Here's what happens when you give people free money
August 5, 2024 7:48 AM Subscribe
Twitter thread by David Broockman, one of the researchers. It was a randomized control study, with a baseline control group.
posted by russilwvong at 7:56 AM on August 5 [4 favorites]
posted by russilwvong at 7:56 AM on August 5 [4 favorites]
firstly because required work for pay is a damned scourge and needs to be minimized at all costs.
read in a meme earlier that if you can't imagine a Richard Scarry cartoon pig with clothes on doing your job then your job is not actually contributing anything to society & you should just stop
posted by taquito sunrise at 8:02 AM on August 5 [30 favorites]
read in a meme earlier that if you can't imagine a Richard Scarry cartoon pig with clothes on doing your job then your job is not actually contributing anything to society & you should just stop
posted by taquito sunrise at 8:02 AM on August 5 [30 favorites]
i predictably hate this article so much. chiefly it mentions recipients cutting back on work as a bad thing
It's a bad thing when it comes to getting broader support for basic income, because the narrative shifts to "paying freeloaders to do nothing" from "giving hard working Americans a little extra help". It's a bad thing when it comes to paying for basic income, because it means fewer people working and thus demanding more from those funding the program.
posted by It's Never Lurgi at 8:05 AM on August 5 [1 favorite]
It's a bad thing when it comes to getting broader support for basic income, because the narrative shifts to "paying freeloaders to do nothing" from "giving hard working Americans a little extra help". It's a bad thing when it comes to paying for basic income, because it means fewer people working and thus demanding more from those funding the program.
posted by It's Never Lurgi at 8:05 AM on August 5 [1 favorite]
For some perspective on scalability, the program gave participants $12k per year, which would equate to ~16 percent of the United States' ~$25 trillion GDP if divided among its ~330 million citizens.
The study found cash transfers have no effect on physical and mental health over four years. I don't think that's enough to rule out UBI as having positive health effects in general, though. Seems like some of the factors that cause disparities in health between wealthy and poor people would take effect over a longer term than four years.
posted by Hume at 8:06 AM on August 5 [9 favorites]
The study found cash transfers have no effect on physical and mental health over four years. I don't think that's enough to rule out UBI as having positive health effects in general, though. Seems like some of the factors that cause disparities in health between wealthy and poor people would take effect over a longer term than four years.
posted by Hume at 8:06 AM on August 5 [9 favorites]
the bigger question: how long will it take people to realize all the AI produced work is total garbage?
posted by AlbertCalavicci at 8:12 AM on August 5 [13 favorites]
posted by AlbertCalavicci at 8:12 AM on August 5 [13 favorites]
Can't have UBI without universal rent control. Otherwise the landlords just jack everyone's rent and it turns into yet another wealth transfer to the capitalists.
posted by seanmpuckett at 8:28 AM on August 5 [45 favorites]
posted by seanmpuckett at 8:28 AM on August 5 [45 favorites]
> It's a bad thing when it comes to getting broader support for basic income, because the narrative shifts to "paying freeloaders to do nothing" from "giving hard working Americans a little extra help". It's a bad thing when it comes to paying for basic income, because it means fewer people working and thus demanding more from those funding the program.
nonsense.
like, i’m tempted to leave my response at that. but the slightly longer version is that the first narrative is hateful, the second narrative is wrong, that people who believe the first narrative will never be swayed, that a ubi that satisfies the demand of the second narrative will always be inadequate, and that the fewer people working are going to be making more money because of the reduction in the supply of labor.
so, yeah. the thing that has to happen is we have to pry people off of the first narrative and onto a narrative that both makes sense and isn’t a form of self-loathing, instead of affirming the first narrative with the “a little extra help” one.
when workers get access to a robust ubi, all workers benefit.
posted by bombastic lowercase pronouncements at 8:29 AM on August 5 [12 favorites]
nonsense.
like, i’m tempted to leave my response at that. but the slightly longer version is that the first narrative is hateful, the second narrative is wrong, that people who believe the first narrative will never be swayed, that a ubi that satisfies the demand of the second narrative will always be inadequate, and that the fewer people working are going to be making more money because of the reduction in the supply of labor.
so, yeah. the thing that has to happen is we have to pry people off of the first narrative and onto a narrative that both makes sense and isn’t a form of self-loathing, instead of affirming the first narrative with the “a little extra help” one.
when workers get access to a robust ubi, all workers benefit.
posted by bombastic lowercase pronouncements at 8:29 AM on August 5 [12 favorites]
But they also slightly cut back on work and let the free cash fill in the gap. For every $1 received from OpenResearch, participants’ earnings excluding the free money dropped by at least 12 cents and total household income fell by at least 21 cents.
I wonder how many hours of work they had per week before and after this. With and without commute time.
posted by egypturnash at 8:29 AM on August 5 [10 favorites]
I wonder how many hours of work they had per week before and after this. With and without commute time.
posted by egypturnash at 8:29 AM on August 5 [10 favorites]
Did somebody say $12,000/yr per-capita??
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=1rgtn
shows per-capita (age 16+) real GDP is up just about that in the past 10 years.
posted by torokunai at 8:30 AM on August 5 [1 favorite]
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=1rgtn
shows per-capita (age 16+) real GDP is up just about that in the past 10 years.
posted by torokunai at 8:30 AM on August 5 [1 favorite]
BTW I am totally down with universal rent control, as well as forced expropriation of all rental housing buildings with more than 4 units to an arm's length state-operated non-profit entity with extremely strict regulation.
posted by seanmpuckett at 8:30 AM on August 5 [17 favorites]
posted by seanmpuckett at 8:30 AM on August 5 [17 favorites]
Probably about as long as it takes people to realize that the current AI/LLMs we have aren't meant to produce anything but garbage without the help of a skilled human being.
AI isn't supposed to produce much of anything, it's supposed to help you produce work (that odds are still good is garbage but good art is hard AI or not).
Giving people more income and letting them work less should mean more time for hobbies which means more artists and, eventually, more good artists and musicians, etc. Including artists that are good at leveraging AI as a tool to help them make great art.
posted by VTX at 8:32 AM on August 5
AI isn't supposed to produce much of anything, it's supposed to help you produce work (that odds are still good is garbage but good art is hard AI or not).
Giving people more income and letting them work less should mean more time for hobbies which means more artists and, eventually, more good artists and musicians, etc. Including artists that are good at leveraging AI as a tool to help them make great art.
posted by VTX at 8:32 AM on August 5
I wish WIRED would write snappier headlines; perhaps "World's Wealthiest Plagiarizer Tells Us What We Already Know"
posted by niicholas at 8:33 AM on August 5 [7 favorites]
posted by niicholas at 8:33 AM on August 5 [7 favorites]
> Can't have UBI without universal rent control. Otherwise the landlords just jack everyone's rent and it turns into yet another wealth transfer to the capitalists.
index it to inflation. not kidding. yes i know the potential effects of this over time. still not kidding. over time, the demand-side inflation produced through an inflation-indexed ubi is a straightforward, effective method of flattening the wealth distribution.
but yes, the way the capitalists put the squeeze on us is as follows:
posted by bombastic lowercase pronouncements at 8:35 AM on August 5 [10 favorites]
index it to inflation. not kidding. yes i know the potential effects of this over time. still not kidding. over time, the demand-side inflation produced through an inflation-indexed ubi is a straightforward, effective method of flattening the wealth distribution.
but yes, the way the capitalists put the squeeze on us is as follows:
- reduce wages to the bare minimum
- if they can’t keep wages to the bare minimum, jack up the price of housing
- if they can’t jack up the price of housing enough, jack up the price of food
posted by bombastic lowercase pronouncements at 8:35 AM on August 5 [10 favorites]
(step 4 in the squeeze above is “shoot everyone in government and install a hard-right dictatorship,” which is what happened when allende’s chile fought past steps 1, 2, and 3)
posted by bombastic lowercase pronouncements at 8:38 AM on August 5 [10 favorites]
posted by bombastic lowercase pronouncements at 8:38 AM on August 5 [10 favorites]
I wish WIRED would write snappier headlines; perhaps "World's Wealthiest Plagiarizer Tells Us What We Already Know"
posted by niicholas at 11:33 AM on August 5 [1 favorite +] [⚑]
Stop this anti science bullshit. Altman funded it. He didn't execute or write it. Broockman's one of the most prominent and respected social scientists doing field experiments in the world. Do you think he 1) fudged the data, 2) altered the evaluation plan, or 3) lied in any way about this work?
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 8:52 AM on August 5 [7 favorites]
posted by niicholas at 11:33 AM on August 5 [1 favorite +] [⚑]
Stop this anti science bullshit. Altman funded it. He didn't execute or write it. Broockman's one of the most prominent and respected social scientists doing field experiments in the world. Do you think he 1) fudged the data, 2) altered the evaluation plan, or 3) lied in any way about this work?
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 8:52 AM on August 5 [7 favorites]
if you can't imagine a Richard Scarry cartoon pig with clothes on doing your jobReminds me of a couple of attempts to do just that.
posted by pulposus at 8:53 AM on August 5 [6 favorites]
seanmpuckett: Can't have UBI without universal rent control. Otherwise the landlords just jack everyone's rent and it turns into yet another wealth transfer to the capitalists.
Yep, this. If we start everyone at $12k/yr, pretty soon $12k/yr won't be enough to buy food, healthcare, housing, or clothing. Price controls and subsidies for basic needs are the only way to avoid just raising the bar over and over.
posted by capricorn at 8:57 AM on August 5 [1 favorite]
Yep, this. If we start everyone at $12k/yr, pretty soon $12k/yr won't be enough to buy food, healthcare, housing, or clothing. Price controls and subsidies for basic needs are the only way to avoid just raising the bar over and over.
posted by capricorn at 8:57 AM on August 5 [1 favorite]
yeah, a ubi means people get to spend more time raising their kids, it means people get to spend more time doing creative stuff, it means olympians don’t have to do shitty jobs instead of getting to spend that time training more.
and moreover it means we all get more time to marathon tv shows, play videogames, and have boozy midweek picnics with friends. all of which are things we need more of.
posted by bombastic lowercase pronouncements at 9:07 AM on August 5 [9 favorites]
and moreover it means we all get more time to marathon tv shows, play videogames, and have boozy midweek picnics with friends. all of which are things we need more of.
posted by bombastic lowercase pronouncements at 9:07 AM on August 5 [9 favorites]
Broockman's one of the most prominent and respected social scientists doing field experiments in the world.
Less so now--in my opinion--because he took money from Altman.
Why should we pretend that science is somehow above it all and worthy of respect even if it's funded by odious billionaires motivated by forcing their particular vision upon the world? Since Altman--like Musk and Zuckerberg--fancies himself as a singular visionary "brand", why shouldn't the negative aspects of that brand also reflect upon anything and anyone they're involved with?
posted by RonButNotStupid at 9:12 AM on August 5 [3 favorites]
Less so now--in my opinion--because he took money from Altman.
Why should we pretend that science is somehow above it all and worthy of respect even if it's funded by odious billionaires motivated by forcing their particular vision upon the world? Since Altman--like Musk and Zuckerberg--fancies himself as a singular visionary "brand", why shouldn't the negative aspects of that brand also reflect upon anything and anyone they're involved with?
posted by RonButNotStupid at 9:12 AM on August 5 [3 favorites]
But if UBI is inflation adjusted the UBI adjusts to this change to increase the UBI level.
We'd want to pair UBI with some better housing policy overall so that rather than renters competing for housing it's rentiers competing for tenants. That would help keep rental prices from being driven up. I've been told that capitalism is all about competition so this is actually more capitalist, not sliding towards socialism. ;)
And the farther up the income scale you go, the less impact that $12k makes on that person's lifestyle. I'm in the higher end of middle class and I'd certainly welcome that income, but it wouldn't do much to change my healthcare or housing decisions.
I still think there would be positive benefits to my health, they'd just be a lot less significant to me than someone for whom that $12k represents a 30% increase in income.
If I might distill it down, ubi means more freedom. Freedom to do all the things mentioned. Much like capitalism and competition, my understanding is that we're generally in favor of freedom in the US.
posted by VTX at 9:15 AM on August 5 [1 favorite]
We'd want to pair UBI with some better housing policy overall so that rather than renters competing for housing it's rentiers competing for tenants. That would help keep rental prices from being driven up. I've been told that capitalism is all about competition so this is actually more capitalist, not sliding towards socialism. ;)
And the farther up the income scale you go, the less impact that $12k makes on that person's lifestyle. I'm in the higher end of middle class and I'd certainly welcome that income, but it wouldn't do much to change my healthcare or housing decisions.
I still think there would be positive benefits to my health, they'd just be a lot less significant to me than someone for whom that $12k represents a 30% increase in income.
If I might distill it down, ubi means more freedom. Freedom to do all the things mentioned. Much like capitalism and competition, my understanding is that we're generally in favor of freedom in the US.
posted by VTX at 9:15 AM on August 5 [1 favorite]
Capitalists can't "jack up the price" of anything. Prices are determined by supply and demand ... and, yes, increasing the demand for something (for example by giving people more income) without increasing its supply causes its price to increase whether or not the sellers are "capitalists." (For example, increasing the demand for workers without adding to the workforce causes wages to rise.) So, yes, without a strategy dramatically to increase the supply of whatever it is UBI recipients tend to consume, the benefit of UBI will be inflated away. (And, no, this is not solved by price controls or expropriation - supply and demand is a law, not a suggestion.)
Beyond a failure to understand the foregoing, the other main problem with UBI activists these days is that they want it to be yet another levy increasing the cost of the welfare state, rather than substituting for the welfare state as it was intended, and also for it to co-exist with a lax/non-existent immigration controls.
posted by MattD at 9:15 AM on August 5 [1 favorite]
Beyond a failure to understand the foregoing, the other main problem with UBI activists these days is that they want it to be yet another levy increasing the cost of the welfare state, rather than substituting for the welfare state as it was intended, and also for it to co-exist with a lax/non-existent immigration controls.
posted by MattD at 9:15 AM on August 5 [1 favorite]
>Capitalists can't "jack up the price" of anything
they can try tho
posted by torokunai at 9:19 AM on August 5 [3 favorites]
they can try tho
posted by torokunai at 9:19 AM on August 5 [3 favorites]
Capitalists can't "jack up the price" of anything. Prices are determined by supply and demand
It's not like you can't manipulate either or both of those things to achieve your desired price.
posted by RonButNotStupid at 9:21 AM on August 5 [9 favorites]
It's not like you can't manipulate either or both of those things to achieve your desired price.
posted by RonButNotStupid at 9:21 AM on August 5 [9 favorites]
I'm not sure I've absorbed enough to give a solid enough overall characterization, but there is a huge difference in tone between the conclusions described by the Wired article and the conclusions I've seen so far as-presented in the various OpenResearch findings reports themselves.
The findings reports I've checked so far each present vaguely positive conclusions on the effectiveness of UI, with a bunch of nuance surrounding where it might seem otherwise.
The Wired article came off to me as confidently citing numbers to draw the opposite, negative/skeptical conclusions.
For example: one of the findings presented in this report was -- interestingly enough -- that "[t]here was no statistically significant effect on employment or hours worked for recipients over 30," meaning the entirety of the supposedly concerning result reported on by Wired was contained within the 18-29 cohort, and a good chunk of that was due to participants prioritizing education (though the findings make clear that education decisions alone aren't enough to explain the full discrepancy between age ranges).
I'm also skeptical about the differences between the Wired article's first paragraph's "But what amounted to $36,000 wasn’t enough to significantly improve their physical well-being or long-term financial health, researchers concluded," and the nuances actually presented in the "financial health" findings report, where at least the self-reported "financial well-being" metric seems to be affected by an awareness in year three that the supplemental income is about to disappear.
posted by nobody at 9:22 AM on August 5 [13 favorites]
The findings reports I've checked so far each present vaguely positive conclusions on the effectiveness of UI, with a bunch of nuance surrounding where it might seem otherwise.
The Wired article came off to me as confidently citing numbers to draw the opposite, negative/skeptical conclusions.
For example: one of the findings presented in this report was -- interestingly enough -- that "[t]here was no statistically significant effect on employment or hours worked for recipients over 30," meaning the entirety of the supposedly concerning result reported on by Wired was contained within the 18-29 cohort, and a good chunk of that was due to participants prioritizing education (though the findings make clear that education decisions alone aren't enough to explain the full discrepancy between age ranges).
I'm also skeptical about the differences between the Wired article's first paragraph's "But what amounted to $36,000 wasn’t enough to significantly improve their physical well-being or long-term financial health, researchers concluded," and the nuances actually presented in the "financial health" findings report, where at least the self-reported "financial well-being" metric seems to be affected by an awareness in year three that the supplemental income is about to disappear.
posted by nobody at 9:22 AM on August 5 [13 favorites]
(I'm worried I might have rushed that comment and gotten some nuance wrong myself, but I wanted to get that overall sense out there before the conversation continued barreling along under a mistaken assumption that the Wired article's attitudes match those of the researchers.)
posted by nobody at 9:30 AM on August 5
posted by nobody at 9:30 AM on August 5
Capitalists can't "jack up the price" of anything
They absolutely can for things where they have a monopoly, for example, prescription medication that is still under patent.
posted by chariot pulled by cassowaries at 9:32 AM on August 5 [25 favorites]
They absolutely can for things where they have a monopoly, for example, prescription medication that is still under patent.
posted by chariot pulled by cassowaries at 9:32 AM on August 5 [25 favorites]
Nothing is free.
posted by Czjewel at 9:35 AM on August 5 [1 favorite]
posted by Czjewel at 9:35 AM on August 5 [1 favorite]
like, i’m tempted to leave my response at that.
i’m glad you didn’t but gotta tell you that that impulse helps literally no one and just leaves a little contempt behind, as a treat.
posted by knock my sock and i'll clean your clock at 9:48 AM on August 5 [1 favorite]
i’m glad you didn’t but gotta tell you that that impulse helps literally no one and just leaves a little contempt behind, as a treat.
posted by knock my sock and i'll clean your clock at 9:48 AM on August 5 [1 favorite]
> They absolutely can for things where they have a monopoly, for example, prescription medication that is still under patent.
moreover it's trivial for capital-holders to coordinate on prices. it like takes effort to not do so.
posted by bombastic lowercase pronouncements at 10:07 AM on August 5 [9 favorites]
moreover it's trivial for capital-holders to coordinate on prices. it like takes effort to not do so.
posted by bombastic lowercase pronouncements at 10:07 AM on August 5 [9 favorites]
There are UBI studies--over and over, it's almost like what they say about insanity--and it has proved to help people, but it appears that, as a collective (which includes people we don't much like or identify with), we are determined to not help people get out of poverty, or you know, just enjoy being alive. We demand that anyone who needs any sort of financial leg up prove that they are worthy of receiving the government/state/province's munificence.
It's pretty fucked up you have to be worthy in anyone's eyes just get a little help.
posted by Kitteh at 10:17 AM on August 5 [12 favorites]
It's pretty fucked up you have to be worthy in anyone's eyes just get a little help.
posted by Kitteh at 10:17 AM on August 5 [12 favorites]
There are UBI studies--over and over, it's almost like what they say about insanity
What's remarkable about this study is that most do not see a substituion effect (less hours worked when given money). But this one does. I don't think its 'insane' to conduct more research.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 10:24 AM on August 5
What's remarkable about this study is that most do not see a substituion effect (less hours worked when given money). But this one does. I don't think its 'insane' to conduct more research.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 10:24 AM on August 5
> For every $1 received from OpenResearch, participants’ earnings excluding the free money dropped by at least 12 cents and total household income fell by at least 21 cents.
And account for the free money, their incomes went up 79-88 cents per dollar. Which is the point. Have more money and time to just live life and less time wasted dancing for capitalists to soothe their anxieties over us not suffering enough for a tiny bit of our own goddamn money back.
posted by GoblinHoney at 10:24 AM on August 5 [7 favorites]
And account for the free money, their incomes went up 79-88 cents per dollar. Which is the point. Have more money and time to just live life and less time wasted dancing for capitalists to soothe their anxieties over us not suffering enough for a tiny bit of our own goddamn money back.
posted by GoblinHoney at 10:24 AM on August 5 [7 favorites]
They absolutely can for things where they have a monopoly, for example, prescription medication that is still under patent.
Not just monopolies. Duopolies too with less leverage and even large numbers of owners via cartels (defacto or dejure). In theory that kind of behaviour is self correcting via new companies undercutting but barriers to entry can be high, setting up a significant competition can be slow (housing takes years to build and even longer to build up the kind of inventory that represents a price setting percentage of the market), and the big players are allowed to just buy out up and coming competition.
When it comes to housing though this is easily if slowly handled by just building non market housing until rents stabilize at 30% (or whatever) of income.
posted by Mitheral at 10:29 AM on August 5 [3 favorites]
Not just monopolies. Duopolies too with less leverage and even large numbers of owners via cartels (defacto or dejure). In theory that kind of behaviour is self correcting via new companies undercutting but barriers to entry can be high, setting up a significant competition can be slow (housing takes years to build and even longer to build up the kind of inventory that represents a price setting percentage of the market), and the big players are allowed to just buy out up and coming competition.
When it comes to housing though this is easily if slowly handled by just building non market housing until rents stabilize at 30% (or whatever) of income.
posted by Mitheral at 10:29 AM on August 5 [3 favorites]
The New York Times Hard Fork podcast covered this study, and I found their interview with Elizabeth Rhodes of OpenResearch to be super interesting. It answers some of the questions we have about this study (which was similar to but not the same as UBI) and its findings. You can find their interview here if you're interested!
posted by golden at 10:30 AM on August 5 [3 favorites]
posted by golden at 10:30 AM on August 5 [3 favorites]
What's remarkable about this study is that most do not see a substituion effect (less hours worked when given money). But this one does. I don't think its 'insane' to conduct more research.
It is when people's lives, health, enjoyment, less stress about bills are at stake. We are gonna conduct these studies for the rest of time but what will never happen because of any of these studies is actual UBI. We will find reasons to say "Nahhhhh, can't have that" instead of "fuck it, let's just try it because people are struggling to buy fucking groceries."
posted by Kitteh at 10:32 AM on August 5 [2 favorites]
It is when people's lives, health, enjoyment, less stress about bills are at stake. We are gonna conduct these studies for the rest of time but what will never happen because of any of these studies is actual UBI. We will find reasons to say "Nahhhhh, can't have that" instead of "fuck it, let's just try it because people are struggling to buy fucking groceries."
posted by Kitteh at 10:32 AM on August 5 [2 favorites]
It is when people's lives, health, enjoyment, less stress about bills are at stake.
What do you think the academics should be doing instead? not study this?
This study was also different in some important ways. Don't be scared of knowledge.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 10:34 AM on August 5
What do you think the academics should be doing instead? not study this?
This study was also different in some important ways. Don't be scared of knowledge.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 10:34 AM on August 5
This study was also different in some important ways.
Most other UBI studies aren't tangentially linked to useless crypto and a creepy harvesting of bioinformatics.
posted by RonButNotStupid at 10:41 AM on August 5
Most other UBI studies aren't tangentially linked to useless crypto and a creepy harvesting of bioinformatics.
posted by RonButNotStupid at 10:41 AM on August 5
Nothing is free.
long time fan of the notion of a UBI. But whenever I think hard about it, I find I come up against this.
Nothing is free
For simplicity's sake, let's say I'm getting one thousand dollars a month to cover my needs (food, shelter, etc) and I'm making it work. I'm not just surviving, I'm thriving. I'm not just surfing the interwebs all day, arguing with strangers or whatever, I'm being creative, maybe connecting with other creatives, all that stuff. And, because I'm not worried about food, shelter etc, I'm volunteering a pile, helping kids understand video editing (or whatever). Or maybe just picking up garbage in the park next to my place.
But then something happens. Maybe there's a change in govt, or an overall downturn in the economy (for reasons). Maybe there's just some bureaucratic stupidity, a shift in priorities from the who (or the what) is actually pulling the strings, sending me my monthly one thousand dollars. Suddenly my strings are getting pulled tighter. Suddenly it's only nine hundred dollars a month ... and so on.
Obviously you'd have checks and balances for such stuff already worked into the UBI legalities, but what happens when these get challenged, get tweaked, get bullied aside by some asshole (or gang of assholes), or maybe just idiots who think they've got a better way?
Nothing is free.
I fear that what we may give in to if we leap too readily for UBI is just another monolith of raw power. It may take a while to get itself sorted, but eventually it will be there throwing its weight around, putting the squeeze on. And with so much of our economy now dependent on folks expecting that monthly thousand dollars -- well, let's just say that this squeeze would have profound power in its grip ...
Bottom line. This is complex stuff. With my definition of a complex situation being one that no single individual can fully grasp, let alone explain. There are so many moving parts (not to mention emoting humans) in the mix that you just have to step back and allow for a certain level of chaos, unpredictability. This is a description of human culture in general, I guess, but that's what we're dealing with when we're talking about a UNIVERSAL basic income.
Does all this mean I'm against it?
I don't know. Like I said off the top, I've long been a fan of the basic notion. But, as they say, the devil is in the details. I figure the slower, the more cautious its implementation, the better. With the goal being NOT to somehow eradicate Capitalism blah-blah-blah, but rather just to find a better way of letting people be people, take some of the pressure off.
posted by philip-random at 10:48 AM on August 5 [1 favorite]
long time fan of the notion of a UBI. But whenever I think hard about it, I find I come up against this.
Nothing is free
For simplicity's sake, let's say I'm getting one thousand dollars a month to cover my needs (food, shelter, etc) and I'm making it work. I'm not just surviving, I'm thriving. I'm not just surfing the interwebs all day, arguing with strangers or whatever, I'm being creative, maybe connecting with other creatives, all that stuff. And, because I'm not worried about food, shelter etc, I'm volunteering a pile, helping kids understand video editing (or whatever). Or maybe just picking up garbage in the park next to my place.
But then something happens. Maybe there's a change in govt, or an overall downturn in the economy (for reasons). Maybe there's just some bureaucratic stupidity, a shift in priorities from the who (or the what) is actually pulling the strings, sending me my monthly one thousand dollars. Suddenly my strings are getting pulled tighter. Suddenly it's only nine hundred dollars a month ... and so on.
Obviously you'd have checks and balances for such stuff already worked into the UBI legalities, but what happens when these get challenged, get tweaked, get bullied aside by some asshole (or gang of assholes), or maybe just idiots who think they've got a better way?
Nothing is free.
I fear that what we may give in to if we leap too readily for UBI is just another monolith of raw power. It may take a while to get itself sorted, but eventually it will be there throwing its weight around, putting the squeeze on. And with so much of our economy now dependent on folks expecting that monthly thousand dollars -- well, let's just say that this squeeze would have profound power in its grip ...
Bottom line. This is complex stuff. With my definition of a complex situation being one that no single individual can fully grasp, let alone explain. There are so many moving parts (not to mention emoting humans) in the mix that you just have to step back and allow for a certain level of chaos, unpredictability. This is a description of human culture in general, I guess, but that's what we're dealing with when we're talking about a UNIVERSAL basic income.
Does all this mean I'm against it?
I don't know. Like I said off the top, I've long been a fan of the basic notion. But, as they say, the devil is in the details. I figure the slower, the more cautious its implementation, the better. With the goal being NOT to somehow eradicate Capitalism blah-blah-blah, but rather just to find a better way of letting people be people, take some of the pressure off.
posted by philip-random at 10:48 AM on August 5 [1 favorite]
What's remarkable about this study is that most do not see a substitution effect (less hours worked when given money). But this one does.
(I noted this already in a comment above, but it turns out that even this study doesn't see any substitution effect for people older than 30!)
posted by nobody at 10:49 AM on August 5 [2 favorites]
(I noted this already in a comment above, but it turns out that even this study doesn't see any substitution effect for people older than 30!)
posted by nobody at 10:49 AM on August 5 [2 favorites]
It's just we should also study what happens if we enact this worldwide and permanently. For science.
posted by Ashenmote at 10:50 AM on August 5 [2 favorites]
posted by Ashenmote at 10:50 AM on August 5 [2 favorites]
Most other UBI studies aren't tangentially linked to useless crypto and a creepy harvesting of bioinformatics.
Wait till you hear about the National Science Foundation's tangentially related activities in Iraq and Afghanistan!!!!
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 10:53 AM on August 5 [1 favorite]
Wait till you hear about the National Science Foundation's tangentially related activities in Iraq and Afghanistan!!!!
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 10:53 AM on August 5 [1 favorite]
Yep, this. If we start everyone at $12k/yr, pretty soon $12k/yr won't be enough to buy food, healthcare, housing, or clothing.
My dude. $12k/yr already is not enough to buy food, healthcare, housing, and clothing anywhere in North America.
posted by eviemath at 11:00 AM on August 5 [16 favorites]
My dude. $12k/yr already is not enough to buy food, healthcare, housing, and clothing anywhere in North America.
posted by eviemath at 11:00 AM on August 5 [16 favorites]
Look, I'm not going to deny that the work done by the National Science Foundation and other government-sponsored organizations are adjacent to some pretty horrible things. But governments delegate responsibility and distill decision-making across thousands, if not tens of thousands of professional individuals. They can also be influenced (at least in theory) through democratic processes.
Sam Altman is just one guy. I'm glad he's interested in UBI and putting up the money to fund yet another study on it, but this study is way less compartmentalized and separated from his "interests" than your typical NSF research project has typically been* from whatever administration is currently occupying the Executive Branch. And because he's just one guy, when considering this study you can't overlook that he's also promoting some pretty sketchy things any more than you can overlook Elon Musk's fascist posts on Twitter when considering the work of SpaceX.
* Insert usual disclaimer/warning about Trump here.
posted by RonButNotStupid at 11:05 AM on August 5 [2 favorites]
Sam Altman is just one guy. I'm glad he's interested in UBI and putting up the money to fund yet another study on it, but this study is way less compartmentalized and separated from his "interests" than your typical NSF research project has typically been* from whatever administration is currently occupying the Executive Branch. And because he's just one guy, when considering this study you can't overlook that he's also promoting some pretty sketchy things any more than you can overlook Elon Musk's fascist posts on Twitter when considering the work of SpaceX.
* Insert usual disclaimer/warning about Trump here.
posted by RonButNotStupid at 11:05 AM on August 5 [2 favorites]
bombastic lowercase pronouncements: required work for pay is a damned scourge and needs to be minimized at all costs.
Eponysterical!
Let me back all the way up. The economy is a large-scale cooperative system where we produce goods and services that are consumed by other people, and we consume goods and services that are produced by other people. When we work, we're putting goods and services into a giant pool to be consumed by other people, and when we buy things, we're taking goods and services out of the pool. Joseph Heath, On the scalability of cooperative structures.
We use money as a way to keep track of how much we've put in vs. how much we've taken out. We produce things in exchange for money, and then use that money to buy things that we want to consume. But it's just an intermediate step, a way of accounting for what's really going on - trading things that I produce (and that other people want) for things that I want.
You can imagine that in a post-capitalist system you might have a different way of keeping track. But that's basically what working is: producing goods and services that other people want.
What I find baffling is, when you say that "required work for pay is a damned scourge and needs to be minimized at all costs" ... who's going to produce the things that you want and need? I think a lot about housing - I'm in Vancouver, where we have a terrible shortage of housing because we regulate new housing like it's a nuclear power plant and we tax it like it's a gold mine. You need people to build housing for other people to live in. You need people with specialized skills to maintain and repair that housing. (Plumbers and electricians, for example.) How do you imagine that this happens?
Noah Smith, There's not that much wealth in the world.
Eponysterical!
Let me back all the way up. The economy is a large-scale cooperative system where we produce goods and services that are consumed by other people, and we consume goods and services that are produced by other people. When we work, we're putting goods and services into a giant pool to be consumed by other people, and when we buy things, we're taking goods and services out of the pool. Joseph Heath, On the scalability of cooperative structures.
We use money as a way to keep track of how much we've put in vs. how much we've taken out. We produce things in exchange for money, and then use that money to buy things that we want to consume. But it's just an intermediate step, a way of accounting for what's really going on - trading things that I produce (and that other people want) for things that I want.
You can imagine that in a post-capitalist system you might have a different way of keeping track. But that's basically what working is: producing goods and services that other people want.
What I find baffling is, when you say that "required work for pay is a damned scourge and needs to be minimized at all costs" ... who's going to produce the things that you want and need? I think a lot about housing - I'm in Vancouver, where we have a terrible shortage of housing because we regulate new housing like it's a nuclear power plant and we tax it like it's a gold mine. You need people to build housing for other people to live in. You need people with specialized skills to maintain and repair that housing. (Plumbers and electricians, for example.) How do you imagine that this happens?
Noah Smith, There's not that much wealth in the world.
Understanding wealth as real productive assets [buildings, machines, etc.], instead of numbers on paper, helps us to understand the impermanence of the world we’ve built. The walls and institutions that surround you look like they’re built to last forever. But they aren’t. Without constant maintenance and replacement — constant human effort — they will crumble very quickly.posted by russilwvong at 1:21 PM on August 5 [6 favorites]
Richard Scary pig in an abbatoir
posted by DeepSeaHaggis at 1:26 PM on August 5
posted by DeepSeaHaggis at 1:26 PM on August 5
I feel like UBI is just the free-market band-aid on actually making genuine commitments to ensure that no one has to starve or go without medical care or be homeless in a world with such unprecedented prosperity, technology, and scientific understanding. If it's all we can get I'll take it, because it's better than nothing, but it still feels like second-best to actually caring about the general welfare of our communities.
posted by nickmark at 1:27 PM on August 5 [5 favorites]
posted by nickmark at 1:27 PM on August 5 [5 favorites]
Note: I've supported UBI since about 1999 when, working on ML research, realized either that or Freeloaders Prisons would be inevitable. That said, the current trajectory of capital and labor does not have me hopeful.
posted by DeepSeaHaggis at 1:30 PM on August 5 [2 favorites]
posted by DeepSeaHaggis at 1:30 PM on August 5 [2 favorites]
We produce things in exchange for money, and then use that money to buy things that we want to consume.
This, in a nutshell, is why I hate cryptocurrency. It produces nothing and can buy nothing. It's "money" devoid of all economic meaning.
posted by SPrintF at 2:50 PM on August 5 [2 favorites]
This, in a nutshell, is why I hate cryptocurrency. It produces nothing and can buy nothing. It's "money" devoid of all economic meaning.
posted by SPrintF at 2:50 PM on August 5 [2 favorites]
dollars used to have economic meaning, until we went off the gold standard 50-odd years ago.
When I was born the broad money supply had $4/person, now it's 20X that:
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=1rhld
A lot of that is just courtesy of being the global reserve currency, we print dollars and they just get parked all over the world as savings.
My conspiracy theory is that there was a concerted effort to boost inflation 2022-23, since Wall Street capitalism didn't want politicians getting any funny ideas about MMT actually working or anything.
posted by torokunai at 3:58 PM on August 5
When I was born the broad money supply had $4/person, now it's 20X that:
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=1rhld
A lot of that is just courtesy of being the global reserve currency, we print dollars and they just get parked all over the world as savings.
My conspiracy theory is that there was a concerted effort to boost inflation 2022-23, since Wall Street capitalism didn't want politicians getting any funny ideas about MMT actually working or anything.
posted by torokunai at 3:58 PM on August 5
Can't have UBI without universal rent control. Otherwise the landlords just jack everyone's rent and it turns into yet another wealth transfer to the capitalists.
This is pretty absurd. Landlords will find it pretty easy to jack up rents as long as supplies are tight. Easiest way to constrain supplies in housing? Universal rent control.
Regardless, rent and rent control aren't really relevant to UBI or the study.
Here's a good take on the study. The outcomes overall are sounding pretty good, actually. But they aren't slam-dunk, jump-for-joy results. Making them that much easier to wave away.
posted by 2N2222 at 4:14 PM on August 5
This is pretty absurd. Landlords will find it pretty easy to jack up rents as long as supplies are tight. Easiest way to constrain supplies in housing? Universal rent control.
Regardless, rent and rent control aren't really relevant to UBI or the study.
Here's a good take on the study. The outcomes overall are sounding pretty good, actually. But they aren't slam-dunk, jump-for-joy results. Making them that much easier to wave away.
posted by 2N2222 at 4:14 PM on August 5
They absolutely can for things where they have a monopoly, for example, prescription medication that is still under patent.
That's the whole point of patents.
posted by 2N2222 at 4:18 PM on August 5
That's the whole point of patents.
posted by 2N2222 at 4:18 PM on August 5
read in a meme earlier that if you can't imagine a Richard Scarry cartoon pig with clothes on doing your job then your job is not actually contributing anything to society & you should just stop
There are actually a lot of vital jobs that don't work very well for cartoon piggification. Like, social workers. Psychiatrists. Abortion providers. Proctologists. I mean, I suppose I can imagine a cute little cartoon pig doing these jobs, but it's grim.
posted by Ursula Hitler at 5:36 PM on August 5 [3 favorites]
There are actually a lot of vital jobs that don't work very well for cartoon piggification. Like, social workers. Psychiatrists. Abortion providers. Proctologists. I mean, I suppose I can imagine a cute little cartoon pig doing these jobs, but it's grim.
posted by Ursula Hitler at 5:36 PM on August 5 [3 favorites]
"Turn your head and say "OINK!" "
posted by Windopaene at 7:00 PM on August 5
posted by Windopaene at 7:00 PM on August 5
Like, social workers. Psychiatrists. Abortion providers. Proctologists.
Psychiatrists? Pig on couch, pig in chair.
Last two just need a stethoscope and we're good.
I will admit to being stumped on social workers, though.
posted by joannemerriam at 7:02 PM on August 5 [2 favorites]
Psychiatrists? Pig on couch, pig in chair.
Last two just need a stethoscope and we're good.
I will admit to being stumped on social workers, though.
posted by joannemerriam at 7:02 PM on August 5 [2 favorites]
You need people to build housing for other people to live in. You need people with specialized skills to maintain and repair that housing. (Plumbers and electricians, for example.) How do you imagine that this happens?
I’m always so bewildered by this shit, like, have you never met anarchists?
posted by corb at 7:23 PM on August 5 [3 favorites]
I’m always so bewildered by this shit, like, have you never met anarchists?
posted by corb at 7:23 PM on August 5 [3 favorites]
What I find baffling is, when you say that "required work for pay is a damned scourge and needs to be minimized at all costs" ... who's going to produce the things that you want and need?
It's right there in the sentence, "Minimized." So the same people that are doing those things now, just with a societal goal of reducing the pool of folks that are required to work for pay until that minimum is zero.
Let's go from "almost everyone" is required to work for pay to "almost no one" having that requirement. Seems like a reasonable goal to me.
posted by VTX at 7:48 PM on August 5
It's right there in the sentence, "Minimized." So the same people that are doing those things now, just with a societal goal of reducing the pool of folks that are required to work for pay until that minimum is zero.
Let's go from "almost everyone" is required to work for pay to "almost no one" having that requirement. Seems like a reasonable goal to me.
posted by VTX at 7:48 PM on August 5
“I’m always so bewildered by this shit, like, have you never met anarchists?”
No, there’s like 5 of them in America, it just so happens that they all have podcasts.
posted by Selena777 at 8:07 PM on August 5
No, there’s like 5 of them in America, it just so happens that they all have podcasts.
posted by Selena777 at 8:07 PM on August 5
>Capitalists can't "jack up the price" of anything
Nothing, except
Methane Gas that makes the food and A/C
Vroom vroom juice that creates the need for a/c
Housing
Food
Medicine
Health Care
Child Care
Doing your taxes
Mailing stuff
Weather reports
Science underpinning government
But yes, capitalists don't plan the price of anything. ... Didn't Adam Smith teach us differently?
posted by eustatic at 8:26 PM on August 5
Nothing, except
Methane Gas that makes the food and A/C
Vroom vroom juice that creates the need for a/c
Housing
Food
Medicine
Health Care
Child Care
Doing your taxes
Mailing stuff
Weather reports
Science underpinning government
But yes, capitalists don't plan the price of anything. ... Didn't Adam Smith teach us differently?
posted by eustatic at 8:26 PM on August 5
No, there’s like 5 of them in America, it just so happens that they all have podcasts.
Someone clearly runs in the wrong circles.
posted by eviemath at 8:55 PM on August 5
Someone clearly runs in the wrong circles.
posted by eviemath at 8:55 PM on August 5
« Older Types of people you meet on the Appalachian Trail... | The mother of all public domain art search engines Newer »
the ubi is good for everyone who works, regardless of whether or not they receive the ubi. the rich know this, and that’s why they hate it.
posted by bombastic lowercase pronouncements at 7:55 AM on August 5 [54 favorites]