3 ms·
Most of these are either fairly short-lived limited pilots, or aren't really "UBI" (e.g. Alaska's $1,600 a year hardly qualifies as UBI as it's just enough to b
by dfxm12 3y ago
Most of these are either fairly short-lived limited pilots, or aren't really "UBI" (e.g. Alaska's $1,600 a year hardly qualifies as UBI as it's just enough to buy groceries with, never mind rent or any other basic needs)
You seem to misunderstand what UBI means. UBI doesn't imply an amount of income to keep someone at or above the poverty line (or to meet all of one's needs). There are types of UBI: partial basic income (which is what most people with any sort of political or economic power talk about, including the examples in the article, which includes Alaska's Permanent fund) & full basic income.
- arp242 3y agoIt's clear that from the introduction it's intended to mean "unconditional cash payments to people so that they can meet their basic needs". That's a literal quote from the article. And this is also how UBI is commonly understood in general. If you want to use some different definition in some contexts then that's fine. But in this context it doesn't make a lot of sense to insist on your definition as the One True Correct™ one.
- dfxm12 3y agoThat sentence doesn't suggest what you were suggesting, that UBI alone must address all of one's basic needs. The single sentence is also part of a larger article full of even more context. And this is also how UBI is commonly understood in general. Search google, search twitter. Look up Andrew Yang's "freedom dividend" platform. You'll see that it's not my definition that's in question.