> The problem with basic income is that people need purpose, not charity.
> I think we need to figure out how to empower people.
I don't think anything you've said is incompatible with something like basic income.
What could be more empowering than knowing your basic needs will be taken care of? From that position of strength you can negotiate with others based on mutual benefit rather than avoiding the consequences of not meeting your basic needs for survival. You must be enticed into a transaction rather than coerced no matter how circumspect that coercion.
If people needed to be forced to add value to the world through the threat of starvation or homelessness HN wouldn't exist. Why would people with means continue transacting? I don't believe the poor are much different, they will nurture their potential and provide what they can to the world because the trade leaves them better off.
Savings, financial support structures through their family, direct funding, and skills they can easily turn into funds. These are not basic income but they have the same effect: they allow the freedom to bargain from a position of strength without worrying about starving or going homeless or other basic needs unpleasantness. They have breathing room to create. And they do.
Imagine a world where, in order to create a new business, someone had to enter a walled city, give up all savings, were forbidden to take money from outside sources and must work full time (at least) at the same time in order to earn their daily rations of food and a bed while they are at it. That is the world the poor live in, more or less. The walled city is the planet Earth.
You mention dependency but you forgot the qualifier: on government. The poor live in dependency right now -- they are dependent on their employer to live week to week. They work, not to better their situation, but to keep from losing what little they have. It is the illusion of freedom.
You mention charity, but my position has nothing to do with charity and making people comfortable just because. It is about putting people in a position where their every transaction, if we assume they are rational, are guaranteed to create value. That helps all of us.
It is about giving people a hard floor to stand on. They will find things to do, just like most people with money and resources find a way to add value to the world -- because it improves their situation.
We don't need to worry about keeping people busy...they can figure out for themselves what is best for them and the world doesn't improve your situation unless you improve the world. I trust they'll figure that out.
Easy? What quality and variety of food? what size shelter and in what location? What brand of clothing and how many outfits? What level of health care? Who decides these things?
> Grocery store quality, with the ability to follow the food pyramid.
Organic or not? Brand name or not?
> Somewhere. Probably shouldn't force them to move to a different city.
What if they live in a city with extremely high cost of living? It's likely UBI will not allow them to continue living there, so then do they get extra because they want to live in a trendy place?
> Generic brand, 5-10.
What is "Generic brand"? Don't the poor deserve to have the dignity of owning a few brand name outfits?
> Medicaid.
Expanding Medicaid to every single American is going to cost a lot of money, so now you've got two problems; how to pay for UBI and how to pay for expanded Medicaid.
> The exact number is not the important part, so don't fixate on how it's calculated.
But it is. Because as soon as a number is arrived at, there will be people who say it's discriminatory. They will rail against it because people on UBI will be "barely at the poverty line". There's no one-size fits all dollar amount we could ever possibly come up with.
Many brands are cheap, including most food brands, so buying some should not be a problem. I'm not sure what 'dignity' is involved in brand name clothes unless you're in high school.
They should be able to afford a room in 95% of cities or some similar number, but perhaps not in the trendiest trend city that's refusing to allow denser construction.
Isn't medicaid mostly already expanded?
Being barely at the poverty line is fine, because you can get a job on top of it.
People can and do complain about the details of every government policy ever. That they would complain about the details of this one is nothing special.
Now we've gotten past the definition of categories and into levels -- that's progress.
That's where Basic Income or something like it shines. You don't have to micromanage -- you look at averages for the area and give a lump sum and let the individual figure it out.
I don't see how that's progress. To me it further complicates the issue. You're suggesting that there would be different basic incomes based on where you live? Doesn't that seem the least bit discriminatory?
We went from a general question to discussing specifics...that is progress. It is a complicated issue so I am not surprised or dismayed that when getting to specifics things get a bit complicated.
And yes, there should be some flex based on where a person lives. It is not discriminatory (in the pejorative sense) it is pragmatic. And perhaps a useful policy tool.
> I think we need to figure out how to empower people.
I don't think anything you've said is incompatible with something like basic income.
What could be more empowering than knowing your basic needs will be taken care of? From that position of strength you can negotiate with others based on mutual benefit rather than avoiding the consequences of not meeting your basic needs for survival. You must be enticed into a transaction rather than coerced no matter how circumspect that coercion.
If people needed to be forced to add value to the world through the threat of starvation or homelessness HN wouldn't exist. Why would people with means continue transacting? I don't believe the poor are much different, they will nurture their potential and provide what they can to the world because the trade leaves them better off.