Embed Notice

@Raccoon

My actual argument comes from personal expiernce as I invest a **lot** of time trying to help people get out of poverty. For example half a dozen to a dozen times in my life I have given homeless people a home, and paid for their education or helped them get a job, somthing to get out of poverty.

Over that time I learned there are generally two types of people. 1) those who just have a temporary bad run of luck and just need a little bit of money to get back on track. These people usually had stable jobs at some point 2) The sort of people that no matter how much money you give them they will make no progress and up back on the street

Group 1 is easy, unemployment alone can usually handle that group, Access to other forms of welfare if needed for sure.

Group 2 is tricky. Usually if you give them money they wind up worse, whatever you give them is likely to go to waste and often enabled them to bad habits. In fact the only thing that really gets Group 2 in good shape is if they are taught better habits. This group is usually generational and the issue is they were never taught proper coping mechanisms to deal with life

In the end UBI or any free money will usually make Group 2 worse and enable their bad habits, waste money, and do nothing to actually instill them with the skills needed. Welfare on the other hand, if done right as **conditional** help, and particularly coupled with free education/training, that is, help that is conditional on them doing their part, is far more effective as it only rewards people who make life style changed to fix the problem