3 ms·

TL;DR: They got the same unemployment money (~555€) as before, but it was called Basic Income. But they did not have to partake the quarterly motivation shit fr

TL;DR: They got the same unemployment money (~555€) as before, but it was called Basic Income. But they did not have to partake the quarterly motivation shit from jobless office anymore. Which made them indeed happier. Success!

C1sc0cat 8y ago
Quarterly in the UK had to attend twice a month and agree to spend x hours day on job search and apply for y jobs every week. This is where indeed comes In handy need to prove you have applied for y jobs just us indeed to make up the numbers
cromulent 8y ago
No, the key difference was that you could also earn money from other work without losing the government money. This means that you can take on part time jobs without freaking out that you will lose unemployment. This also means (for local business owners) that you can hire people for part time / spec work without being concerned about long term effects. This is a big deal for small businesses.
- drcode 8y ago
  ...which of course the study showed they didn't do, it showed the cohort did not take on more part time jobs.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
nabla9 8y ago
There has been much better experiments in the US using Alaska Permanent Fund and creating synthetic Alaska elsewhere in the US to compare against. The Labor Market Impacts of Universal and Permanent Cash Transfers: Evidence from the Alaska Permanent Fund https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3118343 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3118343 The study provides some interesting and insightful results: >... we show suggestive evidence that tradable sectors experience employment reductions, while non-tradable sectors do not. Overall, our results suggest that a universal and permanent cash transfer does not significantly decrease aggregate employment. It makes sense that jobs that can be moved elsewhere decrease a little, because people have more bargaining power. It also makes sense, that there is no effect when jobs can't be exported. Employers just pay little more because UBI also creates demand. People still like to buy stuff with all that UBI money. Someone has to work to make tings to sell. In large economic region–US or EU–the effect of UBI would have no noticeable effect to employment.

C1sc0cat 8y ago

Quarterly in the UK had to attend twice a month and agree to spend x hours day on job search and apply for y jobs every week. This is where indeed comes In handy need to prove you have applied for y jobs just us indeed to make up the numbers

cromulent 8y ago

No, the key difference was that you could also earn money from other work without losing the government money. This means that you can take on part time jobs without freaking out that you will lose unemployment. This also means (for local business owners) that you can hire people for part time / spec work without being concerned about long term effects. This is a big deal for small businesses.

drcode 8y ago
...which of course the study showed they didn't do, it showed the cohort did not take on more part time jobs.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]

nabla9 8y ago

There has been much better experiments in the US using Alaska Permanent Fund and creating synthetic Alaska elsewhere in the US to compare against. The Labor Market Impacts of Universal and Permanent Cash Transfers: Evidence from the Alaska Permanent Fund https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3118343 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3118343 The study provides some interesting and insightful results: >... we show suggestive evidence that tradable sectors experience employment reductions, while non-tradable sectors do not. Overall, our results suggest that a universal and permanent cash transfer does not significantly decrease aggregate employment. It makes sense that jobs that can be moved elsewhere decrease a little, because people have more bargaining power. It also makes sense, that there is no effect when jobs can't be exported. Employers just pay little more because UBI also creates demand. People still like to buy stuff with all that UBI money. Someone has to work to make tings to sell. In large economic region–US or EU–the effect of UBI would have no noticeable effect to employment.