People who are short on necessities will immediately buy them when they get the money for them, because they are necessities. Money for the poor is an extremely reliable way to stimulate the economy, much more so than money for the rich.
But yes, reject humiliating jobs. I'm not sure why you'd actively want people to be miserable.
But if you want a bigger picture: create better opportunities, and make sure they are accessible to everybody. The whole reason people withdraw from society into either drugs or gaming or whatever, is that, from their perspective, society has nothing to offer them but humiliation and misery. Heaping more humiliation and misery on them is not going to fix anything.
And if rich kids drop out of school and spend their time partying, they're also guaranteed food and shelter, and quite a bit of wealth on top of that.
If the money if free, distributing it will stimulate the economy. But since that money comes from somewhere, any growth due to that distribution competes with the lack of growth due to wherever you took it from,
e.g If you took it via taxes, people have less money to spend because of the higher taxes.
If you took it from the rich because they don't spend it on things, they also don't invest it, meaning banks have less capital.
> reject humiliating jobs
serving fast food is humiliating to people with people who think of themselves as better
> create better opportunities, and make sure they are accessible to everybody.
like free school? and those people who choose not to attend?
You seems to think the only problem is lack of opportunity, it isn't. For example, if a community has a drug problem, a better economy isn't going to fix that.
> The whole reason people withdraw from society
people don't withdrawn from society fully, they just stop contributing to it. They need society for food, shelter etc. You are suggesting they get these things unconditionally, ensuring their withdrawal is indefinitely viable.
And drug addicts aren't simply poor, that's an entirely different issue.
> And if rich kids drop out of school..
So what? The state, and by extension the taxpayer, don't fund that, so it's none of our business how that works out. The state shouldn't micromanage all of society to ensure equal outcomes for all, and if it did it would need far more power than it has now.
A "rich" kid isn't guaranteed anything beyond what their rich parents decide, and I'm not going to tell someone how to spend their money.
Of course in general, it's best to use the money wherever it will give you the best growth. I think that in general, that will be where the most growth is needed; where the most shortages are.
> serving fast food is humiliating to people with people who think of themselves as better
Well, you were the one calling it humiliating. I've got nothing against serving fast food, but in general, I think jobs shouldn't be humiliating, and I feel strongly that people should have the freedom to reject humiliating jobs. A job is a major part of your life. It shouldn't be sucking your soul out, it should stimulate and/or empower you.
> You seems to think the only problem is lack of opportunity, it isn't.
It's not the only problem, but a lack of opportunity is absolutely a problem. And a very real one, for a lot of people.
> For example, if a community has a drug problem, a better economy isn't going to fix that.
No, but that drug problem comes from somewhere, and humiliating or punishing people isn't going to fix it. If anything, that seems likely to make it worse.
Invest the money with a payday lender to loan it out to your under-paid employees so you can grab even more of their paycheck!
Buy a block of housing that houses your under-paid employees and raise rents so you can get even more of their paycheck!
Invest in sub-prime auto loans so that your underpaid employees can get to work. Make money on them while the commute! Of course make sure that you diversify if you need to lay them off!
Invest is short term unsecured credit card debt of your under-paid employees. To goose the returns put them on a high deductible health plan and leverage what you lend to them with their own health account savings (free money). If you are generous give them a 401K match (which is required by law if you have the same) and leverage up using that money too!
Many of your underpaid employees will be on food stamps and located in areas without those fancy suburban grocery stores. Invest a quicky-mart and rake in the food stamp money at high margins! Don’t forget the liquor and lotto tickets as income boosters! If you underpaid employees can’t numb at least you can sell them a bit of hope!
Lastly have you thought about the medical field? A lot of your under paid employees are on Medicaid and I’m hearing good things about insulin!
Walmart, Amazon.
They don't take money and lend it out. They create money, lend that, and then remove that money as the capital (loan amount) is repaid - or when the loan goes into default.
Traditional loan business is not the core business of banks any more, at least not where the big profits come from.
Your right that socially its better for society for a lower paid person to have the $ how ever certainly in the UK some of that increase would get clawed back by reduction in benefits.
I think you could argue that replacing benefits with direct income is still a "win" for society. If they're able, it's more efficient for people to meet their own needs than to be provided for through a bureaucratic process with lots of administrative overhead.