That might be true for maybe 5-10% of 20-somethings. The rest will blow it.
It feels like everyone that has an anti-UBI position has access to a lot of research that no one else can see - or they're just unwilling to read or accept the results of every study / bit of research actually done on the topic.
Either it is never universal, and / or participants know that it isn't going to last long (limited duration study) so they have different motivations than someone who will actually receive UBI.
Every study basically has the same (obvious and not useful) conclusion: people like getting money. Any conclusion beyond that (specific to UBI) isn't supported.
One is Alaska’s Permanent Fund. Look at their gini index among all 50 states since the fund launched.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/pop4.398
And the conclusions are similar. Better health. Lower inequality
The other is Manitoba’s MINCOME experiment, they randomly selected people — it was doing very well but somehow the powers that be pulled the plug: https://humanrights.ca/story/manitobas-mincome-experiment
If $150 a month can make people’s lives better, in a state that doen’t issue its own currency, imagine what phasing in a UBI for everyone in USA can do, gradually and increasing. And that’s the point.
USA will have to print money anyway to service their sovereign debt. So may as well give it out as a UBI over 40 years first, then tax it and pay the treasury holders. Think about it!
This has been so apparent to me over the last 20 years. I've seen so many people who wanted to switch jobs - perhaps a move to other parts of the country for a new job - but are very tied to employer-provided insurance. People with family members with varying health issues often feel especially 'stuck' to particular jobs because of the 'good' insurance, perhaps tied to specific regional hospitals with specific networks of doctors and specialists. I've heard this from multiple colleagues over the years and it's so disheartening. We've got so much unlocked human potential, and we get tied to specific areas because of arbitrary self-imposed constraints. Self-imposed I mean on ourselves as a whole, not individually-imposed.
So so so disheartening...
In your 20s it might also unlock travel and adventure.
"Tiny Minority" until you no longer need a job to maintain the lifestyle. A non zero amount of people will go from not traveling, to traveling.
This is neither a criticism nor endorsement of UBI. Its just an observation.
Isn't this making the argument in favor of a UBI? The theory behind SNAP is they have to buy food instead of stupid things, but then they just buy stupid food.
Meanwhile someone who is actually having a hard time gets put in a bind because they'd otherwise be willing to eat day old bagels and whatever's on the menu at the soup kitchen in order to save up for what they really need, which is the deposit for an apartment. But you can't use SNAP for that and then the government is paying the same money for worse results.
Not UBI but this video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N_GLfxaYTYI) shows (claims) rent always rises to suck up available money. Why? Not because landlords are evil, no, because once people have more money many of them want a nicer place. There are a limited number of nicer places so the prices rise since all these new people with a little more money bid up what they're willing to pay.
The same will be true of UBI and anything you think it enables. There are limited number of planes, boats, hotels, hostels so the moment everyone can do it is the moment there's more demand than supply and prices will go up.
The larger point is that it's not about if you get UBI. It's about if everyone gets UBI
I’d like to emphasize “grinding” here. For many it’s a grind in the truest sense, involving decades of backbreaking physical work. For others it’s immense stress to keep a roof over their family’s head no matter what. By the time retirement rolls around practically everybody has been burned out to some degree but had to power through regardless simply because quitting wasn’t an option.
Yeah, under conditions like that, people are indeed going to stop working the very second they’re no longer required to in order to survive. Things like UBI, 4-day work weeks, remote work, and fair compensation would all improve that situation measurably.
I stopped when I was 55 (didn't have a choice, actually). Fortunately, I had saved wisely, and lived frugally, so I was able to stop working (which was good, because no one wanted me, anyway).
I actually get more done, every day (like, seven days a week), than I did when getting paid.
ToMAYto, ToMAHto...
I think it is really common for retiree risk takers to swing for the fences in their 60's.
Their time is freed up and often lump sums become available: retirees often feel they need to make money to live well in retirement. I'm sure you can think of cliched coffee shop entrepreneurs, restaurant owners, franchise purchasers and investment property purchasers.
The reason it's such a well known cliche is because of how often they get burnt (due to poor understanding of risks) and many lose their homes.
I really notice it because I'm nearer retirement than 20 (they're not my peers but my acquaintances span a wide range of age and money demographics).
No, it's the difference between getting a pension (a guaranteed income for the rest of your life) and a second job's salary without working it. Basically the "basic income" experiments create Reddit r/overemployed participants without even having to work the additional job.
There is a big difference in getting a guaranteed income in your 20’s vs your 60’s.
In your 20’s it unlocks taking big risks and swing for the fences. YC bets in this, for example. What can ambitious kids do when they don’t need to worry about money?
But when you’ve been grinding for 40 years … yeah for sure most people stop working.