3 ms·

> 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 exc

> 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 ago
It'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.

ajsnigrutin 4y ago

It'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.