5 ms·

A fundamental misunderstanding of human nature. There is a significant non-majority of the population that will take the money and do absolutely nothing but was

A fundamental misunderstanding of human nature. There is a significant non-majority of the population that will take the money and do absolutely nothing but waste it.

barryrandall 2y ago
What's the percentage?
koch 2y ago
Waste it how? By spending it? By participating in the economy? Thereby turning it into someone else's income?
wesselbindt 2y ago
What do you mean by wasting it? Is there a particular aspect of an outcome of a UBI study that you worry about?
- ajsnigrutin 2y ago
  Was there an actual lifetime UBI study done? I mean... if i was given a livable amount of money for no work for a year or two, my quality of life would go up, but I wouldn't quit my job and move somewhere cheaper (where I could get more for that amount of money). But if i was guaranteed livable amount of money for the rest of my life, that would be a whole different story.
  - wesselbindt 2y ago
    So you're basing this on your feelings rather than the available data.
    - baumy 2y ago
      What else are we to base opinions on? There is no available data. It doesn't exist. The "data" you're referring to is tripe. To repeat the point you're replying to - a UBI study that examines human behavior from a set of people who are only guaranteed to be given some livable amount of income for a short period, and not for their entire lives, is completely useless. It isn't actually studying UBI. It's studying "what do people do if I give them $20k or so over a few installments?". Very boring thing to study. Honestly a waste of time and resources to even bother conducting such a study, the results can be put directly in the rubbish bin.
soco 2y ago
Unlike the wealthy which spend money on useful items like golf courts and investment funds, the significant non-majority of the population wastes it on groceries and rent.
yohannparis 2y ago
How do you waste money? By burning it, throwing it in the bin? Isn't the goal in a capitalist system to spend that money? Also, several GMI studies have proven your statement to not be true. It is not a significant non-majority of the population that do this.
- Kinrany 2y ago
  Setting aside how often people actually do it, it's clearly possible to waste both money and value. You can buy lottery tickets, or you can buy things you don't need.
  - colanderman 2y ago
    Buying lottery tickets with UBI money is just returning the money to the government and/or some other lucky individual. Only an insignificant amount of marginal wasted work is performed.
    - Kinrany 2y ago
      This is an example of wasting money, not value
    - dredmorbius 2y ago
      TBF: many state lotteries are operated by franchises which may be engaged in fraud and/or abuse, or simply skimming a large share of the take. Texas, notably, recently: "The Texas Lottery Is Accused Of Fraud, With Calls For It To Be Shut Down" The Texas Lottery is under fire once again, after Lt. Governor Dan Patrick paid a visit to a store in Austin, where an $83 million dollar winning ticket was sold. Upon arrival, Patrick discovered a warehouse of lottery ticket printing machines, run by a ticket reseller.... <https://ktrh.iheart.com/featured/houston-texas-news/content/2025-02-21-the-texas-lottery-is-accused-of-fraud-with-calls-for-it-to-be-shut-down/ https://ktrh.iheart.com/featured/houston-texas-news/content/...> Lotteries also manifestly fail in their often-posited goal of funding beneficial services such as education. In reality they shift tax burden from the wealthy (who know better than to play) to the poor (who are desperate even against very poor odds), and cut overall educational funding. See: "The Big Lie: Gambling and Education Funding" (2012) “Don’t insult me with those ridiculous claims like “the money is for education!” Money is fungible, and education is already a high-priority budget item. Money raised from slot machines and earmarked for education is simply money that would otherwise have been diverted from some other budget item. The disingenuousness of this claim is jaw-dropping, and it’s even more appalling to me how many people fall for and parrot it.” <https://www.thinkingpoker.net/2012/10/the-big-lie-gambling-and-education-funding/ https://www.thinkingpoker.net/2012/10/the-big-lie-gambling-a...> Perhaps, though, with UBI, that desperation factor would be reduced.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
viraptor 2y ago
If the communities improve overall - what's the problem? Everyone dealing with UBI knows that there will be individuals who will spend in non-optimal way. There's no misunderstanding or surprise here.
- gonzoflip 2y ago
  Because it places the burden on those that are actually participating in the work force. What incentive do I have to work when the end result is similar if I don't?
  - bryanlarsen 2y ago
    > the end result is similar if I don't? The end result is not anywhere close to similar. UBI will never provide more than the basics. Food & rent and that's about it. If you want more than that, you'll have to work.
    - gonzoflip 2y ago
      That's the point, I have a full time("good") job currently, and can barely afford food and rent for my family, I am literally selling plasma 2x a week for gas money, while paying a significant amount of taxes, so why would I work?
      - bryanlarsen 2y ago
        Now imagine getting by with a lot less. That's what UBI-only would be like. I assume your main problem is that you're in a high cost of life area. A national UBI would almost certainly be set at a level appropriate for a median area. If you want to not work and maintain your standard of living you'd likely have to move to a low COL area.
        gonzoflip 2y ago
        >national UBI with what money? we already do a lot of that with de facto negative tax rates for the lowest earners. You bring up a great option though, I have been working to move to a lower COL(see rural) area already. Part of this plan is a draw down on my participation in the labor market, basically a necessity unless I want to commute multiple hours each way. We have gotten by on much less than I do currently, my QOL was very similar, but I was doing more work for myself and my family, rather than my employer or society.
windward 2y ago
Even on a website that largely self-selects for people with enough agency, pride and autonomy to graduate and go into software development (then choose to discuss it online), we have people like the 'I currently have 10 fully remote engineering jobs' guy
slimscsi 2y ago
This mentality is exactly the problem. The idea that people with more money should get to decide how people with less money get to spend it. And if they don't sped it the way they want, Its waste. reminds me a lot of Innuendo Studios "Always a bigger fish" video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=agzNANfNlTs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=agzNANfNlTs
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > if they don't sped it the way they want, Its waste If the people doing the work have to spend taxes so people who don’t work can stay at home, yes, the former get a say in how the latter live.
  - slimscsi 2y ago
    This is a straw man. Nobody is talking about funding people to the point where they get everything they need for free. That's insane. We are talking about giving people bootstraps so they can pull them selves up with them. Reducing poverty reduces crime and health care costs as well.
    - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
      > Nobody is talking about funding people to the point where they get everything they need for free. That's insane. We are talking about giving people bootstraps If it isn’t funding subsistence it isn’t basic income. Whether we flourish that as welfare or bootstraps is rhetorical dressing.
      - slimscsi 2y ago
        "If it isn’t funding subsistence it isn’t basic income" is just rhetorical dressing of the term "basic income".
        JumpCrisscross 2y ago
        No, it’s a definition. The reason it’s basic. “Bootstraps” is a metaphor.
archagon 2y ago
Research suggests otherwise. This is nothing more than an appeal to emotion.

A fundamental misunderstanding of human nature. There is a significant non-majority of the population that will take the money and do absolutely nothing but waste it.

barryrandall 2y ago

What's the percentage?

koch 2y ago

Waste it how? By spending it? By participating in the economy? Thereby turning it into someone else's income?

wesselbindt 2y ago

What do you mean by wasting it? Is there a particular aspect of an outcome of a UBI study that you worry about?

ajsnigrutin 2y ago
Was there an actual lifetime UBI study done? I mean... if i was given a livable amount of money for no work for a year or two, my quality of life would go up, but I wouldn't quit my job and move somewhere cheaper (where I could get more for that amount of money). But if i was guaranteed livable amount of money for the rest of my life, that would be a whole different story.
- wesselbindt 2y ago
  So you're basing this on your feelings rather than the available data.
  - baumy 2y ago
    What else are we to base opinions on? There is no available data. It doesn't exist. The "data" you're referring to is tripe. To repeat the point you're replying to - a UBI study that examines human behavior from a set of people who are only guaranteed to be given some livable amount of income for a short period, and not for their entire lives, is completely useless. It isn't actually studying UBI. It's studying "what do people do if I give them $20k or so over a few installments?". Very boring thing to study. Honestly a waste of time and resources to even bother conducting such a study, the results can be put directly in the rubbish bin.

soco 2y ago

Unlike the wealthy which spend money on useful items like golf courts and investment funds, the significant non-majority of the population wastes it on groceries and rent.

yohannparis 2y ago

How do you waste money? By burning it, throwing it in the bin? Isn't the goal in a capitalist system to spend that money? Also, several GMI studies have proven your statement to not be true. It is not a significant non-majority of the population that do this.

Kinrany 2y ago
Setting aside how often people actually do it, it's clearly possible to waste both money and value. You can buy lottery tickets, or you can buy things you don't need.
- colanderman 2y ago
  Buying lottery tickets with UBI money is just returning the money to the government and/or some other lucky individual. Only an insignificant amount of marginal wasted work is performed.
  - Kinrany 2y ago
    This is an example of wasting money, not value
  - dredmorbius 2y ago
    TBF: many state lotteries are operated by franchises which may be engaged in fraud and/or abuse, or simply skimming a large share of the take. Texas, notably, recently: "The Texas Lottery Is Accused Of Fraud, With Calls For It To Be Shut Down" The Texas Lottery is under fire once again, after Lt. Governor Dan Patrick paid a visit to a store in Austin, where an $83 million dollar winning ticket was sold. Upon arrival, Patrick discovered a warehouse of lottery ticket printing machines, run by a ticket reseller.... <https://ktrh.iheart.com/featured/houston-texas-news/content/2025-02-21-the-texas-lottery-is-accused-of-fraud-with-calls-for-it-to-be-shut-down/ https://ktrh.iheart.com/featured/houston-texas-news/content/...> Lotteries also manifestly fail in their often-posited goal of funding beneficial services such as education. In reality they shift tax burden from the wealthy (who know better than to play) to the poor (who are desperate even against very poor odds), and cut overall educational funding. See: "The Big Lie: Gambling and Education Funding" (2012) “Don’t insult me with those ridiculous claims like “the money is for education!” Money is fungible, and education is already a high-priority budget item. Money raised from slot machines and earmarked for education is simply money that would otherwise have been diverted from some other budget item. The disingenuousness of this claim is jaw-dropping, and it’s even more appalling to me how many people fall for and parrot it.” <https://www.thinkingpoker.net/2012/10/the-big-lie-gambling-and-education-funding/ https://www.thinkingpoker.net/2012/10/the-big-lie-gambling-a...> Perhaps, though, with UBI, that desperation factor would be reduced.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

viraptor 2y ago

If the communities improve overall - what's the problem? Everyone dealing with UBI knows that there will be individuals who will spend in non-optimal way. There's no misunderstanding or surprise here.

gonzoflip 2y ago
Because it places the burden on those that are actually participating in the work force. What incentive do I have to work when the end result is similar if I don't?
- bryanlarsen 2y ago
  > the end result is similar if I don't? The end result is not anywhere close to similar. UBI will never provide more than the basics. Food & rent and that's about it. If you want more than that, you'll have to work.
  - gonzoflip 2y ago
    That's the point, I have a full time("good") job currently, and can barely afford food and rent for my family, I am literally selling plasma 2x a week for gas money, while paying a significant amount of taxes, so why would I work?
    - bryanlarsen 2y ago
      Now imagine getting by with a lot less. That's what UBI-only would be like. I assume your main problem is that you're in a high cost of life area. A national UBI would almost certainly be set at a level appropriate for a median area. If you want to not work and maintain your standard of living you'd likely have to move to a low COL area.
      - gonzoflip 2y ago
        >national UBI with what money? we already do a lot of that with de facto negative tax rates for the lowest earners. You bring up a great option though, I have been working to move to a lower COL(see rural) area already. Part of this plan is a draw down on my participation in the labor market, basically a necessity unless I want to commute multiple hours each way. We have gotten by on much less than I do currently, my QOL was very similar, but I was doing more work for myself and my family, rather than my employer or society.

windward 2y ago

Even on a website that largely self-selects for people with enough agency, pride and autonomy to graduate and go into software development (then choose to discuss it online), we have people like the 'I currently have 10 fully remote engineering jobs' guy

slimscsi 2y ago

This mentality is exactly the problem. The idea that people with more money should get to decide how people with less money get to spend it. And if they don't sped it the way they want, Its waste. reminds me a lot of Innuendo Studios "Always a bigger fish" video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=agzNANfNlTs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=agzNANfNlTs

JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> if they don't sped it the way they want, Its waste If the people doing the work have to spend taxes so people who don’t work can stay at home, yes, the former get a say in how the latter live.
- slimscsi 2y ago
  This is a straw man. Nobody is talking about funding people to the point where they get everything they need for free. That's insane. We are talking about giving people bootstraps so they can pull them selves up with them. Reducing poverty reduces crime and health care costs as well.
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > Nobody is talking about funding people to the point where they get everything they need for free. That's insane. We are talking about giving people bootstraps If it isn’t funding subsistence it isn’t basic income. Whether we flourish that as welfare or bootstraps is rhetorical dressing.
    - slimscsi 2y ago
      "If it isn’t funding subsistence it isn’t basic income" is just rhetorical dressing of the term "basic income".
      - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
        No, it’s a definition. The reason it’s basic. “Bootstraps” is a metaphor.

archagon 2y ago

Research suggests otherwise. This is nothing more than an appeal to emotion.