6 ms·

$500 a month, no strings attached, to fight poverty worked

42 points by BigBalli 6y ago

NoOneNew 6y ago
Having a hard time finding the raw data. Anyone have a link? Doing some digging, this article provides a few better data points: https://ktla.com/news/california/employment-rose-among-those-in-stocktons-universal-basic-income-experiment-study/ https://ktla.com/news/california/employment-rose-among-those... They act rosy about the experiment... but I have issues. >When the program started in February 2019, 28% of the people slated to get the free money had full-time jobs. One year later, 40% of those people had full-time jobs. 125 recipients. 12% found jobs during the program. Later it says there was a control group where only 5% found full time jobs, but I couldn't find hard numbers. I mean, another 16 people finding fulltime work is good... but job quality? Any median household income increase sans UBI payment? And to be honest, 12% doesn't seem that great. >People got the money once a month on a debit card, which let researchers track how most of the people spent it. Less than 1% of the money went to tobacco and alcohol. Do... do I really have to point this out? Maybe because they used their regular income, untracked debit card instead. Is that really hard to believe? All the quotes from participants saying how much greater their life is from both the WP article and this one... perfect score across the board, huh. I mean, everyone interviewed at a catholic church for a catholic newsletter talks about how great the priest is with children too.
- shaftway 6y ago
  > another 16 people finding fulltime work is good... but job quality? I agree, and I'd certainly like to see much deeper data here, but these numbers are way too small to see any real macro pictures. However, I'd consider this a win even if these people took jobs making less money but doing something they were passionate about. > Maybe because they used their regular income, untracked debit card instead. Maybe, but a lot of people I know that aren't as well off wouldn't have really cared, or even used that card first for those kinds of purchases. > All the quotes from participants saying how much greater their life is from both the WP article and this one... perfect score across the board. You're giving people free money. If you gave me $500/mo, no strings attached I'd give it pretty high marks too, even though it's not something that I need. I may have some suggestions about how to be more efficient, but I certainly wouldn't complain. Personally I'm cautiously pro-UBI. I think it could be a great tool to make the country far better, not just for the poor, but for everybody. I think that it would add to everyone's security and enable people to prepare for and perform jobs that they want to do, instead of jobs that they are forced to choose due to lack of alternatives. I strongly suspect I'll be in the tax bracket that will end up net negative and pay for this instead of the brackets that benefit directly from it, but just like public schools benefit me indirectly, I suspect that this will be worth it for me. But without data I classify those thoughts as theories. I'd like to see large-scale data on this, and we won't see experiments at the scale I'd like to see (like counties with large cities in them) without these smaller experiments first.
  - lostlogin 6y ago
    > I'd like to see (like counties with large cities in them) without these smaller experiments first. New Zealand gives money to everyone over 65 and it’s not means tested. Is this different to what you are suggesting? I don’t get why we wouldn’t apply the same to a younger group, at least as a test.
  - matbatt38 6y ago
    Well actually if you don't know about it, in France there is a ~500$ kind of ubi. It's not exactly universal as you have to be poor enough to get the money and the system is made with lots of incentives for people to get a job ASAP, but if you want to, you can easily live on those 500$/mo(+free healthcare) your entire life if you're off-grid enough). I understand that it's different, but it's the closest thing I've seen to UBI in a relatively big area. There's lots of data about it :)
    - cestith 6y ago
      It's not much and it's an expensive place to live, but Alaska pays each citizen a dividend each year. They do this from funds generated for the state from the oil and gas industry. It seems last year it was $992. https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/alaska/articles/2020-06-12/alaska-dividend-set-at-992-to-be-paid-starting-july-1 https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/alaska/articles/2020... I can imagine if the US federal government does the wealth tax Warren is pushing, closes some of the loopholes in corporate taxes, and then uses that for UBI it will help twofold.: The UBI itself and wages, being a legitimately deductible business expense, might just start rising more quickly.
      - deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
    - Zababa 6y ago
      Adding to that, here's the Wikipedia page for it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revenu_de_solidarit%C3%A9_active https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revenu_de_solidarit%C3%A9_acti...
- aaron695 6y ago
  I don't get the point of all this, many countries have unemployment benefits. But the report is below > Less than 1% of the money went to tobacco and alcohol. This is a huge problem, if it's unconditional (is it unconditional?) then way more than 1% should be spent on these. These are fundamental parts of human life. If the people you are helping can't be alive, why do we even care about them. > but job quality? I disagree with this, even if it's low quality, it's the first step. Unless there's a perverse incentive acting on the group, like a case manager shoving them into temporary jobs for the audit, it's being picky. https://www.stocktondemonstration.org/press-landing/guaranteed-income-increases-employment-improves-financial-and-physical-health https://www.stocktondemonstration.org/press-landing/guarante... Report - https://static1.squarespace.com/static/6039d612b17d055cac14070f/t/603ef1194c474b329f33c329/1614737690661/SEED_Preliminary+Analysis-SEEDs+First+Year_Final+Report_Individual+Pages+-2.pdf https://static1.squarespace.com/static/6039d612b17d055cac140...
  - NoOneNew 6y ago
    > like a case manager shoving them into temporary jobs for the audit, it's being picky I should have been more clear. Yes, this is exactly what I'm afraid of. 12% of the participants got a new full-time job. Sure, the others who already had full time jobs could have moved up in rank or got a raise, didn't notice that mentioned in the article though. I'd figure that would be a highlight topic. Anyways, only 12% feels like it was that last ditch effort of temp work to make the program look better. A first step, honest full time job, even low quality, that's good. I can't argue with that. But if it was just a temp job shoved on them for the reporting factor... why was the program needed then? Just force people into temp agencies if that's how you're going to pump up your numbers (which I'm not advocating for). >This is a huge problem, if it's unconditional (is it unconditional?) then way more than 1% should be spent on these. Don't get me wrong. I drink and smoke. I don't care if these folks do as well. God knows when I'm stressed the hell out, a good black out drinking session, next morning death like hangover can be a really good mental reset. I have a problem with reporting, "Oh look how great our program worked, people didn't buy booze or cigs." It's such a weird thing to point out a borderline meaningless topic, that I feel like they're hiding something there. Even if I gave a shit they were buying vices, don't piss in my pocket and tell me it's raining. They used an outside source of money to do so just to make sure the case managers don't get pissed off with them or we're talking about cooked books. Thanks for the links. Even though I'm a negative nancy about this, I'm interested in the results. My thing is, I just want the excel files. I hate well designed reports. I've gone through enough gov and private sector proposals and reports filled with happy faces and magical number results, I want to live in a cave and renounce my citizenship with the human race. Hungry wolves don't bullshit you before draining you of your blood.
hddu 6y ago
We are already go fucking deep in debt this barely makes a difference. I say go for it. let the people vote for whichever politian says they will give them the most free money.i give the usa less than 100 years.
- chickenpotpie 6y ago
  That’s not how the national debt works at all. Who do you think the debt is owed to?
  - mpoteat 6y ago
    I think the idea is that if we continue to print money, the dollar will eventually collapse as the world's reserve currency, and nations will use the yuan or euro instead - having a material effect on American persons life outcomes. I know increased national debt doesn't directly imply money printing, just throwing some thoughts out there.
    - monkeydreams 6y ago
      > I think the idea is that if we continue to print money, the dollar will eventually collapse as the world's reserve currency, and nations will use the yuan or euro instead - having a material effect on American persons life outcomes. So, if poor people are given "Free" money to express a demand for goods and services they currently possess but do not have the funds to express, how does this lead to inflation - more specifically how does this lead to fruitless inflation?
    - bobthepanda 6y ago
      The Euro is definitely not well managed compared to the dollar; how many cycles of supposed bank stress tests followed by bank failures have we seen? China more or less has decided that it would rather choose the ability to impose strict capital controls at will than have a reserve currency.
- emit_time 6y ago
  Giving $500/mo to everyone would cost like half of the current federal budget per year.
MeinBlutIstBlau 6y ago
The reason UBI will never work in the US is because the flow of incomes to billionaires is what's supposed to be trickled down to workers. If the government is going to tax anyone, it's gonna be the middle class. The main people that basically keep half the economy running. Ultimately UBI is ineffective in a heavily capitalist environment because the people who shouldn't be absurdly wealthy will still remain so.
- tootahe45 6y ago
  Just market it as a billionaire tax to get support, then actually tax the middle class. Works every time, and looks like they're doing this right now.
commandlinefan 6y ago
I don't think even the hardest of hardcore libertarians would be surprised that when you give a tiny fraction of the population free money, that tiny fraction does better than they would have if they hadn't gotten any free money. Of course giving people free money leaves them with more money. The objections come from a belief that money has to _come from_ somewhere - that's the part that socialists and libertarians disagree on which isn't addressed at all by this experiment.
- dokem 6y ago
  Not to mention giving a man a fish does nothing to teach him to fish. Being poor in the US is mostly an attitude problem and there will always be a portion of people that lack the correct attitude maintain a job or climb the latter in any meaningful way. If you want to just give these people money to ie keep the crime rate down then that is one discussion to have. But I just roll my eyes when we act like the average poor person just needs a 'jump start' and suddenly they're firing on all cylinders.
  - anoncake 6y ago
    Poverty is not even a mere "attitude problem" in countries with somewhat functional welfare states.
  - kennywinker 6y ago
    > Being poor in the US is mostly an attitude problem This is provably false. Upward mobility, the self made man, and pulling yourself up by your bootstraps are all modern myths sold to keep an unjust social order afloat. The poor work harder than the rich, and VERY rarely manage to make it out of the social class they were born into.
    - dokem 6y ago
      The poor work harder than the rich? Have you ever met a poor or rich person? Did you not have kids in high-school that never do any of their work then drop out? That is what the path to poverty looks like. Many are poor because they do no work at all. There is a grand scheme to keep poor people down? What would that look like exactly? How do you keep someone from becoming a truck driver when that is all it takes to escape poverty? The manager at McDonalds is part of the anti-poor scheme also, I suppose? He stands to make sure that his employees that are poor never get a raise or promotion is assistant manager? So no poor person is ever to blame for their situation? And every 'rich' person did nothing and accidentally became that way?
tomaszs 6y ago
Unfortunately all such population wide programs lead to increased prices. Eventually everyone ends up in the same situation. But now has to worry what if income won't be guaranteed or if there will be new rules to obtain money. Otherwise you just end up in the same situation as before but essential stuff for living costs 500 dollars more making you even poorer. But it is populistic and promising in short terms, so no doubt everyone will try it out to see for themselves
Proven 6y ago
What an idiotic article! They should be ashamed of themselves. They didn't prove anything. It's obvious this can't work. It can't work even on city scale (who would pay for the entire Stockton?) let alone bigger than that.

42 points by BigBalli 6y ago

Having a hard time finding the raw data. Anyone have a link? Doing some digging, this article provides a few better data points: https://ktla.com/news/california/employment-rose-among-those-in-stocktons-universal-basic-income-experiment-study/ https://ktla.com/news/california/employment-rose-among-those... They act rosy about the experiment... but I have issues. >When the program started in February 2019, 28% of the people slated to get the free money had full-time jobs. One year later, 40% of those people had full-time jobs. 125 recipients. 12% found jobs during the program. Later it says there was a control group where only 5% found full time jobs, but I couldn't find hard numbers. I mean, another 16 people finding fulltime work is good... but job quality? Any median household income increase sans UBI payment? And to be honest, 12% doesn't seem that great. >People got the money once a month on a debit card, which let researchers track how most of the people spent it. Less than 1% of the money went to tobacco and alcohol. Do... do I really have to point this out? Maybe because they used their regular income, untracked debit card instead. Is that really hard to believe? All the quotes from participants saying how much greater their life is from both the WP article and this one... perfect score across the board, huh. I mean, everyone interviewed at a catholic church for a catholic newsletter talks about how great the priest is with children too.

shaftway 6y ago
> another 16 people finding fulltime work is good... but job quality? I agree, and I'd certainly like to see much deeper data here, but these numbers are way too small to see any real macro pictures. However, I'd consider this a win even if these people took jobs making less money but doing something they were passionate about. > Maybe because they used their regular income, untracked debit card instead. Maybe, but a lot of people I know that aren't as well off wouldn't have really cared, or even used that card first for those kinds of purchases. > All the quotes from participants saying how much greater their life is from both the WP article and this one... perfect score across the board. You're giving people free money. If you gave me $500/mo, no strings attached I'd give it pretty high marks too, even though it's not something that I need. I may have some suggestions about how to be more efficient, but I certainly wouldn't complain. Personally I'm cautiously pro-UBI. I think it could be a great tool to make the country far better, not just for the poor, but for everybody. I think that it would add to everyone's security and enable people to prepare for and perform jobs that they want to do, instead of jobs that they are forced to choose due to lack of alternatives. I strongly suspect I'll be in the tax bracket that will end up net negative and pay for this instead of the brackets that benefit directly from it, but just like public schools benefit me indirectly, I suspect that this will be worth it for me. But without data I classify those thoughts as theories. I'd like to see large-scale data on this, and we won't see experiments at the scale I'd like to see (like counties with large cities in them) without these smaller experiments first.
- lostlogin 6y ago
  > I'd like to see (like counties with large cities in them) without these smaller experiments first. New Zealand gives money to everyone over 65 and it’s not means tested. Is this different to what you are suggesting? I don’t get why we wouldn’t apply the same to a younger group, at least as a test.
- matbatt38 6y ago
  Well actually if you don't know about it, in France there is a ~500$ kind of ubi. It's not exactly universal as you have to be poor enough to get the money and the system is made with lots of incentives for people to get a job ASAP, but if you want to, you can easily live on those 500$/mo(+free healthcare) your entire life if you're off-grid enough). I understand that it's different, but it's the closest thing I've seen to UBI in a relatively big area. There's lots of data about it :)
  - cestith 6y ago
    It's not much and it's an expensive place to live, but Alaska pays each citizen a dividend each year. They do this from funds generated for the state from the oil and gas industry. It seems last year it was $992. https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/alaska/articles/2020-06-12/alaska-dividend-set-at-992-to-be-paid-starting-july-1 https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/alaska/articles/2020... I can imagine if the US federal government does the wealth tax Warren is pushing, closes some of the loopholes in corporate taxes, and then uses that for UBI it will help twofold.: The UBI itself and wages, being a legitimately deductible business expense, might just start rising more quickly.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
  - Zababa 6y ago
    Adding to that, here's the Wikipedia page for it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revenu_de_solidarit%C3%A9_active https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revenu_de_solidarit%C3%A9_acti...
aaron695 6y ago
I don't get the point of all this, many countries have unemployment benefits. But the report is below > Less than 1% of the money went to tobacco and alcohol. This is a huge problem, if it's unconditional (is it unconditional?) then way more than 1% should be spent on these. These are fundamental parts of human life. If the people you are helping can't be alive, why do we even care about them. > but job quality? I disagree with this, even if it's low quality, it's the first step. Unless there's a perverse incentive acting on the group, like a case manager shoving them into temporary jobs for the audit, it's being picky. https://www.stocktondemonstration.org/press-landing/guaranteed-income-increases-employment-improves-financial-and-physical-health https://www.stocktondemonstration.org/press-landing/guarante... Report - https://static1.squarespace.com/static/6039d612b17d055cac14070f/t/603ef1194c474b329f33c329/1614737690661/SEED_Preliminary+Analysis-SEEDs+First+Year_Final+Report_Individual+Pages+-2.pdf https://static1.squarespace.com/static/6039d612b17d055cac140...
- NoOneNew 6y ago
  > like a case manager shoving them into temporary jobs for the audit, it's being picky I should have been more clear. Yes, this is exactly what I'm afraid of. 12% of the participants got a new full-time job. Sure, the others who already had full time jobs could have moved up in rank or got a raise, didn't notice that mentioned in the article though. I'd figure that would be a highlight topic. Anyways, only 12% feels like it was that last ditch effort of temp work to make the program look better. A first step, honest full time job, even low quality, that's good. I can't argue with that. But if it was just a temp job shoved on them for the reporting factor... why was the program needed then? Just force people into temp agencies if that's how you're going to pump up your numbers (which I'm not advocating for). >This is a huge problem, if it's unconditional (is it unconditional?) then way more than 1% should be spent on these. Don't get me wrong. I drink and smoke. I don't care if these folks do as well. God knows when I'm stressed the hell out, a good black out drinking session, next morning death like hangover can be a really good mental reset. I have a problem with reporting, "Oh look how great our program worked, people didn't buy booze or cigs." It's such a weird thing to point out a borderline meaningless topic, that I feel like they're hiding something there. Even if I gave a shit they were buying vices, don't piss in my pocket and tell me it's raining. They used an outside source of money to do so just to make sure the case managers don't get pissed off with them or we're talking about cooked books. Thanks for the links. Even though I'm a negative nancy about this, I'm interested in the results. My thing is, I just want the excel files. I hate well designed reports. I've gone through enough gov and private sector proposals and reports filled with happy faces and magical number results, I want to live in a cave and renounce my citizenship with the human race. Hungry wolves don't bullshit you before draining you of your blood.

hddu 6y ago

We are already go fucking deep in debt this barely makes a difference. I say go for it. let the people vote for whichever politian says they will give them the most free money.i give the usa less than 100 years.

chickenpotpie 6y ago
That’s not how the national debt works at all. Who do you think the debt is owed to?
- mpoteat 6y ago
  I think the idea is that if we continue to print money, the dollar will eventually collapse as the world's reserve currency, and nations will use the yuan or euro instead - having a material effect on American persons life outcomes. I know increased national debt doesn't directly imply money printing, just throwing some thoughts out there.
  - monkeydreams 6y ago
    > I think the idea is that if we continue to print money, the dollar will eventually collapse as the world's reserve currency, and nations will use the yuan or euro instead - having a material effect on American persons life outcomes. So, if poor people are given "Free" money to express a demand for goods and services they currently possess but do not have the funds to express, how does this lead to inflation - more specifically how does this lead to fruitless inflation?
  - bobthepanda 6y ago
    The Euro is definitely not well managed compared to the dollar; how many cycles of supposed bank stress tests followed by bank failures have we seen? China more or less has decided that it would rather choose the ability to impose strict capital controls at will than have a reserve currency.
emit_time 6y ago
Giving $500/mo to everyone would cost like half of the current federal budget per year.

MeinBlutIstBlau 6y ago

The reason UBI will never work in the US is because the flow of incomes to billionaires is what's supposed to be trickled down to workers. If the government is going to tax anyone, it's gonna be the middle class. The main people that basically keep half the economy running. Ultimately UBI is ineffective in a heavily capitalist environment because the people who shouldn't be absurdly wealthy will still remain so.

tootahe45 6y ago
Just market it as a billionaire tax to get support, then actually tax the middle class. Works every time, and looks like they're doing this right now.

commandlinefan 6y ago

I don't think even the hardest of hardcore libertarians would be surprised that when you give a tiny fraction of the population free money, that tiny fraction does better than they would have if they hadn't gotten any free money. Of course giving people free money leaves them with more money. The objections come from a belief that money has to _come from_ somewhere - that's the part that socialists and libertarians disagree on which isn't addressed at all by this experiment.

dokem 6y ago
Not to mention giving a man a fish does nothing to teach him to fish. Being poor in the US is mostly an attitude problem and there will always be a portion of people that lack the correct attitude maintain a job or climb the latter in any meaningful way. If you want to just give these people money to ie keep the crime rate down then that is one discussion to have. But I just roll my eyes when we act like the average poor person just needs a 'jump start' and suddenly they're firing on all cylinders.
- anoncake 6y ago
  Poverty is not even a mere "attitude problem" in countries with somewhat functional welfare states.
- kennywinker 6y ago
  > Being poor in the US is mostly an attitude problem This is provably false. Upward mobility, the self made man, and pulling yourself up by your bootstraps are all modern myths sold to keep an unjust social order afloat. The poor work harder than the rich, and VERY rarely manage to make it out of the social class they were born into.
  - dokem 6y ago
    The poor work harder than the rich? Have you ever met a poor or rich person? Did you not have kids in high-school that never do any of their work then drop out? That is what the path to poverty looks like. Many are poor because they do no work at all. There is a grand scheme to keep poor people down? What would that look like exactly? How do you keep someone from becoming a truck driver when that is all it takes to escape poverty? The manager at McDonalds is part of the anti-poor scheme also, I suppose? He stands to make sure that his employees that are poor never get a raise or promotion is assistant manager? So no poor person is ever to blame for their situation? And every 'rich' person did nothing and accidentally became that way?

tomaszs 6y ago

Unfortunately all such population wide programs lead to increased prices. Eventually everyone ends up in the same situation. But now has to worry what if income won't be guaranteed or if there will be new rules to obtain money. Otherwise you just end up in the same situation as before but essential stuff for living costs 500 dollars more making you even poorer. But it is populistic and promising in short terms, so no doubt everyone will try it out to see for themselves

Proven 6y ago

What an idiotic article! They should be ashamed of themselves. They didn't prove anything. It's obvious this can't work. It can't work even on city scale (who would pay for the entire Stockton?) let alone bigger than that.