Right away, the data clearly showed that cash helped people spend more on their basic needs. Those who received $1,000 monthly spent $67 more per month than the lower-paid group on food, $52 more on rent and $50 more on transportation. They also spent about 26 percent more financially supporting others, typically family members or children, suggesting that the beneficiaries of guaranteed income programs extend beyond the actual participants.
Some of the volunteers told the researchers that the money allowed them to stop living paycheck to paycheck and start imagining what they could do if they had more financial breathing room. Karina Dotson, OpenResearch’s research and insights manager, often heard participants talk about the cash giving them a “sense of self.” She said it “gave them head space to dream, to believe, to hope, to imagine a future they couldn’t imagine before.” Other research has found similar outcomes.
Those who received $1,000 monthly were 5 percent more likely to report having a budget, spending an average of 20 minutes more a month on finances than the group that received $50 monthly. The money also affected how much medical care people sought, how much they considered entrepreneurship or additional schooling and even the kinds of jobs they took. Those choices varied widely from person to person.
Has there ever been a study that showed it wasn't effective? When can we end these experiments and just implement it?
Not as long as Republicans have any majority. And potentially when hell freezes over.
Honestly I imagine right wingers in most countries would rather see our species die out altogether rather than see people be receiving money like this. Edit: replaced "conservatives" with "right wingers" because I don't believe the current extreme right-wing attitudes represent conservatives anymore.
Literally 95% of the German parliament is opposed to it. It's not just right wingers, they're just the most opposed.
The Green party supports increasing existing social services up until and slightly beyond the minimum required to live (and not be homeless) and opposes sanctions for those who refuse to work.
The "social" democrats - conservative lite to be exact - support a "right to work" instead of UBI. Work is great and it's more than making money, you achieve self-determination through work etc etc.
Every other party further right is absolutely insane and their proposals can and should be completely ignored.
Of the 5% who aren't opposed, a quarter is made up of "left conservatives" who advocate for social spending but heavily oppose any and all LGBTQ+ rights, immigration and nature/climate protection.
this is common in most of western/northern europe, to the point that most social services for citizens or 'integration' support for immigrants ends at employment. the assumption being that any employment is all anyone really needs.
you've been fired from your last three jobs because of your worsening depressive spirals? but it didn't stop you from getting that temp job last week! do some yoga or something smh.
you're a migrant who doesn't know the local language? well, it didn't stop you from getting a job! take a night class or something smh.
you want to switch careers or further your education? but you're already in a career; clearly your education is fine! attend a conference or something smh.
you have no friends or family and no freetime to develop your hobbies and interests? but you have a job! get drunk with your coworkers on Fridays or something smh.
workwork. okiedokie. zugzug.
No real need to replace it. Conservative is supposed to mean fiscally conservative, and that hasn't existed in most of our lifetimes. It has fully been co-opted by the party of family values, anti-education, and pro criminal "justice" system and has been for well over 50 years now.
I suspect the studies with small numbers of spread out participants are missing the inflation effects.
We need a study of a whole town to see if giving everyone extra money is going to make the price of everything go up by the same amount.
I'm hopeful this is a good idea and would likely vote for it, but I worry a bit that it will be pointless in the end.
One of my favorite charities, GiveDirectly, researched the effects of large cash transfers on inflation in Kenya.
Vox has a good write-up: https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2019/11/25/20973151/givedirectly-basic-income-kenya-study-stimulus
Here's a direct link to the published study, updated Nov. 2022: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.3982/ECTA17945
If you're curious, they have info. about many of their research projects (a number of which are published and peer reviewed) at https://www.givedirectly.org/research-at-give-directly/
I suspect the problem is they end up being targeted studies directed toward low-to-zero income individuals because trying to sustain that kind of disbursement across an entire town, even a smallish one of about 6-10K people, would be out of scope without a research grant approaching a billion dollars. That feels pretty unlikely to happen.