Re: Bad News for Universal Basic Income.

 > D wrote:
 > Bad News for Universal Basic Income
 >
 > Researchers found that giving people $1,000 every month for three
years
 > resulted in decreased productivity and earnings, and more leisure
time.
 >
 > (https://reason.com/2024/07/25/bad-news-for-universal-basic-income)
 >
 > The largest study into the real-world consequences of giving people
an
 > extra $1,000 per month, with no strings attached, has found that
those
 > individuals generally worked less, earned less, and engaged in more

 > leisure time activities.
 >
 > It's a result that seems to undercut some of the arguments for
universal
 > basic income (UBI), which advocates say would help lower- and
middle-class
 > Americans become more productive. The idea is that a UBI would
reduce the
 > financial uncertainty that might keep some people from pursuing new

 > careers or entrepreneurial opportunities. Andrew Yang, the
businessman and
 > one-time Democratic presidential candidate who popularized the idea
during
 > his 2020 primary campaign, believes that a $1,000 monthly UBI would

 > "enable all Americans to pay their bills, educate themselves,
start
 > businesses, be more creative, stay healthy, relocate for work,
spend time
 > with their children, take care of loved ones, and have a real stake
in the
 > future."
 >
 > In theory, that sounds great. In reality, that's not what most
people do,
 > according to a working paper published this month.
 >
 > The five researchers who published the paper tracked 1,000 people
in
 > Illinois and Texas over three years who were given $1,000 monthly
gifts
 > from a nonprofit that funded the study. The average household
income for
 > the study's participants was about $29,000 in 2019, so the monthly
 > payments amounted to about a 40 percent increase in their income.
 >
 > Relative to a control group of 2,000 people who received just $50
per
 > month, the participants in the UBI group were less productive and
no more
 > likely to pursue better jobs or start businesses, the researchers
found.
 > They also reported "no significant effects on investments in
human
 > capital" due to the monthly payments.
 >
 > Participants receiving the $1,000 monthly payments saw their income
fall
 > by about $1,500 per year (excluding the UBI payments), due to a two

 > percentage point decrease in labor market participation and the
fact that
 > participants worked about 1.3 hours less per week than the members
of the
 > control group.
 >
 > "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.
 >
 > In theory, substituting a UBI in place of the myriad, overlapping,
and
 > often inefficient welfare systems operated by the federal and state

 > governments is an intriguing idea. In practice, this new study
suggests
 > those tradeoffs might not be as desirable.

Are you talking
about free money or your talking about raising the wages based on the


Inflation happens when
1. Wars ( like Iraq/Afganistan ) or anything that forces US spending
as with weapons to Ukraine, or usage of troops. More peace means less
spending.
2. Racism happens, age discrimination, ( race, religion, culture )
discrimination, and your left with educated people with no ability to
actually function at all. Forcing a bird to live on land. That bird
might survive but with reminder of the hate that you give it.
3. That being said when you have people ( like in my area J-e-w-s, and
LGBT ) in the education system taking jobs, and then you as a parent
wants to keep your kid away from these people via home-schooling, only
to have to deal with ( as my uncle said "Black phat woman"
and scrawny White men" ) who makes you a criminal for doing what
"The Graduate Part 2" did, which was to home school there
children.
 
Your in a screwed up system where nobody can be happy. It is like in
"1984". The adults know they are being held-hostage, they
knew they are being abused by the system, they know they are children
of the would-be whores, and sell-outs, but in reality the children (
Like the boyscouts ) believe the system is just, the system is ideal,
and the system is perfectly fine. When in reality it is a war to
remove pieces from the "war at home".

............

About communism..............yes communism which is literally akin to
J-U-E-s controlling USSR, as with both "Bobby Fischer" and
"Martin Luther" put it "Special". We might create
a weaker person, a person who is unable to think outside the system in
place.

............

I mean yes you might be correct. We should not give people money.

but

If there is no wars, no guns, and thus leaving an open-gap.

If these people invest the money wisely. If these people make income
off that income, in time ( whatever currency ) would increase.

............


It is like the "Great Mall of China". Nobody purchasing
anything, businesses are told to stay even if lack of customers. The
communism factory worker mindset created this abandoned and empty mall
full of goods nobody locally will buy. But the buyers could come from
abroad, which is why we have marketing on various social media
platforms.
 

This is a response to the post seen at:
http://www.jlaforums.com/viewtopic.php?p=672715977#672715977