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.

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

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

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.

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.

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

Cool that they took the lead on this

Doesn't planned parenthood offer low to no cost BC?

$7500. $1500 at pregnancy + $500/month for first year = $1500 + $500 x 12 = $1500 + $6000 = $7500

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.

Why not both?

Politicians don't want smart voters

charities are mostly money laundering schemes by the rich.

Its definitely not enough, but its way better than zero.

It could easily be enough to lift someone out of it.

Anyway, don't let perfect be the enemy of good.

It can cover the additional costs of being pregnant, assuming you have health coverage, keeping you from dropping into poverty

Many many insurance plans provide free birth control for women and pretty much any planned parenthood gives out free contraceptives for both men and women.