4 ms·

Giving someone $500 or $2000 once and measuring the impact of that, and then extrapolating it to UBI makes no sense. A one-time cash payment isn't a psychologic

by davidu 4y ago

Giving someone $500 or $2000 once and measuring the impact of that, and then extrapolating it to UBI makes no sense. A one-time cash payment isn't a psychological safety net. It's winning a slot machine once. In fact, you probably know it isn't going to happen again, which could even be worse.

daenz 4y ago
UBI isn't mentioned anywhere.
- omniglottal 4y ago
  The comment to which you're replying mentions UBI. Try to keep up.
eurasiantiger 4y ago
The abstract agrees in conclusion: ”The data are most consistent with the notion that receiving some but not enough money made participants’ needs---and the gap between their resources and needs---more salient, which in turn generated feelings of distress.”
collegeburner 4y ago
Idk if we want a psychological safety net tho. Like we already have crazy low rates of saving so we want more of that. Seems like a psychological safety net will make an already low savings rate lower?
- guerrilla 4y ago
  Why do you want a higher savings rate?
  - collegeburner 4y ago
    6 in 10 Americans don't have $500 in savings [0]. You really don't see the problem with that???? People can't handle important expenses without savings. So they turn to bad solutions like credit card debt which is really expensive long term or defaulting on loans which makes future credit harder, stuff like that harms long-term financial health. (also because the way things are going we will have people retiring who can't afford it and no fucking way am I paying for it) [0] https://www.cbs19news.com/story/34248451/6-in-10-americans-dont-have-500-in-savings https://www.cbs19news.com/story/34248451/6-in-10-americans-d...
    - guerrilla 4y ago
      Right, so the problem is people don't have money because obviously people would save if they could. Giving them money would allow them to do that. This is exactly what the proposal is intended to resolve, so it doesn't make any sense that you'd argue against it unless you have some other idea of how to get people money so that they can save it.
phkahler 4y ago
If you give me one time payment like that, it goes in the bank and I don't think about it because it doesn't significantly change anything. If you give that same amount to someone in poverty, at best they pay down some debts but it doesn't significantly change anything. They are typically in a financial hole and that doesnt fill the whole but might reduce the depth a little.

by davidu 4y ago

daenz 4y ago

UBI isn't mentioned anywhere.

omniglottal 4y ago
The comment to which you're replying mentions UBI. Try to keep up.

eurasiantiger 4y ago

The abstract agrees in conclusion: ”The data are most consistent with the notion that receiving some but not enough money made participants’ needs---and the gap between their resources and needs---more salient, which in turn generated feelings of distress.”

collegeburner 4y ago

Idk if we want a psychological safety net tho. Like we already have crazy low rates of saving so we want more of that. Seems like a psychological safety net will make an already low savings rate lower?

guerrilla 4y ago
Why do you want a higher savings rate?
- collegeburner 4y ago
  6 in 10 Americans don't have $500 in savings [0]. You really don't see the problem with that???? People can't handle important expenses without savings. So they turn to bad solutions like credit card debt which is really expensive long term or defaulting on loans which makes future credit harder, stuff like that harms long-term financial health. (also because the way things are going we will have people retiring who can't afford it and no fucking way am I paying for it) [0] https://www.cbs19news.com/story/34248451/6-in-10-americans-dont-have-500-in-savings https://www.cbs19news.com/story/34248451/6-in-10-americans-d...
  - guerrilla 4y ago
    Right, so the problem is people don't have money because obviously people would save if they could. Giving them money would allow them to do that. This is exactly what the proposal is intended to resolve, so it doesn't make any sense that you'd argue against it unless you have some other idea of how to get people money so that they can save it.

phkahler 4y ago

If you give me one time payment like that, it goes in the bank and I don't think about it because it doesn't significantly change anything. If you give that same amount to someone in poverty, at best they pay down some debts but it doesn't significantly change anything. They are typically in a financial hole and that doesnt fill the whole but might reduce the depth a little.