> The middle class aren't the people who are on SNAP today, you keep changing the groups you're talking about.
My point is that even if you have a steady income (or two!), that doesn't necessarily mean you'll be a long-term planner. Thus, UBI will not automatically make the poor into long term planners, thus UBI will not automatically grant long-term stability.
> A symptom of poor people who are in debt and don't have the time or energy to actually understand how or why. They're overwhelmed.
If you have experience in this area I apologize, but it seems to me you haven't really worked with any actual poor people. A huge chunk of poor people I've worked with in Maryland have nothing but time. What's your excuse for them? Sure, there's the "single mom working 3 jobs with 4 kids" stereotype, but actually a lot of the poor African American women I've worked with have no job and are home all day (esp. during covid) and are totally reliant on government.
> If you aren't in debt or know the extent to which you are actually in debt, predatory "amount due" stamps don't work.
Not getting into debt in modern America is tricky, even more so for the poor. Knowing the extent which you are in debt and the optimal way to pay it off requires financial literacy, which the vast majority of poor I've worked with don't have and don't know how to get. And as I've said I don't think "stability" will magically result in increased financial literacy. So we are just arguing in circles now. It's fine if you disagree with me. I personally don't think UBI will make any measurable dent in poverty at all, unless you torture UBI statistics to confess. Happy to be proven wrong, but would like to see another country with more favorable conditions go all-in and prove it works first before the USA.
I really can't be bothered to argue in depth but in the backdrop of record high wealth inequality in the US, your idea that the poor just need to spend less is beyond ridiculous.
My point is that even if you have a steady income (or two!), that doesn't necessarily mean you'll be a long-term planner. Thus, UBI will not automatically make the poor into long term planners, thus UBI will not automatically grant long-term stability.
> A symptom of poor people who are in debt and don't have the time or energy to actually understand how or why. They're overwhelmed.
If you have experience in this area I apologize, but it seems to me you haven't really worked with any actual poor people. A huge chunk of poor people I've worked with in Maryland have nothing but time. What's your excuse for them? Sure, there's the "single mom working 3 jobs with 4 kids" stereotype, but actually a lot of the poor African American women I've worked with have no job and are home all day (esp. during covid) and are totally reliant on government.
> If you aren't in debt or know the extent to which you are actually in debt, predatory "amount due" stamps don't work.
Not getting into debt in modern America is tricky, even more so for the poor. Knowing the extent which you are in debt and the optimal way to pay it off requires financial literacy, which the vast majority of poor I've worked with don't have and don't know how to get. And as I've said I don't think "stability" will magically result in increased financial literacy. So we are just arguing in circles now. It's fine if you disagree with me. I personally don't think UBI will make any measurable dent in poverty at all, unless you torture UBI statistics to confess. Happy to be proven wrong, but would like to see another country with more favorable conditions go all-in and prove it works first before the USA.