11–18 of 18 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It doesn't just help, that would be "they are fed and housed". But it genuinely improves the quality of work they perform. They get better jobs as a result of this, which isn't exactly intuitive to most people.
Except it should be the single most intuitive thing that people with enough resources can work better than those without.
Of course it did. If you give poor people more money they will on balance have better lives. Left unaddressed are questions like: How does giving free money compare to spending the money on directed social programs? What is the optimal amount to give? Also, am I reading this right? "Individuals who received the stipend reported increasing their monthly income by 36%, from $1,200 to $1,640, compared to the control gro…
This just in: free money helps poor people. More at 11.
It doesn't just help, that would be "they are fed and housed". But it genuinely improves the quality of work they perform. They get better jobs as a result of this, which isn't exactly intuitive to most people.
I would argue it disincentivizes them from seeking more gainful employment.
I'm an anarchist communist. (Wait, hear me out, I'm not an anarchist in "The Purge" sense.) It's interesting to see the hypothesis of authors like Kropotkin validated to some degree. Anarchist authors have long posited that if you emphasize "wellbeing for all" ahead of profit or productivity, the social nature of humans will result in a largely positive experience. People will, hypothetically, do good things if their…
And even that included medical bills.
Throwing extra money at people to be spent on short-term consumables (groceries, etc) might be good for the economy, but doesn't seem to move the individuals ahead economically.
Which leaves them back in the same place when the support is withdrawn.
It'd be nice to see support tied to (something that will leave them better off). Rent/grocery support... if studying for a marketable certificate.
But with strong safeguards around for-profits sucking the money without adding value to the individuals (e.g. predatory worthless degree mills sucking up GI Bill benefits).
I'm an anarchist communist. (Wait, hear me out, I'm not an anarchist in "The Purge" sense.) It's interesting to see the hypothesis of authors like Kropotkin validated to some degree. Anarchist authors have long posited that if you emphasize "wellbeing for all" ahead of profit or productivity, the social nature of humans will result in a largely positive experience. People will, hypothetically, do good things if their…
From the embedded graphic, only 22% seemed to spend any(?) of the money on a long-term benefit (e.g. job training, car repair, etc). And even that included medical bills. Throwing extra money at people to be spent on short-term consumables (groceries, etc) might be good for the economy, but doesn't seem to move the individuals ahead economically. Which leaves them back in the same place when the support is withdrawn.…
Policing how people spend their ubi costs time and money, reducing the amount of ubi you can grant to people, and it fails when some novel need arises. There are stories of food stamps only covering half gallon or gallon sized containers of milk. So when shrinkflation shrank half gallon bottles down to 60oz, or whatever, the same product was no longer eligible.
A fundamental principle of anarchy is people know locally what they need best. People know what food, clothing, and shelter they need. Trying to proscribe that only these purchases are permissible isn't something that's easy or fair, and will likely miss the needs of at least some minority communities. If lives are improving and people are getting more productive, it doesn't really matter how they spent the ubi, does it? The outcome is great, and it was efficient and bureaucracy free? Bonus.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It doesn't just help, that would be "they are fed and housed". But it genuinely improves the quality of work they perform. They get better jobs as a result of this, which isn't exactly intuitive to most people.
"They get better jobs as a result of this" I would argue it disincentivizes them from seeking more gainful employment.
Of course it did. If you give poor people more money they will on balance have better lives. Left unaddressed are questions like: How does giving free money compare to spending the money on directed social programs? What is the optimal amount to give? Also, am I reading this right? "Individuals who received the stipend reported increasing their monthly income by 36%, from $1,200 to $1,640, compared to the control gro…
Earlier on it also mentions that they were able to get car repairs and find better jobs. I would assume that means that the $440 is in addition to the $500 they were given.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Also: Arlington is to DC as Oakland is to SF or Jersey City is to Manhattan. Only, you know, a lot nicer.
hmm.. having lived in all of those cities, I'd say closer to South Bay then East bay re SF.