Stockton Is Running Yet Another Pointless UBI Test

Hector Amezcua/TNS/ZUMAPRESS

Get your news from a source that’s not owned and controlled by oligarchs. Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily.

The LA Times reports on yet another test of a universal basic income:

Young, sincere and raised on the edge of poverty, Sukhi Samra has a mother who worked two minimum-wage jobs when she was a kid — days at a gas station and nights at a Subway. Her father is disabled. She knows what an extra $500 a month would have bought her family.

….At 23, Samra is now head of the Stockton Economic Empowerment Demonstration, a pilot program to test a universal basic income. For the next year and a half, 130 residents of this struggling Central Valley city will get $500 every month, with no strings — such as employment or sobriety requirements — attached, in a social experiment that is as much public relations as rigorous research.

I don’t get it. The outcome of this study will probably be the same as most of the others: the recipients will spend the money on food and shelter and it will make them better off. There will be no particular ill effects to report.

But that’s because it’s a test on a small number of people over a very limited time. The big question about UBI is what effect it has if it’s big and permanent. Will it cause people to quit their jobs? Will it motivate people to restart their education? Will it just go to booze and drugs? Etc.

In other words, how will people’s behavior change if UBI becomes something that they expect and that they know will last forever? Nobody is going to substantially change their lifestyle based on an 18-month experiment, but they sure might if they know the money is permanent. This is the experiment we need to run. The problem, obviously, is that it would be expensive. At a guess, I figure it would cost at least $1 billion, maybe twice that. That kind of funding is unlikely, but I’m not sure it’s even worth bothering with anything smaller. Until we know how UBI as an entitlement works, we don’t know anything.

BEFORE YOU CLICK AWAY!

“Lying.” “Disgusting.” “Scum.” “Slime.” “Corrupt.” “Enemy of the people.” Donald Trump has always made clear what he thinks of journalists. And it’s plain now that his administration intends to do everything it can to stop journalists from reporting things they don’t like—which is most things that are true.

No one gets to tell Mother Jones what to publish or not publish, because no one owns our fiercely independent newsroom. But that also means we need to directly raise the resources it takes to keep our journalism alive. There’s only one way for that to happen, and it’s readers like you stepping up. Please help with a donation today if you can—even a few bucks will make a real difference. A monthly gift would be incredible.

payment methods

BEFORE YOU CLICK AWAY!

“Lying.” “Disgusting.” “Scum.” “Slime.” “Corrupt.” “Enemy of the people.” Donald Trump has always made clear what he thinks of journalists. And it’s plain now that his administration intends to do everything it can to stop journalists from reporting things they don’t like—which is most things that are true.

No one gets to tell Mother Jones what to publish or not publish, because no one owns our fiercely independent newsroom. But that also means we need to directly raise the resources it takes to keep our journalism alive. There’s only one way for that to happen, and it’s readers like you stepping up. Please help with a donation today if you can—even a few bucks will make a real difference. A monthly gift would be incredible.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate