5 ms·

If I'm receiving $1000 a month for a six month program run by a university research group, which states very clearly that the program will end after six months,

If I'm receiving $1000 a month for a six month program run by a university research group, which states very clearly that the program will end after six months, I'm not going to go quit my job. That's the problem with these "studies". They are completely different from a permanent government program. They can't tell you the impact on inflation, the impact on the labor market, or if it is affordable over the long term.

fma 5y ago
20+ year year old permanent program 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...
- KerryJones 5y ago
  Paywalled, anyone have another link?
- sintaxi 5y ago
  Again, inflation isn't accounted for.
- Aunche 5y ago
  Obviously, receiving free money is better than not receiving free money. There's nothing surprising about that. The question is where this money will come from. You can't support universal basic income from casinos or oil wealth, both of which have major negative externalities to boot.
- missedthecue 5y ago
  This is functionally no different than dividends paid by a company to its shareholders (although this Casino enjoys a local state-sanctioned monopoly, and the shareholder is the tribe council, so it is slightly different, but economically similar). UBI on the other hand is done by taxing ourselves to pay ourselves, or worse, printing to pay ourselves.
- faet 5y ago
  >Even in Cherokee country, where the additional income is quite sizable, the payments are not enough to live on >The Alaska Permanent Fund has been giving $1,000 to $2,000 a year to its citizens for decades Neither of these are amounts to not work on. Many people quit working after reaching a specific "UBI". Either through social security or retirement/investment accounts. This is also the goal for many folks such as FIRE.
asdfasgasdgasdg 5y ago
I also wonder if we can't make some conclusions from real world data over the last two years. Yes, the pandemic is a bit of a confounding variable, but from what I've been reading we have at least strong reason to believe that the support payments from unemployment both substantially contributed to inflation, and also reduced marginal propensity to work. Fortunately or unfortunately, I think there's not much of a chance of this getting implemented in my country during my lifetime. We can't even agree to give people universal healthcare. I think if anything the pendulum seems likely to swing in the opposite direction given the political landscape nowadays. But even if I could decide this unilaterally . . . I'd probably want some other country to try it first, and see how it goes. It doesn't obviously seem like a good idea based on what I know today.
- ashtonkem 5y ago
  > we have at least strong reason to believe that the support payments from unemployment … substantially reduced marginal propensity to work. I always see people blaming benefits for people not working, but nobody ever seems to offer an explanation why these same people didn’t return to work once the benefits were cut down to their pre-pandemic levels.
  - asdfasgasdgasdg 5y ago
    I'm not sure that they aren't gradually doing so? I don't expect cessation of benefits to have an instantaneous effect.
    - ashtonkem 5y ago
      Why wouldn’t it have a rapid and sudden effect? If you suddenly slash the UI benefits for an entire state at once and people only start trickling back to work slowly, then it implies that there are other unexplained factors at play. After all, the hypothesis is that UI is allowing people who otherwise would have to work to survive to not work. Shouldn’t the sudden cliff in payments make these people go find a job once their meager savings are exhausted? It’s also incongruous with the other hair on fire arguments you see about UI causing labor shortages; it’s inconsistent to say that UI makes people not work, then hand wave away why months and years after cutting the benefits were still facing a “labor shortage” in a lot of job markets. If it’s really down to UI, then you’ve got to propose some mechanism for why canceling UI didn’t fix the supposed labor shortage.

fma 5y ago

20+ year year old permanent program 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...

KerryJones 5y ago
Paywalled, anyone have another link?
sintaxi 5y ago
Again, inflation isn't accounted for.
Aunche 5y ago
Obviously, receiving free money is better than not receiving free money. There's nothing surprising about that. The question is where this money will come from. You can't support universal basic income from casinos or oil wealth, both of which have major negative externalities to boot.
missedthecue 5y ago
This is functionally no different than dividends paid by a company to its shareholders (although this Casino enjoys a local state-sanctioned monopoly, and the shareholder is the tribe council, so it is slightly different, but economically similar). UBI on the other hand is done by taxing ourselves to pay ourselves, or worse, printing to pay ourselves.
faet 5y ago
>Even in Cherokee country, where the additional income is quite sizable, the payments are not enough to live on >The Alaska Permanent Fund has been giving $1,000 to $2,000 a year to its citizens for decades Neither of these are amounts to not work on. Many people quit working after reaching a specific "UBI". Either through social security or retirement/investment accounts. This is also the goal for many folks such as FIRE.

asdfasgasdgasdg 5y ago

I also wonder if we can't make some conclusions from real world data over the last two years. Yes, the pandemic is a bit of a confounding variable, but from what I've been reading we have at least strong reason to believe that the support payments from unemployment both substantially contributed to inflation, and also reduced marginal propensity to work. Fortunately or unfortunately, I think there's not much of a chance of this getting implemented in my country during my lifetime. We can't even agree to give people universal healthcare. I think if anything the pendulum seems likely to swing in the opposite direction given the political landscape nowadays. But even if I could decide this unilaterally . . . I'd probably want some other country to try it first, and see how it goes. It doesn't obviously seem like a good idea based on what I know today.

ashtonkem 5y ago
> we have at least strong reason to believe that the support payments from unemployment … substantially reduced marginal propensity to work. I always see people blaming benefits for people not working, but nobody ever seems to offer an explanation why these same people didn’t return to work once the benefits were cut down to their pre-pandemic levels.
- asdfasgasdgasdg 5y ago
  I'm not sure that they aren't gradually doing so? I don't expect cessation of benefits to have an instantaneous effect.
  - ashtonkem 5y ago
    Why wouldn’t it have a rapid and sudden effect? If you suddenly slash the UI benefits for an entire state at once and people only start trickling back to work slowly, then it implies that there are other unexplained factors at play. After all, the hypothesis is that UI is allowing people who otherwise would have to work to survive to not work. Shouldn’t the sudden cliff in payments make these people go find a job once their meager savings are exhausted? It’s also incongruous with the other hair on fire arguments you see about UI causing labor shortages; it’s inconsistent to say that UI makes people not work, then hand wave away why months and years after cutting the benefits were still facing a “labor shortage” in a lot of job markets. If it’s really down to UI, then you’ve got to propose some mechanism for why canceling UI didn’t fix the supposed labor shortage.