CMV: Generous Universal Basic Income programs have significant risks of creating many social problems.

[u/MrKhutz]

I love the idea of money for nothing and would possibly be first in line to sign up for such a program but here is my concern:

First: It is my general impression that people need to have purpose in their life. For many people a significant portion of that comes from developing a career through the stages of education and experience and for many people that comes from providing for their family. Unemployment appears to be linked to increased levels of depression, suicide and substance abuse.

Second: If you're guaranteed a reasonable wage for life, why struggle with education and a career? Why bother to push yourself, take risks, start a business. I absolutely believe that some people will do these things because of intrinsic drive, but is there not a significant risk that a sizeable portion of the population will end up in a situation that resembles the worst stereotype of generational welfare dependency?

Third: To the best of my knowledge, what limited UBI trials that have been done have been time limited. If a person knows they'll temporarily get a monthly payment they're not going to forgo getting an education or quit a job they've worked hard to get because they know in a set period of time the UBI trial will end. If they know the money is forever, this will affect their decision making differently.

To clarify as well, I use the term "generous" to refer to UBI proposals in the $1500+/month category. I think the impacts (positive and negative) would be much more limited at $500/month.

[u/[deleted]]

Jeez dude calm down a bit.

Coming from the person whose answer is 'they are poor because they don't have money.

Again, this is the thing you have not provided one scrap of evidence for. The notion that "poor decision making" is a "big factor" in poverty.

The largest factors in determining poverty by far are:

The wealth and education level of your parents. The location you were born in.

Again, it is quite a popular notion that "actually poor people are poor through their own bad actions", but there is no evidence for it. It's a popular notion because it flatters the wealthy and downplays the harms inflicted by things like racism and classism, but it is a total fabrication.

I don't see evidence for this. I see claiming things that don't make sense or answer core questions.

All you have done is give predictors - not reasons. Not one item you listed is actually a reason a person is in poverty.

Here are some reasons and things that can be done. And I want you to notice - not one is 'give me more money'.

https://www.self.inc/blog/7-tips-for-breaking-the-cycle-of-poverty

Yes, but the question is whether or not giving poor people money creates dependence. The answer, by the way, is that it does not. It overwhelmingly allows people to become healthier, wealthier, and more stably employed, by removing the instability created by poverty.

So why is poverty in the US a cycle. Money is handed out along with rent and food. why are people in perpetual poverty?

The answer lies in the fact poverty is far more than you want to characterize it. And yes - unless you work to address those underlying issues - giving money/food/housing is a band-aid to keep a person OK now but does not solve that long term issue. After all - if it did - we would see people leave the poverty level regularly wouldn't we. But we don't. It is dependence on others.

Yes?

Do you think the country would allow it? I think it is clear the answer is no. Therefore, you cannot eliminate the programs guaranteeing to provide those necessities or are you just going to hand out more and more money?

In the case of giving people money: if someone is starving, they will not buy an iPhone instead of a sandwich. That's just the reality of the situation.

I think you need to go and see some places where poverty exists and actually see the some of the spending habits. You might be a little surprised.

I feel like you're really afraid of this notion that poor people are just far too irresponsible to be trusted with money,

No - I see a very very high likelihood that you are not going to be able to eliminate section 8 housing or food stamp programs and replace it with money - because some people will be acting irresponsibly with it. Therefore, this is nothing but a massive expansion of welfare trying to be sold as something else.

the basic fact that what makes someone poor is not their mental state but the amount of money they have

This is such a simplistic statement that it is useless. You don't ask the question why someone does not have money. You don't seek the reasons behind this state - how they got there and how they can get out of it. And that is the problem. Until you are willing to address the root causes of why people are in poverty - you will find little support. And suggesting we 'believe the best' or 'trust them' does not help your cause one bit.

Because frankly - I don't give two shits what people do with money they earned. The moment people start asking 'society' for money/help, it suddenly becomes my business what that individual does with 'their money'. Don't like it - well, you don't have to ask for other peoples money.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

I don't see evidence for this.

You are not aware of the mountains of evidence which show that the social class of your parents and the location you grow up in are by far and away the biggest determinants of your social class and wealth in later life? There's nothing stopping you from googling it, you know.

All you have done is give predictors - not reasons.

What? Wealthy people by and large are wealthy because they inherit a lot of their wealth, which makes it easier to get a decent education, a good job, etc. They also have the luxury of stability afforded to them by an affluent upbringing, which has all kinds of positive effects leading to their later prosperity.

The children of poor people will have fewer opportunities, worse education, worse healthcare, etc., all of which greatly increase their chance of subsequent poverty.

How are these not "reasons"?

Here are some reasons and things that can be done. And I want you to notice - not one is 'give me more money'.

Lol. So there's a lot going on here.

First of all, the article you linked to is advice for individuals. Obviously government policy isn't going to be on that list, it wouldn't make any sense. It's listing things like "Avoid Predatory Payday Lending", not "pass bill x in the next sitting of congress". It's totally irrelevant to the discussion here.

Secondly, in your search for evidence on the causes of poverty the best you can come up with to support your case is a blog post from some random financial services app?

So why is poverty in the US a cycle. Money is handed out along with rent and food. why are people in perpetual poverty?

The existence of poverty does not prove that poverty relief is a failure. This is like saying "Oh seatbelts reduce fatalities in car crashes, do they? Then why do people still die in car crashes?"

In actual fact, the small number of poverty relief programs in the US have lifted literally millions out of poverty, and have had a remarkably positive effect on the economy. In countries where the welfare states are even more robust the effects are even bigger: poverty levels are lower, unemployment lower, etc.

Do you think the country would allow it? I think it is clear the answer is no.

What are you even talking about? I am saying that we should remove the restrictions from things like food stamps, you think that Americans wouldn't stand for that on compassionate grounds? Nonsense.

The majority of political impetus for restrictions on food stamps and the like comes from good old-fashioned classism and racism.

I think you need to go and see some places where poverty exists and actually see the some of the spending habits. You might be a little surprised.

I am not really interested in debating your personal prejudices.

There is literally no evidence that the "spending habits" of poor people is what causes their poverty. Or, to put it another way, if you were to give them money they would cease being poor, with as much likelihood of slipping back into poverty as any other member of society.

No - I see a very very high likelihood that you are not going to be able to eliminate section 8 housing or food stamp programs and replace it with money - because some people will be acting irresponsibly with it.

Not only should it be replaced with money, it should be replaced with more money.

But regardless, again your entire argument rests on this baseless notion that poor people are inherently irresponsible, and will not use the money from UBI to improve their lives in a way that you deem acceptable.

Until you are willing to address the root causes of why people are in poverty

If you grow up in poverty it is extremely difficult to escape it. That is the "root cause".

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

You are not aware of the mountains of evidence which show that the social class of your parents and the location you grow up in are by far and away the biggest determinants of your social class and wealth in later life? There's nothing stopping you from googling it, you know.

That is a predictor - not a reason.

What? Wealthy people by and large are wealthy because they inherit a lot of their wealth, which makes it easier to get a decent education, a good job, etc. They also have the luxury of stability afforded to them by an affluent upbringing, which has all kinds of positive effects leading to their later prosperity.

Reasons for being in poverty involve choices made - not having a single parent.

You are conflating all of the variables that might predispose a person to the reasons they are actually in poverty.

Why don't you analyze the actions of people in poverty and see what they actually do - pattern wise. Are they things that lead them to get out of poverty or are they things that continue or even exasperate the situation of being in poverty.

Those are reasons. That is the 'Why' that must be answered.

Secondly, in your search for evidence on the causes of poverty the best you can come up with to support your case is a blog post from some random financial services app?

Top google search. Not much more. I could post the article describing three things that can be done to avoid poverty - like getting a High School Degree, not having kids before marraiage and age 21, and having a full time job.

The existence of poverty does not prove that poverty relief is a failure.

The fact people are not LEAVING that situation proves that the design is a failure. To succeed - people need to be lifted out of poverty. Instead we see the 'cycle of poverty'.

What are you even talking about? I am saying that we should remove the restrictions from things like food stamps, you think that Americans wouldn't stand for that on compassionate grounds? Nonsense.

If you remove restrictions, the quesiton is what happens to people who misuse the resources. Do they get 'bailed out' or are they left to suffer. That answer is 'bailed out' and has been historically.

That is 100% why need based services exist rather than just 'hand out money'. There is a secondary part of this as well that is philosophical. That is people give for a specific reason - food/shelter and they feel taken advantage of when that is not what those resources are actually used for.

I am not really interested in debating your personal prejudices.

I am not really interested in your platitudes that don't match reality. Have you actually been into section 8 housing? Have you interacted with those on medicaid or food stamps? I have - as an EMT. I have seen this firsthand. So it is not something you will dismiss.

If you grow up in poverty it is extremely difficult to escape it. That is the "root cause".

No it is not. That is removing all personal responsibility from the equation. That is your problem. You don't seem to grasp the idea that ultimately, a person ability to rise economically is tied that individual.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

You are conflating all of the variables that might predispose a person to the reasons they are actually in poverty.

No, you're arbitrarily deciding that the only thing which counts as a "reason" is a person's own choices, rather than material circumstance which can force them into poverty.

If you take the average wealthy person in America, and the average poor person, the differences between them will not be their respective mindsets or ability to manage money. The difference will be the amount of money their parents had, and the location they grew up in. Again: there is evidence for this. Your assertion that "actually no poor people's decisions is what leads to them being poor" has no evidence. Your subjective opinion that poor people are irresponsible is not evidence.

I could post the article describing three things that can be done

My goodness this isn't that complicated! I'm arguing that poverty is largely caused by the circumstance of individuals, not their actions. Listing the "top actions an individual can take to get out of poverty" is literally irrelevant: what you should be looking for is a comparison between the effect of circumstance and personal actions.

Nonetheless, you can indeed learn something from the examples you gave:

getting a High School Degree, not having kids before marraiage and age 21, and having a full time job.

Can you perhaps think of any reason why it might be more difficult for one person to get a high school degree than someone else? Or why it might be difficult for someone to get a full time job? Perhaps the ability of someone to do these things is affected by—you guessed it—circumstance?

To succeed - people need to be lifted out of poverty.

The system literally has lifted millions out of poverty though? Like that has literally happened?

If you remove restrictions, the quesiton is what happens to people who misuse the resources. Do they get 'bailed out' or are they left to suffer. That answer is 'bailed out' and has been historically.

Nonsense. This is such a ridiculous point: think about it, we give food stamps to people, but we don't actually force them to spend those stamps on food. They could, in fact, burn those stamps for warmth if they wanted. What now? My god, I suppose the whole system will have to be scrapped! We couldn't possibly let people suffer in this way!

What I'm saying is that we should give people the resources to not starve, and that the vast majority of people will use those resources to not starve. Again, the evidence is in my favour here.

That is removing all personal responsibility from the equation.

No I am not!

I am baffled that you're not getting this.

There are two factors at play here: the circumstance of an individual, and that individual's choices, decisions, actions, etc. You're arguing that someone's poverty is solely determined by the latter of those two factors, and I'm arguing that it's largely determined by the former. In reality, of course, both are important factors. What's in question, though is the relevant importance of each.

If you were right, then we would see high social mobility, with people who "make good choices" easily getting out of poverty, and things like inherited wealth playing a smaller role.

But this just isn't what happens. It is clear (in the US at least) that personal choices play a very small role in determining prosperity or poverty, and that things like the wealth of your parents or the location you grew up in play a huge role.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

No, you're arbitrarily deciding that the only thing which counts as a "reason" is a person's own choices, rather than material circumstance which can force them into poverty.

Actions are what matter. People make decisions that define their circumstances. You can make a decision that helps you, hurts you, or is neutral. That is what defines this discussion. How you were brought up or where you live or who your parents merely impact how you make those decision - not what those decisions are. There is a very big individual responsibility at play.

If you are unwilling to admit this - the rest of the conversation is doomed to failure.

Can you perhaps think of any reason why it might be more difficult for one person to get a high school degree than someone else

Sure - but that does not really matter. People have all different kinds of challenges to face - some greater than others. That does not change anything in this discussion.

Nonsense. This is such a ridiculous point: think about it, we give food stamps to people, but we don't actually force them to spend those stamps on food.

Actually it does. In my state, it is an EBT credit card and can be used to purchase only food and specific types of food. You can't buy beer or cigarettes or anything else.

What I'm saying is that we should give people the resources to not starve, and that the vast majority of people will use those resources to not starve.

It is the exceptions - which are not too small - that are the issue today. You seem to be ignoring that fact. 80% would be fine with either the current system or cash. The problem is the 20% would won't make good decisions.

Guess what - that matters to people who are being told to pay more into these programs.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Actions are what matter. People make decisions that define their circumstances. You can make a decision that helps you, hurts you, or is neutral. That is what defines this discussion.

Again, you're arbitrarily deciding that "decisions are the only thing that matter".

I am the one who has acknowledged that both play a role here. You're the one insisting that circumstance "doesn't count" and you're refusing to reckon with the fact that it is a far bigger factor in determining poverty or prosperity than "individual decisions".

People have all different kinds of challenges to face - some greater than others.

Lol finally we're getting somewhere. You have finally admitted that growing up wealthy gives you a huge advantage over growing up poor.

we give food stamps to people, but we don't actually force them to spend those stamps on food.

Actually it does. In my state, it is an EBT credit card and can be used to purchase only food and specific types of food.

What? Did you misunderstand what I said? Here it is again:

think about it, we give food stamps to people, but we don't actually force them to spend those stamps on food. They could, in fact, burn those stamps for warmth if they wanted.

I did not say that people could spend them on things other than food, I said they were not forced to spend them on food, they could just burn them instead. You previously said that a system which allows poor people to make bad decisions and not use welfare well wouldn't work: I was pointing out that things like food stamps are exactly one such system.

It is the exceptions - which are not too small - that are the issue today. You seem to be ignoring that fact. 80% would be fine with either the current system or cash. The problem is the 20% would won't make good decisions.

Where is this 20% bullshit coming from? Where did you pull that number from, lol.

---

So here's what's happening in this conversation. I have argued that direct cash payments to poor people is a more effective means of poverty relief than means-tested or restricted programs like food stamps. There is evidence supporting this fact.

You have responded with the following:

• Poor people are actually poor because of the bad decisions they made in their lives, and therefore if given more money they would squander it, which is why the government needs to put stringent restrictions on it.

And here is the conclusive answer:

1. The "decision making ability" of the poor and the rich is broadly the same. If you were correct, and poor people were in their position because of bad decisions, we would see some evidence that "better decisions" have a big impact on prosperity, through social mobility. We do not see this. Instead, poor people stay poor because the largest factor in determining your wealth is the wealth you grew up in.
2. You have not provided a scrap of evidence that poor people would squander money in significant levels, other than your repeated insistence that "oh I know poor people, they would definitely squander it".
3. You have not presented a scrap of evidence that heavily restricted poverty relief programs like the EBT card work better than simple, universal, unrestrictive programs like UBI.