Scott examines how American political discourse absorbs European narratives that don't fit the US context, particularly around immigration and crime statistics. Longer summary

Scott argues that American political discourse sometimes absorbs European issues that don't apply to the US context. He gives two main examples: the narrative about generational wealth transfer through pensions (which happens in Europe but not America), and conservative talking points about immigrants being criminals and welfare recipients (largely true in parts of Europe, largely false in America). He provides detailed statistics showing that most US immigrant groups, including asylum seekers, have lower crime rates than native-born Americans, contrasting this with higher rates in countries like Germany. Scott suggests both liberals and conservatives avoid acknowledging this difference because it's politically inconvenient, but argues liberals should directly challenge conservatives to focus on American rather than European data. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander critiques an NYT article on the weakness of financial incentives, arguing that they remain crucial as a counterweight to powerful social incentives. Longer summary

Scott Alexander responds to a New York Times article arguing that financial incentives are less powerful than commonly assumed. He agrees with the article's main points but offers four counterarguments: 1) Marginal cases matter more than average responses, 2) Social norms can be shaped by long-term economic incentives, 3) The principle can be applied inconsistently across political lines, and 4) Financial incentives serve as an important counterweight to social incentives. Scott emphasizes that while social incentives are indeed powerful, financial incentives play a crucial role in encouraging innovation and counterbalancing potentially stifling social pressures. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander summarizes and responds to reader comments on his previous post comparing basic income to basic job guarantee programs. Longer summary

Scott Alexander summarizes and responds to various comments on his previous post about basic income vs. basic jobs. He covers topics like different countries' experiences with job guarantee programs, potential issues with UBI implementation, economic considerations, and philosophical arguments for and against UBI and basic jobs. The post aims to provide a balanced view of the debate by highlighting thoughtful comments from multiple perspectives. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander argues strongly for basic income over basic jobs guarantees, citing numerous advantages of basic income and potential pitfalls of basic jobs programs. Longer summary

Scott Alexander argues strongly against the idea of a basic jobs guarantee, preferring a basic income guarantee instead. He presents 11 main arguments: 1) Basic jobs don't help the disabled, 2) They don't help caretakers, 3) They don't help parents, 4) Jobs are actually a big cause of poverty, 5) Basic jobs may not pay for themselves through useful work, 6) It's hard to deal with bad workers in a basic jobs system, 7) It's hard for workers to escape bad workplaces, 8) Basic income could fix private industry while basic jobs could destroy it, 9) Basic income supports personal development while basic jobs prevent it, 10) Basic income puts everyone on the same side while basic jobs preserve class divisions, and 11) Work itself is often unpleasant and meaningless. He then addresses counterarguments, including concerns about UBI's effects, the need for work to provide meaning, and the potential benefits of public works. Scott concludes that while basic jobs might be better than nothing, they risk hijacking the utopian potential of basic income and perpetuating many problems of the current system. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander criticizes misleading media reports on drug testing welfare recipients, showing how flawed methods and misrepresented data led to false conclusions about drug use rates. Longer summary

Scott Alexander critiques media coverage of drug testing programs for welfare recipients in Tennessee and Florida. He points out that the widely reported extremely low drug use rates (0.12% in Tennessee) are due to flawed testing methods, not actual low drug use. The Tennessee program only used a written questionnaire, while Florida's program, which used urine tests, was misrepresented by not accounting for those who refused testing. Alexander argues that these misleading reports are worse than Brian Williams' helicopter story embellishment because they misinform on important policy issues and display arrogance in criticizing those who believe welfare recipients use drugs at higher rates. Shorter summary