388
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?
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.
load more comments
(3 replies)
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.
Never, so long as there's the notion that you have to "earn" or "deserve" it.
For some, life has to be suffering. I think that people can't get past that way of thinking.
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
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(3 replies)
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.
For people on the edge, this would make all the difference in the world and allow them to sleep at night.
For sure. I'm all for it.
load more comments
(10 replies)
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.
Flint, MI
Cool that they took the lead on this
I see what you did there.
This is normal in all the developed countries.
Having and raising children is not a concern only for the mother, the whole community needs to be involved.
Wow a whole 1.5k
Plus $500/month for a year. It's to help with diapers, food, etc. it's a start, but needs a lot more if they don't want the population to drop off the Mariana trench.
My copay on each of my kids births was over $2k, one was $7k. A couple of those bills were close to $30k, not that we paid that much, but still.
The US: “we need to be making more babies! Also fuck you, here’s a bill for the amount of a very nice new car! Get fucked, loser!”
I had no idea the only thing keeping me from escaping poverty is rent for a month
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"
load more comments
(6 replies)
They should give out free birth control as well.
Doesn't planned parenthood offer low to no cost BC?
only in states where that's legal. tons of red states have limited PP to providing only care they find acceptable, women's health be damned.
As a mother of an actual human I gotta say $1,500 for a lifetime is a ridiculous figure that wouldn’t even last a week when covering basic necessities (stroller, bedding, diapers, lotion, etc.)
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.
Think many would rather have universal healthcare and public school free meals.
Why not both?
load more comments
(1 replies)
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 15 Sep 2025
388 points (98.0% liked)
Mildly Interesting
27914 readers
153 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 3 years ago
MODERATORS