• Liz@midwest.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Uh, the key issue is that it's very unclear whether the results will hold at scale, since you're suggesting a modification to society. There's no (or very little) social component to the effectiveness of a vaccine or a new tool. Money is fundamentally a social construct and so what works in isolation or very small groups might not work the same way at large scale.

    If a country with a population of around a million (or even as small as 100k) enacted UBI I would take those results to be representative of a societal change. So far I've only seen studies where a few people embedded in a larger society are given money, and that's not the same thing.

    You have to remember that industrialized countries already have a systems where people get money for "nothing," but those quotes do a lot of psychological heavy lifting. Disability, unemployment, retirement, food stamps, etc. The difference being that it's not universal and each payout is either "earned," temporary, or a pity case. As such, the psychology behind that money just isn't the same.

    I'm interested in UBI, I just want to see results that can actually be reasonably transferred to a population the size of my country (350 million) before I make hard statements about its effects.

    • elouboub@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      If a country with a population of around a million (or even as small as 100k) enacted UBI I would take those results to be representative of a societal change.

      I honestly doubt you would. The typical arguments of:

      • it's not comparable to a country of 350M, they're barely as big as $cityWithOver1Million
      • their society is very different from ours
      • their implementation is different from what we could ever manage
      • the circumstances were different

      would come around.

      You're making exemplary conservative arguments to stalemate progress by creating a chicken and egg problem.

      • Won't accept results of change in a small environment because they aren't representative of change in large environment
      • Demand results of change in a large environment before applying them to large environment
      • Won't apply changes to large environment because results of change in large environment don't exist
      • Liz@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        You just made up a bunch of arguments I would never make. Please don't put words in my mouth. I can't help it if my current stance is an argument made by people who have no interest in UBI at all. Fuck, I want UBI to work as advertised, it would be a very simple and easy solution to a lot of problems (though it obviously wouldn't be a 100% solve for all of them).

        If we can get a small economic zone that's in control of its own currency to run UBI, those results would be likely to transfer to any other larger economy. Really the only requirement is that the country must be in control of its own monetary and fiscal policy and the program must actually be universal.