LW - On the UBI Paper by Zvi

The Nonlinear Library: LessWrong

Link to original article
Welcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: On the UBI Paper, published by Zvi on September 4, 2024 on LessWrong.
Would a universal basic income (UBI) work? What would it do?
Many people agree July's RCT on giving people a guaranteed income, and its paper from Eva Vivalt, Elizabeth Rhodes, Alexander W. Bartik, David E. Broockman and Sarah Miller was, despite whatever flaws it might have, the best data we have so far on the potential impact of UBI. There are many key differences from how UBI would look if applied for real, but this is the best data we have.
This study was primarily funded by Sam Altman, so whatever else he may be up to, good job there. I do note that my model of 'Altman several years ago' is more positive than mine of Altman now, and past actions like this are a lot of the reason I give him so much benefit of the doubt.
They do not agree on what conclusions we should draw. This is not a simple 'UBI is great' or 'UBI it does nothing.'
I see essentially four responses.
1. The first group says this shows UBI doesn't work. That's going too far. I think the paper greatly reduces the plausibility of the best scenarios, but I don't think it rules UBI out as a strategy, especially if it is a substitute for other transfers.
2. The second group says this was a disappointing result for UBI. That UBI could still make sense as a form of progressive redistribution, but likely at a cost of less productivity so long as people impacted are still productive. I agree.
3. The third group did its best to spin this into a positive result. There was a lot of spin here, and use of anecdotes, and arguments as soldiers. Often these people were being very clear they were true believers and advocates, that want UBI now, and were seeking the bright side. Respect? There were some bright spots that they pointed out, and no one study over three years should make you give up, but this was what it was and I wish people wouldn't spin like that.
4. The fourth group was some mix of 'if brute force (aka money) doesn't solve your problem you're not using enough' and also 'but work is bad, actually, and leisure is good.' That if we aren't getting people not to work then the system is not functioning, or that $1k/month wasn't enough to get the good effects, or both. I am willing to take a bold 'people working more is mostly good' stance, for the moment, although AI could change that.
And while I do think that a more permanent or larger support amount would do some interesting things, I wouldn't expect to suddenly see polarity reverse.
I am so dedicated to actually reading this paper that it cost me $5. Free academia now.
RTFP (Read the Paper): Core Design
Core design was that there were 1,000 low-income individuals randomized into getting $1k/month for 3 years, or $36k total. A control group of 2,000 others got $50/month, or $1800 total. Average household income in the study before transfers was $29,900.
They then studied what happened.
Before looking at the results, what are the key differences between this and UBI?
Like all studies of UBI, this can only be done for a limited population, and it only lasts a limited amount of time.
If you tell me I am getting $1,000/month for life, then that makes me radically richer, and also radically safer. In extremis you can plan to live off that, or it can be a full fallback. Which is a large part of the point, and a lot of the danger as well.
If instead you give me that money for only three years, then I am slightly less than $36k richer. Which is nice, but impacts my long term prospects much less. It is still a good test of the 'give people money' hypothesis but less good at testing UBI.
The temporary form, and also the limited scope, means that it won't cause a cultural shift and changing of norms. Those changes might be good or bad, and they could overshadow other impacts.
Does this move tow...