3 ms·

But the experiments that have been done support it. There's this set of objections to UBI based around "yes, ok, it works in the small scale, but it'll never w

But the experiments that have been done support it. There's this set of objections to UBI based around "yes, ok, it works in the small scale, but it'll never work on a large scale". If we did a large scale experiment, and it confirms that it works, the objections will move to "sure, OK, but it'll never work on a national level". So let's just implement it and see if it works. If it doesn't work, we can always just go back to letting people starve.

notahacker 5y ago
> But the experiments that have been done support it. They really, really don't. All the experiments on a small scale show is the trivial conclusion that if you give people some central government funds for a year or two, they tend to be slightly less poor at the end. None of them come remotely close to suggesting that people are so much more productive that they can cover the costs of UBI to people already out of the labour force by choice, never mind those that may choose to exit it in future.
LunaSea 5y ago
> If it doesn't work, we can always just go back to letting people starve. Only if the country still has the ability to change and the economy isn't permanently damaged.
- efaref 5y ago
  I think we can always manage to let people starve.
  - dbsmith83 5y ago
    Disingenuous argument which completely ignores the ramifications of severe economic downturn on a global stage.
MichaelBurge 5y ago
> If it doesn't work, we can always just go back to letting people starve. Elderly people already get a UBI in the form of Social Security, and that's politically impossible to cut regardless of whether it's a good or bad idea. Once you turn it on and people get used to it, you can never turn it off in a democracy.