9 ms·

Something that is missing from the basic income/poverty debate is the notion of "learned helplessness"; after a long time in poverty, people get used to the lif

by jbob2000 10y ago

Something that is missing from the basic income/poverty debate is the notion of "learned helplessness"; after a long time in poverty, people get used to the lifestyle and have difficulty adjusting to "regular" life. For example, if you've been homeless your entire life, you've never had to lock your apartment door or carry a key around. My partner (a social worker) had a client who's apartment was always getting robbed because whenever she left, she never locked her door; it was not something she was used to doing. Another client was unable to set an alarm and follow a schedule. 20 years of living on the street, waking up whenever he felt like it, meant that he had completely lost his faculties for time management. He couldn't hold down a job and regularly missed appointments. Part of my partner's job was carrying these people through their journey to "regular" life. She would show up to their apartments and take them to their appointments. She would call the woman who didn't lock her doors every morning to remind her to lock her door on her way out. Etc. Etc. Basic income doesn't solve any of this. It just drops a load of money into a person's lap who has no idea what to do with it.

mempko 10y ago
Yes, it does solve these. Because people who lost the faculty for time management or security can learn it again. Putting someone in a house and giving them an alarm clock is a very good start.
maxxxxx 10y ago
When I was in my teens I worked summer jobs in a German social welfare agency (Sozialamt). There were many families that had been on welfare for generations and it was noticeable that their kids had no idea how to make progress in school or how to hold a job. They simply didn't know and had nobody who could tell them. They also had no role models. I think with basic income there is a risk that a lot of people will forever be lost for the working world. Especially if the basic income is so low that you can barely survive.
- kefka 10y ago
  I'm unsure about the German system... I've been on welfare here in the USA. The way it works is dependant on your income. The more you make by hard work, the less assistance you receive. That sounds fair... Until you realize that section 8 (housing) is the same way. Food stamps are the same way. At the time, there was a cutoff for the free clinic (which counted benefits as income).. I made $100 too much. When doing work and getting paid $1 means taking $3 in losses from assistance programs, this grinds people further into poverty. The further I try to dig out, the deeper I get until I hit the point that I can start to survive without any assistance...
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - ScottBurson 10y ago
    This is clearly the worst aspect of our system and shows that it was designed by the mathematically uneducated. It needs to be done in such a way that the total-income curve is monotonically increasing, so recipients never have a disincentive to make a little more money in their job. This should be fundamental and obvious, but because doing it requires just the tiniest bit of linear algebra, our elected representatives are not capable of it. Mind-blowing.
    - andyzweb 10y ago
      The system is this way by design. The people who drafted, voted on, and passed these programs did so with disincentivizing its recipients from making more money being one of the goals.
      - gnoway 10y ago
        I disagree. I think it's more likely that we're still using programs designed for a different era. For example, food stamps (SNAP) were made permanent in 1964 as one of the great society programs. WIC came a few years later. I suspect - but have not researched - that you will find this is true for a lot of current welfare programs. There may be people in power making bad decisions about administering these programs, but I don't believe they were designed to ensnare.
- cmurf 10y ago
  Right. The income value I keep seeing floated is in the realm of US$8000 per year. This is not basic income, it's basically a large tax credit. I don't know why it's called basic income, there's nothing really basic about it when it can't completely pay for one basic thing like say rent or mortgage.
  - drabiega 10y ago
    Actually, under some models $8000 could be enough. A job paying that much locks you down, but if you got that much in basic income you could move somewhere for which that is enough to leave, albeit cheaply. I know there are places in rural Pennsylvania where you could get by on that. Those places don't have much for jobs to go around, but population influxes of people with lots of free time and a willingness to work a little for some spending money could change that. On the other hand, there exists a worry that people on such an income who couldn't find additional work would keep getting pushed around to new areas as the influx develops each cheap locale.
    - cmurf 10y ago
      Well, enabling nomadism in a modern society very well may have positives for individuals and local economies alike for all the same sorts of reasons why nomadism is a successful and very efficient strategy of survival. The ecological era "farmer" gene required a disposition in humans to feel compelled (or at least comfortable) staying put. And that gene just so happens to be common today in developed nations. But it's not for everyone, and the economics right now are very much against the nomadic personality type. That could be mitigate to a good degree by such a small guaranteed income.
      - kazinator 10y ago
        Indeed; if people feel more secure, they can ditch their job and find a better one, perhaps while improving their skills. A basic income could be a lubricant for people to improve their lives.
  - arprocter 10y ago
zcmncbv 10y ago
It's true. In addition to basic income, many people need support to get out of their (inherited) impoverished habits. Many people come from dreadful backgrounds and so have no idea how to look after themselves and are surrounded by bad influences. I often think that all some people need is to be extracted from their environment and transplanted into a new one somewhere else in the world with new friends and a different job. Cut-off from their unhealthy social network they would rebuild themselves and thrive.
Smudge 10y ago
Basic income doesn't always solve this for someone who is already homeless, but it might still act as a preventative measure, giving someone enough of a financial buffer to avoid homelessness entirely.
- jbob2000 10y ago
  If you heard some of these stories, you would find that it's not just a lack of money that causes homelessness. To be brutally honest, it's a mixture of stupidity and often, an addiction. These people need other people actively intervening in their lives to keep them on track. The preventative measure should be the social worker, not the pay cheque.
  - Smudge 10y ago
    I think the operating word is "some," not all. We know that UBI will sometimes be misspent. Most if not all aid programs have this problem. That doesn't mean it isn't worth it for those who would put the money to good use.
    - jbattle 10y ago
      It's a problem if the math behind UBI presumes savings from eliminating a ton of social programs and we later find that there are substantial numbers of people that still need those programs even with UBI for non-financial reasons. If we find that non-trivial numbers of parents blow all their UBI on XYZ, are we really going to let their kids starve? Or will we see that programs like SNAP need to remain in existence?
      - Grishnakh 10y ago
        I think a good UBI program will eliminate the crappy social programs, and will keep some around to help transition people to the new society and also to help people who aren't helped just by having money to spend. For instance, child abuse: we have CPS for a reason, but giving everyone a monthly check isn't going to magically eliminate child abuse, so obviously we still need CPS for that. There's plenty of other places where we'll still need social workers to help people. But the savings we'll realize by not having armies of government workers making sure someone isn't "cheating" by getting a welfare check and then trying to supplement that with another source of income, along with various other benefits, will help pay for UBI. And eventually, by eliminating poverty and changing the culture (with both UBI and social workers), we won't need so many social workers.
swalsh 10y ago
http://www.nutrition411.com/content/refeeding-syndrome-0 http://www.nutrition411.com/content/refeeding-syndrome-0
witty_username 10y ago
Basic income doesn't solve any of this. It just drops a load of money into a person's lap who has no idea what to do with it. What do you mean by this? Poor people would definitely know what to do with it.
- theandrewbailey 10y ago
  They might know what to do with it. They might also spend it all on drugs, or fall prey to scammers or thieves.
funkysquid 10y ago
"He couldn't hold down a job and regularly missed appointments." I think this is part of the problem - right now in society, if you can't be on time and hold down a job, you'll go hungry and have no place to live. Basic income removes that harsh penalty, and lets people live regardless of whether they can make an appointment.
- dionidium 10y ago
  "Basic income removes that harsh penalty" The real challenge of a basic income isn't how to pay for it; it's how to convince regular people who get up every day and go work at jobs a lot shittier than most of us here have that that's a harsh penalty. There is enormous social momentum behind the idea that you should work if you can.
  - Grishnakh 10y ago
    >The real challenge of a basic income isn't how to pay for it; it's how to convince regular people who get up every day and go work at jobs a lot shittier than most of us here have that that's a harsh penalty. That's not a problem. If a job is shitty and ultra-low pay so that no one wants to do it now that they have a UBI to live on, then the business owner needs to either increase the pay enough to make someone want to do it, or he can just shut down the business or do it himself. UBI prevents people from having to toil at horrible jobs unless they choose to, rather than being forced to in order to survive. That can only be a good thing. It then means that true market forces can now set the wages for jobs.
    - dionidium 10y ago
      UBI prevents people from having to toil at horrible jobs unless they choose to, rather than being forced to in order to survive. That can only be a good thing. I agree with you. My whole point was that most people do not agree with you. There is enormous support for the idea that you are supposed to work for what you earn. Full stop. End of story. Anything less is charity that should, at best, be accepted as a last resort.
djsumdog 10y ago
There is a much much deeper question here. Which life is really better? I took 10 months off where I lived with just two backpacks. I wasn't homeless by any means, I had my savings I was living off of (technically homeless I guess, but not in the cultural sense). Even though I had a lot of expensive electronics, I didn't buy a lock until about 7 months in. Even then, a lot of hostels didn't have large enough lockers for my small back which contained my laptop, camera, etc. There is a sorta social contract with backpackers I can't really explain. I still kept my stuff hidden, but I never had any real fear of people stealing my stuff. Those 10 months were the best I've felt in a while. I was away from the cube. I was working on my own research (I wrote a lab manual for a friend's class based on some papers we wrote). I worked late into the night and walked around new cities every day. I was never tired, exhausted or irritable. I dreams of getting back into school and working on my PhD, but I'm still working on fellowship applications and I ran out of money .. so back to full-time IT work I went. That "regular" life you talk about -- getting up early and working the 8-5 grind to get a paycheck just to keep on doing the same fucking thing day in and day out. That's bullshit. And that's coming from a software engineer who gets paid a lot and I have a lot of freedom in my work. For those working low income jobs where they barely have enough and have to scrap and save every paycheck, that's super bullshit. > For example, if you've been homeless your entire life, you've never had to lock your apartment door or carry a key around. I live in a place with a massive homeless population and tent cities. People have their stuff spread out with them, but they have no fear of anyone taking it. Part of it is the poor looking after each other, part of it is if stuff is stolen, it's not like they have much to begin with. Suddenly you're housed and now you have something worth breaking into. I'm getting a bit ranty at this point, and I'm not entirely sure what my TL;DR is. I realize being poor and homeless can suck terribly. But the things you mention...those aren't the bad things. Those are amazing ways to look at the world that are taken away when you try to bring civilization to the savages.
- cmurf 10y ago
  Call it vagrancy, it sounds more romantic :-) I've been doing the travel and vagrancy thing for a few years and it's a very different experience having owned and lived in the same house for 15 years before that. And it's very valid to question which is better and realize that mainly they're just different, and also it can be viewed as a continuum, rather than succumbing to binary logic and the ensuing value judgment. The barrier to entry is money, whether savings or income. I rather like the moment the fictional Sam Clemens just starts grokking the concept of Star Trek economics and decides it might be worth giving up cigars for. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0708829/quotes?item=qt0551002 http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0708829/quotes?item=qt0551002
carapace 10y ago
I was homeless for about four years, so I know exactly what you are talking about with people losing or never having the basic skills to cope with modern life. However, that's just not a reasonable argument against UBI. Consider: Having too much money is never a problem. Quoth the sage, "If it is money, it is good.", also "Too much is always better than not enough." Misspending that money is the problem. But if everyone around you has UBI too, their ability to spare time and effort to care for you and help you learn to cope with life is fantastically increased. Helping others is hugely rewarding, fulfilling even, but most people are limited either by their real or perceived lack of funds, or by minor personal problems. With UBI the bottom Nth of people's BS is handled, freeing them up to help others whose BS is a little too formidable for them to cope with on their own. If you take a step back and look at the larger picture, and take into account the synergy that will be unleashed by UBI, I think you'll reconsider. :-)
- sounds 10y ago
  While I was homeless I noticed how few people really made a difference. There are some, but you figure out pretty quickly which people to go to (and which to avoid). Do you think crime will increase when every person receives money at the same time? I think money management skills are going to be needed even more (but just receiving a deposit doesn't teach you how to master your money).
  - carapace 10y ago
    I definitely think some places will self-destruct, but I do have faith in the basic goodness of human nature. Gandhi said something to the effect that you can't make a system so perfect that the people in it need not still try to be good people. I've also heard it said that "Even God hesitates to offer anything but bread to the hungry man." Will UBI solve the human condition? No. But it seems like a workable possible solution to how to handle rampant and permanent unemployment due to advancing automation. Something worth trying. ;-)
- Trundle 10y ago
  >Helping others is hugely rewarding, fulfilling even, but most people are limited either by their real or perceived lack of funds, or by minor personal problems. With UBI the bottom Nth of people's BS is handled, freeing them up to help others whose BS is a little too formidable for them to cope with on their own. Is there any data to support this? I'm genuinely curious. Thinking that people in general are innately good/helpful is a point where I seem to differ to a lot of others. It's just not something I see from looking at the world around me. The majority of people already have others around them with more formidable BS to deal with, and we all ignore them just fine.
cat_plus_plus 10y ago
Government policy is for long term. We can think of how to help people to transition, but can't just stop progress because some are used to current system. And long term basic income will work precisely to reduce learned helplessness. Society will provide some cash, but individuals still need for look for a hostel to stay in, manage money for meals etc. I would prefer daily deposits to recipient accounts so that if someone spends money for one day unwisely they don't end up needing other services for the rest of the month.
cmurf 10y ago
Does basic income claim to solve this problem for people already in poverty? Or does it claim to prevent future generations from ever being in poverty?
SkyMarshal 10y ago
If basic income were implemented society-wide it might prevent learned helplessness from happening in the first place. Assume you start receiving BI at 18, then you never fall to a level of poverty so low that that degree of learned helplessness sets in.
kazinator 10y ago
That is surprising. If you have been homeless all your life, you probably have had more than one experience in which your stuff was taken or you were even attacked, for instance when sleeping at night. You would think that a key to door that you can lock to protect Your Stuff would be like a magic talisman to you.
voxic11 10y ago
It solves it by keeping people out of poverty in the first place.
T2_t2 10y ago
But will it keep them from GETTING there? Isn't that the move important question?
geon 10y ago
With BI, hopefully fewer people end up in hemelessness like that. BI won't magically solve every problem, like mental illness, which is another large factor for homlessness.
dragonwriter 10y ago
The issue you raise is an issue that exists without UBI and which a mature UBI, in the long-term, mitigates this by avoiding anyone having the experience of living "a long time in poverty". That's not to say that transitional services to people who have previously had that experience aren't a good thing to have along with UBI, but it doesn't invalidate the concept of UBI.

mempko 10y ago

Yes, it does solve these. Because people who lost the faculty for time management or security can learn it again. Putting someone in a house and giving them an alarm clock is a very good start.

maxxxxx 10y ago

When I was in my teens I worked summer jobs in a German social welfare agency (Sozialamt). There were many families that had been on welfare for generations and it was noticeable that their kids had no idea how to make progress in school or how to hold a job. They simply didn't know and had nobody who could tell them. They also had no role models. I think with basic income there is a risk that a lot of people will forever be lost for the working world. Especially if the basic income is so low that you can barely survive.

kefka 10y ago
I'm unsure about the German system... I've been on welfare here in the USA. The way it works is dependant on your income. The more you make by hard work, the less assistance you receive. That sounds fair... Until you realize that section 8 (housing) is the same way. Food stamps are the same way. At the time, there was a cutoff for the free clinic (which counted benefits as income).. I made $100 too much. When doing work and getting paid $1 means taking $3 in losses from assistance programs, this grinds people further into poverty. The further I try to dig out, the deeper I get until I hit the point that I can start to survive without any assistance...
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- ScottBurson 10y ago
  This is clearly the worst aspect of our system and shows that it was designed by the mathematically uneducated. It needs to be done in such a way that the total-income curve is monotonically increasing, so recipients never have a disincentive to make a little more money in their job. This should be fundamental and obvious, but because doing it requires just the tiniest bit of linear algebra, our elected representatives are not capable of it. Mind-blowing.
  - andyzweb 10y ago
    The system is this way by design. The people who drafted, voted on, and passed these programs did so with disincentivizing its recipients from making more money being one of the goals.
    - gnoway 10y ago
      I disagree. I think it's more likely that we're still using programs designed for a different era. For example, food stamps (SNAP) were made permanent in 1964 as one of the great society programs. WIC came a few years later. I suspect - but have not researched - that you will find this is true for a lot of current welfare programs. There may be people in power making bad decisions about administering these programs, but I don't believe they were designed to ensnare.
cmurf 10y ago
Right. The income value I keep seeing floated is in the realm of US$8000 per year. This is not basic income, it's basically a large tax credit. I don't know why it's called basic income, there's nothing really basic about it when it can't completely pay for one basic thing like say rent or mortgage.
- drabiega 10y ago
  Actually, under some models $8000 could be enough. A job paying that much locks you down, but if you got that much in basic income you could move somewhere for which that is enough to leave, albeit cheaply. I know there are places in rural Pennsylvania where you could get by on that. Those places don't have much for jobs to go around, but population influxes of people with lots of free time and a willingness to work a little for some spending money could change that. On the other hand, there exists a worry that people on such an income who couldn't find additional work would keep getting pushed around to new areas as the influx develops each cheap locale.
  - cmurf 10y ago
    Well, enabling nomadism in a modern society very well may have positives for individuals and local economies alike for all the same sorts of reasons why nomadism is a successful and very efficient strategy of survival. The ecological era "farmer" gene required a disposition in humans to feel compelled (or at least comfortable) staying put. And that gene just so happens to be common today in developed nations. But it's not for everyone, and the economics right now are very much against the nomadic personality type. That could be mitigate to a good degree by such a small guaranteed income.
    - kazinator 10y ago
      Indeed; if people feel more secure, they can ditch their job and find a better one, perhaps while improving their skills. A basic income could be a lubricant for people to improve their lives.
- arprocter 10y ago

zcmncbv 10y ago

It's true. In addition to basic income, many people need support to get out of their (inherited) impoverished habits. Many people come from dreadful backgrounds and so have no idea how to look after themselves and are surrounded by bad influences. I often think that all some people need is to be extracted from their environment and transplanted into a new one somewhere else in the world with new friends and a different job. Cut-off from their unhealthy social network they would rebuild themselves and thrive.

Smudge 10y ago

Basic income doesn't always solve this for someone who is already homeless, but it might still act as a preventative measure, giving someone enough of a financial buffer to avoid homelessness entirely.

jbob2000 10y ago
If you heard some of these stories, you would find that it's not just a lack of money that causes homelessness. To be brutally honest, it's a mixture of stupidity and often, an addiction. These people need other people actively intervening in their lives to keep them on track. The preventative measure should be the social worker, not the pay cheque.
- Smudge 10y ago
  I think the operating word is "some," not all. We know that UBI will sometimes be misspent. Most if not all aid programs have this problem. That doesn't mean it isn't worth it for those who would put the money to good use.
  - jbattle 10y ago
    It's a problem if the math behind UBI presumes savings from eliminating a ton of social programs and we later find that there are substantial numbers of people that still need those programs even with UBI for non-financial reasons. If we find that non-trivial numbers of parents blow all their UBI on XYZ, are we really going to let their kids starve? Or will we see that programs like SNAP need to remain in existence?
    - Grishnakh 10y ago
      I think a good UBI program will eliminate the crappy social programs, and will keep some around to help transition people to the new society and also to help people who aren't helped just by having money to spend. For instance, child abuse: we have CPS for a reason, but giving everyone a monthly check isn't going to magically eliminate child abuse, so obviously we still need CPS for that. There's plenty of other places where we'll still need social workers to help people. But the savings we'll realize by not having armies of government workers making sure someone isn't "cheating" by getting a welfare check and then trying to supplement that with another source of income, along with various other benefits, will help pay for UBI. And eventually, by eliminating poverty and changing the culture (with both UBI and social workers), we won't need so many social workers.

swalsh 10y ago

http://www.nutrition411.com/content/refeeding-syndrome-0 http://www.nutrition411.com/content/refeeding-syndrome-0

witty_username 10y ago

Basic income doesn't solve any of this. It just drops a load of money into a person's lap who has no idea what to do with it. What do you mean by this? Poor people would definitely know what to do with it.

theandrewbailey 10y ago
They might know what to do with it. They might also spend it all on drugs, or fall prey to scammers or thieves.

funkysquid 10y ago

"He couldn't hold down a job and regularly missed appointments." I think this is part of the problem - right now in society, if you can't be on time and hold down a job, you'll go hungry and have no place to live. Basic income removes that harsh penalty, and lets people live regardless of whether they can make an appointment.

dionidium 10y ago
"Basic income removes that harsh penalty" The real challenge of a basic income isn't how to pay for it; it's how to convince regular people who get up every day and go work at jobs a lot shittier than most of us here have that that's a harsh penalty. There is enormous social momentum behind the idea that you should work if you can.
- Grishnakh 10y ago
  >The real challenge of a basic income isn't how to pay for it; it's how to convince regular people who get up every day and go work at jobs a lot shittier than most of us here have that that's a harsh penalty. That's not a problem. If a job is shitty and ultra-low pay so that no one wants to do it now that they have a UBI to live on, then the business owner needs to either increase the pay enough to make someone want to do it, or he can just shut down the business or do it himself. UBI prevents people from having to toil at horrible jobs unless they choose to, rather than being forced to in order to survive. That can only be a good thing. It then means that true market forces can now set the wages for jobs.
  - dionidium 10y ago
    UBI prevents people from having to toil at horrible jobs unless they choose to, rather than being forced to in order to survive. That can only be a good thing. I agree with you. My whole point was that most people do not agree with you. There is enormous support for the idea that you are supposed to work for what you earn. Full stop. End of story. Anything less is charity that should, at best, be accepted as a last resort.

djsumdog 10y ago

There is a much much deeper question here. Which life is really better? I took 10 months off where I lived with just two backpacks. I wasn't homeless by any means, I had my savings I was living off of (technically homeless I guess, but not in the cultural sense). Even though I had a lot of expensive electronics, I didn't buy a lock until about 7 months in. Even then, a lot of hostels didn't have large enough lockers for my small back which contained my laptop, camera, etc. There is a sorta social contract with backpackers I can't really explain. I still kept my stuff hidden, but I never had any real fear of people stealing my stuff. Those 10 months were the best I've felt in a while. I was away from the cube. I was working on my own research (I wrote a lab manual for a friend's class based on some papers we wrote). I worked late into the night and walked around new cities every day. I was never tired, exhausted or irritable. I dreams of getting back into school and working on my PhD, but I'm still working on fellowship applications and I ran out of money .. so back to full-time IT work I went. That "regular" life you talk about -- getting up early and working the 8-5 grind to get a paycheck just to keep on doing the same fucking thing day in and day out. That's bullshit. And that's coming from a software engineer who gets paid a lot and I have a lot of freedom in my work. For those working low income jobs where they barely have enough and have to scrap and save every paycheck, that's super bullshit. > For example, if you've been homeless your entire life, you've never had to lock your apartment door or carry a key around. I live in a place with a massive homeless population and tent cities. People have their stuff spread out with them, but they have no fear of anyone taking it. Part of it is the poor looking after each other, part of it is if stuff is stolen, it's not like they have much to begin with. Suddenly you're housed and now you have something worth breaking into. I'm getting a bit ranty at this point, and I'm not entirely sure what my TL;DR is. I realize being poor and homeless can suck terribly. But the things you mention...those aren't the bad things. Those are amazing ways to look at the world that are taken away when you try to bring civilization to the savages.

cmurf 10y ago
Call it vagrancy, it sounds more romantic :-) I've been doing the travel and vagrancy thing for a few years and it's a very different experience having owned and lived in the same house for 15 years before that. And it's very valid to question which is better and realize that mainly they're just different, and also it can be viewed as a continuum, rather than succumbing to binary logic and the ensuing value judgment. The barrier to entry is money, whether savings or income. I rather like the moment the fictional Sam Clemens just starts grokking the concept of Star Trek economics and decides it might be worth giving up cigars for. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0708829/quotes?item=qt0551002 http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0708829/quotes?item=qt0551002

carapace 10y ago

I was homeless for about four years, so I know exactly what you are talking about with people losing or never having the basic skills to cope with modern life. However, that's just not a reasonable argument against UBI. Consider: Having too much money is never a problem. Quoth the sage, "If it is money, it is good.", also "Too much is always better than not enough." Misspending that money is the problem. But if everyone around you has UBI too, their ability to spare time and effort to care for you and help you learn to cope with life is fantastically increased. Helping others is hugely rewarding, fulfilling even, but most people are limited either by their real or perceived lack of funds, or by minor personal problems. With UBI the bottom Nth of people's BS is handled, freeing them up to help others whose BS is a little too formidable for them to cope with on their own. If you take a step back and look at the larger picture, and take into account the synergy that will be unleashed by UBI, I think you'll reconsider. :-)

sounds 10y ago
While I was homeless I noticed how few people really made a difference. There are some, but you figure out pretty quickly which people to go to (and which to avoid). Do you think crime will increase when every person receives money at the same time? I think money management skills are going to be needed even more (but just receiving a deposit doesn't teach you how to master your money).
- carapace 10y ago
  I definitely think some places will self-destruct, but I do have faith in the basic goodness of human nature. Gandhi said something to the effect that you can't make a system so perfect that the people in it need not still try to be good people. I've also heard it said that "Even God hesitates to offer anything but bread to the hungry man." Will UBI solve the human condition? No. But it seems like a workable possible solution to how to handle rampant and permanent unemployment due to advancing automation. Something worth trying. ;-)
Trundle 10y ago
>Helping others is hugely rewarding, fulfilling even, but most people are limited either by their real or perceived lack of funds, or by minor personal problems. With UBI the bottom Nth of people's BS is handled, freeing them up to help others whose BS is a little too formidable for them to cope with on their own. Is there any data to support this? I'm genuinely curious. Thinking that people in general are innately good/helpful is a point where I seem to differ to a lot of others. It's just not something I see from looking at the world around me. The majority of people already have others around them with more formidable BS to deal with, and we all ignore them just fine.

cat_plus_plus 10y ago

Government policy is for long term. We can think of how to help people to transition, but can't just stop progress because some are used to current system. And long term basic income will work precisely to reduce learned helplessness. Society will provide some cash, but individuals still need for look for a hostel to stay in, manage money for meals etc. I would prefer daily deposits to recipient accounts so that if someone spends money for one day unwisely they don't end up needing other services for the rest of the month.

cmurf 10y ago

Does basic income claim to solve this problem for people already in poverty? Or does it claim to prevent future generations from ever being in poverty?

SkyMarshal 10y ago

If basic income were implemented society-wide it might prevent learned helplessness from happening in the first place. Assume you start receiving BI at 18, then you never fall to a level of poverty so low that that degree of learned helplessness sets in.

kazinator 10y ago

That is surprising. If you have been homeless all your life, you probably have had more than one experience in which your stuff was taken or you were even attacked, for instance when sleeping at night. You would think that a key to door that you can lock to protect Your Stuff would be like a magic talisman to you.

voxic11 10y ago

It solves it by keeping people out of poverty in the first place.

T2_t2 10y ago

But will it keep them from GETTING there? Isn't that the move important question?

geon 10y ago

With BI, hopefully fewer people end up in hemelessness like that. BI won't magically solve every problem, like mental illness, which is another large factor for homlessness.

dragonwriter 10y ago

The issue you raise is an issue that exists without UBI and which a mature UBI, in the long-term, mitigates this by avoiding anyone having the experience of living "a long time in poverty". That's not to say that transitional services to people who have previously had that experience aren't a good thing to have along with UBI, but it doesn't invalidate the concept of UBI.