New Study: A $500 monthly basic income led to significant employment growth, enhanced savings, improved debt management, and better quality of life
New Study: A $500 monthly basic income led to significant employment growth, enhanced savings, improved debt management, and better quality of life
A $500 monthly boost led to significant employment growth, enhanced savings, improved debt management, and better quality of life for diverse King County residents facing poverty. The Guaranteed Basic Income (GBI) Pilot, designed by the Workforce Development Council of Seattle-King County (WDC) and
Employment nearly doubled from 37% to 66%, and job quality dramatically increased with greater employee benefits coverage: retirement plans nearly tripled, and life and disability insurance participation showed considerable improvements. Moreover, the ability to cover expenses was consistently boosted, and the savings rate among families with children leapt from 0% to 42%.
If this helps with all of that, how do they prevent companies from pricing it in?
They already raise prices without rising wages, because prices are not tied to income.
He means reduce wages by $500/month to account for the existence of the program
It's a valid question I think; I kind of suspect that it doesn't work that way (that the outcome would be more similar to "wah nobody wants to work for $12/hr anymore" and no workers), but I don't know enough to say for sure.
- You can't go lower than minimum wage. Those making minimum wage would benefit the most.
- Companies still have to keep competitive salaries to maintain a workforce. If they lower their salaries they risk losing employees who can choose to go somewhere that doesn't lower salaries.
- It won't cost employers anything to keep the same salary. This money would presumably be coming from reallocations of taxes that are currently being collected. For the employer it's like getting a free raise for their employees.
companies don't need to price it in because the consumers will just increase spending habits.
small studies like this don't work because people are heavily incentivized to save or pay down debt, knowing it's a study that can evaporate at any minute changes behaviors.
What we actually need is universal housing, I bet that's where most if not all of this money is going, right into the landlords pockets. The rich get richer.
I think ubi has merit as a short term stop-gap measure, when a replacement system is ready to be introduced. My expectation is it will drive inflation up just by there being more poor-people money to sweat into the corporate/landlord e: toilet paper is more appropriate.