• SuddenDownpour@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    8 months ago

    I know this is a popular perception, but it doesn’t allign with the results of experiments where random citizens where granted an UBI.

      • SuddenDownpour@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        8 months ago

        A monthly universal basic income (UBI) empowered recipients and did not create idleness. They invested, became more entrepreneurial, and earned more. The common concern of “laziness” never materialized, as recipients did not work less nor drink more.

        Mein gott, such a terrible policy.

      • jj4211@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        Well, no, we’ve never been able to test UBI. That would require the entire population of significant geographic areas to receive UBI levels of income in a way they start believing it’s a safe thing to expect for the foreseeable future, and to model how it’s funded rather than just how it pays out.

        What we’ve done is frequently means test the experiments, deliberately select low income people, but only a tiny portion of a larger low income population. Also, the participants know very well that the experiment might be a few months or a year, but after that they’ll be on their own again, so they need to take any advantage it gives them. So all the experiments prove is that if you give some, but not all, low income people a temporary financial benefit, they can and will out compete others without the benefit.

        UBI might be workable, or it might need certain other things to make it workable, or it might not be workable, but it’s going to be pretty much impossible to figure it out in a limited scope experiment.

        The Alaska permanent fund is about as close to UBI as we’ve gotten, but the amounts are below sustenance living so it’s not up to the standard either.

        • blackbelt352@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          8 months ago

          What we’ve done is frequently means test the experiments, deliberately select low income people, but only a tiny portion of a larger low income population.

          So what you’re saying it we explicitly looked at the most extreme examples and seen how UBI has greatly benefitted the people in those extreme situations, and every single time the experiments are conducted the results are pretty consistent, but we can’t extrapolate that it won’t work in less extreme situations because… reasons…

          • jj4211@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            8 months ago

            Because you still have the element of differential compared to others. In true UBI, the UBI recipient would represent the ‘low point’ for any citizen. Let’s take Seattle for example as they recent had an ‘experiment’ about UBI. If you had true UBI, then 750,000 people would all get same benefit, of which 75,000 were unemployed. In the UBI experiment, 100 of that 75,000 people had the benefit temporarily, and have an advantage over 74,900 people without that benefit, and the experiment only influences 0.01% of the population in general and then only by a meager amount, so the general local economy won’t even register the activity as a blip. Those 100 people can have a breather but know that time is short. So they take advantage to maybe take a class, get nice interview clothes, and show up better prepared for a job than maybe the other dozen applicants that couldn’t afford to buy the clothes, take time off for the right interview, or take that class. They might not have any particular advantage if everyone had UBI, and the experiment measured success in terms of relative success over those not in the cohort.

            So we are missing:

            • What is the behavior if UBI is taken for granted as a long term benefit for the forseeable future, rather than a temporary benefit.
            • What is the competitive picture if 100% of the population have the same benefit rather than 0.01%. i.e. how much of it was success owing to better resources versus success owing to others needing to fail to allow that relative success.
            • What is the overall economic adjustment if 100% of the population has this income and participants in the economy may adjust
            • What does it look like when the funding model in terms of taxation resembles what is needed in a UBI

            Just like all sorts of stuff in science, at scale does not necessarily map to small scale observations. Especially in economic and social science. That’s not to say UBI is definitely not going to work, it’s that we can’t know how it will work/not work until done “for real” at the appropriate scale.

                  • jj4211@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    ·
                    8 months ago

                    I appreciate the thoroughness and acknowledgement about limitations:

                    There is an obvious research evidence gap in the evaluation of an experimental, sustained UBI, which is considered the ‘gold standard’ for evidence. There is a shortage of evidence that meets most or all of the definitional features of a UBI, and the interventions covered by this report vary significantly. To arrive at conclusions at what may occur if all core features were unified into UBI policy, reviews have synthesized evidence from interventions that may not meet the most stringent definitions of universality or unconditionality.

                  • jj4211@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    8 months ago

                    See my reply to your other reply. That the programs are all limited in scope and duration and thus cannot possibly speak to scale. The meta analysis says the data that is available is appealing, but acknowledges that almost none of them really hit the criteria for a real UBI in terms of scope, scale, and duration. Particularly:

                    Only a handful of the interventions covered by this review are truly unconditional and universal. In an exhaustive review, Gentilini and colleagues21 identify only a small number of schemes that reach everyone within a geographic region without meansbased or demographic targeting, and regardless of work history. These included national schemes in Mongolia and Iran, dividend transfers in Alaska and the Eastern Band of the Cherokee Nation, a one-off transfer to all citizens in Kuwait, and pilots financed by private contributions and the non-governmental organizations in Kenya and Namibia, and by the national government in India. Several of these programs are either short-term, or not set to a level that would meet basic needs

                    I don’t know that any of them manage to hit both long-term and enough to meet basic needs. Alaska is long term, but it’s well below basic needs, for example.

                    We still do not have data that would speak to a whole society with UBI.