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.
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.
So you’re claiming that the article doesn’t claim that people would not be productive enough under UBI? Shall I quote it?
Participants in the study generally did not use the extra time to seek new or better jobs—even though younger participants were slightly more likely to pursue additional education. There was no clear indication that the participants in the study were more likely to take the risk of starting a new business, although Vivalt points out that there was a significant uptick in “precursors” to entrepreneurialism. Instead, the largest increases were in categories that the researchers termed social and solo leisure activities.
“You can think of total household income, excluding the transfers, as falling by more than 20 cents for every $1 received,” wrote Eva Vivalt, a University of Toronto economist who co-authored the study, in a post on X. “This is a pretty substantial effect.”
But if those people are working less, the important question to ask is how they spent the extra time—time that was, effectively, purchased by the transfer payments.
Participants in the study generally did not use the extra time to seek new or better jobs—even though younger participants were slightly more likely to pursue additional education. There was no clear indication that the participants in the study were more likely to take the risk of starting a new business, although Vivalt points out that there was a significant uptick in “precursors” to entrepreneurialism. Instead, the largest increases were in categories that the researchers termed social and solo leisure activities.
Some advocates for UBI might argue that the study shows participants were better off, despite the decline in working hours and earnings. Indeed, maybe that’s the whole point?
“While decreased labor market participation is generally characterized negatively, policymakers should take into account the fact that recipients have demonstrated—by their own choices—that time away from work is something they prize highly,” the researchers note in the paper’s conclusion.
If you give someone $1,000 a month so they have more flexibility to live as they choose, there’s nothing wrong with the fact that most people will choose leisure over harder work.
“So, free time is good [and] guaranteed income recipients use some of the money to free up time,” argued Damon Jones, a professor at the University of Chicago’s school of public policy, on X. “The results are bad if you want low-income people to be doing other things with their time, for example working.”
Of course, if the money being used to fund a UBI program was simply falling from the sky, policy makers would have no reason to care about things like labor market effects and potential declines in productivity. If a program like this is costless, then the only goal is to see as many individuals self-actualize as much as possible. One person wants to learn new skills or start a business? Great! Others want to play video games all day? Awesome.
In reality, however, a UBI program is not costless and policy makers deciding whether to implement one must decide if the benefits will be worth the high price tag—Yang’s proposal for a national UBI, for example, is estimated to cost $2.8 trillion annually.
That’s why a study like this one matters, and why it’s so potentially damaging to the case for a UBI. A welfare program—which is ultimately what this is—that encourages people to work less and earn less is not a successful public policy. Taxpayers should not be expected to fund an increase in individuals’ leisure time, regardless of the mechanism used to achieve it.
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.
There you go:
National study finds giving Americans $1,000 per month makes them work less.
That article claims the study is from the National Bureau of Economic Research. Let’s look into who funds them.
https://winephysicssong.com/2010/09/16/where-does-the-national-bureau-of-economic-research-get-its-money/
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:
Support & Funding
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.
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.
So you’re claiming that the article doesn’t claim that people would not be productive enough under UBI? Shall I quote it?
There you go:
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.