The very point is that less people will be in this situation because getting your basic needs met is shown to make your more responsible. Se further up in thread for some of the studies.
Okay, now that stuff goes away, and you just get the one (significantly increased, but still, just the one) payout every so often. There is no safety net under the safety net anymore.
Those two stories I see linked reference other countries with radically different cultures. How many studies have been done with families that live in the USA and are subject to its cultural norms? Culture drives spending and expectations.
I say this as someone that thinks UBI is a Great Idea, but this is a question that from what I can tell remains unanswered.
So We are all going to be poorer so to speak UBI tries to make sure we somehow deal with that.
So We are all going to be poorer so to speak UBI tries to make sure we somehow deal with that.
These are contradictory statements.
Any any case, even if true, it just makes my question that much more urgent. You cannot suggest a system that dismantles the existing welfare system without answering the question of what replaces it and if the cracks people will necessarily fall through become bigger or smaller.
The assumption most make about UBI is that it's for the poor, meaning someone else than themselves.
The reality is that it's for all of us because we are all going to be poor.
So not it's not contradictory it's showing the different between two ways to understand UBI.
If someone blows their UBI due to, not just drugs/alcohol, but just plain old poor finanical management skills, what happens to them?
They've got nowhere to turn for two weeks or more because we tore all that shit up.