Even people who are “rich” can’t really take risks. They have to sacrifice their health or family or career progress as a salary earner to take a shot at innovation (entrepreneurship I mean). The VC startup world often is just “who is willing to sacrifice other things and take the most risk”, and excludes those seeking to live a balanced and healthy life.
I agree having safety nets means more people can contribute to innovation. But it’ll still be hard to survive the brutality of startups. As a society we shouldn’t reward those who make unhealthy choices to “win”. That’s still exclusionary IMO. But I don’t know how you can defend against that.
It's possible that UBI could allow people to do new and great things and have a balanced and healthy life. What if the goal isn't becoming a billionaire, but instead making the world a better place while enjoying a comfortable standard of living? There are ways that we as a society can promote this kind of altruism.
"The Manhattan Institute for Policy Research (renamed in 1981 from the International Center for Economic Policy Studies) is an American 501(c)(3) nonprofit[4] conservative think tank"
From that particular organization, yes. Their narratives originate from a fictional, often sociopathic universe. Sometimes fiction is good, interesting, challenging. Right now, no time or cognitive surplus for that bullshit.
Articles like this are so annoying and no surprise coming from a Manhattan Institute guy.
Of course UBI is effective. We have hundreds of studies to look at to determine this, not just two.
The NYT article was shit too. It's one thing to say that $333/mo of UBI to a family of 2 or more didn't appear to have brain development impacts that were measurable within the first few years of life. It's another to say UBI isn't effective.
We know that a guaranteed monthly income floor has all kinds of positive impacts especially on kids, and especially if kids are prevented from living in poverty for their entire childhood.
And never forget that a key component of UBI is universality. It's one thing to study the impact on an individual. It's another to test the impact on an entire community.
In the Dauphin pilot where an entire town got it, crime went down 15%, violent crime went down 37%, and hospitalization rates went down 9%. You aren't going to find stuff like that in any pilot that isn't a saturation pilot testing universality.
This guy is pretty quick to dismiss the results of a very few tentative experiments. Extra money on a regular basis is certainly helpful, isn't generally spent on frivolous things, and produces some positive outcomes. But it's not nearly sufficient to break someone out of a cycle of poverty. If you're roughly "middle class" like me, you know that you're being squeezed all the time. Things get more expensive, and 'the system' is always coming up with new ways to take your money. Imagine being in the same situation, but broke and out of work, with kids. An extra thou a month might keep your head barely above water, but it certainly won't put you on a path to security or self-sufficiency.
The reason these experiments are being tried is that our social order is breaking down. Even if you're able-bodied, well educated, and willing to work, there are too few jobs that pay a living wage. And many people were unfortunately born to the wrong set of parents, so they never got good health care or education. What do we do with these people? Leave them out in the street to die?
Ironically the happiest and healthiest retires do more than the bare minimum. Maybe it isn’t work but they’re staying productive (or busy?) in many ways. Not doing things is really destructive to the human psyche.
Unproductive in economic terms. They not contribute significantly to the tax base compared to what they used to.
Painting in broad strokes, of course. I'm sure somebody somewhere is working harder than ever, but it is not the norm. Long walks in the park and meeting with friends doesn't contribute to the tax base.
Another view of UBI:
https://thefutureofemployment.com/universal-basic-income-a-g...
Innovators are people who can afford to take risks. UBI can enlarge the pool of those people to include those who aren't born into wealth.
Even people who are “rich” can’t really take risks. They have to sacrifice their health or family or career progress as a salary earner to take a shot at innovation (entrepreneurship I mean). The VC startup world often is just “who is willing to sacrifice other things and take the most risk”, and excludes those seeking to live a balanced and healthy life.
I agree having safety nets means more people can contribute to innovation. But it’ll still be hard to survive the brutality of startups. As a society we shouldn’t reward those who make unhealthy choices to “win”. That’s still exclusionary IMO. But I don’t know how you can defend against that.
It's possible that UBI could allow people to do new and great things and have a balanced and healthy life. What if the goal isn't becoming a billionaire, but instead making the world a better place while enjoying a comfortable standard of living? There are ways that we as a society can promote this kind of altruism.
Maybe it has to be mixed with removing incentives for billionaires to exist. Like a cap on wealth.
"The Manhattan Institute for Policy Research (renamed in 1981 from the International Center for Economic Policy Studies) is an American 501(c)(3) nonprofit[4] conservative think tank"
Thanks, I'll pass.
Is that really a reason to dismiss ideas without directly considering them?
It signals that this article is propaganda and likely doesn't have epistemological value.
From that particular organization, yes. Their narratives originate from a fictional, often sociopathic universe. Sometimes fiction is good, interesting, challenging. Right now, no time or cognitive surplus for that bullshit.
Articles like this are so annoying and no surprise coming from a Manhattan Institute guy.
Of course UBI is effective. We have hundreds of studies to look at to determine this, not just two.
The NYT article was shit too. It's one thing to say that $333/mo of UBI to a family of 2 or more didn't appear to have brain development impacts that were measurable within the first few years of life. It's another to say UBI isn't effective.
We know that a guaranteed monthly income floor has all kinds of positive impacts especially on kids, and especially if kids are prevented from living in poverty for their entire childhood.
Read a 30-year study like this article covers.
https://archive.ph/ps8k1
And never forget that a key component of UBI is universality. It's one thing to study the impact on an individual. It's another to test the impact on an entire community.
In the Dauphin pilot where an entire town got it, crime went down 15%, violent crime went down 37%, and hospitalization rates went down 9%. You aren't going to find stuff like that in any pilot that isn't a saturation pilot testing universality.
This guy is pretty quick to dismiss the results of a very few tentative experiments. Extra money on a regular basis is certainly helpful, isn't generally spent on frivolous things, and produces some positive outcomes. But it's not nearly sufficient to break someone out of a cycle of poverty. If you're roughly "middle class" like me, you know that you're being squeezed all the time. Things get more expensive, and 'the system' is always coming up with new ways to take your money. Imagine being in the same situation, but broke and out of work, with kids. An extra thou a month might keep your head barely above water, but it certainly won't put you on a path to security or self-sufficiency.
The reason these experiments are being tried is that our social order is breaking down. Even if you're able-bodied, well educated, and willing to work, there are too few jobs that pay a living wage. And many people were unfortunately born to the wrong set of parents, so they never got good health care or education. What do we do with these people? Leave them out in the street to die?
Manhattan Institute is consistently blindly sociopathic.
Incentives matter. Imo you are not productive if you are paid for doing nothing
Agreed. Retirees, even early retirees, are very unproductive because they don't need to produce anything anymore to maintain their lifestyle.
Ironically the happiest and healthiest retires do more than the bare minimum. Maybe it isn’t work but they’re staying productive (or busy?) in many ways. Not doing things is really destructive to the human psyche.
Unproductive in economic terms. They not contribute significantly to the tax base compared to what they used to.
Painting in broad strokes, of course. I'm sure somebody somewhere is working harder than ever, but it is not the norm. Long walks in the park and meeting with friends doesn't contribute to the tax base.
Many Retirees I know have very busy schedules! They're not $/€ productive per-se but they do quite a lot of work!