3 ms·
This seems to be a common thread in articles about UBI experiments: Economists, critics, and others expect the behavior of the recipients to be determined by e
by bell-cot 2y ago
This seems to be a common thread in articles about UBI experiments: Economists, critics, and others expect the behavior of the recipients to be determined by either (1) "economic rationalist" clockwork, or (2) some laughably simplistic (and very demeaning) stereotype of poor people.
And the results generally bear little resemblance to either (1) or (2).
Napoleon supposedly said "the moral is to the physical as three to one" in reference to the battlefield performance of military units. But the same is true across extremely wide ranges of human behaviors.
- notahacker 2y agoThe most common thread in these articles is that people treat the discovery that young people don't retire after receiving $10k or €43.2k from a magic money tree as proving UBI is economic panacea but handwave away the issue of paying for it.
- bell-cot 2y ago> The most common thread in these ... Superficially, yeah. I'd read that situation as a combination of (1) "millions of clicks from wanna-feel-happy lefties pay the bills" journalism, and (2) editors wanting "friends" in the "so rich I can afford to be a blinkered ideologue" progressive set. For those inclined to real-world public policy, the main result I see is that the complex "needs testing" part of existing entitlement and welfare programs is 99% ideological/political bullshit and bureaucratic make-work.