5 ms·

Another limited duration trial (two years). What's the point? It's not going to measure the real effect. People will know it is going to run out and behave diff

by kr7 10y ago

Another limited duration trial (two years). What's the point? It's not going to measure the real effect. People will know it is going to run out and behave differently than if it was permanent.

nickff 10y ago
Well it's probably better than just instituting a program and hoping it works. Ideally, all government programs should be subject to measurement and re-evaluation.
- kr7 10y ago
  The choice does not have to be between "do a bad study" or "do no study at all". A proper study would be permanent and self-contained. Participants would need to give a portion of outside income to the program to simulate higher taxes and/or inflation.
  - cwiggs 10y ago
    You mention make the UBI be permanent so, how long would you expect to wait until the results would be worth looking at, an entire generation?
    - notahacker 10y ago
      Results can start to be worthwhile early on. But the life-altering decisions people make over a two year period when guaranteed a subsidy that runs out at the end of those two years are not particularly likely to be the same as the life altering decisions people make over a two year period when guaranteed that subsidy for life. (If you wanted to really understand all the dynamics, you'd probably want to wait more than a generation to understand how subsidy recipients' decisions to raise children are affected and whether those children make systematically different life choices.)
readittwice 10y ago
So true, thanks for writing that! Don't give them the money just for two years, but guarantee them the money over their whole life and you will see vastly different results. Another "problem" with this kind of study is that they are giving money only to unemployed people. Because it would be also interesting to see what people with jobs would do. I suspect a lot of people would switch from full-time to part-time jobs (at least that's what I would do).
- thwarted 10y ago
  Don't give them the money just for two years, but guarantee them the money over their whole life and you will see vastly different results. Since people born into wealth are "guaranteed money over their whole life", can't we study what they do with their life compared to what people who are not born into money do with their life? How or how not would this kind of study produce meaningful, legitimate results? Another "problem" with this kind of study is that they are giving money only to unemployed people. Because it would be also interesting to see what people with jobs would do. I suspect a lot of people would switch from full-time to part-time jobs (at least that's what I would do). There is some aspect of this kind of experiment/study to find out how individuals would perform if they didn't have the guaranteed income in the past but then suddenly do, but that's only meaningful for the transitional generation. If UBI were truly universal, it would need to be multi-generational. And how would those born with it, never having known anything else, treat/understand work? There's no such thing as "switching from a full-time to part-time jobs" in this context, or at least the impact and meaning of doing so is different than those who have a concept of what not having the guaranteed income means.
  - kLeeIsDead 10y ago
    People born into wealth aren't guaranteed that. After all, it's their parents' money, not theirs.
    - thwarted 10y ago
      While this is true, it is the closest thing that already exists to a basic income, so it should be the first place to go for material to study before/while setting up a more controlled experiment (assuming a highly controlled, completely reproducible experiment actually can be set up in social/economic sciences). Even in a UBI setup, it's the government's/public's money, not the recipient's, right up until the point where it changes hands. A wealthy family can (and often does) make just as strong of a guarantee for a stipend as a government can.
agumonkey 10y ago
What would be an acceptable limit ? 10 years ? in that span you're free to plan long project, even raise children in the same place long enough they can develop habits, friends, without too much stress.
- kLeeIsDead 10y ago
  There is no acceptable limit. It should be for life, or longer.
  - agumonkey 10y ago
    A test is a test is a test.
    - kLeeIsDead 10y ago
      And, in my opinion, the test would be useless if it had a time limit attached to it.
      - agumonkey 10y ago
        I think we could get some insights even with a broken test. But it has to be made by open minded scientists other wise people will interpret it as final truth.
        kLeeIsDead 10y ago
        I think it's completely useless. The only results I care about are in the long term (30+ years). This is essentially a 2 year salary giveaway. Not even close to UBI.
        nercht12 10y ago
        Problem is that a "good economy" is a subjective idea. It won't matter if open-minded scientists review it 'cause people are going to interpret the results how ever they want anyways. Edit: I'm not really aiming to contradict you. I would like to see it analyzed in an unbiased manner.
mpartel 10y ago
While widening the scope in either duration or number of people would certainly help, I think this is still useful. It should still tell us to what extent the current benefits system leaves short side gigs and new small businesses on the table. The time limit may, to an unrealistic degree, encourage the subjects to look for solutions for the long term. Then again the question of whether UBI encourages laziness seems to be out of scope already, since this targets only people who are already unemployed.
geon 10y ago
An what can you accomplish in 2 years anyway? Not enough time to start a business or even study.

by kr7 10y ago

Another limited duration trial (two years). What's the point? It's not going to measure the real effect. People will know it is going to run out and behave differently than if it was permanent.

nickff 10y ago

Well it's probably better than just instituting a program and hoping it works. Ideally, all government programs should be subject to measurement and re-evaluation.

kr7 10y ago
The choice does not have to be between "do a bad study" or "do no study at all". A proper study would be permanent and self-contained. Participants would need to give a portion of outside income to the program to simulate higher taxes and/or inflation.
- cwiggs 10y ago
  You mention make the UBI be permanent so, how long would you expect to wait until the results would be worth looking at, an entire generation?
  - notahacker 10y ago
    Results can start to be worthwhile early on. But the life-altering decisions people make over a two year period when guaranteed a subsidy that runs out at the end of those two years are not particularly likely to be the same as the life altering decisions people make over a two year period when guaranteed that subsidy for life. (If you wanted to really understand all the dynamics, you'd probably want to wait more than a generation to understand how subsidy recipients' decisions to raise children are affected and whether those children make systematically different life choices.)

readittwice 10y ago

So true, thanks for writing that! Don't give them the money just for two years, but guarantee them the money over their whole life and you will see vastly different results. Another "problem" with this kind of study is that they are giving money only to unemployed people. Because it would be also interesting to see what people with jobs would do. I suspect a lot of people would switch from full-time to part-time jobs (at least that's what I would do).

thwarted 10y ago
Don't give them the money just for two years, but guarantee them the money over their whole life and you will see vastly different results. Since people born into wealth are "guaranteed money over their whole life", can't we study what they do with their life compared to what people who are not born into money do with their life? How or how not would this kind of study produce meaningful, legitimate results? Another "problem" with this kind of study is that they are giving money only to unemployed people. Because it would be also interesting to see what people with jobs would do. I suspect a lot of people would switch from full-time to part-time jobs (at least that's what I would do). There is some aspect of this kind of experiment/study to find out how individuals would perform if they didn't have the guaranteed income in the past but then suddenly do, but that's only meaningful for the transitional generation. If UBI were truly universal, it would need to be multi-generational. And how would those born with it, never having known anything else, treat/understand work? There's no such thing as "switching from a full-time to part-time jobs" in this context, or at least the impact and meaning of doing so is different than those who have a concept of what not having the guaranteed income means.
- kLeeIsDead 10y ago
  People born into wealth aren't guaranteed that. After all, it's their parents' money, not theirs.
  - thwarted 10y ago
    While this is true, it is the closest thing that already exists to a basic income, so it should be the first place to go for material to study before/while setting up a more controlled experiment (assuming a highly controlled, completely reproducible experiment actually can be set up in social/economic sciences). Even in a UBI setup, it's the government's/public's money, not the recipient's, right up until the point where it changes hands. A wealthy family can (and often does) make just as strong of a guarantee for a stipend as a government can.

agumonkey 10y ago

What would be an acceptable limit ? 10 years ? in that span you're free to plan long project, even raise children in the same place long enough they can develop habits, friends, without too much stress.

kLeeIsDead 10y ago
There is no acceptable limit. It should be for life, or longer.
- agumonkey 10y ago
  A test is a test is a test.
  - kLeeIsDead 10y ago
    And, in my opinion, the test would be useless if it had a time limit attached to it.
    - agumonkey 10y ago
      I think we could get some insights even with a broken test. But it has to be made by open minded scientists other wise people will interpret it as final truth.
      - kLeeIsDead 10y ago
        I think it's completely useless. The only results I care about are in the long term (30+ years). This is essentially a 2 year salary giveaway. Not even close to UBI.
      - nercht12 10y ago
        Problem is that a "good economy" is a subjective idea. It won't matter if open-minded scientists review it 'cause people are going to interpret the results how ever they want anyways. Edit: I'm not really aiming to contradict you. I would like to see it analyzed in an unbiased manner.

mpartel 10y ago

While widening the scope in either duration or number of people would certainly help, I think this is still useful. It should still tell us to what extent the current benefits system leaves short side gigs and new small businesses on the table. The time limit may, to an unrealistic degree, encourage the subjects to look for solutions for the long term. Then again the question of whether UBI encourages laziness seems to be out of scope already, since this targets only people who are already unemployed.

geon 10y ago

An what can you accomplish in 2 years anyway? Not enough time to start a business or even study.