[winstonewert]

Some thoughts:

- It says that 3/4 of people kept working; to me, that seems like a big drop.

- Data is based on a survey of people in the program; I distrust data from surveys on principle.

- There seems to have been a reduction in the payment as they earned money, so its not really UBI as typically advocated.

[strken]

> Lewchuk added that while some people did stop working, about half of them headed back to school in hopes of coming back to a better job.

I believe previous UBI experiments have shown the same results: most people keep working, some people stop, but they usually have decent reasons. Education, extending parental leave, or being a caregiver aren't necessarily things we want to discourage if they result in a greater return.

[qeternity]

> if they result in a greater return.

Greater return than what and to whom?

We already have existing labor markets that are very capable of determining returns.

[strken]

> Greater return than what and to whom?

Greater return for the government paying for a UBI, compared to not paying for a UBI.

> We already have existing labor markets that are very capable of determining returns.

I'm not sure I understand how "existing labour markets" are going to solve the three things I listed: education, caregiving, and parents taking time off to look after their kids.

The issue of parents being absent is that it results in negative externalities: crime rate, an alienated society, low literacy rates. The existing labour market is great at placing parents into a job efficiently, but it has absolutely nothing to do with keeping their kids out of prison. Nor should it, really, because externalities are a government-level coordination problem.

When it comes to education, the issue is again a coordination problem. Companies might do some training, but they generally prefer to foist the risk off onto employees, other companies, and governments by hiring people who are already educated. Again, this is a coordination problem, because any individual company that skips training and just hires educated workers directly will be more efficient, but those educated workers have to come from somewhere.

I will concede that it's more efficient not to take care of the elderly. I question whether it is desirable, however.

[throaway955]

those labour markets are in shambles atm for most people who aren't upper middle class

[qeternity]

In shambles compared to when? Quality of life is the highest it's ever been across socioeconomic strata. It's just our expectations outpace reality.