4 ms·

America's largest experiment in UBI is probably the Alaska Permanent Fund (APF). APF appears to have little to no impact on employment [0], instead having effe

America's largest experiment in UBI is probably the Alaska Permanent Fund (APF). APF appears to have little to no impact on employment [0], instead having effect of increased number of people getting zapped out their rocker on drugs[1]. [0] http://humcap.uchicago.edu/RePEc/hka/wpaper/Jones_Marinescu_2019_labor-market-impacts-universal-transfers.pdf http://humcap.uchicago.edu/RePEc/hka/wpaper/Jones_Marinescu_... [1] https://direct.mit.edu/rest/article-abstract/102/4/678/96772/Universal-Cash-and-Crime https://direct.mit.edu/rest/article-abstract/102/4/678/96772...

thunky 4y ago
The abstract in [1] says that drug use ticked up, amounting to a small portion of the UBI payment. And property crime ticked down, but overall crime was not affected substantially. Concluding: crime-related concerns of a universal cash transfer program may be unwarranted. So I don't think this makes the point you want it to make.
- notch656a 4y ago
  What point is it that you're saying I want it to make? Please cite my comment so I can understand exactly what you're referring to.
  - thunky 4y ago
    You said (here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32827491 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32827491) that the APF led to: > increased number of people getting zapped out their rocker on drugs Which was part of your case that APF is a failed experiment and not worthwhile. But the study you cited does not suggest that UBI created an increased number of drug abusers. It did say that there was an uptick in drug incidents, but it also concluded that UBI payments were not responsible for increasing crime (when considering drug incidents and other crimes in total). It's likely that drug use always ticks up on payday, UBI or not. Same for gambling and other bad habits that require money. I've never heard anyone suggest that the solution to drug abuse is to make people so poor that they can't afford to buy drugs, but in a roundabout way this is kindof what you're saying. Grocery shopping and paying bills and likely tick up on payday as well.
    - notch656a 4y ago
      Appreciate you clarifying that your statements are basically arguing against one big straw man.
      - thunky 4y ago
        Yes, and thank you for pointing out that you created a giant straw man.
mc32 4y ago
Quite unfortunately, I think, given a choice, most people will tend towards doing as little as possible to survive --not all people, there are some who just want to create and others provide services (volunteers come to mind). It takes community and building mindset to fend off the tendency toward minimum level survival. It takes having a certain ethic to transcend that. Of course people don't want to plough in the muddy soil and tend to sick animals and harvest in the heat, if they can get away with it. If they instead could drink, get merry and play all day, many will chose that option if not inculcated otherwise. Who knows, maybe we will go back to permanent mediocrity by most once the drive to succeed is removed. A progressing society needs constant effort to keep it alive. It's not self-perpetuating by itself.

thunky 4y ago

The abstract in [1] says that drug use ticked up, amounting to a small portion of the UBI payment. And property crime ticked down, but overall crime was not affected substantially. Concluding: crime-related concerns of a universal cash transfer program may be unwarranted. So I don't think this makes the point you want it to make.

notch656a 4y ago
What point is it that you're saying I want it to make? Please cite my comment so I can understand exactly what you're referring to.
- thunky 4y ago
  You said (here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32827491 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32827491) that the APF led to: > increased number of people getting zapped out their rocker on drugs Which was part of your case that APF is a failed experiment and not worthwhile. But the study you cited does not suggest that UBI created an increased number of drug abusers. It did say that there was an uptick in drug incidents, but it also concluded that UBI payments were not responsible for increasing crime (when considering drug incidents and other crimes in total). It's likely that drug use always ticks up on payday, UBI or not. Same for gambling and other bad habits that require money. I've never heard anyone suggest that the solution to drug abuse is to make people so poor that they can't afford to buy drugs, but in a roundabout way this is kindof what you're saying. Grocery shopping and paying bills and likely tick up on payday as well.
  - notch656a 4y ago
    Appreciate you clarifying that your statements are basically arguing against one big straw man.
    - thunky 4y ago
      Yes, and thank you for pointing out that you created a giant straw man.

mc32 4y ago

Quite unfortunately, I think, given a choice, most people will tend towards doing as little as possible to survive --not all people, there are some who just want to create and others provide services (volunteers come to mind). It takes community and building mindset to fend off the tendency toward minimum level survival. It takes having a certain ethic to transcend that. Of course people don't want to plough in the muddy soil and tend to sick animals and harvest in the heat, if they can get away with it. If they instead could drink, get merry and play all day, many will chose that option if not inculcated otherwise. Who knows, maybe we will go back to permanent mediocrity by most once the drive to succeed is removed. A progressing society needs constant effort to keep it alive. It's not self-perpetuating by itself.