3 ms·

I think removing red tape and allowing people to pay for things they need right now is an excellent way to speed people's recovery from poverty, but it needs nu

I think removing red tape and allowing people to pay for things they need right now is an excellent way to speed people's recovery from poverty, but it needs nudges, and those nudges need to be informed by data and empirical evidence. We need to know what people are spending the money on so we know how to target the biggest problems as well as the corner cases. If you know what the actual problems are and where the money needs to be spent, you don't need to give everyone $10,000. You may only need to give this person $2,000 for this thing, and this person $7,000 for that thing. Giving them all a lump sum is just inefficient, and does not address the myriad edge cases. Collecting data on spending could help provide efficiency.

bsder 8y ago
Not it doesn't need nudges. The point is to be universal. The problem is that some of it will go to things you and I personally don't like. Too bad. However, that's a political disaster--especially when coupled with the toxic racial politics from the right wing in the US right now. Even the article is somewhat guilty of it. While it may play well to the New York Times audience, if you want to sell UBI, the overemphasis on minorities is not a winning PR move. It's even more irritating as Stockton is known also being a white trash meth epicenter. We need to get the fact that the problem is being POOR is the issue that needs to be fixed, period.
- BadThink6655321 8y ago
  “Toxic racial politics from the right wing...” I agree that racial politics is toxic, but racial politics is just one subset of identity politics. The left has “sown the wind” and they’re going to “reap the whirlwind.” May $diety help us all.
- pingpongproduct 8y ago
  > toxic racial politics > white trash People like you is why the right's popularity has surged and continues to climb.
- peterwwillis 8y ago
  Most of this has nothing to do with my comment and is unnecessarily emotional and partisan. UBI does need nudges, not because I'm objecting to how people spend the money, but because it is _inefficient_. Do you want to raise people out of poverty? Great. How long would you like that to take? 100 years? 50? 20? 10? We don't have 100 trillion dollars just lying around, so we can't just give everyone a fortune _right now_. So it will take time for a UBI to have a lasting effect on society. If you don't want that to take 50 years, you have to try to be more efficient with that money, so that 50 years can maybe be shrunk down to 20 years, or even 10. To reach better efficiency you need to be smarter about how you solve problems with the money. To do that you can look at how the money is spent, and help people to spend it in a wise way. Some of those ways include financial literacy programs, help with getting into social programs, job training, hell even carpools. Sometimes it will be a more efficient health insurance plan, or tips on shopping or cooking. Maybe even investing some of the money in a savings program, or debt counseling. Some people may need more than the UBI, and some people may need less. This isn't a partisan judgmental thing, it's a simple fact that not everyone has the same financial problems. Maybe one person needs $2,000 a month, and maybe one person needs $50k right now. You don't know until you look at the bigger picture, and that requires data. I'm not being partisan or lecturing people on what they need to spend and how. Everyone in the world could benefit from having their spending analyzed and having suggestions on how to be more efficient with their money. I'm saying that if you're doling out a fixed amount of cash, maybe you might want to do it as well as you can so it can have the greatest effect possible, rather than just throw cash at the wind and hope it sticks the right way (because a lot of the time it won't, because people have different needs, and inequality is not just economic)

bsder 8y ago

Not it doesn't need nudges. The point is to be universal. The problem is that some of it will go to things you and I personally don't like. Too bad. However, that's a political disaster--especially when coupled with the toxic racial politics from the right wing in the US right now. Even the article is somewhat guilty of it. While it may play well to the New York Times audience, if you want to sell UBI, the overemphasis on minorities is not a winning PR move. It's even more irritating as Stockton is known also being a white trash meth epicenter. We need to get the fact that the problem is being POOR is the issue that needs to be fixed, period.

BadThink6655321 8y ago
“Toxic racial politics from the right wing...” I agree that racial politics is toxic, but racial politics is just one subset of identity politics. The left has “sown the wind” and they’re going to “reap the whirlwind.” May $diety help us all.
pingpongproduct 8y ago
> toxic racial politics > white trash People like you is why the right's popularity has surged and continues to climb.
peterwwillis 8y ago
Most of this has nothing to do with my comment and is unnecessarily emotional and partisan. UBI does need nudges, not because I'm objecting to how people spend the money, but because it is _inefficient_. Do you want to raise people out of poverty? Great. How long would you like that to take? 100 years? 50? 20? 10? We don't have 100 trillion dollars just lying around, so we can't just give everyone a fortune _right now_. So it will take time for a UBI to have a lasting effect on society. If you don't want that to take 50 years, you have to try to be more efficient with that money, so that 50 years can maybe be shrunk down to 20 years, or even 10. To reach better efficiency you need to be smarter about how you solve problems with the money. To do that you can look at how the money is spent, and help people to spend it in a wise way. Some of those ways include financial literacy programs, help with getting into social programs, job training, hell even carpools. Sometimes it will be a more efficient health insurance plan, or tips on shopping or cooking. Maybe even investing some of the money in a savings program, or debt counseling. Some people may need more than the UBI, and some people may need less. This isn't a partisan judgmental thing, it's a simple fact that not everyone has the same financial problems. Maybe one person needs $2,000 a month, and maybe one person needs $50k right now. You don't know until you look at the bigger picture, and that requires data. I'm not being partisan or lecturing people on what they need to spend and how. Everyone in the world could benefit from having their spending analyzed and having suggestions on how to be more efficient with their money. I'm saying that if you're doling out a fixed amount of cash, maybe you might want to do it as well as you can so it can have the greatest effect possible, rather than just throw cash at the wind and hope it sticks the right way (because a lot of the time it won't, because people have different needs, and inequality is not just economic)