A new study by the National Bureau of Economic Research shows that giving Americans a universal income of $1,000 in taxpayer money makes them grow poorer and lazier. They work less, earn less, and their economic state deteriorates over time, as they grow less motivated to work.
Universal income was one of Vice President Kamala Harris’ most ambitious bills when she was a U.S. senator. According to the American Enterprise Institute, her bill was likely the most expensive bill ever introduced in Congress, “offering ample fodder for Republicans looking to define Senator Harris’s liberal record.”
Harris’s legislation, (S. 3784, the “Monthly Economic Crisis Support Act”) proposed monthly payments of $2,000 for Americans, except for those in high-income brackets of over $100,000 per year in 2020. Most Americans, however, would qualify for the transfer of money from other taxpayers or from increased national debt. Harris’ bill would have awarded $2,000 per adult and an additional $2,000 for up to three children, which means a family of five would have gotten $10,000 a month under the Harris universal basic income plan.
“The only exceptions would be households with adjusted gross income above $100,000 as a single individual, $150,000 as a head of household, and $200,000 as a married couple, for whom payments would rapidly phase out. But since people in those households, along with children in families of six or more, make up fewer than one in five US residents, the vast majority of US residents would receive $2,000 payments each month,” the institute wrote in 2020.
Now, after a 3,000-person study has gone on for three years, the result shows that giving people money makes them less likely to want to work.
Giving people $1,000 a month resulted in a 2% decrease in labor market participation for participants and an overall reduction of their work time each week.
The participants spent more time on leisure, as well as other activities, like sleeping.
“Despite asking detailed questions about amenities, we find no impact on quality of employment, and our confidence intervals can rule out even small improvements. We observe no significant effects on investments in human capital, though younger participants may pursue more formal education. Overall, our results suggest a moderate labor supply effect that does not appear offset by other productive activities,” the National Bureau of Economic Research wrote.
For every one dollar received, total household earned income — excluding that gifted money — fell by at least 21 cents, or about $210 for the study participants.
The Alaska Democratic Party endorses Harris for president, after the sudden coup conducted by the national Democratic apparatchiks, forcing President Joe Biden to withdraw his name as a nominee. All delegates to the national convention on Aug. 19 will vote for Harris, including Democrat Rep. Mary Peltola, who has now refused to endorse her.
Read the research paper here:
Free money like that ought to appeal to all the loser PFDers in Alaska. And Trump–President “Pajamas”–certainly can jump on that. You can hear him announcing from the Resolute desk: “Money for nothing, and your chicks for free!” Oops, he over paid the hooker that he didn’t have sex with! (Maybe the “winner” can get a refund.)
I was part of a General Motors injury study in Michigan (50 years ago, but it started in the 50s). Workers with back injuries randomly went into one of two treatment plans: back to work with minimal treatment, or aggressive pain management and rest, off work. Over the years long monitoring, both groups experienced equal physical outcomes, but drastically different social results. The aggressively treated group had much higher rate of total disability, even though they could have earned far more money by working, and gave up their social lives because of their injuries, leading to high rate of substance use and family disruption. The back to work group learned to manage pain, continuing social activities like golfing and sports, and overall experienced much better, more prosperous lives.
Creatures of this Earth are meant to produce. It is our purpose for existence. Adam Smith writes of worker productivity as the basis of a civilization in his Wealth Of Nations. Satisfaction in life comes from productivity. All creatures divide into two subsets, the parasites or the productive. America promotes too many of the former and discourages too much of the latter. It is what gets Kamala elected.