Re the popular post on UBI by Kelsey going around, and related studies:
I think it helped less than I “thought” it would if I was just modeling this with words. But the observed effects (or lack thereof) in the trials appears consistent with standard theoretical models of welfare economics. So I’m skeptical of people using this as an update against cash transfers, in favor of a welfare state, or anything substantial like that.
If you previously modeled utility as linear or logarithmic with income (or somewhere in between), these studies should be a update against your worldview. But I don’t think those were ever extremely plausible to begin with.
Tbc I have always been at least a little skeptical of UBI ever since I’ve heard of the idea. But I also buy the “poor people are poor because they don’t have enough money” argument, at least in low-income countries. So I don’t really have a dog in this fight.
(It’s mildly frustrating that The Argument doesn’t open up comments to people who aren’t paid subscribers, since I think this is an important point that most readers of that Kelsey post (and possibly the writer/editors) are not yet getting)
But the whole argument is a bit confusing and I think they’re talking past each other a bit. I don’t like Piper’s appeal to political will, given that the US is much richer than the Nordic countries yet in her conception can’t seem to spare a little bit of extra money to directly give to labour force non-participants.
Another story is that this is a standard diminishing returns case, and once we have removed all the very big blockers like non-functional rule of law, property rights, untreated food and water, as well as disease, it’s very hard to make the people who would still remain poor actually improve their lives, because all the easy wins have been taken, so what we are left with is the harder/near impossible poverty cases.
I feel like this does update me towards a welfare state to some degree. The correlation between welfare states and poorer people doing better (in rich countries) seems strong to overwhelming.
Then the idea of UBI came in, which might have been better than a welfare state (I was a believer :( ). Now the evidence shows that it’s clearly not.
So I’m back to thinking that the welfare state is the best option for rich countries.
Tbh, my honest if somewhat flippant response is that these trials should update us somewhat against marginal improvements in the welfare state in rich countries, and more towards investments in global health, animal welfare, and reductions in existential risk.
I’m sure this analysis will go over well to The Argument subscribers!
Ha that’s interesting I feel like that might be technically true (and would be the same for any internal spending), but the realistic question here is how rich countries figure out the best way to help their own people with their tax dollar.
Re the popular post on UBI by Kelsey going around, and related studies:
I think it helped less than I “thought” it would if I was just modeling this with words. But the observed effects (or lack thereof) in the trials appears consistent with standard theoretical models of welfare economics. So I’m skeptical of people using this as an update against cash transfers, in favor of a welfare state, or anything substantial like that.
If you previously modeled utility as linear or logarithmic with income (or somewhere in between), these studies should be a update against your worldview. But I don’t think those were ever extremely plausible to begin with.
See further discussions here:
https://x.com/LinchZhang/status/1958705316276969894
and here:
https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/AAZqD2pvydH7Jmaek/lorenzo-buonanno-s-shortform?commentId=rXLQJLTH7ejJHcJdt
Tbc I have always been at least a little skeptical of UBI ever since I’ve heard of the idea. But I also buy the “poor people are poor because they don’t have enough money” argument, at least in low-income countries. So I don’t really have a dog in this fight.
(It’s mildly frustrating that The Argument doesn’t open up comments to people who aren’t paid subscribers, since I think this is an important point that most readers of that Kelsey post (and possibly the writer/editors) are not yet getting)
It does seem like Kelsey is actually defending the idea that the US should prioritise welfare state programmes instead of cash transfers, not just talking about UBI. I think Matt Bruenig makes some good points about how income supplements are important and work in rich countries for people who can’t or don’t participate in the labour force (which seems tangential to UBI, which would be supplementing for those that do).
But the whole argument is a bit confusing and I think they’re talking past each other a bit. I don’t like Piper’s appeal to political will, given that the US is much richer than the Nordic countries yet in her conception can’t seem to spare a little bit of extra money to directly give to labour force non-participants.
Another story is that this is a standard diminishing returns case, and once we have removed all the very big blockers like non-functional rule of law, property rights, untreated food and water, as well as disease, it’s very hard to make the people who would still remain poor actually improve their lives, because all the easy wins have been taken, so what we are left with is the harder/near impossible poverty cases.
Yeah I think these two claims are essentially the same argument, framed in different ways.
I feel like this does update me towards a welfare state to some degree. The correlation between welfare states and poorer people doing better (in rich countries) seems strong to overwhelming.
Then the idea of UBI came in, which might have been better than a welfare state (I was a believer :( ). Now the evidence shows that it’s clearly not.
So I’m back to thinking that the welfare state is the best option for rich countries.
Tbh, my honest if somewhat flippant response is that these trials should update us somewhat against marginal improvements in the welfare state in rich countries, and more towards investments in global health, animal welfare, and reductions in existential risk.
I’m sure this analysis will go over well to The Argument subscribers!
Ha that’s interesting I feel like that might be technically true (and would be the same for any internal spending), but the realistic question here is how rich countries figure out the best way to help their own people with their tax dollar.
Preventing an AI takeover is a great way for countries to help their own people!