I don't understand why all of the basic income studies I've seen seek to indicate whether or not giving someone free money improves their quality of life. That it does should be blindingly obvious, but that is not the question which determines whether basic income should be a political goal. That question is whether basic income is the best use of a given amount of public assistance funding. Whether it is more efficient at improving lives than alternatives such as food stamps, rent assistance, childcare assistance, etc. There seem to be no efforts to answer this essential question.
Unconditional Cash Study: first findings available
11–20 of 669 posts
Re: Unconditional Cash Study: first findings available
#12This is a pretty generous reading of the study. One result they are missing out is that the income actually reduced overall employment compared to the control group, and ended up decreasing household earnings: https://www.nber.org/papers/w32719 Even with a generous reading, it was an extremely expensive study. And similar proposals like the Negative Income Tax would cost far less money and have none of the presented…
NIT and UBI are equivalent if you take income taxes into account.
Re: Unconditional Cash Study: first findings available
#13This is a pretty generous reading of the study. One result they are missing out is that the income actually reduced overall employment compared to the control group, and ended up decreasing household earnings: https://www.nber.org/papers/w32719 Even with a generous reading, it was an extremely expensive study. And similar proposals like the Negative Income Tax would cost far less money and have none of the presented…
Why is it some shock-horror thing that people worked less? I think, for those who imagine AI taking a vast swath of jobs (like Altman), the aim for basic income is to get people working less but without this resulting social/work disengagement (whether AI will have that effect is a different matter).
Re: Unconditional Cash Study: first findings available
#14I'm not sure how to address this, but I always wonder how much we can extrapolate the findings from these studies to a universal basic income situation. I feel like giving a small group of people an extra $12000 a year provides benefits for low income people because their yearly income is now higher compared to the median income. Someone who's income is in the 5th percentile may now be in the 10th or 15th percentile (no idea if those numbers are correct).
Once you give everybody an extra $12000 a year, the median income is now $12000 higher. I'm sure there's still some benefit, but relative to others their position hasn't changed. Someone who's yearly income is in the 5th percentile is still earning in the 5th percentile.
I'm concerned about a situation similar to college tuition in the US where easy, risk free money leads to price gouging. Once everyone has an extra $XXXXX how quickly does the market realize that the cost of goods can be raised by that amount.
Re: Unconditional Cash Study: first findings available
#15I don't understand why all of the basic income studies I've seen seek to indicate whether or not giving someone free money improves their quality of life. That it does should be blindingly obvious, but that is not the question which determines whether basic income should be a political goal. That question is whether basic income is the best use of a given amount of public assistance funding. Whether it is more effici…
But this study is showing no benefits, at least to mental and physical health, educational attainment, and advancement at work. So it seems to sort of moot the latter question.
Re: Unconditional Cash Study: first findings available
#16This is a pretty generous reading of the study. One result they are missing out is that the income actually reduced overall employment compared to the control group, and ended up decreasing household earnings: https://www.nber.org/papers/w32719 Even with a generous reading, it was an extremely expensive study. And similar proposals like the Negative Income Tax would cost far less money and have none of the presented…
Negative income tax? Does that mean the government pays me to work?
Yeap. In fact, it's a more affordable option than UBI and already (partially) implemented across several countries.
Re: Unconditional Cash Study: first findings available
#17I'm not sure how to address this, but I always wonder how much we can extrapolate the findings from these studies to a universal basic income situation. I feel like giving a small group of people an extra $12000 a year provides benefits for low income people because their yearly income is now higher compared to the median income. Someone who's income is in the 5th percentile may now be in the 10th or 15th percentile…
With a progressive taxation, the gap between high and low income narrows. Low income people may not even notice a change in tax bracket, if any such thing happen, high income people will give back a substantial part of that additional income. I believe, up to 50+% in some US states.
This may slightly change median, I think.
Re: Unconditional Cash Study: first findings available
#18I don't understand why all of the basic income studies I've seen seek to indicate whether or not giving someone free money improves their quality of life. That it does should be blindingly obvious, but that is not the question which determines whether basic income should be a political goal. That question is whether basic income is the best use of a given amount of public assistance funding. Whether it is more effici…
But this study is showing no benefits, at least to mental and physical health, educational attainment, and advancement at work. So it seems to sort of moot the latter question.
Yes, and that's quite a surprising result, but even if it'd had the opposite results, it wouldn't indicate that UBI is a good idea.
Re: Unconditional Cash Study: first findings available
#19Earlier quoted context omitted.
Negative income tax? Does that mean the government pays me to work?
Yes-ish. But your employer knows. And he might immediately apply "you'll need less money from me, now" logic.
True, but that part only makes a significant difference if the unemployment rate is quite high. At a time where restaurants have trouble filling their staff in low tip shifts, the salaries are closer to what the employer can pay without serious risk.
Re: Unconditional Cash Study: first findings available
#20This is a pretty generous reading of the study. One result they are missing out is that the income actually reduced overall employment compared to the control group, and ended up decreasing household earnings: https://www.nber.org/papers/w32719 Even with a generous reading, it was an extremely expensive study. And similar proposals like the Negative Income Tax would cost far less money and have none of the presented…
YES!!!!
Not every job is moral, essential or needed, the idea that 'everyone needs to participate with American capitalism as a worker drone' needs to die.