4 ms·

The did. and the result showed that their employment chances were 'no more likely to do so than a control group of people who weren't given the money.' What th

by gyaniv 8y ago

The did. and the result showed that their employment chances were 'no more likely to do so than a control group of people who weren't given the money.' What they didn't do (although some wanted them to), is also check the system on already employed people and checked if that changed their likelihood of staying in a bad job/finding a better job or anything like that. Because that's the real idea behind basic income. not just giving it to the unemployed, but to everyone, with the hope that it would encourage people to find jobs better suited to them, and to allow people to take bigger risks.

jerf 8y ago
Increasingly I feel like all my philosophical problems with UBI are irrelevant in the face of the fact that apparently UBI is too expensive to even do a proper small-scale trial. If we can't afford that, we even moreso can't afford simply leaping to full scale. (And one thing these trial do seem to show is that giving it out, and then removing it, is at least modestly disruptive.)
- awakeasleep 8y ago
  I think most people struggle to understand how plastic money is in the context of a government that runs its own presses. Everything is affordable in that situation. In a smaller country, if you do nothing else to manage it, it increases inflation. In a 'reserver currency' country that inflation is spread out across the globe. And that isn't even addressing things like how the USA could reinstitute the wealth and income taxes of the 40's, or charge market (rather than fire sale) rates for national resources (drilling on fed land, grazing on fed land), airwaves, or alter how we grant monopolies (patents) and many other untapped flows of public wealth to private entities.
- manicdee 8y ago
  The Finland trial replaced existing unemployment insurance with a no-conditions payment of about the same value. No extra expense, in fact it would have been cheaper to administer since there was no compliance paperwork to process and police.
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  > UBI is too expensive to even do a proper small-scale trial. UBI isn't too expensive to do small-scale trial, it's entire theory of operation (and the key criticisms raised, like the inflation-spiral one) is too dependent on universality and coordination with other policy changes to do a meaningful small-scale trial, as you can neither validate the claimed benefits nor refute the claimed drawbacks that way. You can do a gradual ramp of benefits trial, but not a limited sample of population in an otherwise open environment with pre-existing policies generally applicable.

by gyaniv 8y ago

jerf 8y ago

Increasingly I feel like all my philosophical problems with UBI are irrelevant in the face of the fact that apparently UBI is too expensive to even do a proper small-scale trial. If we can't afford that, we even moreso can't afford simply leaping to full scale. (And one thing these trial do seem to show is that giving it out, and then removing it, is at least modestly disruptive.)

awakeasleep 8y ago
I think most people struggle to understand how plastic money is in the context of a government that runs its own presses. Everything is affordable in that situation. In a smaller country, if you do nothing else to manage it, it increases inflation. In a 'reserver currency' country that inflation is spread out across the globe. And that isn't even addressing things like how the USA could reinstitute the wealth and income taxes of the 40's, or charge market (rather than fire sale) rates for national resources (drilling on fed land, grazing on fed land), airwaves, or alter how we grant monopolies (patents) and many other untapped flows of public wealth to private entities.
manicdee 8y ago
The Finland trial replaced existing unemployment insurance with a no-conditions payment of about the same value. No extra expense, in fact it would have been cheaper to administer since there was no compliance paperwork to process and police.
dragonwriter 8y ago
> UBI is too expensive to even do a proper small-scale trial. UBI isn't too expensive to do small-scale trial, it's entire theory of operation (and the key criticisms raised, like the inflation-spiral one) is too dependent on universality and coordination with other policy changes to do a meaningful small-scale trial, as you can neither validate the claimed benefits nor refute the claimed drawbacks that way. You can do a gradual ramp of benefits trial, but not a limited sample of population in an otherwise open environment with pre-existing policies generally applicable.