2 ms·

From the embedded graphic, only 22% seemed to spend any(?) of the money on a long-term benefit (e.g. job training, car repair, etc). And even that included med

by ethbr1 3y ago

From the embedded graphic, only 22% seemed to spend any(?) of the money on a long-term benefit (e.g. job training, car repair, etc). And even that included medical bills. Throwing extra money at people to be spent on short-term consumables (groceries, etc) might be good for the economy, but doesn't seem to move the individuals ahead economically. Which leaves them back in the same place when the support is withdrawn. It'd be nice to see support tied to (something that will leave them better off). Rent/grocery support... if studying for a marketable certificate. But with strong safeguards around for-profits sucking the money without adding value to the individuals (e.g. predatory worthless degree mills sucking up GI Bill benefits).

yareal 3y ago
If they spent it on groceries, they were probably not getting enough money to adequately cover their food needs, and were spending time or health to cover that gap. You can eat more cheaply on dried beans, but they take time to make. You can eat more cheaply on industrial fast food, but your health will suffer. Both of those impair your ability to pursue self improvement. Policing how people spend their ubi costs time and money, reducing the amount of ubi you can grant to people, and it fails when some novel need arises. There are stories of food stamps only covering half gallon or gallon sized containers of milk. So when shrinkflation shrank half gallon bottles down to 60oz, or whatever, the same product was no longer eligible. A fundamental principle of anarchy is people know locally what they need best. People know what food, clothing, and shelter they need. Trying to proscribe that only these purchases are permissible isn't something that's easy or fair, and will likely miss the needs of at least some minority communities. If lives are improving and people are getting more productive, it doesn't really matter how they spent the ubi, does it? The outcome is great, and it was efficient and bureaucracy free? Bonus.

by ethbr1 3y ago

yareal 3y ago

If they spent it on groceries, they were probably not getting enough money to adequately cover their food needs, and were spending time or health to cover that gap. You can eat more cheaply on dried beans, but they take time to make. You can eat more cheaply on industrial fast food, but your health will suffer. Both of those impair your ability to pursue self improvement. Policing how people spend their ubi costs time and money, reducing the amount of ubi you can grant to people, and it fails when some novel need arises. There are stories of food stamps only covering half gallon or gallon sized containers of milk. So when shrinkflation shrank half gallon bottles down to 60oz, or whatever, the same product was no longer eligible. A fundamental principle of anarchy is people know locally what they need best. People know what food, clothing, and shelter they need. Trying to proscribe that only these purchases are permissible isn't something that's easy or fair, and will likely miss the needs of at least some minority communities. If lives are improving and people are getting more productive, it doesn't really matter how they spent the ubi, does it? The outcome is great, and it was efficient and bureaucracy free? Bonus.