I’m sorry, but “getting free money makes people happy” isn’t exactly a shocking result is it? The result that the employment level was consistent is mildly interesting, though I’d expect the numbers could be different with a longer or larger test. But the real question imo is “does this scale without destroying the country’s finances?”
Well, this test is invalid for one more reason - recipients knew that the experiment has "end date." This means that the employment rates would not be affected since people could not treat the benefits as a permanent thing and plan accordingly. If you would take 1,000 people and give the lifetime benefits, I would assume this would change things a bit.
"I’m sorry, but “getting free money makes people happy” isn’t exactly a shocking result is it?"
Well, in the context of the experiment the people would have been able to garner state support through a bit more complex social security / social services schemes so it's not entirely about that they have more resources available, but also how they were given those resources and how many needless strings were attached to those.
I agree on principle to your point, but it's not as blatant as if the people had been living in abject poverty and then given money beyond their current financial means.
You could line up knowledgeable opponents and proponents, and you would probably find their reasons vary wildly. They also come from all over the political map.
But I agree with you. It seems odd to me that people are worried about an income harming people on average, or even affecting employment. We already have plenty of people with passive incomes, and they don't generally become depressed bums. They're called rich people.
>I’m sorry, but “getting free money makes people happy” isn’t exactly a shocking result is it?
It's kind of significant, yeah. As a general rule, people on income support in Australia and the UK tend to be harassed, stressed and moderately unhappy people despite the free money.
There's a lot of evidence from looking at lottery winners and people with significant disabilities that suggests that people have some base level of happiness they trend towards.
Happy fun people who have catastrophic accidents and end up paraplegics are really unhappy for about 6 months and then start rolling with it and end up being happy fun people who make light of their situation and enjoy life despite the wheelchair.
Debbie downers who win the lottery are super-happy for about 6 months and then become rich unhappy people.
A persistent long term increase in net happiness is a notable result. Maybe not earth-shattering, but certainly not necessarily to be expected either.
> But the real question imo is “does this scale without destroying the country’s finances?”
It depends on how it is implemented and the numbers involved.
One proposal [1] would be to give everyone $US 10K per year starting at age 21, and not having income taxes start until you have an income over US$ 40K.
This allows one to get get enough for the bare necessities (shelter, food) "for free", but if you want to have a life that's more than just subsistence living, you would have to work--but you get to keep a lot of that upfront.
If you want a 'fancy' life, then you'll have to work more, and there would be personal income taxes. Presumably there would be corporate and sales taxes as well.
I don't know enough about the math to know if it is practical.
Actually, it is. When you don’t approach social welfare as a corrective action of a defective person, this is evidence of a positive effect similar to social security. It’s very different than the norm.
When you think about the money spent on nursing homes, daycare, juvenile justice or even kids who extend college due to the need to work, society pays a big bill directly or indirectly.
My family does well, but we realized that expenses like daycare, summer camps, etc made it such that having one of us take a sabbatical would only cost a few hundred bucks a month, and be a better outcome for our family. Not many folks have that luxury, and imo we are all worse off for it.
This. From what I understand, raising taxes goes over better most places than in America. It's also worth pointing out that Norway, a country with an incredibly generous entitlement program, funds a huge amount of it via oil production.
Well, I don't remember ever reading the comments about any UI article here without people claiming that people receiving it will get depressed and desperate.
As a member of the Nordic societies I find it important to point out some important information. In these countries we already have rather sizable unemployment benefits.
If you read the (better) article by NYT[0] on the same subject, you will be given an example showing her income under basic income only increased with 50$ out of 635$.
It would also been useful to see results of the one in Ontario, Canada, but the Conservative government that was elected last year cancelled it before it had run its course (after promising to let it finish during the campaign).
Is it a legitimate argument that smart hardworking people who are considered economically valuable will be swayed to non-economically valuable interests within this system?
As a former fine arts student that became a UI developer mostly for the monetary stability, I do feel like if I had the ability to fully invest myself creating art without constantly struggling with relevancy and rent, I would have been far more qualitatively useful to society at large.
there's a difference between "non-economically viable" and "not useful". i have no problems with people losing interest in doing stuff that current market values because current market values turning people into zombies that occasionally are happy to go murder each other.
art, volunteering, social programs and plenty other activities are way more useful for civilization as a whole than almost any random job on the market. as soon as businesses start losing workers as they realize they don't need to do shitty unimportant stuff just to put bread on a table - market will finally put the right price on lots of these jobs and start paying for it adequately.
You may have thought you'd be more "qualitatively" useful, but the wasn't the prevailing wage for creating art, that you found insufficient, at all reflective of general society telling you that it wasn't more "qualitatively" useful?
Yes, but currently you must be unemployed to get most aids. These aids may be as much as your monthly pay at work. If you end up unemployed, it makes sense to stay so for a while. With basic income it would get continuous and unconditional, albeit less in amount. Finland has quite complex welfare system and basic income would make it simpler and avoid people gaming the system to optimize aids instead of focusing on getting employed.
As an employed person making 100k, if given UBI I would quit and not do anything productive-to-society for most of the rest of my life. So yes, that is a legitimate argument. The counter-argument is that the benefit coming from more people pursuing entrepreneurial/risk-taking/passion-driven endeavors will OUTWEIGH the lazy fucks like me.
Some of my most productive moments have been when I'm following my own whimsy, instead of responding to economic pressure. I can only imagine this effect, scaled up, would be a net benefit for society.
- How much does this actually happen?
- Is the job market over or under satisfied?
- Does what people end up doing somehow turn out valuable to society, even if not in a way we know how to assign monetary value?
There are so many unknowns.
Great that somebody are actually trying it out and getting us some data.
UBI might solve rent, would it solve "relevancy"? There are genres of art where the means of production became so easy/cheap that the world is flooded with them, I recall reading a blog from some years ago discussing how EDM music had become so cheap and easy to produce that the market was flooded with content which fewer and fewer people would actually pay for.
UBI might give people the opportunity to explore their interests but ultimately wouldn't you end up in the same place? Torn between a desire to make "art" which suddenly everyone else is also trying to make and follow their passion, or get paid substantially more for UI Development?
A big problem about the basic income is that it is perceived as money that you get for nothing and so people don't have to work and therefore they are lazy.
Let me give you an analogy:
Imagine that breathing air would cost money and you would have to work in order to breathe. Unless you don't work you would die. Would then a basic income be something that makes you lazy or would it be something that gives you confidence in surviving the next day?
The same is true for the "basic income" that is used by its recipients for food, medical care, clothing and shelter. So how in the world can we deny the basic needs to most of the population in our civilization and call these people lazy?
You’re basically saying that because it has ethical value it can’t make people lazy. That’s irrelevant. UBI might make people lazy. In fact, it would be pretty shocking if it didn’t make some % of the population choose to do nothing for their entire lives but stay at home and play video games.
People like to point out that techies would feel more comfortable building start ups, and that’s probably true. But for people with low skills and low opportunity costs to doing nothing (of which there are many more people), I don’t see a reason why they would work relatively shitty jobs for low income. Who is going to work minimum wage to be a janitor to get basically no substantial benefit. Maybe you think people deserve better wages then- but then uh oh, it’s even harder to justify not doing things in China wherever possible.
UBI benefits society when it’s given to a person with a high ability to to positively impact society (let’s say skilled workers and parents). And that’s before considering any effect on prices or whatever.
The fact that the proponents of UBI pretend to be content with "free money made people happier" is probably a sign that the experiment did not go as expected. Regardless, i think the bigger question here is how would UBI prevented the negative effects of the allegedly impeding large-scale unemployment. How did recipients use their time apart from seeking work. How were their relationships to the rest of society and vice versa? Does UBI result in 2 classes of people instead of a spectrum? What were their spending habits and are they conductive to a functioning economy?
To add some anecdata to the void: I have been receiving a form of basic income (veteran's disability compensation) for the past 8 years. It's an amazing "privilege" that has allowed me to live fearlessly, take risks, and has kept me afloat through rough times.
I have, in no particular order:
- Dropped everything and moved to a different state with no job lined up (multiple times)
- Taken a big pay cut to spend a few years working in the non-profit sector
- Co-founded my own non-profit (it failed)
- Joined a friend's company to help rebuild/scale it (it was acquired)
- Pursued different goals in different schools (currently working toward an MS in CS)
As someone who has lived in poverty most of their life, knowing that my basic necessities can be paid for no-matter my circumstances is a game changer. I would not have done most of the above without knowing that I could scrape by irregardless of it working out. My path would be far more linear and safer.
I feel free. To be clear, I threw out the American Citizen Instruction Booklet (do well in high school -> go to college -> get a job) at age 17 for the military anyway. But more broadly I feel that I don't have to participate in the rat race out of necessity. I have the freedom to experiment with my life and to try whatever I want to without (much) worry. I don't look forward to the contraction of my free monthly deposit. It will come at some point.
That said, my economic participation has been inconsistent. Those 22 year olds incentivized by the structure of our society to get into a safe and high-paying job ASAP and to stay there for the next 40 years will probably contribute quantitatively more $ into the system than I will.
Since the economic crises of 2008, central banks have been desperate to induce some positive inflation. "Helicopter Ben" even said he would drive around in a helicopter and drop pallets of cash out of it, before he allowed deflation to take hold (the only way out of their debt crises, is to inflate it away).
Its no wonder that the PTB are now pushing for helicopter money across the debt-laden west, its the last tool they have. Sad its the poor who must suffer.
Overall, the experiment failed to prove its main hypothesis that UBI would incentivize the unemployed to find employment. Those who received additional benefits failed to achieve higher employment than the control group.
If you give people everything, they just won't work as hard. At least, I don't think they will over the long term. It's like retirement: some may learn a skill, volunteer, etc., but most just watch TV and wait to die. This is hard for many of us to realize, because we spend much of our free time tinkering with and leaning technologies.
I hear a lot of people saying that society is bound to provide all the needs of a person. I can definitively say for America, that was not the social contract on which she was founded.
Lastly, this is sort of conspiratorial, but isn't this commonly the way we see dystopias arise in stories? I think democracies function differently when the average person is a net contributor that expects a return in the form if infrastructure and services, rather than a check.
> most just watch TV and wait to die
This may be true of older people who feel they may have already lived a full life, and it might be too late to start anything new. What about people who reach financial safety very early, and can afford to experiment and experience a lot more?
There's still perks to a job. It's Universal Basic Income, aka (IMO), basic compassion. You shouldn't be able to starve to death, but if you want a Mercedes and a nice house in the city, you're going to have to work for it, one way or another.
A huge amount of effort in society is wasted in pointless competition simply because people need income. Imagine 2 farmers selling melons, each with 50% market share. One discovers if she hires a social media marketer she can get to 70% market share. The other farmer now must respond by hiring their own marketing people. These two marketers are both very happy to be employed, but overall we would have been better just giving them free melons and letting them work on something they are truly passionate about.
> If you give people everything, they just won't work as hard.
But are we talking about giving people "everything" though? The word "Basic" is in the thing's name, so it may be just enough to not die (or turn to crime).
One proposal [1] would be to give everyone $US 10K per year starting at age 21, and not having income taxes start until you have an income over US$ 40K.
$10K is enough, in many places, to pay rent and food, but not much else. So you won't have the worry / stress of being homeless, but if you want more than subsistence living, you will probably have to work.
Is basic income having “everything”? If that’s the case, why isn’t there more downward pressure on wages? Because if $635 is all it takes, we are drastically overpaying everyone!
A (very) modest ammount of health, housing, and food security is more like a foundation for an individual, rather than the entirety of their existence.
There's a lot of difference between "give people everything" and "make sure everyone has enough money for food and shelter". We're already doing the latter part, at least in the more civilized parts of the world. The argument for the U in UBI is that there's currently a whole lot of administration fees spent on determining who should get which handouts. If it's universal, all that management overhead disappears.
It's like retirement
Your view of retirement doesn't match the retired people around me.
Having enough money for housing and food is not "everything". People will always want more and this will drive them to work. They will just be a little bit more secure and happy.
> It's like retirement: some may learn a skill, volunteer, etc., but most just watch TV and wait to die
How much of that is due to retirement coming for most people when they are old? I'm pretty sure that if I retire at, say, 67, I'll spend a lot more time watching TV than I would if I had retired at 27.
Talking about scify stories:
From the evolutionary point of view it is very bad for a super-organism like a whole country to let parts of its body starve or get sick. Do ants have to pay for food or housing?
I have some concerns about this experiment, but I may be wrong.
The whole idea of basic income is that the basic income would be enough for a person to live. Having never been to Finland (but other northern European countries), I can't see how you can live on 560€ a month without some other source of income or social assistance.
The people in the study are told that the basic income will end in two years, wouldn't that change their behavior? I mean if they know the money is temporary they're not to change their behavior too much.
I know for myself if they gave me 700CAD an month for an basic income experiment for two years, I would be "cool extra cash". However I won't change my behavior job/career wise as 1) its not enough to live on; and 2) its going to end.
Why can't UBI be attempted on a local scale first?
We have state and local governments for a reason. Something as risky and expensive as UBI, if it is going to be implemented, should be implemented gradually with proper testing, feedback, and adaptation.
India is toying with this idea with the NYAY guaranteed income scheme which the Congress party proposed as part of its 2019 election manifesto. If implemented, it will be the largest scheme of it's kind in the world, ensuring that the poorest 20% of the population will be paid Rs.6000 (approx. 85 USD) per month. But 20% of the population = 50 million people. How the scheme will work on this grand scale is yet to be seen.
except they are not representative of an entire society - specifically they are only representative (usually) of a subgroup of society that _cannot_ work.
no government will be able to give people basic needs except at the cost of other people. I believe this will eventually happen, but through technology, not through these 'Robin Hood' type politicians. if you look thoughout history it wasn't any societal rules or enforcements that advanced us, but application of scientifical discoveries to build products that help make human life easier
Basic income means that people who are willing to work will pay probably higher taxes. I believe that will be easier for some people who do not earn much to just stay home with basic income. Then less people will be economically active (who will do low wage jobs ?) and taxes will need to go higher etc... It's economical spiral of death for whole nation.
[+] [-] shireboy|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] BartBoch|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] fsloth|7 years ago|reply
Well, in the context of the experiment the people would have been able to garner state support through a bit more complex social security / social services schemes so it's not entirely about that they have more resources available, but also how they were given those resources and how many needless strings were attached to those.
I agree on principle to your point, but it's not as blatant as if the people had been living in abject poverty and then given money beyond their current financial means.
[+] [-] dalbasal|7 years ago|reply
You could line up knowledgeable opponents and proponents, and you would probably find their reasons vary wildly. They also come from all over the political map.
But I agree with you. It seems odd to me that people are worried about an income harming people on average, or even affecting employment. We already have plenty of people with passive incomes, and they don't generally become depressed bums. They're called rich people.
[+] [-] Sir_Substance|7 years ago|reply
It's kind of significant, yeah. As a general rule, people on income support in Australia and the UK tend to be harassed, stressed and moderately unhappy people despite the free money.
There's a lot of evidence from looking at lottery winners and people with significant disabilities that suggests that people have some base level of happiness they trend towards.
Happy fun people who have catastrophic accidents and end up paraplegics are really unhappy for about 6 months and then start rolling with it and end up being happy fun people who make light of their situation and enjoy life despite the wheelchair.
Debbie downers who win the lottery are super-happy for about 6 months and then become rich unhappy people.
A persistent long term increase in net happiness is a notable result. Maybe not earth-shattering, but certainly not necessarily to be expected either.
[+] [-] throw0101a|7 years ago|reply
It depends on how it is implemented and the numbers involved.
One proposal [1] would be to give everyone $US 10K per year starting at age 21, and not having income taxes start until you have an income over US$ 40K.
This allows one to get get enough for the bare necessities (shelter, food) "for free", but if you want to have a life that's more than just subsistence living, you would have to work--but you get to keep a lot of that upfront.
If you want a 'fancy' life, then you'll have to work more, and there would be personal income taxes. Presumably there would be corporate and sales taxes as well.
I don't know enough about the math to know if it is practical.
[1] https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/08/why-are...
[+] [-] Spooky23|7 years ago|reply
When you think about the money spent on nursing homes, daycare, juvenile justice or even kids who extend college due to the need to work, society pays a big bill directly or indirectly.
My family does well, but we realized that expenses like daycare, summer camps, etc made it such that having one of us take a sabbatical would only cost a few hundred bucks a month, and be a better outcome for our family. Not many folks have that luxury, and imo we are all worse off for it.
[+] [-] mises|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] marcosdumay|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] PhDuck|7 years ago|reply
[0]: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/09/world/europe/finland-basi...
[+] [-] erikig|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] throw0101a|7 years ago|reply
* https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/basic-income-ontario-... * https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/hugh-segal-basic-incom...
[+] [-] spaceribs|7 years ago|reply
As a former fine arts student that became a UI developer mostly for the monetary stability, I do feel like if I had the ability to fully invest myself creating art without constantly struggling with relevancy and rent, I would have been far more qualitatively useful to society at large.
[+] [-] keymone|7 years ago|reply
art, volunteering, social programs and plenty other activities are way more useful for civilization as a whole than almost any random job on the market. as soon as businesses start losing workers as they realize they don't need to do shitty unimportant stuff just to put bread on a table - market will finally put the right price on lots of these jobs and start paying for it adequately.
[+] [-] lr4444lr|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Jhsto|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Talyen42|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jchrisa|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] thomasahle|7 years ago|reply
- How much does this actually happen? - Is the job market over or under satisfied? - Does what people end up doing somehow turn out valuable to society, even if not in a way we know how to assign monetary value?
There are so many unknowns. Great that somebody are actually trying it out and getting us some data.
[+] [-] dageshi|7 years ago|reply
UBI might give people the opportunity to explore their interests but ultimately wouldn't you end up in the same place? Torn between a desire to make "art" which suddenly everyone else is also trying to make and follow their passion, or get paid substantially more for UI Development?
[+] [-] engineerworks|7 years ago|reply
If there was UBI, I'd have stopped working for them altogether.
[+] [-] kvczor|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|7 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] fxj|7 years ago|reply
Let me give you an analogy: Imagine that breathing air would cost money and you would have to work in order to breathe. Unless you don't work you would die. Would then a basic income be something that makes you lazy or would it be something that gives you confidence in surviving the next day?
The same is true for the "basic income" that is used by its recipients for food, medical care, clothing and shelter. So how in the world can we deny the basic needs to most of the population in our civilization and call these people lazy?
[+] [-] b_tterc_p|7 years ago|reply
People like to point out that techies would feel more comfortable building start ups, and that’s probably true. But for people with low skills and low opportunity costs to doing nothing (of which there are many more people), I don’t see a reason why they would work relatively shitty jobs for low income. Who is going to work minimum wage to be a janitor to get basically no substantial benefit. Maybe you think people deserve better wages then- but then uh oh, it’s even harder to justify not doing things in China wherever possible.
UBI benefits society when it’s given to a person with a high ability to to positively impact society (let’s say skilled workers and parents). And that’s before considering any effect on prices or whatever.
[+] [-] return0|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mfra|7 years ago|reply
I have, in no particular order:
- Dropped everything and moved to a different state with no job lined up (multiple times)
- Taken a big pay cut to spend a few years working in the non-profit sector
- Co-founded my own non-profit (it failed)
- Joined a friend's company to help rebuild/scale it (it was acquired)
- Pursued different goals in different schools (currently working toward an MS in CS)
As someone who has lived in poverty most of their life, knowing that my basic necessities can be paid for no-matter my circumstances is a game changer. I would not have done most of the above without knowing that I could scrape by irregardless of it working out. My path would be far more linear and safer.
I feel free. To be clear, I threw out the American Citizen Instruction Booklet (do well in high school -> go to college -> get a job) at age 17 for the military anyway. But more broadly I feel that I don't have to participate in the rat race out of necessity. I have the freedom to experiment with my life and to try whatever I want to without (much) worry. I don't look forward to the contraction of my free monthly deposit. It will come at some point.
That said, my economic participation has been inconsistent. Those 22 year olds incentivized by the structure of our society to get into a safe and high-paying job ASAP and to stay there for the next 40 years will probably contribute quantitatively more $ into the system than I will.
[+] [-] chrisseaton|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] _red|7 years ago|reply
Its no wonder that the PTB are now pushing for helicopter money across the debt-laden west, its the last tool they have. Sad its the poor who must suffer.
[+] [-] swebs|7 years ago|reply
https://www.kela.fi/web/en/news-archive/-/asset_publisher/lN...
Overall, the experiment failed to prove its main hypothesis that UBI would incentivize the unemployed to find employment. Those who received additional benefits failed to achieve higher employment than the control group.
http://julkaisut.valtioneuvosto.fi/bitstream/handle/10024/16...
[+] [-] mises|7 years ago|reply
I hear a lot of people saying that society is bound to provide all the needs of a person. I can definitively say for America, that was not the social contract on which she was founded.
Lastly, this is sort of conspiratorial, but isn't this commonly the way we see dystopias arise in stories? I think democracies function differently when the average person is a net contributor that expects a return in the form if infrastructure and services, rather than a check.
[+] [-] sk0g|7 years ago|reply
> most just watch TV and wait to die This may be true of older people who feel they may have already lived a full life, and it might be too late to start anything new. What about people who reach financial safety very early, and can afford to experiment and experience a lot more?
There's still perks to a job. It's Universal Basic Income, aka (IMO), basic compassion. You shouldn't be able to starve to death, but if you want a Mercedes and a nice house in the city, you're going to have to work for it, one way or another.
[+] [-] Jedi72|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] throw0101a|7 years ago|reply
But are we talking about giving people "everything" though? The word "Basic" is in the thing's name, so it may be just enough to not die (or turn to crime).
One proposal [1] would be to give everyone $US 10K per year starting at age 21, and not having income taxes start until you have an income over US$ 40K.
$10K is enough, in many places, to pay rent and food, but not much else. So you won't have the worry / stress of being homeless, but if you want more than subsistence living, you will probably have to work.
[1] https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/08/why-are...
[+] [-] spamizbad|7 years ago|reply
A (very) modest ammount of health, housing, and food security is more like a foundation for an individual, rather than the entirety of their existence.
[+] [-] tremon|7 years ago|reply
Easy solution: don't give them everything.
There's a lot of difference between "give people everything" and "make sure everyone has enough money for food and shelter". We're already doing the latter part, at least in the more civilized parts of the world. The argument for the U in UBI is that there's currently a whole lot of administration fees spent on determining who should get which handouts. If it's universal, all that management overhead disappears.
It's like retirement
Your view of retirement doesn't match the retired people around me.
[+] [-] nickez|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tzs|7 years ago|reply
How much of that is due to retirement coming for most people when they are old? I'm pretty sure that if I retire at, say, 67, I'll spend a lot more time watching TV than I would if I had retired at 27.
[+] [-] petra|7 years ago|reply
So what ?
[+] [-] fxj|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|7 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] NedIsakoff|7 years ago|reply
The whole idea of basic income is that the basic income would be enough for a person to live. Having never been to Finland (but other northern European countries), I can't see how you can live on 560€ a month without some other source of income or social assistance.
The people in the study are told that the basic income will end in two years, wouldn't that change their behavior? I mean if they know the money is temporary they're not to change their behavior too much.
I know for myself if they gave me 700CAD an month for an basic income experiment for two years, I would be "cool extra cash". However I won't change my behavior job/career wise as 1) its not enough to live on; and 2) its going to end.
[+] [-] m52go|7 years ago|reply
We have state and local governments for a reason. Something as risky and expensive as UBI, if it is going to be implemented, should be implemented gradually with proper testing, feedback, and adaptation.
[+] [-] arunster|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] klaudius|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] michelledepeil|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dragosbulugean|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] raaaaraaaa122|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] StreamBright|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|7 years ago|reply
[deleted]