3 ms·

There are multiple studies of Alaska's Permanent Fund which supplies much less than you are quoting, only around a thousand to a couple of thousand a year per r

There are multiple studies of Alaska's Permanent Fund which supplies much less than you are quoting, only around a thousand to a couple of thousand a year per resident, and it's making a slight increase in people seeking work, counterintuitively it causes no increase of people working less than before which some opponents hypothesized. Obviously Alaska is special case compared to lower 48:low population/hard to get certain goods/not a lot of immigrants. https://news.uchicago.edu/article/2018/02/14/universal-basic-income-policies-dont-cause-people-leave-workforce-study-finds https://news.uchicago.edu/article/2018/02/14/universal-basic... Also, there appears to be no effect comparable to any of the overheated lower 48 coastal housing markets as well. https://www.zillow.com/ak/home-values/ https://www.zillow.com/ak/home-values/

philipodonnell 8y ago
Whether it results in seeking work is different from how prices respond, in fact, an increase in those seeking work may be a direct result of the cost of living increasing. The subsidy in Alaska is per person, thus two families in identical apartments may receive different levels of subsidy. If at any point the management company observes that their tenants are receiving more subsidies (say the average family size per apartment increases) then they could choose to raise rental rates to try to capture this. But it raises the rates on all family sizes, so a 2-person family is now paying more as a % basis than a 4-person family, so it would make it more likely that someone from the 2-person family may need to work more/get a part-time job. Obviously that's a drastic simplification, but I think it illustrates the problem with stimulating demand without trying to control supply or pricing directly.
- stevenwoo 8y ago
  Yes, those are all true and the per person thing is pointed out in the article. However, we do not see a big negative from Alaska level UBI so it seems it's worth experimenting with it in other places and at other levels.

philipodonnell 8y ago

Whether it results in seeking work is different from how prices respond, in fact, an increase in those seeking work may be a direct result of the cost of living increasing. The subsidy in Alaska is per person, thus two families in identical apartments may receive different levels of subsidy. If at any point the management company observes that their tenants are receiving more subsidies (say the average family size per apartment increases) then they could choose to raise rental rates to try to capture this. But it raises the rates on all family sizes, so a 2-person family is now paying more as a % basis than a 4-person family, so it would make it more likely that someone from the 2-person family may need to work more/get a part-time job. Obviously that's a drastic simplification, but I think it illustrates the problem with stimulating demand without trying to control supply or pricing directly.

stevenwoo 8y ago
Yes, those are all true and the per person thing is pointed out in the article. However, we do not see a big negative from Alaska level UBI so it seems it's worth experimenting with it in other places and at other levels.