4 ms·
People don’t need money. People need basics like housing, food, and medical care. No UBI scheme is going to work in an economic system like the one in the U.S.
by dopylitty 6y ago
People don’t need money. People need basics like housing, food, and medical care. No UBI scheme is going to work in an economic system like the one in the U.S. that isn’t capable of providing those things. It’s not like there’s a shortage of food or shelter now and yet we still have homeless people while homes sit empty. We still have hungry people while farmers are destroying their crops.
The economic system is the problem.
- a_c_s 6y agoOur economic system isn't what limits housing supply in the USA, it is NIMBY local government policies.
- rtkwe 6y agoI think a lot of that needs the modifier of 'in cities.' There's cheap housing out there but so many jobs require living in or around a city.
- tomrod 6y agoI need money. Money gives me the freedom to seek after my choice of housing, food, and medical care. One common refrain I've heard is that the US already has a UBI, but it is $0.
- samelawrence 6y agoWhat does that sentence even mean?
- margalabargala 6y agoBut in society as it exists today, money is essentially equivalent to all of those things. UBI can ameliorate all three of those issues while helping to avoid the issues that crop up when trying to provide those necessities to people directly. The article attempts to argue for UBI from the stance of being pro-capitalist and working within the existing capitalist framework, and I think the author would answer your criticism with something like "By providing money to people, they can allocate those resources wherever is most efficient for them- to buy the food and housing they need if they need it, or other things if not. The person receiving the money is the one with the most information about where money needs to go in their life."
- mythrwy 6y agoI agree. I bet everyone reading this has at one time or another met someone who is completely incapable of managing money at even simple levels. Or thinking ahead even. Not everyone can wisely use XX a month. Or even eat with it. Then what? The fixation on money is a little nearsighted imo. It didn't always exist. It's just a tool for determining access to good and services. What if everyone could get a healthy meal and a clean safe place to sleep at any time and a shower and some net access or whatever is deemed necessary. Would that cost less or more then UBI? (I still think some form of UBI might be a good idea for the present, just, we should think bigger and outside of the current economic stack for the long term.)
- prawn 6y agoThat would be my reservation also. Give people regular money and some subset of the community will still run a life gauntlet that is effectively poverty. Squalor, poor food choices, poor relationship or parenting choices. Compounded by mental illness. They're not secreted away, so what changes in your neighbourhood? During this pandemic situation, many Australians are getting $750/w virtually no strings attached. I know of people bumming around the house waiting for their perception of the economy to improve, and I know of others working more than usual to bolster their bank account with the influx.
- umvi 6y agoA lot of states do. Maryland and California have housing and food programs for the poor (google "Maryland HOC"). Yet it doesn't seem to help much in terms of breaking out of inter-generational poverty - you just have poor people living in middle class houses trashing up the neighborhood and devaluing all the properties around them.