[jms]

So what if someone spends it all on whiskey or oxy? They're maximising their own preferences. If they were addicted to alcohol, sudden withdrawal can kill.

One of the big reasons for UBI is the belief that an individual can better assess their own needs and wants, and procure them more cheaply than the government.

This is partly a moral/philosphical stand - the tension is between giving individual freedom in the form of money, or giving freedom via paternalistic methods where the government decides what is best for you. It can be argued either way.

I do agree it would be wise to have systems in place to trickle the money in daily instead of monthly - this would help your concern of people blowing all their money at once (but not prevent them spending on what was most important to them).

I also think that just UBI will never be enough - there is a place for targeted government support - healthcare, addiction (part of healthcare), mental health (also part of healthcare).

[donw]

I agree very strongly with you, but I don't think that's where the parent poster was going.

Imagine we have a UBI, and we do all kinds of other smart things -- end the War on Drugs, establish Bismarck-style national healthcare[1], all that.

Let's do a thought experiment.

What happens when Alice blows all of her UBI on Lady Lee Vodka and Oxy. Nothing left for rent, food, the rest. Nobody else in the picture to help: no relatives, nada.

If we look at UBI as the only social assistance program, Alice dies on the street.

That's the reality, and we need to accept that.

Alternatively, we would need some sort of "backup" reserved for people that are not capable of caring for themselves.

Maybe something like restarting the mental hospitals that Reagan closed in the 80's after Geraldo -- and the rest of Our Friends In The News -- ran wild with the scandal of how awful those government-run mental hospitals were, with the end result being that a bunch of mentally ill folks got chucked out on the street.

Now, I don't know what the answer is. I really don't.

My concern is that I see a lot of people talking up only the benefits, and not in any way addressing the failure cases.

[1] Yields better results than single-payer, and is better at controlling costs.

[jms]

I actually agree with both you and the parent poster - this is a real problem.

My position would be that you still need assistance programs as well as the UBI for people like the above, but I'd treat it as a health issue rather than a poverty issue.

I think this is where you really do need a paternalistic government for people who need the guidance, but it should be the exception, not the rule. Let's respect peoples choices for themselves and only step in if necessary.

I'd argue that Alice is either addicted or mentally ill, and supported living facilities or similar would be the way to go. She would still be entitled to her UBI, which would be her route out of the system once she no longer needs to spend it on drugs.

So I'd say that UBI will never completely replace all government programs, but it should be the default and go a long way to reducing the need for existing programs.

If I were implementing it, I'd start with a low amount (well below the cost of living) and increase it over time. I'd leave the current support programs in place. The current programs are means tested anyway, so the hope would be that as UBI increases, use of the current programs would reduce, and we would have time to reorganise them as needed.

This would also give us a chance to measure the effects and get real world data as to the impacts on society and government incoming/spending.

I guess the real question would be how much it would all cost. My gut feeling is that short term it would decrease productivity as people wouldn't feel the need to work so hard, but long term it would increase productivity as people will be able to invest more in themselves.

[remote_phone]

Alice could get a job and then lose it all on vodka and oxy. I don’t see why UBI needs to ensure that she doesn’t do foolish things with her money.

People are going to make bad decisions, unfortunately. You can’t live in a free society if you don’t let people make unfortunate, bad decisions that harm themselves.

If you think all people should be protected from their bad decisions then you’re basically sliding straight down the slope into totalitarianism.

In a free society, some people will make bad decisions and their lives will be miserable but hopefully many more will make better decisions.

[grayfaced]

In the course of their self-harm though they also tend to damage society. The starving addict doesn't just lay down in the street and die. They beg and they steal because they're desperate. They rip copper out of buildings while just harming themselves. And maybe eventually they're arrested and live off the state anyways (at much increased prison rates).

How far do you let them sink before you need to step in.

[Melting_Harps]

> How far do you let them sink before you need to step in.

Look no further than Skid row or Silicon Valley, specifically the San Francisco area.

[d0100]

I'd wager that UBI will be a huge boost for mental health. It allows someone to retreat and heal, or just go slower, without the $$$ pressure.

[ap22213]

I guess if you’re looking for a silver bullet, keep looking?

[devonkim]

Yang’s UBI was never intended as a replacement for a safety net which was gravely miscommunicated / twisted by our outrage media dynamics. What he’s advocated for are completely universal programs without means testing that build on top of UBI as a presumption such as his (somewhat weak, yes) disability program. His entire thesis of the economy is that people both rich and poor are suffering enslaved to a dehumanizing economy that ironically destroys human potential and suffocating itself (the very opposite of one trend of capitalism in the past few hundred years) and destigmatizing assistance across all lines is important toward resolving the human toll politically.

[Zarath]

"One of the big reasons for UBI is the belief that an individual can better assess their own needs and wants, and procure them more cheaply than the government"

Perhaps, but many of the major problems we have today are tragedy of the commons situations, and that's precisely when we need government to step in, not just leave it up to individuals.