351–360 of 1001 posts
Does YCombinator have an Institutional Review Board? Musing about this study, it feels like it could very much run aground with some of the ethical concerns regarding consent that have dogged some studies with high participation incentives, in that withdrawing from the study potentially represents a financial catastrophe, so participation in the study becomes less than fully consenting.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This really isn't a good riddle. First, Unconditional Cash Transfers (UCT) work better than most people expect ( http://www.economist.com/news/international/21588385-giving-... ). As noted in the article, UCTs work surprisingly well in scenarios where lack of capital is the primary problem. A UBI (at least as usually is discussed in the US) is a de-scaling UCT. Second, most proponents of a UBI see it as more efficien…
You completely side stepped the question. I find it absolutely amazing how naive BI supporters are. I grew up poor in a ghetto in New York. Studied, went to university, became an engineer and am no longer in that socioeconomic bracket. However it is very apparent that the people in my current bracket (the one's that support BI), have no idea about the issues of the poor. Poor people are mostly poor because of the dec…
To recap, UBTs work better than most people expect. Within the extreme poverty bracket there are many people who actually use UBTs better than we anticipate. UBTs aren't a silver bullet, CCTs better address poor decision making and the deeper rooted issues which cause a cycle of poverty.
You, and many current welfare proponents, cling to the belief that the _majority_ of those on welfare would poorly allocate their funds, but again, this has been shown to not be the case (at least not to the degree we expect) time and time again.
I encourage you to actually read the Economist article...it is quite good.
I will also point out that while I cannot comment on the psychological benefits, I believe there to be strong economic benefits to a UBI over current welfare.
And finally, UCTs aren't the answer to everything. A UCT/CCT combination I think is inevitable to address the deeper decision making issues of poverty.
So, a question for the BI fans: I've seen it said repeatedly that BI will save us money (or at least, not be so outrageously expensive) in part because we can eliminate existing welfare programs. "Just cut a single check, no more overhead from several agencies", they say. But riddle me this: what do you do when someone on BI has a financial emergency or, as will happen with some regularity, just flat-out blows all th…
To add to this, what about those unable to take care of themselves. Children, the mentally ill, those who are badly addicted, those who are easily taken advantage of (like in borderline elder abuse cases).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Delivering the money in small chunks might help. Instead of 70$ every week, make it 5$ twice a day. So no matter how broke you were yesterday, you'll have enough money to eat in a few hours. Another "make it easy to get food even if you really screwed up" option might be to give grocery stores 'first dibs' on the money. Basically, let people spend the money a couple days in advance if they do it at a grocery store. A…
What if your washing machine breaks or your kids need new clothes or your car needs gas? It seems to me with this approach people would be stuck in perpetual poverty even more.
How does the government currently help people that got a broken washing machine?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Personally, I'd hope the system would absolutely tell them "tough shit". There's got to be a line where the safety net gives out, because someone is too expensive to help. That's where family and charity hopefully take over. At the same time, I think your instinct is right, and it's something I've never heard mentioned before. It's almost inevitably that there'll then be the "food security" fund, and the "housing gua…
You'll find there are two voices for BI, the liberal and the liberatian. The liberal would prefer to keep universal healthcare and food programs and put cash on top, making the total distribution to the poor larger. The liberatian would prefer to simply move the complex paternalistic safety net into a simpler cash payment which doesn't disincentivize work while not increasing it's size. As an aside, if you pay attent…
I'd definitely say I look at it from a liberal (non-libertarian perspective) but I don't agree with your statement. I believe universal, free health care should be available but not a food program. The money you get as your BI should cover basic living requirements - rent, food, clothing, heat. I come from a country which has free health care (NHS) which I think should remain in place. If citizens had no choice but to pay for health care then the BI should be higher to cover that cost (although I think cost of health care would rise and people would end up screwed - hence why we should have a free system). So put simply your BI should be enough for you to live 'comfortably'. That doesn't mean with a nice TV and steak for dinner every night - it means clean, warm shelter, healthy home cooked meals, adequate health care etc. The essentials for living. If you want anything more you can work. We're putting more trust in people by giving them the money without any conditions on it but I believe if there aren't extra safety nets and BI is equal to or greater than current welfare payments people will learn quickly. Their financial position doesn't change, just the trust put in them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You'll find there are two voices for BI, the liberal and the liberatian. The liberal would prefer to keep universal healthcare and food programs and put cash on top, making the total distribution to the poor larger. The liberatian would prefer to simply move the complex paternalistic safety net into a simpler cash payment which doesn't disincentivize work while not increasing it's size. As an aside, if you pay attent…
> You'll find there are two voices for BI, the liberal and the liberatian. Actually, I think the two main groups are both libertarian, though there's a left-libertarian and a right-libertarian viewpoint, with the libertarians that aren't strongly left- or right- splitting between them. I personally prefer keeping the existing means-tested programs but counting UBI as income when considering eligibility, such that wit…
So, a question for the BI fans: I've seen it said repeatedly that BI will save us money (or at least, not be so outrageously expensive) in part because we can eliminate existing welfare programs. "Just cut a single check, no more overhead from several agencies", they say. But riddle me this: what do you do when someone on BI has a financial emergency or, as will happen with some regularity, just flat-out blows all th…
So, a question for the BI fans: I've seen it said repeatedly that BI will save us money (or at least, not be so outrageously expensive) in part because we can eliminate existing welfare programs. "Just cut a single check, no more overhead from several agencies", they say. But riddle me this: what do you do when someone on BI has a financial emergency or, as will happen with some regularity, just flat-out blows all th…
If a 80 year old person get heart attack he will get far less money and will probably die. But a child can get several thousand dollars as the bank can recover the money over 10 years.
What amazes me in this discussion about BI is that most people don't seem to realize that systems similar to BI have already been tried in Europe, and that they didn't work. I come from the Netherlands, which has always had unemployment benefits. Nowadays you get those only if you meet a bunch of strict conditions but it hasn't always been so tough. In the early eighties, there were almost no checks whatsoever. The r…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Tough shit" sucks when parents blow their handout on lottery tickets and drugs, leaving their children in perpetual poverty.
I think it becomes even more clear; when children living in poverty are living in a society where their basic needs are sufficiently provided for, you take away a great deal of the social stigma associated with engaging child protective services. If a parent can't function when the basics are provided, then teachers, neighbours, and family members will be less inclined to use the excuse "but times are tough, and that…
Context, I see arguing over the cost of various food programs that public schools provide. I come down on the side of "Yes, you should be guaranteeing kids are fed (minimally breakfast & lunch and if I had my way dinner too). Otherwise there's no way they're going to be able to focus on school." While the counter argument exists and is usually made from a financial standpoint, "Why should I have to pay taxes for other people's kids to get fed?" Which is, in my opinion, a short sighted viewpoint.