Some people are being given thousands of dollars with no strings attached in universal basic income trials. They mostly spend the cash wisely.

www.businessinsider.com Some people are being given thousands of dollars with no strings attached in universal basic income trials. They mostly spend the cash wisely.

A common question about universal basic income, or UBI, is how people spend the money, but early trials are showing promising results.

Some people are being given thousands of dollars with no strings attached in universal basic income trials. They mostly spend the cash wisely.

You're viewing a single thread.

90 comments

The entire concept of a scientific study to determine whether people spend this money wisely is bunk, because it’s nobody else’s business how a person’s money gets spent and whether it’s categorized as “wise”.
If we assume that there is an objective, ie scientifically valid, definition of “wise spending”, then we should just go centrally planned communism because the whole point of free markets is allowing people to enact their own value structure in their spending.
The whole idea of basic income, as opposed to all these other services, is based on the same idea: that people’s money is their own.
This study seems nice, but it frames this whole question the wrong way. The whole concept of money is that people have a right to make their own economic choices, regardless of what some centralized authority thinks is “wise”.
- That's not true. There is a wise spending. Or to be more correct there is a foolish spending. Gambling your money away for example is f* stupid.
  
  The point is that the government really shouldn't have any say in which is which. I agree with you that gambling all your money away is a poor financial choice, but that doesn't mean that I think we should ban gambling, because many people enjoy it responsibly. Teaching people financial literacy, and treating addictions is the solution, not policing how people use their UBI.
  
  but that doesn't mean that I think we should ban gambling, because many people enjoy it responsibly
  More like because it’s an adult human’s right to be free. That is the point. Responsibly, irresponsibly, these are secondary concepts.
  
  I agree with you, except that we should ban gambling.
  
  If it's government given money, that's somebody's tax dollars and the government absolutely should have a say, because the people giving that money should have a say.
  
  If it's government given money, that's somebody's tax dollars and the government absolutely should have a say,
  The issue is it costs money for the Government to have a say and 99% of the time it's not needed.
  If you just get rid of the Government overhead to make sure people are "spending it wisely," the money lost by the 1% who spend it foolishly will be far less than the money saved by getting rid of all the administration.
  
  (Response is here: https://social.packetloss.gg/comment/1528226)
  
  Nope. The nature of money is that when you transfer it to someone else’s, it is now their money. It’s no longer your money. It’s their money.
  
  No that's not how it works. It is extremely common for government issued money to come with stipulations on how it can be spent.
  
  Why attack the people for their spending on vices when you could just outlaw the vices. If you care so much about people's morals, then the government should just outlaw alcohol, gambling and anything else deemed an ill use of this money. It's the exact same thing, except you only want the government to police people who you think don't deserve freedom because you consider them lesser.
  
  When you take someone else's money, you should have a good reason for doing so. Money is an exchange of labor, straight up. You're not entitled to anyone else's labor without qualification.
  Social benefit programs are just that, programs for the social benefit.
  People are allowed to have vices, but irresponsibly spending other people's money is not okay, just like breaking/trashing other people's stuff (and thus spending their time and money) is not okay.
  This is a basic part of the social contract.
- Word.
- Also it's a huge difference if you get universal income for life or just for a limited time and have to provide for yourself again after that
- The entire concept of a scientific study to determine whether people spend this money wisely is bunk
  For anything like this to actually happen people will have to vote for it.
  1st you are incorrect because this wont happen if the people arnt educated on what happens when this system is introduced.
  2nd Your correct because you can do all the studies in the world and gen pop would still be too easily manipulated to ever try something out of the box like this.
- Unsure I agree with this. I agree it's not black and white but for example if someone spent it on drinking binges or gambling is that really just their business? The money could have gone to something else.
  
  The cost of the adminstration to make sure no one spends it driving and gambling is more expensive than the money that would be lost drinking and gambling.
  If you do away with the adminstration you can spend that money helping more people who need it. If someone wants to waste that money not helping themselves that is their choice, more people still get helped with the same amount of cost.
  
  Hmm good point.
- Yeah no, there definitely is wise spending.
  Spending all your money at the casino, spending all your money on alcohol, etc. That's majority different from spending money on food, shelter, an education, etc.
  There's also a difference between spending money that was given to you vs spending money that you did something to earn. That's part of why welfare is such a contentious program in the country. "I want them to have food not half a dozen kids, 17 pets, brand new phones, and cigarettes."
  The fact of the matter is, most recipients don't spend the money on that and they do spend it wisely just like the folks did here.
  But yeah, if you're asking for me or anyone else to give up a portion of our salaries to create universal basic income, etc, it needs to be proven to be a net benefit, and how "wisely" that money is being spent is important.
  We wouldn't rejoice at a politician taking more money from the public fund for a personal trip to the Bahamas. If it's shown this money just becomes vacation money, it's clearly not needed and frankly shouldn't be given.
  Understanding how the money is spent is important.
  
  The fact of the matter is, most recipients don't spend the money on that and they do spend it wisely just like the folks did here.
  And the fact of the matter is a lot of money is wasted on administration making sure those people who wouldn't waste their money aren't wasting their money.
  Think about it this way: for X amount of tax dollars you could help 10 families in need and cover the administration costs to make sure they are spending it wisely.
  For the same X amount of dollars you could help 20 families in need with no administrative oversight, and 1 of those families doesn't need or misuses the money.
  In the second scenario you're still helping 9 more families that need it at no additional cost.
  
  Because it works out so well when we just let people run away with money?
  You're making the same argument that a lot of Republicans make. "Corporations will be honest with the public money we give them, we don't need all this administrative overhead."
  There's definitely something to be said for minimizing administrative overhead. However, that's a very different argument than "there's no such thing as wise spending and we just shouldn't care where the money is going."
  
  And here we have a study demonstrating that people will be smart with the money. I'm not saying "just trust me on this," we have actual evidence.
  
  So, in summary....
  Original comment: "We don't need studies"
  Me: "Yes, we do need studies. This is important data to keep track of to make sure the money is being put where it's most desperately needed."
  You: "We don't need to keep track of where money is going, people are honest. We have studies!"
  In other words...
  Original comment: "Studies are useless!"
  Me: "Studies are not useless"
  You: "Studies are useless, because we have proof that studies are useless, via a study"
  
  Original comment: we don't need oversight.
  You: we should have oversight because people might waste money.
  Me: even if people waste money that will be less money wasted than is spent on the oversight, allowing more people to be helped.
  
  Actual original comment's very first sentence:
  The entire concept of a scientific study to determine whether people spend this money wisely is bunk
  You: putting words in my mouth, doubling down, and missing the point.
  Me: Over this.
  
  Actual original comment’s very first sentence:
  The entire concept of a scientific study to determine whether people spend this money wisely is bunk
  So as I said: saying we don't need oversight.
  You: putting words in my mouth, doubling down, and missing the point.
  You:
  But yeah, if you’re asking for me or anyone else to give up a portion of our salaries to create universal basic income, etc, it needs to be proven to be a net benefit, and how “wisely” that money is being spent is important.
  Sure sounds like you're saying "we should have oversight because people might waste money." I don't see how that is putting words in your mouth. If I am misrepresenting your point the correct way to respond is with a clarification or restating of your point. A generic "yOuR pUtTiNg WoRdS iN mY mOuTh" and going off in a huff does nothing to clarify point or show how it was "misrepresented."
  I was in no way saying your argument was a bad opinion to have, just that I disagreed with it and gave a counter argument.
  
  status quo is worse
  
  Jesus christ someone makes a well-stated, thoughtful response and your slack-jawed response is "status quo worse!" like that addresses any of the points made. It's no wonder "the left" in the U.S. are such fucking losers if this is what the brain trust has to offer.

90 comments