The study “leverag[ed] an experiment in which 1,000 low-income individuals were randomized into receiving $1,000 per month unconditionally for three years.” What were the results?
First, it made the recipients poorer: “Overall, the transfers led to a reduction in annual total individual income of about $1,500 in our main survey measure, compared to the control group.” Why? Well, people worked less (1.3 hours per week less) and stayed unemployed for longer! Not only do the recipients work less; this happened to other adult members of the household as well.
Unemployment duration “increased by 1.1 months” for recipients.
But did people use this time to find a better job? It doesn’t seem like it. Recipients appear to be more selective in their applications, but the authors say, based on their survey measurements, “We do not see much in the way of differences in the types of jobs participants applied for,” and “the results do not support any changes in quality of employment.”
Were people doing other productive things in unemployment, though? The results are unimpressive.
The authors examine whether the receipt of basic income increases entrepreneurship. While they find people claiming to have more entrepreneurial intention, this does not translate into actual entrepreneurial activity.
What about education? Do people go back to school? Mostly no. The authors say, “By and large, we do not observe significantly improved education outcomes in our sample, though there are some indicators of minor improvements.”
So what did people do with the extra time they got from working less?
In short, the answer is, they relaxed.
How does this contrast with existing studies in the topic? I haven't really read up on that...
reply
I know of at least one other study showing that (surprise) free money disincentivizes work:
One critique of both studies could be that the populations that were studied already have marginal attachment to the workforce and are unlikely to find jobs they consider meaningful.
I'd imagine that giving income to single mothers who are motivated to better their lives, or a young college grad thinking about starting a business, might have different effects, for example.
I don't know of the specific citations, but the prevailing wisdom among center-left liberals is that giving people money helps them afford things like gas, childcare, and education which allows them to better their lives.
reply
37 sats \ 0 replies \ @Winitober 1h
This behavior is not surprising when viewed through the lens of Austrian theory. The disutility of labor has been a known phenomena in Austrian economists for decades.
When individuals receive financial support without the need for work, they choose to minimize their labor participation. Recipients of UBI worked less and experienced longer unemployment durations. When basic needs are met through cash transfers, the disutility of labor outweighs its benefits. This is a key tenet of Austrian economics: if the costs of working—whether in time, effort, or stress—exceed the perceived rewards, individuals will opt for leisure.
reply
10 sats \ 2 replies \ @Cje95 3h
If we keep trying it’ll work
  • Some Idiot Somewhere
reply
0 sats \ 1 reply \ @DEADBEEF 3h
“You didn’t try the real UBI. This time it will be different.”
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Cje95 2h
Ahhh yes much better!
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Bee_Aye 2h
you call that a big study? just you wait my State of Oregon might pass the largest ubi experiment to date in 2 weeks 🫠
if passed, beyond ngmi
reply
Nature has always provided UBI, be it mangoes in easier areas on the globe or whatever you can hunt in the snow up North...
Or a sewer rat in big cities, those are up for grabs for the hungry!
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @OT 2h
I wonder how sub cultures would deal with UBI. Like would savers just put it in the bank? Gamblers gamble it away? I'm sure we all know what bitcoiners would do.
I'm actually pro UBI. Its the fastest way to hyperbitcoinization!
reply