https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-07-22/ubi-study...
> After three years of distributing $1,000 monthly to beneficiaries in Illinois and Texas, the organization has released a trio of research papers on its findings. Like many of the other studies released before it, OpenResearch finds that recipients spend more to meet their basic needs and assist others, and don't drop out of the workforce — although they work slightly fewer hours. But the researchers’ biggest takeaway is that cash provides flexibility.
I might be in a web search bubble so if you have any conclusive info that UBI doesn’t “work”, please do share.
Because that's what it is? If it were UBI then it would be labeled UBI instead.
> after taxes are considered there's not any difference between UBI and GMI.
Mathematically that is true, but there is still a significant human difference. Consider a case where you have a loss of income. With UBI, the money will just show up at the usual interval to keep you going. With GMI, money will not show up until you go through the arduous process of notifying authorities that you are now eligible. And if you've ever dealt with people who manage these kinds of things before, you know they don't operate on an instant basis, so you could be going quite some time before the support finally shows up.
> During the pandemic, the nonprofit found its $1,000 payments to nearly 200,000 households barely made a dent in the lives of U.S. recipients. There was no measurable difference between the households that received the cash grants and those that did not, GiveDirectly declared in a blog post based on academic studies from the University of Michigan. One reason, according to the study, was that most cash grant recipients also received government assistance, which made it harder to discern the impact of the GiveDirectly money alone.
...
> GiveDirectly has vowed to learn from its mistake. So far, that has meant targeting populations such as pregnant mothers, infants, and families experiencing homelessness for whom regular, modest cash impacts have proven to be life altering.
So, maybe leaving out the "universal" would make sense, since they're not giving money to everyone anymore? GiveDirectly describes what they do as "unconditional cash transfers."
[1] https://www.philanthropy.com/article/can-givedirectly-show-t... https://archive.is/WTypU