Universal basic income study shows that it is a flop

From this link which I think you will have to give email address (sign up) to read:

darkfutura.substack.com...

In essence, the study gave $1,000 dollars per month to 1,000 low-income Americans for three years, with another 2,000 people serving as control group with $50 a month. The money was given unconditionally, meaning they could spend it on anything they want, unlike various forms of Welfare with severe restrictions on its usage. It’s said to be the largest scale experiment of its type in America, though there have been others elsewhere, like a well-known UBI pilot study in Finland in 2017. The researchers aimed to answer a series of questions, such as: would the provision of free money allow underemployed individuals to take more time to search for a better job? Or perhaps seek higher education? Would it allow them to work less in general, and therefore free up time for other activities with a positive spillover? The results of the study gave some vivid reactions from commentators: x.com... There is a faction interpreting the results with an entirely opposite slant, but let’s first take a look at why the study may forebode a dystopian future. First, I’ll paste Athan’s truncated summary of the results: Result 1: UBI participants ended up earning $1,500 less despite being given $12,000 more annually. For every one dollar received, total household income dropped by at least 21 cents. Result 2: UBI participants stayed unemployed for an extra month compared to those unemployed in the control group. Result 3: UBI participants worked less and there were no substantive changes in quality of employment. UBI participants did little to improve their education or training to improve their income. Result 4: UBI participants self-reported increased rates of disability to limit the work they can do. Two ways to look at these results. The American Underclass is so worn down that when thrown a life preserver, they could only float rather than paddle to safety. UBI advocates will argue that $1,000 per month wasn’t enough. Or, Universal Basic Income and its collectivist derivatives are never enough. Work is intrinsically tied to human dignity, happiness and progress. The principal takeaway is that the experimental group’s income fell by $1,500 per year relative to the control group, with the effects “growing over the course of the study”, implying their income would fall even further. The program caused a 2.0 percentage point reduction in the extensive margin of labor supply and a 1.3-1.4 hours/week reduction in labor hours for participants. The estimates of the effects of cash on income and labor hours represent an approximately 4-5% decline relative to the control group mean. So, the participants worked less and made less money. The kneejerk conclusion that’s natural enough to make is that the money “made them lazier”, resulting in their simply working less to play more video games, or something to that effect. Here’s what the study said on that: The time diaries and survey questions support the findings for employment. Treated participants primarily use the time gained through working less to increase leisure, also increasing time spent on driving or other transportation and finances, though the effects are modest in magnitude. The graph shows virtually nothing increasing other than leisure: One of the main reasons for covering this study is that it dovetails so well with the common theme here, which is that the elites simply do not understand human nature, which leads them to impose crudely thought-out social engineering projects to reshape society in their image, all the while treating humans like experimental mice to be prodded and corralled into the ‘pre-approved’ maze tunnel. We’ve often talked about how the elites typify a detached aristocratic conception of society which treats humans like a string of code to be tweaked and optimized. It’s why their worldview so perfectly aligns with the modern managerial ‘Longhouse’ paradigm of restructuring the natural, unmappable human anima into a sort of antiseptic DMV or HR mode. It also quite snuggly conforms to our materialist age’s mandate of ‘The Science’, sensitivity, and victim culture which aims to reduce human activity to a sterile, programmable state. This is a literal war of the Technocratic Machine against human nature itself, in all its flawed, unchartable, and impure chaos. It is the imposition of routine over adventure, regulation over mystery, and a mathematically deterministic model of existence over faith, chance, and fate. It’s the destruction of our ancient calling for the sake of a grotesquely misplaced sympathy for abstracted suffering. Rather than let you suffer the agonies of a papercut on your finger, we’ll force you into a medicated ‘safety’ strapped in perpetuity to a gurney in an inoffensively white-walled room. It’s the epitome of protecting us ‘from ourselves’ for the sake of an increasingly disconnected moral framework. But in reality, these diversionary half-measures ignore the real root causes of every moral and social issue of our times. Ultimately, the question of a societal panacea in the form of a UBI drip-feed to keep us half-consciously plugged in to the commoditized-banking-financial panopticon doesn’t even pass the most basic competency assessments. Primarily: if the whole question of UBI is being brought up due to AI robots eliminating our jobs, then shouldn’t the very same robots provide so much cheap excess labor that prices then consequently plummet in every economic category? The need for a $1,000 monthly check would be obviated by virtue of rent, food, etc., dropping to the equivalent tune of $1,000 owing to robots making those things cheaper. After all, Sam Altman himself stated: Altman’s interest in universal basic income is related to his work as CEO of OpenAI—if AI eliminates jobs, could guaranteed cash help workers who lose their income? In 2021, Altman said he believed AI could generate enough wealth to pay every U.S. adult $13,500 a year. “He was definitely thinking about future labor market changes—not just what happens if robots take jobs, but also a recognition of the challenges we’re facing today with distribution of resources and opportunities across the population,” Rhodes says. Unfortunately, that’s where the Great Lie of our rent-seeking economy rears its head via the Cantillon Effect. Production costs have already historically plummeted since the ‘80s with the onset of globalization, but the bonanza of corporate extra profits was absorbed for pure greed, being financialized back into the system via derivatives, stock buybacks, executive pay hikes, etc. A corporation would never re-circulate excess profit back to the little guy if it didn’t have to. We can only expect the age of AI to drive another bubble to be gobbled up by corpos to fund massive buyouts and mergers until only a few megacorps remain to consolidate their control of the globe. Some have even proposed futures consisting of ‘gamified’ forms of UBI that will see our daily lives be relegated to the plasticity of a cheap mobile sim.

My apologies that this is all thrown in together, but substack is a hard thing to copy and paste if they have images in the post.

I always felt that I Robot was a great novel that explored the problems that technology can and probably will cause in the areas of human employment.

The point of all that text was to say that in a nutshell, when people are given money, they do not use it wisely and it does not help them make better decisions.

a reply to: berbofthegreen

So Social Security and pensions are used unwisely and do not help people make better decisions?

Like whether to buy food or pay rent? Or pay rent, but skip medicine.

People should just work until they die?

a reply to: Mantiss2021

You think getting money back out of a system you've been paying into your entire working life is equivalent? Okay then.

a reply to: yeahright

Yes, I do.

What is the material difference between receiving a stipend under UBI and receiving one under either a pension or through Social Security?

Under UBI, the recipient is not working, although they may have worked prior to receiving the payment.

Under a pension or social security the recipient used to work, but is (mist likely) no longer working (although, the spouse of a former worker may receive the deceased spouse's social security payments event if the surviving spouse has never worked).

The material difference is the pension is your money contributed by you. And the spouse receiving it is the same as a dependent wife receiving alimony from the ex husband. In this case the husband is dead but his money is there and giving it to the wife will likely save the system money by keeping the wife out of poverty which would further burden the system. The money she received is already been accumulated.

Plus people always value what they achieved and worked for themselves much more then what they are given for free. It’s way many welfare people live like absolute slobs. They don’t assign any worth to their freely acquired things.

But by contrast the hard working person who has to scrape up what they can knows the value of their dollar and will treat their possessions accordingly.

People who receive pensions don’t have the same problems mentioned in the article…even though you insist it’s the same. It isn’t. One is a person life long work summed up in a payment. The other is just payment.

a reply to: Mantiss2021

originally posted by: Mantiss2021
a reply to: yeahright

Yes, I do.

What is the material difference between receiving a stipend under UBI and receiving one under either a pension or through Social Security?

Under UBI, the recipient is not working, although they may have worked prior to receiving the payment.

Under a pension or social security the recipient used to work, but is (mist likely) no longer working (although, the spouse of a former worker may receive the deceased spouse's social security payments event if the surviving spouse has never worked).

How do you feel about the fact that pensions are controlled investments? Investment meaning that the money YOU have put into the system is invested in corporations that make money?

When you have UBI, no one has invested in anything it seems. It seems to be taxed income. Where is that income going to come from once "everyone" is on UBI? I think UBI is closer to unemployment income, which then again is paid by employers and corporations.

My thoughts are that the only way, and I mean the only way this would work even from a financial aspect is if somehow ALL people are given some sort of stock and bonds of companies that de-employ people due to robotics and AI. Also that part of the UBI include financial training and forced, and I do mean forced educational classes that teach them how to keep money for further investment. It should never be allowed to purchase anything in regard to vices.

Anyway, I know that marxist seem to love UBI since they cannot stand the fact that nature makes some of us more adept at working and "getting ahead" than others.

a reply to: berbofthegreen

UBI always comes up from time to time because enough people get into the right positions of government and realize that central banking just hands out money to banks who then just hand out that money to people, so in theory why not juat cut out the middle man in most cases?

And most pilot programs don't end in a positive or negative way, they just sort of come out rather neutral. They tried UBI for a while in the 1970s here in Canada, Winnipeg, and the consensus was rather ... boring. And it needed more time to prove anything, but it was cut short due to needing investment elsewhere.

a reply to: berbofthegreen

AI and automation will make about 60-80% of the jobs available obsolete by around the turn of the next century, possibly even sooner.

Some form of universal basic income seems to be required.

Else the gap between the haves and have nots is apt to be insurmountable.

IF, and I mean IF.. UBI was a valid concept, then ULI (Universal Luxury Income) would also be valid. Why be stingy and not give people more than just enough to get by--enough to live like the Joneses?

Why not make minimum wage enough to buy a 300k house? a 20k car? etc. etc.

People who understand even the simplest bits of human behavior and economics know why, but they just want and want and want for themselves without thinking of others or the long-term consequences. Unfortunately there are many who don't and are right now saying, "Yeah, great idea!". There isn't much hope to get through to those people.

Meaningful assistance has to have a meaningful trade to be appreciated and treasured. A person cannot be proud of their accomplishments when we steal that pride in the form of gibs-me-dats. There has to be work, discipline, etc traded so a person doesn't just wallow.

Even if a person's day is spend cleaning the toilets at a national park every day, or clearing litter on the streets, they will, in the medium and long-term, value themselves more than if just given money. Happier, healthier, and more fulfilled sounds a lot more like "better" than a "free stuff" fix. The study should suprise no one, but unfortunately it will.

a reply to: berbofthegreen

the best way i've found to post something big so it's not a wall of text is to first post the off site post by it's self

like this,

Text

then remove the word text from in between the brackets, and copy and paste each paragraph by themseleves, by spacing down between each one hiting enter.

like this,

well that didn't show up right, the ex quote on has brackets both sides of the ex i've removed the one on the outside for demo purposes this time. the ex has brackets like this ex] [/ex remove the word text from in between inside brackets

In essence, the study gave $1,000 dollars per month to 1,000 low-income Americans for three years, with another 2,000 people serving as control group with $50 a month. The money was given unconditionally, meaning they could spend it on anything they want, unlike various forms of Welfare with severe restrictions on its usage. It’s said to be the largest scale experiment of its type in America, though there have been others elsewhere, like a well-known UBI pilot study in Finland in 2017.

The researchers aimed to answer a series of questions, such as: would the provision of free money allow underemployed individuals to take more time to search for a better job? Or perhaps seek higher education? Would it allow them to work less in general, and therefore free up time for other activities with a positive spillover?

most images won't copy and paste unless you do it like you would uploading images from the images

hope this helps.




or you could just copy and paste it , then add the brackets ex] [/ex yourself at the top and bottom.

originally posted by: yeahright
a reply to: Mantiss2021

You think getting money back out of a system you've been paying into your entire working life is equivalent? Okay then.

If you lived your whole life on the system of welfare, you would likely think this way. Perhaps that explains it.

originally posted by: berbofthegreen
I always felt that I Robot was a great novel that explored the problems that technology can and probably will cause in the areas of human employment.

The point of all that text was to say that in a nutshell, when people are given money, they do not use it wisely and it does not help them make better decisions.

One point Ive ever seen about UBI that semi-makes sense is it takes those who do not want to have jobs out of the workplace. Leaving those that do want to work in a better workplace environment.

Secondly and I believe this as well, whatever you give to people as UBI will be spent and most should go back into the local economy.

Lastly it may end some petty thefts here and there, and the privilege could possibly be taken away as another form of deterrent for some crimes.

At least thats one theory I've seen bandied about, it's not necessarily about encouraging the slackers to work, it's about creating a better more efficient workforce by removing the 10-15% bottom-tier

Those few positives don't outshine the negatives or the price tag

originally posted by: Mantiss2021
a reply to: berbofthegreen

So Social Security and pensions are used unwisely and do not help people make better decisions?

Like whether to buy food or pay rent? Or pay rent, but skip medicine.

People should just work until they die?

Working enough years to qualify for Social Security isn't the same thing as possibly not working to qualify for basic income. The differences are ENORMOUS 😃

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: berbofthegreen

AI and automation will make about 60-80% of the jobs available obsolete by around the turn of the next century, possibly even sooner.

Some form of universal basic income seems to be required.

Else the gap between the haves and have nots is apt to be insurmountable.

As fast as we're moving, it'll be a lot sooner in my opinion. Think about how things were, technologically, from 1950 to 1979 and then from 1980 to 1999. I'm talking cars, communication, medicine, medical procedures, etc. Now look how much technology has grown since the turn of this century and how much more it advances everyday.

You can look at the advancement of the technology of a cell phone from 2000, like the Nokia 3310. If you wanted to send a text in 2000, it was going to cost you 25¢ per text and you got 100 minutes of talk time per month and the only form of entertainment was Snake. 13 years later you could call, text, browse the internet, pay your bills, watch TV, and do anything you wanted from them. Games and apps were endless. Cars, TVs, medicine and medical procedures, etc., have advanced just as far and further.

Kinda scary if you think about it.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: berbofthegreen

AI and automation will make about 60-80% of the jobs available obsolete by around the turn of the next century, possibly even sooner.

Some form of universal basic income seems to be required.

Else the gap between the haves and have nots is apt to be insurmountable.

Haves and Have nots ? Every Adult at some point in there life learns to never get caught up on what it is that you think you deserve ..... If you want something in life you must take it , No one is going to give you a damn thing . Even UBI , Yes they are giving you income but in return they are taking everything from you .


But the major problem with Universal Basic Income is always the same thing . It ends up with to many people leaching off the system while to few people are paying into the system.

a reply to: Halfswede

A lot of people these days are lazy, they don't care and they want big money for doing nothing or next to nothing, like cooking fries and fcking off at a fast food place. Had a guy where I work, he started out at $15 an hour and all he had to do is go out and service whole home generators (change the oil and check a few things), 25 minutes at most. One day it was sprinkling and he sat there complaining about only getting paid $15 an hour to do that in the rain. He ended up quitting over it. Mind you, me and the owner - back on July 31st - were at a customer's house to install a generator and hand dug a 100' trench 18" deep to bury the gas and electric lines going to the generator. The sun was beaming and the heat index was 125°.

a reply to: asabuvsobelow

Yeah, geography and social circumstances are beside the point i suppose. LoL

I actually dont necessarily disagree with with some of the stuff you're punting.

Three simple rules of life you see, take what you do not have, have what you cannot take, and never hurt anyone weaker than yourself.

The problem is that life sometimes is not that simple, and the fact is where and what you are born into generally dictates one's station in life more often than not.

It's not written in stone, and people can indeed better themselves, and change their destiny, but that tends to require money and education.

a reply to: andy06shake

The problem is that life sometimes is not that simple, and the fact is where and what you are born into generally dictates one's station in life more often than not.

It's not written in stone, and people can indeed better themselves, and change their destiny, but that tends to require money and education.

Of course you are right .

And I for one was a Democrat for years because I believe the Government does have a responsibility to take care of certain people . Especially in a country as Wealthy and Diverse as America.

That being said where do we draw the line ? How do we keep people from taking Advantage of the system ? Answer is we can't so in end the Law of the Jungle is the Law of Life .

Kill or be killed .

a reply to: LSU2018

It is scary LSU2018.

Talk about a roller coaster ride.

The technological singularity approaches.

And if we dont destroy ourselves by squabbling over ever-diminishing resources and religious indifference.

It's apt to be right around the corner sooner rather than later current technological pace of progress withstanding.

Scary indeed but kicking and screaming into the future we will go.

Like it or lump it, the alternative being to stagnate on the vine and die.

Change is inevitable, how we get there is the important part.