Stockton Welfare Experiment

[Ivanstone]

TLDR:
*"The researchers Stacia Martin-West of the University of Tennessee and Amy Castro Baker of the University of Pennsylvania collected and analyzed data from individuals who received $500 a month and from individuals who did not."
*"The cash transfer reduced income volatility, for one: Households getting the cash saw their month-to-month earnings fluctuate 46 percent, versus the control group’s 68 percent."
*"In the Stockton study, the share of participants with a full-time job rose 12 percentage points, versus five percentage points in the control group."

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/ar...ment-pays-off/

[Doctor Amadeus]

Welfare doesn't make people lazy, it does not create the mythical Welfare Queens, and getting welfare neither makes one unwilling to work. What welfare does do is it provides for the basic needs of individuals who otherwise may or may not have means or that ability on their own, whether it be indefinite or temporary.

The Idea that welfare Hurts instead of hurts with the stupid premise such as to teach a man to fish bullshit is a BIG part of the problem. I speak from experience, as someone who grew up in a single parent house hold on food stamps and sections 8. Nobody and I mean none I met then or now on occasion fall into any of the bullshit stereotypes people lay out.

Don't get me wrong, I am not suggesting if you are unemployed you should be given everything others work for, but things like food, shelter medicine these should be rights not a privilege.

[Milchshake]

TLDR:
*"The researchers Stacia Martin-West of the University of Tennessee and Amy Castro Baker of the University of Pennsylvania collected and analyzed data from individuals who received $500 a month and from individuals who did not."
*"The cash transfer reduced income volatility, for one: Households getting the cash saw their month-to-month earnings fluctuate 46 percent, versus the control group’s 68 percent."
*"In the Stockton study, the share of participants with a full-time job rose 12 percentage points, versus five percentage points in the control group."

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/ar...ment-pays-off/

I saw this on NPR, good to see it's getting out there. There needs to be coverage on what UBI is, and how it benefits society.


I used to be very skeptical of UBI. Mostly because the early discourse was dominated by Yang fanbois and /r/HateWorking. Who tended to mispresent UBI as a replacement for all income, or replacement for any work.

But this study demonstrates it is extremely valuable to people in need. It helps to stabilize their lives. Really deserves more signal boosting.

[Elegiac]

*points at the MINCOME experiment*

I am once again asking for John Calvin to pony up and provide some evidence for his beliefs.

[DarkTZeratul]

This should not come as any great surprise, as multiple such experiments have been conducted and all have shown essentially the same result: give people the money to cover the basics, and they'll be happier and more likely to find a decent job.

[Benggaul]

This should not come as any great surprise, as multiple such experiments have been conducted and all have shown essentially the same result: give people the money to cover the basics, and they'll be happier and more likely to find a decent job.

And--because this is the point that has to be made to the pearl-clutching capitalists--they SPEND the money. First on shit they need, then on shit they want. There's really not a defensible downside for anyone in the equation.

[DarkTZeratul]

And--because this is the point that has to be made to the pearl-clutching capitalists--they SPEND the money. First on shit they need, then on shit they want. There's really not a defensible downside for anyone in the equation.

AND they're then less likely to need supplemental government support. If we took our existing welfare programs (cost of about $1.1 trillion annually) and replaced them with sending every adult a check every month, we'd break even at around $438 per person per month. By pretty much any metric, that would be far more impactful for the people who need it and far more beneficial for the economy as whole.

[Benggaul]

AND they're then less likely to need supplemental government support.

One could argue that the 500$ (or whatever figure is deemed best) is supplemental government support, but I take your point. The folks with the power to make it so don't seem to, though.

[Cthulhu 2020]

AND they're then less likely to need supplemental government support. If we took our existing welfare programs (cost of about $1.1 trillion annually) and replaced them with sending every adult a check every month, we'd break even at around $438 per person per month. By pretty much any metric, that would be far more impactful for the people who need it and far more beneficial for the economy as whole.

Considering Social Security and Medicare are so often rolled into that "total spending on welfare" number I'd say we need to still give more attention to medical care overall, as well as supplemental income for those too old to work. I don't think we need to replace such programs, but we certainly could use $500 for every adult along with ore for family support. Which, if you just took 1.1 trillion and divided it by our current population, you were also including children in that calculation. Kids themselves might not need $500, but their parents could use at least half that.

[Endus]

And--because this is the point that has to be made to the pearl-clutching capitalists--they SPEND the money. First on shit they need, then on shit they want. There's really not a defensible downside for anyone in the equation.

It's the most obvious truth that somehow goes unremarked.

If you give money to people who are in desperate need of money, that money bounces right out of their pockets and back into the economy. They needed money, because they had purchases and payments they needed to make. The turnaround on increasing demand in the economy is on the scale of days, not weeks or months or years. The same just doesn't hold true for even the middle class, let alone upper middle and beyond.

Of course, capitalists know this. Capitalists have no interest in boosting the economy's productivity as high as possible. They care about maximizing profits. And exploiting their workers allows them to generally make more profits than otherwise. If the economy stutters along and continually falls into recession because they keep stepping on its neck to squeeze out more profits, who cares? Not their problem!

[Bodakane]

Conservatives hate the idea of give aways, because they are insecure. And having more or thinking they could have more is the only way they feel value. Literally everything they stand for and cry about is due to their fear and insecurities.

They are insecure that minorities are coming for their women (that they know they struggle pleasing) so they want to keep them down economically.
They fear minorities will take their country from them so they want walls built and immigration to be stricter.
They fear minorities will take their stuff so they want guns.
They are insecure in their masculinity and are scared of their same sex feelings, so they want to shun the LGBTQ community.
They are insecure about their own intelligence so they belittle higher education and science.
They are insecure in their own morality, which is why they want religion to dictate it for them....then legislate it so everyone has to follow it.

The list goes on.

[DarkTZeratul]

Which, if you just took 1.1 trillion and divided it by our current population, you were also including children in that calculation.

I was not; my calculation was with adults only.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

And--because this is the point that has to be made to the pearl-clutching capitalists--they SPEND the money. First on shit they need, then on shit they want. There's really not a defensible downside for anyone in the equation.

They just can't understand that though...because they hoard more wealth than they spend. Even when they go out and buy a new Yacht or whatever...they are sitting on more money than they are spending. They think that if people get UBI...everyone will just hoard it. That's how out of touch these people are. They've never been in the situation where you have to choose between paying the phone bill this month and feeding your children.

[Mihalik]

Conservatives hate the idea of give aways, because they are insecure.

I sometimes wonder, how much of "conservative economics" is really just protestant theology?

[Bodakane]

I sometimes wonder, how much of "conservative economics" is really just protestant theology?

Zero. It’s literally all insecurity. That is why Trump became their cult leader. No one on the planet more personifies false bravado masking deep insecurity.

[XDurionX]

I honestly can't believe, that we still have to argue not having starving, desperate people with nothing left to lose is a good thing, in 2021.

[Ivanstone]

Zero. It’s literally all insecurity. That is why Trump became their cult leader. No one on the planet more personifies false bravado masking deep insecurity.

No, a lot of does have to do with the "Protestant Work Ethic". It equates morality with having a strong work ethic. A person who works hard is making money and a person making a lot of money is therefore more moral. The latter part is where everything falls off the rails although its poor theology in general.

Trump is viewed as a hard working rich man and his wealth is proof of his morality. How many times has his supporters called him a business genius and not the spoiled rich kid who stole from anyone he could?

Racism is a big part of it too.

[Mihalik]

Zero. It’s literally all insecurity. That is why Trump became their cult leader. No one on the planet more personifies false bravado masking deep insecurity.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Robert_Malthus

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protestant_work_ethic

A lot of the supply side economics, bootstraps economics and prosperity gospel seems to be rooted in Protestant theology.

[Bodakane]

No, a lot of does have to do with the "Protestant Work Ethic". It equates morality with having a strong work ethic. A person who works hard is making money and a person making a lot of money is therefore more moral. The latter part is where everything falls off the rails although its poor theology in general.

Trump is viewed as a hard working rich man and his wealth is proof of his morality. How many times has his supporters called him a business genius and not the spoiled rich kid who stole from anyone he could?

Racism is a big part of it too.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Robert_Malthus

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protestant_work_ethic

A lot of the supply side economics, bootstraps economics and prosperity gospel seems to be rooted in Protestant theology.

Sure, the slogans from the protestant work ethic are still used but they aren't fueling the motivation anymore. It is all white male insecurity.

[Ivanstone]

Sure, the slogans from the protestant work ethic are still used but they aren't fueling the motivation anymore. It is all white male insecurity.

That insecurity was always there and quite a lot of them are still very religious.