pull down to refresh
That's an interesting point that I hadn't considered: how "universal" does UBI have to be to see results? A scattershot social assistance program with a few lucky winners (and which ends in a cliff) really doesn't tell us much.
And also, there is a significant portion of the homeless population (the most visible portion) that isn't gonna get better with an influx of cash. My own experience helping chronically homeless people get housed impressed this on me deeply.
I'm sure there are many people living in poverty for whom an extra payment every month is hugely helpful, but if the goal is to make the crazies on the street go away, I am doubtful that UBI is our answer. When mental health is the reason you ended up homeless, money isn't going to keep you in a house (even if someone gets you back in one).
The most plausible version of UBI reform does it in a package that also rolls back lots of labor regulations and other programs that lose their justification once people have a safety net.
I wrote something about this a while ago. #685640
Two of the 6 parties vying for seats in the NZ parliamentary elections propose a form of UBI...funded by taxing wealth.
Sounds good to me...even though I am rich.
Inequality beyond a certain point is a scourge...on the economy and society.
Decades of failed neoliberal 'trickle down' theory surely indicate the need for change of this type...surprising so many of the young and dispossessed constantly wailing about 'Boomers' seem to oppose it so vehemently.
I was thinking more along the lines of what effect UBI would have on inflation and work incentives, that can't be tested in a small scale program like this.
But you're right that the most acute cases can't be solved with more income. That's another reason why I don't think the idea of replacing other social programs with UBI won't work----someone is always going to vote for a social program, with or without UBI.
incredibly valid point
imagine two generations of families less likely to scream at eachother about money
more kids at school with stable nutrition, housing, etc.
it's a glowing ideal.
less to your point, this may sound completely counter to everybody else's opinion, but it's mine since reading Hayek:
if there's anything i want my taxes paying for, its direct transfer to other members of the working class. that's not to say i want to pay tax, it being theft and all that
the tests will be used to justify ubi, which once not in a controlled environment and actually 'universal' will almost instantly cancel out any benefit to society ( and net negative due to cronyism, corruption and leakage).
Two of the 6 parties vying for seats in the NZ parliamentary elections propose a form of UBI...funded by taxing wealth.
Sounds good to me...even though I am rich.
Inequality beyond a certain point is a scourge...on the economy and society.
Decades of failed neoliberal 'trickle down' theory surely indicate the need for change of this type...surprising so many of the young and dispossessed constantly wailing about 'Boomers' seem to oppose it so vehemently.
yep
they just test the effect of giving money to people on the people who were given money.
exactly. Ridiculous sleight-of-hand... "Look at the outcomes: these struggling people had better lives with more (free) money!" Yeah, no shit
You would starve without your Iceland welfare payments.
Surprise, surprise, if you give people money it helps them
But none of these studies actually test f*cking UBI, they just test the effect of giving money to people on the people who were given money.
But UBI is a society wide program with society wide outcomes that need to be tested (or deduced), but haven't been.