3 ms·
The following is a non-value judgement. We see generally better outcomes when we just hand people cash than when we make them jump through hoops, and partake i
by rjbwork 10y ago
The following is a non-value judgement. We see generally better outcomes when we just hand people cash than when we make them jump through hoops, and partake in non standard services to acquire resources. It also generates more administrative overhead than if we just hand them cash.
I don't know if this would hold for a universal social services infrastructure.
My personal analysis is that I would tend towards decentralization via cash payments, so as to enable choice, and not have the state takeover the potential economic activities enabled by such cash payments. Nobody wants to be given food from a government kitchen or government food box, but most people, I would think, would not mind getting $X per week/month/year to supplement their other income from the government.
- negamax 10y agoI think your statement is spot on in context of giving cash to people in resource stripped geographies. As charities handling social programs are detached from ground realities. But in context of democratic, developed states and cities; UBI/welfare is not a good solution. Minimum social infrastructure is what we should strive towards. So, when people fall from safety nets; that fall can be contained. With passage of time; we can work towards elevating that net further.