Fuck Reason. Bunch of Libertarian bullshit. Don’t believe a word they say.
They should have named it “Rationalization”.
Propaganda is against the rules. OP has been turboposting articles from VOA and other heavily biased sources. Seems like a violation to me.
They kept insisting VOA had journalistic integrity even after I pointed out that they’re run by the same organization whose brief is to broadcast American propaganda to Cuba.
Yeah - fuck those guys reporting on research done by the National Bureau of Economic Research and agreeing with the concluding opinion that “the study shows participants were better off, despite the decline in working hours and earnings. Indeed, maybe that’s the whole point?” and “One person wants to learn new skills or start a business? Great! Others want to play video games all day? Awesome.”.
I’m not seeing them agreeing with it. I’m seeing them call it bad news and a failure.
But think of the GDP!
That article claims the study is from the National Bureau of Economic Research. Let’s look into who funds them.
Between 1985 and 2001, the organization received $9,963,301 in 73 grants from only four foundations:
John M. Olin Foundation, Inc.
Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation
Scaife Foundations (Sarah Mellon Scaife)
Smith Richardson Foundation"
All four of these are characterized (by SourceWatch, at least, in their own descriptions linked in the above quote) as very conservative, small-government/low-regulation foundations. Actually they say the Scaife foundation is no longer pushing this ideology since Sarah Mellon Scaife took over, but (I think) during the 1985-2001 period they were. I wouldn’t necessarily trust SourceWatch on this (e.g. they say the Olin Foundation gave $20.5 million to “right-wing think tanks” in 2001, then give a list that includes the Brookings Institution. I’m fairly confident this is not a mistake, rather a combination of deadpan humor and a genuinely left-wing viewpoint that does see Brookings as part of the right-wing liberal establishment. But Olin is well known as a conservative foundation, so the characterization of Olin, if not of Brookings, seems reasonable.
Of course, that was from a 2010 article. Let’s see who funds them now.
https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/National_Bureau_of_Economic_Research
Huh. No new information.
In fact, I can’t find any new information anywhere.
I wonder why that could be?
There you go again:
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.
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.
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.
Life isn’t about working and we’ve seen how rabid conservatives are to slash and burn disability and unemployment insurance.
This article strongly disagrees with the more scientific studies done here in Canada but even if it’s true UBI is a good fucking idea.
There are quite a few studies with the opposite conclusion where there is no change in behavior. One thing that could explain this is a push up to a higher tax bracket for participants vs the control group. A portion of their income falls into a higher marginal tax which is less of an incentive to work. This also does not report on expenses which also might drop. Instead of having to take high interest loans, that extra $12k can avoid cong to take pay day loans to make rent or not pay 15% on a car loan. So while working Indonesia may drop $500/yr, equivalent expenses likely dropped even more.
Researchers found that giving people $1,000 every month for three years resulted in decreased productivity and earnings, and more leisure time.
Oooo nooooooooooo more leisure time?!? Less pointless grinding???
Oh the huge manatee!!
We should definitely give all that money to billionaires and their hiers… those folks know the meaning of grindset! /s
In capitalism, there is an upward funnel through which money goes from the poorest to the richest. You need a way to take some off the top and inject it back at the bottom of the funnel to keep everything working. Jobs are part of that, but clearly that alone isn’t working.
Whether it’s through UBI or public services or whatever, there has to be a way to keep that money churning.
I don’t know. I’m not an economist, but that seems to be a fundamental flaw in the current system. When the rich have all the money (envisioning a far off day when AI really can do all our jobs) the economy breaks and we are forced to throw all the wealth (and the wealthy) into a big volcano. Which honestly doesn’t sound all that bad, but it’ll be painful between now and then. I think UBI is a potential fix.
I also think it needs to be thought out really, really hard. Because there are people out there waiting to prey on the unsophisticated with their payday loans and their buying annuities (what else is UBI, really?).
Or do away with capitalism but I’m old and that sounds scary.
It’ll trickle down eventually! I’ve been waiting for it to happen since the Reagan Administration, but just be patient!
I think negative income tax is more suitable for application and has less cons than UBI.
Multiple issues with this article (and maybe the underlying study).
No mention of the sampling strategy - what were their average hours of work per week ? What was the average income (not including $1000 from the UBI)
Why is productivity measured as # hours worked? I can sit on my ass without doing anything or I can bust my butt to get shit done. It’s a lot easier to generate good work (and do more with fewer hours) when I’m not stressed about where my rent is coming from.
What about other outcomes besides work? How about amount of savings and ability to cover unexpected expenses? It’s certainly a good thing for people to get some savings for emergencies, job loss etc even if the benefits aren’t seen in the economy for a while. But even if people are spending that money it still supports the economy regardless of whether it is done in the name of leisure or to get a new job.
“The results are bad if you want low-income people to be doing other things with their time, for example working.”
I don’t care if they’re working or not, personally.
deleted by creator
