Money management education, of course, remains a gigantic problem in the way of adopting UBI schemes. Any country considering trying them needs to accept that they need to also give these people pervasive access to education on how to manage money.
One interesting sociological change I imagine would happen if you had a UBI is a shift in cultural treatment of destitution. Today, being homeless is often being down on your luck - bad circumstances beyond your control can leave you on the streets, and you get sympathy for that. That sympathy can, and often does, reduce due blame for poor money management that got someone into that situation.
Under a UBI you have no excuse anymore, assuming the allocated funds are proper to afford cheap poverty-level housing and food, if you are not able to live sustainably on that income that is entirely your fault, and you would correspondingly get much less sympathy.
People macroscopically usually act in self interest. If you are poor, it is often rationalized as being a net positive to blow what you have and appeal to others for handouts using a mask of bad luck. Systemically, it can promote cultural absolution of responsibility for money management, which combined with the current welfare system (and its well documented extraordinary flaws) promote poor money management.
We would have to see how a society adapted to basic income performs, but I imagine the incidence of poor money management would dramatically decline when social acceptance of it evaporates.
Of course it is in the way - it is meant to replace safety nets, and those exist in part for the employed with poor money management skills. If you change the source of income but do not solve the problem of people not budgeting their income well, it solves nothing and you lose a lot of the potential savings from UBI.
Perhaps your original point -- that a UBI-like system would shift blame from luck/voodoo/society to the individual -- would provide societal pressure for individuals to take personal responsibility for their choices. That pressure might be a good-enough substitute for formal money-management education. It takes a village.
UBI should be simple. Tying it to educational requirements[x] risks mucking it up with special-interest agendas, much as any other condition would.
[x] You didn't say that individuals would be required to avail themselves of any UBI-related educational programs. But the entire program could be stalled if its implementation were conditional on the development of an educational program that established, once and for all, how a government believes its citizens should wisely spend money.
One interesting sociological change I imagine would happen if you had a UBI is a shift in cultural treatment of destitution. Today, being homeless is often being down on your luck - bad circumstances beyond your control can leave you on the streets, and you get sympathy for that. That sympathy can, and often does, reduce due blame for poor money management that got someone into that situation.
Under a UBI you have no excuse anymore, assuming the allocated funds are proper to afford cheap poverty-level housing and food, if you are not able to live sustainably on that income that is entirely your fault, and you would correspondingly get much less sympathy.
People macroscopically usually act in self interest. If you are poor, it is often rationalized as being a net positive to blow what you have and appeal to others for handouts using a mask of bad luck. Systemically, it can promote cultural absolution of responsibility for money management, which combined with the current welfare system (and its well documented extraordinary flaws) promote poor money management.
We would have to see how a society adapted to basic income performs, but I imagine the incidence of poor money management would dramatically decline when social acceptance of it evaporates.