[sub7]

Agreed that everyone deserves a basic standard of living as a human right but disagree that UBI is the path to that.

Giving money to people instantly creates a class of beggars. Beggars with voting rights will vote for people who give them more and more and more for no more work. It's the road to ruin.

My suggestion is a set of hospitals, schools and housing that is super basic but sufficient to give people dignity and opportunity. These would be free for anyone, paid for via taxes on capital gains.

[zentiggr]

It's funny that you say a class of beggars would be created, when most UBI scenarios I've read about show that people tend to try to improve their situations in whichever way makes the most sense...

some who can finally afford basic water food and housing start seeking medical/psych help they couldn't afford.

Some get more schooling to improve their employment prospects.

Some buy a car to start saving themselves hours a week on public transportation and therefore have more time to live.

And a small percentage don't get it and squander it.

You see the policy turning into a UK-style dole... I think you don't see the enormous benefits that reaching the point of 'having enough' can provide.

I've recently started making more than I have in the rest of my life... and besides finally paying down our household debt, and accomplishing the cash-starved household repairs, I'm starting to look at volunteering and truly giving to charities _because I can_.

Just providing basic services doesn't give people the same options, the mobility to do with their lives what makes sense in their circumstances.

[sub7]

I really want capitalism to give you a wage to do all those things. I understand it's been cronified and monopoloies have fucked over a whole lot of people.

The real fix is to fix capitalism, not write you a check every month for being born. We need to enforce fair markets, fair wages etc.

For those at the very bottom, I want dignity, a free education, and if still unsuccessful access to a low skill job that can pay basic bills.

[charlesu]

Should we pay people to dig ditches and then fill them just so that they're working? The relative gap between high skilled and unskilled labor will only increase. At some point, a large portion of society's labor will become worthless. What then?

Capitalism is about the accumulation and use of capital. It's amoral. It doesn't care about the unemployment rate, poverty rate, or health outcomes. It is just fine with child labor and seven day work weeks. It will offshore labor, hire contractors, and use money for buybacks before investment if the numbers make sense. Capitalism is not the answer here. Policy is. And that's fine. We can have both.

[hobs]

And what about when automation makes more and more human work obsolete? And when will the power imbalance in capitalism actually produce fairness? Ever?

You are going to have to find a different way to solve those problems than wage slavery.

[dangravell]

> The real fix is to fix capitalism, not write you a check every month for being born.

You write that as if it's some kind of natural law, as if the second clause is _obviously_ more absurd than the first. It's that the case and, if so, why?

[sub7]

When you decouple income from output or wages from work, you're essentially devaluing work and incentivizing people to work less or (more destructively) work worse.

It's not an absurd thought at all, it's a very natural solution to propose in environments like we have today. It's also been tried in many different countries in many different time periods. Leads to failure every single time.

[rorykoehler]

I don’t understand why people with more money should have such outrageous levels of power over those with less. That’s all capitalism is. Coercion through artificial constraint.

[khafra]

> Giving money to people instantly creates a class of beggars. Beggars with voting rights will vote for people who give them more and more and more for no more work.

I don't know if you realize this, but beggars already exist. There are literally people standing by the road with signs asking for money. Presumably many of them can also vote.

UBI just eliminates the physical and emotional toll of standing outside all day holding a sign, asking for money. Does that make the road to ruin you envision more likely, or more dire?

[sub7]

I grew up in India, I know beggars and begging better than most. I even helped one sell books on the road and now he has a bookstore and his kid is in college. I handout food all the time. But never, ever cash.

UBI will not solve begging, as much as you want it to. But giving people a clean room to stay in, good basic healthcare and a free education might.

[kevinwang]

1. Everyone already has voting rights though, and those in poverty are already incentivized to seek welfare, so how would UBI "create" that?

2. How does your suggestion prevent that?

[sub7]

There's a big difference between money and money that can only be spent on a certain set of services.

As far as I know welfare is still food stamps etc i.e. not cash.

[DagAgren]

People know what they need to spend their money on. Telling them what they can and can't do with it is both patronising and counter-productive. Let the person who is affected by the choices make the choices.

[sub7]

Patronizing and counter productive is giving people money for nothing. It's telling people that they're useless.

You should read up on the beggar networks in India and the exploitation that occurs when you handout money for no work.

[wonderwonder]

If everyone is getting a set amount of money every month, its the opposite. Its telling them that they are valued and that society knows they are a human being and is trying to at least provide them with a roof and food. It allows them a base from which to improve themselves. It gives breathing room.

Study after study have proven that the greatest indicator of where you end up in life is where you start. Start in poverty odds are you will end there.

Its pretty hard for a single mom with 2 kids that works 2 jobs to also go to school, interviews etc. and make a better life. Especially when so many of the low skilled jobs provide no benefits. If she slips once, she is homeless.

Ensuring she has at least her basics met allows her to drop the second job and figure out a way to go to school or learn a skill. Or at the very least it allows her to spend time with her kids each night working on their homework and giving them a chance to break the poverty cycle.

[Goronmon]

Patronizing and counter productive is giving people money for nothing. It's telling people that they're useless.

I would disagree that a person "use" is defined solely by the type of job they have.

[sojournerc]

People need purpose to find fulfillment. Free money does not give one purpose or meaning. That's what I took GP to be saying

[pnutjam]

Sounds suspiciously like a centrally planned economy. Hmmm... Where have I heard that vilified before...

[jtmarl1n]

"Food Stamps" these days is a debt card that can only be used for certain food items. Very similar to an HSA. It is actual dollars in an account now.

[mattrp]

Thank you for articulating this. Outside a crisis, I don’t think we should have a standing policy like this in the United States. If you consider the issue from a first principles argument, each citizen of the United States is essentially an equity owner and the government are the managers. Power of the managers comes from its owners. We are unique in the world in this regard. There are other democracies sure but none that I know of who get their power from the people. It’s universally the other way around. Government is given all the power and whatever rights the people have come from the government. It is because of this, that in the US, an individual must be an independent self governing being. If the individual is not self governing then it is impossible for the individual to confer rights to the government. If the government becomes a source of universal income then the sovereign individual is potentially weakened and here’s how: ubi is not economically sustainable. At the beginning it may be available to everyone but eventually it will be curtailed. Means testing may be one way but social credit scores may be another. What stops of government from saying if you go to that protest your income eligibility score could drop and you might not receive an income next month or at all? Income without doing something to earn it is a form of coercion — a coerced people cannot be free. And while I have no problem with folks in Australia who want to try it, for myself, a citizen of the United Stares, I have grave concerns that ubi is but a gateway to less freedom rather than more.

[JDiculous]

> Beggars with voting rights will vote for people who give them more and more

Given that UBI increases would be coupled with tax increases, I don't actually see that being the case.

[bsenftner]

I also disagree with UBI for the premise that it does not fix any of the underlying causes of wealth inequality - in essence, it is a free ticket for the corrupt to continue business as usual. We need to address the nepotism and the crony-capitalism that maintains the status quo in the same families generation after do-nothing generation.

[sigzero]

No, it is not a human right. It might be the right thing to do but it isn't a right you have.

[Guest42]

A very strange and inaccurate philosophy.