SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
posted by
martyb
on Thursday June 02 2016, @08:52AM
from the What-would-YOU-do-with-a-basic-income? dept.
from the What-would-YOU-do-with-a-basic-income? dept.
The highly-anticipated experiment with basic income from Silicon Valley finance firm Y Combinator appears to be making good progress. The company has chosen Elizabeth Rhodes as the project's Research Director, opting for the little-known PHD graduate over applications from tenured professors working at Oxford and Harvard universities. Oakland, California is where the basic income research will happen: the community has been chosen for its close proximity to Y Combinator's head office, and the much-reported wealth divide in the locality.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Basic Income Experiment by Y Combinator Draws Nearer
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 27 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Nothing so needs reforming as other people's habits.
-- Mark Twain, "Pudd'nhead Wilson's Calendar"
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Zz9zZ on Thursday June 02 2016, @06:40PM
It is strange to me that so many people associate welfare and other types of assistance with drug abuse and vices. The vast majority are the working poor who can barely get by, the abusers are a much smaller proportion. Actually, I'm not surprised, the druggie welfare momma meme is one that has been pushed by Fox news and various radio and news outlets so that people thin socialism is evil, that way the corporate powers can privatize everything and squeeze every penny from the government and its citizens. The reality is that most people on welfare are working but aren't paid enough to get by. There are actually a LOT of such people, and they are one accident or health problem away from becoming homeless and spiraling into that vicious cycle.
If the abusers want to spend their money on getting high instead of a decent place to live and food to eat, then that is their choice. You are ignoring the obvious side effect, that these people will not turn to crime and panhandling to pay for their habits. That alone is worth the savings in prison costs and benefits to public safety for everyone.
You can't declare its a bad idea based on your wild assumptions. Personally without an actual government program I see this as a stunt, and beyond that running a pilot program in one of the most divided areas in the nation risks extreme results which could be bad no matter which way they go. If it is a wild success then that may encourage a blind copying of the program, if it is a total failure then it could be a good idea that was badly implemented but will never see the light of day again.
~Tilting at windmills~