The “Giving free cash to the poor will make them lazy” theory

The problem is UBI is a simple solution to a complex problem.

I would call any theory that lacks adequate evidence to support it a myth.

So, “hypothesis”? The article did present some evidence to support it’s argument. I’m sure you know that when discussing evidence and science, “theory” means something has been more or less proven.

Your hypotheses that a significant number people will do nothing good with the money is the unproven “myth” or common hypothesis the article was talking about.

The problem with the belief that unearned income is unhealthy and will lead to laziness and drug use in any significant amount is that it prevents people from trying to see what happens, because if true, it’s seen as at best a waste of money, and at worst doing damage to the participants. The hypothesis that unearned income leads to laziness is a real and significant impediment to the testing of that hypothesis.

By and large, people who inherit money don’t end up wasting away high and broke. There are a few, but nobody is suggesting seriously that we need to do lots of studies to see if inherited wealth is different in other countries or rural vs urban settings. Why should money given to the poor be thought of so completely different than money given to the rich?

We have some strong pervasive ingrained cultural beliefs that money must be worked for and not given, knowledge must be gained by derivation and struggle and not just told, success and stability must be attained through risk and competition and not cooperation or social programs.

These beliefs predate most of science, so it may be worth examining our assumptions about what needs to be tested.

So you can say that " All of us deserve to have fun once in a while, regardless of socioeconomic status." But for someone who is working too hard to take the time to have fun, this rings kinda hollow. And I can bet it stings a bit to have your taxes going towards paying for someone to do the things you don't have time to do yourself.

I went through a stint of working in cafe's recently, and one always had a group of people who would turn up after leaving the job centre (you have to go here to qualify for benefit money) in the early afternoon, and would just basically hang out. Frankly I had to fight the jealousy, I wish I could spend every afternoon hanging out with my friends. I had to remind myself how much it sucks to be unemployed, and how nice I have it. I can imagine this could seem unfair to someone in a more stressful position.

Okay -- so I register with the government as a "food provider", and I take food vouchers in exchange for non-food (like gasoline or something), and redeem them with the government for cash money. Who is making sure that I can't do that? We could have it strictly be an enforcement solution -- no bureaucracy, but a huge operational burden on the justice system. Or, more reasonably, I would have to submit to being regulated as a food provider, and would have to meet certain standards in order to do so, and would have to file appropriate paperwork to establish that I am doing so. Hell, as long as we're here, we might as well make sure that I only provide healthy food, according to what is currently thought of as healthy. Oh, and the cost of the food I sell has to be regulated; can't have me charging $20 for a hamburger, even if it is a "premium" one.

Anyway, long rant, but in the end, the suggested system sounds like a mountain of bureaucracy and would probably cost way more to keep running than just giving the money directly to people.

As with current voucher systems, there would definitely arise a black market as people trade them for other goods. This leaves people vulnerable to being exploited.

Finally I would personally argue that people should try and think less rigidly about what is considered a good use of money and time.

Recreation as an end isn't an inherently bad thing - it would lead to a larger market for content creators if you want to think purely pragmatically.

There are also many cases where buying a new computer or a bike, instead of more food, would be of greater benefit to a person and society as a whole. Partly with this in mind, you could argue vouchers restrict any unintended beneficial effects of financial freedom.

"You weren't a good citizen, you murdered. Vouchers revoked!"

"You weren't a good citizen, you murdered. Vouchers revoked!"

Some time later

"You weren't a good citizen, you were speeding. Vouchers revoked!"

Then of course you can have law enforcement at various levels, or even prosecutors, specifically seek out reasons to deny vouchers to any given person. Little bribe, little political promise, little threat and bam you've shit-listed someone.

Or you get voucher-casualties via prejudice, "driving while black" traffic stops/arrests for example.

Nope. Nope, that sounds too Soviet Russia.

I think you mean politically feasible. And political feasibility is something that changes with the popular will.

Not to say we’d want to keep all our current welfare type benefits with UBI

In order to fund it you essentially take the first $X from ALL of the other equivalent services.

IMO this would gut programs like Social Security enough that they could actually be reformed. Right now if you talk about reforming any of them, scare politics are used because it's a singular threat to a person's livelyhood. If you look at your monthly check and see $800 from UBI and $200 from Social Security, all of a sudden that gets a lot less scary.

Most of them, that's one of the major reasons you'd want to do it. The means-testing bureaucracy being so expensive all by itself, you might as well give everybody enough to live and get rid of the bureaucrats.

If we could could swap state managed welfare for equivalent UBI, well, that's an interesting trade-off to consider. But I don't think we actually have that option.

These are the people that need the most help, and UBI won't help them. Both will fall for scams, and otherwise not provide for their basic needs if just given money.

UBI can help the disabled who are mentally competent. There are many things that I do daily that required working eyes/ears/limbs. Some of them society can make "reasonable accommodation" for, but some of them are not possible given that disability.

UBI can also help those who had "bad luck". Though here we quickly get into people that it is hard to be sympathetic towards. I know of a lot of people that are poor because they continually waste their money on drugs (legal and otherwise - not medically required), gambling, trinkets... They may never be rich, but a different spending habit could change their life. (You will note here that I'm injecting my own value judgement on their lifestyle)

I live in Germany, where every market has some form of social assistance connected to it. The task of dismantling that bureaucracy would be outrageous... And quite a lot to spend on a relatively untested scheme like any UBI.

If the people receiving UBI are universally spending that money on something other than rent, then the landlords who raise their rent by the UBI amount will become noncompetitive and fail to attract tenants.

To presume that 100% of the UBI will simply be absorbed by the landlords is absurd, not only because of the above argument, but because for many people, the UBI will be significant enough to swing them to home ownership instead of renting, putting additional pressure on the landlords not to raise prices.

Are you sure UBI would actually be against "conservative" interests?

With UBI, it's hard to justify salaries for much of the redistributive bureaucracy.

With UBI, it's hard to have open borders as well.

However, some have argued these drops may be artificially low because participants knew the guaranteed income was temporary.[6] This represents an important limitation to the knowledge of the impact of a guaranteed annual income; little is known about the long term effects on willingness to work.