this post was submitted on 15 Sep 2025
371 points (97.9% liked)

Mildly Interesting

23030 readers
78 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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] SalamenceFury@lemmy.world 110 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (10 children)

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?

[–] CarbonIceDragon@pawb.social 40 points 2 weeks ago

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.

[–] jjjalljs@ttrpg.network 20 points 2 weeks ago (3 children)

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)
[–] Meron35@lemmy.world 18 points 2 weeks ago

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.

[–] crunchy@lemmy.dbzer0.com 8 points 2 weeks ago

Never, so long as there's the notion that you have to "earn" or "deserve" it.

[–] stoly@lemmy.world 7 points 2 weeks ago

For some, life has to be suffering. I think that people can't get past that way of thinking.

[–] MrScottyTay@sh.itjust.works 5 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

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)
[–] PodPerson@lemmy.zip 5 points 2 weeks ago

What? You mean without the cruelty? Why even bother?

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] kadup@lemmy.world 81 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

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.

[–] atro_city@fedia.io 17 points 2 weeks ago

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.

[–] plz1@lemmy.world 73 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (12 children)

$1500, once

$500/month for the first 12 months

That helps, but that's a far cry from "born into poverty" solutions

[–] Frozengyro@lemmy.world 34 points 2 weeks ago

Still amazing and I'm sure incredibly helpful to the families.

[–] stoly@lemmy.world 17 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

For people on the edge, this would make all the difference in the world and allow them to sleep at night.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (10 replies)
[–] sp3ctr4l@lemmy.dbzer0.com 58 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

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.

[–] spongebue@lemmy.world 32 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)
[–] SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world 32 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Cool that they took the lead on this

[–] TheBat@lemmy.world 19 points 2 weeks ago

I see what you did there.

[–] napkin2020@sh.itjust.works 22 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)
[–] thermal_shock@lemmy.world 19 points 2 weeks ago

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.

[–] doingthestuff@lemy.lol 10 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] Soup@lemmy.world 9 points 2 weeks ago

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!”

[–] BastingChemina@slrpnk.net 21 points 2 weeks ago

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.

[–] SoftestSapphic@lemmy.world 16 points 2 weeks ago

I had no idea the only thing keeping me from escaping poverty is rent for a month

[–] sexy_peach@feddit.org 15 points 2 weeks ago (7 children)

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.

[–] sexy_peach@feddit.org 4 points 2 weeks ago

It's called Kindergeld "children money"

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] reddig33@lemmy.world 10 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

They should give out free birth control as well.

[–] bobs_monkey@lemmy.zip 5 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

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

[–] mojofrododojo@lemmy.world 4 points 2 weeks ago

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.

[–] elena@lemmy.world 9 points 2 weeks ago

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.)

[–] IWW4@lemmy.zip 9 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

So ~~6500~~7500 over the course of the first year. That is good stuff.

[–] spongebue@lemmy.world 12 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

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

[–] Zorsith@lemmy.blahaj.zone 6 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Which juuuuuuuust might cover the ride in an ambulance to go give birth (not the birth itself, just the ride).

[–] spongebue@lemmy.world 8 points 2 weeks ago

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.

[–] HubertManne@piefed.social 4 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

Think many would rather have universal healthcare and public school free meals.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›