I like how people keep talking about how studies aren't complete enough and there isn't large enough data and results aren't conclusive etc. even though the concept is pretty black and white the...
I like how people keep talking about how studies aren't complete enough and there isn't large enough data and results aren't conclusive etc. even though the concept is pretty black and white the only actual issue is how it is actually funded and how sustainable it is for a large economy over time.
But people are acting like people using the money for positive things is surprising or "a good outlook". This should be considered obvious. People are acting like this is equivalent to giving homeless people money and they use it to buy cigs. That's so dumb. Homeless people are often struggling with a lot of other things including mental illness and that's why they are less prone to making good decisions with donated money. An idea of basic income proves that A) the majority, potentially large majority, of people are good and want to achieve positive things and B) the positive impacts can create a feedback loop that improves a lot more things than personal lives. Like Andrew Yang mentions, that money doesn't "disappear". If a person is desperately poor they can use it to simply feed themselves and pay bills which ultimately goes to grocery stores, restaurants, and the rented property economy. And if a person is already middle class that means they may spend more on extra things like hobbies, movie nights, or even straight up donating that basic income to a charity. The money doesn't disappear. Even if they hoard it all and invest it in a bank or retirement fund or something, it has to go somewhere eventually. And it's most likely to sink right back into the US economy one way or another.
well, the wall street journal's average reader, as i recall, is literally a millionaire, so that's not especially surprising. i can't speak for the demographics of the economist, but both of them...
The usual suspects like the Economist and WSJ didn't even try to hide the fact that participants reporting material improvements in their health and happiness is not something they think matters.
well, the wall street journal's average reader, as i recall, is literally a millionaire, so that's not especially surprising. i can't speak for the demographics of the economist, but both of them are fairly bourgeois outlets in general and i'm sure have the readership to go with that, so it would make sense for them to either ignore UBI or downplay its efficacy.
I like how people keep talking about how studies aren't complete enough and there isn't large enough data and results aren't conclusive etc. even though the concept is pretty black and white the only actual issue is how it is actually funded and how sustainable it is for a large economy over time.
But people are acting like people using the money for positive things is surprising or "a good outlook". This should be considered obvious. People are acting like this is equivalent to giving homeless people money and they use it to buy cigs. That's so dumb. Homeless people are often struggling with a lot of other things including mental illness and that's why they are less prone to making good decisions with donated money. An idea of basic income proves that A) the majority, potentially large majority, of people are good and want to achieve positive things and B) the positive impacts can create a feedback loop that improves a lot more things than personal lives. Like Andrew Yang mentions, that money doesn't "disappear". If a person is desperately poor they can use it to simply feed themselves and pay bills which ultimately goes to grocery stores, restaurants, and the rented property economy. And if a person is already middle class that means they may spend more on extra things like hobbies, movie nights, or even straight up donating that basic income to a charity. The money doesn't disappear. Even if they hoard it all and invest it in a bank or retirement fund or something, it has to go somewhere eventually. And it's most likely to sink right back into the US economy one way or another.
well, the wall street journal's average reader, as i recall, is literally a millionaire, so that's not especially surprising. i can't speak for the demographics of the economist, but both of them are fairly bourgeois outlets in general and i'm sure have the readership to go with that, so it would make sense for them to either ignore UBI or downplay its efficacy.