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.
๐ณ๐ฑ
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 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.
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.
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
"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.