Universal Basic Income

SF program results.

Some of thes experiments are nice case studies, but looking at what was done it was extremely biased in it's implementation and did not address the long term.

One interesting thing I have always noted is that people always need a couple hundred dollars more up until you become rich. even the people making 100k a year can always do with another hundred dollars a week. This ends up being because as you increase salary you also increase your lifestyle and recreational activities. Even if those are maxed you could save or invest more for retirement.

People do not just get by on a standard platform of income. The idea that you take a person out of financial worry I do not think ends up being true under the capitalist system we have, even with UBI. This is because a person could still lose their shit by overextending their present position. This is why I support providing certain necessities through a government run structure. You have food, shelter, clothing, education, health, public safety, electricity, and communications covered. You are not going to go without those things. You can work for better things, and the levels we just provide are the low end. This provides true security while incentivizing work. If disaster hits you then you can pick yourself up and move up again.

Moderately interesting, but I don't think it has all that much to say about a UBI in general. The selection bias is out of this world. The receivers know the money ends in 6 months after it starts. The contact with the "buddies" sounds intensive enough that it'd need to continue using volunteers; a paid staff to scale this would massively up the complexity and cost. This isn't "the government writes you a check, go do whatever with it", it's "here's a check, but also a supportive community. Check in and interact and you'll get the help you need."

Don't get me wrong, it's great that it had such good results, but it seems the sort of thing that could only be well-run as a charity, or maybe a municipal-level program, but definitely not a state or federal program.

Agreed. Although it disproves the "if you give people money, they'll just waste it because they can't help themselves" type of argument, the known finite time frame has to change the psychology, and the fact that it's targeted means it's a BI, not a UBI.

I don’t even know if you can say the first part, thanks to the selection bias. They literally picked people already known to them they thought were most likely to make the best use of it.

And you think those people are a minority?

If they are, you should have no trouble with them passing an evaluation to that effect, right?

I don't know. But I'd certainly trust Galileo's claim that all masses fall to Earth at the same rate less if he' only tested it with similar masses. Doesn't mean it's wrong, just poorly supported.

Ok. I'll agree with that.

But, ... IIRC, you're a huge "capitalism" supporter. Do you also reject the studies showing how wonderful capitalism is for the same reasons? Those being lack of comparable data.

How is that remotely relevant? What studies? Huh?

relevant to this discussion? None. It was just a question. But, if you haven't read the same studies, no big deal. It was just a question. You can unruffle your panites.

Ireland to try it out on artists.

Well if a Canadian said it, it must be true.

If it goes against your worldview it must be wrong.

I'd be curious to learn how much of a pain in the ass it is to opt out of receiving that.

I get to opt out of paying for war first.

CERB/CRB was pretty successful in keeping lower income folks afloat through the shutdown(s). It was kinda hilarious though, hearing from people used to living more comfortably scream that $2K enough wasn't enough to live on.

as for "opting out", it was as easy as not spending the five minutes a month (later, 2 weeks) filling out the form on Revenue Canada's website...

in practice it worked exactly as proponents (and the last project) said it would. Money was spent locally, and for the most part on necessities.

In turn that took a shit load of work/costs off the hands of social service agencies (like welfare) and healthcare (people able to afford nourishing food, medications, etc).

Why do you get priority? But sure, opt out of war, I’m fine with that. Did you think this was some sort of gotcha?

Leave the anime stuff to Tererun.

Suck a dick.

Leave that to me too. You are probably not used to handling a full sized one.

You swallow every one of Joe Rogan's loads on every topic he says.

GTFO.

Wash yourself thoroughly for a few weeks first and I'll practice getting my lips pursed that tight in the meantime.

Yes.
It amuses me how people like UA are more obsessed with the thought someone somewhere might be getting so much as a cookie crumb off his nickel, than bombs dropping on innocent people.
It's a weird priority pattern.
I like to fuck with it whenever possible.

Please, expound more on your knowledge of my feelings concerning the dropping of bombs on innocent people.

Even easier. This board has a search function. Should be hard to come up with a quote or two.

Putz.

I can't argue with the weirdness of what some people choose to obsess over, but in this case I think UA's comment was aimed at opting out of receiving it.

I have no doubt SOME will. I know a 60-something woman who's a (so far) cancer survivor and a meth addict who's in "fuck it" mode and doesn't want to make any effort to get clean. I've see people "help" her month after month with utilities or food or rent or car payment - and she still stays broke because she can't not stay fucked up.

There certainly ARE people like that. The moral question is "how many others must suffer to justify not letting people like her get a single nickle they don't "deserve?"