6 ms·

UBI trends (inc in coverage, news, searches) : https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=today%205-y&geo=US&q=Universal%20basic%20income https://trends.goo

UBI trends (inc in coverage, news, searches) : https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=today%205-y&geo=US&q=Universal%20basic%20income https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=today%205-y&ge... Alaska program akin to UBI : https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska_Permanent_Fund https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska_Permanent_Fund Finland UBI trial results : https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2019/02/the-results-finlands-universal-basic-income-experiment-are-in-is-it-working/ https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2019/02/the-results-finlands-... (Political page) 35 UBI or cash transfer experiments: https://www.yang2020.com/35-ubi-programs-cash-transfer-experiments/ https://www.yang2020.com/35-ubi-programs-cash-transfer-exper...

kortilla 7y ago
The petro fund in Alaska, are you joking? It paid out less than $2000 for the entire year. That has as much relation to UBI as the standard deduction.
- sitkack 7y ago
  I don't have recent stats, but there were a significant number of people living off the petro fund. Alaska is a totally different beast.
- dyarosla 7y ago
  I don’t believe the size of the payout is the right metric to be looking at. There’s more in common with UBI than you might think: The government paid out some amount, to all residents, regardless of income, to be used unconditionally. Pretty much the defn of UBI. To your point about standard deduction - it on the other hand does not pay out anything if you don’t make anything. The petro fund is an actual dividend, very much not a deduction.
  - zdragnar 7y ago
    UBI is substantially different than just handing out cash. The basic premise: 1) It is sufficient to provide a "basic" level of income 2) It is more efficient than targeted welfare programs (medicare, medicaid, food stamps, etc) 3) Community outcomes are improved by way of economic (retraining / small business starting), health (less stress / more treatment) and poverty (less stress = smarter financial choices) So far, I haven't seen any experiment actually test any of those things. I don't know of any where participation has been contingent upon giving up other programs (so we don't know if it's better than targeted welfare), and none have lasted long enough to know if any behavior changes were influenced by the knowledge that the cash was going to be cut off in the future. As such, I haven't seen much "success" in the way of UBI experiments.
    - dyarosla 7y ago
      I dont know where you got your definition. To quote: BIEN lists the following five defining characteristics of basic income: Periodic: Distributed in regular payments, Cash payment: Distributed as funds rather than, for example, vouchers for goods or services. Individual: Each citizen (or adult citizen) receives the payment, rather than each household. Universal: All citizens receive the payment. Unconditional: Recipients are not required to demonstrate need or willingness to work. Your points 1, 2, and 3 are not definitions of UBI. EDIT: the Finland trial looked at many of the outcomes you described above- linked above. Only half of the results are currently available. As I'd already mentioned, there hasn't been much in the way of negative outcomes in existing UBI and UBI-like trials.
      - zdragnar 7y ago
        Without points 1, 2 or 3, all you're testing is whether or not giving financially strapped people no-strings-attached money makes them happier and less stressed. Of course it does, at least in the short term (longer-term studies have demonstrated that money does not, in fact, buy happiness). That doesn't mean that any of this is good public policy, that it would be better than current policies, or that it would improve long-term outcomes. Notably, your Finland link indicated that there was no change to employment rates, which is unfortunate, and I think undermines a lot of the arguments I've heard from proponents of UBI- that people who are less stressed financially will be able to make better use of their time training into new industries, start small businesses, etc.
        dyarosla 7y ago
        Yes, I already mentioned the employment thing. And this was only in regards to 1year of the trial/ Moreover, all these positive outcomes you seem to dismiss (and add that in the long term money doesn’t buy happiness- which is neither here nor there) doesn't mean that any of this is NOT good public policy, that it would NOT be better or that it would NOT improve long-term outcomes. If anything, all the outcomes: lower stress, greater happiness, etc, are all known to lead to healthier individuals, with more fulfilling lives, with plenty of potential benefits for society as a whole. Moreover, trialing UBI is a red herring. How many welfare programs have been trialed before implementation? How many have been researched thoroughly on their per dollar outcome? The fact is, many of these programs are implemented without any trial and only on the basis of perceived outcomes that would lean positive. Why should UBI be any different? There are also plenty of examples that show that direct cash is oftentimes more favourable than some other variant; see the charity GiveDirectly’s entire premise. To argue that no successful trial has been run, that outcomes have not been favourable, or that the general idea of UBI is flawed until we research it to death, is to be overtly skeptical.

kortilla 7y ago

The petro fund in Alaska, are you joking? It paid out less than $2000 for the entire year. That has as much relation to UBI as the standard deduction.

sitkack 7y ago
I don't have recent stats, but there were a significant number of people living off the petro fund. Alaska is a totally different beast.
dyarosla 7y ago
I don’t believe the size of the payout is the right metric to be looking at. There’s more in common with UBI than you might think: The government paid out some amount, to all residents, regardless of income, to be used unconditionally. Pretty much the defn of UBI. To your point about standard deduction - it on the other hand does not pay out anything if you don’t make anything. The petro fund is an actual dividend, very much not a deduction.
- zdragnar 7y ago
  UBI is substantially different than just handing out cash. The basic premise: 1) It is sufficient to provide a "basic" level of income 2) It is more efficient than targeted welfare programs (medicare, medicaid, food stamps, etc) 3) Community outcomes are improved by way of economic (retraining / small business starting), health (less stress / more treatment) and poverty (less stress = smarter financial choices) So far, I haven't seen any experiment actually test any of those things. I don't know of any where participation has been contingent upon giving up other programs (so we don't know if it's better than targeted welfare), and none have lasted long enough to know if any behavior changes were influenced by the knowledge that the cash was going to be cut off in the future. As such, I haven't seen much "success" in the way of UBI experiments.
  - dyarosla 7y ago
    I dont know where you got your definition. To quote: BIEN lists the following five defining characteristics of basic income: Periodic: Distributed in regular payments, Cash payment: Distributed as funds rather than, for example, vouchers for goods or services. Individual: Each citizen (or adult citizen) receives the payment, rather than each household. Universal: All citizens receive the payment. Unconditional: Recipients are not required to demonstrate need or willingness to work. Your points 1, 2, and 3 are not definitions of UBI. EDIT: the Finland trial looked at many of the outcomes you described above- linked above. Only half of the results are currently available. As I'd already mentioned, there hasn't been much in the way of negative outcomes in existing UBI and UBI-like trials.
    - zdragnar 7y ago
      Without points 1, 2 or 3, all you're testing is whether or not giving financially strapped people no-strings-attached money makes them happier and less stressed. Of course it does, at least in the short term (longer-term studies have demonstrated that money does not, in fact, buy happiness). That doesn't mean that any of this is good public policy, that it would be better than current policies, or that it would improve long-term outcomes. Notably, your Finland link indicated that there was no change to employment rates, which is unfortunate, and I think undermines a lot of the arguments I've heard from proponents of UBI- that people who are less stressed financially will be able to make better use of their time training into new industries, start small businesses, etc.
      - dyarosla 7y ago
        Yes, I already mentioned the employment thing. And this was only in regards to 1year of the trial/ Moreover, all these positive outcomes you seem to dismiss (and add that in the long term money doesn’t buy happiness- which is neither here nor there) doesn't mean that any of this is NOT good public policy, that it would NOT be better or that it would NOT improve long-term outcomes. If anything, all the outcomes: lower stress, greater happiness, etc, are all known to lead to healthier individuals, with more fulfilling lives, with plenty of potential benefits for society as a whole. Moreover, trialing UBI is a red herring. How many welfare programs have been trialed before implementation? How many have been researched thoroughly on their per dollar outcome? The fact is, many of these programs are implemented without any trial and only on the basis of perceived outcomes that would lean positive. Why should UBI be any different? There are also plenty of examples that show that direct cash is oftentimes more favourable than some other variant; see the charity GiveDirectly’s entire premise. To argue that no successful trial has been run, that outcomes have not been favourable, or that the general idea of UBI is flawed until we research it to death, is to be overtly skeptical.