4 ms·

Sure. That's a decent argument for paternalism for some people. It's independent of the argument against giving well-off people free stuff.

• bluGill 1y ago
  Not exactly because as soon as you realize it doesn't solve the most important problems the a side effect of giving to well-off people as well becomes easier to argue against as well. If we need to identify those who cannot handle money then we may as well use that same effort to identify who doesn't need help in the first place. Not that your point doesn't stand, but it isn't as powerful. Note that I don't know how to identify people who cannot handle money. I know individuals, but how to you fairly do this in a way that doesn't get abused or abuse someone - both have been major problems with every plan to help the poor in the past.
  • eru 1y ago
    > Note that I don't know how to identify people who cannot handle money. I know individuals, but how to you fairly do this in a way that doesn't get abused or abuse someone - both have been major problems with every plan to help the poor in the past. Welfare (nor any other undertaking) doesn't have to be perfect. Good enough is good enough. And you can always optimise over time, as you learn. There's plenty of programmes out in the real world and throughout history to learn from: the good programmes as examples to perhaps imitate, the bad programmes as illustrations of what to avoid. > If we need to identify those who cannot handle money then we may as well use that same effort to identify who doesn't need help in the first place. Isn't that perfectly compatible with what I'm suggesting? (Though I'm not quite sure they are actually the same kind of effort. Looking at eg people's taxable income is rather different from judging their mental state.) I'm making two points: (A) Don't bother giving welfare to the well-off. (B) Prefer cash payments over in-kind provision, where possible. You convinced me to add the 'where possible' clause, because there are some cases were people can't handle money. Though I hold that these spendthrifts should be dealt with as a special case, and not be the default template for how we treat everyone else.
    • ericmay 1y ago
      > You convinced me to add the 'where possible' clause, because there are some cases were people can't handle money. I'm not really in favor of or against UBI, but I think that your assessment here isn't quite right. It's not that there are some cases where people can't handle money, it's actually the norm that people can't handle money, at least in America. And when you expand your scope to include folks with steady jobs and such and "can" handle money, they don't really make enough money such that their better handling of money will make a difference either. UBI kind of rests on this assumption that people will "spend their money wisely" or spend their money efficiently - but people will spend their money in obviously stupid ways and then we'll deal with the consequences anyway because as a society we are not willing to let people die on the street. To be fair, not all who would make use of UBI would do so in a poor fashion, and like you said don't let perfect become the enemy of good. Most people who are competent and kind enough to look at these kinds of problems and want to provide a great solution for them out of the kindness of their heart, in my estimation, just do not have experience dealing with the target population and understanding the true limitations of just giving a little bit of help. If you grew up in a roughly middle class environment, went to college afterward, etc. and you didn't know any crackheads in your family, you probably should stay far away from trying to find solutions for these problems because you're just going to wind up frustrated and wrong about worthwhile solutions for the rest of your life which will distract anyone from actually making progress. I'm not suggesting this about you or anything, just speaking broadly. Most of the time people working on these issues are like product managers who just care about what the data says instead of having a really good intuition for the "customer" or the "problem". Back to UBI itself I actually think it should go to everyone, because at the end of the day those who are high earners are just going to net out paying for it, and it'll be simpler to administer if "everyone gets it" and there's less room to complain about it and less hand-wringing and adjustments for whatever excuse people come up with for who gets some and who gets more. If everyone gets it, there's much less arguing about that stuff. The best part about a potential UBI implementation is that we can replace all of the government workers administering and declaring who is eligible for benefits whether that's SNAP or Welfare and one dude can be sitting at home and push the big red "send checks" button with an offshore team in India in case that guy is too drunk to do his job. Maybe just providing free healthcare and dental care, job training and education, and a sack of fresh produce is the way to go too. I'm not sure.