> [0] Our preferred interpretation of the empirical patterns we observe is that the null em- ployment effect could be explained a by positive general equilibriu

> [0] Our preferred interpretation of the empirical patterns we observe is that the null em- ployment effect could be explained a by positive general equilibrium response offsetting a negative income effect. The unconditional cash transfer results in consumption increases that stimulate labor demand and could mitigate potential reductions in employment. While we do not directly test this channel, we do show indirect evidence for this general equilibium effect in two ways: first, we compare our empirical employment effect to the expected micro and macro effects of the Alaska Permanent Fund dividend based on estimates from prior literature, and second we compare the impact of the cash transfer on the tradable and non-tradable sectors. > Second, the impact on labor demand should be especially pronounced in the non- tradable sector. We show suggestive evidence consistent with this hypothesis — the esti- mated effects of the dividend on both employment and part-time work are sizeable in the tradable sector and suggest a reduction in labor, but are close to zero in the non-tradable sector. These estimates are only suggestive, but are consistent with a macro feedback effect on employment. I enjoy data, so thank you for the studies. That said, I do not think these are adequate to generalize the impacts of UBI. Mostly this is because the Alaska-based UBI only contributes a mean of ~$4k/household. That seems wholly too small to make national conclusions; such a UBI amount is insufficient for life. I do appreciate that the general equilibrium held. That is, the negative offsets of the opportunity cost of employment were offset by the new employment demand that the UBI stimulus had on the economy. But I think it's important to distinguish the tradeable vs nontradeable conclusion: > Second, the impact on labor demand should be especially pronounced in the non- tradable sector. We show suggestive evidence consistent with this hypothesis — the esti- mated effects of the dividend on both employment and part-time work are sizeable in the tradable sector and suggest a reduction in labor, but are close to zero in the non-tradable sector. These estimates are only suggestive, but are consistent with a macro feedback effect on employment. To me, it seems that the impact of PFD is akin to a stimulus check. The fungible money is utilized to buy luxuries[+]. I can think of no other reason that demand for nontradeable goods would spike. Thus, although people are lifted out of poverty, unless their nontradeble consumption is housing[+], then their consumption seems to be misaligned with general wealth building principles, such as saving and investing the difference. More broadly, if the nation adopted UBI, tradeable offsets may be harder to come by, as they would be required to be imports, since the other states would face the same labor impact as AK. Thank you for the data. I'll read more when I have some time, but my opinion seems to be generally unchanged, though I recognize the impacts may be lesser than my prior suggested.