Every time “new” programs are tried we’re always told this one is different yet the issues they purport to solve never seem to get fixed.
It’s not possible to guarantee someone’s income… even with “mostly” private capital.
The problem will never be fixed to everyone’s satisfaction, it will with us as long as there are people.
But that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try to fix it because it’s rare that any of the “new” programs fail 100%. And from your perspective, you may not feel it’s worth the effort. Fortunately many people do feel it’s worth the effort even if just a few of the intended targets are helped.
The folks that are involved are better qualified than we are to help design and implement the best and most effective solutions and are accustomed to the folks watching from the sidelines who like to find fault with their efforts. I’m pretty sure it has little effect, but a little encouragement from those of us who were smart enough to select the right parents might help the process along. 
I never found doing the same thing over and over and giving it a different name very productive.
If it was indeed “the same thing,” you would have a point to justify your cynicism. It is not the same thing. Here are the differences, starting with the title of the linked article in the OP and repeated as the title of this thread: “New Orleans hopes giving young people a guaranteed monthly income can break the cycle of poverty.”
The people behind this experimental program have the hope that bypassing the parents of young people coming of age, and giving them the agency to make small but critical decisions, like buying food instead of illegal drugs, might help them break out of the cycle of poverty they find themselves part of.
The conventional welfare programs rely on the discretion of the parents of these coming-of-age young adults to decide where to spend the money given to them. In many of those cases, history has shown that system to be a significant part of the “cycle of poverty” this program is attempting to fix.
If we applied the same knee-jerk disapproving logic expressed by the doubting Thomases in this thread to history, Edison would have thrown in the towel after a few tries. It took him, and his assistants, over 1,000 attempts before finding a useful bulb filament. And Pasteur’s experiments with fermentation and bacteria inpursuit of vaccines would have been laughed out of existence. And some of those doubting Thomases would not be here to cast doubt on this experiment. They, or their parents would have died from anthrax, rabies or bacterial infections.
Exchanging a cycle of poverty with a cycle of dependency when you guarantee a monthly income will be the result. As more come into the program the guaranteed income can only continue with increased fiat money.
You cite examples of great inventors that took many great risks with resources they knew were not guaranteed. Guaranteeing income can never guarantee productive results.
We’ve seen this picture before.
We’ll see… but in my view the administrators are managing the experiment. They create the experiment’s paradigm and observe the subject’s reaction to that set of rules and boundaries. The one’s receiving the cash payments are but an element of the experiment to be observed by the ones conducting it.
It appears to me, the logic your are using conflate the two roles.
Note aside: Edison had relatively unlimited funding from J. P. Morgan and the Vanderbuilt Family or most of his projects. When he was competing with the Wright Bros. for the the first practical heavier-than-air flying machine he also had the benefit of a US Govt. contract to develop it. He lost out to Wilbur & Orville Wright who had no Govt. funding.
There are (2) of these UBI experiments going on in Atlanta right now - started earlier in the year.
AJC 01/14/2022 - Decades after King pushed for guaranteed income, Atlanta will test idea
One of the problems has been that by giving this money (from a non-government source), especially in the amount which is being dished out is that it sometimes disqualifies the recipient from some government program that is based on income.
But some of them are using the funds to buy a car which under normal times might help them to find a better job or a better place to live. Or they buy a computer or tablet and hook up an internet connection where they could expand their learning capabilities - them or their kids or both. However with this UBI money they might not qualify for the new (low income) internet service.
Somethings might have to be tweaked or perhaps trading this new found income from some government program they are getting, will be a learning experience of how thing really work.
I came from real poor - so did my (late) hubby - how did we do it - I could write a book - there are definitely thing that one should NOT do and things one HAS to do to break the cycle - learning the ways of the world is probably a big thing and the other is STICK WITH THE WINNERS.
Yes, much better to give even more tax breaks to the wealthy.
You don’t know what will come out of this trial. It might not be what you think, and consider the possibility that some positive might come of it. You don’t know it all.
Sometimes real life is counter-intuitive.
And it’s a drop in the bucket compared to the benefits given to the wealthy.
I don’t understand why people in this country hate poor people and minorities so much.
So much hatred in a supposedly “christian” country
I would consider UBI if it took the place of all of the government handout programs and put the power in the hands of the consumer for spending it correctly. I am certainly not a fan of just another handout of taxpayer money. If the goal of government is to incentivize desirable behavior, then just handing out money is NOT the answer. Alternatively, I would also consider a “matching income” strategy for those in lower income levels because there is nothing like the feeling of an earned dollar.
1 Like
I think that thought is more in line with the thoughts of those putting the program into place.
Yet corporations get subsidies and bailouts and loans which they use for buybacks and enriching themselves. Yeah, positive results.
“…teach them how to fish and they’ll spend all day in a boat drinking beer.” [couldn’t resist]
1 Like
Another case of giving people money. They figure they don’t have to work to get money and will sit around trying to figure out how to get more.
You see, I was taught that actions have consequences. There are good consequences and bad consequences.
You study and get ahead. You work harder than others and you get more money. You lie, it hurts you.
This is another case of getting a medal for showing up. Money for nothing. They get used to free money for just waiting.
I don’t see this as a plus.
1 Like
At the right age, we gave our first kid and allowance, and then expected them to help around the house. Mostly, that did not happen.
Second kid, we said, “First, do this and that.” THEN they got the allowance. Worked fine.
We know you like to vilify corporations and wealthy people, but what does that have to do with the topic of the thread ?
1 Like
I think the reply meant that corporations are given tax breaks and incentives which are meant to help them hire people, but the companies use it for their own enrichment. Thus it not being used for what it was intended.
The problem I see with the giveaway in the topic here is they have no idea what the money will be used for. The article I read said the youth were essentually poor so give them money. I think a better choice would have been to encourage them to do some action which would help them in the future. There have been cases where a wealthy person has guaranteed money to students who get better grades or graduate and then get a college grant. It is a carrot and stick encouragement.
I liken this giveaway to the automatic tacking on a tip to a bill which guarantees the server money whether they try to do a great job or not.
1 Like
That’s the point. It’s an experiment based on the individual’s freedom to spend found money on whatever they deem necessary.
It’s obvious the current systems in place haven’t worked for these young folks. This is an attempt to involve the people who are most affected in the decision-making process. It’s a generational jump that presents a possible solution directly to the victims.
I say give 'em a chance.
1 Like
But giving money to the wealthy (who don’t work!) is just fine, right?
1 Like
I was born into the very bottom of the US economic ladder. I remained there long enough to get a good idea of what it was like. By the age of 29 I was fortunate enough to be able to climb out of that economic desert and join the folks in the top 10% of income earners. I’ve remained so to this day.
In living 20 years of my life below the poverty line and the rest in the higher end I’ve had the opportunity to mix with the social sphere of both worlds, they are very different worlds.
The one thing that continually amazes me is the attitude the taxpayers who live above the poverty line and under the 90th percentile are willing to tolerate the government giveaways and tax breaks the folks in the top 5% get away with. I know many of these entitled folks and they are very happy with the situation and bristle at any mention that it is unfair. And most truly believe they deserve those unfair arrangements.
While the people we call “middle-income” argue about how bad the people on welfare are ripping off the rest of us…
It always amazes me that people who complain the loudest about our incredibly complex tax code, and how it benefits certain groups, are completely unwilling to consider alternative systems that would eliminate those advantages.
2 Likes