4 ms·

As someone who is friends who two different social workers and related to someone in family court diversions (think: parents getting their kids taken away and w

As someone who is friends who two different social workers and related to someone in family court diversions (think: parents getting their kids taken away and want them back) I can tell you that UBI isn't going to solve much of anything. These people have money to buy alcohol and cigarettes, and yet their kids go hungry and rely on school lunch programs, etc. Also, I had a brother in law who was a raging alcoholic and stole money from his grade-school kids' piggy banks. He always had money for beer. Asshole. He did the world a favor and hung himself. For all of them, their personal issues overwhelm their ability to be functional adults. They don't clean their houses, they don't mind their kids, they are addicted to various substances and lie about treatment, recovery, and lie about anything anytime it suits their needs in the moment. It's all lie, lie, lie. There is nothing a UBI or anything else is going to accomplish for these people and it is a myth to believe that payments without oversight or qualifications will lead to positive outcomes. One would think the US's 50 year experiment with welfare would already provide more than enough data to prove that if you subsidize a behavior you get more of it. Let people face death, then see how they act. Take their kids away, first, though. It's not the kids' fault their parents are deadbeats.

dragonwriter 8y ago
> As someone who is friends who two different social workers and related to someone in family court diversions (think: parents getting their kids taken away and want them back) I can tell you that UBI isn't going to solve much of anything. As someone who is friends with a couple different people who teach critical thinking in college and related to one who does so in high school, I can tell you that this argument-from-loose-contact-with-people-who-unnamed-and-unverifiable-alleged-authoirities involves at least two layers of serious fallacy. > One would think the US's 50 year experiment with welfare would already provide more than enough data to prove that if you subsidize a behavior you get more of it. UBI is specifically not about subsidizing behavior; the absence of means- and behavior-testing is what the “U” (either “unconditional” or “universal”) refers to.
- airstrike 8y ago
  > he absence of means- and behavior-testing is what the “U” (either “unconditional” or “universal”) refers to. Surely you can't expect the effect of UBI to be the same between, say, cardiologists and minimum-wage workers. The parent's point was that it might subsidize behavior of certain groups more than others, and making UBI universal isn't going to solve that because this isn't a very homogeneous universe.
  - throwawayjava 8y ago
    > Surely you can't expect the effect of UBI to be the same between, say, cardiologists and minimum-wage workers Hm. I'd be far more likely to spend my basic income on booze if I were a cardiologist or highly-paid tech worker than if I were a parent barely scraping by. Top-notch scotch and expensive wines instead of middling whiskeys and passable table wines. Of course, some amount might also be donated/saved/invested. But I'd probably spend a far larger percentage of that base UBI payout on luxuries/vices than your typical out-of-work joe. > The parent's point was that it might subsidize behavior of certain groups more than others Not quite. Parent asserts that those behaviors will happen anyways. And that therefore we are more than justified in pulling the carpet out from under those folks (because the money's not going to help anyway). Playing out this same argument in the context of a cardiologist lets us cut to the heart of the ethical differences between typical pro-UBI and anti-UBI arguments. Consider the cardiologist is an absent father who squirrels away his money to avoid supporting his family and then spends that money on various vices (luxuries wine collections, absurdly expensive cigars, etc). Is his employer justified in paying a lower salary? Are his customers/debters justified in not paying up? After all, we discontinued social services for the poor booze hound in the earlier scenario! Most visceral UBI opponents would find that question absurd on face! The money was earned through hard work and education; the employer has no business prying into the employee's personal choices about how to spend his wages, and a customer or debtor refusing to pay is straight-up theft. Conversely, many visceral UBI supporters point out that the work ethic on display in that reasoning becomes outmoded as work itself becomes outmoded. If we don't choose some other metric for decision making, and stick to these ethical imperatives, the conversation more-or-less grounds out here.
lbotos 8y ago
> These people have money to buy alcohol and cigarettes, and yet their kids go hungry and rely on school lunch programs, etc. Ah yes, let's blame people for their dependence on mind alterning chemicals that if abused build negative feedback loops. While at the same time, those chemicals are touted and lauded in mainstream culture. From rap's "popping bottles" to country's "whiskey makes my girl a little bit frisky". > For all of them, their personal issues overwhelm their ability to be functional adults. Doesn't this happen to EVERYONE at some point, temporarily? Where something overwhelms our ability to function. Can you imagine a structure where repeated incidents lead to patterns, and the societal structures we build are not helping to correct those patterns for individuals. Yes, some people will just always make bad choices, but also, some people have never had an opportunity to actually flourish and understand how their choices are not helping. Or even, maybe they are addicted to mind altering chemicals that have literally changed the way they think. > Let people face death, then see how they act. If we are sharing anecdotes, my partner works as a therapist with teens with substance abuse problems in the Bronx. I'll never forget the day she called me crying, because one of her 17 year old patients was scared he was going to be attacked leaving the office because he didn't want to join a gang. He was held up at gun point, had is phone stolen, and his life threatened. You better believe he wants to escape. Sure, his personal issues are overwhelming his ability to function, but we have to acknowledge that society is not trying to really help him in a serious way because therapy helps, but also economic opportunity as well. I am an extremely selfish person, and have had great success due to opportunities granted to me through privilege and access. It took a long hard look at myself, to look at someone else, even in the face of addiction, abusive behaviors and acknowledge their personhood and their struggle and say, you are a not able to function, but you are human, and we should try and help.
- Domenic_S 8y ago
  Helping requires some uncomfortable truths to be socially accepted. "It's all lie, lie, lie." the GP said, and he's right -- addicts in the throes of addiction lie. We have to be OK saying, this person is an addict and not really in their right mind. If we treat addiction as a mental illness, then we treat the illness and the lies start to melt away. Some people think addiction is a moral failing; others think it is an illness. I land on the illness side. Treatment works. We can help people, but it requires throwing away the blind judgement.
denzil_correa 8y ago
> As someone who is friends who two different social workers and related to someone in family court diversions (think: parents getting their kids taken away and want them back) I can tell you that UBI isn't going to solve much of anything. These people have money to buy alcohol and cigarettes, and yet their kids go hungry and rely on school lunch programs, etc. An UBI pilot in Madhya Pradesh, India shows exactly the opposite [0]. Villages focused more on healthcare, education involvement improved, frivolous spending decreased, women empowerment was better and personal savings increased. [0] http://unicef.in/Uploads/Publications/Resources/pub_doc83.pdf http://unicef.in/Uploads/Publications/Resources/pub_doc83.pd...
- whb07 8y ago
  Not exactly mind blowing stats. Compared to the control group not that much improvement. Furthermore, their living is so low that it is astonishing that the increased stats are so low. Seems like they would benefit more from improved access to a market.
avgDev 8y ago
I used social services when broke and in school. I didn't drink and it helped improve my existence greatly. Not everyone is raging alcoholic. In fact they had a drug screening in FL for unemployment, and like less than 1% of people failed.

dragonwriter 8y ago

> As someone who is friends who two different social workers and related to someone in family court diversions (think: parents getting their kids taken away and want them back) I can tell you that UBI isn't going to solve much of anything. As someone who is friends with a couple different people who teach critical thinking in college and related to one who does so in high school, I can tell you that this argument-from-loose-contact-with-people-who-unnamed-and-unverifiable-alleged-authoirities involves at least two layers of serious fallacy. > One would think the US's 50 year experiment with welfare would already provide more than enough data to prove that if you subsidize a behavior you get more of it. UBI is specifically not about subsidizing behavior; the absence of means- and behavior-testing is what the “U” (either “unconditional” or “universal”) refers to.

airstrike 8y ago
> he absence of means- and behavior-testing is what the “U” (either “unconditional” or “universal”) refers to. Surely you can't expect the effect of UBI to be the same between, say, cardiologists and minimum-wage workers. The parent's point was that it might subsidize behavior of certain groups more than others, and making UBI universal isn't going to solve that because this isn't a very homogeneous universe.
- throwawayjava 8y ago
  > Surely you can't expect the effect of UBI to be the same between, say, cardiologists and minimum-wage workers Hm. I'd be far more likely to spend my basic income on booze if I were a cardiologist or highly-paid tech worker than if I were a parent barely scraping by. Top-notch scotch and expensive wines instead of middling whiskeys and passable table wines. Of course, some amount might also be donated/saved/invested. But I'd probably spend a far larger percentage of that base UBI payout on luxuries/vices than your typical out-of-work joe. > The parent's point was that it might subsidize behavior of certain groups more than others Not quite. Parent asserts that those behaviors will happen anyways. And that therefore we are more than justified in pulling the carpet out from under those folks (because the money's not going to help anyway). Playing out this same argument in the context of a cardiologist lets us cut to the heart of the ethical differences between typical pro-UBI and anti-UBI arguments. Consider the cardiologist is an absent father who squirrels away his money to avoid supporting his family and then spends that money on various vices (luxuries wine collections, absurdly expensive cigars, etc). Is his employer justified in paying a lower salary? Are his customers/debters justified in not paying up? After all, we discontinued social services for the poor booze hound in the earlier scenario! Most visceral UBI opponents would find that question absurd on face! The money was earned through hard work and education; the employer has no business prying into the employee's personal choices about how to spend his wages, and a customer or debtor refusing to pay is straight-up theft. Conversely, many visceral UBI supporters point out that the work ethic on display in that reasoning becomes outmoded as work itself becomes outmoded. If we don't choose some other metric for decision making, and stick to these ethical imperatives, the conversation more-or-less grounds out here.

lbotos 8y ago

> These people have money to buy alcohol and cigarettes, and yet their kids go hungry and rely on school lunch programs, etc. Ah yes, let's blame people for their dependence on mind alterning chemicals that if abused build negative feedback loops. While at the same time, those chemicals are touted and lauded in mainstream culture. From rap's "popping bottles" to country's "whiskey makes my girl a little bit frisky". > For all of them, their personal issues overwhelm their ability to be functional adults. Doesn't this happen to EVERYONE at some point, temporarily? Where something overwhelms our ability to function. Can you imagine a structure where repeated incidents lead to patterns, and the societal structures we build are not helping to correct those patterns for individuals. Yes, some people will just always make bad choices, but also, some people have never had an opportunity to actually flourish and understand how their choices are not helping. Or even, maybe they are addicted to mind altering chemicals that have literally changed the way they think. > Let people face death, then see how they act. If we are sharing anecdotes, my partner works as a therapist with teens with substance abuse problems in the Bronx. I'll never forget the day she called me crying, because one of her 17 year old patients was scared he was going to be attacked leaving the office because he didn't want to join a gang. He was held up at gun point, had is phone stolen, and his life threatened. You better believe he wants to escape. Sure, his personal issues are overwhelming his ability to function, but we have to acknowledge that society is not trying to really help him in a serious way because therapy helps, but also economic opportunity as well. I am an extremely selfish person, and have had great success due to opportunities granted to me through privilege and access. It took a long hard look at myself, to look at someone else, even in the face of addiction, abusive behaviors and acknowledge their personhood and their struggle and say, you are a not able to function, but you are human, and we should try and help.

Domenic_S 8y ago
Helping requires some uncomfortable truths to be socially accepted. "It's all lie, lie, lie." the GP said, and he's right -- addicts in the throes of addiction lie. We have to be OK saying, this person is an addict and not really in their right mind. If we treat addiction as a mental illness, then we treat the illness and the lies start to melt away. Some people think addiction is a moral failing; others think it is an illness. I land on the illness side. Treatment works. We can help people, but it requires throwing away the blind judgement.

denzil_correa 8y ago

> As someone who is friends who two different social workers and related to someone in family court diversions (think: parents getting their kids taken away and want them back) I can tell you that UBI isn't going to solve much of anything. These people have money to buy alcohol and cigarettes, and yet their kids go hungry and rely on school lunch programs, etc. An UBI pilot in Madhya Pradesh, India shows exactly the opposite [0]. Villages focused more on healthcare, education involvement improved, frivolous spending decreased, women empowerment was better and personal savings increased. [0] http://unicef.in/Uploads/Publications/Resources/pub_doc83.pdf http://unicef.in/Uploads/Publications/Resources/pub_doc83.pd...

whb07 8y ago
Not exactly mind blowing stats. Compared to the control group not that much improvement. Furthermore, their living is so low that it is astonishing that the increased stats are so low. Seems like they would benefit more from improved access to a market.

avgDev 8y ago

I used social services when broke and in school. I didn't drink and it helped improve my existence greatly. Not everyone is raging alcoholic. In fact they had a drug screening in FL for unemployment, and like less than 1% of people failed.