Guaranteed Basic Income

[sleepmac]

Posted by EditorDavid on Sunday March 07, 2021 @09:54PM from the takes-money-to-make-money dept.
The Associated Press reports:
After getting $500 per month for two years without rules on how to spend it, 125 people in California paid off debt, got full-time jobs and reported lower rates of anxiety and depression, according to a study released Wednesday. The program in the Northern California city of Stockton was the highest-profile experiment in the U.S. of a universal basic income, where everyone gets a guaranteed amount per month for free...

Stockton was an ideal place, given its proximity to Silicon Valley and the eagerness of the state's tech titans to fund the experiment as they grapple with how to prepare for job losses that could come with automation and artificial intelligence. The Stockton Economic Empowerment Demonstration launched in February 2019, selecting a group of 125 people who lived in census tracts at or below the city's median household income of $46,033. The program did not use tax dollars, but was financed by private donations, including a nonprofit led by Facebook co-founder Chris Hughes.

A pair of independent researchers at the University of Tennessee and the University of Pennsylvania reviewed data from the first year of the study, which did not overlap with the pandemic. A second study looking at year two is scheduled to be released next year. When the program started in February 2019, 28% of the people slated to get the free money had full-time jobs. One year later, 40% of those people had full-time jobs. A control group of people who did not get the money saw a 5 percentage point increase in full-time employment over that same time period.

"These numbers were incredible. I hardly believed them myself," said Stacia West, an assistant professor at the University of Tennessee who analyzed the data along with Amy Castro Baker, an assistant professor at the University of Pennsylvania.

The Stockton mayor who'd started the program told reporters to "tell your friends, tell your cousins, that guaranteed income did not make people stop working."

The above is from Slashdot.org on March 8, 2021

[up148]

28% of the people slated to get the free money had full-time jobs. One year later, 40% of those people had full-time jobs.

So, 12% of recipients got full time jobs during the test period. Was there a control group (not receiving funds) to see how many took full time jobs during the test period? What about the other 60% (receiving funds) who didn't have full time jobs at the beginning, any increase in taking of part time employment or did they just stay unemployed and took the money? What about the education of the group, the poverty level of the group and a host of other factors and how does than compare to those with jobs at the start or those taking new jobs? Very incomplete and slanted information IMHO. If you read the results, 60% actually just got an increase in unemployment or welfare. Who would expect most working individuals to quit their jobs for $6000 a year?

[Rufus T. Firefly]

28% of the people slated to get the free money had full-time jobs. One year later, 40% of those people had full-time jobs.

So, 12% of recipients got full time jobs during the test period. Was there a control group (not receiving funds) to see how many took full time jobs during the test period? What about the other 60% (receiving funds) who didn't have full time jobs at the beginning, any increase in taking of part time employment or did they just stay unemployed and took the money? What about the education of the group, the poverty level of the group and a host of other factors and how does than compare to those with jobs at the start or those taking new jobs? Very incomplete and slanted information IMHO. If you read the results, 60% actually just got an increase in unemployment or welfare. Who would expect most working individuals to quit their jobs for $6000 a year?

Lots of unanswered questions here and as per usual just a snippet of the entirety leaving it completely open to whatever interpretation one chooses.

I'm just a little surprised that the median household income there was only $46,033.

[sleepmac]

Yes, many unanswered questions!

Dan Weinhold

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Yes, many unanswered questions!

The way it's worded makes it almost impossible to know what's what -- playing with percentages makes for a great way to totally confuse and mislead.

[Neil]

12% increase in full time jobs in the income support group and 5% increase in the control group. Sounds like it worked to a degree. $6,000 a year anywhere in California isn't going to make all that much of a difference for many families. Housing costs are so high. More likely to go a long way in a rural setting where costs of living are much lower and poverty more endemic.

The pandemic relief bill that the House will probably pass this week has significant support for families with children, which is a bipartisan approach to making the country a better place for children and parents. Almost all developed countries have a similar program and this sort of universal income support hasn't been associated with people stopping working. No one can live on these subsidies at a level above subsistence. So the motivation to work is to be able to afford some of life's luxuries beyond shelter, food and very basic medical care. And it is universal for those who are not wealthy so there will be no bitching about pandering to the poor . If Mitt Romney and Chuck Schumer can agree on it, that would be progress.

https://www.cbpp.org/research/federal-t ... credit-and

[Rufus T. Firefly]

12% increase in full time jobs in the income support group and 5% increase in the control group. Sounds like it worked to a degree. $6,000 a year anywhere in California isn't going to make all that much of a difference for many families. Housing costs are so high. More likely to go a long way in a rural setting where costs of living are much lower and poverty more endemic.

Similar thoughts; more more tax payers,