I won't speak for anyone else, but I feel that I normally have reasonably good impulse control, even in 2016; I got into debt because a company I was working for ended up not paying me for multiple months and then shut down, and I didn't have much savings.

I think my lack of impulse control came as a direct cause of me being broke. I had previously never seriously considered any kind of payday loan because I knew they were multi-thousand-percent levels of interest, but that part of my brain wasn't the one thinking. When faced with a really tough situation, I think it's common for your "survivalist" side to kick in.

I never actually did get the payday loan because I was able to (begrudgingly) get a loan from my stepfather-in-law for the back rent, and I very luckily landed a decent-paying job shortly afterwards.

I was absolutely one of the lucky ones. It's not hard at all for me to envision a universe where I was stuck in an endless cycle of debt, and honestly I still have nightmares about that time occasionally. Not fun.

There are many nasty feedback loops caused by severe poverty. Even the most basic things like being able to show up for a job interview in an arbitrary location at an arbitrary time wearing presentable clothing and a relaxed demeanour — try doing that when you can barely afford to use public transport and your daily schedule is rigidly monopolised by whatever terrible job/gig you currently rely upon to literally survive.

For all the criticisms of UBI, I think it would be a net win simply because it eliminates the significant time wasted in maintaining welfare entitlement.

Oh yeah, when I was trying to get jobs, I would look around for cops and then hopped the subway gate multiple times because I didn't have enough money to pay for it. I felt a bit bad for doing it, but I wasn't entirely sure what else I was supposed to do, and I figured it's more or less a victimless crime, so I just did it.

You’ve put this well. But you’ve also highlighted my only significant criticism of UBI. I’ve been poor. So poor getting on a bus was laughable: buying packaged ramen noodles was impossible. The notion that UBI is positioned to replace basic social services means past me couldn’t pay rent and eat again, because no matter how I tried to prioritize shelter rules don’t keep up with reality.

I’ll support UBI when it stops being a libertarian wet dream to eliminate all other social spending and becomes a supplementary cause that lets us re-examine social spending when we can see how it shifts if everyone has “basic needs” covered.

Calling UBI a "libertarian wet dream" is unnecessarily reductive. Personally I try to shy away from using any partisan labels to describe any policies because they are rarely (if ever) necessary. And their meaning rarely translates between people of disparate political views.

I don't support any UBI policy that leaves anyone economically worse off compared to existing welfare. In fact I would expect people to be reliably better off after you factor in secondary benefits such as a reduced time burden upon individuals (time can be a scarce resource when you're poor) and increased ability to prioritise your own needs. The last thing poor people need is fewer resources.

I also don't support any UBI policy that attempts to supplant programs which address disability as opposed to straight poverty.

In my mind the essential benefits of UBI are:

• Less fraud. It's much harder to game a system when everyone automatically qualifies for it.

• Less stigma. It's much harder to be ashamed by reliance on a system when everyone automatically qualifies for it.

• Less disincentive to earn more. Most welfare programs cut out out after you exceed a particular income threshold, so many people have an incentive to keep their income low. (Or to lie about income.)

• Less complexity. It shifts the burden of economic rebalancing away from welfare programs (written by politicians and administered by gate-keeping bureaucrats) and towards a system that already exists: progressive income tax. While everyone qualifies for UBI, high earners are progressively, functionally disqualified by having the UBI clawed back in higher marginal income tax rates.

• Increased mobility and increased incentive to migrate to areas with lower cost of living.

> Calling UBI a "libertarian wet dream" is unnecessarily reductive. Personally I try to shy away from using any partisan labels to describe any policies because they are rarely (if ever) necessary. And their meaning rarely translates between people of disparate political views.

I was responding to:

> For all the criticisms of UBI, I think it would be a net win simply because it eliminates the significant time wasted in maintaining welfare entitlement.

The exact wording of the libertarian wet dream I was recognizing. I wasn’t labeling UBI, I was labeling an identifiable expression.

And I called out where this particular attitude would have starved me and apparently HN would prefer I starved.

I think I may have been unclear. When I said “it eliminates the significant time wasted in maintaining welfare entitlement” I’m talking about the time wasted by poor people as they continuously jump through hoops in order to prove they qualify for programs. I consider it insulting that we actively sabotage poor people by lowering their productivity potential.

If I wasn’t unclear and wasn’t misunderstood, you’ll have to explain to me how this has anything to do with libertarianism.

This clarification helps for sure. And I apologize for not getting it the first time. I’m just so used to encountering the Libertarian version, which is an express desire to use UBI as a full replacement of other existing services. I’m 100% on the same page with your clarified motivation.

No worries, I'm pretty sure I was unclear before. Though I must admit I'm not entirely sure how or why "libertarian wet dream" UBI is so objectionable.

Is it because libertarian UBI might not be so generous? That it's motivated by saving taxpayer money rather than resolving poverty? On that I would agree. That's not the point of UBI.

Is it because libertarian UBI would be an excuse to eliminate more poverty welfare programs than liberal UBI? Because I personally see eliminating welfare programs to be a good thing so long as the UBI isn't intentionally less generous than what it replaces.

Or is it because libertarian UBI would mean Governments no longer forcing welfare dollars to be spent in a "responsible" way? Most of the criticisms I've heard seem to work on the principle that poor people don't know how to look after themselves or spend money wisely. So we need Government to force them to spend X amount on food with programs like SNAP, or spend X amount on shelter with housing subsidies. On this point I'd side VERY strongly with the libertarians. We have far too much paternalism in Government.

> Is it because libertarian UBI would be an excuse to eliminate more poverty welfare programs than liberal UBI?

Close but for me it’s less about protecting similarly redistributive programs and more about protecting services best provided by government that nonetheless cost money and require the government to be empowered to administer them effectively.

This used to be a debate and it’s really not anymore. It was primarily the right that used to argue that the reason people committed crime was because of their attitudes and social norms. But with over the last few decades, large parts of white Midwest and Appalachia are facing the exact same circumstances that inner cities faced for decades. So even some conservatives have started to agree with the side of crime follows economics rather than economics follows crime.