31 ms·

Why are they calling it GMI instead of UBI now? Is it because all the UBI studies showed, yep, it doesn't work so they need a new name? I really doubt the sli

Why are they calling it GMI instead of UBI now? Is it because all the UBI studies showed, yep, it doesn't work so they need a new name? I really doubt the slightly different accounting scheme will make any difference--after taxes are considered there's not any difference between UBI and GMI.

mtremsal 2y ago
IIRC Piketty's book also made a similar suggestion of having the government as an employer of last resort, i.e. offering an unlimited number of jobs at a guaranteed minimum income. It's seen as a more "palatable" policy by many, as it's "just a job" and we've already tried something similar during the New Deal. For people who take these jobs, there's also a lot less stigma than "taking social security".
9rx 2y ago
> Why are they calling it GMI instead of UBI now?* Because that's what it is? If it were UBI then it would be labeled UBI instead. > after taxes are considered there's not any difference between UBI and GMI. Mathematically that is true, but there is still a significant human difference. Consider a case where you have a loss of income. With UBI, the money will just show up at the usual interval to keep you going. With GMI, money will not show up until you go through the arduous process of notifying authorities that you are now eligible. And if you've ever dealt with people who manage these kinds of things before, you know they don't operate on an instant basis, so you could be going quite some time before the support finally shows up.
barbazoo 2y ago
Does it not work? Study after study seems to show positive effects. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-07-22/ubi-study-backed-by-openai-s-sam-altman-bolsters-support-for-basic-income https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-07-22/ubi-study... > After three years of distributing $1,000 monthly to beneficiaries in Illinois and Texas, the organization has released a trio of research papers on its findings. Like many of the other studies released before it, OpenResearch finds that recipients spend more to meet their basic needs and assist others, and don't drop out of the workforce — although they work slightly fewer hours. But the researchers’ biggest takeaway is that cash provides flexibility. I might be in a web search bubble so if you have any conclusive info that UBI doesn’t “work”, please do share.
skybrian 2y ago
According to this article [1], GiveDirectly is taking a more targeted approach in the US, because of the results of a study they did during the pandemic: > During the pandemic, the nonprofit found its $1,000 payments to nearly 200,000 households barely made a dent in the lives of U.S. recipients. There was no measurable difference between the households that received the cash grants and those that did not, GiveDirectly declared in a blog post based on academic studies from the University of Michigan. One reason, according to the study, was that most cash grant recipients also received government assistance, which made it harder to discern the impact of the GiveDirectly money alone. ... > GiveDirectly has vowed to learn from its mistake. So far, that has meant targeting populations such as pregnant mothers, infants, and families experiencing homelessness for whom regular, modest cash impacts have proven to be life altering. So, maybe leaving out the "universal" would make sense, since they're not giving money to everyone anymore? GiveDirectly describes what they do as "unconditional cash transfers." [1] https://www.philanthropy.com/article/can-givedirectly-show-the-value-of-universal-basic-income https://www.philanthropy.com/article/can-givedirectly-show-t... https://archive.is/WTypU https://archive.is/WTypU

mtremsal 2y ago

IIRC Piketty's book also made a similar suggestion of having the government as an employer of last resort, i.e. offering an unlimited number of jobs at a guaranteed minimum income. It's seen as a more "palatable" policy by many, as it's "just a job" and we've already tried something similar during the New Deal. For people who take these jobs, there's also a lot less stigma than "taking social security".

9rx 2y ago

> Why are they calling it GMI instead of UBI now?* Because that's what it is? If it were UBI then it would be labeled UBI instead. > after taxes are considered there's not any difference between UBI and GMI. Mathematically that is true, but there is still a significant human difference. Consider a case where you have a loss of income. With UBI, the money will just show up at the usual interval to keep you going. With GMI, money will not show up until you go through the arduous process of notifying authorities that you are now eligible. And if you've ever dealt with people who manage these kinds of things before, you know they don't operate on an instant basis, so you could be going quite some time before the support finally shows up.

barbazoo 2y ago

Does it not work? Study after study seems to show positive effects. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-07-22/ubi-study-backed-by-openai-s-sam-altman-bolsters-support-for-basic-income https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-07-22/ubi-study... > After three years of distributing $1,000 monthly to beneficiaries in Illinois and Texas, the organization has released a trio of research papers on its findings. Like many of the other studies released before it, OpenResearch finds that recipients spend more to meet their basic needs and assist others, and don't drop out of the workforce — although they work slightly fewer hours. But the researchers’ biggest takeaway is that cash provides flexibility. I might be in a web search bubble so if you have any conclusive info that UBI doesn’t “work”, please do share.

skybrian 2y ago

According to this article [1], GiveDirectly is taking a more targeted approach in the US, because of the results of a study they did during the pandemic: > During the pandemic, the nonprofit found its $1,000 payments to nearly 200,000 households barely made a dent in the lives of U.S. recipients. There was no measurable difference between the households that received the cash grants and those that did not, GiveDirectly declared in a blog post based on academic studies from the University of Michigan. One reason, according to the study, was that most cash grant recipients also received government assistance, which made it harder to discern the impact of the GiveDirectly money alone. ... > GiveDirectly has vowed to learn from its mistake. So far, that has meant targeting populations such as pregnant mothers, infants, and families experiencing homelessness for whom regular, modest cash impacts have proven to be life altering. So, maybe leaving out the "universal" would make sense, since they're not giving money to everyone anymore? GiveDirectly describes what they do as "unconditional cash transfers." [1] https://www.philanthropy.com/article/can-givedirectly-show-the-value-of-universal-basic-income https://www.philanthropy.com/article/can-givedirectly-show-t... https://archive.is/WTypU https://archive.is/WTypU