4 ms·
American systems (both governmental and corporate) are really complex. Much of the call for UBI is based on the recognition that living in America only really
by fwip 4y ago
American systems (both governmental and corporate) are really complex.
Much of the call for UBI is based on the recognition that living in America only really works if you have money. Giving everybody "enough" money seems simpler than reforming all of our broken systems. (Opinions are divided on whether UBI should replace, or only supplement, existing welfare schemes).
Supporting quote from the article:
> Americans who fall on hard times can access a panoply of different schemes, at both a local and a federal level. There are disability benefits; food stamps; section 8 housing vouchers; Medicaid; and unemployment insurance (which is paid for and administered by states, but in crises often expanded federally). Most of this comes with an extraordinary amount of bureaucracy, however, and many people fall through the cracks—for example, because they do not have a permanent address, or they fail to file the right forms, or they do not qualify. Local governments generally do not have the data to even identify the people most in need.
- treis 4y agoUBI is the recognition that what we pay in services to the poor is more than enough money for them to buy what they need on the open market. The problem is that money is locked up by the bureaucracy who pilfers most of it. Or at least that's what the argument is. I also think this is country thing. Europe tends to have job markets where private jobs aren't much different than government ones. In the US the difference is stark. Government jobs are basically for life while private ones can fire you the next minute. For all it's drawbacks the ability to fire quickly has a marked effect on business efficiency. There's potentially a large efficiency gain by moving employment from government to private sector. Or at least so the argument goes.