Randomizing unconditional cash transfer amounts in the US

”The data are most consistent with the notion that receiving some but not enough money made participants’ needs---and the gap between their resources and needs---more salient, which in turn generated feelings of distress.”

If you give that same amount to someone in poverty, at best they pay down some debts but it doesn't significantly change anything. They are typically in a financial hole and that doesnt fill the whole but might reduce the depth a little.

Simply invest the 5K and take out regular installments whose size is calculated based on your expected lifespan. Or buy an annuity.

I frequently do that when presented with a lump sum of money - although few others seem to.

"These findings stand in stark contrast to the (incentivized) predictions of both experts and a nationally representative sample of laypeople, who - depending on the treatment group, outcome, and time period - estimated treatment effect sizes of +0.16 to +0.65 SDs."

The surprise is that on most subjective well-being metrics, the groups receiving some windfall cash reported significantly worse after getting some extra cash than the control group (equally poor, receiving nothing.)

[1] https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/w_1456,c_limit,f_auto,q_...

Everyone wants to get free money. That doesn't mean that a small one time payment will actually make a substantial difference in the long run.

Do these lesser developed countries have Medicaid, food and housing assistance, and high household debts? If I had to guess, the money went towards very different things, and the situations really aren't comparable. In fact, I suspect that the ease with which Americans can get into debt- hospitals charging after service is provided, credit cards, etc- may be the most significant factor.

Also of note, the $500 payments are less than the extra additional unemployment payments made during COVID, and if you have kids the $2k were less than the stimulus checks.

>Indeed, after the study concluded, we conducted qualitative interviews with 15 participants, where—among other things—we asked them how much money they would have needed to receive for it to have made a difference in their lives at that time. About half of participants indicated that they would have needed to receive more than $2,000, with those responses falling between $4,000 and $25,000. Although this is by no means a representative sample or ideal methodology, these responses may at least be indicative of the general order of magnitude needed.

How surprising is it that someone who is living at the poverty level or under it when given a "small" amount of money (no matter if 500 or 2,000) after one month has spent it?

(a few descriptions[1][2][3] of Universal Basic Income seem to define it as including recurring/periodic payments)

[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_basic_income

[2] - https://basicincome.stanford.edu/uploads/Umbrella%20Review%2...

[3] - https://www.investopedia.com/terms/b/basic-income.asp

Funniest because it proves the complete ignorance of those without poor problems.

Of course there is no more money in the bank. There are dozens of things more important than money in the bank.. the brakes that should of been replaced 8 months ago. The tires that are unsafe. Dental health. Many more.

'We find NO positive effect of cash—if anything, in some prespecified analyses, we even see negative effects.” Apparently the cash infusions added stress'

Of course - it's stressful trying to choose - do you spend the 500 on your kid's teeth or do you get your teeth worked on? Do you spend 500 at the vet or buy healthier food for the family this week. Do you replace your brakes or the tires? Do you fix the brakes or go to the dentists? Do you feed your kids better or stop the parasites sickening the pets. Do you X or Y? Should you Y or Z?

Yes those things are stressful, and certainly more stressful than 'I can't afford any of these things and that's the way it is so stop stressing it' - I'd like to say "Duh!" - but I don't think the high brow harvard study would really get it.

Although I disagree with 'found giving low-income Americans cash isn’t that helpful' - I mean it's stressful - but at least it is helpful in fixing on or two of the life changing things that need fixing - so it is helpful. It's just when you have a dozen life altering debts accruing life changing interest already (deferred maintenance leading towards bigger problems) - a couple grand does not fix all the things that need fixing in the American life.

Maybe there is some other place in the world where you can get all of your healthcare, vehicle maintenance and other necessities all taken care of for $2,000 (?) - maybe those folks could put some money in the bank.

“ All participants had previously applied to the organization for COVID-19 relief funds (and thus, presumably needed money). The ways in which people learned about and came to apply to the non-profit varied, with some being referred by municipal agencies (e.g., housing authorities) or social service agencies, and others conducting internet searches. About 43% of our participants (2,237 people) received funds from the non-profit before the trial began. The overwhelming majority (99%) of these participants received $500, with a median of 243 days between a participant’s pre-trial payment and the start of the trial. Less than 1% (45 participants) received a payment in under four months of when they began the trial.”

Having to deal with invasive, faceless bureaucracy every month to receive a meager income is incredibly stressful, and not only to disabled and elderly people. Prolonger survival stress is extremely detrimental to mental and physical health, and a guaranteed UBI would completely remove it from existence.

The state would benefit from not having to employ literally thousands of bureaucrats… which is likely the reason UBI will never happen at scale, as it would put too many people out of a comfortable position of power.

Also, fraudulent claims would no longer be a thing, since everyone would get the same benefits, likely in relation to their other income. If someone was capable of finding a way to hide their income, they are probably already committing such fraud in the current system.