7 ms·
I feel like treating UBI as a panacea has actually hindered its adoption, giving critics plenty of ammunition in the form of implementations that don’t quite li
by jakelazaroff 2y ago
I feel like treating UBI as a panacea has actually hindered its adoption, giving critics plenty of ammunition in the form of implementations that don’t quite live up to their proponents’ loftiest ambitions.
Can UBI transform society? Probably not! But why is that the bar? It can just be boring form of welfare that makes a lot of people’s lives easier. That’s still a good thing worth doing.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- dgfitz 2y agoI don’t think anyone on welfare would say their lives are easy.
- micromacrofoot 2y ago*easier than not having it
- dimitrios1 2y agoActually, it's worse than that right now for many on welfare, as they face the "benefits cliff". Inflation is rampant and some low wage earners are getting modest increases to keep up with inflation, but this increase is subsequently pinching their benefits.
- micromacrofoot 2y agoso... if would be better for them if they never had those benefits how?
- dimitrios1 2y agoThis has been debated ad nasuem in America since at least the 60s. It depends on your philosophy both economic and political.
- bryanlarsen 2y ago"easier" =/= "easy". A lot of people on welfare would say that welfare makes their life easier. Very few would say it makes it easy.
- dgfitz 2y agoHave you asked any of them how much "easier" it is, or are you assuming? I'm guessing you're assuming.
- jakelazaroff 2y agoIf someone continually applies for a welfare benefit, is that not prima facie evidence that it makes their life easier in some way?
- jzb 2y agoI'd say that a "boring form of welfare that makes a lot of people's lives easier" would be transformative. Not utopian or anything, but a judgment-free welfare that just automatically happens without all the bullshit (in the U.S., anyway) would be amazing.
- hellojesus 2y agoI'm of the exact opposite opinion. My view is that UBI will have a effect similar to minimim wages: it will raise prices by raising demand against a fixed (or falling supply), and it will do this by stealing from people that are productive. All government welfare is bad. The "strings attached" versions tend to be better because they impose requirements before distributions are allocated. You want to do wjat you want without restriction? Fine. Pay for it. All welfare should come from private charity. Strings are typically attached, the outcomes are better, and you don't have to steal from a single person to do it.
- conception 2y agoCite sources as any Ive seen disagree with these points. Any history pre-new deal shows how incorrect this standing is. Also, taxes aren’t theft. It’s the cost of living in society and providing for societal, shared goods. “Streets are theft!! All roads should be toll roads!” Want a grand society…
- thechao 2y agoMy favorite eye-roll was a random YT short of a power washer dude driving down an interstate in his behemoth diesel (his equipment could've fit in a large sedan), complaining that he only pays taxes to the gov't but gets no benefit from it, streaming the video over cellular.
- ryandrake 2y ago...drinking clean water, breathing in clean air, on his way to buy safe, disease-free food from the supermarket...
- alephnerd 2y agoImo it should just be called a "Direct Benefits Transfer" instead of "Universal Basic Income". The "income" terminology gets confused as "salary" by those who aren't well versed with these kinds of programs.
- derdi 2y agoWhat's wrong with the word "income" for "a lump sum of money that everybody gets every month"?