Those who got the $750 monthly stipend were less likely to report being unsheltered and said they were better able to meet basic needs, the study found.
You give people cash with the idea that they know how best to utilize it. You simplify all other forms of assistance (SNAP, rent assistance, etc) and just give everyone cash.
Yes, some people will still need more assistance until they can figure out how to best utilize that money, but the idea is that will not be the majority.
And to clarify it is not “just that easy”, but that’s the general concept as I understand.
Income doesn’t necessarily mean cash though. I’m not saying don’t have it part of the package, but the basics need to be met. Like food/water/electric/shelter. The rest they have to figure out.
It does mean cash. Its more efficient to let individuals turn cash into quality of life, than just providing services.
One of the main bits with UBI is that government is very slow to adapt to changing requirements. By mandating what people get, it leads to a lot of inefficiency. A more extreme example is the planned economy of the USSR. It just didn’t work well.
UBI lets the people involved decide what is more effective for them. E.g. 1 person might decide that turning the heating up is good. Another might invest in merino wool underlayers, since they tend to work outside.
An understated point though is that the basics should be easily attainable. Then again, that’s a basic measure of a society, even if multiple countries, that should be able to do better, are failing at it.
You don’t give people cash, you give them what they need. It’s the unfortunate part of UBI.
But isn’t that the “I” in UBI? Income. Cash?
You give people cash with the idea that they know how best to utilize it. You simplify all other forms of assistance (SNAP, rent assistance, etc) and just give everyone cash.
Yes, some people will still need more assistance until they can figure out how to best utilize that money, but the idea is that will not be the majority.
And to clarify it is not “just that easy”, but that’s the general concept as I understand.
Income doesn’t necessarily mean cash though. I’m not saying don’t have it part of the package, but the basics need to be met. Like food/water/electric/shelter. The rest they have to figure out.
It does mean cash. Its more efficient to let individuals turn cash into quality of life, than just providing services.
One of the main bits with UBI is that government is very slow to adapt to changing requirements. By mandating what people get, it leads to a lot of inefficiency. A more extreme example is the planned economy of the USSR. It just didn’t work well.
UBI lets the people involved decide what is more effective for them. E.g. 1 person might decide that turning the heating up is good. Another might invest in merino wool underlayers, since they tend to work outside.
An understated point though is that the basics should be easily attainable. Then again, that’s a basic measure of a society, even if multiple countries, that should be able to do better, are failing at it.