OpenAI CEO Sam Altman has long been a supporter of basic income, perhaps because it helps justify his vision of a future in which artificial intelligence eliminates millions of jobs and displaces most of the workforce. Now, new Altman-backed research finds that the primary currency may not be able to do what the tech mogul had hoped.
For years, Altman has funded an organization called OpenResearch that, on Monday, released its first research results related to a multi-year effort to study the effects of basic income on a small sample of people. Between November 2020 and October 2023 (predominantly the years of the epidemic), the program gave 1,000 people living in the country’s poorest households (annual income of about $30 per year) $1,000 per month to learn about effect. A control group of 2,000 people of similar economic status were given $50 per month.
The researchers concluded that while regular payments can help recipients pay for basic things like housing, transportation and groceries, they don’t necessarily lead to upward mobility and, from the perspective of this study, can I take their place. for work (as some in Silicon Valley have said).
According to the researchers, basic cash payments had no effect on a person’s “quality of work” (ie, their ability to find a good job) and were not meaningful enough. of directing “significant investments in human capital” (education / training. which can be translated into better employment). It’s not that the money wasn’t worth it, but it wasn’t worth it enough to help in these important areas (at least when it comes to this sample of the population in this particular period of time). The research published by the National Bureau of Economic Research says:
…we don’t get an impact on the quality of work, and our confidence intervals can prevent small improvements. We do not see significant effects on investment in human capital, although younger participants may pursue further education. Overall, our results suggest a moderate effect of labor supply that does not appear to be moderated by other productive activities.
In addition to these findings, the study shows that regular payments have had many mixed economic effects on program participants. For example, the report shows that several participants showed “increased interest in business” as a result of the payments, although this interest did not “translate into a significant increase in business activity for the average recipient” during the study period. . it’s finished. The report notes that although many participants “had dreams of starting their own businesses, money alone may not have been enough to enable many to do so.”
In some cases, payments were also linked to less work. That is, “the transfer made it easier for them [participants] just taking a break” from their working lives, and “a break was more important than an extra dollar,” the report notes.
The study also shows that while the basic income helped some recipients pay for medical procedures (the study refers to a greater likelihood of seeking dental care and affording hospital visits), it did not negative impact on their overall physical health. The research says:
… we do not find a transfer effect on many measures of physical health as captured by many validated research measures and biomarkers derived from blood. We can prevent even very small improvements in physical health and the effects that the relationship between income and health can have without a confidence interval.
Elsewhere in the study, the researchers note that while “money allowed some people to receive more office and hospital care and may have led to alcohol and drug abuse is less, on average we find no direct evidence that there is greater access to health or treatment services. improvement of physical and mental health. ”
And although the basic cash payments had a very positive effect on the mental health of the recipients during the first year of the study (the researchers note that there were “significant improvements” in the “self-efficacy measures of” depression and anxiety” during this period), had little payoff afterward: “the transfer did not improve mental health after the first year,” the study says .
Much information on mental and physical health appears to come from research. Eva Vivalt, an assistant professor at the University of Toronto and one of the researchers involved in the program, says that the study’s findings are derived from “data with a lot of data with very high responses over a long period of time from the studies mentioned , online. surveys, administrative records, and a custom mobile app.”
In general, the primary function of the payments was to help program participants meet their basic needs, including buying groceries and paying rent. The report states: “Food, lodging and transportation were the largest expenses for participants overall at enrollment, and increases in these categories accounted for more than half of the estimated effect on participant spending, ” the report says.
Some examples of the experiences of program recipients help highlight some of the larger institutional problems facing America, and seem to highlight the fact that a small amount of discretionary money is not necessarily going to solve the problems people face. many. Another section, detailing the experiences of a host named “Jeremiah,” shows, as the researchers say, “the complex relationship between health and financial stability,” and shows how his basic income was not enough to alleviate the wider problems he faced. :
Like many others, Jeremiah is faced with long-term health conditions that prevent him from maintaining a stable job. However his unstable financial situation makes it difficult to prioritize his health. For Jeremiah, that money was another puzzle—it helped him make a living. Yet another key part of the problem—in this case, comprehensive health insurance and a job offering paid vacation—was missing. For Jeremiah and others like him, an extra $1,000 a month may not be enough to overcome the larger systemic barriers to accessing health services and reducing the health divide.
The reasons for the less-than-stellar educational outcomes can be dissected in a million different ways but one simple thing seems to be that solving poverty is not a quick and easy process. You could argue that income inequality in the US is now so high and the cost of basic services (housing, education, health care, shopping) is so high that even sending some Americans $ An extra 1,000 a month, while better than nothing, is not enough. significantly changing the economic outlook of that person’s life.
#Sam #Altmans #Funded #Study #Finds #UBI #Wont #Save