12 ms·

Also worth considering are countries where a large portion of the economy is based on family members sending remittances back from the United States (or other c

Also worth considering are countries where a large portion of the economy is based on family members sending remittances back from the United States (or other country). In a sense, they already have a form of basic income for the people who remain at home.

dragonwriter 11y ago
> Also worth considering are countries where a large portion of the economy is based on family members sending remittances back from the United States (or other country). In a sense, they already have a form of basic income for the people who remain at home. Only in that some of the people that remain home have a source of income. But that doesn't make it anything like a "basic income", anymore than the fact that some people are supported by family members working in the same country means that that country already has something like basic income.
- ktRolster 11y ago
  In both cases we're talking about an infusion of cash from the outside, distributed somewhat equally (as opposed to being given to banks and politicians). This can be useful for answering questions such as: * Will this discourage entrepreneurship? * Will this create a culture of dependency? * Will this boost the economy overall? * If the economy is boosted, how sustainable is it? These are the kinds of questions you're not going to be able to answer from a single data point, so it's worth finding similar situations to compare.
  - dragonwriter 11y ago
    > In both cases we're talking about an infusion of cash from the outside, distributed somewhat equally Remittances are not distributed even "somewhat equally".
    - ktRolster 11y ago
      Compared to giving the money to banks and politicians, yes, they are extremely equal
      - deleted 11y ago
        [deleted]