3 ms·

The main study mention found 3 years of 1k a month had no impact on health, stress, sleep, jobs, income, education, child's education, or time spent with childr

The main study mention found 3 years of 1k a month had no impact on health, stress, sleep, jobs, income, education, child's education, or time spent with children compared to the control. Other studies have also shown tiny benefits a their headline findings. I think its clear UBI is not the savior people wish it was, sadly.

billy99k 1y ago
During covid, lots of people received a stimilus. The lines at high-end purse and luxury good stores were longer than I've ever seen.
- teaearlgraycold 1y ago
  To be fair many people who were still employed and making decent money for their area received stimulus checks. At that point why not treat it as fun money? After all, you’re trying to stimulate the economy. That includes luxury stores. Others were making more on unemployment than they did while employed. They got checks on a regular basis that meaningfully increased their income level. I’m not surprised or offended if they try to temporarily increase their standard of living in frivolous ways.
- SkyPuncher 1y ago
  I think Covid is unique because people just needed an outlet for something good in their life.
- cadamsdotcom 1y ago
  You might believe that, and who knows, it may be true! But your one unsubstantiated story doesn’t constitute data that can be used to compare to anything.
  - billy99k 1y ago
    https://x.com/ManDaveJobGood/status/1752500940845072754 https://x.com/ManDaveJobGood/status/1752500940845072754 Other people had the same idea as me. With data! PPP loans taken out during Covid to thousands and thousands of one-person companies and eventually forgiven by the Biden administration. To make another point, why didn't we see a surge in art and positive improvements when someone gets free money from the government? Because what happened is what always happens: It was wasted.
    - c22 1y ago
      I worked at a maker space during the pandemic and I can attest that our membership surged once we were able to resume semi-regular operations.
vannevar 1y ago
Contrary to the author's assertion, the Denver Basic Income study, which gave $1000/mo, found a significant improvement in housing for the test group vs the controls. She misread the results, failing to note the initial housing rates for control vs test. https://www.denverbasicincomeproject.org/research https://www.denverbasicincomeproject.org/research
- DannyBee 1y ago
  I read your other comment with the numbers and I don't think it makes the amazing difference you seem to. Certainly not to the degree i think it makes it all worth it. Maybe if they at least plateau in different places, but they don't. I think you seem fairly defensive (you've posted the same response repeatedly) about what still seem like middling results. As a basic example: While your point about the starting percentages is correct, the study lost partipicants over time. Group A (the 1k/month group) lost 33% of its participants by T3, and Group C (the 50/month comparison group) lost 38% of its participants. The table you quote from the final study doesn't include the people who were lost, only those who filled out both surveys, T1 and T3. So using it to say they helped a greater percent of people is a bit weird. They also don't tell you the table for T2 in the final report, you have to go look at the interim one. The T2 data makes T1->T3 look much less impressive, and definitely doesn't seem to support some amazing gain for group 1. As far as i can tell, the data looks even less impressive for your claim if you do t1->t2, and T2->t3, instead of just t1->t3 with only both included. It would certainly be easier to tease apart the point you try to make if they reported the number of originally unhoused vs originally housed that were retained at each timepoint, but they don't. So what am i missing? Why should I look at these results and think it is amazing? (Also, I don't think i'd agree the main argument the author makes is based and refuted solely by the results of the denver study)
  - vannevar 1y ago
    >I read your other comment with the numbers and I don't think it makes the amazing difference you seem to. Maybe you're looking more at the article headline, which implies the author was focused on the study results. The thrust of the article isn't that the programs are ineffective (in fact, toward the end of the article she's quite optimistic that isn't the case). Her problem is that the results are overstated. But one of the prime examples she cites to support that idea does not actually support it. Denver claimed significance, and the study results support their claim. >The table you quote from the final study doesn't include the people who were lost, only those who filled out both surveys, T1 and T3. So using it to say they helped a greater percent of people is a bit weird. Why is that weird? The percentage of the test group who found housing is significantly higher than control. We don't know what happened to the people who dropped out---the worst case scenario is that none of them found housing, which leaves the stats as they are. >So what am i missing? Why should I look at these results and think it is amazing? They didn't claim it was amazing, they claimed it was significant. The author implied they were lying. They were not. That's what you're missing.
dragonwriter 1y ago
The main point of UBI isn't “more money solves problems”, it is “replacing means testing of benefits with unconditional benefits removes adverse effects of the rapid clawback of benefits with increasing-but-still-low income”. Giving individuals money without changing the policy context doesn't actually test the mechanism of action proposed for UBI. (It does, arguably, test the mechanism of action of some proposed private charity [or business-linked] alternatives which do involve cash transfers and don't involve changing the public policy context and incentives, but that's a whole different issue.)
- rocqua 1y ago
  UBI has many different defenses. One of them is that means tested benefits are harmful, and I think it's a really strong one. But another very common defense of UBI is that mass unemployment is inevitable, but because of technological developments that cause wide abundance, so UBI can be used to make that abundance available to the newly unemployed. The harms of means testing are many. They include: - Massive organizational overhead to do the means testing, have appeals process, have fraud detection, and fraud punishment. - Personal overhead on those who have to 'pass' the means-testing. This can be non-trivial procedurally, and appeals tend to be very complicated. Moreover, the consequences of making a mistake that gets marked as fraudulent are severe. This makes it quite time- and stress-costly to get these benefits, and makes some people skip them. - It creates weird economic incentives, if done exceptionally poorly, it creates situations where an increase in net income causes a decrease in gross income. In other situations you get an effective marginal tax rate of nearly 100%, which discourages work and prevents the building of wealth by advancing a career.

billy99k 1y ago

During covid, lots of people received a stimilus. The lines at high-end purse and luxury good stores were longer than I've ever seen.

teaearlgraycold 1y ago
To be fair many people who were still employed and making decent money for their area received stimulus checks. At that point why not treat it as fun money? After all, you’re trying to stimulate the economy. That includes luxury stores. Others were making more on unemployment than they did while employed. They got checks on a regular basis that meaningfully increased their income level. I’m not surprised or offended if they try to temporarily increase their standard of living in frivolous ways.
SkyPuncher 1y ago
I think Covid is unique because people just needed an outlet for something good in their life.
cadamsdotcom 1y ago
You might believe that, and who knows, it may be true! But your one unsubstantiated story doesn’t constitute data that can be used to compare to anything.
- billy99k 1y ago
  https://x.com/ManDaveJobGood/status/1752500940845072754 https://x.com/ManDaveJobGood/status/1752500940845072754 Other people had the same idea as me. With data! PPP loans taken out during Covid to thousands and thousands of one-person companies and eventually forgiven by the Biden administration. To make another point, why didn't we see a surge in art and positive improvements when someone gets free money from the government? Because what happened is what always happens: It was wasted.
  - c22 1y ago
    I worked at a maker space during the pandemic and I can attest that our membership surged once we were able to resume semi-regular operations.

vannevar 1y ago

Contrary to the author's assertion, the Denver Basic Income study, which gave $1000/mo, found a significant improvement in housing for the test group vs the controls. She misread the results, failing to note the initial housing rates for control vs test. https://www.denverbasicincomeproject.org/research https://www.denverbasicincomeproject.org/research

DannyBee 1y ago
I read your other comment with the numbers and I don't think it makes the amazing difference you seem to. Certainly not to the degree i think it makes it all worth it. Maybe if they at least plateau in different places, but they don't. I think you seem fairly defensive (you've posted the same response repeatedly) about what still seem like middling results. As a basic example: While your point about the starting percentages is correct, the study lost partipicants over time. Group A (the 1k/month group) lost 33% of its participants by T3, and Group C (the 50/month comparison group) lost 38% of its participants. The table you quote from the final study doesn't include the people who were lost, only those who filled out both surveys, T1 and T3. So using it to say they helped a greater percent of people is a bit weird. They also don't tell you the table for T2 in the final report, you have to go look at the interim one. The T2 data makes T1->T3 look much less impressive, and definitely doesn't seem to support some amazing gain for group 1. As far as i can tell, the data looks even less impressive for your claim if you do t1->t2, and T2->t3, instead of just t1->t3 with only both included. It would certainly be easier to tease apart the point you try to make if they reported the number of originally unhoused vs originally housed that were retained at each timepoint, but they don't. So what am i missing? Why should I look at these results and think it is amazing? (Also, I don't think i'd agree the main argument the author makes is based and refuted solely by the results of the denver study)
- vannevar 1y ago
  >I read your other comment with the numbers and I don't think it makes the amazing difference you seem to. Maybe you're looking more at the article headline, which implies the author was focused on the study results. The thrust of the article isn't that the programs are ineffective (in fact, toward the end of the article she's quite optimistic that isn't the case). Her problem is that the results are overstated. But one of the prime examples she cites to support that idea does not actually support it. Denver claimed significance, and the study results support their claim. >The table you quote from the final study doesn't include the people who were lost, only those who filled out both surveys, T1 and T3. So using it to say they helped a greater percent of people is a bit weird. Why is that weird? The percentage of the test group who found housing is significantly higher than control. We don't know what happened to the people who dropped out---the worst case scenario is that none of them found housing, which leaves the stats as they are. >So what am i missing? Why should I look at these results and think it is amazing? They didn't claim it was amazing, they claimed it was significant. The author implied they were lying. They were not. That's what you're missing.

dragonwriter 1y ago

The main point of UBI isn't “more money solves problems”, it is “replacing means testing of benefits with unconditional benefits removes adverse effects of the rapid clawback of benefits with increasing-but-still-low income”. Giving individuals money without changing the policy context doesn't actually test the mechanism of action proposed for UBI. (It does, arguably, test the mechanism of action of some proposed private charity [or business-linked] alternatives which do involve cash transfers and don't involve changing the public policy context and incentives, but that's a whole different issue.)

rocqua 1y ago
UBI has many different defenses. One of them is that means tested benefits are harmful, and I think it's a really strong one. But another very common defense of UBI is that mass unemployment is inevitable, but because of technological developments that cause wide abundance, so UBI can be used to make that abundance available to the newly unemployed. The harms of means testing are many. They include: - Massive organizational overhead to do the means testing, have appeals process, have fraud detection, and fraud punishment. - Personal overhead on those who have to 'pass' the means-testing. This can be non-trivial procedurally, and appeals tend to be very complicated. Moreover, the consequences of making a mistake that gets marked as fraudulent are severe. This makes it quite time- and stress-costly to get these benefits, and makes some people skip them. - It creates weird economic incentives, if done exceptionally poorly, it creates situations where an increase in net income causes a decrease in gross income. In other situations you get an effective marginal tax rate of nearly 100%, which discourages work and prevents the building of wealth by advancing a career.