7 ms·

I’m sorry, but “getting free money makes people happy” isn’t exactly a shocking result is it? The result that the employment level was consistent is mildly int

I’m sorry, but “getting free money makes people happy” isn’t exactly a shocking result is it? The result that the employment level was consistent is mildly interesting, though I’d expect the numbers could be different with a longer or larger test. But the real question imo is “does this scale without destroying the country’s finances?”

fsloth 8y ago
"I’m sorry, but “getting free money makes people happy” isn’t exactly a shocking result is it?" Well, in the context of the experiment the people would have been able to garner state support through a bit more complex social security / social services schemes so it's not entirely about that they have more resources available, but also how they were given those resources and how many needless strings were attached to those. I agree on principle to your point, but it's not as blatant as if the people had been living in abject poverty and then given money beyond their current financial means.
- notahacker 8y ago
  The treatment group continued receiving 83% of their existing benefits with the "needless" strings attached. Think it's safe to say they'd have been a lot less likely to be happy if they lost them in favour of the UBI alone...
mises 8y ago
This. From what I understand, raising taxes goes over better most places than in America. It's also worth pointing out that Norway, a country with an incredibly generous entitlement program, funds a huge amount of it via oil production.
Sir_Substance 8y ago
>I’m sorry, but “getting free money makes people happy” isn’t exactly a shocking result is it? It's kind of significant, yeah. As a general rule, people on income support in Australia and the UK tend to be harassed, stressed and moderately unhappy people despite the free money. There's a lot of evidence from looking at lottery winners and people with significant disabilities that suggests that people have some base level of happiness they trend towards. Happy fun people who have catastrophic accidents and end up paraplegics are really unhappy for about 6 months and then start rolling with it and end up being happy fun people who make light of their situation and enjoy life despite the wheelchair. Debbie downers who win the lottery are super-happy for about 6 months and then become rich unhappy people. A persistent long term increase in net happiness is a notable result. Maybe not earth-shattering, but certainly not necessarily to be expected either.
- notahacker 8y ago
  > It's kind of significant, yeah. As a general rule, people on income support in Australia and the UK tend to be harassed, stressed and moderately unhappy people despite the free money. The experiment had an appropriately-matched Finnish control group on standard unemployment benefits. The UBI group received four fifths of those benefits plus an extra unconditional EUR560 per month and were according to the preliminary results about 4% less likely to report themselves as stressed Obviously the caveats about the experiment being short term apply, but that's not a significant result, that's a disappointing result.
BartBoch 8y ago
Well, this test is invalid for one more reason - recipients knew that the experiment has "end date." This means that the employment rates would not be affected since people could not treat the benefits as a permanent thing and plan accordingly. If you would take 1,000 people and give the lifetime benefits, I would assume this would change things a bit.
- NedIsakoff 8y ago
  That's one of my points I always make when people mention UBI experiments. The other one is the amount is too low. I have never been to Finland, but can someone there comment on this: can you live on 560 euros a month without some other income or assistance?
  - swebs 8y ago
    >without some other income or assistance? Low income households receive a housing allowance as well. https://www.kela.fi/web/en/housing-benefits-amount-and-payment https://www.kela.fi/web/en/housing-benefits-amount-and-payme...
throw0101a 8y ago
> But the real question imo is “does this scale without destroying the country’s finances?” It depends on how it is implemented and the numbers involved. One proposal [1] would be to give everyone $US 10K per year starting at age 21, and not having income taxes start until you have an income over US$ 40K. This allows one to get get enough for the bare necessities (shelter, food) "for free", but if you want to have a life that's more than just subsistence living, you would have to work--but you get to keep a lot of that upfront. If you want a 'fancy' life, then you'll have to work more, and there would be personal income taxes. Presumably there would be corporate and sales taxes as well. I don't know enough about the math to know if it is practical. [1] https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/08/why-arent-reformicons-pushing-a-guaranteed-basic-income/375600/ https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/08/why-are...
- ams6110 8y ago
  Giving everyone $10K/year would just inflate prices until $10K was the zero baseline for income.
  - jchrisa 8y ago
    I'd expect the opposite. Giving a UBI would suddenly give the poorest people a voice in the market, and industries that are currently bottom-feeder would become inclusive and thriving. Eg payday loans becomes small business loans. Dollar stores get better fresh produce, etc.
  - dragonwriter 8y ago
    > Giving everyone $10K/year would just inflate prices until $10K was the zero baseline for income. That doesn't make sense. A downward redistribution (which UBI is) is going to inflate prices of goods with disproportionate low-end demand and deflate those with disproportionate high-end demand somewhat, but in any plausible scenario it will still (before considering any effects of reactive production shifts) increase the buying power on the low end and decrease it on the high end, even after the effects of price level changes.
  - brixon 8y ago
Spooky23 8y ago
Actually, it is. When you don’t approach social welfare as a corrective action of a defective person, this is evidence of a positive effect similar to social security. It’s very different than the norm. When you think about the money spent on nursing homes, daycare, juvenile justice or even kids who extend college due to the need to work, society pays a big bill directly or indirectly. My family does well, but we realized that expenses like daycare, summer camps, etc made it such that having one of us take a sabbatical would only cost a few hundred bucks a month, and be a better outcome for our family. Not many folks have that luxury, and imo we are all worse off for it.
marcosdumay 8y ago
Well, I don't remember ever reading the comments about any UI article here without people claiming that people receiving it will get depressed and desperate.
dalbasal 8y ago
The ubi debate is surprisingly diverse. You could line up knowledgeable opponents and proponents, and you would probably find their reasons vary wildly. They also come from all over the political map. But I agree with you. It seems odd to me that people are worried about an income harming people on average, or even affecting employment. We already have plenty of people with passive incomes, and they don't generally become depressed bums. They're called rich people.
- davvolun 8y ago
  Right? If anything, it should be very clear at this point, once a person has some money, they almost inevitably want more money.

fsloth 8y ago

"I’m sorry, but “getting free money makes people happy” isn’t exactly a shocking result is it?" Well, in the context of the experiment the people would have been able to garner state support through a bit more complex social security / social services schemes so it's not entirely about that they have more resources available, but also how they were given those resources and how many needless strings were attached to those. I agree on principle to your point, but it's not as blatant as if the people had been living in abject poverty and then given money beyond their current financial means.

notahacker 8y ago
The treatment group continued receiving 83% of their existing benefits with the "needless" strings attached. Think it's safe to say they'd have been a lot less likely to be happy if they lost them in favour of the UBI alone...

mises 8y ago

This. From what I understand, raising taxes goes over better most places than in America. It's also worth pointing out that Norway, a country with an incredibly generous entitlement program, funds a huge amount of it via oil production.

Sir_Substance 8y ago

>I’m sorry, but “getting free money makes people happy” isn’t exactly a shocking result is it? It's kind of significant, yeah. As a general rule, people on income support in Australia and the UK tend to be harassed, stressed and moderately unhappy people despite the free money. There's a lot of evidence from looking at lottery winners and people with significant disabilities that suggests that people have some base level of happiness they trend towards. Happy fun people who have catastrophic accidents and end up paraplegics are really unhappy for about 6 months and then start rolling with it and end up being happy fun people who make light of their situation and enjoy life despite the wheelchair. Debbie downers who win the lottery are super-happy for about 6 months and then become rich unhappy people. A persistent long term increase in net happiness is a notable result. Maybe not earth-shattering, but certainly not necessarily to be expected either.

notahacker 8y ago
> It's kind of significant, yeah. As a general rule, people on income support in Australia and the UK tend to be harassed, stressed and moderately unhappy people despite the free money. The experiment had an appropriately-matched Finnish control group on standard unemployment benefits. The UBI group received four fifths of those benefits plus an extra unconditional EUR560 per month and were according to the preliminary results about 4% less likely to report themselves as stressed Obviously the caveats about the experiment being short term apply, but that's not a significant result, that's a disappointing result.

BartBoch 8y ago

Well, this test is invalid for one more reason - recipients knew that the experiment has "end date." This means that the employment rates would not be affected since people could not treat the benefits as a permanent thing and plan accordingly. If you would take 1,000 people and give the lifetime benefits, I would assume this would change things a bit.

NedIsakoff 8y ago
That's one of my points I always make when people mention UBI experiments. The other one is the amount is too low. I have never been to Finland, but can someone there comment on this: can you live on 560 euros a month without some other income or assistance?
- swebs 8y ago
  >without some other income or assistance? Low income households receive a housing allowance as well. https://www.kela.fi/web/en/housing-benefits-amount-and-payment https://www.kela.fi/web/en/housing-benefits-amount-and-payme...

throw0101a 8y ago

> But the real question imo is “does this scale without destroying the country’s finances?” It depends on how it is implemented and the numbers involved. One proposal [1] would be to give everyone $US 10K per year starting at age 21, and not having income taxes start until you have an income over US$ 40K. This allows one to get get enough for the bare necessities (shelter, food) "for free", but if you want to have a life that's more than just subsistence living, you would have to work--but you get to keep a lot of that upfront. If you want a 'fancy' life, then you'll have to work more, and there would be personal income taxes. Presumably there would be corporate and sales taxes as well. I don't know enough about the math to know if it is practical. [1] https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/08/why-arent-reformicons-pushing-a-guaranteed-basic-income/375600/ https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/08/why-are...

ams6110 8y ago
Giving everyone $10K/year would just inflate prices until $10K was the zero baseline for income.
- jchrisa 8y ago
  I'd expect the opposite. Giving a UBI would suddenly give the poorest people a voice in the market, and industries that are currently bottom-feeder would become inclusive and thriving. Eg payday loans becomes small business loans. Dollar stores get better fresh produce, etc.
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  > Giving everyone $10K/year would just inflate prices until $10K was the zero baseline for income. That doesn't make sense. A downward redistribution (which UBI is) is going to inflate prices of goods with disproportionate low-end demand and deflate those with disproportionate high-end demand somewhat, but in any plausible scenario it will still (before considering any effects of reactive production shifts) increase the buying power on the low end and decrease it on the high end, even after the effects of price level changes.
- brixon 8y ago

Spooky23 8y ago

Actually, it is. When you don’t approach social welfare as a corrective action of a defective person, this is evidence of a positive effect similar to social security. It’s very different than the norm. When you think about the money spent on nursing homes, daycare, juvenile justice or even kids who extend college due to the need to work, society pays a big bill directly or indirectly. My family does well, but we realized that expenses like daycare, summer camps, etc made it such that having one of us take a sabbatical would only cost a few hundred bucks a month, and be a better outcome for our family. Not many folks have that luxury, and imo we are all worse off for it.

marcosdumay 8y ago

Well, I don't remember ever reading the comments about any UI article here without people claiming that people receiving it will get depressed and desperate.

dalbasal 8y ago

The ubi debate is surprisingly diverse. You could line up knowledgeable opponents and proponents, and you would probably find their reasons vary wildly. They also come from all over the political map. But I agree with you. It seems odd to me that people are worried about an income harming people on average, or even affecting employment. We already have plenty of people with passive incomes, and they don't generally become depressed bums. They're called rich people.

davvolun 8y ago
Right? If anything, it should be very clear at this point, once a person has some money, they almost inevitably want more money.