10 ms·

Exactly. With a permanent UBI in place you can throw all these studies out the window.

battery_cowboy 7y ago
[citation needed] Is that anything but conjecture? I see a study showing that UBI is a "good thing", and you didn't provide a source for your reasoning. Edit: to all those saying that the parent comment is straightforward, or common sense, or whatever, it's not straightforward or common sense because I disagree that UBI would be a failure. No one knows what would happen under UBI, but these types of studies give some evidence as to what is going to happen. Everyone saying the parent is correct is basically similar to saying we should stop studying fusion because it's common sense we'll never achieve it (there are people who say that, too). It's a good first step to study this, at least, and goes to show we need to test UBI on a greater scale.
- Revery 7y ago
  I think his statement that these UBI experiments yield little insight into how actual UBI could play out full-scale holds water without a source.
- zepto 7y ago
  It’s a logical challenge to the ecological validity of the study. No citation is needed for straightforward observations.
- zazaalaza 7y ago
  What I am saying is that a temporary UBI experiment cannot simulate the changes that a permanent UBI would bring. Especially when everyone is aware that this is temporary.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
- rtkwe 7y ago
  The main thing being said is there's a drastic difference between knowing the BI you're getting is temporary and it being a 'permanent' government program. There's no way to provide a citation for that because the only way to run that is to have a full UBI and study the results to see if these short term BI studies still hold water. However it's not a stretch at all to say people will act different when they're temporarily receiving money than when they'll receive it 'forever'.
  - blackflame7000 7y ago
    In fact it's well known that disposable vs fixed income directly impacts the financial decisions people make
    - rtkwe 7y ago
      The main argument I, and I believe the OP, was making is because the period of these programs are limited, and not even the full period is guaranteed as this shows, it affects how people act. If it's a program I believe I can count on existing for 10-20 years I can make significant life changes around receiving the money, eg move somewhere super cheap and volunteer or something, but at just a few I know I'm going to have to go back to normal at the end so making those big changes is harder.
sunshinerag 7y ago
Exactly people would behave differently if they knew it was permanent vs temporary.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- felipemnoa 7y ago
  So, look at the people that win $1k a week for life and see how that turns out. https://nylottery.ny.gov/scratch-off/two-dollar/win-life https://nylottery.ny.gov/scratch-off/two-dollar/win-life
  - rapind 7y ago
    I think you'd then be skewing towards a sample that spends a lot of money on lottery tickets (certainly not something I do but maybe I'm the minority), and your sample size would be pretty small, and you wouldn't see how it affects a community.
EthanHeilman 7y ago
You can argue that the only way to perform a completely accurate UBI experiment would be to run it for at least 60-80 years for everyone. Social experiments are very hard to do and have many flaws, but it seems unreasonable to say that the information gained by doing such studies should be "thrown out the window".
- datashow 7y ago
  This issue is not a "flaw". It's a root problem. We want to know the effect of permanent UBI, not of a temporary one, and we know (strongly suspect) the effect will be different. Maybe the simple solution is that the researchers establish a dedicated million dollar bank account for a participant and automatically withdraw $1000 for the participant every month.
  - nostrebored 7y ago
    Still completely irrelevant as the U in UBI comes with a lot of externalities
  - learnstats2 7y ago
    But there is no such thing as "permanent UBI", though. UBI is a political decision which is renewed with every government. The perspective of the participants makes sense. Whether they believe their access to UBI will continue or not, it makes sense to up-skill. Besides, we do know how people behave when they are born with a million dollar bank account, and it's relatively very rare that they are criticised for how they choose to live.
    - zazaalaza 7y ago
      "UBI is a political decision which is renewed with every government" If this is true than implementing UBI will be more problematic than I thought. All UBI proposals so far call for all other financial safety nets to be removed in order to finance UBI. Managing that will be a nightmare if you can just cut off UBI, then you have to spin up everything else again. I imagine UBI to be something similar to how the pension system is, once in place it stays there forever-ish (meaning that it can potentially collapse). "we do know how people behave when they are born with a million dollar bank account, and it's relatively very rare that they are criticised for how they choose to live" - that's an excellent point.
eeZah7Ux 7y ago
While this is technically true, it's also true for every other political changes. All human behaviors are affected by knowing that something is going to end soon or not. Yet, UBI is often held under strict scrutiny. While the status quo is not challenged in the same way.
SuoDuanDao 7y ago
The effects are generally thought to converge after two years.
- pmiller2 7y ago
  Citation needed.
  - SuoDuanDao 7y ago
    Not sure the timestamp, it was a while ago. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7rL6gJkdlNU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7rL6gJkdlNU
dimitry12 7y ago
Or keep the studies and make UBI non-permanent: much like cold-war brinkmanship - incentivizing recipients to always keep in mind the possibility of future work. I understand it's much more stressful than permanent guaranteed UBI, but it's truer to the real intent of UBI (which I believe is reducing the friction when deciding to try new job or state or whatever in a pursuit of self-actualization).

[citation needed] Is that anything but conjecture? I see a study showing that UBI is a "good thing", and you didn't provide a source for your reasoning. Edit: to all those saying that the parent comment is straightforward, or common sense, or whatever, it's not straightforward or common sense because I disagree that UBI would be a failure. No one knows what would happen under UBI, but these types of studies give some evidence as to what is going to happen. Everyone saying the parent is correct is basically similar to saying we should stop studying fusion because it's common sense we'll never achieve it (there are people who say that, too). It's a good first step to study this, at least, and goes to show we need to test UBI on a greater scale.

Revery 7y ago
I think his statement that these UBI experiments yield little insight into how actual UBI could play out full-scale holds water without a source.
zepto 7y ago
It’s a logical challenge to the ecological validity of the study. No citation is needed for straightforward observations.
zazaalaza 7y ago
What I am saying is that a temporary UBI experiment cannot simulate the changes that a permanent UBI would bring. Especially when everyone is aware that this is temporary.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
rtkwe 7y ago
The main thing being said is there's a drastic difference between knowing the BI you're getting is temporary and it being a 'permanent' government program. There's no way to provide a citation for that because the only way to run that is to have a full UBI and study the results to see if these short term BI studies still hold water. However it's not a stretch at all to say people will act different when they're temporarily receiving money than when they'll receive it 'forever'.
- blackflame7000 7y ago
  In fact it's well known that disposable vs fixed income directly impacts the financial decisions people make
  - rtkwe 7y ago
    The main argument I, and I believe the OP, was making is because the period of these programs are limited, and not even the full period is guaranteed as this shows, it affects how people act. If it's a program I believe I can count on existing for 10-20 years I can make significant life changes around receiving the money, eg move somewhere super cheap and volunteer or something, but at just a few I know I'm going to have to go back to normal at the end so making those big changes is harder.

sunshinerag 7y ago

Exactly people would behave differently if they knew it was permanent vs temporary.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
felipemnoa 7y ago
So, look at the people that win $1k a week for life and see how that turns out. https://nylottery.ny.gov/scratch-off/two-dollar/win-life https://nylottery.ny.gov/scratch-off/two-dollar/win-life
- rapind 7y ago
  I think you'd then be skewing towards a sample that spends a lot of money on lottery tickets (certainly not something I do but maybe I'm the minority), and your sample size would be pretty small, and you wouldn't see how it affects a community.

EthanHeilman 7y ago

You can argue that the only way to perform a completely accurate UBI experiment would be to run it for at least 60-80 years for everyone. Social experiments are very hard to do and have many flaws, but it seems unreasonable to say that the information gained by doing such studies should be "thrown out the window".

datashow 7y ago
This issue is not a "flaw". It's a root problem. We want to know the effect of permanent UBI, not of a temporary one, and we know (strongly suspect) the effect will be different. Maybe the simple solution is that the researchers establish a dedicated million dollar bank account for a participant and automatically withdraw $1000 for the participant every month.
- nostrebored 7y ago
  Still completely irrelevant as the U in UBI comes with a lot of externalities
- learnstats2 7y ago
  But there is no such thing as "permanent UBI", though. UBI is a political decision which is renewed with every government. The perspective of the participants makes sense. Whether they believe their access to UBI will continue or not, it makes sense to up-skill. Besides, we do know how people behave when they are born with a million dollar bank account, and it's relatively very rare that they are criticised for how they choose to live.
  - zazaalaza 7y ago
    "UBI is a political decision which is renewed with every government" If this is true than implementing UBI will be more problematic than I thought. All UBI proposals so far call for all other financial safety nets to be removed in order to finance UBI. Managing that will be a nightmare if you can just cut off UBI, then you have to spin up everything else again. I imagine UBI to be something similar to how the pension system is, once in place it stays there forever-ish (meaning that it can potentially collapse). "we do know how people behave when they are born with a million dollar bank account, and it's relatively very rare that they are criticised for how they choose to live" - that's an excellent point.

eeZah7Ux 7y ago

While this is technically true, it's also true for every other political changes. All human behaviors are affected by knowing that something is going to end soon or not. Yet, UBI is often held under strict scrutiny. While the status quo is not challenged in the same way.

SuoDuanDao 7y ago

The effects are generally thought to converge after two years.

pmiller2 7y ago
Citation needed.
- SuoDuanDao 7y ago
  Not sure the timestamp, it was a while ago. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7rL6gJkdlNU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7rL6gJkdlNU

dimitry12 7y ago

Or keep the studies and make UBI non-permanent: much like cold-war brinkmanship - incentivizing recipients to always keep in mind the possibility of future work. I understand it's much more stressful than permanent guaranteed UBI, but it's truer to the real intent of UBI (which I believe is reducing the friction when deciding to try new job or state or whatever in a pursuit of self-actualization).