Unconditional Cash Study: first findings available
openresearchlab.org
Unconditional Cash Study: first findings available
1–10 of 669 posts
Re: Unconditional Cash Study: first findings available
#2As others have pointed out [0], the summaries have a much more positive spin than the accompanying paper [1].
The paper's abstract:
> We study the causal impacts of income on a rich array of employment outcomes, leverag-ing an experiment in which 1,000 low-income individuals were randomized into receiving $1,000 per month unconditionally for three years, with a control group of 2,000 participants receiving $50/month. We gather detailed survey data, administrative records, and data from a custom mobile phone app. The transfer caused total individual income to fall by about $1,500/year relative to the control group, excluding the transfers. The program resulted in a 2.0 percentage point decrease in labor market participation for participants and a 1.3-1.4 hour per week reduction in labor hours, with participants’ partners reducing their hours worked by a comparable amount. The transfer generated the largest increases in time spent on leisure, as well as smaller increases in time spent in other activities such as transportation and finances. Despite asking detailed questions about amenities, we find no impact on quality of employment, and our confidence intervals can rule out even small improvements. We observe no significant effects on investments in human capital, though younger participants may pursue more formal education. Overall, our results suggest a moderate labor supply effect that does not appear offset by other productive activities.
[0] https://x.com/Afinetheorem/status/1815413121822896270
[1]https://www.openresearchlab.org/findings/nber-working-paper-...
Re: Unconditional Cash Study: first findings available
#3Well that’s one less option for when the robots take over…
Re: Unconditional Cash Study: first findings available
#4Link to the preliminary study results from OpenResearch: https://www.openresearchlab.org/studies/unconditional-cash-s...
Note that this was a time-limited study where participants knew they would only receive money for 3 years. Personally, I feel like this leads to different behaviors than if people believe they will receive the income indefinitely.
Re: Unconditional Cash Study: first findings available
#5This 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 downsides.
Re: Unconditional Cash Study: first findings available
#6This 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?
Re: Unconditional Cash Study: first findings available
#7The UBI folks were cursed by the pandemic and inflation. You cannot deal with that confounder.
They’re not the only ones. Remember Green New Deal? That also evaporated with the end of ZIRP.
You can complain relentlessly about these guys, or offer alternative solution with nothing but vibes to vouch for them. The truth is, as long as interest rates are high, the economic contraction is making everyone too scared to try anything in case things “get worse.” Sadly, the best time to make great social change was between 2009 and 2022 and it’s officially over now.
Re: Unconditional Cash Study: first findings available
#8It's such a small amount of money per person that it is hard to see what effects one would expect. I think for the majority of people reading hacker news $1000 per month would be barely noticeable in their bank account (obviously some people out there would notice it, but for say a lowly software dev making $150k it's not going to change much about their lifestyle). So to think it would fundamentally change someones life is a stretch. I mean it's not enough to not have to earn money (and so have the financial security to start a company or restart education) and it's not enough to purchase accommodation (especially cause it's limited to 3 years). Most I would expect is people could pay down some of their debt - so they can tread water a little easier for a few years.
Re: Unconditional Cash Study: first findings available
#9This 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?
Yes-ish.
But your employer knows. And he might immediately apply "you'll need less money from me, now" logic.
Re: Unconditional Cash Study: first findings available
#10This 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?
I think something like this already exists in the U.S. It's called the Earned Income Tax Credit. Low income people may get a tax credit that could result in a bigger refund. Effectively, some people are getting money they woudln't be getting without working. It makes a lot of sense, imo.