3 ms·

The thesis behind these programs is explicitly that the government shouldn’t waste timing being paternalistic about the recipient’s spending, like existing prog

The thesis behind these programs is explicitly that the government shouldn’t waste timing being paternalistic about the recipient’s spending, like existing programs are. It only matters if in aggregate people’s lives are improved, not whether they are “spending wisely” according to someone’s ideal. There may be other reasons why programs like this aren’t good, like financial feasibility or positive outcomes aren’t sustained when it’s broadly applied, but “I don’t trust someone to spend it well,” which is just a stand in for “how I would spend it,” needs to go away in favor of outcome-based evaluation.

fiftyfifty 6y ago
The question I've always wondered about UBI type programs (and I've been a fan) is what happens when people don't spend the money wisely? Take homelessness for example, what happens when you give homeless people $1,000/month and they spend it on drugs and are still homeless and hungry? In the end it seems like we will be left paying for UBI and social programs like public housing, food stamps and drug addiction programs. UBI will simply not be a replacement for most social programs as it is often advertised, which in my mind means we probably can't afford it.
throwaway0a5e 6y ago
>The thesis behind these programs is explicitly that the government shouldn’t waste timing being paternalistic about the recipient’s spending, l When government is getting that money by taking it from other people it has responsibility to see that the money is spent in a manner that's beneficial. If that's blackjack and hookers then fine but if it turns out that the money is spend on blackjack and hookers and doing so doesn't benefit society then we can't in good faith keep taking people's money for that use. I'm all for outcome based evaluation, but we need to have the balls to say "ok, well no blackjack and hookers then" if that's what the numbers support.

fiftyfifty 6y ago

The question I've always wondered about UBI type programs (and I've been a fan) is what happens when people don't spend the money wisely? Take homelessness for example, what happens when you give homeless people $1,000/month and they spend it on drugs and are still homeless and hungry? In the end it seems like we will be left paying for UBI and social programs like public housing, food stamps and drug addiction programs. UBI will simply not be a replacement for most social programs as it is often advertised, which in my mind means we probably can't afford it.

throwaway0a5e 6y ago

>The thesis behind these programs is explicitly that the government shouldn’t waste timing being paternalistic about the recipient’s spending, l When government is getting that money by taking it from other people it has responsibility to see that the money is spent in a manner that's beneficial. If that's blackjack and hookers then fine but if it turns out that the money is spend on blackjack and hookers and doing so doesn't benefit society then we can't in good faith keep taking people's money for that use. I'm all for outcome based evaluation, but we need to have the balls to say "ok, well no blackjack and hookers then" if that's what the numbers support.