When will we have a Basic Minimum Income?

[nwdiver]

your utopian vision

??? I don't think you're using the same language as... everyone else on this thread...

Please explain how observing that automation is decreasing the amount of purchasing power consumers have due to decreasing labour requirements while our ability to produce is increasing exponentially qualifies as an 'Utopian Vision'. Half the posts on this thread have been regarding to problems we'll have with a UBI... maybe you need to look up the definition of 'utopian'... A UBI is far from perfect... but it sure appears to be one of the best options available.

If you have another solution for ensuring our ability to consume increases with our ability to produce I'd love to hear it... seriously...

 

[trils0n]

Some are just not motivated and will not have a productive enterprise. I'm not shying away from their participation in UBI, but I'm concerned about their health and influence on others.

Kind of a paternal attitude in this thread that folks know what is best for others. As long as they aren't harming anyone else just let them live their lives how they see fit, even if it isn't up to your standard. That is what freedom is about. Liberal (using this in the classical sense to mean classical liberalism -- free market, democratic, free speech, etc.) thinkers always seem to frame freedom as some universal quality, something everyone deserves, but then go on to restrict it to those who own property, are white, straight, male, Christian, and live a certain type of "productive enterprise" lifestyle as the type of people who are allowed, or even deserve, freedom. (Perhaps read: The Protestant Ethic and The Spirit of Capitalism by Weber for a bit more on that 'productive lifestyle' note)

On the one hand, I don't know if it's really a problem for people to have more free time since some will use it for social and community activities. Others might literally sit at home all day... idle hands are the devil's workshop.

Crime and addiction and those type of social ills are not generally caused by idleness, or lack of a Protestant work ethic. They are caused by poverty. UBI could be used as a tool to help reduce poverty.

I still haven't heard how the concept of having free time is different from people today who have retired - either early or on a more traditional schedule. I've heard "well, they worked for it at one point," which may or may not be true, but I am having trouble strongly differentiating the two.

It is only different if looked at within a framework similar to what Weber talks about in the Protestant Ethic. Many people subscribe to this type of thinking as simply a given about "how the world works", but there is nothing inherently correct about that view. It is basically a product of our shared (colonial, religious, hetero-patriarchal capitalist) history. Nothing natural about it at all.


We happen to live in a society where about half (if you're lucky) of our waking hours are dedicated to work, so many people end up seeing work as basically the main source of meaning and personal development. That is going to be rough if the robots and AI take all (or even 20%) the jobs.

All sorts of things besides work build character. Playing on a softball team builds character. Living with a partner or raising a family builds character. Learning or teaching a musical instrument builds character. Building a house builds character. Studying a subject, earning a degree or inventing something new builds character. Hiking the Appalachian Trail builds character. Making art builds character. Just hanging out with friends builds character. Basically, living life builds character. Remove/reduce work and all the other elements of life (everything you look forward to doing when you AREN'T working) can take on new importance if you choose to value those things. Or not. Nothing wrong with being idle, or continuing to value working, you should be free to do that. But not everything needs to be commodified and monetized to be valuable. Your human rights don't derive from participating in those commodified and monetized facets of society -- they derive from simply being a human.

There seem to be two camps on these issues: Those that think your rights to the basics of life, of existence (water food shelter etc) are contingent upon participating in capitalism to "earn" them, and those who think you have the right to exist by virtue of being a human.
UBI can serve as a way of keeping capitalism afloat (since it obviously won't work if workers get eliminated, or even significantly reduced -- workers are the consumers as well, and capitalism requires the spending of their wages to keep the economy going). This seems to me like a potentially contrived, artificial way to fix a system that might be fundamentally broken if certain conditions come to pass, but many see value in the continuation of capitalism. It can also serve as a method for attempting to meet basic human rights. Capitalism's primary optimization is for capital accumulation, not fulfillment of basic human rights and freedom. It leaves quite a bit to be desired if you think society should optimize for the fulfillment of human rights and freedom.

 

[Max*]

Kind of a paternal attitude in this thread that folks know what is best for others. As long as they aren't harming anyone else just let them live their lives how they see fit, even if it isn't up to your standard.

This might have started with my comments upthread about idle hands. I don't care if they sit at home and do nothing, but when it gets to them getting on the streets and buying drugs, which leads to crime, which can lead to kids overdosing, etc. I no longer desire to take a hands off approach.

It's one thing to say "let them do what they want", it's another thing to say "let them do what they want, even if 2 steps down the road they're going to hurt me or my family"

Crime and addiction and those type of social ills are not generally caused by idleness, or lack of a Protestant work ethic. They are caused by poverty. UBI could be used as a tool to help reduce poverty.

Do you have a stat to back that up? (I'm seriously curious if that's true or speculation)

I was under the impression it's the other way around. Look at the all the boys and girls clubs or after school activities in poor neighborhoods. Lots of people advocate to put them there to avoid idle kids getting into trouble with crime and drugs.

 

[mspohr]

This might have started with my comments upthread about idle hands. I don't care if they sit at home and do nothing, but when it gets to them getting on the streets and buying drugs, which leads to crime, which can lead to kids overdosing, etc. I no longer desire to take a hands off approach.

It's one thing to say "let them do what they want", it's another thing to say "let them do what they want, even if 2 steps down the road they're going to hurt me or my family"


Do you have a stat to back that up? (I'm seriously curious if that's true or speculation)

I was under the impression it's the other way around. Look at the all the boys and girls clubs or after school activities in poor neighborhoods. Lots of people advocate to put them there to avoid idle kids getting into trouble with crime and drugs.

There has been a lot of research on this subject and it tends to support the view that poverty causes "poor choices", not the other way around.

The article I referenced a few posts upthread is cites good evidence:
Utopian thinking: the easy way to eradicate poverty | Rutger Bregman

Here's an excerpt:
"Why do poor people make so many bad decisions? It’s a harsh question, but look at the data: poor people borrow more, save less, smoke more, exercise less, drink more and eat less healthily. Why?

Margaret Thatcher once called poverty a “personality defect”. Though not many would go quite so far, the view that there’s something wrong with poor people is not exceptional. To be honest, it was how I thought for a long time. It was only a few years ago that I discovered that everything I thought I knew about poverty was wrong."

A few months later I discussed the theory with Eldar Shafir, a professor of behavioural science and public policy at Princeton University and one of the authors of this study. The reason, put simply: it’s the context, stupid. People behave differently when they perceive a thing to be scarce. What that thing is doesn’t much matter; whether it’s time, money or food, it all contributes to a “scarcity mentality”. This narrows your focus to your immediate deficiency. The long-term perspective goes out of the window. Poor people aren’t making dumb decisions because they are dumb, but because they’re living in a context in which anyone would make dumb decisions."

There's a lot more in the article which I encourage you to read as well as the linked references... and there is always Google if you have an open mind.

The article makes a convincing case for a UBI without strings attached and cites good research. Your fears and value judgments are not realistic.

 

[tomas]

Kind of a paternal attitude in this thread that folks know what is best for others. As long as they aren't harming anyone else just let them live their lives how they see fit, even if it isn't up to your standard. That is what freedom is about. Liberal (using this in the classical sense to mean classical liberalism -- free market, democratic, free speech, etc.) thinkers always seem to frame freedom as some universal quality, something everyone deserves, but then go on to restrict it to those who own property, are white, straight, male, Christian, and live a certain type of "productive enterprise" lifestyle as the type of people who are allowed, or even deserve, freedom. (Perhaps read: The Protestant Ethic and The Spirit of Capitalism by Weber for a bit more on that 'productive lifestyle' note)

Your generalization regarding "liberal thinkers": absurd!

Crime and addiction and those type of social ills are not generally caused by idleness, or lack of a Protestant work ethic. They are caused by poverty. UBI could be used as a tool to help reduce poverty.

There is a ton of data that demonstrates conclusively that idleness DOES foster deeds against self or society.

If you read my posts, I subscribe to the fact that we are headed for a technological change that will necessitate a sociological change. We cannot retain the "puritan work ethic" view of the world. However, that does not stop me from believing that humans needs to be engaged in something (work, art, sport, study) in order to remain healthy... AND, that some people are not self-starters and will not do that easily if the economics are not driving them.

Therein lies one of the challenges of the "new" sociology we need to develop.

 

[tomas]

There has been a lot of research on this subject and it tends to support the view that poverty causes "poor choices", not the other way around.

The article I referenced a few posts upthread is cites good evidence:
Utopian thinking: the easy way to eradicate poverty | Rutger Bregman

Here's an excerpt:
"Why do poor people make so many bad decisions? It’s a harsh question, but look at the data: poor people borrow more, save less, smoke more, exercise less, drink more and eat less healthily. Why?

Margaret Thatcher once called poverty a “personality defect”. Though not many would go quite so far, the view that there’s something wrong with poor people is not exceptional. To be honest, it was how I thought for a long time. It was only a few years ago that I discovered that everything I thought I knew about poverty was wrong."

A few months later I discussed the theory with Eldar Shafir, a professor of behavioural science and public policy at Princeton University and one of the authors of this study. The reason, put simply: it’s the context, stupid. People behave differently when they perceive a thing to be scarce. What that thing is doesn’t much matter; whether it’s time, money or food, it all contributes to a “scarcity mentality”. This narrows your focus to your immediate deficiency. The long-term perspective goes out of the window. Poor people aren’t making dumb decisions because they are dumb, but because they’re living in a context in which anyone would make dumb decisions."

There's a lot more in the article which I encourage you to read as well as the linked references... and there is always Google if you have an open mind.

The article makes a convincing case for a UBI without strings attached and cites good research. Your fears and value judgments are not realistic.

I think there's some talking past each other going on. This is not an either/or poverty/idleness as cause of issues. Let's assume a BMI. So, take poverty out of the equation. So, after the BMI people have a choice: be idle, or pursue something with their time. Along with some others here, I assert that there is plenty of evidence that some people will not be able to create their own enterprise. And, there is plenty of evidence that humans without some enterprise (I'm not saying jobs in the economy.... I'm talking ANYTHING. Art, Science, Sport, Gaming...) tend to become unhealthy and cause harm to themselves, society, or both.

 

[trils0n]

This might have started with my comments upthread about idle hands. I don't care if they sit at home and do nothing, but when it gets to them getting on the streets and buying drugs, which leads to crime, which can lead to kids overdosing, etc. I no longer desire to take a hands off approach.

It's one thing to say "let them do what they want", it's another thing to say "let them do what they want, even if 2 steps down the road they're going to hurt me or my family"

Do you have a stat to back that up? (I'm seriously curious if that's true or speculation)

I was under the impression it's the other way around. Look at the all the boys and girls clubs or after school activities in poor neighborhoods. Lots of people advocate to put them there to avoid idle kids getting into trouble with crime and drugs.

There has been a lot of research on this subject and it tends to support the view that poverty causes "poor choices", not the other way around.

Yup, decades of research actually. Unpacking all the assumptions in your post @Max* usually takes a class 2hrs/day 3x a week for 6 weeks, and that just scratches the surface, so kinda outside of the scope of this forum.

Perhaps I should have put it another way: Idleness by itself doesn't cause drugs or violence or societal ills. Idleness in the presence of poverty, or idleness combined with the lack of opportunity (another way to say poverty) is the problem. Idleness + weath and/or opportunity is a different story. So the problem isn't idleness, but the conditions surrounding idleness.

Your generalization regarding "liberal thinkers": absurd!

Not generalizations, history. That is the history of liberalism, especially in America. At first only white, straight, Christian, propertied, males could participate. Many serious struggles were fought including a civil war to expand the concept of liberal capitalist democracy to new people. And that process still isn't finished. So I don't think my comments are absurd at all.

If you read my posts, I subscribe to the fact that we are headed for a technological change that will necessitate a sociological change. We cannot retain the "puritan work ethic" view of the world. However, that does not stop me from believing that humans needs to be engaged in something (work, art, sport, study) in order to remain healthy... AND, that some people are not self-starters and will not do that easily if the economics are not driving them.

Ok, that is basically what I was saying. I was attempting to unpack why people view non-self starters and those not forced to participate in capitalism as somehow a problem -- and that goes back far to how the protestant work ethic has been intertwined with capitalism.

 

[ohmman]

There is a ton of data that demonstrates conclusively that idleness DOES foster deeds against self or society.

Since you referenced this data (twice) but didn't supply any, I went ahead and started looking.

There is indeed copious research that support the notion that free time and crime are linked, but only in youth. I can find nothing that suggests people with reasonable means and free time are more likely to be involved as a perpetrator of crime. I would argue that teenagers are a completely different subset than what we're discussing in this thread, so I think that data is not generalizable to our topic.

Do you have another source of information that might be better suited to the point? I just want to make sure claims of "a ton of data" are substantiated. I'm not suggesting it doesn't exist; I am just saying that I'm having a hard time finding it. I found research about unemployment and crime - again, unrelated because poverty is part of the equation. I also found research about retirement and crime, but this was more about retirees being victims and not perpetrators.

 

[Skotty]

Capitalism might would be viewed as barbaric by an advanced alien species. But it works here on Earth as it leverages negative aspects of humanity, greed and the desire for things and power, in a way that boosts overall productivity of the people. Even so, it is flawed and must be managed and balanced to keep it from collapsing. It's like playing Monopoly. Unchecked, someone ends up getting everything and everyone else goes bankrupt.

A proper government in a capitalist society serves as a balance against capitalism, for example, by using a graduated tax that taxes rich people by higher and higher amounts the richer they get. Anyone who argues for a flat tax is looking for short term benefits at the expense of long term health and survival. Similar to gutting environmental regulations.

When it comes to real life, winning at the expense of everyone elses loss like in Monopoly is not a desirable outcome. It would lead to revolution, and a generally bad time for everyone for awhile until a new game is set up, and the new game has to start from the ashes of the previous one. Therefore, in real life, one of the objectives of the game is to keep the game going. Want to keep a game of Monopoly going forever? Probably not, but if you did, add government. Tax the rich, provide some useful services for everyone, and a few helpful services for the downtrodden so they have the opportunity to stand back up and get back into it.

BMI addresses a currently hypothetical problem where automation begins to take over much of the labor in society, leaving only higher tech jobs. If that were to happen, it's not only a question of what the "right" thing to do is, it's also a question of how to keep the game going. The game will still function at the richer end of the spectrum, but more and more people will suddenly start to be excluded from the game, unable to find a way to make money. To some degree, those ostracized masses can be kept quiet by police forces, but at some point the masses will be too many and/or the police forces might decide to switch sides. At that point, it's game over. As this inflection point approaches, it is actually in the best interest of the wealthy to institute something like BMI as a means to stave off revolution and keep the game going.

The curious thing about current politics is that many on the right seem upset over the wealthy elites, lies, loss of jobs, and a shrinking piece of the American pie, but it is actually the left that generally tries to balance against this inevitable result of unchecked capitalism.

 

[cpa]

I still haven't heard how the concept of having free time is different from people today who have retired - either early or on a more traditional schedule. I've heard "well, they worked for it at one point," which may or may not be true, but I am having trouble strongly differentiating the two.

edit to say: As I posted and read my post, maybe the difference is that really needing to work for some particular period of time is enough to "set in" some ideal. I haven't looked into any research done on that, but it might be worthwhile. If so, maybe that's the solution. You are made destitute at age 18, and you have to work like mad until 21, at which point you have guaranteed income for life.

I'll bite, Ohmman.

I think that most people who have retired, whether after a 45-year career or starting a business and selling for 250MM at age 30, is that they have succeeded in something. It is time for them to move onto something else in their lives.

I think a more apt analogy is the fact that there are so many winners of the megabux lotteries who quit their mundane jobs and find themselves broke a decade later. These people have all the free time in the world too. But their "retirement" was pure luck.

In my uneducated opinion, there might be something in the human psyche that rewards achievement over luck.

 

[ohmman]

I'll bite, Ohmman.

I think that most people who have retired, whether after a 45-year career or starting a business and selling for 250MM at age 30, is that they have succeeded in something. It is time for them to move onto something else in their lives.

I think a more apt analogy is the fact that there are so many winners of the megabux lotteries who quit their mundane jobs and find themselves broke a decade later. These people have all the free time in the world too. But their "retirement" was pure luck.

In my uneducated opinion, there might be something in the human psyche that rewards achievement over luck.

Thanks.

I think your explanation feels intuitive, and I also inferred it in one of my posts above. But, as @trils0n so eloquently put it, it's quite possible the reason it feels good is societal in nature. There's also the point that we all have some luck involved in our successes - they don't happen in vacuums and some happen against greater odds than others, but luck factors in. E.B. White once famously wrote, "Luck is not something you can mention in the presence of self-made men," a tongue-in-cheek reference to this very fact.

The lottery example is well known because those instances are publicized. There are many large lottery winners who are never heard from again as well. That story isn't quite as enticing as the one where the money has made a wreck of them. There's also the factor that the influx of capital is very sudden with a lottery payout, even if they choose the annuity. With even an early retirement, there is a least a weaning up period where the capital has gotten greater and greater over time.

And of course, there are many, many people who bankrupt themselves after being "self-made" millionaires. You may have heard about one fellow named Elon Musk who fell a hair shy of doing this very thing himself.

So I'm not sure, without some kind of compiled data, that we can agree that one is better than the other. We can agree, however, that it feels better to think that one has earned it through traditional work.

 

[mspohr]

I'll bite, Ohmman.

I think that most people who have retired, whether after a 45-year career or starting a business and selling for 250MM at age 30, is that they have succeeded in something. It is time for them to move onto something else in their lives.

I think a more apt analogy is the fact that there are so many winners of the megabux lotteries who quit their mundane jobs and find themselves broke a decade later. These people have all the free time in the world too. But their "retirement" was pure luck.

In my uneducated opinion, there might be something in the human psyche that rewards achievement over luck.

I think we're missing the point here.
The point of a universal basic income is that everybody gets it without having to qualify or meet an financial or moral qualifications. It's considered a human right.
This means that you might not like some of the "lifestyles" of some of the people who are getting the money. That's tough. If you start placing eligibility criteria such as "has to have a good work ethic even though can't find a job", then it defeats the purpose.

 

[cpa]

Yes, it may be intuitive, Ohmman, but I have nearly 40 years of rendering personal services to people. I have personal knowledge or direct anecdotal knowledge of all types--from successful business owners with seven-figure AGI to the deadbeat daughter with three kids from three different men who inherited $500,000 outright in 2005 (blown within three years) and ~40K per year from a testamentary trust, she is always broke, unhappy and needing more from her enabling parents. There are dozens more on both sides of this coin.

 

[DragonWatch]

Get it through your head. There are too many humans on the face of the earth ~ too @#*& many. Like rats we are now, okay, continuing to eat each other alive due to ignorance, blane and greed. Humans have been on this earth for two hundred thousand years and we still do not know how to love, accept and work together. While technology has spiked/skyrocket in the last one hundred years, we still hate each other due to religion, politics and ignorance just like we did two hundred thousand years ago.
The elitists that think their religion is better than mine, the elitists that think their politics are better than mine, the elitists that think their ignorance is better than mine; need to start finding a solution to help everyone because killing for the sake of killing apparently does not work, not for the last two hundred thousand years it has not. Since I was a soldier, and studied war, I think I know at least something about it. Oh, and two hundred years ago my relatives cold heartedly murdered Native Americans ~ there was a problem figuring out which Natives were Christian. Do not worry, the Natives came back and killed the two white guys ~ karma was a problem even in those days. That is the short of it all in the beginning of the King Phillips War.
A computer is on with a "1" and a computer is off with a "0" ~ Are you on or off? Are open or closed? Are you a one or a zero? Remember garbage in, garbage out.
What is the positive solution without killing ~ we have to improve at some point or all perish. Me I love my live.
What is the positive solution without killing?

 

[tomas]

There is indeed copious research that support the notion that free time and crime are linked, but only in youth.

Youth meaning young adults where unemployment rates have been 30%+. That is what I was referring to. There is not recent research for older adults, I posit because they have not had similar unemployment rates. I AM guilty of assuming results would be similar.

 

[ohmman]

Yes, it may be intuitive, Ohmman, but I have nearly 40 years of rendering personal services to people. I have personal knowledge or direct anecdotal knowledge of all types--from successful business owners with seven-figure AGI to the deadbeat daughter with three kids from three different men who inherited $500,000 outright in 2005 (blown within three years) and ~40K per year from a testamentary trust, she is always broke, unhappy and needing more from her enabling parents. There are dozens more on both sides of this coin.

You already know that I have great respect for you, but I'll say it in case other readers are unaware and think I'm being picky. That out of the way, I will say that every one of us is an unreliable source when it comes to evaluating our own anecdotes, including both you and me. Your anecdotes would be interpreted differently from a different accountant. I'm not saying you're wrong - I want to make sure that's clear - but I'm saying that an individual's personal experience isn't enough to us to draw conclusions. We need impartial studies that can help with this kind of thing to verify.

This is why what people call "common sense" is occasionally wrong. It's tainted by our weird human biases and heuristics.

 

[nwdiver]

Glad I didn't choose optometry as a career... I choose nuclear p... awe CRAP

 

[tomas]

You already know that I have great respect for you, but I'll say it in case other readers are unaware and think I'm being picky. That out of the way, I will say that every one of us is an unreliable source when it comes to evaluating our own anecdotes, including both you and me. Your anecdotes would be interpreted differently from a different accountant. I'm not saying you're wrong - I want to make sure that's clear - but I'm saying that an individual's personal experience isn't enough to us to draw conclusions. We need impartial studies that can help with this kind of thing to verify.

This is why what people call "common sense" is occasionally wrong. It's tainted by our weird human biases and heuristics.

While I agree that a proper, unbiased study with a good statistical sample is the ideal basis for any assertion, I believe that professional experience such as CPA's is a close second as long as that professional is addressing an area where they have deep experience. Personal opinion without deep experience is a distant third, and should be qualified as just that: opinion.

Here's an example: Among many other things in my career, I spent 2 years setting up data privacy standards for a company that handled several billion data records with private information each year across many industries and organizations. So, I saw a LOT of data points. If a question of data privacy implications were to come up, I could render a very qualified opinion based intuitively on my experience. And I think that's what @cpa is doing. I'm guessing he has seen into the finances and personal histories of hundreds (maybe thousands) of clients, so his opinion in that area - though not as reliable as a comprehensive study conducted by an unbiased researcher - might be pretty darned reliable compared to my opinion in that area... though I would be more reliable in areas I've been immersed in.

Then, to take it a step further, we have the issue of proper use of statistics and the issue of bias or incomplete information in studies. For example, I recently read a Forbes article quoting an unattributed study saying the majority of Model 3 reservation holders are coming from Toyotas. The journalist" then went on to characterize Toyota owners, and assert that Tesla would have trouble living up to their quality and service expectations. Now, this was from a dodgy author that I do not trust. But putting that aside, he may have a point if these are predominately corolla or Camry owners. However, isn't it a different story if they are Prius owners? So, here's a supposedly data-based article with incomplete information and a biased author.

So I'm always happy to hear educated opinions if credentials are explained. Even ok with non-educated opinions if qualified as such. And, always suspicious about studies because they are often biased or misused.

 

[mspohr]

While I agree that a proper, unbiased study with a good statistical sample is the ideal basis for any assertion, I believe that professional experience such as CPA's is a close second as long as that professional is addressing an area where they have deep experience. Personal opinion without deep experience is a distant third, and should be qualified as just that: opinion.

Here's an example: Among many other things in my career, I spent 2 years setting up data privacy standards for a company that handled several billion data records with private information each year across many industries and organizations. So, I saw a LOT of data points. If a question of data privacy implications were to come up, I could render a very qualified opinion based intuitively on my experience. And I think that's what @cpa is doing. I'm guessing he has seen into the finances and personal histories of hundreds (maybe thousands) of clients, so his opinion in that area - though not as reliable as a comprehensive study conducted by an unbiased researcher - might be pretty darned reliable compared to my opinion in that area... though I would be more reliable in areas I've been immersed in.

Then, to take it a step further, we have the issue of proper use of statistics and the issue of bias or incomplete information in studies. For example, I recently read a Forbes article quoting an unattributed study saying the majority of Model 3 reservation holders are coming from Toyotas. The journalist" then went on to characterize Toyota owners, and assert that Tesla would have trouble living up to their quality and service expectations. Now, this was from a dodgy author that I do not trust. But putting that aside, he may have a point if these are predominately corolla or Camry owners. However, isn't it a different story if they are Prius owners? So, here's a supposedly data-based article with incomplete information and a biased author.

So I'm always happy to hear educated opinions if credentials are explained. Even ok with non-educated opinions if qualified as such. And, always suspicious about studies because they are often biased or misused.

Doctors have this same problem with "bias". A lot of what they think they know from "experience" is just wrong and can be easily refuted by published studies. However, they persist in following their intuition with sometimes poor results for their patients.
The plural of anecdote is not data.

 

[tomas]

Doctors have this same problem with "bias". A lot of what they think they know from "experience" is just wrong and can be easily refuted by published studies. However, they persist in following their intuition with sometimes poor results for their patients.
The plural of anecdote is not data.

I'm sorry but I totally disagree. Yes, there is risk of bias, but professional opinion does have merit and is worth considering.