So, to be clear, a couple of vehicles are hard evidence of the underlying drivers of food bank use across a society of millions, but defined trials of universal basic income prove nothing?
2 Likes
Conversely, you can’t say that everybody wants to work.
I can remember a homeless person rolling up to a shelter in a Golf GTi complete with chauffeur. I mean I remember it distinctly because it was my car, I was driving and I was volunteering for the Salvation Army that weekend but that tramp arrived in style.
2 Likes
Do you know their personal situation?
2 Likes
Of the trials you’re aware of, are there any figures of how many of that trial population gave up working and decided to live off the UBI?
The Ontario trial had 4000 participants, and a control population of 2000 (monitored but using established mix of supports). Importantly, under the program, participants were allowed to work, which they would not be allowed to do under traditional social supports without substantial clawbacks. Under UBI, clawbacks were simpler, not 1:1, and occurred at a higher threshold.
Of the control group, none exited the support network during the portion of the trial period that was allowed to run. In the UBI group, 74% of those working when enrolled continued working. Of the 26%, over half entered education/training. Critically, it appears that roughly 5% of the participants were left in a position at the early termination of the program that led to them not returning to traditional supports. That is far above the expected rate for Ontario’s social support system.
Unfortunately, the project was defunded along with the program, so the data just sort of stops. Most of the participants not previously working also entered training or education, but the outcomes are simply not known. The original term had been set for 3 years, it appears some participants had made choices reflecting that (2-year training programs, etc)
I don’t have much sense of how Ontario’s system compares to the UK’s in terms of relative standard of living.
3 Likes
Ever been abused by somebody carrying an iPhone because you won’t give them food?
Yeah. using personal experience to discuss things. Seemingly unique to me.
I tend to use different data for thinking about social policy versus what I use for restaurant reviews
2 Likes
I’m not saying that. I’m saying that the results of a multitude of UBI trials show that when people’s basic needs are met, they don’t tend to just put their feet up and kick back.
1 Like
The problem with personal experience is that it’s full of confirmation bias.
You already believe that people are lazy shits out to screw the system for what they can, so when someone rocks up at a food bank in a Prius that is going to stick with your far more that all the people shuffling through who you barely notice.
This is why we shouldn’t use personal experience when making wide ranging policy decisions.
1 Like
Humanity in a sentence. Except those who really do graft for their family, kids, legacy etc. I’m currently putting the washing out in the sun drinking beer. A day off if you will. Feeling guilty about all the paperwork my accountant wants. The thing with confirmation bias is it works every way. Counting the hits and ignoring the misses.
Exactly. But one of us is ignoring their own biases and pointing out what UBI trials show, and the other is noting that someone once turned up in a posh car.
I’d hate my outlook to be that bleak.
Interesting that the results of the trials confirm the concept, no? Confirmation bias? Would you like a trite Yes Minister clip?
Thanks. Basically very few gave up working, spent all their money, upgraded their car and decided that shopping at food banks was the way forward.
I am a market conservative, very much in the Friedman vein. I absolutely hate the idea of people living cradle to grave at the expense of the state. That is what we have now. People get stuck on support rolls, and never seem to come off no matter how miserable their existence is made. My hatred of the idea is not in any way ameliorated by that misery, I don’t particularly hate them so it is not satisfying, it is just depressing.
If we accept the idea that we do not want people starving in the streets, and some basic level of support must be provided, the problem becomes doing as little as possible without producing distortions in the economy. Having an underclass stuck on support is more expensive in the long term. Our existing system absolutely fails in that regard.
I’d rather fund a young single mother who has made a dumpster fire of her life to get two years of vocational training as a dental hygenist or something and have her teach her daughter whom she is productively able to support than support her and her daughter (and probably more) in misery across at least two generations. Even if only works half the time, decades of avoided costs plus incremental tax revenue makes it work.
6 Likes
No, in that trial at least getting rid of the 1:1 clawback appeared to have a strongly positive effect. Obviously in well-being and standard of living, but also in trajectory out of the support system. Anecdotal only, but one of the participants who worked in a low-paying museum job was able to take an evening program to add some basic knowledge of conservation techniques, which led directly to her employer moving her into an entry-level curatorial position. The program ended before she completed her program, but in that instance she was able to continue with the support of her employer.
4 Likes
…while bitching on a football forum about people not working hard enough