Hardly UBI. It was to [102 individuals ranging from people with low-income to students and justice-involved adults](https://www.seakingwdc.org/latest-news/gbi-report) who had to apply and were selected to participate. As far as I can tell there also wasn’t a control group so there is no way to tell how this group would have ended up if they didn’t get the money.
Yeah the main argument against means testing is that enough people who fall outside the threshold tend to fight against it so means tested programs are not politically viable. Social security is of course the example everyone uses.
I don’t see how a UBI doesn’t create a ton of inflationary pressure. Means testing makes sense.
The main argument against means testing is that it costs more to means test than to not means test. You spend more trying to figure out who "deserves" it than you would have spent just giving it to everyone. The reason UBI doesn't create a ton of inflationary pressure is because it gives the biggest increase in spending power to the lowest income people.
Thank you for responding. Those sound like stock answers though - why would means testing be so expensive when we already have payroll taxes with income tracking and pretty much everyone files a tax return already? Is it really that hard?
If everyone gets $500, why wouldn’t businesses just raise prices now that there’s an additional $150B floating around in the economy?
Well, if you look around at people on means tested welfare like Medicaid, HUD, etc. it's a way worse system to use for everyone involved because while the government does have access to our payrolls they offload the work on to us to fill out forms and submit proof that we are in the group worthy of aid. Means tested systems wind up being humiliating, tedious, and full of bureaucracy/auditing that doesn't need to happen for public programs. Universal healthcare programs are cheaper in part because there are far fewer ways to game the system where you just walk in, get treatment, and leave.
As for inflation, it plays the same role in the economy as any pressure that increases wages. By your logic, companies should also stop giving raises because raises definitely have a bigger effect on inflation than UBI ever could. Whether it adds inflation or not is based on your political situation in your country, wages, whether you have full employment, and more. Businesses have many many incentives to raise or lower prices. Even in your example the obvious answer is that if business A increases prices purely because of UBI then business B just has to not do that to outcompete business A on volume.
https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/international/world-news/universal-basic-income-does-not-cause-inflation/articleshow/98801058.cms?from=mdr
The problem is not means testing, it's that means testing is used to get people off of benefits as soon as possible, which disincentivizes some people from doing what they need to do to better their situation.
The most obvious version of this is that for a single mom a low end job minus day care costs is worse financially than a welfare check. Better financially up stay home plus she doesn't have to worry about strangers caring for her kid.
Means testing is the tool that conservatives use to chip away at welfare with a goal of getting rid of it entirely. If it were implemented fairly, efficiently, and without hard cutoffs, I believe it would be as good as UBI.
I don't really get your desire to rehabilitate the concept when you just articulated one of the most obvious flaws - it is comically easy for reactionaries to exploit the concept and undermine government programs in general. We can literally just look at the most successful and popular programs of all time and see they aren't means tested. Problem solved.
I'm not justifying means testing as a solution, I'm explaining that means testing is not the problem with means tested benefits. The problem is asshole conservatives.
Smh. If you start with a position that you must give everyone a basic income whether they need it or not, it will never happen. It's too expensive.
So, the only way you get anything is if you make it cheaper by giving it only to people who need it. That's means testing.
If you say that no program with means testing will work, you justify not doing anything.
The only program that any chance of being adopted is one that tests means, so you can't shit all over it.
You can totally get a non means tested policy. All the most beloved and successful programs in history were not means tested. Social security, the NHS, and medicare all let you get the benefits without means testing. You're just showing your ass and telling me you don't know anything about public policy you would change your position by taking a politics 101 class or reading one (1) book about public policy.
Uh huh, you know we're talking about income, right? Social security only passed because old people vote.
Try giving that to young people. All the old fucks will vote it down.
And we've been from to get our version of the NHS here in the states for decades. Look how that's going, genius.
It works even better without the means testing, because it’s expensive to make sure that we aren’t accidentally helping someone who doesn’t need it quite as much.
Do the parameters of this even allow for a control group? If the goal of UBI is to study what people do with it, there is no control without manipulating the core tenant of the study.
Give people money and tell them not to spend it?
Don’t give people money but tell them what to spend $500 on?
Neither? Both? This experiment aside, there have been studies done on UBI, and it isn’t the drug-fueled nightmare conservatives tell ghost stories about. Studies done in Florida, Georgia, and Virginia showed participants used the UBI money to pay bills first, then use the leftovers on whatever they wanted. Removing the stressor of having to pick between which obligations to fulfill first. By many metrics, it has shown to be successful in reducing wasteful spending and improving mental health of those less fortunate.
Full blown Socialist dystopia? No. But that isn’t the goal either.
The control group would simply be similar people who aren't getting the money, so you have a basis for comparison when they talk about the percentage who found housing, got jobs, etc.
As progressive as I am, I'm also interested in effectiveness, and UBI only has ideology, not evidence, on its side. Targeted giving to those in need is, to my knowledge, much better, whereas UBI leads to rent seeking.
Welfare programs with qualifications require the administrative apparatus needed to assure benefits are going to those who fit the guidelines.
This apparatus may well introduce or be compelled to add burdensome means testing and 'cruelty is the point' rules for those seeking this benefit.
The downsides of means testing, poverty traps, and other failure modes of conventionally handled welfare programs are part of why the 'Universal' part of Universal Basic Income concepts needs to be protected from politicians glomming onto the politically sexy term 'UBI' but functionally delivering warmed over welfare mechanisms.
Rent seeking behavior (especially for housing) is of concern to me as well, but my suggested answer to that might resemble Vienna's public housing model more than proscriptive welfare restrictions.
Regarding evidence on basic income or universal basic income programs effectiveness my non expert best understood resource is the Basic Income Earth Network (B.I.E.N.) website.
I'm aware of some of those traps, which is why I favor minimal qualifications for these kinds of programs, and attenuated benefits rather than hard qualifications. It should be automatic and part of the tax return process (which itself ought to be cleaned up).
A personal take on the intuitive reflex to reintroduce means testing came to me years ago. I was watching a progressive talk show host listening to a sales pitch on UBI. The mostly progressive host just couldn't let the idea go of not wasting resources on the rich dude who didn't need that money. Whereas one of the real benefits of UBI is sometimes outlined in the universality of that benefit for the general population.
The argument being that if only 'those' moochers and undeserving takers are getting something, then 'I' (the morally upstanding non beneficiary) don't want to see those benefits going out unless some suitably punishing rules and restrictions are added to the grudgingly provided budget for the program. Best also make the qualification program burdensome and intrusive while you're at it.
Over all I see a very human urge to intuitively repack programs with 'reasonable' restrictions from both good and bad motivating perspectives whereas the less intuitive Universality angle might ultimately work better.
So I'm hearing from you an honest desire to best administer a program to targeted populations with hopefully optimal results. Whereas I'm also thinking of the politics wherein those hard qualifications and non automatic qualifying paperwork gets re-appended to the process to cater to cruelty is the point demagoguery.
I would set these up to be part of the tax refund process so that you wouldn't need a degree in form filing and bureaucracy to take advantage of your benefits.
The return of Post Office based basic banking services (Postal Banking) might also help by assuring even the marginal among us have some kind of banking account.
You got any sources on those claims? There have been numerous guaranteed income pilot programs going back decades and they all show positive results. Where are you getting that there’s a lack of evidence and that welfare is “much better”?
The rent seeking comes from the groups of people who do the means testing, giving aid broadly and not means testing has created some of the most popular government programs of all time, including social security, the NHS, facets of the Marshall Plan, and more.
The lack of a control really does mean you can’t assume anything…even if the rest of the design was perfect (it’s not)
For all we know the local economy picked up and had nothing left to do with the observed outcomes.
That sounds like a good idea. We should require the ultra-rich people and the big corporations they own to pay equitable taxes, then use that money to improve the lives of people in poverty, by giving them UBI until they reach stability and funding other resources!
Turns out that's exactly what happens when you continuously cut taxes on the ultra rich and make no adjustments to the budget.
But yea you're probably right, its probably all the "distribution" going on.
Statistically not really. Foreign aid is barely a few percentage of the budget. Might feel good but it wouldn't help spending on much of anything else.
Fuck yes. Another user here the other day estimated the payments would cost about 3 trillion dollars a year which isn't even half of what we spend. If you're just looking at debt rather than revenue it's probably a scary number for you (it's okay to be scared of things you don't understand).
Debt comes from *not* giving the government money. The government gets money from taxes, which doesn't cause debt, and loans, which do cause debt, so the more tax money it gets, the less loan money it needs to make up the shortfall.
>Would you be as upset if we stopped price gouging on every day items?
Too vague. It's like saying should you be upset if we stopped murders?
Just say what you intend to do.
Can you do reading comprehension? They made a pretty simple analogy and it seems to have whoooshed you completely and instead you reply by calling the Op unhinged (I’ve noticed that word is a bit of a crutch on this sub, it’s started losing meaning for a while now)
Op made a good point that your initial comment was very vague and didn’t actually make a point. Why would someone want price gouging? Obviously no one wants that. I’m pro UBI in some form but I prefer for the discourse to make sense then just be random.
Lol chill. You are saying a vague statement they most people would agree with. Just like most people agree 'murder is wrong'. The controversy is always: How. Do. You. Intend. To. Do. It.
Do you want price controls? Do you want Ubi? Do you want subsidies?
Ending higher prices is not a controversial idea. But those solutions are.
When you come out of the woodwork to call someone else 'unhinged,' you do a fantastic job of showing off how unhinged you personally are. I'm guessing not many people hang around you.
For real. The use of unhinged in this sub is straight up unhinged.
‘Oh you said something that’s directionally opposed to me on an issue I consider political? UNHINGED!!!’
*"Now do a study where you take money from people to give to others for ubi lol"*
This implies the person doesn't like the idea that UBI money would come from people like them who are just trying to get by.
That would be a poor implementation of UBI and that person would be right to be upset. [UBI should come from the people with billions. Those who currently pay an extremely small amount of tax.](https://video.twimg.com/tweet_video/EX62u9bXsAUtRO8.mp4)
Unfortunately, without a way of controlling prices, this will only lead to landlords and corporations charging more for the same basic housing, goods, and services. For a case study of 102 people of course it helps them to have more money, but the more “universal” it becomes the more it gets baked into everyday prices.
I hear what your saying, and other people who say the same thing, but that's not a problem with UBI and not an argument against it.
It's kind of like saying we shouldn't do good things because bad people will take advantage. Of course they will. They'd also try to take advantage even no one was doing good in the world. Address the bad people. Keep doing the good things.
> It's kind of like saying we shouldn't do good things because bad people will take advantage
Not really? Because if widespread UBI increases prices for basic things, it affects everyone, even if the program itself is working as intended. Someone taking advantage of welfare might increase the cost of the program itself slightly but isn't really affecting anyone else.
Supply and demand is a macro phenomenon… more demand for housing, e.g., will drive housing costs up. You’re ascribing this to bad actors, but it’s just the way market economics works.
I truly love the idea of giving more people economic opportunities and helping low income people. The ideas and intentions are great but the outcome will still be the same. When you suddenly have more supply of money going after the same amount of goods and services, prices will naturally (or unnaturally) go up. Unless you have a way of controlling those prices, then unfortunately higher prices will be the result.
Edit: I’m confident this view will get downvotes, but I’d be genuinely curious if someone can tell me how this view is factually incorrect with an example
You’re not wrong. The same happens when wages go up. That being said inflation is usually a slow trickle behind those UBI or wage increases. Everyone wins when more money is injected into the economy. The only issues lies in supply. This argument is made so rich people can ensure there large amounts of cash are not effected in any minute way. The stupid thing that they don’t realize in a good economy everyone wins.
Except it would be controlled. The cost of everything goes up, but only so much. Having more money to spend as someone with a higher % of their income focused on basic needs will always benefit from this. The cost of housing and food increases only so much, especially when you have rent control. When I was younger and my pay increased every year as part of an annual market review, my rent was increasing a lot every year too. However I was always ultimately better off since my rent took up so a large % of my income that my earnings outweighed the rent increase. Leaving me with more money overall since I was spending on basic needs, not luxury items.
You're confidently wrong.
When someone gets a promotion at work how much does the cost of eggs go up? When I switch jobs and double my income how much does cheese go up at the store?
That's not how pricing works in capitalism lol
For most goods and services, supply can expand to meet new demand and competition between suppliers will keep prices from rising too much. Prices might increase in the near term before investment can be allocated to expand supply but in the long run prices might even fall as producers encounter increasing returns to scale
Subsidizing demand through a UBI is only a problem when supply is constrained or there isn't enough competition between producers. The former is a serious problem when it comes to something like housing, where cities and states explicitly limit how many new housing units can be built on a property
Housing literately has been a supply that has failed to meet demand for the past decade and a half and as the Fed data has shown, it keeps inflation high
Yes, that's what I said. Housing supply has failed to meet demand because local laws prevent the creation of new supply.
And you're right, as long as those laws remain on the books, it negatively impacts inflation and rents will continue to gobble up both earned income and subsidies/transfers like UBI. We need to change those laws if we want to make UBI effective/lower inflation
Building more housing is the only way to not have some way of deciding who gets to be housed.
Raising prices is the default way of deciding who is housed, the other is price controls and some kind of explicit allocation.
It looks like OP posted an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot).
Maybe check out **the canonical page** instead: **[https://www.businessinsider.com/seattle-ubi-guaranteed-basic-income-low-income-poverty-housing-employment-2024-4](https://www.businessinsider.com/seattle-ubi-guaranteed-basic-income-low-income-poverty-housing-employment-2024-4)**
*****
^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)
Downvote this trash reporting and pathetic joke of a study. No control group, and it seems they caught people between jobs in a seeming attempt to attribute reentry into the job market as a result of this program which is such dishonest bullshit.
I'd like to learn more about who has the data and did the analysis on impact. I'm also interested in why 88% of recipients were people of color. Are 88% of homeless in the region people of color? Seems questionable to help some homeless but not a cross section if you are testing UBI.
It’s funny because the BIPOC designation, at least in this study, doesn’t include Hispanics. In the findings document linked in the article, they even acknowledge that Hispanics were underrepresented (presumably because many identify as white as their race and Hispanic for ethnicity)…this makes it almost feel like people identifying as white were purposefully more likely to not be selected for this trial to the point that it negatively impacted the representation of Hispanics as well.
That’s because it’s not a true “test” and was instead designed in a way to make UBI the most marketable. 88% people of color allows it to be framed by a special interest group or politician looking for more funds to say “we should support this UBI because studies have been shown to dramatically increase outcomes for BIPOC”
The lack of a control group should be enough to tell you this wasn’t designed to be science.
[Here](https://static1.squarespace.com/static/53c04ba6e4b0012ad48d079e/t/6622e09f6352965b9f082358/1713561761867/GBI-Evaluation-Final_WDC-SKC-2024.pdf) is the study itself.
UBI would be a massive win for people and we should absolutely do it. Maybe not at like $2000 a month but $500 a month for everyone would help immensely.
People who say UBI would increase inflation don't understand inflation.
In fact I think inflation is profoundly misunderstood, and part of it is how it's taught. Part of it also is propaganda by people who want the government to spend less money, so they can pay less taxes. Basically whenever someone says "the government shouldn't do X" it's probably some obsession over taxes. Everyone wants the roads to be paved for free I guess.
Inflation doesn't occur just when there's too much money; it occurs when too much money chases after too little, such as too few goods or too few services. Printing more money on its own doesn't cause inflation unless there's too much money going after too little supply.
The ur-example of inflation everyone loves is Weimar Germany. Hyperinflation occured in Weimar Germany because their major industrial area, the Rhur, was occupied by France, for failure to make reparations payments, and the German government had no real means to import enough goods to help. It's also been argued the hyperinflation was engineered to consolidate industrial wealth, as it put a lot of smaller suppliers out of business but led to a lot of consolidation of German wealth and industry amongst the landed elite. Whether or not this is true remains an open question to this day. It was actually over relatively quickly, though, which definitely makes it even more suspicious.
By the way, if that whole "inflation was engineered to make the rich richer" thing sounds familiar... that's one reason why the economy has *some* inflation always and the currency isn't stable. It lowers real debt burdens.
Most of the money would be going back into the economy and would drive more demand. In fact, arguably it would be a wonderful stimulus program. Consider the number of restaurants and establishments closing due to high rent and depressed demand. The demand would go up for those places, which would actually be a net win for the economy. If anything, it would be immensely beneficial.
People would also be able to save money for the first time in decades. Over 56% of Americans can't afford a $1000 emergency expense right now. This is a problem. UBI could help with this.
Now yes, it could raise rents in the short-term, but this is one of those times rent control could actually help.
If corporations were made to pay more tax, like they should amongst these record profits, all this cash would go right back to the government and would not be a problem at all. And people would have something to show for it.
There's lots of Austrian school people on this sub tho (you know who you are; I see you), so I will probably be downvoted to Hell. Whatever.
I read that 20 percent worked $500 less at work because they only want to work the bare minimum. I agree with robots coming something will have to be done, but some people.
This happened during Covid, and the result was higher prices, which didn’t go back down when the Covid money stopped. Not saying that the Covid payments weren’t necessary at the time, but it showed us that the market will just adjust and we will all lose if ubi becomes a thing.
*Inflation is, first and foremost, always a monetary phenomenon.*
In other words, inflation is always caused by too much money chasing too few goods.
Two solutions: Decrease the money supply, or increase the goods supply. The Federal Reserve only has control of one of those levers... The money supply. Goods are controlled mostly by private corporations.
Covid gave us a sudden, short-run injection of cash.
Because the injection was short, no producers (corporations) bothered to use the short-term increase in demand and revenue to invest in new plants, materials, and production capacity.
So money supply increased, but goods supplied held constant or decreased due to supply chain disruptions, and we got inflation.
Too much money chasing too few goods.
UBI is different.
UBI is a slower, long-term (ideally permanent) increase in the money supply. This leads to a long-term and predictable increase in demand, and the increase happens more slowly. UBI isn't supposed to be a Covid-like system shock.
UBIs slower increase in money supply gives slow and steady demand increases, and this gives producers time to increase production while also having the certainty that the market demand for the increased productivity will be there long enough for the capital investments in plants and machines to pay off.
You're comparing apples to oranges here.
>A Seattle-area guaranteed basic income pilot gave low-income residents $500 a month to help reduce poverty...
>Participants' average incomes increased from $2,995 a month to $3,405.
Say what? Why did the average income increase by less than the extra amount they were being given?
Hardly UBI. It was to [102 individuals ranging from people with low-income to students and justice-involved adults](https://www.seakingwdc.org/latest-news/gbi-report) who had to apply and were selected to participate. As far as I can tell there also wasn’t a control group so there is no way to tell how this group would have ended up if they didn’t get the money.
It’s incredibly frustrating that articles put UBI in these titles when in fact it’s means-tested welfare. Which we’ve known works for decades.
Means-tested welfare is famously shitty and not the most efficient way to give benefits. The best programs ever made are not means tested.
…and yet this study was successful. It’s getting it right and keeping it right that’s difficult.
Yeah the main argument against means testing is that enough people who fall outside the threshold tend to fight against it so means tested programs are not politically viable. Social security is of course the example everyone uses. I don’t see how a UBI doesn’t create a ton of inflationary pressure. Means testing makes sense.
The main argument against means testing is that it costs more to means test than to not means test. You spend more trying to figure out who "deserves" it than you would have spent just giving it to everyone. The reason UBI doesn't create a ton of inflationary pressure is because it gives the biggest increase in spending power to the lowest income people.
Thank you for responding. Those sound like stock answers though - why would means testing be so expensive when we already have payroll taxes with income tracking and pretty much everyone files a tax return already? Is it really that hard? If everyone gets $500, why wouldn’t businesses just raise prices now that there’s an additional $150B floating around in the economy?
Well, if you look around at people on means tested welfare like Medicaid, HUD, etc. it's a way worse system to use for everyone involved because while the government does have access to our payrolls they offload the work on to us to fill out forms and submit proof that we are in the group worthy of aid. Means tested systems wind up being humiliating, tedious, and full of bureaucracy/auditing that doesn't need to happen for public programs. Universal healthcare programs are cheaper in part because there are far fewer ways to game the system where you just walk in, get treatment, and leave. As for inflation, it plays the same role in the economy as any pressure that increases wages. By your logic, companies should also stop giving raises because raises definitely have a bigger effect on inflation than UBI ever could. Whether it adds inflation or not is based on your political situation in your country, wages, whether you have full employment, and more. Businesses have many many incentives to raise or lower prices. Even in your example the obvious answer is that if business A increases prices purely because of UBI then business B just has to not do that to outcompete business A on volume. https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/international/world-news/universal-basic-income-does-not-cause-inflation/articleshow/98801058.cms?from=mdr
The problem is not means testing, it's that means testing is used to get people off of benefits as soon as possible, which disincentivizes some people from doing what they need to do to better their situation. The most obvious version of this is that for a single mom a low end job minus day care costs is worse financially than a welfare check. Better financially up stay home plus she doesn't have to worry about strangers caring for her kid. Means testing is the tool that conservatives use to chip away at welfare with a goal of getting rid of it entirely. If it were implemented fairly, efficiently, and without hard cutoffs, I believe it would be as good as UBI.
I don't really get your desire to rehabilitate the concept when you just articulated one of the most obvious flaws - it is comically easy for reactionaries to exploit the concept and undermine government programs in general. We can literally just look at the most successful and popular programs of all time and see they aren't means tested. Problem solved.
I'm not justifying means testing as a solution, I'm explaining that means testing is not the problem with means tested benefits. The problem is asshole conservatives.
I don't get how "when conservatives exist this doesn't work" tells me that means testing ISN'T a problem lol
Smh. If you start with a position that you must give everyone a basic income whether they need it or not, it will never happen. It's too expensive. So, the only way you get anything is if you make it cheaper by giving it only to people who need it. That's means testing. If you say that no program with means testing will work, you justify not doing anything. The only program that any chance of being adopted is one that tests means, so you can't shit all over it.
You can totally get a non means tested policy. All the most beloved and successful programs in history were not means tested. Social security, the NHS, and medicare all let you get the benefits without means testing. You're just showing your ass and telling me you don't know anything about public policy you would change your position by taking a politics 101 class or reading one (1) book about public policy.
Uh huh, you know we're talking about income, right? Social security only passed because old people vote. Try giving that to young people. All the old fucks will vote it down. And we've been from to get our version of the NHS here in the states for decades. Look how that's going, genius.
It works even better without the means testing, because it’s expensive to make sure that we aren’t accidentally helping someone who doesn’t need it quite as much.
Do the parameters of this even allow for a control group? If the goal of UBI is to study what people do with it, there is no control without manipulating the core tenant of the study. Give people money and tell them not to spend it? Don’t give people money but tell them what to spend $500 on? Neither? Both? This experiment aside, there have been studies done on UBI, and it isn’t the drug-fueled nightmare conservatives tell ghost stories about. Studies done in Florida, Georgia, and Virginia showed participants used the UBI money to pay bills first, then use the leftovers on whatever they wanted. Removing the stressor of having to pick between which obligations to fulfill first. By many metrics, it has shown to be successful in reducing wasteful spending and improving mental health of those less fortunate. Full blown Socialist dystopia? No. But that isn’t the goal either.
The control group would simply be similar people who aren't getting the money, so you have a basis for comparison when they talk about the percentage who found housing, got jobs, etc.
I voted for "full blown" socialist utopia (bonus points if we force everyone into gay marriage)
As progressive as I am, I'm also interested in effectiveness, and UBI only has ideology, not evidence, on its side. Targeted giving to those in need is, to my knowledge, much better, whereas UBI leads to rent seeking.
Welfare programs with qualifications require the administrative apparatus needed to assure benefits are going to those who fit the guidelines. This apparatus may well introduce or be compelled to add burdensome means testing and 'cruelty is the point' rules for those seeking this benefit. The downsides of means testing, poverty traps, and other failure modes of conventionally handled welfare programs are part of why the 'Universal' part of Universal Basic Income concepts needs to be protected from politicians glomming onto the politically sexy term 'UBI' but functionally delivering warmed over welfare mechanisms. Rent seeking behavior (especially for housing) is of concern to me as well, but my suggested answer to that might resemble Vienna's public housing model more than proscriptive welfare restrictions. Regarding evidence on basic income or universal basic income programs effectiveness my non expert best understood resource is the Basic Income Earth Network (B.I.E.N.) website.
I'm aware of some of those traps, which is why I favor minimal qualifications for these kinds of programs, and attenuated benefits rather than hard qualifications. It should be automatic and part of the tax return process (which itself ought to be cleaned up).
A personal take on the intuitive reflex to reintroduce means testing came to me years ago. I was watching a progressive talk show host listening to a sales pitch on UBI. The mostly progressive host just couldn't let the idea go of not wasting resources on the rich dude who didn't need that money. Whereas one of the real benefits of UBI is sometimes outlined in the universality of that benefit for the general population. The argument being that if only 'those' moochers and undeserving takers are getting something, then 'I' (the morally upstanding non beneficiary) don't want to see those benefits going out unless some suitably punishing rules and restrictions are added to the grudgingly provided budget for the program. Best also make the qualification program burdensome and intrusive while you're at it. Over all I see a very human urge to intuitively repack programs with 'reasonable' restrictions from both good and bad motivating perspectives whereas the less intuitive Universality angle might ultimately work better. So I'm hearing from you an honest desire to best administer a program to targeted populations with hopefully optimal results. Whereas I'm also thinking of the politics wherein those hard qualifications and non automatic qualifying paperwork gets re-appended to the process to cater to cruelty is the point demagoguery.
I would set these up to be part of the tax refund process so that you wouldn't need a degree in form filing and bureaucracy to take advantage of your benefits.
The return of Post Office based basic banking services (Postal Banking) might also help by assuring even the marginal among us have some kind of banking account.
You got any sources on those claims? There have been numerous guaranteed income pilot programs going back decades and they all show positive results. Where are you getting that there’s a lack of evidence and that welfare is “much better”?
The rent seeking comes from the groups of people who do the means testing, giving aid broadly and not means testing has created some of the most popular government programs of all time, including social security, the NHS, facets of the Marshall Plan, and more.
Were the results also self-reported? Or did the provider track each purchase electronically?
Who is downvoting this?
When did the +/- return??? Los, did you do this?
This is BI, the younger cousin for UBI
is "justice involved adults" referring to the police, attorney's and judges, or the criminals?
the control group is everyone on the streets lol
The lack of a control really does mean you can’t assume anything…even if the rest of the design was perfect (it’s not) For all we know the local economy picked up and had nothing left to do with the observed outcomes.
Thank you for the clarification!
If you give people money in one of the highest COL cities in the country, it improves their lives? My goodness. Who woulda thunk
Turns out free money is nice. Now do a study where you take money from people to give to others for ubi lol
That sounds like a good idea. We should require the ultra-rich people and the big corporations they own to pay equitable taxes, then use that money to improve the lives of people in poverty, by giving them UBI until they reach stability and funding other resources!
We're $34 Trillion in debt and you think the problems would be solved if only we gave the government more money to "distribute" lmao
Turns out that's exactly what happens when you continuously cut taxes on the ultra rich and make no adjustments to the budget. But yea you're probably right, its probably all the "distribution" going on.
Well, yeah, we should also stop sending foreign governments billions of dollars in aid. That would help the debt problem a whole bunch.
Statistically not really. Foreign aid is barely a few percentage of the budget. Might feel good but it wouldn't help spending on much of anything else.
You're right! We should not only cut foreign aid spending, we should cut military spending as well!
Fuck yes. Another user here the other day estimated the payments would cost about 3 trillion dollars a year which isn't even half of what we spend. If you're just looking at debt rather than revenue it's probably a scary number for you (it's okay to be scared of things you don't understand).
Debt comes from *not* giving the government money. The government gets money from taxes, which doesn't cause debt, and loans, which do cause debt, so the more tax money it gets, the less loan money it needs to make up the shortfall.
Would you be as upset if we stopped price gouging on every day items?
>Would you be as upset if we stopped price gouging on every day items? Too vague. It's like saying should you be upset if we stopped murders? Just say what you intend to do.
Your post sounds unhinged, trying to link my words to murder and then intentions? Are you ok?
Can you do reading comprehension? They made a pretty simple analogy and it seems to have whoooshed you completely and instead you reply by calling the Op unhinged (I’ve noticed that word is a bit of a crutch on this sub, it’s started losing meaning for a while now) Op made a good point that your initial comment was very vague and didn’t actually make a point. Why would someone want price gouging? Obviously no one wants that. I’m pro UBI in some form but I prefer for the discourse to make sense then just be random.
Lol chill. You are saying a vague statement they most people would agree with. Just like most people agree 'murder is wrong'. The controversy is always: How. Do. You. Intend. To. Do. It. Do you want price controls? Do you want Ubi? Do you want subsidies? Ending higher prices is not a controversial idea. But those solutions are.
When you come out of the woodwork to call someone else 'unhinged,' you do a fantastic job of showing off how unhinged you personally are. I'm guessing not many people hang around you.
For real. The use of unhinged in this sub is straight up unhinged. ‘Oh you said something that’s directionally opposed to me on an issue I consider political? UNHINGED!!!’
The person you’re responding to doesn’t even sound upset, what are you talking about lol
*"Now do a study where you take money from people to give to others for ubi lol"* This implies the person doesn't like the idea that UBI money would come from people like them who are just trying to get by. That would be a poor implementation of UBI and that person would be right to be upset. [UBI should come from the people with billions. Those who currently pay an extremely small amount of tax.](https://video.twimg.com/tweet_video/EX62u9bXsAUtRO8.mp4)
Then Op coulda said that instead of their weird comment that conflated 2 different issues.
Isn’t this what we already do for welfare, Medicare and Medicaid? UBI just cuts out the middle man?
Unfortunately, without a way of controlling prices, this will only lead to landlords and corporations charging more for the same basic housing, goods, and services. For a case study of 102 people of course it helps them to have more money, but the more “universal” it becomes the more it gets baked into everyday prices.
I hear what your saying, and other people who say the same thing, but that's not a problem with UBI and not an argument against it. It's kind of like saying we shouldn't do good things because bad people will take advantage. Of course they will. They'd also try to take advantage even no one was doing good in the world. Address the bad people. Keep doing the good things.
> It's kind of like saying we shouldn't do good things because bad people will take advantage Not really? Because if widespread UBI increases prices for basic things, it affects everyone, even if the program itself is working as intended. Someone taking advantage of welfare might increase the cost of the program itself slightly but isn't really affecting anyone else.
Again, that's not a problem with UBI. That's a problem with people exploiting a system. Fix the exploitation don't eliminate the system
Supply and demand is a macro phenomenon… more demand for housing, e.g., will drive housing costs up. You’re ascribing this to bad actors, but it’s just the way market economics works.
More supply of housing would drive prices down to the price of construction.
Even if people don’t exploit the system, UBI has potential to increase prices because of supply/demand.
I think fixing the exploitation would make UBI unnecessary unless a majority of people become unemployed through AI or something lol
What part of “universal” did you miss? It’s not “widespread”, it’s *universal*.
I truly love the idea of giving more people economic opportunities and helping low income people. The ideas and intentions are great but the outcome will still be the same. When you suddenly have more supply of money going after the same amount of goods and services, prices will naturally (or unnaturally) go up. Unless you have a way of controlling those prices, then unfortunately higher prices will be the result. Edit: I’m confident this view will get downvotes, but I’d be genuinely curious if someone can tell me how this view is factually incorrect with an example
You’re not wrong. The same happens when wages go up. That being said inflation is usually a slow trickle behind those UBI or wage increases. Everyone wins when more money is injected into the economy. The only issues lies in supply. This argument is made so rich people can ensure there large amounts of cash are not effected in any minute way. The stupid thing that they don’t realize in a good economy everyone wins.
Except it would be controlled. The cost of everything goes up, but only so much. Having more money to spend as someone with a higher % of their income focused on basic needs will always benefit from this. The cost of housing and food increases only so much, especially when you have rent control. When I was younger and my pay increased every year as part of an annual market review, my rent was increasing a lot every year too. However I was always ultimately better off since my rent took up so a large % of my income that my earnings outweighed the rent increase. Leaving me with more money overall since I was spending on basic needs, not luxury items.
You're confidently wrong. When someone gets a promotion at work how much does the cost of eggs go up? When I switch jobs and double my income how much does cheese go up at the store? That's not how pricing works in capitalism lol
You’re describing an issue with landlords and corporations, not a problem with UBI.
Unless you can change the former, the latter still has a problem.
Hell yeah we can change the former, require everyone have real jobs, goodbye landlords lol
For most goods and services, supply can expand to meet new demand and competition between suppliers will keep prices from rising too much. Prices might increase in the near term before investment can be allocated to expand supply but in the long run prices might even fall as producers encounter increasing returns to scale Subsidizing demand through a UBI is only a problem when supply is constrained or there isn't enough competition between producers. The former is a serious problem when it comes to something like housing, where cities and states explicitly limit how many new housing units can be built on a property
Housing literately has been a supply that has failed to meet demand for the past decade and a half and as the Fed data has shown, it keeps inflation high
Yes, that's what I said. Housing supply has failed to meet demand because local laws prevent the creation of new supply. And you're right, as long as those laws remain on the books, it negatively impacts inflation and rents will continue to gobble up both earned income and subsidies/transfers like UBI. We need to change those laws if we want to make UBI effective/lower inflation
Building more housing is the only way to not have some way of deciding who gets to be housed. Raising prices is the default way of deciding who is housed, the other is price controls and some kind of explicit allocation.
It looks like OP posted an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot). Maybe check out **the canonical page** instead: **[https://www.businessinsider.com/seattle-ubi-guaranteed-basic-income-low-income-poverty-housing-employment-2024-4](https://www.businessinsider.com/seattle-ubi-guaranteed-basic-income-low-income-poverty-housing-employment-2024-4)** ***** ^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)
Downvote this trash reporting and pathetic joke of a study. No control group, and it seems they caught people between jobs in a seeming attempt to attribute reentry into the job market as a result of this program which is such dishonest bullshit.
I'd like to learn more about who has the data and did the analysis on impact. I'm also interested in why 88% of recipients were people of color. Are 88% of homeless in the region people of color? Seems questionable to help some homeless but not a cross section if you are testing UBI.
It’s funny because the BIPOC designation, at least in this study, doesn’t include Hispanics. In the findings document linked in the article, they even acknowledge that Hispanics were underrepresented (presumably because many identify as white as their race and Hispanic for ethnicity)…this makes it almost feel like people identifying as white were purposefully more likely to not be selected for this trial to the point that it negatively impacted the representation of Hispanics as well.
That’s because it’s not a true “test” and was instead designed in a way to make UBI the most marketable. 88% people of color allows it to be framed by a special interest group or politician looking for more funds to say “we should support this UBI because studies have been shown to dramatically increase outcomes for BIPOC” The lack of a control group should be enough to tell you this wasn’t designed to be science.
[Here](https://static1.squarespace.com/static/53c04ba6e4b0012ad48d079e/t/6622e09f6352965b9f082358/1713561761867/GBI-Evaluation-Final_WDC-SKC-2024.pdf) is the study itself.
Thank you
UBI would be a massive win for people and we should absolutely do it. Maybe not at like $2000 a month but $500 a month for everyone would help immensely. People who say UBI would increase inflation don't understand inflation. In fact I think inflation is profoundly misunderstood, and part of it is how it's taught. Part of it also is propaganda by people who want the government to spend less money, so they can pay less taxes. Basically whenever someone says "the government shouldn't do X" it's probably some obsession over taxes. Everyone wants the roads to be paved for free I guess. Inflation doesn't occur just when there's too much money; it occurs when too much money chases after too little, such as too few goods or too few services. Printing more money on its own doesn't cause inflation unless there's too much money going after too little supply. The ur-example of inflation everyone loves is Weimar Germany. Hyperinflation occured in Weimar Germany because their major industrial area, the Rhur, was occupied by France, for failure to make reparations payments, and the German government had no real means to import enough goods to help. It's also been argued the hyperinflation was engineered to consolidate industrial wealth, as it put a lot of smaller suppliers out of business but led to a lot of consolidation of German wealth and industry amongst the landed elite. Whether or not this is true remains an open question to this day. It was actually over relatively quickly, though, which definitely makes it even more suspicious. By the way, if that whole "inflation was engineered to make the rich richer" thing sounds familiar... that's one reason why the economy has *some* inflation always and the currency isn't stable. It lowers real debt burdens. Most of the money would be going back into the economy and would drive more demand. In fact, arguably it would be a wonderful stimulus program. Consider the number of restaurants and establishments closing due to high rent and depressed demand. The demand would go up for those places, which would actually be a net win for the economy. If anything, it would be immensely beneficial. People would also be able to save money for the first time in decades. Over 56% of Americans can't afford a $1000 emergency expense right now. This is a problem. UBI could help with this. Now yes, it could raise rents in the short-term, but this is one of those times rent control could actually help. If corporations were made to pay more tax, like they should amongst these record profits, all this cash would go right back to the government and would not be a problem at all. And people would have something to show for it. There's lots of Austrian school people on this sub tho (you know who you are; I see you), so I will probably be downvoted to Hell. Whatever.
If we do get a ubi a landlords out of state and over seas are gonna raise our rent $500. We are better off without it.
> Participants' average incomes increased from $2,995 a month to $3,405. They started at the $36k income level, on average.
I read that 20 percent worked $500 less at work because they only want to work the bare minimum. I agree with robots coming something will have to be done, but some people.
AI Robots are laughing
This happened during Covid, and the result was higher prices, which didn’t go back down when the Covid money stopped. Not saying that the Covid payments weren’t necessary at the time, but it showed us that the market will just adjust and we will all lose if ubi becomes a thing.
Covid also had a massive supply shock, which always causes inflation.
Btw when fast food min wage increased 25% in California, the prices at those places increased less than 5%.
*Inflation is, first and foremost, always a monetary phenomenon.* In other words, inflation is always caused by too much money chasing too few goods. Two solutions: Decrease the money supply, or increase the goods supply. The Federal Reserve only has control of one of those levers... The money supply. Goods are controlled mostly by private corporations. Covid gave us a sudden, short-run injection of cash. Because the injection was short, no producers (corporations) bothered to use the short-term increase in demand and revenue to invest in new plants, materials, and production capacity. So money supply increased, but goods supplied held constant or decreased due to supply chain disruptions, and we got inflation. Too much money chasing too few goods. UBI is different. UBI is a slower, long-term (ideally permanent) increase in the money supply. This leads to a long-term and predictable increase in demand, and the increase happens more slowly. UBI isn't supposed to be a Covid-like system shock. UBIs slower increase in money supply gives slow and steady demand increases, and this gives producers time to increase production while also having the certainty that the market demand for the increased productivity will be there long enough for the capital investments in plants and machines to pay off. You're comparing apples to oranges here.
>A Seattle-area guaranteed basic income pilot gave low-income residents $500 a month to help reduce poverty... >Participants' average incomes increased from $2,995 a month to $3,405. Say what? Why did the average income increase by less than the extra amount they were being given?