3 ms·

>The thing we’d be giving up is 2% of our economic output… That 2% was for a payout of just $1,000 a month and the participants knew it was temporary. A more

by opo 1y ago

>The thing we’d be giving up is 2% of our economic output… That 2% was for a payout of just $1,000 a month and the participants knew it was temporary. A more generous payout that was permanent might lead to a higher percentage. >...and the thing we’d be getting is, I think, a massive improvement to people’s quality of life. The general principle of most welfare systems is to provide for those who are unable to work. There isn't nearly as much support in the general public to provide for those who simply choose not to work. Hence the comment in the blog that "...if it’s confirmed that basic income discourages work and provides little long-term career benefits, I think interest in the idea will wane rapidly."

BriggyDwiggs42 1y ago
> A more generous payout that was permanent might lead to a higher percentage. Sure, but the point of doing studies is to get a general idea of the effects. If we can’t presume it’ll be roughly representative, then let’s advocate for the actual deployment of UBI on a small scale to test its real-world effects, since the time span of the study is so essential to its utility. > The general principle of most welfare systems is to provide for those who are unable to work. There isn't nearly as much support in the general public to provide for those who simply choose not to work. Taking the framing for granted, I feel like I’m confused about the purpose of the discussion. If your point is to say that the results of this study render the “selling” of UBI more difficult to the public, then I absolutely agree, but that’s a bit of a given. If you’re saying it should be abandoned as a political project because of these results, which is more the vibe I was getting, then you haven’t substantiated why, since you’re talking about public perception rather than impact. Could you clarify?

by opo 1y ago

BriggyDwiggs42 1y ago

> A more generous payout that was permanent might lead to a higher percentage. Sure, but the point of doing studies is to get a general idea of the effects. If we can’t presume it’ll be roughly representative, then let’s advocate for the actual deployment of UBI on a small scale to test its real-world effects, since the time span of the study is so essential to its utility. > The general principle of most welfare systems is to provide for those who are unable to work. There isn't nearly as much support in the general public to provide for those who simply choose not to work. Taking the framing for granted, I feel like I’m confused about the purpose of the discussion. If your point is to say that the results of this study render the “selling” of UBI more difficult to the public, then I absolutely agree, but that’s a bit of a given. If you’re saying it should be abandoned as a political project because of these results, which is more the vibe I was getting, then you haven’t substantiated why, since you’re talking about public perception rather than impact. Could you clarify?