7 ms·

> the people don't all become listless and stop contributing Well, in the US two groups that do get state distributions - residents of Alaska and those on Nati

> the people don't all become listless and stop contributing Well, in the US two groups that do get state distributions - residents of Alaska and those on Native American reservations - do have disproportionate rates of substance abuse (mainly alcohol). As far as seniors who get pensions, what is your definition of "contributing"? In many cases they are eligible for those pensions only once they declare themselves retired.

pbhjpbhj 9y ago
Are those groups anomalous though: alcoholism has a generic factor I gather, and colder climates appear to have more substance abuse. With those factors accounted for does providing "pensions" increase substance [ab]use, and is the use problematic.
wgerard 9y ago
> residents of Alaska Probably a bad example to bring up. The Alaska fund distributions amount to roughly ~$1.5k a year. Not quite the same as a pension or UBI. I'll probably get egg on my face for saying this, but I highly doubt anyone in Alaska lives solely on fund distributions. Further, as noted [1], the "dividend had no effect on employment, and increased part-time work by 1.8 percentage points (17 percent)... our results suggest that a universal and permanent cash transfer does not significantly decrease aggregate employment." 1: http://www.nber.org/papers/w24312.pdf http://www.nber.org/papers/w24312.pdf
- mrep 9y ago
  One of my intern friends a few years ago was from Alaska. He said all that money practically goes towards heating because it gets so freaking cold in the winter.
opportune 9y ago
There are also plenty of retirees and rich people that get money for not working. I think a good cohort to look at would be trust fund recipients, specifically those who receive between $10-50k/year from their trust. Oftentimes these trusts are first available in young adulthood, so they are a good proxy for UBI. Of course the major confounding variable would be that these recipients are likely to be wealthier, and thus more educated, than the general population
- Applejinx 9y ago
  This. Go ahead and make whatever arguments you like about how people should not get money for not working, just as long as you're prepared also to apply that to the workings of compound interest in savings accounts :) There should be no income whatsoever merely from already having money. Go get a job :)
dragonwriter 9y ago
> Well, in the US two groups that do get state distributions - residents of Alaska and those on Native American reservations - do have disproportionate rates of substance abuse (mainly alcohol). Both of which had those problems before the distributions, so this appears to be the worst kind of correlation to causation argument, the pre hoc ergo propter hoc argument.

pbhjpbhj 9y ago

Are those groups anomalous though: alcoholism has a generic factor I gather, and colder climates appear to have more substance abuse. With those factors accounted for does providing "pensions" increase substance [ab]use, and is the use problematic.

wgerard 9y ago

> residents of Alaska Probably a bad example to bring up. The Alaska fund distributions amount to roughly ~$1.5k a year. Not quite the same as a pension or UBI. I'll probably get egg on my face for saying this, but I highly doubt anyone in Alaska lives solely on fund distributions. Further, as noted [1], the "dividend had no effect on employment, and increased part-time work by 1.8 percentage points (17 percent)... our results suggest that a universal and permanent cash transfer does not significantly decrease aggregate employment." 1: http://www.nber.org/papers/w24312.pdf http://www.nber.org/papers/w24312.pdf

mrep 9y ago
One of my intern friends a few years ago was from Alaska. He said all that money practically goes towards heating because it gets so freaking cold in the winter.

opportune 9y ago

There are also plenty of retirees and rich people that get money for not working. I think a good cohort to look at would be trust fund recipients, specifically those who receive between $10-50k/year from their trust. Oftentimes these trusts are first available in young adulthood, so they are a good proxy for UBI. Of course the major confounding variable would be that these recipients are likely to be wealthier, and thus more educated, than the general population

Applejinx 9y ago
This. Go ahead and make whatever arguments you like about how people should not get money for not working, just as long as you're prepared also to apply that to the workings of compound interest in savings accounts :) There should be no income whatsoever merely from already having money. Go get a job :)

dragonwriter 9y ago

> Well, in the US two groups that do get state distributions - residents of Alaska and those on Native American reservations - do have disproportionate rates of substance abuse (mainly alcohol). Both of which had those problems before the distributions, so this appears to be the worst kind of correlation to causation argument, the pre hoc ergo propter hoc argument.