cross-posted from: https://piefed.world/c/economy/p/1372578/1000-month-for-3-years-study-finds-universal-basic-income-reduces-work-hours-but-doesn-t

We study the causal impacts of income on a rich array of employment outcomes, leveraging an experiment in which 1,000 low-income individuals were randomized into receiving $1,000 per month unconditionally for three years, with a control group of 2,000 participants receiving $50/month. We gather detailed survey data, administrative records, and data from a mobile phone app.

The transfer caused total individual income excluding the transfers to fall by about $1,900/year relative to the control group and a 4.2 percentage point decrease in labor market participation. Participants reduced their work hours as a result of the transfers by 1-2 hours/week and participants’ partners reduced their work hours by a comparable amount. Among other categories of time use, the greatest increase generated by the transfer was in time spent on leisure. Despite asking detailed questions about amenities, we find no impact on quality of employment, and our confidence intervals can rule out even small improvements.

Treated participants broadly increase expenditures, led by spending on non-durable goods and services, with smaller increases in spending on durable goods and human capital. We observe no significant effects on degree attainment, though the magnitudes of the estimated effects generally appear larger among younger participants.

Measures of subjective well-being are higher among treated participants in the first year of the transfers but then revert to control group levels.

Overall, our results suggest a moderate labor supply effect that does not appear offset by other productive activities.

Yeah... it only improves life quality... nobody wants that...

Measures of subjective well-being are higher among treated participants in the first year of the transfers but then revert to control group levels.

The old hedonic treadmill at work again

this isn't universal basic income, UBI is supposed to cover everything someone would need to survive: rent, bills, food, clothing, education, healthcare, etc.

if they wanted to boost education, they need to provide enough flippin' money that the education is free.

this just in: the barriers-to-access that intentionally prevent access are fulfilling their intended purpose 😒

"The conclusions of this research do not necessarily reflect the opinions or official position of the Texas Education Agency, the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board, Texas Workforce Commission, or the State of Texas."

They mentioned some NSF funding then this. I'm sorry but I'm not going to take Oxford at their word, at least the abstract, if they're doing research at the behest of, and paid for by, Texas.

It's a start. And education doesn't have to mean full blown college enrollment becoming a F/T student. It could be getting certifications, taking a class here or there. If you're working full time with a family, it's not likely going to be that school is top priority either, but possible. Furthering education at a community college or online is more likely in this scenario.

idk, i'm wary of a study doing something that isn't UBI, but still calling it UBI, then using its not-UBI-findings to frame UBI in a negative light

maybe i'm just jaded / overly suspicious, but it feels like something that employers are going to point to, to say that UBI won't help people's wellbeing long-term & will only result in a decrease in the workforce. hopefully i'm wrong here though! 🤞😮‍💨

Humans are highly adaptable for both good and bad. I've heard that even people who have lost their ability to see or walk are back at baseline happiness in about a year.

Overall, our results suggest a moderate labor supply effect that does not appear offset by other productive activities.

Okay but also fuck you.

Well, it's a test. If there's limited funding, maybe better to test with more people less money each than a smaller pool of data and more money

Not necessarily.
That might be the ideal, but less money should still help.

Yep

This looks to me like a reflection of a couple of things:

Employment quality is beyond control of participants. Dispelling the notion that working harder or less harder gets you better or worse jobs.

Short term well being is tied to short term good, with a minor trickle into long term goods. ( Like you may get most of your extra money into higher quality juice/butter/bread and in the case that your refrigerator breaks you are more likely to afford a new one).

Wellbeing increases for one year and then goes back to where it was: there's research on people impacted by major life changing events such as becoming wheel chair bound. Its findings is that people happiness dips temporarily then returns to their previous baseline. This research seems to confirm that happiness/wellbeing is a personal trait that can't be changed long term.

I just made a reply post where I'm convinced that NOTHING changes well being long term. And I think reducing outcomes to either hours worked per person ( that only matters to billionaires , that were once called owners class ) or to wellbeing, is disingenuous.

The main source of wellbeing should NOT even be tied to income. We should measure how much satisfaction people have going to kindergarten theatre or weekend lunches with friends. But economists and presidents don't give a shit about that.

INCOME should never be tied to oppressive, biased and unfair market forces and rigged laws.

The only war that matters is class war.

Pretty disappointing.