4 ms·

There are links to the studies in the right hand side alongside the text. Here you go: Homeless study: http://www.jrf.org.uk/publications/support-rough-sleeper

by davedx 13y ago

There are links to the studies in the right hand side alongside the text. Here you go: Homeless study: http://www.jrf.org.uk/publications/support-rough-sleepers-london http://www.jrf.org.uk/publications/support-rough-sleepers-lo... Experimental evidence from Uganda: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2268552 http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2268552 An Experimental Assessment of the Women’s Income Generating Support (WINGS) Program in Uganda: http://www.poverty-action.org/sites/default/files/wings_full_policy_report_0.pdf http://www.poverty-action.org/sites/default/files/wings_full... OECD study "Just Give Money to the Poor - The Development Revolution from the Global South": http://www.oecd.org/dev/pgd/46240619.pdf http://www.oecd.org/dev/pgd/46240619.pdf It's a bit harder to find as they're not at the bottom of the article where they usually are. But the author of the article did cite several studies. Did you choose to ignore them?

yummyfajitas 13y ago
I missed them, thanks. But the main studies I was interested in are still not there. Specifically, the US and Canada controlled experiments from the 70s (the one it claims reduces labor by "only" 9%). Given how radically different the first and third world are from each other (one example: in the third world the poor usually work, in the first world they usually don't), I don't see much sense in extrapolating Uganda experiments to the US. The closest they ever come is citing the same newspaper article about Mincome that everyone else cites: http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/local/dauphins-great-experiment.html http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/local/dauphins-great-experi...
- jhaglund 13y ago
  I think you should reconsider the assertion that poor in the US usually don't work. Minimum wage jobs leave you just above the poverty level if you're single, below if you are supporting someone. Considering cash based, under the table, transient work that poor people accept is under reported (for fear of loosing benefits which fall off steeply as a recipient's income increases) I think even finding statistics on this would be difficult. There are sociopaths on welfare (http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/history/2013/12/linda_taylor_welfare_queen_ronald_reagan_made_her_a_notorious_american_villain.html http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/history/2013... ) as surely as there are sociopaths in power. But what this article is saying is most people who need assistance are going to do good things with the assistance.
  - yummyfajitas 13y ago
    I stand by my claim, about 80% of the US poor choose not to work: http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpswp2011.pdf http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpswp2011.pdf You may be right that some of the poor are earning additional unreported money, but that also means some of the poor are not really poor. Insofar as the poor are secretly employed in the grey market, poverty is also secretly not as big a problem as we think. You can't have it both ways. The article asserts that people will do good things with the basic income, but the one statistic they mention suggests they won't. [edit: read paragraph 1 to find the stat I cite. I've compared the numbers of poor and non-poor excluding children as well, it doesn't change the comparison much. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2130441 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2130441 ]
    - jhaglund 13y ago
      It is absurd to say that because someone augments their benefits with $300 a month in child care, their problems are over. Can you point to where in that PDF you got that 80% number? Like, if you're going to cite a link, could you use a number I can ctrl+f? instead of "about 80%"? Because I suspect this number includes children and people who may be better off not working due to medical or other problems.
      - yummyfajitas 13y ago
        Why is it absurd that an extra $3600/year might tip someone across the poverty line?
      - mrottenkolber 13y ago
        Because $3600 is NOTHING. I need $15k in the bank to feel moderately safe as a bachelor. If I wanted to support a family I'd want a fallback account of $100k+. Edit: this is a reply to yummy.
        michaeldhopkins 13y ago
        $3,600 is a little less than 25% of $15,000, and it's about 3.5% of $100,000. If a person spent as much as they earned in a year and had no savings, $3,600 a year would accumulate $15,000 in savings after five years. A couple, spending as much as they earned, who wanted to save $100,000 before starting a family, each receiving $3,600 and investing it moderately, would save $100,000 after 10-12 years. However, poverty is usually defined as an income level and not a level of savings.
- norswap 13y ago
  > one example: in the third world the poor usually work You'd actually be surprised (speaking from personal experience).
svdree 13y ago
But these experiments don't really prove anything w.r.t. basic income, do they? Of course, if you give a small, isolated group of people more money, their lives will improve. But that doesn't generalize to the entire population, especially since that population has to come up with the money to begin with.

by davedx 13y ago

yummyfajitas 13y ago

I missed them, thanks. But the main studies I was interested in are still not there. Specifically, the US and Canada controlled experiments from the 70s (the one it claims reduces labor by "only" 9%). Given how radically different the first and third world are from each other (one example: in the third world the poor usually work, in the first world they usually don't), I don't see much sense in extrapolating Uganda experiments to the US. The closest they ever come is citing the same newspaper article about Mincome that everyone else cites: http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/local/dauphins-great-experiment.html http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/local/dauphins-great-experi...

jhaglund 13y ago
I think you should reconsider the assertion that poor in the US usually don't work. Minimum wage jobs leave you just above the poverty level if you're single, below if you are supporting someone. Considering cash based, under the table, transient work that poor people accept is under reported (for fear of loosing benefits which fall off steeply as a recipient's income increases) I think even finding statistics on this would be difficult. There are sociopaths on welfare (http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/history/2013/12/linda_taylor_welfare_queen_ronald_reagan_made_her_a_notorious_american_villain.html http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/history/2013... ) as surely as there are sociopaths in power. But what this article is saying is most people who need assistance are going to do good things with the assistance.
- yummyfajitas 13y ago
  I stand by my claim, about 80% of the US poor choose not to work: http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpswp2011.pdf http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpswp2011.pdf You may be right that some of the poor are earning additional unreported money, but that also means some of the poor are not really poor. Insofar as the poor are secretly employed in the grey market, poverty is also secretly not as big a problem as we think. You can't have it both ways. The article asserts that people will do good things with the basic income, but the one statistic they mention suggests they won't. [edit: read paragraph 1 to find the stat I cite. I've compared the numbers of poor and non-poor excluding children as well, it doesn't change the comparison much. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2130441 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2130441 ]
  - jhaglund 13y ago
    It is absurd to say that because someone augments their benefits with $300 a month in child care, their problems are over. Can you point to where in that PDF you got that 80% number? Like, if you're going to cite a link, could you use a number I can ctrl+f? instead of "about 80%"? Because I suspect this number includes children and people who may be better off not working due to medical or other problems.
    - yummyfajitas 13y ago
      Why is it absurd that an extra $3600/year might tip someone across the poverty line?
    - mrottenkolber 13y ago
      Because $3600 is NOTHING. I need $15k in the bank to feel moderately safe as a bachelor. If I wanted to support a family I'd want a fallback account of $100k+. Edit: this is a reply to yummy.
      - michaeldhopkins 13y ago
        $3,600 is a little less than 25% of $15,000, and it's about 3.5% of $100,000. If a person spent as much as they earned in a year and had no savings, $3,600 a year would accumulate $15,000 in savings after five years. A couple, spending as much as they earned, who wanted to save $100,000 before starting a family, each receiving $3,600 and investing it moderately, would save $100,000 after 10-12 years. However, poverty is usually defined as an income level and not a level of savings.
norswap 13y ago
> one example: in the third world the poor usually work You'd actually be surprised (speaking from personal experience).

svdree 13y ago

But these experiments don't really prove anything w.r.t. basic income, do they? Of course, if you give a small, isolated group of people more money, their lives will improve. But that doesn't generalize to the entire population, especially since that population has to come up with the money to begin with.