8 ms·
A city experiments with paying people not to be annoying
- saagarjha 4y agoAnything but UBI, I guess…
- ajsnigrutin 4y agoHmm.. in this case, if you give people (some form of an) UBI, they stop working... is this really what we want for everyone?
- int_19h 4y agoIn the long term, yes, it feels like a society where nobody is doing any work other than "just for fun" is the goal worth aiming for.
- saagarjha 4y agoI doubt this is the place to do the whole debate on UBI (I do take the blame for bringing it up) but I do want to point out that these people are definitely not doing any productive work right now.
- unity1001 4y agoFinland experimented with UBI, and it found out that UBI does not affect people working or not working at all. That's just bullsh*t propagated by the incumbent economic establishment to prevent anything like UBI causing them end up having to pay the taxes that they owe for their tax-dodging wealth.
- ajsnigrutin 4y agoYes, every time-limited trial shows that, because people won't just quit their jobs and move to a cheaper place with a year of two of UBI... but UBI "for life" is a whole different thing.
- unity1001 4y ago> but UBI "for life" is a whole different thing That's changing goalposts. The study found out that having an UBI did not do any change in behavior pattern except making those who lived precariously have better psychology. These objections originate from the puritan ethic that still afflicts mostly the US - 'People are lazy and only hardworkers are good'. There is no such thing. Human species is a curious and active species. It cannot stay idle for long. Leave aside its individuals need to be part of something and need to be doing something.
- ajsnigrutin 4y agoIt's not changing goalposts. UBI as a "for-life" thing is something totally different than a "two year experiment". You cannot extrapolate data from a temporary experiment and assume it will work with unlimited situations. Noone will quit their job and leave for somewhere cheaper, if the money runs out in two years. If it doesn't, people will do that. And it's not that "people are lazy and hardworkers are good", but it's unfair, that we should take the money from those who work and give it to those who don't. You don't have to work, it's your choice, I don't care, just don't take my money. (and yes, there are people who are eg. tetraplegic, and actually cannot work, and there should be social support systems for them... but for normal, able people, work, don't work, who cares, just don't leech of from those who do).
- unity1001 4y ago> but it's unfair, that we should take the money from those who work and give it to those who don't Its minimum income. Not maximum income. If someone wants to go retire in a remote 3rd world country, living with minimal comforts with his/her ubi, I have no problem with that. A fraction of the money going to such a cause is much better than people working like slaves to survive or going homeless if they dont want to. I want a society of people that does things willingly. Not through coercion over survival.
- ur-whale 4y agohttps://archive.ph/TIVLP https://archive.ph/TIVLP
- zqfuz 4y agoCall it what it is: blackmail.
- LarryMullins 4y agoExtortion. "Squeegy kids" use the implicit threat of violence against you or your car to extort payment from drivers. The "service" they provide is worse than worthless, they make your car filthy. They're an absolute menace. I don't see why cities should have to resort to paying them off. They surely violate numerous laws with their scheme, anything from doing business without a license to jaywalking. But of course to enforce such laws you need cops to chase them down and arrest them in broad daylight, which risks bad optics for the city if the cops get too overzealous. Still, better policing is the correct answer. I seriously doubt paying them off even could work. Why would they not take the payment then do it anyway? You'd still need cops to arrest them to know which didn't stay true to the agreement.
- yellowapple 4y ago> I seriously doubt paying them off even could work. Why would they not take the payment then do it anyway? Because then they wouldn't get paid more later.
- LarryMullins 4y agoUnless the police are out there chasing them down and establishing an arrest record to show they previously lied, why would they be denied payments in the future?
- ALittleLight 4y agoYes, they would. Unless you're also proposing some enforcement mechanism where you detect defectors. But, if you could reliably detect them, why not just stop them?
- lmm 4y agoPeople in that situation usually have a high time preference.
- merpnderp 4y agoI can’t imagine in living in a place where people can just ran out, spit on your windshield, rub it around with a cloth, then demand money and if you don’t pay up you might get shot. What insane people vote for this?
- bravoetch 4y agoVote for what, exactly?
- throwawaywu 4y agoTurning a blind eye to crime as a way of signaling good virtue
- Sohcahtoa82 4y agoI don't know if anybody actually does this aside from victimless crimes like drug use.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- nobody9999 4y ago>I can’t imagine in living in a place where people can just ran out, spit on your windshield, rub it around with a cloth, then demand money and if you don’t pay up you might get shot. What insane people vote for this? I'm thankful that this doesn't happen where I live (NYC). Where does this happen, so I know not to rent a car there.
- rufus_foreman 4y agoBaltimore.
- ablatt89 4y agoLol paying people not to wild out, insanity. Wildin' out is cool to many, being bad is cool and sexy. People will wild out and break any agreements regardless.
- linksnapzz 4y agoYou'd think this would be common enough knowledge, but...then you'd not be writing for the Economist.
- ablatt89 4y agoIndeed. Privileged upper middle class kids who've never lived as a poor person or lived in high crime areas, trying to solve everyone's problems without any life experiences nor evidence their solutions would work.
- nonrandomstring 4y agoMoney is a powerful incentive, but there's a creepy taboo around it's use to solve social problems. For example, we have very poor engagement in some universities I teach at and I've suggested simply paying the students to attend classes. Of course the chancellors, denes and other jumped-up administrators think I'm as mad as a box of frogs. But it's they who are utterly stuck in a tiny world-view, prisoners of preconceptions.
- xenonite 4y agoPaying students for classroom attendance is standard for military universities. You may try to speak to professors there. I heard it yields quite a difference in performance of average students.
- nonrandomstring 4y agoThanks, I was not aware this practice had precedent, sounds like the way I'd like to teach, I'll dial up some old contacts. As professors we get mostly stick and precious few carrots in British universities.
- flutas 4y ago> For example, we have very poor engagement in some universities I teach at and I've suggested simply paying the students to attend classes. > Of course the chancellors, denes and other jumped-up administrators think I'm as mad as a box of frogs. But it's they who are utterly stuck in a tiny world-view, prisoners of preconceptions. Would be an interesting experiment to say the least. Charge $X (tuition), every day they show up to class refund $Y (something like $20?), and then at the end of the semester refund an additional amount based on final grade (a = $Z ($500?), b = $Z-250, etc.) Basically make it so that good students get a discount compared to 'bad' students, but I feel like this would probably go up against some legal issues somewhere.
- eloff 4y agoWhen the good students are Asians and the bad students are minorities, I can see this being canceled pretty quickly as being a racist policy. It makes sense to my engineer’s brain though. Why wouldn’t you want a meritocracy.
- bfeynman 4y agoThis is embarrassing for the economist. The premise here is based on laughable stat they make hundreds per day, which is definitely not true. It's also just illegal, so any valid replacement of time is a worthy gain, but you can't just pay people to sit around.
- mysterypie 4y ago> make hundreds per day, which is definitely not true I'm surprised by that stat, but how do you know it's not true?
- bfeynman 4y agoVery familiar with region. Even during summer its large group of kids that trade on and off for a few hours at a time.
- protastus 4y agoThis is clickbait. The anonymous author wants to make you angry, and it starts with the headline. The article is shallow and provides no insight into what the program looks like. If the author gave a shit about actual reporting, they'd provide context about other programs that tried similar things, and their results. How are the kids held accountable? What type of training is offered? Is there a pipeline into internships and employment?
- dogman144 4y agoBefore we besmirch the economists’ good name, worth knowing that the org only publishes under anon authors usually.
- unity1001 4y ago> the economists’ good name Lol.
- class4behavior 4y agoI hope the first part was sarcasm
- dogman144 4y agoDepends how you feel about maintaining the neo liberal world order I suppose
- yuppie_scum 4y agoThe Economist is one of the finest journalistic outlets in the English media.
- unity1001 4y agoEven before it was bought by a far right Japanese outfit, The Economist always bullsh*tted whatever the interests of the English Toffs required. This includes participating in the media frenzy that sold the nonexistent Iraqi WMDs to Western public and all that entailed.
- gcheong 4y agoI'm reminded of the story of an old man who the neighborhood kids would harass by calling him names so one day he offers to pay them some amount for each offensive name. The next time they show up he says he can only afford to pay them a smaller amount. This goes on for a bit until one day he says he can't pay them anymore so, not wanting to swear at him for free, the kids stop. Paying the kids not to wash windows however, would seem to have the opposite effect.
- dogman144 4y agoImportant context is this and similar trends didn’t just disappear in NYC because of magic Giuliani. “By the late 1990s the men were gone…” bc a bunch of folks like them and otherwise went prison in NY, and then they got out and/or moved upstate proactively, and now historic, previously beautiful towns like Newburgh are gang, drugs and violence central. But because it’s 90 minutes up the Hudson from NYC, out of sight out of mind. Trying something vaguely different to clean up a city isn’t a bad thing.
- googlryas 4y agoNewburgh could pass the same laws that gave the NYC mayor the power to kick them out
- _cs2017_ 4y agoYou are suggesting that the downfall of Newburgh was due to people chased out of NYC by Giuliani, but this article suggests that Newburgh was overrun by gangs, drugs, and violence several decades before Giuliani's reign: https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2015/apr/08/resurrecting-newburgh-once-grand-american-city-heart-torn-out https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2015/apr/08/resurrecting-....
- 75w 4y agoIt is always a temptation for a reach and lazy nation, To puff and look important and to say:-- "Though we know we should defeat you, we have not the time to meet you. We will therefore pay you cash to go away." And that is called paying the Dane-geld; But we've proved it again and again, That if once you have paid him the Dane-geld You never get rid of the Dane.
- neilv 4y agoWhy not say "we need after-school job opportunities for kids", and making that happen? (Whether it's with the city's public works, or partnerships with local businesses, or whatever.) And if something like red light squeegee shakedowns is a problem, outlaw it? Singling out misbehaving people for what should reasonably be default benefits of being a member of society seems to send a suboptimal message.
- ct0 4y agoIt's generally understood that early job offers are higher education killers and borderline pro child labor. I'm not saying this is how think but I find it odd that there are rarely early career people in jobs that were common for young people 20 years ago. Grocery, retail, food service, etc.
- cafard 4y agoI don't understand your first sentence.
- janalsncm 4y agoThe Supreme Court says that panhandling is protected by the First Amendment.
- LarryMullins 4y agoSqueegeeing isn't speech, it's an act. The First Amendment protects it no more than it protects the act of armed robbery. The First Amendment protects "Sir do you have any change?"
- janalsncm 4y ago> The First Amendment protects "Sir do you have any change?" The First Amendment protects speech. The First Amendment also protects acts. Flag burning for example is protected under 1A. I recommend reading the Wikipedia article [1] on Free Speech in the United States. It’s pretty interesting. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_in_the_United_States https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_in_the_Uni...
- teddyh 4y ago“It's a gigantic social phenomenon. People find ways of getting money by impeding society. Once they can impede society, they can be paid to leave people alone.” — Richard Stallman, 1986 https://www.gnu.org/gnu/byte-interview https://www.gnu.org/gnu/byte-interview
- europeanguy 4y agoDoesn't this create the incentive to be annoying?
- syngrog66 4y agoI've been fascinated how US society allows people to be so loud everywhere. For folks like me who prefer silence and peace it can often be a drag, and more stressful than otherwise.