5 ms·

I find this mostly click bait. We should expect results like this or frankly better. Results from one small African village are not globally applicable. The iss

I find this mostly click bait. We should expect results like this or frankly better. Results from one small African village are not globally applicable. The issue is where does the money come from and is it truly universal. All the experiments to date have been of the "we gave free money with no restrictions to X thousand people for Y months and it was great". This is necessary but not sufficient research. We could have huge savings in the US with simplified welfare programs but we shouldn't forget that most of those savings come from firing some number of thousands who now also need UBI and have diminished pension benefits. All of these systems are inter-related and we will have to keep trying things as the financial divide grows.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
ghaff 8y ago
Furthermore, while there is some overhead associated with administration/policing eligibility/etc., a lot of the social safety net people costs are also roles like social workers, etc., the need of which doesn't go away just because you are now just giving everyone a no strings attached check.
moduspol 8y ago
I'm still waiting for the UBI trial that includes allowing everyone receiving it to vote for how much the UBI checks are for. That aspect never seems to get included for some reason.
- allemagne 8y ago
  Any democracy could decide to write a check to its voters now.
  - moduspol 8y ago
    We already do (at least in the US), in the form of entitlement expenditures, the military/industrial complex, federally subsidized student loans, and more. It doesn't happen overnight, but I don't think anyone doubts we're spending and taking on more debt than ever. It'll just undoubtedly accelerate the issue with no feasible exit plan.
- insickness 8y ago
  Great point. Politician #1: "I'm going to increase UBI to $2000!" Politician #2: "I'm going to increase UBI to $5000!" Politician #3: "I'm going to increase UBI to $10000!" I'm totally voting for politician #3!
  - moduspol 8y ago
    And don't forget: proponents are claiming this is necessary because large groups of people will be incapable of obtaining gainful employment. This means, by design, this cannot just be "the necessities" because increasing groups of people will be relying on it to live out their entire lives. That means we'll be discussing how many vacations should be paid for. After all, you wouldn't tell a huge group of people they'll never be able to afford a vacation their entire life, right? And this will include a car, at least for most of the US. How much money should be allocated for that? Should they be able to afford home ownership, or just rent? Will it be enough to let them choose where they want to live? These questions (and many like them) will be debated over and over again. I don't think it'll be as on-the-nose as you laid out, but over time, the end result is the same.
    - DonaldFisk 8y ago
      > That means we'll be discussing how many vacations should be paid for. If people don't have work to do then they are already, practically by definition, on vacation. If you mean going on package tours and the like, there's no more reason to discuss those as a Basic Income "entitlement" than there is with social security payments.
      - moduspol 8y ago
        Perhaps "travel" would have been a better word, but the point still stands. --Social security isn't intended to be a single monetary payment people will, by design, rely on for their entire lives. That's the key difference.-- EDIT: Actually it does do that for specific subsets of people (those with disabilities and similar), but it's a very limited subset as opposed to the entire population, and I think the difference is significant.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

ghaff 8y ago

Furthermore, while there is some overhead associated with administration/policing eligibility/etc., a lot of the social safety net people costs are also roles like social workers, etc., the need of which doesn't go away just because you are now just giving everyone a no strings attached check.

moduspol 8y ago

I'm still waiting for the UBI trial that includes allowing everyone receiving it to vote for how much the UBI checks are for. That aspect never seems to get included for some reason.

allemagne 8y ago
Any democracy could decide to write a check to its voters now.
- moduspol 8y ago
  We already do (at least in the US), in the form of entitlement expenditures, the military/industrial complex, federally subsidized student loans, and more. It doesn't happen overnight, but I don't think anyone doubts we're spending and taking on more debt than ever. It'll just undoubtedly accelerate the issue with no feasible exit plan.
insickness 8y ago
Great point. Politician #1: "I'm going to increase UBI to $2000!" Politician #2: "I'm going to increase UBI to $5000!" Politician #3: "I'm going to increase UBI to $10000!" I'm totally voting for politician #3!
- moduspol 8y ago
  And don't forget: proponents are claiming this is necessary because large groups of people will be incapable of obtaining gainful employment. This means, by design, this cannot just be "the necessities" because increasing groups of people will be relying on it to live out their entire lives. That means we'll be discussing how many vacations should be paid for. After all, you wouldn't tell a huge group of people they'll never be able to afford a vacation their entire life, right? And this will include a car, at least for most of the US. How much money should be allocated for that? Should they be able to afford home ownership, or just rent? Will it be enough to let them choose where they want to live? These questions (and many like them) will be debated over and over again. I don't think it'll be as on-the-nose as you laid out, but over time, the end result is the same.
  - DonaldFisk 8y ago
    > That means we'll be discussing how many vacations should be paid for. If people don't have work to do then they are already, practically by definition, on vacation. If you mean going on package tours and the like, there's no more reason to discuss those as a Basic Income "entitlement" than there is with social security payments.
    - moduspol 8y ago
      Perhaps "travel" would have been a better word, but the point still stands. --Social security isn't intended to be a single monetary payment people will, by design, rely on for their entire lives. That's the key difference.-- EDIT: Actually it does do that for specific subsets of people (those with disabilities and similar), but it's a very limited subset as opposed to the entire population, and I think the difference is significant.