How many studies that boil down to giving people money with no strings attached that always result in "well it improves their lives it seems" are we gonna have before people finally decide it's worth doing that stuff universally?
this post was submitted on 15 Sep 2025
213 points (97.8% liked)
Mildly Interesting
22741 readers
337 users here now
This is for strictly mildly interesting material. If it's too interesting, it doesn't belong. If it's not interesting, it doesn't belong.
This is obviously an objective criteria, so the mods are always right. Or maybe mildly right? Ahh.. what do we know?
Just post some stuff and don't spam.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
The trouble is, the people doing the studies and the people in charge of deciding where public money is spent and acquired, are different groups.
Many people are driven by feelings. We all are to some extent. But for many people feelings are primary. This comes up all the time.
You can show charts and studies and everything, but they don't care. You have to make them feel good about it.
Frankly I'm kind of sick of pandering to overgrown toddlers, but there's no escape from it.
Never, so long as there's the notion that you have to "earn" or "deserve" it.
Even Milton Friedman, the Nobel winning economist credited for libertarianism and neoliberal economics was in favour of UBI.
He specifically advocated for simplifying the tax code, and abolishing the welfare state in favour of progressive tax rates which included a negative income tax, which is a more extreme UBI.
Right wing policy makers just heard the simplify tax code and abolish welfare state part.
What? You mean without the cruelty? Why even bother?
But Dave from the local bar says he knows someone who took advantage of the benefits system so it's obvious that everyone takes advantage of it and are just lazy and would rather get money for nothing... /S
This is not going to go down well on Lemmy, but: not many studies boil down to this, unfortunately.
This article really changed my view on this https://www.theargumentmag.com/p/giving-people-money-helped-less-than
The entire point of living in a society, of following the collective social contract, is to assure everybody's basic needs are met.
To suggest otherwise is contradictory to the very core of what a society is, and at that point, its better to have no society at all.
Given how having "no society at all" is impossible with 8 billion of us around... Either provide for everybody's basic needs, or people need to break the social contract until they enforce their needs are met.
Being egoistic and wanting society to pitch in at the same time is a core tenet of the US republican party. Privatise the gains, socialise the losses is a big thing there. There are millions of people like that and unfortunately they are influencing the world-wide discourse on the issue.
$1500, once
$500/month for the first 12 months
That helps, but that's a far cry from "born into poverty" solutions
Still amazing and I'm sure incredibly helpful to the families.
I mean, I never had a kid, but $500 a month for a year sounds like it would shore you up for all early expenses
Flint, MI
Cool that they took the lead on this
I see what you did there.
Multiply that figure by at least 10, and it might actually be meaningful.
EDIT: Ah, there's a continuing payment aspect to it.
Well, that's actually fairly impactful then.
In Germany you get 250€ every month per child until they are 18. Even after, if they remain in education. If they move out they can get it directly for themselves.
It's called Kindergeld "children money"
Same in the Netherlands and it’s absolutely crazy. We already have too many humans, why stimulate procreation when we don’t even have enough housing for the humans that already exist.
Are you sure that's even what is happening? It seems there would be a line where you could ease the burden of childbirth, especially for women, by supporting them and making it more likely that child becomes a healthy educated adult, but not so much reimbursement that you actually stimulate fertility rates. I would think that the government has data on this.
So ~~6500~~7500 over the course of the first year. That is good stuff.
$7500. $1500 at pregnancy + $500/month for first year = $1500 + $500 x 12 = $1500 + $6000 = $7500
Which juuuuuuuust might cover the ride in an ambulance to go give birth (not the birth itself, just the ride).
If you're being facetious: this is a good thing. It doesn't solve all problems but it's a damn good start. No need to get critical about a pretty damn big step in the right direction, especially considering those starting this initiative in a local setting can't change the healthcare system nationwide.
If you're serious: admittedly (and thankfully) I haven't had to take an ambulance, but when my daughter was born the deductible on our high-deductible plan (after which point all care is covered for the calendar year) was a fair amount under that. The system sucks, but that's not how it works either.
They should give out free birth control as well.
Doesn't planned parenthood offer low to no cost BC?
Think many would rather have universal healthcare and public school free meals.
How about free college so we don't have to see our kids working minimum wage job...give those to AI and robots.
Charity needed to support impoverished countries like Bangladesh, Liberia, Rwanda, Uganda and the good old US of A. Simultaneously the richest and poorest country in the world.
That doesn't even cover the hospital bill
Its definitely not enough, but its way better than zero.
Oh good point, I guess we shouldn’t give them anything then /s
How dare someone point out an issue with something that doesn't ultimately do much to fix the problem...