-48
Bad news for universal basic income.
(reason.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 25 Jul 2024
-48 points (12.5% liked)
News
23296 readers
2319 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
A whole 1.3 hours a week or $490 per year at federal minimum wage. Essentially a rounding error. Also worth mentioning it doesn’t say what they were working before so this may simply be a reduction on overtime to take better care of other things such as family, health etc. there’s plenty of things other than finding a “better job” or “being an entrepreneur” that would fall into social or leisure but still reduce things like future healthcare, prison system expenses etc.
From the reason link:
It's also like, if they made $29,000/year before plus $12,000 during the study, they're still making less than someone with a full time job making $20/hour.
$20/hour felt AMAZING as a promotion to a broke-ass food service 20-something, and is a hell of a lot better than $29,000/year-- but having been in that pay-range before, 100% of that increase is going towards stability and comfort stuff.
Imagine-- you can afford more than just scraping by on rent! Wow, what if I can buy a video game?! You mean I can actually say yes when my friend invites me out for a drink this month??? I CAN BUY THE NICE CHICKEN NUGGETS???
Like, damn, of course they aren't like, "starting an entrepreneurial endeavor", they're still broke as hell. The might work a little less, but maybe that's because they're like, taking time off when they're sick, where before they would power through to afford rent? Or maybe they will feel more like they can call off work to help for family or friend emergencies? Like it's pretty obvious that this UBI amount still falls into the category of bringing people out of poverty stress into "normal human decision making" mode, not like into "has the space to be able to dream about visionary possibilities" mode
The idea that people should not be able to enjoy their lives and always have to keep clawing their way to the top to win at some imaginary race we're all running is so repellent to me.
Plus, there are several studies that have found the opposite, with both better sample sizes and methodology. If I were near my desktop, I could paste them for the terminally lazy, b/c I bookmark most BI articles and studies. I'll do so if someone challenges me in early August - I'm traveling until then.
It's a study. Not a very good one, but even bad ones can be informative. The interpretation leaves a lot to be desired.
P.S. The Center Square is also questionable. They characterize the study as a "massive study." It was three-year, 3000-participant study at $1k/m. A total of $108k, over three years. "Massive" is vast exaggeration.
Can you explain the $108k number and how you got it?
Decimal point displacement. Something I do all the time, unfortunately, when I'm doing mental math... I drop zeros. I consider it a character flaw.
$108M. A couple of orders of magnitude bigger, but still; over three years, far from "massive."
Humans are just machines to libertarians. Except themselves of course. They're different. They won't be a cog. They're a free-thinker. You're an NPC.
Also, more leisure time as a bad thing. Christ.
I'm nearly certain my entire life has been a Truman show and that the movie with the same name by Jim Carrey was a psyop for plausible deniability.
As proof: Belgium. Belgium doesn't exist and it's irrational they'd make a good waffle when they have approximately zero maple trees.