3 ms·

Promising people a never ending supply of money that they didn't earn will render people children dependent on mommy and daddy(government) to provide for them.

Promising people a never ending supply of money that they didn't earn will render people children dependent on mommy and daddy(government) to provide for them. This will stunt the growth and potential of many people. Read the finnish experiment. All that happened is that people relxed and chilled on other's people money. They had no incentive to be productive so they weren't. https://www.helsinki.fi/en/news/nordic-welfare-news/heikki-hiilamo-disappointing-results-from-the-finnish-basic-income-experiment https://www.helsinki.fi/en/news/nordic-welfare-news/heikki-h... This UBI movement is another form of mass hysteria which if passed will hurt the US and our economy.

latexr 6y ago
> Read the finnish experiment. From your own link: > Targeted basic income instead of a universal one > The Finnish experiment was about partial basic income targeting able-bodied people without work, it was not about universal basic income. That has been a source of major confusion around the experiment and a source of critique of it. It’s hardly fair to take as definitive one limited experiment in one country when it doesn’t even properly employ what they’re testing. > All that happened is that people relxed and chilled on other's people money. They had no incentive to be productive so they weren't. From what I recall from previous conversations on the topic, people in these experiments tended to take the time to invest in their own educations instead, so they could have better jobs and a better standard of leaving upon returning to the workforce. That’s far from “relax and chill”, and makes it a smart move when you know the money will stop coming in because it’s not really UBI. We can extract good and bad things from the study and give emphasis to whatever narrative we want to pursue. Your own link mentions several caveats and shortcomings from the study; pretending it provides conclusive evidence of the failure or success of UBI would be disingenuous.
- badmadrad 6y ago
  So pie in the sky theorizing is better than looking at the data where this has failed/is failing. "not real UBI" is now "not real socialism". even the Stockton experiment has been propped up by private money. Its essentially a charity at this point. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-06-02/stockton-extends-its-universal-basic-income-pilot https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-06-02/stockton-... Furthermore, the entire benefit of UBI "is so that people don't have to work and get sick". It is incentivizing not working. It is incentivizing the dependency on the state.
  - latexr 6y ago
    > So pie in the sky theorizing is better than looking at the data where this has failed/is failing. I have no need to theorise. The data doesn’t demonstrate what you claim it does, as your own link makes clear. This seems to be a subject matter that makes you angry, so I’ll let it rest. I take no pleasure in enraging anyone.
    - badmadrad 6y ago
      Explain how it doesn't demonstrate. Because it does. The only ting that is annoying is your willful inability to acknowledge it.

latexr 6y ago

> Read the finnish experiment. From your own link: > Targeted basic income instead of a universal one > The Finnish experiment was about partial basic income targeting able-bodied people without work, it was not about universal basic income. That has been a source of major confusion around the experiment and a source of critique of it. It’s hardly fair to take as definitive one limited experiment in one country when it doesn’t even properly employ what they’re testing. > All that happened is that people relxed and chilled on other's people money. They had no incentive to be productive so they weren't. From what I recall from previous conversations on the topic, people in these experiments tended to take the time to invest in their own educations instead, so they could have better jobs and a better standard of leaving upon returning to the workforce. That’s far from “relax and chill”, and makes it a smart move when you know the money will stop coming in because it’s not really UBI. We can extract good and bad things from the study and give emphasis to whatever narrative we want to pursue. Your own link mentions several caveats and shortcomings from the study; pretending it provides conclusive evidence of the failure or success of UBI would be disingenuous.

badmadrad 6y ago
So pie in the sky theorizing is better than looking at the data where this has failed/is failing. "not real UBI" is now "not real socialism". even the Stockton experiment has been propped up by private money. Its essentially a charity at this point. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-06-02/stockton-extends-its-universal-basic-income-pilot https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-06-02/stockton-... Furthermore, the entire benefit of UBI "is so that people don't have to work and get sick". It is incentivizing not working. It is incentivizing the dependency on the state.
- latexr 6y ago
  > So pie in the sky theorizing is better than looking at the data where this has failed/is failing. I have no need to theorise. The data doesn’t demonstrate what you claim it does, as your own link makes clear. This seems to be a subject matter that makes you angry, so I’ll let it rest. I take no pleasure in enraging anyone.
  - badmadrad 6y ago
    Explain how it doesn't demonstrate. Because it does. The only ting that is annoying is your willful inability to acknowledge it.