Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by Verdex 2706 days ago
With respect to 1,2,3.

People make some pretty bad decisions. And people like to trick other people into making bad decision. I didn't think this was controversial.

Why is this relevant to UBI? One of the benefits of UBI is that it allows us to get rid of the welfare system. However, if people are tricked into giving away their money OR if they spend all of their money on non-food items, we now have to decide if they just go hungry or if there is a welfare for them. This is more complicated because some of the people going hungry will be children who have irresponsible parents.

To recap. One of the arguments of UBI is that it will be cheaper than it looks because we can get rid of welfare. This argument only works if we're willing to let people who misspend their UBI go hungry. I'm not willing to let people go hungry if I can help if, so I'm only interested in a UBI program if we also find a way to feed irresponsible people. OR I'm not interested in UBI being enacted.

4 comments

Is this not already a problem with the current welfare system in terms of selling food stamps? In which case is there any reason to suggest that UBI would worsen the problem significantly?
As you say, there will be cases like this. Laws can provide for them to be declared incompetent and to appoint a guardian who would be responsible for distributing their UBI funds. If it’s necessary to institutionalize them, their UBI would go to that institution for the duration.
So if you make bad decisions with money you get institutionalized? That sounds monstrous and unethical.
We have procedures now to have individuals declared incompetent and have guardians appointed. I agree, we don’t want the cure to be worse than the disease or to have corrupt institutions take advantage of people. Therefore, it would be best to error on the side of non-interference, which is about what we are doing now with the homeless.

I’d further suggest that only a portion of their UBI go to the institution, while the balance would be available to assist with the later transition out.

It also seems ripe for abuse. I can already see people going around declaring people "unfit" and getting a cut of their UBI from the committing institution.
What's worse, having a guardian to help you spend money or sleeping on the streets?
"a guardian to help you spend money" is different from "institutionalized", which is what the parent and grandparent wrote. And sleeping on the streets is a real alternative to institutionalization that people can and sometimes do prefer.
Is your handle a wordplay upon Ry Cooder, or are you actually a wry coder, or both?
Yes
Why not welfare on top of that too, for the people who get tricked to waste their welfare money?

and what about those who waste their ubi money, welfare money, and backup welfare money? we need a failsafe fund for those too!

People are free to make their own decisions. It's good to help people and lessen the blow of mistakes, but at some point, a stupid person who keeps getting tricked into wasting their money, is not very helpful to anyone around.

If you're being given free money just for existing, and you can't figure out how to keep it? I think thats your problem, not society's.

None of those "tricking other people" problems you mention have anything to do with UBI, per se. They are all about human nature, both the trickers and the tricked. That is not going to change just because of UBI being enacted / implemented. The potential solutions lie deeper down the stack (of turtles).

"There's a sucker born every minute."

https://www.google.co.in/search?q=quote+there%27s+a+sucker+b...

Barnum may not have said it, but it holds true even today ... probably every millisecond, if you take the ratio of the world's population to the number of suckers/suckees/suckincidents ...