4 ms·

I fundamentally don't like UBI because, like other forms of welfare, it makes the poor ever more reliant on the government without incentive to become self-reli

by umvi 6y ago

I fundamentally don't like UBI because, like other forms of welfare, it makes the poor ever more reliant on the government without incentive to become self-reliant. I'm a strong believer in self-reliance. I think solutions that tackle poverty should have a path to self-reliance in there. Current welfare programs reward continued reliance and punish self-reliance (i.e. government benefits yanked if you try to supplement income too much with self-reliant sources, etc.). The ideal program helps people work their way to a state where they are no longer reliant on the government to survive. UBI locks the poorest into government reliance permanently. You might say "yeah, UBI will help people be more self-reliant because now it's unconditional and you can supplement however you want". And maybe that's partially true. But I still think without an incentive, indeed a culture shift that values self-reliance, the poorest UBI recipients will still be stuck in rut, because they don't just lack money, but fundamental financial education that middle/upper class receive as intellectual inheritance from their parents. Just like today, it doesn't matter how many government subsidies you get, the poor's standard of living will scale to their income until every penny is gone. Someone needs to teach the poorest how to live below means so you can save, invest, avoid expensive addictions and health problems, etc. and an unconditional check in the mail won't automatically bestow that knowledge. I predict if UBI becomes a thing it will actually increase the divide between lower and middle classes, because the middle class will use it more effectively (i.e. saving, investments, etc.) while the poor will use it less effectively (as a consequence of lacking financial education).

charwalker 6y ago
What about those unable to work, are disabled, stay at home parents, or otherwise unable to be self reliant?
- umvi 6y ago
  They should be the rare exceptions for when all else has failed, not the rule. For everyone else, including the majority of stay at home parents, they should work toward self reliance (again, just my opinion. I think not being reliant on the government for your survival is a great boon to both the individual and society).
joshuamorton 6y ago
> Just like today, it doesn't matter how many government subsidies you get, the poor's standard of living will scale to their income until every penny is gone. Someone needs to teach the poorest how to live below means so you can save, invest, avoid expensive addictions and health problems, etc. and an unconditional check in the mail won't automatically bestow that knowledge. This is misleading. Psychologically speaking, those who are poor are more likely to spend money immediately, because this is the rational thing to do if your life is unstable. Money has a way of disappearing (loan interest, people who come after you because you owe them money, etc.) if you hold on to it, so the rational thing to do is to convert dollars to goods that help you immediately[0]. This obviously prevents any form of long term investment. The solution is to provide stability. Reasonable (non-means-tested) welfare programs do that. The problem isn't that the poor are dumb or uneducated or something, it's that the incentive structures literally push them away from long-term investments, so rational action is to not save for the future. Provide stability and the incentive structures change. [0]: https://www.theatlantic.com/family/archive/2018/06/marshmallow-test/561779/ https://www.theatlantic.com/family/archive/2018/06/marshmall...
- umvi 6y ago
  > Money has a way of disappearing (loan interest, people who come after you because you owe them money, etc.) if you hold on to it, so the rational thing to do is to convert dollars to goods that help you immediately That's largely just a roundabout way of stealing (if you consider defaulting on debts stealing, which I do in many cases). "If I frivolously spend my money before paying my debts, then I don't have to pay my debts!" I have a lot of experience working with poor people in Maryland, primarily poor African American women (single moms). The vast majority immediately spend their money as you say, but I disagree they are spending the money on "goods that help [them] immediately". Some tried to pay bills, but were too ignorant to understand what they were paying for and why. They would send money to anyone that sent them a letter with scary red ink on it. Also, counter-intuitively, many of the poor I've worked with had the latest iPhones, huge TVs, cable/HBO, air jordans (super expensive shoes), and other luxuries I myself don't have. You could argue these are "psychological necessities" to keep them from falling into despair, but again, I disagree. > The solution is to provide stability. The state of Maryland provides free and/or heavily subsidized housing via HOC and free food via SNAP, yet the recipients of such programs I have worked with still frivolously spent cash on toys and luxuries (not to mention booze, cigs, and lotto) as soon as they got it and were in no way on a path to self-reliance. If free food and housing doesn't provide stability, I fail to see how UBI would (especially considering most UBI checks would be eaten as rent which is largely equivalent to HOC) > The problem isn't that the poor are dumb or uneducated or something That might not be the entire problem, but it is disingenuous to argue it is not even a component of the problem. Financial ignorance (and ignorance in general) is a huge factor in inter-generational poverty. I've worked with single African American women who had no idea where their money was going. When I helped them get their accounts in order, we found they were paying Comcast for cable despite not owning a TV, they were paying for all sorts of extraneous insurance and warranties they didn't need because the letters in the mail had predatory "amount due" stamps in red on disguising them as bills, etc. Self reliance does not just magically happen because of "stability". Even a lot of middle class people are living borderline unsustainable lifestyles, where missing a paycheck would be catastrophic because they went way too far into debt for their <huge house/expensive car(s)/etc>. Paying down debts in the optimal order to get on the path of long term savings is not something you can easily bootstrap yourself into without help. You need teachers and mentors for that.
pnutjam 6y ago
UBI is a payment for everything you give up to society. Where do you think all that property everybody respects came from? Who does that system deserve to continue? UBI is not a giveaway, it's a payment that's long overdue.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

by umvi 6y ago

charwalker 6y ago

What about those unable to work, are disabled, stay at home parents, or otherwise unable to be self reliant?

umvi 6y ago
They should be the rare exceptions for when all else has failed, not the rule. For everyone else, including the majority of stay at home parents, they should work toward self reliance (again, just my opinion. I think not being reliant on the government for your survival is a great boon to both the individual and society).

joshuamorton 6y ago

> Just like today, it doesn't matter how many government subsidies you get, the poor's standard of living will scale to their income until every penny is gone. Someone needs to teach the poorest how to live below means so you can save, invest, avoid expensive addictions and health problems, etc. and an unconditional check in the mail won't automatically bestow that knowledge. This is misleading. Psychologically speaking, those who are poor are more likely to spend money immediately, because this is the rational thing to do if your life is unstable. Money has a way of disappearing (loan interest, people who come after you because you owe them money, etc.) if you hold on to it, so the rational thing to do is to convert dollars to goods that help you immediately[0]. This obviously prevents any form of long term investment. The solution is to provide stability. Reasonable (non-means-tested) welfare programs do that. The problem isn't that the poor are dumb or uneducated or something, it's that the incentive structures literally push them away from long-term investments, so rational action is to not save for the future. Provide stability and the incentive structures change. [0]: https://www.theatlantic.com/family/archive/2018/06/marshmallow-test/561779/ https://www.theatlantic.com/family/archive/2018/06/marshmall...

umvi 6y ago
> Money has a way of disappearing (loan interest, people who come after you because you owe them money, etc.) if you hold on to it, so the rational thing to do is to convert dollars to goods that help you immediately That's largely just a roundabout way of stealing (if you consider defaulting on debts stealing, which I do in many cases). "If I frivolously spend my money before paying my debts, then I don't have to pay my debts!" I have a lot of experience working with poor people in Maryland, primarily poor African American women (single moms). The vast majority immediately spend their money as you say, but I disagree they are spending the money on "goods that help [them] immediately". Some tried to pay bills, but were too ignorant to understand what they were paying for and why. They would send money to anyone that sent them a letter with scary red ink on it. Also, counter-intuitively, many of the poor I've worked with had the latest iPhones, huge TVs, cable/HBO, air jordans (super expensive shoes), and other luxuries I myself don't have. You could argue these are "psychological necessities" to keep them from falling into despair, but again, I disagree. > The solution is to provide stability. The state of Maryland provides free and/or heavily subsidized housing via HOC and free food via SNAP, yet the recipients of such programs I have worked with still frivolously spent cash on toys and luxuries (not to mention booze, cigs, and lotto) as soon as they got it and were in no way on a path to self-reliance. If free food and housing doesn't provide stability, I fail to see how UBI would (especially considering most UBI checks would be eaten as rent which is largely equivalent to HOC) > The problem isn't that the poor are dumb or uneducated or something That might not be the entire problem, but it is disingenuous to argue it is not even a component of the problem. Financial ignorance (and ignorance in general) is a huge factor in inter-generational poverty. I've worked with single African American women who had no idea where their money was going. When I helped them get their accounts in order, we found they were paying Comcast for cable despite not owning a TV, they were paying for all sorts of extraneous insurance and warranties they didn't need because the letters in the mail had predatory "amount due" stamps in red on disguising them as bills, etc. Self reliance does not just magically happen because of "stability". Even a lot of middle class people are living borderline unsustainable lifestyles, where missing a paycheck would be catastrophic because they went way too far into debt for their <huge house/expensive car(s)/etc>. Paying down debts in the optimal order to get on the path of long term savings is not something you can easily bootstrap yourself into without help. You need teachers and mentors for that.

pnutjam 6y ago

UBI is a payment for everything you give up to society. Where do you think all that property everybody respects came from? Who does that system deserve to continue? UBI is not a giveaway, it's a payment that's long overdue.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]