I think the issue is that people spend one-off surprise money on happyness/frivolous things. Being poor is very taxing on both mind and body and expecting people to bootstrap themselves into...
I think the issue is that people spend one-off surprise money on happyness/frivolous things.
Being poor is very taxing on both mind and body and expecting people to bootstrap themselves into middle class with a couple months of living expenses is kind of cruel.
This sounds like it is trying to fuel the "poor people are poor because they deserve it" rethoric.
You're right, there's a world of difference here. However, if UBI would really result in such an astronomical change in the social perception of monetary value, is there any way to trial it...
You're right, there's a world of difference here. However, if UBI would really result in such an astronomical change in the social perception of monetary value, is there any way to trial it without establishing it wholeheartedly? A lot of the value to UBI seems to lie in the security of future income, so it seems like saying "for the next [period of time], people in this program will receive regular income, no strings attached" would shift the spending habits significantly from those of the end goal "everybody receives regular income, no strings attached, indefinitely".
I ask because if this (very distinct) experiment shouldn't be used as any sort of evidence for UBI, despite superficial similarities, where is the bar for proving or testing this theory? Or should UBI proponents campaign entirely based on theory?
The sniff test that UBI tends to fail on in public discourse is the assumption that people given large sums of money, who don't have a history of success in managing their personal finances, are likely to spend it on luxuries rather than invest in their future. If this experiment debunks that belief by displaying that the population most assumed to be failures at financial management are better off in the mid-term following a windfall, why shouldn't that be considered a boon to UBI's political viability?
Ontario actually had an active UBI trial to collect proper data but it was cancelled by our idiot Premier after he got elected. We could have had usable data from an actual live UBI trial by now.
Ontario actually had an active UBI trial to collect proper data but it was cancelled by our idiot Premier after he got elected. We could have had usable data from an actual live UBI trial by now.
I think it’s relevant to the argument that people will only spend “free money” on frivolous things.
That’s a serious anti-UBI sentiment.
I think the issue is that people spend one-off surprise money on happyness/frivolous things.
Being poor is very taxing on both mind and body and expecting people to bootstrap themselves into middle class with a couple months of living expenses is kind of cruel.
This sounds like it is trying to fuel the "poor people are poor because they deserve it" rethoric.
That’s capitalist mentality for you: “If you’re poor you must have done something wrong or don’t work hard enough”.
About how near to UBI does a system in a trial need to be before it should be used as a comparison, in your opinion?
You're right, there's a world of difference here. However, if UBI would really result in such an astronomical change in the social perception of monetary value, is there any way to trial it without establishing it wholeheartedly? A lot of the value to UBI seems to lie in the security of future income, so it seems like saying "for the next [period of time], people in this program will receive regular income, no strings attached" would shift the spending habits significantly from those of the end goal "everybody receives regular income, no strings attached, indefinitely".
I ask because if this (very distinct) experiment shouldn't be used as any sort of evidence for UBI, despite superficial similarities, where is the bar for proving or testing this theory? Or should UBI proponents campaign entirely based on theory?
The sniff test that UBI tends to fail on in public discourse is the assumption that people given large sums of money, who don't have a history of success in managing their personal finances, are likely to spend it on luxuries rather than invest in their future. If this experiment debunks that belief by displaying that the population most assumed to be failures at financial management are better off in the mid-term following a windfall, why shouldn't that be considered a boon to UBI's political viability?
Ontario actually had an active UBI trial to collect proper data but it was cancelled by our idiot Premier after he got elected. We could have had usable data from an actual live UBI trial by now.