This study is based solely on what the participants claim they spend money on. It's a core principle of the study that the money is "no strings attached". That makes it useless as an actual study, IMO.
Without a more comprehensive study of the budgets of people before and after, the idea that the money won't be spent well is a fair argument.
Different people have different wants and needs. Would you consider toys for children "spent well"? What about a netflix subscription? What if that netflix subscription gives the kids something to do while Mom goes to school? What about a babysitter, so parents can go out and feel human for once? What about a framed picture of a relative that just passed away?
Improving financial literacy is a vital and often under-discussed component of successful UBI programs. I think it's crucially important we make programs explaining banking, savings, etc available (and maybe even required!) as part of UBI programs. These are absolutely necessary to give people the financial fundamentals they need to survive in a world that doesn't care enough about them to teach it effectively, if at all, in public schools.
But if you're insisting on evaluating the success of UBI experiments based on what the recipients spend money on, instead of how it affects their quality of life and/or their financial trajectory... then you're completely missing the point of UBI.
All of those are good examples of money well spent, or at least fairly well spent.
Bad examples would be things like drugs, alcohol, prostitutes, gambling, car/truck modifications, dirt bikes, ATVs, pornography, guns, etc.
That's what people are concerned about, not photographs of your dead grandma.
guns tend to have an amazing return on investment. Every time a gun law passes, my buddy's gun collection goes up in value.
But to be more serious. I hadn't really thought about it before, but the majority things in your list, while often considered trashy in american culture, all tend to have the potential to have big negative externalities. This could end up being a real problem for things like UBI. As an economist, I have some pretty severe reservations about UBI mostly at a meta level regarding unavoidable inflationary pressures that may all but negate the value of an UBI. But it could end up being even worse than I imagine if an UBI ends up flooding neighborhoods with an excess of high negative externality goods and services.
Still, I've heard good things about the effects of direct cash transfers in very poor regions. They seem to be no more destructive than, say, giving cattle, while having lower overhead so more of the wealth is transferred. I understand much of the money ends up going towards things that more money conscious people might considered wasteful, but many indicators suggest there's still a general life improvement for those who receive the cash, even if the effects may be short lived. So I'm a little open minded about the concept in general.
UBI should incentivise other income and would still be available even to the wealthy. Some of the extra will go to industriousness, some will go to frivolousness, but would we expect anything different from general economic prosperity? I guess we need to find a control group that gets more money on their own?
You have to understand that you need to sell UBI to America. It will never be implemented unless you can convince the tax paying populous that it will be "good", for some definition of "good". With taglines like that, you are making ubi less and less desirable for most people.
More guns, more violence by a smaller group, thus easier to the police. More prostitution by a smaller group, thus driving prices up which allows an easier escape. More human trafficking, why? This is hardly a side-job. Do you mean an increased immigration?
If 99 people don’t buy drugs, and 1 person does, is the system a failure?
Just like the examples you're giving me- 12 dirt bikes? That's obviously a ridiculous proposition. So is only 1 out of 99 using that money to buy drugs- a much larger percentage of our population than that partakes. Using stupid examples like that doesn't persuade anybody that Americans are mostly financially responsible.
You don't see what they spent it on, but they have found a way to spend these funds to improve their situation.
The issue is "are the recipients spending the money well"? Are they saving, and using the money to advance themselves, and budgeting? Or is it all going to "waste" and doing nothing productive?
> Why would you target productivity over quality of life?
I'm not sure that I do that, but the general public absolutely will. The taxpaying public will absolutely not tolerate a UBI that just funnels money into drug cartels, etc. You need to show that the UBI is useful or helpful somehow, not just that it makes people happy.
Spain got something close [3] (but not exactly UBI) recently. I would not be surprised to see this trend continue, either voluntarily or because nation states exhaust all other options.
[1] https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/03/20/a-wider-par...
[2] https://www.google.com/search?q=direct+cash+transfers+povert...
[3] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23351708 (HN: Spain approves national minimum income scheme)
If i get 2k a month and spend it on drugs, you don't see quality of life improve.
It is being spent well because they are keeping a roof over their heads and themselves fed and not worrying about where thhe next meal comes from.
Even just spending it on better food, better clothes, or going to the movies is spending it well. It's UBI, intended to be used as a tool to put a floor on standard of living, not a scholarship or a 401k match.
To quote from the article: "Data show that since the pandemic started, food spending by SEED recipients increased nearly 25% over the monthly average. In March, it accounted for 46.5% of spending the researchers were able to track using prepaid debit cards"