katsumojo

katsumojo t1_j56da5t wrote

The problem with this statement is it places all of the fault on the people stuck in the cycle. Yes, they play a role BUT they are just making the best choices that are in place for them.

Imagine an example where Frank and Lisa are leaders of their respective population groups in the same country. When the war in Ukraine breaks out all grain supply is cut off to their country until a few months later when negotiations finally allow for a modest amount of grain to be exported to their country. It’s not as much as before the war and this instantly puts Frank and Lisa at odd’s. If Frank gets more grain, Lisa might try to negotiate but that would be fruitless because it’s not even enough grain for Frank. Next Lisa might resort to political/economic/social pressure. And if it get serious enough, Lisa’s people will demand war. They’re starving after all.

This is a dumbed down situation but this dynamic occurs in developing countries all over the world as a result of action without forethought by developed countries. Layer decades of this happening again and again and that’s how you end up with regional conflict zones.

1

katsumojo t1_j3cygxb wrote

The most famous proponent of this idea, Andrew Yang, went to Columbia University and Brown University. Seems pretty educated to me. And you can do a quick Google search on his work experience, he has it.

The point of universal basic income is multifold- give people a safety net so we have fewer homeless people, recognize and make possible the work of stay-at-home parents, invest money in the masses because we know that when the masses have money it is the most liquid; in other words, poor people spend their money more quickly than rich people--> when people spend money business does well--> when business does well there are more jobs available and the economy does well.

There is real thought and strategy behind the approach, the problem is it offends the American notion of "work for everything you have." The real problem is hard work alone barely pays for people's basic needs.

My grandfather was a Culligan salesmen..yes, he sold the giant tanks of water door to door. My grandmother was a homemaker. They were also parents to 7 children that all were cared for enough that they could grow to adulthood and live lives of their own. CAN YOU IMAGINE, someone working ANY modern day job and supporting a family of 9 on their own? The game has changed and the rules need to follow suit.

1

katsumojo t1_j3ckyv4 wrote

My understanding is that universal basic income would be enough to cover the essentials: food, housing, heat, clothing, maybe internet, etc... There wouldn't be enough in the funding to do much more than that. If you wanted things like vacations, restaurant outings, extracurricular activities, to have enough money to buy a house instead of rent, nice clothes, etc.. you would have to work to create that kind of income. The idea is most people want those things and would be willing to work for them.

25