UBI is a scam! How can people be so gullible! The elderly and disabled would perish! Wake up, you idiot! This is not freedom! Global order is slavery! Thanks for the post, Prof. Welfare can work, it there is a legitimate welfare system. We only had one for a short time, many years ago. It provided enough to enable people to keep their families together, housed and fed, and to move forward as opportunities came along.
People want more in life than what is possible when on welfare. Of course, actual welfare aid ended back in the s. Welfare aid did work, during the few years that we had a legitimate, non-punitive system. In real life, not everyone can work health, etc. When we did have a comparatively comprehensive system, recipients were provided with enough aid to keep their families together, housed and fed, and to move forward when opportunities came along.
The reasons are easy to figure out: People want more both materially, and more out of life than the bare minimum. I think universal income is dumb. Paying people to be non productive is a definite road to ruins. People are like cats. If you feed a cat, he will sit around and not hunt but wait for you to open up the next can of food.
It should be limited and people should be encouraged to find work. We have spent over 25,,,, dollars 25 trillion on social welfare programs and we have created a society of people looking for their check. Lest I remind you we are 21 trillion in debt?
Unfortunately poverty will never go away. I think that new standards of subsistence need to be determined. As as communal living for poor where they share a home and share in expenses and labor. The new reality is escaping poverty which can be done by altering concepts of how people should live. These people could live in communal housing with food, etc provided but they would have to communally take care of their surroundings or they would be out. They could have food, shelter, etc but they would be encouraged to want more and thus work to achieve it.
Socialism never works long term. It always has failed. Yet people keep trying it over and over again expecting a different result. I believe that is the definition of insanity. Cutting down to the real question, which would be: what would YOU do if your income was taken care of? Sit around in your sofa, like a cat, or do something meaningful with your life, while helping to sustain the community you live in? Thank you. UBI or BI whatever they want to call it, is a globalist scam.
If it were made high enough for people to live on an not work, it would be too expensive to implement. Welcome to Sweatshop, USA! When a bunch of neoliberal globalists start trying to shape domestic policy—look out! A red flag should go off in your head! Welfare benefits are the enabling force behind laziness. The first immigrants did not rely on give away programs. There would be no need for an immigration policy if all freebies were eliminated.
Only the ones interested in working and contributing would stay. Why would UBI not be the same, if not even worse? UBI provides a set income, which can also motivate people to be lazy and sit in their couches while free money just comes in. This can lead to people not working as well. Plus, welfare benefits help people by providing them with necessities to their lives, including food, jobs, etc.
Even though welfare programs do consist of a multitude of downsides, UBI cannot solve these problems as well. If me and you need a fish each to survive a day but you are my employer making me catch fish for you and I catch 5 fish a day then we must tax you 2 fish as UBI one for me and one for you then you have to pay me 1 fish as wage for working for you while you get to keep 2 fish as your wage for managing me…. LOL … does it sound fair to you?
LOL … how many fish each of us gets? This finding has direct implications for the United States, where a core mission of the Republican Party is to reduce government aid to the poor , on the assumption that it makes them lazy.
This attitude is supported by many conservative economists , who argue that government benefits implicitly reward poverty and thus encourage families to remain poor—the idea being that some adults might reject certain jobs or longer work hours because doing so would eliminate their eligibility for programs like Medicaid. But this concern has little basis in reality.
In research based in Canada and the U. But the standard conservative critique of Medicaid and other welfare programs is wrong on another plane entirely. It fails to account for the conclusion of the Prospera research: Anti-poverty programs can work wonders for their youngest beneficiaries. American adults whose families had access to prenatal coverage under Medicaid have lower rates of obesity, higher rates of high-school graduation, and higher incomes as adults than those from similar households in states without Medicaid, according to a paper from the economists Sarah Miller and Laura R.
Another paper found that children covered by Medicaid expansions went on to earn higher wages and require less welfare assistance as adults. But it is perfectly obvious when the word people in that sentence refers to low-income children in poor households.
In the meantime, critics will doubtless argue that the program creates dependency for able-bodied adults today. Yet here it is worth taking a step back and exploring where the idea of welfare dependency comes from in the first place. We know that beliefs about dependency, laziness, and voluntary unemployment among the poor are pervasive. But why is that? Similarly, if recipient worry about losing eligibility for benefits if they earn more, they may abstain from work. It is this moral hazard that supposedly leads people to remain poor and rely on welfare indefinitely.
But the evidence does not always support this theory. In another study , my colleagues and I re-analyzed data from seven different experimental trials of government cash-transfer programs throughout the developing world, from the Philippines to Morocco to Mexico.
We found that in most cases, men who received benefits tended to be working already, and that there was no evidence that systematic income support reduced work. As for PKH, we did not find that program recipients stopped working, even after six years of receiving cash transfers.
To be sure, some social programs might well reduce work. Obviously, policymakers should consider the downstream effects of public benefits on labor markets and other areas of the economy. The claim that transfers necessarily reduce work may hold true in Economics ; in the real world, much depends on context and how policies are designed and implemented in practice.
There is an extensive and growing body of evidence from around the world showing that even very simple cash-transfer programs need not have adverse effects on work. As we have seen, the returns on such investments are real, and will accumulate over time.
Rema Hanna , ,. This article is published in collaboration with Project Syndicate. The views expressed in this article are those of the author alone and not the World Economic Forum. Social enterprises are short on resources but big on innovation.
The corporate world can help create an environment for these smaller innovators to thrive. The Schwab Foundation's community of social innovators is tackling climate change with compassion. Here are some of their top social innovation solutions. I accept. Research suggests that stable support enables families to prosper. Rema Hanna ,. Take action on UpLink. Forum in focus. Two decades of impact: How social entrepreneurs have improved million lives.
Read more about this project. Explore context.
0コメント