I disagree with picking on the financially illiterate as a negative to UBI.
Your post took great care to state how much you support welfare/safety-nets, but then oddly decided to take issue with a corner case.
Yes, everything has issues, but why point out the financially illiterate as causing issues? It seems like such a small nit compared to the much larger problems with how existing welfare programs are more at risk for becoming extinct; there is a constant onslaught from Republican politicians to dismantle anything related to welfare. In terms of numbers, that is far more an issue.
Perhaps I over-reacted because I am so used to conservatives looking for a handful of people who spent money on big-screen TVs instead of food as proof that the system is broken.
Perhaps you meant you were truly concerned that the financially illiterate would cause issues because they will need help to use the money correctly. And you weren't actually using that as an objection to UBI?
I didn’t “take issue” with UBI, I took issue with using UBI to wholly replace other benefits, which is often proposed. I think that would disproportionately hurt people who have a hard time managing money.
I didn’t say whatsoever that they “cause” issues, it’s not a moral or intellectual failing to be bad with money, it’s hard for a lot of people, but I don’t think most deny that there are people who have a lot of trouble managing money.
What do you propose we do with these people? I personally don’t think we should just throw them to the sharks and tell them to figure it out.
> I think that would disproportionately hurt people who have a hard time managing money.
Ohhh. Dammit. My apologies, I thoroughly misunderstood you and was arguing from a faulty premise, and kept digging in because I'm doing 10 other things and wasn't giving this thread proper attention. That explains why I thought it was "odd" that you said that, because what I internalized wasn't what you meant.
Thanks for sticking with it and explaining to me.
Yes, we're on the same page.
Some proposals for helping people who are temporarily homeless are to provide an address (public housing) and help them get a job long enough to be able to pay a down payment on an apartment.
However, that's for people who aren't mentally impaired and just need a temporary leg up to get back into the system.
Some benefits do need to be tangibles like you said: e.g. an apartment (public housing, vouchers) or food (meal kitchens, SNAP) and not money because just giving someone money who can't cook isn't going to suddenly teach them how to shop and cook, assuming they can even be taught.
I don't know if there IS any solution today. I know long ago there were institutions but those were largely underfunded and abusive. However, there is public housing where I live that is for people with a certain degree if disability, but they have to be able to remember how to find their house and do simple things like bathe and eat.
If they are beyond that, that's where society has a big hole right now. Do you know of any efforts in this space?
> Ohhh. Dammit. My apologies, I thoroughly misunderstood you and was arguing from a faulty premise
No worries at all; judging by the other comments on my post it appears I didn’t explain myself terribly well.
————
I sadly don’t know many solutions to this either; I think making mental healthcare more accessible to people would be a good place to start( e.g. publicly funded psychiatrists) but I don’t think that financial illiteracy is really a “mental illness” in the classical sense.
Your post took great care to state how much you support welfare/safety-nets, but then oddly decided to take issue with a corner case.
Yes, everything has issues, but why point out the financially illiterate as causing issues? It seems like such a small nit compared to the much larger problems with how existing welfare programs are more at risk for becoming extinct; there is a constant onslaught from Republican politicians to dismantle anything related to welfare. In terms of numbers, that is far more an issue.
Perhaps I over-reacted because I am so used to conservatives looking for a handful of people who spent money on big-screen TVs instead of food as proof that the system is broken.
Perhaps you meant you were truly concerned that the financially illiterate would cause issues because they will need help to use the money correctly. And you weren't actually using that as an objection to UBI?
Did I misunderstand you?