This is not a bad outcome in itself … have a chance of achieving more that way
Would you like to provide some data/arguments in support of this assertion?
one which allows for less government involvement
That really depends on the details of the implementation. You can structure UBI so that it provides either independence from or dependence on the government.
Would you like to provide some data/arguments in support of this assertion?
The Mincome experiment in Canada is relevant. It’s widely reported that reduction in labor supply was largely explained by teenagers in school and women with pre-school-aged children. Two groups with especially high opportunity-costs of working, and the former with generally low productivity—quite close to what theory predicts.
Is it? That experiment didn’t involve that much money (if I’m reading the Wikipedia table right, between $3,800 and $5,500 annually) and explicitly reduced the payment if you were working—so it looks more like welfare (granted, of the no-questions-asked kind) and less like UBI to me.
But there is a bigger question: what is a “not a bad outcome”? Obviously, if you pump external money into a community, that community’s life will get better. But on the scale of a country, there is (usually) no external money, so you are just redistributing money from some people to some other people. At this point the issue is, basically, economic efficiency. If you give $X to a group of people, what happens to their economic output? If it did not grow by at least $X, well, you can justify this transfer by a variety of moral arguments (justice, fairness, etc.), but there is no economic justification—the “achieving more that way” part does not work.
At this point the issue is, basically, economic efficiency. If you give $X to a group of people, what happens to their economic output? If it did not grow by at least $X
That’s not how economics works. People differ massively in the value they would put on the marginal dollar that they earn, and this is the main reason why giving some “free” money to low-earners can make economic sense, even if that money is raised via taxes.
People differ massively in the value they would put on the marginal dollar
Yes, of course.
giving some “free” money to low-earners can make economic sense
When you say “make economic sense”, what do you mean? If you mean that the aggregate utility of the society would increase, that’s not how economics work.
Would you like to provide some data/arguments in support of this assertion?
That really depends on the details of the implementation. You can structure UBI so that it provides either independence from or dependence on the government.
The Mincome experiment in Canada is relevant. It’s widely reported that reduction in labor supply was largely explained by teenagers in school and women with pre-school-aged children. Two groups with especially high opportunity-costs of working, and the former with generally low productivity—quite close to what theory predicts.
Is it? That experiment didn’t involve that much money (if I’m reading the Wikipedia table right, between $3,800 and $5,500 annually) and explicitly reduced the payment if you were working—so it looks more like welfare (granted, of the no-questions-asked kind) and less like UBI to me.
But there is a bigger question: what is a “not a bad outcome”? Obviously, if you pump external money into a community, that community’s life will get better. But on the scale of a country, there is (usually) no external money, so you are just redistributing money from some people to some other people. At this point the issue is, basically, economic efficiency. If you give $X to a group of people, what happens to their economic output? If it did not grow by at least $X, well, you can justify this transfer by a variety of moral arguments (justice, fairness, etc.), but there is no economic justification—the “achieving more that way” part does not work.
That’s not how economics works. People differ massively in the value they would put on the marginal dollar that they earn, and this is the main reason why giving some “free” money to low-earners can make economic sense, even if that money is raised via taxes.
Yes, of course.
When you say “make economic sense”, what do you mean? If you mean that the aggregate utility of the society would increase, that’s not how economics work.