5 ms·

To evaluate that I'd look at the effect on the kids of the 99%. If it enables their parents to drink a bunch more than they would have otherwise, it might not

To evaluate that I'd look at the effect on the kids of the 99%. If it enables their parents to drink a bunch more than they would have otherwise, it might not be a net positive, even including the 1% who use the money wisely. I'm slightly suspicious of the self-reported drinking levels. I'd be afraid that the aid recipients might fear having the money taken away from them (no matter how much they're assured otherwise) if they report their true amounts of drinking or other behavior they assume the study organizers don't approve of. Do surveys of people who drink typically reveal true results, when further investigation is done? The incentives here are so painfully slanted. Is there a B Team investigating this adversarially? Ideally this study would be done by researchers who aren't true believers in basic income. If it really works, it works when those carrying it out don't believe in it. Especially considering that if this does get implemented globally, a big percent of those running the show will be bored bureaucrats, not people passionate about the fate of the impoverished.

d0100 9y ago
> If it enables their parents to drink a bunch more than they would have otherwise So just add to the "basic income" scheme a "basic mental health" package, and where are good to go.
- barry-cotter 9y ago
  And that’s why there’s no hope for an actual basic income actually working.
- DougN7 9y ago
  And you've just taken the first step towards where we are now. There will of course need to be a "basic physical health" package, and a "basic financial health" package, and a "basic housing package"... The whole idea of UBI is to get rid of everything else and expect people to take care of themselves. Personally, I don't see how UBI scales beyond small tests to whole countries/economies.
  - T2_t2 9y ago
    It won't, because the only way UBI can work is to completely redo a countries spending as well as its taxing. A negative income tax/UBI where, say, outreach programs for the homeless are paid for won't work. Maybe even things like public housing. Further afield, even if we can conservatively say it would cost the USA a trillion dollars, that's an amount that seems implausibly high to get through. I do wonder though if it would be possible to fund with a combination of a sell off of public land plus technology. Theoretically, with a UBI, there would be little to no need for the government to provide subsidized housing, and a technological solution where money could be sent directly to landlords rather than via recipients would provide the sort of risk reduction that many landlords need. That could lead to a boom in sub $1,000 a month rentals, where landlords are guaranteed they will be paid. Combine with a sell off of some public housing assets, and it might be possible to fund a UBI for several years, not so much to push the can down the line, but to see if the trillion dollars is recouped with economic growth as the entire amount would be spent by all recipients up to and slightly above the median US income, so there should be some positive economic growth. That's the rub though, this is hard to pass. The left in particular won't like the replacement of programs for direct cash and a public assets sell off is kind of the left's idea of heresy. Conversely, the right won't let it through without MASSIVELY reducing the number of programs that are currently funded. There is virtually no country in the world with a sane and rational enough parliament to be able to perform the sort of radical surgery their budgets need to introduce a UBI.
scotty79 9y ago
Why would having more money make people drink more? People drink because it's the cheapest entertainment. When people have more money they try out other forms of entertainment.
- comicjk 9y ago
  Empirically, wealthy Americans drink more than poor ones. http://news.gallup.com/poll/184358/drinking-highest-among-educated-upper-income-americans.aspx http://news.gallup.com/poll/184358/drinking-highest-among-ed...
  - scotty79 9y ago
    The page you link says that they drink more often, not necessarily more. I imagine rich people use alcohol to spice up other entertainment and poor people more often entertain themselves with alcohol only.
    - comicjk 9y ago
      You may be right about the use of alcohol as a sole source of entertainment. But the evidence shows that rich people (this source is the UK) drink more, not just more often: http://www.ias.org.uk/Alcohol-knowledge-centre/Socioeconomic-groups/Factsheets/Consumption-levels-by-income-earned.aspx http://www.ias.org.uk/Alcohol-knowledge-centre/Socioeconomic... These are the top Google results for "alcohol consumption by income level", by the way. There's no need to speculate about it without sources as people in this thread are doing.

d0100 9y ago

> If it enables their parents to drink a bunch more than they would have otherwise So just add to the "basic income" scheme a "basic mental health" package, and where are good to go.

barry-cotter 9y ago
And that’s why there’s no hope for an actual basic income actually working.
DougN7 9y ago
And you've just taken the first step towards where we are now. There will of course need to be a "basic physical health" package, and a "basic financial health" package, and a "basic housing package"... The whole idea of UBI is to get rid of everything else and expect people to take care of themselves. Personally, I don't see how UBI scales beyond small tests to whole countries/economies.
- T2_t2 9y ago
  It won't, because the only way UBI can work is to completely redo a countries spending as well as its taxing. A negative income tax/UBI where, say, outreach programs for the homeless are paid for won't work. Maybe even things like public housing. Further afield, even if we can conservatively say it would cost the USA a trillion dollars, that's an amount that seems implausibly high to get through. I do wonder though if it would be possible to fund with a combination of a sell off of public land plus technology. Theoretically, with a UBI, there would be little to no need for the government to provide subsidized housing, and a technological solution where money could be sent directly to landlords rather than via recipients would provide the sort of risk reduction that many landlords need. That could lead to a boom in sub $1,000 a month rentals, where landlords are guaranteed they will be paid. Combine with a sell off of some public housing assets, and it might be possible to fund a UBI for several years, not so much to push the can down the line, but to see if the trillion dollars is recouped with economic growth as the entire amount would be spent by all recipients up to and slightly above the median US income, so there should be some positive economic growth. That's the rub though, this is hard to pass. The left in particular won't like the replacement of programs for direct cash and a public assets sell off is kind of the left's idea of heresy. Conversely, the right won't let it through without MASSIVELY reducing the number of programs that are currently funded. There is virtually no country in the world with a sane and rational enough parliament to be able to perform the sort of radical surgery their budgets need to introduce a UBI.

scotty79 9y ago

Why would having more money make people drink more? People drink because it's the cheapest entertainment. When people have more money they try out other forms of entertainment.

comicjk 9y ago
Empirically, wealthy Americans drink more than poor ones. http://news.gallup.com/poll/184358/drinking-highest-among-educated-upper-income-americans.aspx http://news.gallup.com/poll/184358/drinking-highest-among-ed...
- scotty79 9y ago
  The page you link says that they drink more often, not necessarily more. I imagine rich people use alcohol to spice up other entertainment and poor people more often entertain themselves with alcohol only.
  - comicjk 9y ago
    You may be right about the use of alcohol as a sole source of entertainment. But the evidence shows that rich people (this source is the UK) drink more, not just more often: http://www.ias.org.uk/Alcohol-knowledge-centre/Socioeconomic-groups/Factsheets/Consumption-levels-by-income-earned.aspx http://www.ias.org.uk/Alcohol-knowledge-centre/Socioeconomic... These are the top Google results for "alcohol consumption by income level", by the way. There's no need to speculate about it without sources as people in this thread are doing.