4 ms·

> You may believe that welfare is a bad thing, and that society would be better if we just let people who don't have jobs starve to death or something, but soci

by adwn 7y ago

> You may believe that welfare is a bad thing, and that society would be better if we just let people who don't have jobs starve to death or something, but society has decided as a collective group that we don't want that. You're conflating two groups here: A) people who are unable to work or can't find work, and B) people who would be able to work, but choose not to work. Most modern societies have decided to provide welfare to group A, but not group B. > The "what if!" argument doesn't work here because if it was going to happen it would already have happened, and it hasn't. You're wrong: No such experiment has been tried (i.e., a UBI guaranteed over many years, to a diverse set of people, sufficiently high to live on), so you can't claim "it would already have happened".

onion2k 7y ago
Most modern societies have decided to provide welfare to group A, but not group B. Most societies haven't put measures in place to stop people in group B living on welfare. That is accepting them. No such experiment has been tried The "what if" in question was "what if everyone decided to live on welfare", not "what if we had UBI". Everyone could just decide to live on welfare right now, but they haven't.
- koonsolo 7y ago
  > Most societies haven't put measures in place to stop people in group B living on welfare. That is accepting them. Yes they do. They have laws and services in place to track down these people. In practice it's now always easy to make the distinction between someone who can't find a job, and someone who doesn't want a job. Your "it ain't a crime if you don't get caught" theory is not really accepted by society, government or law.
- adwn 7y ago
  > Most societies haven't put measures in place to stop people in group B living on welfare. Uuh, yeah, they have – that's what "means testing" is all about, and that's also what UBI proponents demand: welfare without means testing. > Everyone could just decide to live on welfare right now, but they haven't. No, they couldn't – again, because auf means testing. Sure, there are some people that successfully trick, outsmart, or otherwise circumvent the means test, but it's not as simple as "just deciding to live on welfare right now", as you put it.

by adwn 7y ago

onion2k 7y ago

Most modern societies have decided to provide welfare to group A, but not group B. Most societies haven't put measures in place to stop people in group B living on welfare. That is accepting them. No such experiment has been tried The "what if" in question was "what if everyone decided to live on welfare", not "what if we had UBI". Everyone could just decide to live on welfare right now, but they haven't.

koonsolo 7y ago
> Most societies haven't put measures in place to stop people in group B living on welfare. That is accepting them. Yes they do. They have laws and services in place to track down these people. In practice it's now always easy to make the distinction between someone who can't find a job, and someone who doesn't want a job. Your "it ain't a crime if you don't get caught" theory is not really accepted by society, government or law.
adwn 7y ago
> Most societies haven't put measures in place to stop people in group B living on welfare. Uuh, yeah, they have – that's what "means testing" is all about, and that's also what UBI proponents demand: welfare without means testing. > Everyone could just decide to live on welfare right now, but they haven't. No, they couldn't – again, because auf means testing. Sure, there are some people that successfully trick, outsmart, or otherwise circumvent the means test, but it's not as simple as "just deciding to live on welfare right now", as you put it.