I guess what the government wanted to see is that given it "unconditionally," would people take up low paying jobs because now they don't lose any more aids by doing so.
I agree it was dumb to coin this as a UBI.
The real fear of most against UBI seems to be that the majority will quit their jobs, resulting in the government losing way more in income tax than they pay out in UBI.
Often ignored in this discussion is the viewpoint that this isn't something to fear, but to celebrate.
There are a lot of dumb jobs out there that don't need anyone working them any more. What if those people can instead write poetry or paint or dance or invent? That's more the world I'm interested in. I don't give a hoot if the government can't raise enough money to drop explosives on people - at worst, that is a pleasant side effect.
But I think it's reasonable to point out that this is fuzzing the price signals of the market. Generally, I don't care for government meddling in the economy for this reason - I gather that you share this view.
In order to be satisfied that the impact will be negative, though, I find myself needing to understand whether the current price signals are optimized for the most important values.
Currently, in the crony capitalist system, the scenario you describe is rampant: "Handing somebody 'free' money takes from the productive sources that earned the money and distributes it to people...". I mean, isn't this basically all defense contracting and prisons? And most finance, insurance, and real-estate?
Meanwhile, things that are unquestionable worthwhile, like art and philosophy, aren't particularly economically viable.
So how do you line up price signals with genuine value? It's a hard question. Like what I gather is your position, I am far, far more inclined to trust a free market than government. But if I'm reading your comment correctly, you seem to have a bit of a fetish for "jobs" and capitalist ambition.
I don't care whatsoever is somebody has a job. I don't think most people want jobs, and I don't think most jobs need people. The vast majority of the population can find something better to do than a menial job, and I don't think it's reasonable to suggest that they need to be "uncomfortable enough to be ambitious" as a result.
If we are able to automate many (even most) jobs out of existence, don't we want people to thrive while doing something better with their time than pumping your gas or checking you out at the store?
If everyone got it and it was funded by expanding the money supply it would be inflation plus redistribution (since the new money is distributed uniformly instead of e.g. to government bondholders). If you're funding it with taxes, it's plain redistribution.
This comes with some caveats, of course:
This would probably cause a demand shock as spending shifts from the things the rich do to the things the newly-not-poor do - so there would probably be a short-term jump in the price of e.g. low-end smartphones and middle-end IKEA furniture, and a crash in the price of international travel and of certain investments, until the economy properly shifts over to the new production priorities. Which can be interpreted oh so hilariously from a Marxist perspective.
There may be an increase in money velocity when shifting income to (on average) lower income brackets; i.e. it may be the case that money changes hands more quickly in the case of (poor people consume items, and then the places they buy it from plow that money into both investment and into the taxes necessary to fund the UBI program) than in the current case of (rich people put money into their more high-brow consumption and into investments, and the Apples and Fidelities of the world put their revenue and investments to use). That is, the same amount of money gets spent more often. And that could cause inflation. But of course the determinants of velocity of money, and its effects on inflation, are an open question in economics.
Let’s also assume it’s revenue neutral, so the government doesn’t need to raise taxes. I hear that’s the claim of most ubi proponents.
If it's revenue neutral, then that means you're taking money from other programs - which by definition spend that money. Just on different things. (And probably a lot of the same things, if you're taking that money from existing welfare programs.)
Generally, if I see a claim that a proposal for UBI is revenue neutral, I assume they're either a) left-wing Americans trying to sneak welfare hikes by right-wing Americans, or b) right-wing Americans trying to sneak a drop in net income transfer to the poor past left-wing Americans.
[1] https://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2016/06/e...
Not necessarily: if the purpose of the test is to determine how basic income affects outcomes over a period for the unemployed, having the experimental group to whom BI is given be exclusively drawn from the set of people unemployed at the beginning of the experiment and comparing that to a similar group of unemployed people not given BI is a fairly sane experimental design.
Testing it on a series of population subsets before testing on the entire population seems reasonable.
No, because:
>The real question is whether people who already are employed would stop working had they received "free" money.
So: will unemployed people stop looking for a job if they receive free money?
That's not quite the question. The question is, will unemployed people look less for a job if they're guaranteed free money even once they get a job, compared to the status quo where they are guaranteed free money (for awhile) that stops once they get a job.
There's also a follow-up question, that is something like "Will people on permanent disability start getting jobs if you stop punishing them by permanently taking away disability payments if they get a job?"
Also “will people be more likely to start their own enterprises if they have basic income?”
That destroys your argument.
edit: the whole system is more complicated than this, of course, but the point here is that this safety net is permanent – you can not lose it even if you are unemployed for a long time (recently, a tiny reduction of welfare payment was introduced for those who do not meet certain criteria for activity; however, you are in any case entitled to certain level of income, and government-paid rent, etc., in any case.)
Feeling like you can loudly assert things not in evidence is a sign of some pretty tall ideological blinders.
But a hypothesis is just that: a hypothesis, not a fact. There's plenty of existing research on how changing unemployment benefits change work incentives (answer: not too much), but it's also true that longer time horizons might change that answer. That's why experimental tests are needed.
I know a few people who live in some of the most expensive areas of the country and are permanently unemployed, they live fine (although not a lifestyle that I'd want) and spend their time pursuing creative endeavors. They do have to do things like grow their own vegetables and brew their own beer to save money. You get different benefits depending on age, disabilities, if you have children (and if they're yours or if they have disabilities), partners, etc. For the general unemployment benefit you have to be going to job seeker support and looking for work, but some people are just not employable (for instance if they have drug convictions).
It's worth noting that this social welfare system was put in place under a conservative government, when we had a more liberal government we had state support for artists as well with no restrictions.
It's hard to give exact numbers as a monthly income because unemployment benefits are broken up into cash and vouchers and credits. For instance in NZ if you're unemployed or poor the government will pay your rent, give you cash, subsidise a lot of your expenses, give you vouchers to use at the supermarket, etc. The state and city councils also own housing for the poor and unemployed.
In addition the system is administered by private industry who are rewarded based on number of interviews, not placements.
I would hold up Australia’s unemployment welfare system as a prime example of what to not do.