[rvba]

It hasnt been proven but those who live in Europe see families that get:

-free housing

-free money

-money for children (that they use for themselves)

-various other help (clothes, coal, christmas packages)

This had an unfortunate effect of creating a group of people who never worked and all they did was raise 3-5 children. Despite the parents not working (so having time to take care of their children) those children did not really get any education, often did not even finish high school. And guess what those children often got their own set of children early - who also will never work, live of social benefits and small time theft.

You dont exactly have to be a right winger to notice that the model is not sustainable. Especially as this group of people only demands more and they think that they "deserve" it. Also if you would try to teach the children that everyone should contribute to society by working, their parents/grandparents/even grand grandparents will protest. Since they lived this "parasite" lives forever and dont know better. How can someone demand that they work? They deserve higher social benefits and they deserve better housing. (While you are supposed to get a mortgage and slave to get a house). Also at some point the group will become so big that they can vote for politicians that will give them more (at the expense of those who work).

Of course perhaps maybe UBI can work and it will be all rosy, but it is just wishful thinking. Communism was also supposed to work.

Different problem with UBI is that middle class becomes nobodies - you are supposed to shut up because you get your dole. While I bet the rich people will still be rich.

[defrost]

Interesting opinion, nothing that meshes with the actual largely indeterminate results of the Finish experiment [1] [2] [3] nor with the bulk of the other small scale examples [4].

Countries such as Australia with robust (compared to the US) welfare safety nets (not perfect by any means, but not to shabby overall) have proven to have strong long term GDP growth and to be resilient in the face of various global crisis events.

Good safety nets provide a place to regroup and do better - without being reduced to homeless and struggling to meet basic food and clothing needs.

[1] https://julkaisut.valtioneuvosto.fi/handle/10024/161361

[2] https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/public-and-social-sector...

[3] https://www.bruegel.org/blog-post/universal-basic-income-and...

[4] https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2020/2/19/21112570/univer...

[argentinian]

You should check Argentina's example too.

[argentinian]

> at some point the group will become so big that they can vote for politicians that will give them more (at the expense of those who work).

This is exactly what happens in Argentina now.

[weatherlite]

Welp, soon enough us programmers might join this group of people you're describing...who would've thunk.

[unity1001]

> This had an unfortunate effect of creating a group of people who never worked and all they did was raise 3-5 children.

You dont seem to be aware that such programs are designed to have people raise such 5-6 children while doing nothing else in order to bump up the declining population. And if you think raising 6 children is not work... boy...

[rvba]

The problem is that (1) those programs seem to "produce" (as awful as it sounds) undesirable people who dont work nor contribute to society. There are entire families (grandparents, parents, children) who lived their whole lives on benefits. So for the society they are a net loss. And on top of that they often do petty theft.

(2) if you are in middle class, or low class (but still working) you are contributing for others and dont get anything in return from them. I would argue that if you didnt have to contribute so much then those middle/low class families would have 2 children instead of 1. Children of parents that work and will raise them right.

You seem to think that those low life people work hard raising their children? Lol, they dont care about their children.. those kids are raised by the streets.

It is the same in UK where some families mass manufacture inbred children (seriously read about it) and same in Slovakia where alcoholics get more kids since they dont use contraception and having a kid allows more money for vodka.

You assume that everyone wants the best for their kids, nope those people just have a strategy to pump few kids, who maybe will pump more kids. At thr expense of taxpayers.

[unity1001]

> The problem is that (1) those programs seem to "produce" (as awful as it sounds) undesirable people who dont work nor contribute to society

The problem is that (1) that is patently false.

Take the case of Germany. So many Turkish immigrants. So many used those programs and had many children. So many complained. Yet, Germany's most famous footballer, the makers of Crysis, the inventor of the Biontech vaccine (the one that you know as Pfizer) are all such kids born to such families.

Since your initial propositon is flat out false, I dont see the need to address the others.

[Glawen]

I believe these program exist in the sole purpose of reducing criminality, so that the poor don't start thinking of robberies.

[unity1001]

Nope. They were implemented to encourage people to have kids. When it was seen that it worked on immigrants too, it was an added bonus.