7 ms·

The article's title is misleading - it is not about not working, it's about giving money directly to poor villages for 12 years to provide what is similar to ba

The article's title is misleading - it is not about not working, it's about giving money directly to poor villages for 12 years to provide what is similar to basic income but meeting fundamentally different needs in a very different part of the world. That said, I think it is a fascinating anthropological read. We often do not realize how many layers of wealth we had to stand on to possess our current wealth.

paulpauper 10y ago
the subtlety is 'of', not 'is', which changes the meaning. Agree it's kinda a poorly written headline
- aaron-lebo 10y ago
  It's not just the headline. This is essentially describing charity to poor communities. That's not new. The article's connection between it and "basic income" is tenuous. To be fair, that's not the fault of the article as much as the program itself. How is charity to poor rural communities with collectivist leanings a test of the vague notion of basic income? Or what will this program tell us about basic income in the US with 300 million people and a much higher standard of living? Admirable social program, yes. A test of the viability of basic income worldwide? Not so much.
  - BuuQu9hu 10y ago
    With each step, we shall come closer to a test which is applicable to the USA's poor. For now, we are establishing whether the concept works at all. The article described several previous tests, each of smaller scale and with flaws which this new test aims to eliminate. This program will tell us what the next test should look like.
    - aaron-lebo 10y ago
      Do you mind pointing out where? I went back through the article and found: With this initiative, GiveDirectly — with an office in New York and funded in no small part by Silicon Valley — is starting the world’s first true test of a universal basic income. As you stated, there have been other attempts, so I don't know what the definition of "first true test" is. A universal basic income has thus far lacked what tech folks might call a proof of concept. There have been a handful of experiments, including ones in Canada, India and Namibia. Finland is sending money to unemployed people, and the Dutch city Utrecht is doing a trial run, too. But no experiment has been truly complete, studying what happens when you give a whole community money for an extended period of time — when nobody has to worry where his or her next meal is coming from or fear the loss of a job or the birth of a child. The Mincome experiment was 5-years. Why was it not "truly complete"? http://www.marketplace.org/2016/12/20/world/dauphin http://www.marketplace.org/2016/12/20/world/dauphin Back to the article: That, surprisingly, worked well enough to give them the confidence to start a threadbare randomized control trial the year they graduated. It found that the recipients, who received an average of $500, saw excellent outcomes: Their children were 42 percent less likely to go a whole day without eating. Domestic-violence rates dropped, and mental health improved. Not trying to be argumentative, just not sure what this is testing. What is it controlling for? What is it doing different from previous experiments? What does giving money to every person in a poor community tell you that giving money to poor people in a wealthy community doesn't? These are very rural and impoverished communities by developed standards. Giving money to the poorest of the poor seems like an obvious improvement for them. What it doesn't say is how you can do it anywhere else.
      - marmot777 10y ago
        It looks to me like you are correct the Canadian thing looks like a universal income. So it could be just a garden variety error on the part of the NYT journalist to say it was the first. I'm happy there are other tests going on. Maybe I'm a hopeless idealist but I've always been optimistic about the future but that optimism has been pushed to the wall lately. This was the first thing I've read I while that made me think maybe the future isn't going to be a total dystopian nightmare. Maybe there's hope.
      - zuminator 10y ago
        Mincome guaranteed an income floor but it was not UBI. It was a means-tested income supplement to ensure that someone's income didn't fall below $16K year. If they already made $16K they didn't get any Mincome. If they made $8K, they got $8K Mincome. GiveDirectly gives everyone in the community who registers $22 month. The amount doesn't go down if the person starts to independently generate income. It will be universal, not means-tested. This isn't necessarily a better experiment, but it is a different one. What does giving money to every person in a poor community tell you that giving money to poor people in a wealthy community doesn't? Well, we don't know. Hence this experiment. Mincome, however successful, was basically a deluxe "welfare" program with all the negative baggage that comes with it. If we're giving a supplement to the poor, and taking away that supplement if they become wealthy, some argue it functions as a 100% tax on work, hence functioning as a disincentive. (That's in addition to the "disincentive" of not forcing poor people to work to meet their basic needs.) If you're in Mincome, why take an $8,000 yr. side job? It would be like working for free. But a person on GiveDirectly, if they get a $10/month side job, their total income will be $32. Side work will continue to be a financially productive investment. It's a different type of experiment.
  - marmot777 10y ago
    Because it's cash on the barrelhead. Most aid of all sorts and most social safety net programs are not that straight forward. Also, universal basic income presumably won't penalize people for working or starting a business.
    - aaron-lebo 10y ago
      Also, universal basic income presumably won't penalize people for working or starting a business. There's no universal definition of basic income and it certainly won't be so straightforward once it goes through the meat-grinder of legislation. It's cash on the barrelhead to the poorest of the poor from outside organizations. That's charity.
      - marmot777 10y ago
        I don't understand your point with regard to charity. What's your objection if this is charity? I understand your concern about messy legislation but is that an argument against it? I see your point, though. I'm guessing, possibly wrong, that the people involved in this have considered or at least will consider how this will be implemented and will fund lobbying to try to get this done as cleanly as possible. I realize I'm making some assumptions here but people aren't going to invest boatloads of money in testing a concept than just let it fail during deployment.
  - sdenton4 10y ago
    A lovely asymmetry: econ research on people living in the west is assumed to be generalizable and applicable to populations worldwide, while research on non-westerners is assumed not to be general in scope...
    - marmot777 10y ago
      Are they assuming it's generalizable or are they going to find out with testing?
  - marmot777 10y ago
    I may be repeating myself but I think aid programs and welfare programs usually aren't as efficient as cash transfers and usually include a means test. The vision, at least, of this program is cash and no means test. There's the classic problem of the leaky bucket, meaning that overhead drains some resources before they reach the problem itself. Cash is about as efficient as it gets.
  - mirimir 10y ago
    No, it's not just "describing charity to poor communities". It's about efficiently jump-starting them. Sure, ~$1 per day is very little. But in Kenya, it's enough to start small businesses. And with no need assessment or repayment management, the overhead is very low. Also, I suspect that at least some successful recipients would willingly become donors, making the system somewhat self-supporting. Average incomes in the US are much greater, for sure. But there are places in the US where average income is just as small, relative to the national average. And what will happen when trucking is fully automated? What would prevent parts of the US from becoming as impoverished as this area in Kenya? Edit: typo
l33tbro 10y ago
I came to the comments before reading precisely to find a post like this. So often these articles have a lofty title that is unrelated to the content, and I'm increasingly clicking on the comments first to verify the headline against the article.
marmot777 10y ago
As someone who occasionally publishes in minor publications, I know editors pick headlines and don't always do the best job of reflecting the content. I think editor's goal is to get as many people to read it as possible so they might take some liberties.
- bredren 10y ago
  Def do not blame the writer(s). Editors don't just change headlines. In technical stuff I've written using feminine pronouns I've had editors change to masculine. Editors will do anything they think makes a piece more ready for contemporary mass consumption.
  - grzm 10y ago
    Depending on the publication, editors may also make changes to accommodate house style; for example, AP, or Chicago, or their own.
  - dvtv75 10y ago
    > In technical stuff I've written using feminine pronouns I've had editors change to masculine. Speaking as someone who has had to write headlines, there can be very strict guidelines we have to adhere to. Masculine is still the default neutral in professional English, in a number of places I've worked at.
tedmiston 10y ago
What's most fascinating to me is the dollar amount: $22/month ==> $264/year. It's almost unfathomable from a Western perspective that this could cover someone's basic living expenses for a year. I wish there were a simple way to participate as an individual. You don't have to be rich to cover one (or more) people's basic living expenses at this rate. Edit: Here's the link to donate: https://www.givedirectly.org/give-now https://www.givedirectly.org/give-now You can even send money via Venmo to avoid the credit card processing fee.
- gwern 10y ago
  > I wish there were a simple way to participate as an individual. There is? You give money to GiveDirectly. They even take Bitcoin (I've done it).
  - mirimir 10y ago
    That is very cool. I will spread the word.
  - tedmiston 10y ago
    Thanks, that is pretty cool. Somehow hadn't heard of them before this post.
  - StavrosK 10y ago
    Jeez, when did Bitcoin fees go to $0.3? Wow. I've donated, thank you! Seems like a great charity.
- savanaly 10y ago
  >It's almost unfathomable from a Western perspective that this could cover someone's basic living expenses for a year. While the lifestyles of people in those countries probably are unfathomable to wealthy westerners, don't forget the cost of living is way lower too. Comparing the converted to dollars incomes is not enough to give one the right perspective on how much they can buy. On 264/year in the US one might literally starve to death; clearly the millions of citizens of those countries are not all starving to death. The cost of food, shelter, etc. are all lower in dollar terms in those countries. They are still impoverished in terms of material quality of life though, of course.
tn13 10y ago
As Milton Friedman would say we are standing on the shoulders of the giants. People who came to these shores with almost nothing and built this amazing economy.
- mynameishere 10y ago
  It doesn't really matter, but I just hate when some old cliche is attributed incorrectly to someone modern as if it was clever. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standing_on_the_shoulders_of_giants https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standing_on_the_shoulders_of_g...
  - tn13 10y ago
    I am aware the original phrase belongs to someone else but mentioned milton here because he said in the exact specific context of economic situation in USA.
- antisthenes 10y ago
  You're standing on the shoulders of giants but not in the way that you think. The modern anomalous rise in wealth is directly correlated to an increase in the use of fossil fuels since the beginning of the 20th century. So if you want to talk about giants, you should mean to say you're standing on the shoulders of trillions of carbon lifeforms condensed into coal, oil and natural gas over hundreds of hundreds of millions of years. What people have accumulated in wealth between when life arose and 1850 is entirely insignificant than what was built in the last 167 years (roughly).
francamps 10y ago
I agree, and I think the misleading headline is aligned with traditional resistance to consider BI as a serious economic policy. In fact, what seems to be a common story in the article is that giving money directly in a way that is sustained over time allows people to plan long-term, stand on their feet and find better work or start businesses, making better long-term financial decisions to reverberate to the whole of the community. The easy resistance to BI is to say that it will remove incentives to work, and that is what the headline seems to imply. The content of the article seems to suggest the opposite.

paulpauper 10y ago

the subtlety is 'of', not 'is', which changes the meaning. Agree it's kinda a poorly written headline

aaron-lebo 10y ago
It's not just the headline. This is essentially describing charity to poor communities. That's not new. The article's connection between it and "basic income" is tenuous. To be fair, that's not the fault of the article as much as the program itself. How is charity to poor rural communities with collectivist leanings a test of the vague notion of basic income? Or what will this program tell us about basic income in the US with 300 million people and a much higher standard of living? Admirable social program, yes. A test of the viability of basic income worldwide? Not so much.
- BuuQu9hu 10y ago
  With each step, we shall come closer to a test which is applicable to the USA's poor. For now, we are establishing whether the concept works at all. The article described several previous tests, each of smaller scale and with flaws which this new test aims to eliminate. This program will tell us what the next test should look like.
  - aaron-lebo 10y ago
    Do you mind pointing out where? I went back through the article and found: With this initiative, GiveDirectly — with an office in New York and funded in no small part by Silicon Valley — is starting the world’s first true test of a universal basic income. As you stated, there have been other attempts, so I don't know what the definition of "first true test" is. A universal basic income has thus far lacked what tech folks might call a proof of concept. There have been a handful of experiments, including ones in Canada, India and Namibia. Finland is sending money to unemployed people, and the Dutch city Utrecht is doing a trial run, too. But no experiment has been truly complete, studying what happens when you give a whole community money for an extended period of time — when nobody has to worry where his or her next meal is coming from or fear the loss of a job or the birth of a child. The Mincome experiment was 5-years. Why was it not "truly complete"? http://www.marketplace.org/2016/12/20/world/dauphin http://www.marketplace.org/2016/12/20/world/dauphin Back to the article: That, surprisingly, worked well enough to give them the confidence to start a threadbare randomized control trial the year they graduated. It found that the recipients, who received an average of $500, saw excellent outcomes: Their children were 42 percent less likely to go a whole day without eating. Domestic-violence rates dropped, and mental health improved. Not trying to be argumentative, just not sure what this is testing. What is it controlling for? What is it doing different from previous experiments? What does giving money to every person in a poor community tell you that giving money to poor people in a wealthy community doesn't? These are very rural and impoverished communities by developed standards. Giving money to the poorest of the poor seems like an obvious improvement for them. What it doesn't say is how you can do it anywhere else.
    - marmot777 10y ago
      It looks to me like you are correct the Canadian thing looks like a universal income. So it could be just a garden variety error on the part of the NYT journalist to say it was the first. I'm happy there are other tests going on. Maybe I'm a hopeless idealist but I've always been optimistic about the future but that optimism has been pushed to the wall lately. This was the first thing I've read I while that made me think maybe the future isn't going to be a total dystopian nightmare. Maybe there's hope.
    - zuminator 10y ago
      Mincome guaranteed an income floor but it was not UBI. It was a means-tested income supplement to ensure that someone's income didn't fall below $16K year. If they already made $16K they didn't get any Mincome. If they made $8K, they got $8K Mincome. GiveDirectly gives everyone in the community who registers $22 month. The amount doesn't go down if the person starts to independently generate income. It will be universal, not means-tested. This isn't necessarily a better experiment, but it is a different one. What does giving money to every person in a poor community tell you that giving money to poor people in a wealthy community doesn't? Well, we don't know. Hence this experiment. Mincome, however successful, was basically a deluxe "welfare" program with all the negative baggage that comes with it. If we're giving a supplement to the poor, and taking away that supplement if they become wealthy, some argue it functions as a 100% tax on work, hence functioning as a disincentive. (That's in addition to the "disincentive" of not forcing poor people to work to meet their basic needs.) If you're in Mincome, why take an $8,000 yr. side job? It would be like working for free. But a person on GiveDirectly, if they get a $10/month side job, their total income will be $32. Side work will continue to be a financially productive investment. It's a different type of experiment.
- marmot777 10y ago
  Because it's cash on the barrelhead. Most aid of all sorts and most social safety net programs are not that straight forward. Also, universal basic income presumably won't penalize people for working or starting a business.
  - aaron-lebo 10y ago
    Also, universal basic income presumably won't penalize people for working or starting a business. There's no universal definition of basic income and it certainly won't be so straightforward once it goes through the meat-grinder of legislation. It's cash on the barrelhead to the poorest of the poor from outside organizations. That's charity.
    - marmot777 10y ago
      I don't understand your point with regard to charity. What's your objection if this is charity? I understand your concern about messy legislation but is that an argument against it? I see your point, though. I'm guessing, possibly wrong, that the people involved in this have considered or at least will consider how this will be implemented and will fund lobbying to try to get this done as cleanly as possible. I realize I'm making some assumptions here but people aren't going to invest boatloads of money in testing a concept than just let it fail during deployment.
- sdenton4 10y ago
  A lovely asymmetry: econ research on people living in the west is assumed to be generalizable and applicable to populations worldwide, while research on non-westerners is assumed not to be general in scope...
  - marmot777 10y ago
    Are they assuming it's generalizable or are they going to find out with testing?
- marmot777 10y ago
  I may be repeating myself but I think aid programs and welfare programs usually aren't as efficient as cash transfers and usually include a means test. The vision, at least, of this program is cash and no means test. There's the classic problem of the leaky bucket, meaning that overhead drains some resources before they reach the problem itself. Cash is about as efficient as it gets.
- mirimir 10y ago
  No, it's not just "describing charity to poor communities". It's about efficiently jump-starting them. Sure, ~$1 per day is very little. But in Kenya, it's enough to start small businesses. And with no need assessment or repayment management, the overhead is very low. Also, I suspect that at least some successful recipients would willingly become donors, making the system somewhat self-supporting. Average incomes in the US are much greater, for sure. But there are places in the US where average income is just as small, relative to the national average. And what will happen when trucking is fully automated? What would prevent parts of the US from becoming as impoverished as this area in Kenya? Edit: typo

l33tbro 10y ago

I came to the comments before reading precisely to find a post like this. So often these articles have a lofty title that is unrelated to the content, and I'm increasingly clicking on the comments first to verify the headline against the article.

marmot777 10y ago

As someone who occasionally publishes in minor publications, I know editors pick headlines and don't always do the best job of reflecting the content. I think editor's goal is to get as many people to read it as possible so they might take some liberties.

bredren 10y ago
Def do not blame the writer(s). Editors don't just change headlines. In technical stuff I've written using feminine pronouns I've had editors change to masculine. Editors will do anything they think makes a piece more ready for contemporary mass consumption.
- grzm 10y ago
  Depending on the publication, editors may also make changes to accommodate house style; for example, AP, or Chicago, or their own.
- dvtv75 10y ago
  > In technical stuff I've written using feminine pronouns I've had editors change to masculine. Speaking as someone who has had to write headlines, there can be very strict guidelines we have to adhere to. Masculine is still the default neutral in professional English, in a number of places I've worked at.

tedmiston 10y ago

What's most fascinating to me is the dollar amount: $22/month ==> $264/year. It's almost unfathomable from a Western perspective that this could cover someone's basic living expenses for a year. I wish there were a simple way to participate as an individual. You don't have to be rich to cover one (or more) people's basic living expenses at this rate. Edit: Here's the link to donate: https://www.givedirectly.org/give-now https://www.givedirectly.org/give-now You can even send money via Venmo to avoid the credit card processing fee.

gwern 10y ago
> I wish there were a simple way to participate as an individual. There is? You give money to GiveDirectly. They even take Bitcoin (I've done it).
- mirimir 10y ago
  That is very cool. I will spread the word.
- tedmiston 10y ago
  Thanks, that is pretty cool. Somehow hadn't heard of them before this post.
- StavrosK 10y ago
  Jeez, when did Bitcoin fees go to $0.3? Wow. I've donated, thank you! Seems like a great charity.
savanaly 10y ago
>It's almost unfathomable from a Western perspective that this could cover someone's basic living expenses for a year. While the lifestyles of people in those countries probably are unfathomable to wealthy westerners, don't forget the cost of living is way lower too. Comparing the converted to dollars incomes is not enough to give one the right perspective on how much they can buy. On 264/year in the US one might literally starve to death; clearly the millions of citizens of those countries are not all starving to death. The cost of food, shelter, etc. are all lower in dollar terms in those countries. They are still impoverished in terms of material quality of life though, of course.

tn13 10y ago

As Milton Friedman would say we are standing on the shoulders of the giants. People who came to these shores with almost nothing and built this amazing economy.

mynameishere 10y ago
It doesn't really matter, but I just hate when some old cliche is attributed incorrectly to someone modern as if it was clever. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standing_on_the_shoulders_of_giants https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standing_on_the_shoulders_of_g...
- tn13 10y ago
  I am aware the original phrase belongs to someone else but mentioned milton here because he said in the exact specific context of economic situation in USA.
antisthenes 10y ago
You're standing on the shoulders of giants but not in the way that you think. The modern anomalous rise in wealth is directly correlated to an increase in the use of fossil fuels since the beginning of the 20th century. So if you want to talk about giants, you should mean to say you're standing on the shoulders of trillions of carbon lifeforms condensed into coal, oil and natural gas over hundreds of hundreds of millions of years. What people have accumulated in wealth between when life arose and 1850 is entirely insignificant than what was built in the last 167 years (roughly).

francamps 10y ago

I agree, and I think the misleading headline is aligned with traditional resistance to consider BI as a serious economic policy. In fact, what seems to be a common story in the article is that giving money directly in a way that is sustained over time allows people to plan long-term, stand on their feet and find better work or start businesses, making better long-term financial decisions to reverberate to the whole of the community. The easy resistance to BI is to say that it will remove incentives to work, and that is what the headline seems to imply. The content of the article seems to suggest the opposite.