5 ms·

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

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.
    - cbhl 7y ago
      Apparently, Ontario used to have a much large welfare program prior to 1995: https://policyoptions.irpp.org/magazines/august-2018/ontarios-welfare-diet-2018/ https://policyoptions.irpp.org/magazines/august-2018/ontario... So I guess that suggests that even if a UBI is implemented that it could be cut or repealed in a future government.
      - rapind 7y ago
        Welfare isn't UBI. Give everyone the same amount and you'll have a hard time convincing the people earning 70k to vote against another 12k... That's the secret formulae.
        nybble41 7y ago
        People earning 70k will vote against "another" 12k if it reduces their taxes by 16k. That money isn't free—a minority will see a net benefit, with everyone else footing the bill. If you're earning 70k then you're unlikely to end up on the "net benefit" side of the equation.
    - AlexanderNull 7y ago
      This is why the "Universal" aspect of it is so important. It's ridiculously easy for people to vote for defunding services that "other" people benefit from, and politicians can always whip up support by scapegoating some minority group as the root of all of our problems. But if the benefit is shared by everyone then it becomes near political suicide to suggest cuts to it. How many politicians successfully can campaign to get rid of social security or medicaid? Those are programs shared with a significant percent, but not even a majority, and as such it's really hard to successfully push for cuts to such systems. With a total universal application of basic income it would be political suicide to push for cuts, everyone's life would be planned and organized already around such a program. Look at how hard it is for universal healthcare systems to be cut in nations that have such a benefit.
      - ghostpepper 7y ago
- rzwitserloot 7y ago
  That would more accurately gauge the effect on how much it disincentivizes, and how it changes the lifestyle of the recipient. It does very little to test economics. Perhaps UBI leads to a lot of people deciding to tend bar at the local tennis club, volunteering for the job. Maybe introducing UBI across a large area has marked effects on gym memberships. Those seem easier to test if you put a large area on UBI for a short-ish term (though I admit I haven't seen any UBI research that analyses such social effects - perhaps somebody knows of some?)
  - datashow 7y ago
    Good point. UBI may change the way of life dramatically.
nybble41 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. You could get decent results in less than 60-80 years by granting each participant a fully-funded fixed annuity guaranteeing them a specific income for the remainder of their lives independent of the continuation of the study. Of course, that would raise the cost of the study to something approaching a real (non-universal) BI program.
- jpttsn 7y ago
  Lotteries do this all the time, so there’s plenty of data.
  - nybble41 7y ago
    Yes, and a depressing number of lottery winners end up poorer than they started within a few years after burning through all their winnings and then going into debt to support their new lifestyle. Easy come, easy go.

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.
  - cbhl 7y ago
    Apparently, Ontario used to have a much large welfare program prior to 1995: https://policyoptions.irpp.org/magazines/august-2018/ontarios-welfare-diet-2018/ https://policyoptions.irpp.org/magazines/august-2018/ontario... So I guess that suggests that even if a UBI is implemented that it could be cut or repealed in a future government.
    - rapind 7y ago
      Welfare isn't UBI. Give everyone the same amount and you'll have a hard time convincing the people earning 70k to vote against another 12k... That's the secret formulae.
      - nybble41 7y ago
        People earning 70k will vote against "another" 12k if it reduces their taxes by 16k. That money isn't free—a minority will see a net benefit, with everyone else footing the bill. If you're earning 70k then you're unlikely to end up on the "net benefit" side of the equation.
  - AlexanderNull 7y ago
    This is why the "Universal" aspect of it is so important. It's ridiculously easy for people to vote for defunding services that "other" people benefit from, and politicians can always whip up support by scapegoating some minority group as the root of all of our problems. But if the benefit is shared by everyone then it becomes near political suicide to suggest cuts to it. How many politicians successfully can campaign to get rid of social security or medicaid? Those are programs shared with a significant percent, but not even a majority, and as such it's really hard to successfully push for cuts to such systems. With a total universal application of basic income it would be political suicide to push for cuts, everyone's life would be planned and organized already around such a program. Look at how hard it is for universal healthcare systems to be cut in nations that have such a benefit.
    - ghostpepper 7y ago
rzwitserloot 7y ago
That would more accurately gauge the effect on how much it disincentivizes, and how it changes the lifestyle of the recipient. It does very little to test economics. Perhaps UBI leads to a lot of people deciding to tend bar at the local tennis club, volunteering for the job. Maybe introducing UBI across a large area has marked effects on gym memberships. Those seem easier to test if you put a large area on UBI for a short-ish term (though I admit I haven't seen any UBI research that analyses such social effects - perhaps somebody knows of some?)
- datashow 7y ago
  Good point. UBI may change the way of life dramatically.

nybble41 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. You could get decent results in less than 60-80 years by granting each participant a fully-funded fixed annuity guaranteeing them a specific income for the remainder of their lives independent of the continuation of the study. Of course, that would raise the cost of the study to something approaching a real (non-universal) BI program.

jpttsn 7y ago
Lotteries do this all the time, so there’s plenty of data.
- nybble41 7y ago
  Yes, and a depressing number of lottery winners end up poorer than they started within a few years after burning through all their winnings and then going into debt to support their new lifestyle. Easy come, easy go.