Re:Young adults in L.A. to get $1k a month under new guarant...
by onetimeusename on Thursday October 13, 2022 @12:02AM
(#33187098)
I've read the outcomes on the Canadian study on UBI. I know others are out there. It's definitely a safe assumption that, for example, outcomes in Finland might differ from outcomes elsewhere.
But the Canadian study had troubling minorities of participants who did not report improvements on certain metrics. For example, about 20% of the participants had the same or less motivation to find a better job. 20% reported the same or worse general health. About 17% had the same or worse mental health status. 11% had worsened anxiety. About 40% had the same or worsened ability to repay debt.
Although that means that for the majority of participants, it improved those metrics, I wonder what it would mean if you scaled this to millions of people. Clearly, UBI does not improve the life of every single participant. There is the problem of what happens to people whose lives are worsened under UBI. Should they go off of it? What if they have no alternative? Another problem that these studies don't account for is what happens when people leave good paying jobs to go on UBI. The participants of these studies are usually people in bad financial shape such as the Canadian one. There may be a study out there where this is accounted for but imagine if a number of people leave the job market to go on UBI and then their lives worsen under UBI. Will they go back to working or will they be unable to work? It could really change the calculations about how it is all paid for if people choose to reject good paying jobs for UBI.
I suppose the rebuttal is that even if some on UBI show deterioration, the majority do not so it is overall better than what is now. But again, is this really guaranteed to hold once scaled to millions and when it is open to everyone? The LA trial above is only available to people in a household with below poverty level income.
But the Canadian study had troubling minorities of participants who did not report improvements on certain metrics. For example, about 20% of the participants had the same or less motivation to find a better job. 20% reported the same or worse general health. About 17% had the same or worse mental health status. 11% had worsened anxiety. About 40% had the same or worsened ability to repay debt.
Although that means that for the majority of participants, it improved those metrics, I wonder what it would mean if you scaled this to millions of people. Clearly, UBI does not improve the life of every single participant. There is the problem of what happens to people whose lives are worsened under UBI. Should they go off of it? What if they have no alternative? Another problem that these studies don't account for is what happens when people leave good paying jobs to go on UBI. The participants of these studies are usually people in bad financial shape such as the Canadian one. There may be a study out there where this is accounted for but imagine if a number of people leave the job market to go on UBI and then their lives worsen under UBI. Will they go back to working or will they be unable to work? It could really change the calculations about how it is all paid for if people choose to reject good paying jobs for UBI.
I suppose the rebuttal is that even if some on UBI show deterioration, the majority do not so it is overall better than what is now. But again, is this really guaranteed to hold once scaled to millions and when it is open to everyone? The LA trial above is only available to people in a household with below poverty level income.