36 ms·

This is the most even handed treatment of this topic I've read yet. One topic not addressed (but important) is what we do when someone spends the entirety of t

This is the most even handed treatment of this topic I've read yet. One topic not addressed (but important) is what we do when someone spends the entirety of their basic income and has nothing left for food or shelter. Do we just let them starve to death in the street? Or do we create a "secondary" safety net that prevents this? If so, don't we just end up with the same sort of inefficiencies and problems that plague our current system?

bendmorris 13y ago
>Do we just let them starve to death in the street? I imagine private charity would pick up some of the slack at this point. I feel that, if someone is given enough to live on but uses it irresponsibly, the state no longer has any obligation to provide for them (they already have.) It would fall to individuals to decide whether they personally have an obligation to assist them.
- nickff 13y ago
  You are correct to point out that the article poses a counter-factual which is unsupported by the evidence.
- dllthomas 13y ago
  Also, if someone is demonstrably, persistently unable to take care of themselves, help should probably take a form other than food stamps.
nawitus 13y ago
The secondary safety net is private. That's why even Nordic social democracies have "bread queues".
mindcrime 13y ago
> One topic not addressed (but important) is what we do when someone spends the entirety of their basic income and has nothing left for food or shelter. Do we just let them starve to death in the street? If you want to help, voluntarily, that is, of course, your choice. But if no one chooses to help them, well... the idea of individual responsibility for the outcome of your choices exists for a reason. By what possible argument can I claim that I should be able to blow all of my income on anything I want, except food and shelter, and then demand that someone else provide me food and shelter?
- nickff 13y ago
  One might suppose that the reason many desire a government welfare program is to allow a complete abdication of responsibility (and disregard) for the situation of their fellow people.
  - dllthomas 13y ago
    It's possible, but I don't see a lot of evidence for it, and it seems needlessly (and unsupportedly) denigrating of the motives of those in support of a policy - and therefore somewhat suspect.
jjoonathan 13y ago
Here's a video in which Milton Friedman addresses this exact issue: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xtpgkX588nM http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xtpgkX588nM He proposes dispensing the funds weekly. You can't starve yourself in a week and drinking fountains + free cups of water at restaurants ensure that you won't go thirsty. Exposure could be a problem in certain cities, but under the new system I'm sure low-cost housing would adjust to the needs of the tenants since there's a profit motive for doing so. You might have to bus to the edge of the city to get low-rent food and housing, but the option would be there (and administered by a competitive private market). I like this idea more than "bread queues" because it forces recipients to take responsibility for their spending without using so much force that the damage it allows to happen is greater than the value of the sense of responsibility it aims to instill (which I believe to be the case in the present system). Also, it leverages the free market to optimize its administrative specifics. Massive influx of poor people due to economic downturn? More low-cost establishments get built/converted. Massive outflux of poor people due to economic upturn? Low-cost establishments get sold or converted into high-cost establishments. No need to wait for next year's appropriations bill.
- socalnate1 13y ago
  This is a fantastic answer, thank you.
- edraferi 13y ago
  I really like the implications UBI has for charity. because everyone has a minimum level of resources, charity's revenue can scale with the number of people they serve. For example, a halfway house could collect BI funds on behalf of its residents. it uses these funds, plus monies from other sources like donations or grants, to provide in-kind aid (food, shelter, security, medical care). as a resident requires fewer services, you can progressively phase out the in-kind aid and pass the BI cash through directly. obviously this would require oversight to ensure that the charity is a responsible steward of the residents BI. we do this with the foster care system already.
acjohnson55 13y ago
I think you could vastly reduce the number of people who are simply trapped in a gravity well of poverty, but there will definitely be need of additional programs. There are a lot of sociological problems that money by itself does not solve. For example, not everyone is capable of making decisions that will keep them alive and healthy. After all, a very large percentage of the homeless are not psychologically well. And we'll also still have orphans.
- rpedela 13y ago
  That is a good point. I view the poor and homeless as two different groups. Yes the homeless are also poor, but as you say they often have a whole set of other problems besides money. People who are just poor, money can help them.
  - acjohnson55 13y ago
    I would say that a very large number of people in poverty have problems that money alone can't help. But the kicker is that a very large number of those problems can be attributed to consistent poverty. So a basic income would not make our sociological problems disappear immediately. But it would contribute greatly to ending the cycle of poverty-inflicted trauma that makes poverty strongly heritable.
JulianMorrison 13y ago
Spends it on what? The mind goes easily to stereotypes like "gambling" and "drugs" but how about "medical debt from visiting the ER" or "the rustbucket car they rely upon for work just broke down again"? Unless the basic income is quite large, it will leave people in the same kind of precarious situation as the working poor.
- dllthomas 13y ago
  Well, it'll leave the working poor and the non-working poor all a little better off, and give them the ability to shift resources as they see fit instead of as we see fit, which should typically help increase their welfare.

bendmorris 13y ago

>Do we just let them starve to death in the street? I imagine private charity would pick up some of the slack at this point. I feel that, if someone is given enough to live on but uses it irresponsibly, the state no longer has any obligation to provide for them (they already have.) It would fall to individuals to decide whether they personally have an obligation to assist them.

nickff 13y ago
You are correct to point out that the article poses a counter-factual which is unsupported by the evidence.
dllthomas 13y ago
Also, if someone is demonstrably, persistently unable to take care of themselves, help should probably take a form other than food stamps.

nawitus 13y ago

The secondary safety net is private. That's why even Nordic social democracies have "bread queues".

mindcrime 13y ago

> One topic not addressed (but important) is what we do when someone spends the entirety of their basic income and has nothing left for food or shelter. Do we just let them starve to death in the street? If you want to help, voluntarily, that is, of course, your choice. But if no one chooses to help them, well... the idea of individual responsibility for the outcome of your choices exists for a reason. By what possible argument can I claim that I should be able to blow all of my income on anything I want, except food and shelter, and then demand that someone else provide me food and shelter?

nickff 13y ago
One might suppose that the reason many desire a government welfare program is to allow a complete abdication of responsibility (and disregard) for the situation of their fellow people.
- dllthomas 13y ago
  It's possible, but I don't see a lot of evidence for it, and it seems needlessly (and unsupportedly) denigrating of the motives of those in support of a policy - and therefore somewhat suspect.

jjoonathan 13y ago

Here's a video in which Milton Friedman addresses this exact issue: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xtpgkX588nM http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xtpgkX588nM He proposes dispensing the funds weekly. You can't starve yourself in a week and drinking fountains + free cups of water at restaurants ensure that you won't go thirsty. Exposure could be a problem in certain cities, but under the new system I'm sure low-cost housing would adjust to the needs of the tenants since there's a profit motive for doing so. You might have to bus to the edge of the city to get low-rent food and housing, but the option would be there (and administered by a competitive private market). I like this idea more than "bread queues" because it forces recipients to take responsibility for their spending without using so much force that the damage it allows to happen is greater than the value of the sense of responsibility it aims to instill (which I believe to be the case in the present system). Also, it leverages the free market to optimize its administrative specifics. Massive influx of poor people due to economic downturn? More low-cost establishments get built/converted. Massive outflux of poor people due to economic upturn? Low-cost establishments get sold or converted into high-cost establishments. No need to wait for next year's appropriations bill.

socalnate1 13y ago
This is a fantastic answer, thank you.
edraferi 13y ago
I really like the implications UBI has for charity. because everyone has a minimum level of resources, charity's revenue can scale with the number of people they serve. For example, a halfway house could collect BI funds on behalf of its residents. it uses these funds, plus monies from other sources like donations or grants, to provide in-kind aid (food, shelter, security, medical care). as a resident requires fewer services, you can progressively phase out the in-kind aid and pass the BI cash through directly. obviously this would require oversight to ensure that the charity is a responsible steward of the residents BI. we do this with the foster care system already.

acjohnson55 13y ago

I think you could vastly reduce the number of people who are simply trapped in a gravity well of poverty, but there will definitely be need of additional programs. There are a lot of sociological problems that money by itself does not solve. For example, not everyone is capable of making decisions that will keep them alive and healthy. After all, a very large percentage of the homeless are not psychologically well. And we'll also still have orphans.

rpedela 13y ago
That is a good point. I view the poor and homeless as two different groups. Yes the homeless are also poor, but as you say they often have a whole set of other problems besides money. People who are just poor, money can help them.
- acjohnson55 13y ago
  I would say that a very large number of people in poverty have problems that money alone can't help. But the kicker is that a very large number of those problems can be attributed to consistent poverty. So a basic income would not make our sociological problems disappear immediately. But it would contribute greatly to ending the cycle of poverty-inflicted trauma that makes poverty strongly heritable.

JulianMorrison 13y ago

Spends it on what? The mind goes easily to stereotypes like "gambling" and "drugs" but how about "medical debt from visiting the ER" or "the rustbucket car they rely upon for work just broke down again"? Unless the basic income is quite large, it will leave people in the same kind of precarious situation as the working poor.

dllthomas 13y ago
Well, it'll leave the working poor and the non-working poor all a little better off, and give them the ability to shift resources as they see fit instead of as we see fit, which should typically help increase their welfare.