They act rosy about the experiment... but I have issues.
>When the program started in February 2019, 28% of the people slated to get the free money had full-time jobs. One year later, 40% of those people had full-time jobs.
125 recipients. 12% found jobs during the program. Later it says there was a control group where only 5% found full time jobs, but I couldn't find hard numbers. I mean, another 16 people finding fulltime work is good... but job quality? Any median household income increase sans UBI payment? And to be honest, 12% doesn't seem that great.
>People got the money once a month on a debit card, which let researchers track how most of the people spent it. Less than 1% of the money went to tobacco and alcohol.
Do... do I really have to point this out? Maybe because they used their regular income, untracked debit card instead. Is that really hard to believe?
All the quotes from participants saying how much greater their life is from both the WP article and this one... perfect score across the board, huh. I mean, everyone interviewed at a catholic church for a catholic newsletter talks about how great the priest is with children too.
> another 16 people finding fulltime work is good... but job quality?
I agree, and I'd certainly like to see much deeper data here, but these numbers are way too small to see any real macro pictures. However, I'd consider this a win even if these people took jobs making less money but doing something they were passionate about.
> Maybe because they used their regular income, untracked debit card instead.
Maybe, but a lot of people I know that aren't as well off wouldn't have really cared, or even used that card first for those kinds of purchases.
> All the quotes from participants saying how much greater their life is from both the WP article and this one... perfect score across the board.
You're giving people free money. If you gave me $500/mo, no strings attached I'd give it pretty high marks too, even though it's not something that I need. I may have some suggestions about how to be more efficient, but I certainly wouldn't complain.
Personally I'm cautiously pro-UBI. I think it could be a great tool to make the country far better, not just for the poor, but for everybody. I think that it would add to everyone's security and enable people to prepare for and perform jobs that they want to do, instead of jobs that they are forced to choose due to lack of alternatives. I strongly suspect I'll be in the tax bracket that will end up net negative and pay for this instead of the brackets that benefit directly from it, but just like public schools benefit me indirectly, I suspect that this will be worth it for me.
But without data I classify those thoughts as theories. I'd like to see large-scale data on this, and we won't see experiments at the scale I'd like to see (like counties with large cities in them) without these smaller experiments first.
Well actually if you don't know about it, in France there is a ~500$ kind of ubi. It's not exactly universal as you have to be poor enough to get the money and the system is made with lots of incentives for people to get a job ASAP, but if you want to, you can easily live on those 500$/mo(+free healthcare) your entire life if you're off-grid enough). I understand that it's different, but it's the closest thing I've seen to UBI in a relatively big area.
There's lots of data about it :)
It's not much and it's an expensive place to live, but Alaska pays each citizen a dividend each year. They do this from funds generated for the state from the oil and gas industry. It seems last year it was $992.
I can imagine if the US federal government does the wealth tax Warren is pushing, closes some of the loopholes in corporate taxes, and then uses that for UBI it will help twofold.: The UBI itself and wages, being a legitimately deductible business expense, might just start rising more quickly.
I'm skeptical anti-UBI. Well... let's put it this way. If Stockton instead did a program where those 125 had to go to community college to get an associates (bachelors would be best, but let's stick to the 2 year timeline they gave to be fair) in something useful or some sort of skilled trade along with the 500/mo, that perks my interest and gets my vote for a pilot program in my area. To me, that's not just throwing money around hoping for the best, it's a straight up investment in people and communities. When I say useful, I mean it. No philosophy, art history or anthropology. Something in the Occupational Outlook Handbook that's currently needed and has a good 5 to 10 year outlook that's realistic for people to get a paying job better than a cashier in a short time span. STEM and medical would be great, but 2 years is a bit rough on education level to get a job in those fields. Maybe not. New course programs should be developed? Also, I think the 500/mo (maybe more) stipend is based on doing well in whatever course you're taking. You slack, you're cut. Hell, maybe a sliding scale on stipend amount if you choose a career that's really high in demand. Add in, different industries are more realistic than others in different areas. I'm in the Space Coast in Florida. A shitty STEM background gets you a decent job around here. Other areas are not so lucky. Adjusting fire on suggested careers would be necessary.
Obviously some (a lot) number tweaking is needed, but I hope the general idea comes across. Even though what I suggest is more expensive, I think in the long term it would be cheaper on the city. I would vote for it too. Under this idea, the handout money is not longer the pump. Because now, the "help" is done and over in Stockton. With an added education in something extra they didn't know before the program, the participants will end up being the pump increasing tax revenues for their community.
I know I just did the whole scholarship/grant program with a few extra steps. Honestly, the system back in the mid-2000s was broken (I don't know what it's like if it's changed since then).
I don't get the point of all this, many countries have unemployment benefits. But the report is below
> Less than 1% of the money went to tobacco and alcohol.
This is a huge problem, if it's unconditional (is it unconditional?) then way more than 1% should be spent on these. These are fundamental parts of human life. If the people you are helping can't be alive, why do we even care about them.
> but job quality?
I disagree with this, even if it's low quality, it's the first step. Unless there's a perverse incentive acting on the group, like a case manager shoving them into temporary jobs for the audit, it's being picky.
> like a case manager shoving them into temporary jobs for the audit, it's being picky
I should have been more clear. Yes, this is exactly what I'm afraid of. 12% of the participants got a new full-time job. Sure, the others who already had full time jobs could have moved up in rank or got a raise, didn't notice that mentioned in the article though. I'd figure that would be a highlight topic. Anyways, only 12% feels like it was that last ditch effort of temp work to make the program look better. A first step, honest full time job, even low quality, that's good. I can't argue with that. But if it was just a temp job shoved on them for the reporting factor... why was the program needed then? Just force people into temp agencies if that's how you're going to pump up your numbers (which I'm not advocating for).
>This is a huge problem, if it's unconditional (is it unconditional?) then way more than 1% should be spent on these.
Don't get me wrong. I drink and smoke. I don't care if these folks do as well. God knows when I'm stressed the hell out, a good black out drinking session, next morning death like hangover can be a really good mental reset. I have a problem with reporting, "Oh look how great our program worked, people didn't buy booze or cigs." It's such a weird thing to point out a borderline meaningless topic, that I feel like they're hiding something there. Even if I gave a shit they were buying vices, don't piss in my pocket and tell me it's raining. They used an outside source of money to do so just to make sure the case managers don't get pissed off with them or we're talking about cooked books.
Thanks for the links. Even though I'm a negative nancy about this, I'm interested in the results. My thing is, I just want the excel files. I hate well designed reports. I've gone through enough gov and private sector proposals and reports filled with happy faces and magical number results, I want to live in a cave and renounce my citizenship with the human race. Hungry wolves don't bullshit you before draining you of your blood.
We are already go fucking deep in debt this barely makes a difference. I say go for it. let the people vote for whichever politian says they will give them the most free money.i give the usa less than 100 years.
I think the idea is that if we continue to print money, the dollar will eventually collapse as the world's reserve currency, and nations will use the yuan or euro instead - having a material effect on American persons life outcomes.
I know increased national debt doesn't directly imply money printing, just throwing some thoughts out there.
> I think the idea is that if we continue to print money, the dollar will eventually collapse as the world's reserve currency, and nations will use the yuan or euro instead - having a material effect on American persons life outcomes.
So, if poor people are given "Free" money to express a demand for goods and services they currently possess but do not have the funds to express, how does this lead to inflation - more specifically how does this lead to fruitless inflation?
I think the idea is that it would grow the economy and overall tax revenue. Struggling with housing and joblessness is a great way to avoid paying tax - if you’ve got nothing you pay nothing. For people who don’t need the money, it just flows into their taxes, and their purchases. In addition the insane amounts spent on policing, and other downstream costs of poverty would help recoup.
But the final argument for something like this is: do you want to thrive while someone else starves? Would it not be worth it to you to thrive a small amount less in order to ensure that nobody is starving?
It might also just inflate the cost of everything to the point where increases in rent, groceries, etc. eat up whatever money we distribute like that.
I mean, inflating away debts is certainly one way to reduce the associated pain, but inflation can also wipe out wages, so it’s a bit of a balance. We haven’t seen a permanent UBI scheme in a large enough way to know what might happen.
The reason UBI will never work in the US is because the flow of incomes to billionaires is what's supposed to be trickled down to workers.
If the government is going to tax anyone, it's gonna be the middle class. The main people that basically keep half the economy running. Ultimately UBI is ineffective in a heavily capitalist environment because the people who shouldn't be absurdly wealthy will still remain so.
I don't think even the hardest of hardcore libertarians would be surprised that when you give a tiny fraction of the population free money, that tiny fraction does better than they would have if they hadn't gotten any free money. Of course giving people free money leaves them with more money. The objections come from a belief that money has to _come from_ somewhere - that's the part that socialists and libertarians disagree on which isn't addressed at all by this experiment.
Not to mention giving a man a fish does nothing to teach him to fish. Being poor in the US is mostly an attitude problem and there will always be a portion of people that lack the correct attitude maintain a job or climb the latter in any meaningful way. If you want to just give these people money to ie keep the crime rate down then that is one discussion to have. But I just roll my eyes when we act like the average poor person just needs a 'jump start' and suddenly they're firing on all cylinders.
> Being poor in the US is mostly an attitude problem
This is provably false. Upward mobility, the self made man, and pulling yourself up by your bootstraps are all modern myths sold to keep an unjust social order afloat. The poor work harder than the rich, and VERY rarely manage to make it out of the social class they were born into.
The poor work harder than the rich? Have you ever met a poor or rich person? Did you not have kids in high-school that never do any of their work then drop out? That is what the path to poverty looks like. Many are poor because they do no work at all.
There is a grand scheme to keep poor people down? What would that look like exactly? How do you keep someone from becoming a truck driver when that is all it takes to escape poverty? The manager at McDonalds is part of the anti-poor scheme also, I suppose? He stands to make sure that his employees that are poor never get a raise or promotion is assistant manager? So no poor person is ever to blame for their situation? And every 'rich' person did nothing and accidentally became that way?
There is no scheme to keep poor people poor, the system is just setup that obtaining wealth is easier when you have wealth. The number one indicator of a persons ability to make money is the money their parents make, we call this intergenerational wealth. An example of work going further when you’re rich is college. One kid born rich and one kid born poor. Let’s say they both work 60 hours a week. They’re both hard workers, but the poor student has to redirect some of those hours to a job to pay for school and the rich students can dedicate all their hours to school. At 4 years time they both worked exactly as hard, but the rich student has better grades because they could dedicate more time to school. Nobody said that everyone that is poor is exempt from blame or that rich people don’t work. Those were huge jumps in reasoning you made. What they were saying is that you have to work harder when you’re poor to get less because you’re at a disadvantage.
There are some schemes that have kept poor people poor even if that was not the explicit reasoning. Racial redlines do that. Independent school districts funded mostly from hyperlocal real estate taxes do that. Allowing predatory payday loans and huge overdraft fees contribute to it. Treating homelessness and drug use as crimes rather than problems to be solved definitely do that.
There are poor people who don't work. There are workaholics who don't work, I know a few. Why? Because of mental illness, particularly depression. Poverty is a cause of mental illness.
Even if you manage to stay healthy, being poor is still stressful and exhausting. Exhaustion is easily confused for laziness.
People who are poor because they don't work generally don't work because they are poor.
> So no poor person is ever to blame for their situation?
As a matter of fact, they aren't. Even if they are poor just because they're lazy, you have to ask why. Is laziness genetic? Can't blame someone for their genes. Bad upbringing? Not their fault either. Not working on their attitude? Blaming them for being too lazy to do that would be a circular argument. So what do you want to blame them for?
That doesn't mean incentivizing people to work is wrong. But being poor is not a moral failure.
I wouldn't be surprised if 1/3 to 1/2 on the people on HN came up from a disadvantaged or poverty background. I don't remember my "very rare" lucky break, but I do remember making a lot of very inconvenient but responsible decisions that took years to pay off.
The point is not that you received a lucky break, it's that you DIDN'T receive a smack-down. Your luck was that you didn't have an overwhelming stroke of bad-luck. Unlike people from disadvantaged backgrounds, someone coming from a situation of wealth can get all kinds of strokes of bad luck and still prosper.
I'd be stunned if it were this high. Absolutely stunned. The poverty rate in the US is 10-15%. You are claiming that people born into poverty appear at twice the background rate among techie communities.
1. You had some pot when you were a teenager, ended up in jail. Once you got out of jail, it is near impossible to find a decent job as a felon, even if you had the work ethic and expertise. What is your plan in this case, without outside help?
2. I once worked for a financial services firm in NYC. One day I see this 20 year old intern - sharply dressed, smooth talker. But she did almost no work. I was wondering how did she get the internship. Guess what? Her mom worked there. There must be hundreds of kids who were more qualified than her, but she got (and kept) the internship, thanks to her mom's connections. If you are a poor student, how are you gonna compete with her?
3. I know of people who work as hard as anyone else, still earn the same income year after year. There is near zero chance for promotion. If they switch jobs, it is the same scenario in the new job. What is your advice for them?
It is very offensive (and honestly, just plain dumb) to claim that poor people have attitude problem. Upward mobility is not as easy as it is portrayed. Maybe it was easy 40 years ago, not today.
4. You cannot choose your parents and therefore your genes. These determine a lot more about your life than most people want to admit. Like for instance how easy it is for you to work hard.
5. There's a lot of doubt on whether free will even exists.
I don't know what label I fall in (libertarian or whatever), but I too have the same question - where would the money come from?
There are also lots of other changes we can do, in addition (or before) to ideas like UBI. For example - making housing easier and affordable for young people and first time home buyers, freeing them from the tyranny of rentiers. Encouraging remote work (maybe with tax credits etc) to reduce commute time. This will also let people to move to rural areas. And so on. These ideas might be a bit easier to sell, than radical (but powerful) ideas like the UBI.
I don't see ideas like UBI happening in large countries like the US. Perhaps smaller, homogenous countries (nordic countries maybe?) can set the trend. But again, they are already doing well economically, so they may not even need UBI? I don't know
What an idiotic article! They should be ashamed of themselves.
They didn't prove anything. It's obvious this can't work. It can't work even on city scale (who would pay for the entire Stockton?) let alone bigger than that.
40 comments
[ 5.2 ms ] story [ 96.8 ms ] threadDoing some digging, this article provides a few better data points: https://ktla.com/news/california/employment-rose-among-those...
They act rosy about the experiment... but I have issues.
>When the program started in February 2019, 28% of the people slated to get the free money had full-time jobs. One year later, 40% of those people had full-time jobs.
125 recipients. 12% found jobs during the program. Later it says there was a control group where only 5% found full time jobs, but I couldn't find hard numbers. I mean, another 16 people finding fulltime work is good... but job quality? Any median household income increase sans UBI payment? And to be honest, 12% doesn't seem that great.
>People got the money once a month on a debit card, which let researchers track how most of the people spent it. Less than 1% of the money went to tobacco and alcohol.
Do... do I really have to point this out? Maybe because they used their regular income, untracked debit card instead. Is that really hard to believe?
All the quotes from participants saying how much greater their life is from both the WP article and this one... perfect score across the board, huh. I mean, everyone interviewed at a catholic church for a catholic newsletter talks about how great the priest is with children too.
I agree, and I'd certainly like to see much deeper data here, but these numbers are way too small to see any real macro pictures. However, I'd consider this a win even if these people took jobs making less money but doing something they were passionate about.
> Maybe because they used their regular income, untracked debit card instead.
Maybe, but a lot of people I know that aren't as well off wouldn't have really cared, or even used that card first for those kinds of purchases.
> All the quotes from participants saying how much greater their life is from both the WP article and this one... perfect score across the board.
You're giving people free money. If you gave me $500/mo, no strings attached I'd give it pretty high marks too, even though it's not something that I need. I may have some suggestions about how to be more efficient, but I certainly wouldn't complain.
Personally I'm cautiously pro-UBI. I think it could be a great tool to make the country far better, not just for the poor, but for everybody. I think that it would add to everyone's security and enable people to prepare for and perform jobs that they want to do, instead of jobs that they are forced to choose due to lack of alternatives. I strongly suspect I'll be in the tax bracket that will end up net negative and pay for this instead of the brackets that benefit directly from it, but just like public schools benefit me indirectly, I suspect that this will be worth it for me.
But without data I classify those thoughts as theories. I'd like to see large-scale data on this, and we won't see experiments at the scale I'd like to see (like counties with large cities in them) without these smaller experiments first.
New Zealand gives money to everyone over 65 and it’s not means tested. Is this different to what you are suggesting?
I don’t get why we wouldn’t apply the same to a younger group, at least as a test.
https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/alaska/articles/2020...
I can imagine if the US federal government does the wealth tax Warren is pushing, closes some of the loopholes in corporate taxes, and then uses that for UBI it will help twofold.: The UBI itself and wages, being a legitimately deductible business expense, might just start rising more quickly.
Obviously some (a lot) number tweaking is needed, but I hope the general idea comes across. Even though what I suggest is more expensive, I think in the long term it would be cheaper on the city. I would vote for it too. Under this idea, the handout money is not longer the pump. Because now, the "help" is done and over in Stockton. With an added education in something extra they didn't know before the program, the participants will end up being the pump increasing tax revenues for their community.
I know I just did the whole scholarship/grant program with a few extra steps. Honestly, the system back in the mid-2000s was broken (I don't know what it's like if it's changed since then).
> Less than 1% of the money went to tobacco and alcohol.
This is a huge problem, if it's unconditional (is it unconditional?) then way more than 1% should be spent on these. These are fundamental parts of human life. If the people you are helping can't be alive, why do we even care about them.
> but job quality?
I disagree with this, even if it's low quality, it's the first step. Unless there's a perverse incentive acting on the group, like a case manager shoving them into temporary jobs for the audit, it's being picky.
https://www.stocktondemonstration.org/press-landing/guarante...
Report - https://static1.squarespace.com/static/6039d612b17d055cac140...
I should have been more clear. Yes, this is exactly what I'm afraid of. 12% of the participants got a new full-time job. Sure, the others who already had full time jobs could have moved up in rank or got a raise, didn't notice that mentioned in the article though. I'd figure that would be a highlight topic. Anyways, only 12% feels like it was that last ditch effort of temp work to make the program look better. A first step, honest full time job, even low quality, that's good. I can't argue with that. But if it was just a temp job shoved on them for the reporting factor... why was the program needed then? Just force people into temp agencies if that's how you're going to pump up your numbers (which I'm not advocating for).
>This is a huge problem, if it's unconditional (is it unconditional?) then way more than 1% should be spent on these.
Don't get me wrong. I drink and smoke. I don't care if these folks do as well. God knows when I'm stressed the hell out, a good black out drinking session, next morning death like hangover can be a really good mental reset. I have a problem with reporting, "Oh look how great our program worked, people didn't buy booze or cigs." It's such a weird thing to point out a borderline meaningless topic, that I feel like they're hiding something there. Even if I gave a shit they were buying vices, don't piss in my pocket and tell me it's raining. They used an outside source of money to do so just to make sure the case managers don't get pissed off with them or we're talking about cooked books.
Thanks for the links. Even though I'm a negative nancy about this, I'm interested in the results. My thing is, I just want the excel files. I hate well designed reports. I've gone through enough gov and private sector proposals and reports filled with happy faces and magical number results, I want to live in a cave and renounce my citizenship with the human race. Hungry wolves don't bullshit you before draining you of your blood.
I know increased national debt doesn't directly imply money printing, just throwing some thoughts out there.
So, if poor people are given "Free" money to express a demand for goods and services they currently possess but do not have the funds to express, how does this lead to inflation - more specifically how does this lead to fruitless inflation?
China more or less has decided that it would rather choose the ability to impose strict capital controls at will than have a reserve currency.
But the final argument for something like this is: do you want to thrive while someone else starves? Would it not be worth it to you to thrive a small amount less in order to ensure that nobody is starving?
I mean, inflating away debts is certainly one way to reduce the associated pain, but inflation can also wipe out wages, so it’s a bit of a balance. We haven’t seen a permanent UBI scheme in a large enough way to know what might happen.
If the government is going to tax anyone, it's gonna be the middle class. The main people that basically keep half the economy running. Ultimately UBI is ineffective in a heavily capitalist environment because the people who shouldn't be absurdly wealthy will still remain so.
This is provably false. Upward mobility, the self made man, and pulling yourself up by your bootstraps are all modern myths sold to keep an unjust social order afloat. The poor work harder than the rich, and VERY rarely manage to make it out of the social class they were born into.
There is a grand scheme to keep poor people down? What would that look like exactly? How do you keep someone from becoming a truck driver when that is all it takes to escape poverty? The manager at McDonalds is part of the anti-poor scheme also, I suppose? He stands to make sure that his employees that are poor never get a raise or promotion is assistant manager? So no poor person is ever to blame for their situation? And every 'rich' person did nothing and accidentally became that way?
Even if you manage to stay healthy, being poor is still stressful and exhausting. Exhaustion is easily confused for laziness.
People who are poor because they don't work generally don't work because they are poor.
> So no poor person is ever to blame for their situation?
As a matter of fact, they aren't. Even if they are poor just because they're lazy, you have to ask why. Is laziness genetic? Can't blame someone for their genes. Bad upbringing? Not their fault either. Not working on their attitude? Blaming them for being too lazy to do that would be a circular argument. So what do you want to blame them for?
That doesn't mean incentivizing people to work is wrong. But being poor is not a moral failure.
I wouldn't be surprised if 1/3 to 1/2 on the people on HN came up from a disadvantaged or poverty background. I don't remember my "very rare" lucky break, but I do remember making a lot of very inconvenient but responsible decisions that took years to pay off.
As for provably false - here's a decent starting place for your research https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/otm/segments/rags-riche...
2. I once worked for a financial services firm in NYC. One day I see this 20 year old intern - sharply dressed, smooth talker. But she did almost no work. I was wondering how did she get the internship. Guess what? Her mom worked there. There must be hundreds of kids who were more qualified than her, but she got (and kept) the internship, thanks to her mom's connections. If you are a poor student, how are you gonna compete with her?
3. I know of people who work as hard as anyone else, still earn the same income year after year. There is near zero chance for promotion. If they switch jobs, it is the same scenario in the new job. What is your advice for them?
It is very offensive (and honestly, just plain dumb) to claim that poor people have attitude problem. Upward mobility is not as easy as it is portrayed. Maybe it was easy 40 years ago, not today.
4. You cannot choose your parents and therefore your genes. These determine a lot more about your life than most people want to admit. Like for instance how easy it is for you to work hard.
5. There's a lot of doubt on whether free will even exists.
There are also lots of other changes we can do, in addition (or before) to ideas like UBI. For example - making housing easier and affordable for young people and first time home buyers, freeing them from the tyranny of rentiers. Encouraging remote work (maybe with tax credits etc) to reduce commute time. This will also let people to move to rural areas. And so on. These ideas might be a bit easier to sell, than radical (but powerful) ideas like the UBI.
I don't see ideas like UBI happening in large countries like the US. Perhaps smaller, homogenous countries (nordic countries maybe?) can set the trend. But again, they are already doing well economically, so they may not even need UBI? I don't know
But now has to worry what if income won't be guaranteed or if there will be new rules to obtain money.
Otherwise you just end up in the same situation as before but essential stuff for living costs 500 dollars more making you even poorer.
But it is populistic and promising in short terms, so no doubt everyone will try it out to see for themselves
They didn't prove anything. It's obvious this can't work. It can't work even on city scale (who would pay for the entire Stockton?) let alone bigger than that.