3 ms·

Qualified and means-tested solutions impose what we feel others need upon them. Yet, if you just provided money, they could fill the gaps they know they need an

Qualified and means-tested solutions impose what we feel others need upon them. Yet, if you just provided money, they could fill the gaps they know they need and markets would emerge to satisfy those needs. For example, one may see a "smart phone" as not a necessity, but, for many it's the only computer they have and the connection to their economic world. Who are we to say that a smart phone isn't a necessity? To a worker who is on their feet all day, a very expensive pair of boots that will last years may also be a necessity. Who are we to know people's needs?

jariel 7y ago
The problem is that the most in need are often the leas concientious and responsible with money. Only an anecdote but where I live in Quebec welfare is almost $1K a month, there are flats for $400, electricity is subsidized. There are dudes who live on the street and use the money for crack. Many. Now, I have no idea if this is any kind of plurality, probably not, but it's common enough. Yes 'money' is always part of the problem, but at the lower levels, it's a huge mess of social deviance, real mental issues, medical-grade psychological problems, anti-social behavior. And if you dig up just a little bit of 'the past' it's full of abuse, neglect. Now throw in the availability of drugs and alcohol and then you have some serious malaise. So for the 'working poor', it's a different story, it's hard to tell what UBI would mean. BUT - there's another way. Land reform. The avg. home price in Canada last year, increased in value literally more than the average wage. That is unsustainable and crazy. Basically it's a 'class war' between the middle class making their money from leverage, while the working poor make jack. 'Rent' and 'Mortgage' is our most gigantic expense and yet it's a 'nonproductive asset! Yes, it costs money to 'build homes' but the other bit, real-estate is a mess. Net-net-net - there should be no material gains from this. It's economically feasible to create a situation wherein 'rent is free' for everyone, and to still have the same amount of economic productivity and growth. Low-interest rates have exacerbated this problem. FYI this 'land reform' is one of the massive differences between North America and Europe: North Americans were given 'free land' to tend and owned their farms, in contrast to the serfdom they had in Europe. Another reform in the 20th century was the push to get the plebes to own their homes through mortgages. But now the weirdness of the economy has made real problems in the cost of education and homes. I think re-thinking the economics of property without going Marxist would go further than UBI which is a kind of indirect thing.

jariel 7y ago

The problem is that the most in need are often the leas concientious and responsible with money. Only an anecdote but where I live in Quebec welfare is almost $1K a month, there are flats for $400, electricity is subsidized. There are dudes who live on the street and use the money for crack. Many. Now, I have no idea if this is any kind of plurality, probably not, but it's common enough. Yes 'money' is always part of the problem, but at the lower levels, it's a huge mess of social deviance, real mental issues, medical-grade psychological problems, anti-social behavior. And if you dig up just a little bit of 'the past' it's full of abuse, neglect. Now throw in the availability of drugs and alcohol and then you have some serious malaise. So for the 'working poor', it's a different story, it's hard to tell what UBI would mean. BUT - there's another way. Land reform. The avg. home price in Canada last year, increased in value literally more than the average wage. That is unsustainable and crazy. Basically it's a 'class war' between the middle class making their money from leverage, while the working poor make jack. 'Rent' and 'Mortgage' is our most gigantic expense and yet it's a 'nonproductive asset! Yes, it costs money to 'build homes' but the other bit, real-estate is a mess. Net-net-net - there should be no material gains from this. It's economically feasible to create a situation wherein 'rent is free' for everyone, and to still have the same amount of economic productivity and growth. Low-interest rates have exacerbated this problem. FYI this 'land reform' is one of the massive differences between North America and Europe: North Americans were given 'free land' to tend and owned their farms, in contrast to the serfdom they had in Europe. Another reform in the 20th century was the push to get the plebes to own their homes through mortgages. But now the weirdness of the economy has made real problems in the cost of education and homes. I think re-thinking the economics of property without going Marxist would go further than UBI which is a kind of indirect thing.