3 ms·
I'm not convinced. One of the biggest factors these kinds of programs ignore is the ability for people to circumvent the rules for free money. It assumes that t
by proc0 2y ago
I'm not convinced. One of the biggest factors these kinds of programs ignore is the ability for people to circumvent the rules for free money. It assumes that the right people will be targeted for the help, when in reality it will attract many, many more that will do whatever they can to qualify for the free money.
The program would need a 90% success or it means that the rules are easily breakable, there are no strings attached to the free money, and people will absolutely figure out the loopholes.
This could be a step in the right direction if there is some form of filtering out people who will misuse the money, potentially making their situation worse by buying even more drugs or other bad decisions, and like anything else it will spready by word of mouth and the damage could be much worse than the current problem.
- silverquiet 2y ago[flagged]
- proc0 2y agoI think there needs to be at least an attempt at monitoring people for some time and making sure they are not spending the money on something that will make their situation even worse. If they did this, then in theory you could have a really good success rate, although I admit I do not know the details of the logistics there. The alternative to just give out free money with no strings attached is potentially much worse because it will just attract all the people that can get away with it. We should help people but also the government should not be so naive to think everyone is an honest actor, especially when it comes to free money. If Denver officially launches this without the proper screening and monitoring, I could bet that their situation will get worse as many will move there just for that reason.
- tootie 2y agoI think that's overblown as a concern. It's acceptable to have some degree is misuse if it's still a net positive. Some degree of fraud is baked in to any human endeavor.
- em-bee 2y agothe cost to police misuse is likely higher than the loss if the misuse is ignored.
- proc0 2y ago> if it's still a net positive That's what I'm doubting because it's not like giving people money or resources hasn't been tried already. Places like SF have been extremely welcoming and helpful to anyone in need yet the problem seems to only grow, and I'm not seeing comprehensive understanding of what went wrong and why.
- tootie 2y agoLikely because the forces accruing more poverty grossly outweigh the forces fighting against them. Also, these kind of programs are unlikely to make much dent in the most visible poverty. Inveterate drug addicts or the mentally ill don't generally avail themselves of any government assistance.
- lukev 2y agoThis is one of the key tenets of a universal basic income program: it's universal, without means testing. Every citizen gets it, no questions asked. This drastically reduces both the cost of administering the program and improves the experience and accessibility of funds (many of the desired recipients are exactly those who have difficulty navigating bureaucracy.) These pilot programs (of course) focus on homeless or lower-income individuals, but the theory is sound: a small amount of UBI more than pays for itself in reduction in demand for other social programs.
- proc0 2y agoI'm doubtful of UBI, at least without some technological breakthrough like AGI, however my concerns of people abusing this would certainly go away if it applies across the board for everybody.
- mcmoor 2y agoThere's still bureaucracy part of ensuring that it's exactly-once per period, and it seems hard to do without some kind of unique ID. But yeah it's still much easier than also ensuring that the recipient "deserves it".