4 ms·
The article does not address the question posed in the title. It's just a summary of some recent attempts at pseudo-UBI, without even attempting to show a net
by Izkata 4y ago
The article does not address the question posed in the title. It's just a summary of some recent attempts at pseudo-UBI, without even attempting to show a net positive outcome from those attempts.
Also isn't this:
> They are paid for by the flood of money made available by the federal government for relief schemes during the worst of the pandemic.
a misuse of funds that were supposed to be returned? (or am I misremembering the "supposed to be returned" part from something else?)
- dTal 4y agoYes, the title is essentially clickbait, teasing at some sort of interesting point which it completely forgets about. Even if it had bothered to make an argument, places all over the world are trialing "UBI" schemes, including places with robust social safety nets, not just the US: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_basic_income_pilots https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_basic_income_pilots I suggest that there's nothing particularly special about the US's UBI pilots.
- AtlasBarfed 4y agoAny pandemic money that reaches actual people is fine with me. The amount of free money given to companies and corporations in the pandemic was outrageous, except that Americans are conditioned to accept any and all corporate giveaways without any oversight or even debate.