8 ms·
The problem I have with studies like this one is that they only measure the effects of getting a stipend during a limited amount of time with a limited amount o
by BitwiseFool 6y ago
The problem I have with studies like this one is that they only measure the effects of getting a stipend during a limited amount of time with a limited amount of people. It's not universal and it's not basic.
From a non-scientific view point, of course giving people free money makes them feel better.
But from an experimental perspective, they aren't getting the 'full package' of UBI. The participants aren't seeing increased taxes and they aren't seeing inflation from this. Chances are, their landlord doesn't know about this extra money and hasn't raised their rent.
- JoeAltmaier 6y agoDon't we already know how that works? Folks on a pension; folks in a state that provides stipends (e.g. Alaska); folks who are independently wealthy. Their behavior has been studied repeatedly, I imagine. In fact I'm confused why this keeps being 'tried' like its some new idea.
- enaaem 6y agoWe already know how society looks like if a small portion does not need to work. But how will it be if no one needs to work? An interesting case is Saudi Arabia that pretty much runs on free oil money. Saudi nationals are notorious for having bad work ethics, and they have to import many foreign workers to run the economy. To prepare the country for a post oil world companies are required to hire a minimum percentage of Saudi nationals. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saudization https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saudization
- ashtonkem 6y agoAlaska is highly underrated in terms of UBI experiments.
- grecy 6y agoAustralia too
- akvadrako 6y agoIt's only about $1600 a year in a state with high living expenses. I don't see how that will tell you much about a full-on UBI program.
- JoeAltmaier 6y agoUsed to be higher. Lots of historical data.
- gustavo-fring 6y agoNo, it didn't. It peaked at $1900 for 2000, which if we take into account inflation is about $3000, which is still a 1/4th of the $12000 most proposals put forward. There'sno point in exaggerating these things, is tehre? 1982 $1,000.00 1983 $386.15 1984 $331.29 1985 $404.00 1986 $556.26 1987 $708.19 1988 $826.93 1989 $873.16 1990 $952.63 1991 $931.34 1992 $915.84 1993 $949.46 1994 $983.90 1995 $990.30 1996 $1,130.68 1997 $1,296.54 1998 $1,540.88 1999 $1,769.84 2000 $1,963.86 2001 $1,850.28 2002 $1,540.76 2003 $1,107.56 2004 $919.84 2005 $845.76 2006 $1,106.96 2007 $1,654.00 2008 $2,069.00 2009 $1,305.00 2010 $1,281.00 2011 $1,174.00 2012 $878.00 2013 $900.00 2014 $1,884.00 2015 $2,072.00 2016 $1,022.00 2017 $1,100.00 2018 $1,600.00 2019 $1,606.00
- JoeAltmaier 6y agoHuh. I thought it was 10K at some time. Foo.
- rovolo 6y agoYou might be thinking of per-household. Every person gets the dividend, so a 5 person household getting 2K each would total to 10K.
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 6y agoI've seen this behavior in companies before: the measurements will continue until the desired result is obtained.
- radu_floricica 6y agoWe needed it. Truth is, we didn't know a bunch of important things before this study. In particular, we didn't know if people were going to work more or less. Quite a lot of people were hoping for "more" (or at least better), me included. It was a long shot, but if it turned out to be true it would have been a game changer. Turns out it's not.
- lovich 6y agowhy were you hoping that people would work more?
- SiempreViernes 6y agoBecause current unemployment support works on the idea that people must be scared by poverty into getting a new job, and so being unemployed is ultimately a state society tries to punish you out off. If simply giving people money left them more successful at getting a new job, there would really not be any point in all the CV theatre a jobseeker routinely needs to perform.
- radu_floricica 6y agoThere's such thing as poverty trap. You need money to survive so you get a low paying job, you can't afford to quit it so you keep at it, 10 years pass and you're still there. UBI was supposed to short-circuit this. But at least in that particular study we didn't see a lot of it happening - even though 1-2 years should be enough time to change things.
- JoeAltmaier 6y agoAnd that was not obvious from studies of pensioners etc?
- moduspol 6y agoAlso housewives, disability recipients, unemployed young adults still living at home, retirees. We've got several demographics that have their basic needs covered without working. Not all are directly comparable with working peers, but surely some likely outcomes could be predicted.
- CuriousSkeptic 6y agoThere was some studies in USA in the 70s which spurred som controversy due to an increased divorce rate. Ostensibly due to more housewives using the financial safety to beak free. An interesting datapoint since you mentioned that group.
- moduspol 6y agoYes. Another fine example of, "when you incentivize doing something, people are more likely to do it."
- denzil_correa 6y ago> The problem I have with studies like this one is that they only measure the effects of getting a stipend during a limited amount of time with a limited amount of people. It's not universal and it's not basic. You have to start somewhere before being "universal" and "basic".
- hnal943 6y agothis study does not represent a step forward, however.
- devonkim 6y agoIt does because it counters one of the top conservative arguments against UBI (or any safety net at all for that matter) because participants _increased_ their days of work compared to unemployment insurance. Too many people are of the "you work or you should die" mentality in the developed world. This makes some sense in some situations but not anymore either. Considering the hilariously stupid things that count as employment today, the concept of "work" must evolve for us to have an honest conversation on what the point of all these programs are for in the 21st century and beyond. I feel this experiment is better framed as means tested unemployment insurance bureaucracy vs an unconditional cash stipend. This strengthens my longtime argument that means testing is punishing to the less fortunate because it robs them of the resource most precious to all of us - time and energy. I took unemployment before when I was laid off and it was pretty laborious and took me several hours to go through the hoops to file in the first place and the confusion of how to confirm I actually applied for jobs didn't help.
- BitwiseFool 6y agoAnd that's fair. But experimentally I would like to see the effects measured for a whole town, a city, or even a county.
- DonaldFisk 6y agoThis was done, as the Mincome experiment, in Dauphin, Manitoba in the early 1970s.
- jriot 6y agoCorrect. An example would be to look around military bases or colleges that cater to the military. Rents are often on par with BAH (Basic Housing Allowance) and college's per credit hour is often near the $750 rate.
- rahimnathwani 6y agoA key part of UBI is that the recipient can allocate the funds as they please. If someone goes to a college that costs $500 per credit hour, can they spent the other $250 on whatever they want?
- andi999 6y agoAnother key part would be if a college charged 500$ per credit hour, can they now charge $750?
- JoeAltmaier 6y agoIts a free market. Folks imagine that prices will 'soak up' UBI magically. But the market doesn't work that way. In fact, when demand goes up and volume goes up, prices come down for most things.
- irishcoffee 6y agoSurely you realize that demand and volume for college has gone up in the US. Also, the US gives out unlimited "free" money to attend. (student loans) And "magically" the pice of college has in fact skyrocketed, or even "soaked up" the excess money.
- JoeAltmaier 6y agoBecause colleges were in the 'money pipe', and could gatekeep. In a free market (which I guess colleges aren't) it would not work that way.
- skybrian 6y agoYou can study the effect of taxes and benefits separately since they happen to different people. This won't prove anything about inflation, but there are other things people have been concerned about. In particular, there are people who say that if you give people money with no strings attached they will just spend it on alcohol or drugs, and it's good to have evidence for a more nuanced view.
- asiachick 6y ago> From a non-scientific view point, of course giving people free money makes them feel better. It does? My belief, though I have no facts to back it up, is that some of people (but not all) would feel bad taking charity. For some people knowing they are effectively taking from others bothers them.
- CuriousSkeptic 6y agoI guess it depends on your view on charity, and taking from others. I happen to think I’m owed quite a bit of rent from all the externalities pushed on to me to allow the owning class to live of rent alone while I do the value crating labor in exchange for the lowest price they can get away with in a saturated labor market. And I hope most people who are getting the short end of that stick also realize how they are being screwed over by the current system.
- radu_floricica 6y agoOh, this study was very useful, no matter how the guardian is trying to frame it. There was no clear indication that basic income encourages people to find jobs. You can scratch that one off the list. Other than that, there's absolutely nothing surprising. You give people a money and they feel better. That's like... not exactly new information. And yeah, it will change their choices somewhat, which again is no big find. There was a pretty big and important hypothesis that the study was trying to pin down: is UBI profitable? Do you give 500 EUR and get more back? The question is very reasonable and there was quite a bit of clamor for exactly this kind of pilot study to get details. Quite a few mechanisms could potentially get us there - for example people could focus on training for a better position. Or simply having more time to look for jobs they'd find better matches. And so on. And the answer is: there is no trace of that. Sure, we do need better studies, longer durations, higher amounts, more people. It's definitely something that's worth studying. But the gold standard so far, the linked study, found nothing in this direction. That's a big negative, and well worth noting - not hiding it into a bunch of "people feel better with more money" like this article is trying to do.
- andrei_says_ 6y agoIn Utopia for Realists, a book full off UBI case studies, this question is addressed multiple times and yes, UBI is a money saver for governments.
- 6gvONxR4sf7o 6y agoFrom an income redistribution standpoint giving $500 and mostly getting less back can make sense. If you give $500 to 10 people and get zero back, but one of those people earns a billion dollars per year, it could be still be fine. Either way, it's an important datapoint. It should be an intentional decision to do it as wealth redistribution if that's the way we want to go, rather than pretending it's something it isn't.
- marcosdumay 6y agoIt's hard to get any conclusion from this article. There is this: > The researchers also noted a mild positive effect on employment > Freelancers and artists and entrepreneurs had more positive views on the effects of the basic income, which some felt had created opportunities for them to start businesses. And, of course, the often neglected (and that appears as a negative on the numbers): > Some found the guaranteed income increased the possibility for them to do things like providing informal care for their family or their neighbours But actually nothing of substance on either direction. Do you have a better article?
- pyramid07 6y agoIt's true. The incentive problem remains unanswered! Among others.
- fma 6y ago20 year study of an entire region https://www.wired.com/story/free-money-the-surprising-effects-of-a-basic-income-supplied-by-government/ https://www.wired.com/story/free-money-the-surprising-effect...
- charlesu 6y agoAs someone who's paid rent for several years, I've found that landlords don't need a reason to raise rent and prices tend to go up irrespective of wages.