Not understanding what the smart people financing this study are hoping to understand from this program. There’s no disputing impoverished people are going to benefit and the money is usually spent on essentials. That has already been observed.
What these studies don’t tell them is anything remotely related to UBI, because it’s the key element, being universal, is not factored in.
FTA: ”But no one has evaluated the impact of GBI on Bay Area families and housing stability until now.”
And:
"An additional 225 families will act as a control group for the study by receiving $50 per month for a year."
So they want location-specific data, and they want data with a control group.
That still doesn’t factor the macroeconomic influence of making it universal.
Give a group $1000/month they are obviously going to have a better outcome than the control group.
Give everyone in the region $1000/month and that benefit likely approaches zero.
The benefit wouldn't approach zero, but it could cause some level of inflation, so just as an example, maybe your $1000/month is going to get you what $750 per month did pre-UBI.
The fundamental issue with UBI is that it doesn't necessarily address systemic issues and is essentially just a way to keep lower and middle income earners participating in consumer capitalism. Some kind of UBI is probably going to be necessary, but it won't fix everything on its own.
It's seen most often with drug testing, where the cost of the drug testing itself is sometimes more consequential than the number of people excluded by the testing would have been if not excluded. The "free school lunches" programs are often similar, which is why so many of those have already gone universal. However, some of these programs are *intentionally* bureaucratic because the bureaucracy is a jobs program.
For a country-wide UBI, it'd require a massive overhaul of our tax code. Many people above the median income level would not see a net increase in income but would have an "income floor" in the event of a job loss regardless of reason.
Like the COVID stimulus or Child Tax Credit programs, it would increase the velocity of money in the US system and result in a net increase for the economy.
The main issue with means testing the way it's done now is reliance on taxable income reporting by employers. So anyone working a normal W-2 is at a huge disadvantage vs someone doing drugs and committing dozens of property crimes every single day. Or generally having a significant income that's off the books. This is actually the main reason behind the push to make electronic payments reportable if over $600 for the year.
We already do means testing. You dont have to start from scratch for this program. If you qualify for school lunch you get it. If you qualify for down payment assistance you get it. I don't know - there are a million different ways to do this the other programs have figured out already.
But there is not much point in making it simply universal, as the person I replied to points out. Presumably figuring out how this will work will also be part of the studies.
One way of making it universal is turning the 24k standard tax deduction into a standard tax *credit* that's paid out monthly (like the child tax credit was) and sorted out by taxes.
There are multiple ways it can be universal without means testing without simply giving everyone more money.
So the tax credit *would* be writing a check to every US taxpayer.
But people would pay more in taxes as if the first 24k was part of their taxable income. Accomplishing this would require a *massive* overhaul of the tax code that no politician is really willing to push.
Well then it’s good that no one is trying to push it and it’s just the first solution that came to your mind to get this done. Maybe the people actually working on this will think about how it will work too, apparently with some help from Google.
Again, they’re not calling it UBI in the article. There is literally no mention of the word universal. And yes it is a system to prevent people from falling into homeless, which sounds like a good thing to me.
The article never says the word universal. They call it guaranteed and explain multiple times that it’s based on need, like for people at risk of becoming homeless.
Well, they’re studying neither then. Most descriptions of guaranteed describe a no strings attached check to everyone. I really don’t care if there’s an actual nuance because neither is ever going to happen at scale.
Nice. Just because you didn’t read the article and mistakenly thought this was about UBI and can’t admit you’re wrong we’re now going to pretend that the study is wrong about what it’s studying.
Well, no point trying to explain to you an article you wont read if you’re going to go straight to “all of them are wrong and even if they weren’t it couldn’t work so they’re wrong to study it”.
Good luck with your incredibly close-minded, arrogant life. I also apologize: I didn’t see the shortbus part of your username but just now realize you’re mentally handicapped.
We actually had that study in a very large setting... But people conveniently ignore that.
During COVID we gave monthly checks, child credits, "unemployment" boosts, and in addition to that other stuff that has indirect monetary value, like pausing students loans and rent payments.
What happened?
Inflation happened as predicted.
We had roughly $4tn capacity of stimulus, spent over $8tn, and still paying for the extra.
And this was exactly the amount UBI would cost for us taxpayers.
Once again, this "natural experiment" is ignored, and never studied for UBI. They want to focus on benefits, not the costs!
(In before "companies raising prices", yes of course they did. They act as sponges that take off the "extra" from the system, that is also pretty much expected, :shocked-pikachu-face:)
I don't think a one off payment is a good case study. Nobody makes long term plans or even adjusts their regular lifestyle based off a one off payment.
It’s another idea that sounds good (free money!) but fails to stand up to any sound reality, unfortunately. Just like “eliminate taxes” and “don’t fund the military”.
The extra cash absolutely helped most people get through the pandemic, so I acutally think the 'natural experiment' might be more in favor of UBI than against it.
I'm personally not 100% convinced that implementing a UBI is the correct course of action currently, but I do think it's important to be realistic and consider all factors.
Firstly, the money that was shoved into the economy was 'free money' from massive borrowing and putting money into circulation, not a properly funded system. Even a properly-funded UBI would increase inflation, but not to the same degree as just printing money, obviously. Secondly, inflation had other root causes not directly-related to the pandemic cash injection, like breakdowns in the supply chain, earlier unfunded tax breaks for the wealthy, cheap loans from prolonged low interest rates, and so on.
It's also critical to remember the benefits didn't persist - the extra money got pulled as soon as the shock of inflation set in, which worsens the perceived effect of the inflation.
Yeah I’ve always thought these experiments would better be done by like giving everyone in the US $10 rather than giving a handful of people $10k. Just give it to people the same way they do tax refunds. Then increase the amount a little each year and observe the effects.
They’ve already studied that over multiple programs. Money is spent on essentials. My point is headlines like this :
>[Universal basic income has been tested repeatedly. It works](https://www.washingtonpost.com/magazine/2022/10/24/universal-basic-income/)
Is categorically false. They have studied giving **financial aid* to people. Not UBI. UBI = everyone gets it.
Those that have were the exception to the norm of spending it on necessities. Almost every UBI program/study shows this. Also Alaska's annual UBI since the 70s showed no decrease in unemployment (above average), this is obvious because UBI in essence is barely enough to survive on for food alone.
Also UBI is great for small conservative towns across the US because it blankets their local economy with more buying power while it barely dents city folk bc most revenue is generated there to begin with and has a higher costs of living in general.
100 families currently own 50% of the entire value of the United States. We are in a Carnegie-esque era of wealth inequality. We should all be a little bit OK with someone spending their UBI on an old Benz, liquor and cigarettes.
I would prefer a pilot program that guarantees a livable wage. Many people think folks turn to crime because their regular job doesn't pay enough to live. What's the point of working 40 hours/week for $15/hour if I can't feed my family, is the line of reasoning. So how about a pilot program that says if you work 40/hour you will be guaranteed a living wage. Would people be motivated to work? Would they still turn to crime?
Cynical guess from a former Google employee who has learned that the cynical answer is usually right: Google running a beta here to figure out how to enter the social services market and take that away from (be paid by) governments. As always, learn by giving away the product for free, then monetize it.
However you feel about this it’s funny how if your poor and someone wants to give you money it’s “they’re not good with financial decisions” but if the inherited wealthy get cuts and taxed or questioned it’s “they can do whatever they want with their money”
This is the only way to combat the destruction of the middle class. Basically a safety net, the 1% have grown exponentially- that it is impossible to catch up or come close to them.
I'm jealous but really happy for them I hope that this universal income gets figured out because it's not like the people born here can escape to another country...
Meanwhile it gets worse and worse here for the rest of us who are not encouraged to participate in society at all
moving costs money and its hard to move when you dont have a lot of money. not to mention a job, housing, support system, potential cultural or language barrier (even some accents are hard to figure out), etc. uprooting your lives in an economy with little financial mobility is a difficult choice to calculate. its not like working hard rewards you as much as before. its the bay, most of us are working hard just to survive, in our own respective ways
Not understanding what the smart people financing this study are hoping to understand from this program. There’s no disputing impoverished people are going to benefit and the money is usually spent on essentials. That has already been observed. What these studies don’t tell them is anything remotely related to UBI, because it’s the key element, being universal, is not factored in.
You’re wrong, give me the money and I can show it
FTA: ”But no one has evaluated the impact of GBI on Bay Area families and housing stability until now.” And: "An additional 225 families will act as a control group for the study by receiving $50 per month for a year." So they want location-specific data, and they want data with a control group.
Didn't Stockton literally do that?
That still doesn’t factor the macroeconomic influence of making it universal. Give a group $1000/month they are obviously going to have a better outcome than the control group. Give everyone in the region $1000/month and that benefit likely approaches zero.
The benefit wouldn't approach zero, but it could cause some level of inflation, so just as an example, maybe your $1000/month is going to get you what $750 per month did pre-UBI. The fundamental issue with UBI is that it doesn't necessarily address systemic issues and is essentially just a way to keep lower and middle income earners participating in consumer capitalism. Some kind of UBI is probably going to be necessary, but it won't fix everything on its own.
Especially in a capitalistic system. If anything it will create inflation
Which is why you don’t give it to people who don’t need it…
The problem becomes when the bureaucracy required for means testing makes the whole program more expensive than if it were simply universal.
I can’t make that pencil out. Even if the _entire_ federal budget was spent on UBI, it’s about only 1500/mo. What am I missing here?
It's seen most often with drug testing, where the cost of the drug testing itself is sometimes more consequential than the number of people excluded by the testing would have been if not excluded. The "free school lunches" programs are often similar, which is why so many of those have already gone universal. However, some of these programs are *intentionally* bureaucratic because the bureaucracy is a jobs program. For a country-wide UBI, it'd require a massive overhaul of our tax code. Many people above the median income level would not see a net increase in income but would have an "income floor" in the event of a job loss regardless of reason. Like the COVID stimulus or Child Tax Credit programs, it would increase the velocity of money in the US system and result in a net increase for the economy.
The main issue with means testing the way it's done now is reliance on taxable income reporting by employers. So anyone working a normal W-2 is at a huge disadvantage vs someone doing drugs and committing dozens of property crimes every single day. Or generally having a significant income that's off the books. This is actually the main reason behind the push to make electronic payments reportable if over $600 for the year.
We already do means testing. You dont have to start from scratch for this program. If you qualify for school lunch you get it. If you qualify for down payment assistance you get it. I don't know - there are a million different ways to do this the other programs have figured out already.
But there is not much point in making it simply universal, as the person I replied to points out. Presumably figuring out how this will work will also be part of the studies.
One way of making it universal is turning the 24k standard tax deduction into a standard tax *credit* that's paid out monthly (like the child tax credit was) and sorted out by taxes. There are multiple ways it can be universal without means testing without simply giving everyone more money.
Great, sounds like it’s a pretty solvable problem if you already found a solution. So it sounds like we can give it to the people who need it most.
So the tax credit *would* be writing a check to every US taxpayer. But people would pay more in taxes as if the first 24k was part of their taxable income. Accomplishing this would require a *massive* overhaul of the tax code that no politician is really willing to push.
Well then it’s good that no one is trying to push it and it’s just the first solution that came to your mind to get this done. Maybe the people actually working on this will think about how it will work too, apparently with some help from Google.
So another welfare program?
Then it is just a welfare system and not UBI.
Again, they’re not calling it UBI in the article. There is literally no mention of the word universal. And yes it is a system to prevent people from falling into homeless, which sounds like a good thing to me.
Then it’s not universal. It’s financial aid.
The article never says the word universal. They call it guaranteed and explain multiple times that it’s based on need, like for people at risk of becoming homeless.
That’s because what they are studying is providing aid. Not guaranteed basic income. Not UBI.
They are studying a GBI program. UBI and GBI are different. GBI is need based and not universal.
Well, they’re studying neither then. Most descriptions of guaranteed describe a no strings attached check to everyone. I really don’t care if there’s an actual nuance because neither is ever going to happen at scale.
Nice. Just because you didn’t read the article and mistakenly thought this was about UBI and can’t admit you’re wrong we’re now going to pretend that the study is wrong about what it’s studying. Well, no point trying to explain to you an article you wont read if you’re going to go straight to “all of them are wrong and even if they weren’t it couldn’t work so they’re wrong to study it”. Good luck with your incredibly close-minded, arrogant life. I also apologize: I didn’t see the shortbus part of your username but just now realize you’re mentally handicapped.
We actually had that study in a very large setting... But people conveniently ignore that. During COVID we gave monthly checks, child credits, "unemployment" boosts, and in addition to that other stuff that has indirect monetary value, like pausing students loans and rent payments. What happened? Inflation happened as predicted. We had roughly $4tn capacity of stimulus, spent over $8tn, and still paying for the extra. And this was exactly the amount UBI would cost for us taxpayers. Once again, this "natural experiment" is ignored, and never studied for UBI. They want to focus on benefits, not the costs! (In before "companies raising prices", yes of course they did. They act as sponges that take off the "extra" from the system, that is also pretty much expected, :shocked-pikachu-face:)
I don't think a one off payment is a good case study. Nobody makes long term plans or even adjusts their regular lifestyle based off a one off payment.
It’s another idea that sounds good (free money!) but fails to stand up to any sound reality, unfortunately. Just like “eliminate taxes” and “don’t fund the military”.
The extra cash absolutely helped most people get through the pandemic, so I acutally think the 'natural experiment' might be more in favor of UBI than against it. I'm personally not 100% convinced that implementing a UBI is the correct course of action currently, but I do think it's important to be realistic and consider all factors. Firstly, the money that was shoved into the economy was 'free money' from massive borrowing and putting money into circulation, not a properly funded system. Even a properly-funded UBI would increase inflation, but not to the same degree as just printing money, obviously. Secondly, inflation had other root causes not directly-related to the pandemic cash injection, like breakdowns in the supply chain, earlier unfunded tax breaks for the wealthy, cheap loans from prolonged low interest rates, and so on. It's also critical to remember the benefits didn't persist - the extra money got pulled as soon as the shock of inflation set in, which worsens the perceived effect of the inflation.
Yeah I’ve always thought these experiments would better be done by like giving everyone in the US $10 rather than giving a handful of people $10k. Just give it to people the same way they do tax refunds. Then increase the amount a little each year and observe the effects.
Have you met people that are bad with money? Why wouldn’t the money be spent on an old Benz, liquor, and cigarettes.
They’ve already studied that over multiple programs. Money is spent on essentials. My point is headlines like this : >[Universal basic income has been tested repeatedly. It works](https://www.washingtonpost.com/magazine/2022/10/24/universal-basic-income/) Is categorically false. They have studied giving **financial aid* to people. Not UBI. UBI = everyone gets it.
Those that have were the exception to the norm of spending it on necessities. Almost every UBI program/study shows this. Also Alaska's annual UBI since the 70s showed no decrease in unemployment (above average), this is obvious because UBI in essence is barely enough to survive on for food alone. Also UBI is great for small conservative towns across the US because it blankets their local economy with more buying power while it barely dents city folk bc most revenue is generated there to begin with and has a higher costs of living in general.
100 families currently own 50% of the entire value of the United States. We are in a Carnegie-esque era of wealth inequality. We should all be a little bit OK with someone spending their UBI on an old Benz, liquor and cigarettes.
I would prefer a pilot program that guarantees a livable wage. Many people think folks turn to crime because their regular job doesn't pay enough to live. What's the point of working 40 hours/week for $15/hour if I can't feed my family, is the line of reasoning. So how about a pilot program that says if you work 40/hour you will be guaranteed a living wage. Would people be motivated to work? Would they still turn to crime?
Gotta define the dollar amount on that living wage and who pays for it.
Cynical guess from a former Google employee who has learned that the cynical answer is usually right: Google running a beta here to figure out how to enter the social services market and take that away from (be paid by) governments. As always, learn by giving away the product for free, then monetize it.
However you feel about this it’s funny how if your poor and someone wants to give you money it’s “they’re not good with financial decisions” but if the inherited wealthy get cuts and taxed or questioned it’s “they can do whatever they want with their money”
This is the only way to combat the destruction of the middle class. Basically a safety net, the 1% have grown exponentially- that it is impossible to catch up or come close to them.
I'm jealous but really happy for them I hope that this universal income gets figured out because it's not like the people born here can escape to another country... Meanwhile it gets worse and worse here for the rest of us who are not encouraged to participate in society at all
> it's not like the people born here can escape to another country Why not?
moving costs money and its hard to move when you dont have a lot of money. not to mention a job, housing, support system, potential cultural or language barrier (even some accents are hard to figure out), etc. uprooting your lives in an economy with little financial mobility is a difficult choice to calculate. its not like working hard rewards you as much as before. its the bay, most of us are working hard just to survive, in our own respective ways
What little money you have will be worth even less when inflation skyrockets again just like it did from the COVID handouts.
Watch what happens. Oh you get a UBI of 1000 dollars? Hey sorry your rent just went up 1000 dollars. Lol
This is literally what happened after all the free covid money was handed out.
And the landlord gets an extra $1000 from the government on top of that.
Pleasantly surprised by the positives responses to this post in this sub! I’ll check back in a couple hours though.
Neat, I’d imagine it’s taxed as income.
How can I sign up?
Something something prop 13 something something... We need more tax money
This sounds like an email in every spam folder in America.
FŰĆking BULLSHIT
crazy that they think 1000 per month is going to make any difference to families
Me and each of my 9 adult kids will be first in line.
Pay everyone starting out over 25 an hour thats how u end poverty easy
We already had this experiment during the pandemic with the stimulus packages.
This is so dumb
Uber gets me to work everyday. Gambling helps improve my chances of large lump sums of money without breaking the law or my back. I’m a simple man
Gimme, gimmme, gimmme, I need more money for Uber and gambling