Stealing highlights from another site: I'm sure people will argue that they just aren't being given enough money, but $1000 a month is honestly a lot. That it just increases leisure time and...
Stealing highlights from another site:
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.
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.
I'm sure people will argue that they just aren't being given enough money, but $1000 a month is honestly a lot. That it just increases leisure time and doesn't noticeably improve most anything else continues to sway me against UBI.
However, I'm still strongly supportive of cash benefits for poverty. They're much easier to administer, and we have much stronger experimental evidence in favour of their efficacy from Mexico, South America, and parts of Africa with GiveDirectly.
Depending on how pessimistic you were going in, this could be seen as good news. I’d expect that an extra $1000 a month might result in people being more likely to quit a job or less likely to...
Depending on how pessimistic you were going in, this could be seen as good news. I’d expect that an extra $1000 a month might result in people being more likely to quit a job or less likely to start a new job when it’s a close decision. And it seems there’s some effect, but not that much.
Another question, though: when a close decision goes the other way, is it a better decision? I think there’s no way of knowing without understanding the situation. But without any other information, I like to assume that people make better decisions when under less financial pressure.
I could still see this being potentially worth it by preventing other things later on: being less likely to experience stress- or health-related leaves of absence, for example.
I could still see this being potentially worth it by preventing other things later on: being less likely to experience stress- or health-related leaves of absence, for example.
So, the study has shown that people who receive UBI did not see any improvement in the quality of their employment, but did decrease their labor participation rate by about 2%. The way that I read...
So, the study has shown that people who receive UBI did not see any improvement in the quality of their employment, but did decrease their labor participation rate by about 2%. The way that I read this is that this UBI study didn't create better jobs for participants, nor encourage them to find better ones, but it did let the participants spend less time toiling at a shitty job and spend more time living their life.
Is this not the outcome that we want? As automation makes human labor less necessary, we want people to spend less time toiling and more time enjoying life.
Stealing highlights from another site:
I'm sure people will argue that they just aren't being given enough money, but $1000 a month is honestly a lot. That it just increases leisure time and doesn't noticeably improve most anything else continues to sway me against UBI.
However, I'm still strongly supportive of cash benefits for poverty. They're much easier to administer, and we have much stronger experimental evidence in favour of their efficacy from Mexico, South America, and parts of Africa with GiveDirectly.
Were they happier or healthier?
Depending on how pessimistic you were going in, this could be seen as good news. I’d expect that an extra $1000 a month might result in people being more likely to quit a job or less likely to start a new job when it’s a close decision. And it seems there’s some effect, but not that much.
Another question, though: when a close decision goes the other way, is it a better decision? I think there’s no way of knowing without understanding the situation. But without any other information, I like to assume that people make better decisions when under less financial pressure.
I could still see this being potentially worth it by preventing other things later on: being less likely to experience stress- or health-related leaves of absence, for example.
So, the study has shown that people who receive UBI did not see any improvement in the quality of their employment, but did decrease their labor participation rate by about 2%. The way that I read this is that this UBI study didn't create better jobs for participants, nor encourage them to find better ones, but it did let the participants spend less time toiling at a shitty job and spend more time living their life.
Is this not the outcome that we want? As automation makes human labor less necessary, we want people to spend less time toiling and more time enjoying life.