Hello,

This study is from some months ago and I'm slightly surprised that I don't see it on the forum. 

"The Employment Effects of a Guaranteed Income: Experimental Evidence from Two U.S. States" (I'm reading that it was funded "by the founders of ChatGPT".)

Full article be found here.

The abstract makes the results sound more bad than good? However, the conclusion (on page 32) says that the results are both good and bad for UBI: (bold mine)

Our results provide support for both sides of this debate. 

On the one hand, we do find that the transfer we study generated significant reductions in individual and household market earnings. The reductions in individual labor supply we observe are smaller than what has been documented in some settings (e.g., Golosov et al., 2023), but larger than what has been observed in others (e.g., Imbens, Rubin and Sacerdote, 2001; Cesarini et al., 2017). The spillovers onto other household members–who also reduced their labor supply in response to the transfer–implies the total amount of work withdrawn from the market is fairly substantial. Further, we do not find evidence of the type of job quality or human capital improvements that advocates have hoped might accompany the provision of greater resources, and our confidence intervals allow us to rule out even very small effects of the transfer on these outcomes. 

On the other hand, we find that participants showed more interest in entrepreneurial activities and willingness to take risks due to the transfers, which could improve future earnings and lead to additional economic benefits over time. And, exploratory analysis of subgroups suggests that not all responses to the transfer were identical: older participants experienced very little change in either labor supply or human capital, while younger participants reduced time spent working but appeared to pursue more education. Finally, the fact that some of the transfer was used to reduce work shows the high value that participants place on leisure at the margin.

What do you think?

  1. Is the large body of evidence showing the pros of UBI, specific to low-income countries?
  2. Does this study potentially show something important about UBI in the US? Is UBI in the US a bad idea? Or at least, are there cons of UBI that need to be carefully guarded against or minimized? (And if so, how do we minimize those cons?)
  3. What would a future US study on this look like? Was this one missing something? (Was the amount of money too small?)

I'm not an expert so if I am missing something, forgive me. I am posting here in hopes to learn.

Thank you :)

11

0
0

Reactions

0
0
Comments4


Sorted by Click to highlight new comments since:

By definition, a UBI takes a pool of money and redistributes it equally to everyone in a community, regardless of personal need. However, with the same pool of total funding, one can typically deliver more efficient benefits by targeting people with the greatest need, such as those in dire poverty or those who have been struck by bad luck.

If you imagine being a philanthropist who has access to $8 billion, it seems unlikely that the best way to spend this money would be to give everyone on Earth $1. Yet this scheme is equivalent to a UBI merely framed in the context of private charity rather than government welfare.

It would require an enormous tax hike to provide everyone in a large community (say, the United States) a significant amount of yearly income through a UBI, such as $1k per month. And taxes are not merely income transfers: they have deadweight loss, which lowers total economic output. The intuition here is simple: when a good or service is taxed, that decreases the incentive to produce that good or service. As a consequence of the tax, fewer people will end up receiving the benefits provided by these goods and services.

Given these considerations, even if you think that unconditional income transfers are a good idea, it seems quite unlikely that a UBI would be the best way to redistribute income. A more targeted approach that combines the most efficient forms of taxation (such as land value taxes) and sends this money to the most worthy welfare recipients (such as impoverished children) would likely be far better on utilitarian grounds.

Thank you for your insights Matthew, that all makes a lot of sense and helps me understand.

I wonder if there is an income bracket low enough in the US, where UBI focused just for that group, would have net positive impact. (This study was $29,900 average household income for the participants.) Or, if there is going to be a net negative for UBI in the US just no matter... even before getting detailed about potential counter-factual scenarios.

Funny that UBI seems to do better than more targeted approaches, in low-income countries... but in high-income countries, even for the poorest within those countries, more targeted approaches may be the better option.

You might find this post interesting, which covered this and 3 other similar recent economics papers

oh wow great find. I did not see that in searching the forum for it, as I figured the poster would include the title of the study in the text. - thank you !! happy to see someone else confirming that this is a potentially significant study, at least in UBI world.

Curated and popular this week
 ·  · 11m read
 · 
Does a food carbon tax increase animal deaths and/or the total time of suffering of cows, pigs, chickens, and fish? Theoretically, this is possible, as a carbon tax could lead consumers to substitute, for example, beef with chicken. However, this is not per se the case, as animal products are not perfect substitutes.  I'm presenting the results of my master's thesis in Environmental Economics, which I re-worked and published on SSRN as a pre-print. My thesis develops a model of animal product substitution after a carbon tax, slaughter tax, and a meat tax. When I calibrate[1] this model for the U.S., there is a decrease in animal deaths and duration of suffering following a carbon tax. This suggests that a carbon tax can reduce animal suffering. Key points * Some animal products are carbon-intensive, like beef, but causes relatively few animal deaths or total time of suffering because the animals are large. Other animal products, like chicken, causes relatively many animal deaths or total time of suffering because the animals are small, but cause relatively low greenhouse gas emissions. * A carbon tax will make some animal products, like beef, much more expensive. As a result, people may buy more chicken. This would increase animal suffering, assuming that farm animals suffer. However, this is not per se the case. It is also possible that the direct negative effect of a carbon tax on chicken consumption is stronger than the indirect (positive) substitution effect from carbon-intensive products to chicken. * I developed a non-linear market model to predict the consumption of different animal products after a tax, based on own-price and cross-price elasticities. * When calibrated for the United States, this model predicts a decrease in the consumption of all animal products considered (beef, chicken, pork, and farmed fish). Therefore, the modelled carbon tax is actually good for animal welfare, assuming that animals live net-negative lives. * A slaughter tax (a
MarieF🔸
 ·  · 4m read
 · 
Summary * After >2 years at Hi-Med, I have decided to step down from my role. * This allows me to complete my medical residency for long-term career resilience, whilst still allowing part-time flexibility for direct charity work. It also allows me to donate more again. * Hi-Med is now looking to appoint its next Executive Director; the application deadline is 26 January 2025. * I will join Hi-Med’s governing board once we have appointed the next Executive Director. Before the role When I graduated from medical school in 2017, I had already started to give 10% of my income to effective charities, but I was unsure as to how I could best use my medical degree to make this world a better place. After dipping my toe into nonprofit fundraising (with Doctors Without Borders) and working in a medical career-related start-up to upskill, a talk given by Dixon Chibanda at EAG London 2018 deeply inspired me. I formed a rough plan to later found an organisation that would teach Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD)-specific psychotherapeutic techniques to lay people to make evidence-based treatment of PTSD scalable. I started my medical residency in psychosomatic medicine in 2019, working for a specialised clinic for PTSD treatment until 2021, then rotated to child and adolescent psychiatry for a year and was half a year into the continuation of my specialisation training at a third hospital, when Akhil Bansal, whom I met at a recent EAG in London, reached out and encouraged me to apply for the ED position at Hi-Med - an organisation that I knew through my participation in their introductory fellowship (an academic paper about the outcomes of this first cohort can be found here). I seized the opportunity, applied, was offered the position, and started working full-time in November 2022.  During the role I feel truly privileged to have had the opportunity to lead High Impact Medicine for the past two years. My learning curve was steep - there were so many new things to
Sarah Cheng
 ·  · 2m read
 · 
TL;DR: The EA Opportunity Board is back up and running! Check it out here, and subscribe to the bi-weekly newsletter here. It’s now owned by the CEA Online Team. EA Opportunities is a project aimed at helping people find part-time and volunteer opportunities to build skills or contribute to impactful work. Their core products are the Opportunity Board and the associated bi-weekly newsletter, plus related promos across social media and Slack automations. It was started and run by students and young professionals for a long time, and has had multiple iterations over the years. The project has been on pause for most of 2024 and the student who was running it no longer has capacity, so the CEA Online Team is taking it over to ensure that it continues to operate. I want to say a huge thank you to everyone who has run this project over the three years that it’s been operating, including Sabrina C, Emma W, @michel, @Jacob Graber, and Varun. From talking with some of them and reading through their docs, I can tell that it means a lot to them, and they have some grand visions for how the project could grow in the future. I’m happy that we are in a position to take on this project on short notice and keep it afloat, and I’m excited for either our team or someone else to push it further in the future. Our plans We plan to spend some time evaluating the project in early 2025. We have some evidence that it has helped people find impactful opportunities and stay motivated to do good, but we do not yet have a clear sense of the cost-effectiveness of running it[1]. We are optimistic enough about it that we will at least keep it running through the end of 2025, but we are not currently committing to owning it in the longer term. The Online Team runs various other projects, such as this Forum, the EA Newsletter, and effectivealtruism.org. I think the likeliest outcome is for us to prioritize our current projects (which all reach a larger audience) over EA Opportunities, which
Recent opportunities in Global health & development