The funders who currently contribute the most to NBER-based research projects are the National Institute of Health, the National Science Foundation, the Social Security Administration, and the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation.
Even those corporations who are down in the supporters list don’t give a shit about UBI.
So you’re claiming that the article doesn’t claim that people would not be productive enough under UBI? Shall I quote it?
Participants in the study generally did not use the extra time to seek new or better jobs—even though younger participants were slightly more likely to pursue additional education. There was no clear indication that the participants in the study were more likely to take the risk of starting a new business, although Vivalt points out that there was a significant uptick in “precursors” to entrepreneurialism. Instead, the largest increases were in categories that the researchers termed social and solo leisure activities.
“You can think of total household income, excluding the transfers, as falling by more than 20 cents for every $1 received,” wrote Eva Vivalt, a University of Toronto economist who co-authored the study, in a post on X. “This is a pretty substantial effect.”
But if those people are working less, the important question to ask is how they spent the extra time—time that was, effectively, purchased by the transfer payments.
Participants in the study generally did not use the extra time to seek new or better jobs—even though younger participants were slightly more likely to pursue additional education. There was no clear indication that the participants in the study were more likely to take the risk of starting a new business, although Vivalt points out that there was a significant uptick in “precursors” to entrepreneurialism. Instead, the largest increases were in categories that the researchers termed social and solo leisure activities.
Some advocates for UBI might argue that the study shows participants were better off, despite the decline in working hours and earnings. Indeed, maybe that’s the whole point?
“While decreased labor market participation is generally characterized negatively, policymakers should take into account the fact that recipients have demonstrated—by their own choices—that time away from work is something they prize highly,” the researchers note in the paper’s conclusion.
If you give someone $1,000 a month so they have more flexibility to live as they choose, there’s nothing wrong with the fact that most people will choose leisure over harder work.
“So, free time is good [and] guaranteed income recipients use some of the money to free up time,” argued Damon Jones, a professor at the University of Chicago’s school of public policy, on X. “The results are bad if you want low-income people to be doing other things with their time, for example working.”
Of course, if the money being used to fund a UBI program was simply falling from the sky, policy makers would have no reason to care about things like labor market effects and potential declines in productivity. If a program like this is costless, then the only goal is to see as many individuals self-actualize as much as possible. One person wants to learn new skills or start a business? Great! Others want to play video games all day? Awesome.
In reality, however, a UBI program is not costless and policy makers deciding whether to implement one must decide if the benefits will be worth the high price tag—Yang’s proposal for a national UBI, for example, is estimated to cost $2.8 trillion annually.
That’s why a study like this one matters, and why it’s so potentially damaging to the case for a UBI. A welfare program—which is ultimately what this is—that encourages people to work less and earn less is not a successful public policy. Taxpayers should not be expected to fund an increase in individuals’ leisure time, regardless of the mechanism used to achieve it.
For every $1 given to each of the 1000 test subjects, income dropped by $0.12 cents on average. That means that the overall drop in pay was $12 per month, or less than 2 hours per month, at minimum wage.
Now, let’s extrapolate more info from this:
Prior to receiving $1000 per month, the average income was $30,000 per annum , which is ~$14.42 an hour. This means that the average number of hours worked dropped less than an hour a month.
The reporting you are sharing is amazingly biased, with sensationalistic headlines determined to skew views against UBI.
Funding for billionaire Andrew Yang’s idea for UBI is almost impossible according to the article. Not a shock. Andrew Yang is a fool. Of course, much like this article is making a big deal out of a single study, it’s pretending that Yang’s idea is the only one. Congratulations on falling for it.
Oh you’re right! They do show who is funding them these days!
I’m sure none of those corporations have a vested interest in stopping UBI from being implemented or anything.
Even those corporations who are down in the supporters list don’t give a shit about UBI.
You’re right, banks and investment firms wouldn’t care at all about UBI. My mistake.
Also, leisure time is bad. People should be productive and find better jobs, not relax.
You did not read the article if this is your conclusion.
So you’re claiming that the article doesn’t claim that people would not be productive enough under UBI? Shall I quote it?
There you go:
The actual numbers:
For every $1 given to each of the 1000 test subjects, income dropped by $0.12 cents on average. That means that the overall drop in pay was $12 per month, or less than 2 hours per month, at minimum wage.
Now, let’s extrapolate more info from this:
Prior to receiving $1000 per month, the average income was $30,000 per annum , which is ~$14.42 an hour. This means that the average number of hours worked dropped less than an hour a month.
The reporting you are sharing is amazingly biased, with sensationalistic headlines determined to skew views against UBI.
Source for my numbers.
Yes, again, I read it. Why do you think that changes what they said?
The problem is not that people are working less, the problem is that this study show that funding UBI is almost impossible.
Funding for billionaire Andrew Yang’s idea for UBI is almost impossible according to the article. Not a shock. Andrew Yang is a fool. Of course, much like this article is making a big deal out of a single study, it’s pretending that Yang’s idea is the only one. Congratulations on falling for it.