With the consequence that Americans, for instance, would be unlikely to vote themselves into paying $2.8 trillion annually for this more leisurely life. Or even to vote that other, richer Americans should pay it, because if less wealth is being extracted then the sustainability of the scheme looks a little sketchy.
On the other hand voters don't think much about long-term sustainability, but do think a lot about being given money, so this scheme would be politically viable regardless.
> Some advocates for UBI might argue that the study shows participants were better off, despite the decline in working hours and earnings. Indeed, maybe that's the whole point?
Indeed.
People who are against welfare programs may enjoy my "selfish reason to be pro-welfare": If we had a more effective welfare system, be it UBI or anything else, I would never ever ever feel guilty again about not donating to panhandlers and not offering to help any of my family members.
Imagine a world where healthcare functioned, people were broadly taken care of, and I could just laugh at the charities who beg mostly-broke people for money to take care of fully-broke people.
3 comments
[ 3.6 ms ] story [ 17.1 ms ] threadI see the argument is that it didn't enable more extraction from human resources.
On the other hand voters don't think much about long-term sustainability, but do think a lot about being given money, so this scheme would be politically viable regardless.
Indeed.
People who are against welfare programs may enjoy my "selfish reason to be pro-welfare": If we had a more effective welfare system, be it UBI or anything else, I would never ever ever feel guilty again about not donating to panhandlers and not offering to help any of my family members.
Imagine a world where healthcare functioned, people were broadly taken care of, and I could just laugh at the charities who beg mostly-broke people for money to take care of fully-broke people.