Surprise, surprise, surprise

by liberal japonicus

From that Marxist rag, the Atlantic.

The researchers also found that the guaranteed income did not dissuade participants from working—adding to a large body of evidence showing that cash benefits do not dramatically shrink the labor force and in some cases help people work by giving them the stability they need to find and take a new job. 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. In an interview, Martin-West and Castro Baker suggested that the money created capacity for goal setting, risk taking, and personal investment.

and

Finally, the cash recipients were healthier, happier, and less anxious than their counterparts in the control group. “Cash is a better way to cure some forms of depression and anxiety than Prozac,” says Michael Tubbs, a former mayor of Stockton, who spearheaded the project. “So many of the illnesses we see in our community are a result of toxic stress and elevated cortisol levels and anxiety, directly attributed to income volatility and not having enough to cover your basic necessities. That’s true in the public-health crisis we’re in now.”

More work, less destitution, more family stability, less strained social networks, less stress, fewer incidences of homelessness, fewer skipped meals: This is what welfare could give the country.

Go for it.

Comments

[wj]

Always nice (at least for those of us with a fondness for facts and data) to have one's intuition substantiated by a study and evidence.

On it's face, this would seem to be strong support for a guaranteed basic income. At least, it refutes the more common arguments against it.

[CharlesWT]

A UBI would be preferable to a minimum wage.

[wj]

Easier and cheeper to administer, too. Just harder to get thru Congress.

[nous]

One also wonders how much that reduction of stress will do to reduce substance abuse in the form of self-medication.

That would be in line with Finland's experience:
https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2019/jun/03/its-a-miracle-helsinkis-radical-solution-to-homelessness

Tough love is counterproductive.

[sapient]

UBI is good, and I support it.

It doesn't substitute for work though, and a lot of women are losing work: https://fortune.com/2021/01/08/covid-job-losses-women-december-us-unemployment-rate/

No comment on the reason for this. Hope it's not irreparable.

[sapient]

No comment, because I'll be banned.

Maybe that will happen anyway.

[sapient]

Clearly, the job loss demographics aren't a biggie for labor rights people here.

[sapient]

Moms. Right?

[liberal japonicus]

Bye

[bobbyp]

UBI has been kicking around since the Nixon years.

This policy is often compared/contrasted to the Jobs Guarantee approach promoted by a lot of MMT'ers.

I'm for the mushy middle....both are worth serious consideration, and I am particularly in favor of any program that is Universal.

[hairshirthedonist]

I like the jobs guarantee because there’s so much good that good can be done, so much value that could be created, which the almighty market and its profit motive don’t appear to be furthering. Let’s plant some goddam trees!

[bobbyp]

I'm all for planting more trees! But sadly, a job is not just a job. I share Dr. Loomis' frustration.

[wj]

No obvious reason why we couldn't do both. UBI and public service jobs available as well. I grew up seeing the stuff the Civilian Construction Corps had done during the Depression.** Much of it ecological work (building flood control dams, fire roads, etc.), though the term wasn't yet in general use. Plenty more work like that which could use doing.

** Heck, our property had been a CCC camp. Probably why my Mom's family could afford it.

[wj]

Cross posted with Bobby, whose link give a great example of what we could do.