We worry about providing Universal Basic Income because people might stop working, but here's a thought: maybe, just maybe, with a little financial security, people might actually pursue work they truly choose rather than work to just not die. Imagine that world for a moment.
🇳🇱
As someone who is strongly against UBI, and strongly supportive of welfare I can earnestly say people simply not working is not at all the reason I (or most people against UBI in my opinion) are against it.
The reason i am against it is because it causes people more harm than good. People who are in a position where they need assistance need to be given the tools to get out of their situation, and the help to get there needs to be conditional on this (and we should be spending the money that goes with that). Financial assistance should be conditional with mandatory job training or mental health therapy needed to help someone succeed, not just money.
In fact when there are underlying bad habits, as can often be the case, it is possible money can even make a persons condition worse and cause them to sleep farther into poverty.
@freemo @scottsantens Rubbish. This is nanny-state stuff. The best tool IS money. The best person to decide their needs and priorities is the person themselves - see homeless people that were given UBI.
Your claims might apply *only* to the few with mental health/incapacity issues. Not people in general.
And job training for what? Whatever you say?
People should have the choice to engage in that or not. Some people might actually need time away to recharge or address their own wellbeing.
> Rubbish. This is nanny-state stuff.
Giving people help is "nany state stuff" regardless. I'd rather an effective nanny than an ineffective one.
> Your claims might apply *only* to the few with mental health/incapacity issues. Not people in general.
No, poor people generally have poor skills that contribute strongly to their situation, some combination of lacking marketable skills or having poor financial hygene (which is also a skill).
> And job training for what? Whatever you say?
Training for high paid work, in that i include high education, trade schools, and even training in the arts
> People should have the choice to engage in that or not. Some people might actually need time away to recharge or address their own wellbeing.
If thats what you need then thats why I include psychiatry int he list of things that one may need to do instead of job training. if a licensed therapist says you need it I dont mind that help being provided, but its too easilya bused otherwise.
@freemo @scottsantens You'd have a massively pedantic, bureaucratic and MORE COSTLY system than just giving people money.
There's no abusing that, no unnecessary oversight, let adults be adults. At the very least, they are better placed to be consumers, helping money cycle, instead of being faced with starvation, as your inhumane system would have it.
> You'd have a massively pedantic, bureaucratic and MORE COSTLY system than just giving people money.
Costs more per person, short term. Costs less long-term as it actually solves the problem and thus doesn't require and infinite firehouse of money lasting forever into the future.
There is no doubt UBI is cheaper per person, but not cheaper for society overall, in fact it is far more costly by not solving the problem.
> There's no abusing that, no unnecessary oversight, let adults be adults. At the very least, they are better placed to be consumers, helping money cycle, instead of being faced with starvation, as your inhumane system would have it.
When adults are "adults" they dont need financial support from a nanny state. If they need support then they already arent capable of being adults. Which is fine, but instead of pretending they are lets get them help so they can start being adults.
"Costs more per person, short term. Costs less long-term as it actually solves the problem and thus doesn’t require and infinite firehouse of money lasting forever into the future."
DUH, these bureacracies are what we have now, and you are still advocating starvation to people who fall outside your parameters, which are set by Gov, which depends on its politics.
Do you know the stats for people the UK Gov have killed with your methodology?
> DUH, these bureacracies are what we have now, and you are still advocating starvation
Stop lying about what i am afvocating for. I am explicitly advocating for the exact opposite. Welfare means the poor dont starve.
We are done here, I wont discuss with people who lie about what the other person says and acts like a child.
Go away.
"If thats what you need then thats why I include psychiatry int he list of things that one may need to do instead of job training. if a licensed therapist says you need it I dont mind that help being provided, but its too easilya bused otherwise."
Right there, you provide conditions for your welfare, which are unacceptable.
What do you do if an individual says "I need rest"? How can the therapist determine that? WHY SHOULD SOMEONE NEED PERMISSION?
@freemo @scottsantens More to the point, it is implicit that you would stop monies if someone didn't train, or didn't do what you told them to do.
You ARE advocating a system that WOULD KILL.
No that was an assumption on your part because you didnt bother to ask.
the basic need of minimal food and a place to sleep out of the elements as a minimum is non-conditional in this hypothetical system.
@freemo @scottsantens Oh, so you are paying a universal basic income and providing shelter.
Well look at you, you are actually a UBI advocate!
> Oh, so you are paying a universal basic income and providing shelter.
There you go lying about what I said again.. and i asked you to go away the last time.
> Well look at you, you are actually a UBI advocate!
A soup kitchen is not a UBI, you are being blocked now for thinking it is.
You havent even bothered to ask enough questions to know what my system is, let alone if it would kill. As is evident by your recent comments.
> Right there, you provide conditions for your welfare, which are unacceptable.
I have literally called it "conditional welfare" and yes, that is intentional and not just acceptable in my eyes, but required to be effective at all.
> What do you do if an individual says "I need rest"? How can the therapist determine that? WHY SHOULD SOMEONE NEED PERMISSION?
Because your asking everyone else to pay for your rest. If you are a productive member of society enough so you can finance your own rest time then you dont need permission. Once you start asking others to pay for your down time then yes, you should need permission.
@freemo @scottsantens So people have to work and not be able to rest in order to get afford the rest they need.
Am I getting through, yet?
Nope, if you are smart in how you invest your time you get **ample** rest time and can work and afford both. For atleast a decade I was working 6 months a year and sitting on an island the other 6 months (as a person who started his life on welfare).
@freemo@qoto.org @scottsantens Soup kitchen? That's how you would provide food? My God, you are clueless. Do you really expect that to work as a backstop?
And what is the roof over the head, going to be? Something as generous, I'm sure. 🙄
@freemo@qoto.org @scottsantens
You can't plan ahead for mental health breaks. What kind of human being are you?
@scottsantens @freemo@qoto.org Your system would starve and kill and increase stress and the need to take care of wellbeing.
UBI has proven it reduces stresses and improves well-being.
May you never have a say in how Governments and benefits operate.
@freemo @radiojammor @scottsantens What you're missing is that your idea has been tried. It doesn't make poverty go away as you say. Anyone who doesn't fit into the cookie-cutter roles you prescribe for them falls through the cracks, and that's something you can't just fix by imagining a few more cookie cutters. And since it's not universal, there isn't enough pressure on the politicians to keep it actually working, and there will always be the "screw you I got mine" type trying to cut it.
@freemo @radiojammor @scottsantens I'd take a system for getting rid of poverty that works in practice but not in theory over one that works in theory but not in practice.
@freemo @scottsantens BS. When are you going to get it through your head that isn't enough work and jobs are disappearing and vacancies are oversubscribed? Qualifications don't help if there's no job to go into.
And some people prefer their own businesses. UBI enables that.
@freemo @scottsantens You cannot handle a robust throwing back in your face of your nonsense. And you ARE advocating a system that would KILL PEOPLE.
> Giving people money to make their OWN choices is not nanny stuff
Disagree, giving people money absolutely is nanny stuff. Nanny state stuff is, as the name would imply, any time the state is trying to take care of a person (with someone elses money) rather than assuming people can take care of themselves.
> forcing YOUR POV on them is.
Right, like taking their money at gun point (under threat of arrest) in order to redistribute it to everyone else... like that?
> Ineffective? Go read. There are NUMEROUS studies showing the effectiveness of a UBI. This claim is fatuous and without foundation.
Go read? You mean like the examples I've already cited in this thread. Yes they are ineffective at solving the root problem 100% of the time, as I've pointed out they only act as an infinite fire hose that alleviates symptoms while doing nothing to address the underlying problems that cause it to arrise.
> Poor skills? BS. SNOB! THERE AREN'T ENOUGH JOBS FOR EVERYONE & JOBS ARE DIMINISHING.
Already addressed this in the thread as well. Your lacking understanding of the system. By educating people you dont just increase their skill set, and pay, but you create more jobs as well. More educated and well earning populace means more innovative people starting new businesses as well.
> PEOPLE IN WORK ARE IN POVERTY BECAUSE OF LOW PAY!
Duh. And that low pay is often due to lack of marketable skills which, if they had that they wouldnt have low pay.
> YOU BLAME PEOPLE FOR THAT?
I do not, I blame a system that doesnt have conditional welfare like I described, and provided a solution to that. No it isnt the peoples fault, but it is yours for trying to promote a system that perpetuates these problems.
> Get in the sea.
QED on the fact that you are, in fact, not a mature adult.
"Disagree, giving people money absolutely is nanny stuff. "
The state is supposed to be looking after everyone. Your definition means everything it does is nanny state stuff. Your definition is naff.
"Right, like taking their money at gun point "
Silly response
It''s OUR money. Where do you think Gov money comes from? And BTW, cost is not an issue for most Govs because they can create as much as they like.
> The state is supposed to be looking after everyone. Your definition means everything it does is nanny state stuff. Your definition is naff.
Whether something is a nanny state or not is an entierly different argument than if it is **supposed** to be a nanny state or not.
You arguing for what it is supposed to do is in no way an argument against it being a nanny state.
> Silly response
Silly response to a silly statement, you should expect that when you make silly statements.
> It''s OUR money. Where do you think Gov money comes from? And BTW, cost is not an issue for most Govs because they can create as much as they like.
Its literally not "our" money if your poor, you didnt pay taxes if your poor. It is someone else money in that case. I am not saying thats bad, or that we shouldnt take other peoples money to help the poor, we absolutely should (which is why i am strongly pro-welfare)... but have some respect for the fact that people are doing you a charity by doing so rather than pretending like you are entitled.
@freemo @radiojammor @scottsantens See, there's a values issue here. To me, poverty IS the root problem. Economics may or may not be a useful tool in solving it. If the choice is between someone being in poverty and a number going down, I'm going to pick the number going down every time, even if that number is my own IRA.
@freemo @scottsantens Giving people money to make their OWN choices is not nanny stuff - forcing YOUR POV on them is.
Ineffective? Go read. There are NUMEROUS studies showing the effectiveness of a UBI. This claim is fatuous and without foundation.
Your evidence is all in your head.
As for psychiatry? Seriously?
Poor skills? BS. SNOB! THERE AREN'T ENOUGH JOBS FOR EVERYONE & JOBS ARE DIMINISHING.
PEOPLE IN WORK ARE IN POVERTY BECAUSE OF LOW PAY!
YOU BLAME PEOPLE FOR THAT?
Get in the sea.