1] and my posting of the article was prompted by noticing that other Hacker News participants had commented about such policies before, followed by my reading some articles that summarized Charles Murray's book about a guaranteed basic income. Ideologically, Murray would probably be even more in favor of no government welfare payments at all (but ask him directly for his current view), but when he wrote his book In Our Hands: A Plan to Replace the Welfare State,[2] Murray's basic argument was that governments are already spending billions and billions of dollars derived from taxpayers for means-tested welfare programs or other income transfer programs that are more complicated administratively than a guaranteed basic income, and a nationwide guaranteed basic income covers everyone at less administrative expense.
Murray's book goes into detail about how much a program of guaranteed income for everyone would cost in the United States, and suggests some probable effects that would have on everyone's everyday behavior. I read the book a year or two after it was published.
Murray's own summary of his argument[3] and reviews of his book[4] may inform the discussion here. Big public policy proposals are not easy to discuss, but the big public policy proposal of a guaranteed basic income for all is a response to existing policy of supposedly targeted social welfare programs that are just about equally expensive in the benefits they provide, but much more costly to administer.
As a matter of personal opinion, I am still thinking about whether or not a basic income guarantee is a good idea, but I definitely want to figure out if spending no more in total for social welfare by directly transferring cash to all citizens would simplify administration of welfare programs and allow more individual choice about how to use the money.
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6309882
[2] http://www.amazon.com/books/dp/0844742236
[3] http://www.irp.wisc.edu/publications/focus/pdfs/foc242a.pdf
[4] http://www.aei.org/article/society-and-culture/poverty/in-ou...
http://www.conallboyle.com/BasicIncomeNewEcon/MurrayReview.p...
http://www.richmondfed.org/publications/research/region_focu...
- Quote:
It is important to point out that under Murray’s proposal, which is outlined fully in his book In Our Hands: A Plan To Replace The Welfare State, after someone’s total annual income reached $25,000 a 20 percent surtax tax would be imposed on “incremental earned income,” capped at $5,000 once someone earns $50,000 a year.
OK, not uncle Milty, some other libertarian. Still, a tax that stops at $50K is hard to call something other than regressive.
- It will be interesting to see what happens if Switzerland tries out this policy. Thus far there hasn't been much mention in this thread of an author who has written a whole book about how a basic guaranteed income policy might work in the United States. Charles Murray's book In Our Hands: A Plan to Replace the Welfare State,
http://www.amazon.com/books/dp/0844742236
goes into detail about how much a program of guaranteed income for everyone would cost in the United States, and suggests some probable effects that would have on everyone's everyday behavior. I read the book a year or two after it was published.
Murray's own summary of his argument
http://www.irp.wisc.edu/publications/focus/pdfs/foc242a.pdf
and reviews of his book
http://www.aei.org/article/society-and-culture/poverty/in-ou...
http://www.conallboyle.com/BasicIncomeNewEcon/MurrayReview.p...
http://www.richmondfed.org/publications/research/region_focu...
http://mises.org/misesreview_detail.aspx?control=296
may inform the discussion here. The policy proposal of a basic income guarantee is interesting because
a) no country has ever tried it, really, so there isn't a real-world experience case to look at yet,
and
b) a remarkable variety of people from otherwise differing points of view have proposed it over the years.
I'm still trying to make up my mind how the trade-offs of a policy like a basic guaranteed income nationwide would compare to the trade-offs of "targeted" social welfare programs for elderly, disabled, and poor.
- This issue comes up from time to time here on Hacker News, which is why I submitted the current story. The policy proposal of a basic income guarantee is interesting because
a) no country has ever tried it, really, so there isn't a real-world experience case to look at yet,
and
b) a remarkable variety of people from otherwise differing points of view have proposed it over the years.
Charles Murray's book In Our Hands: A Plan to Replace the Welfare State,
http://www.amazon.com/books/dp/0844742236
goes into detail about how much a program of guaranteed income for everyone would cost in the United States, and suggests some probable effects that would have on everyone's everyday behavior. I read the book a year or two after it was published.
Murray's own summary of his argument
http://www.irp.wisc.edu/publications/focus/pdfs/foc242a.pdf
and reviews of his book
http://www.aei.org/article/society-and-culture/poverty/in-ou...
http://www.conallboyle.com/BasicIncomeNewEcon/MurrayReview.p...
http://www.richmondfed.org/publications/research/region_focu...
http://mises.org/misesreview_detail.aspx?control=296
may inform the discussion here. Big public policy proposals are not easy to discuss, but the big public policy proposal of a guaranteed basic income for all is a response to existing policy of supposedly targeted social welfare programs that are just about equally expensive in the benefits they provide, but much more costly to administer.
As a matter of personal opinion, I am still thinking about whether or not a basic income guarantee is a good idea, but I definitely want to figure out if spending no more in total for social welfare by directly transferring cash to all citizens would simplify administration of welfare programs and allow more individual choice about how to use the money.
