32 ms·
Universal basic income seems to improve employment and well-being
- cycomanic 6y agoThis article makes it seem like we did not know this already. There has been numerous experiments on UBI and pretty much everyone showed that it was working and in fact saving money. One of the biggest examples are the Mincome results [1] which showed significant reduction in hospitilization by 8.5% and only very minor reduction in working hours (mostly women using the money to have more time to care for their children) [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mincome https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mincome
- onion2k 6y agoThis article makes it seem like we did not know this already. Having multiple repeated studies that replicate the same outcomes is a good thing.
- akvadrako 6y agoWe don’t “know” something just because one study showed it. But mincome actually did show a reduction in working hours, which is hard to spin as “improve employment”.
- soco 6y agoIt says "mostly women using the money to have more time to care for their children". I call this improvement, if not in "employment" (an abstract concept) then in "quality of life" (a real thing)
- andi999 6y agoThis might also be interpretd as anti-feminist, since this will increase the non-adjusted gender pay gap.
- Ma8ee 6y agoWe men better use more time to take care of children to compensate for that (and get better relationsships with our children).
- fuf7rurehfr 6y agoThat doesn't resolve the concern laid out by the parent commenter at all.
- Ma8ee 6y agoIt certainly does. If men was at home with their children as much as women, the part of the non-adjusted gender pay gap that is due to women being home more with children would disappear.
- imtringued 6y agoI know people who absolutely despise their job. More money isn't necessarily better.
- bickeringyokel 6y agoI would say both of those things are pretty abstract.
- dsnr 6y ago“The basic income is claimed to produce a range of health and social benefits, but it is important to underscore that none of the income maintenance experiments, including Mincome, produced direct evidence of a causal relation between income support and health outcomes.“
- mytailorisrich 6y ago> that it was working and in fact saving money. You need to define what you mean by UBI before making such claim. It might save money if it means a single benefit paid to everyone who does not work. This has existed in some form in some countries for a long time (e.g. France [1]). Results are debatable because there are several parameters to take into account and several parameters to play with when implementing such scheme. Certainly, "improved employment" is very tricky to achieve, if it is possible at all. If UBI means handing money to everyone, then it is not a realistic prospect not least because it is un-affordable (the ooposite of saving money...) [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revenu_de_solidarit%C3%A9_active https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revenu_de_solidarit%C3%A9_acti...
- Kiro 6y agoThe one in Finland, one of the biggest ever conducted, was a failure. https://www.helsinki.fi/en/news/nordic-welfare-news/heikki-hiilamo-disappointing-results-from-the-finnish-basic-income-experiment https://www.helsinki.fi/en/news/nordic-welfare-news/heikki-h...
- zimpenfish 6y agoTL;DR: Flawed non-UBI experiment was inconclusive. Well, hold on, from that link, "The Finnish experiment was about partial basic income targeting able-bodied people without work, it was not about universal basic income." And further down, "However, the Finnish government introduced a new activation policy into the Finnish unemployment system at the beginning of 2018 – that is, during the second year of the experiment – which contaminated the control group." And, "It is also important to note that labour markets did not pick up before early 2018. That means there could be more visible effects in 2018, but if that is the case, we cannot really know if that was related to basic income." Finally, "Firstly, the experiment did not include a baseline survey. We do not know if people’s subjective assessments changed after they started to receive basic income." Basically they didn't even do a UBI experiment, their control was messed up, they didn't compare before/after, they had a poor survey response, etc.
- tjchear 6y agoI understand they're not the same, but I'm wondering if it would be reasonable to analyze the impact of the COVID-19 stimulus checks as a data point to inform the effects of UBI.
- captainbland 6y agoThere are presumably too many confounding factors to make that a worthwhile comparison. It's pretty hard to control for businesses semi-voluntarily closing their doors and people actively avoiding the ones that are staying open.
- blueterminal 6y agoWouldn't nationwide UBI just make everything more expensive? Most people who work will continue to work, most people who don't, won't. More money in circulation = higher prices. If you care about poor people, why not just try to fix welfare with e.g. Negative Income Tax proposed by Milton Friedman (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_income_tax https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_income_tax)?
- markvdb 6y agoOf course it will cause some kinds of inflation. Just as zero interest rates also create inflation (stock market, housing, ...). UBI would certainly create a different kind of inflation. Negative income tax would probably not work as efficiently. What if it takes a year and a half of administratoin for the negative income tax to reach people living hand to mouth? That's a very slow tool to get money into everyone's hands...
- CrazyDave 6y agoFunding UBI through "printing" money would cause inflation because that increases the money supply. But most UBI proponents plan to fund it through new taxes and consolidation of the current "means based" welfare programs.
- ChuckNorris89 6y agoOk, and who/what will you tax for the extra UBI money? Can't tax the corporations and the rich or else they will "move elsewhere and increase unemployment" as we're made to believe so why then do I fear that the middle class worker will be hit yet again? I'd rather we lower taxes on the workforce than increase them to give away free money.
- akie 6y agoIncrease taxes on wealthy people and give it to poorer people so that almost everyone is better off. How is this a bad idea again?
- coopsmgoops 6y agoThe thing I don't really see accounted for in these experiments is that UBI is not really "universal". It's a group, or a town who or are not isolated from the outside economy, and the participants are usually aware/suspect that this bonus income probably won't last forever, so they know they need to keep working to maintain their careers etc. I'm not sure there's any way to account for it unfortunately, it is such a compelling idea though I think we kind of all want it to be real.
- Lammy 6y agoYour first paragraph is exactly how I would word a defense of a UBI trial that had a bad outcome. Let’s talk about the good things that happened and were measured instead of speculating about the hypothetical bad things that are out of scope for this trial. A successful small trial will lead to larger future trials that might answer your question in a more satisfying way.
- luckylion 6y agoIt's not a UBI study if it only studies whether people like getting money they don't have to do anything for. I'm repeating it every time: these kinds of studies are the same as measuring the output of "free energy machines" that supposedly work by breaking physics... while ignoring that they are plugged into a wall-socket. To prove that they work, you'd have to unplug them, otherwise you don't need the sophisticated machine and the fancy theory, an extension cord will do the same much cheaper and more efficiently.
- AnthonyMouse 6y agoSo let's unplug them then? If the theory says that it works and the small scale trial says that it works, it's time for the large scale trial.
- luckylion 6y agoLet's unplug them and test it before rolling it out on a large scale. We don't want to order a billion free energy machines before we know that they actually work without being plugged in. Will tax payers in the UBI community accept their increased taxes? Will those paying taxes move out of the community, leaving only those on UBI behind (who will then not be able to fund the UBI)? Will we see an influx of unproductive citizens into the community to gain the UBI benefits? Once that's answered, we'll have a better idea of the feasibility and requirements. If people want to avoid the increased taxes so much that they'll move, we'll know that we need to close the borders to force them to stay, for example.
- selckin 6y agoWhy is this never framed as a universal right for food, housing, medical care. Feel like that has a much bigger chance of going somewhere
- AngryData 6y agoBecause then someone will call it communism and people will lose their god damn minds.
- simonh 6y agoNot all of us here are Americans.
- lopmotr 6y agoLots of developed countries already have that. But it's not enough because it raises the threshold for being "poor". I live in a poor neighborhood where nobody lacks any of those things but they still go begging for cigarettes in the street because those aren't part of the universal right. People always want more (not judging, just observing).
- 14 6y agoAnd that is the big miss I am completely worried about. We don't need a basic income if one year later vegetables triple in price and our income stays the same.
- agent008t 6y agoBecause you cannot have something as a 'right', if it requires someone else to be compelled to provide goods and services for you. Because then your right to food means that someone else does not have the right to the fruits of their labour. Rights are something that can be enjoyed by everyone simultaneously. For instance, your right to travel does not mean that someone else has to buy you a car or a plane ticket - all it requires from others is non-interference.
- adrianN 6y agoThe Universal Declaration of Human Rights disagrees with you. It says > Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control. In Article 25.
- topbanana 6y ago> Between November 2017 and October 2018, people on basic income worked an average of 78 days, which was six days more than those on unemployment benefits. That could be at least partially accounted for by previous under-reporting of working hours, when benefits are means-tested.
- collyw 6y agoInteresting the way that this is reported. "The findings suggest that basic income doesn’t seem to provide a disincentive for people to work." Meanwhile the BBC reported: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-47169549 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-47169549 "Giving jobless people in Finland a basic income for two years did not lead them to find work, researchers said." Nothing actually different is said, but the way it is spun will likely lead the reader to different conclusions.
- throwaway4747l 6y agoThese articles are interesting not by themselves, but for the reactions they stir on HN. It's interesting how aware of cognitive biases and critical minded one suddenly becomes upon encountering a study that challenges one's worldview. It's also interesting to note the shift between two demographics: old-school libertarians/right-wingers who hold that "you should earn your bread in sweat unless you happen to have private means" (Kalecki 1943), and pro-UBI tech workers who rationally see it as a direct subsidy for their industry. Unlike many other viewpoints where one usually dominates I feel this is one of the few where opinion is fairly evenly divided, and the back-and-forth is interesting.
- tomp 6y ago> study that challenges one's worldview The study doesn't challenge any worldviews. People like money, news at 11. But the study does challenge one's intelligence. "Some people given money for some time" does not imply anything about "all people given money forever".
- agent008t 6y agoHow is it that people are both against generational wealth which is a sort of a UBI on a family level (£500k, which is not too far from median household wealth in the UK, means you could roughly draw £15'000/year in perpetuity), and for UBI on a national level?
- guerrilla 6y agoBecause they're in favor of equality and not inequality? The key being that UBI would eventually be universal.
- simonh 6y agoMedian doesn't mean everybody.
- akuji1993 6y agoMedian household wealth is actually at £280k according to government resources, which would about half your 15k to 7.5k roughly. Also, this is not money, it's property value. If you take a look at the wealth of the average population, two thirds are either pensions or property wealth. This is longterm money which I cannot draw on until retired (and most certainly won't affect my children) and property which I might depend on and therefore not be able to turn into money. Also people are largely not against generational wealth, they're just demanding that rich people pay their fair share when inherting property wealth to their children. Taxing the top 10% correctly and without fraud would bring in enough cash to support the bottom 30% a lot more through public housing, health care and childcare support. A UBI for contrast, is direct payment to my bank account that I can use however I like, it's not locked by its form of wealth. I CAN use that payment to save more of my own money to eventually get property wealth, but it gives the people at the bottom possibilities that they won't have without it. Also, poor people don't give a fuck about the median household wealth. Because they won't have any. The UBI however applies to all, poor and rich alike, supporting poor families a lot more than property wealth they don't have.
- spyckie2 6y ago> If you take a look at the wealth of the average population, two thirds are either pensions or property wealth. This is longterm money which I cannot draw on until retired (and most certainly won't affect my children) and property which I might depend on and therefore not be able to turn into money. Having to not pay rent is a form of income though. > Also people are largely not against generational wealth, they're just demanding that rich people pay their fair share when inheriting property wealth to their children. Taxing the top 10% correctly and without fraud would bring in enough cash to support the bottom 30% a lot more through public housing, health care and childcare support. Another way to say it is that the top 10% got there because they use their money to make more money. Countries need their money to make more money but not at the cost of society falling apart, so we probably need to reallocate the usage of that money to support a better society overall rather than to just make more money. What would be interesting is to force rich people to invest in social efforts with their money. Instead of taxing them and taking away money from them (which is quite un-American), instead any monetary amount above X should have some percentage of it devoted to social funds or have to pay a penalty fee (which is effectively a tax) if they don't.
- creddit 6y ago1) I think UBI would probably be a very good thing. 2) I can’t help but laugh at how comical these tests are at measuring the impacts of a UBI policy. 2yr temporary welfare payments of 6,720 Euro a year to a tiny, biased subset of the populace is NOT going to give us an idea of the impacts of a UBI policy. Please, someone, at least agree to the payments in perpetuity.
- truthwhisperer 6y agoUBI is just an inflationary tool. Nothing more nothing less. Does not work so quit it.
- jakeogh 6y agoIt's re-branded Socialism. Incremental as always. Paired with the social credit score, it's every authoritarians dream.
- akuji1993 6y agoDefinition of socialism: Worker owned means of production. That's it. You're feeding on 100 years of western propaganda and neoliberal ideas. China is state capitalist, UdSSR was state capitalist. If you want to see a working socialist state, even though it's suppressed by the US government for 70 years now, which explains most of its problems btw, look to Cuba.
- AdrianB1 6y ago> Definition of socialism: Worker owned means of production. Citation needed.
- akuji1993 6y agoI mean... That's the definition. Not even the most neoliberal dumbass would try to disprove that. Edit: Okay, whatever, here you go, right from Stanford: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/socialism/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/socialism/
- jamisteven 6y agoCuba is a "working socialist state"? Have you been to Cuba lately?!
- akuji1993 6y agoDo you understand the concept of being cut off from 90% of the world market? They're struggling to maintain their system while being systematically targeted by the one of largest economic and military powers on the planet.
- monoclechris 6y agoIf Cuba is the best example of socialism, I definitely don't want that.
- skocznymroczny 6y agoI don't understand. What under UBI is preventing me from quitting my job and spending the rest of my life playing videogames? I know it's unpopular opinion on HN, but most people don't really learn and explore in their free time, and they don't have high requirements from life. A place to stay, food and electricity is all they need for the most part.
- _Understated_ 6y ago^^This This is the only argument I present to people that talk to me about UBI in a positive way, ie they want UBI. If people are given enough money to live on for free I would wager there is zero incentive for them to be productive within society. Zero. Change my mind!
- learnstats2 6y agoPerhaps it depends what you mean by 'productive'. There is less incentive for people to survive financially by doing unethical work on behalf of powerful and wealthy people, OK, we can agree on that. But, is (for example) cooking and cleaning and caring for others 'productive'? We don't see that in macroeconomic figures, so it doesn't count - but most people do a huge amount of that without being motivated by pay. My understanding of the world is that most people are even more motivated to do things for others that don't bring a financial reward.
- _Understated_ 6y agoI suppose I should clarify what I mean by productive. I'm using it in it's lowest sense: paying back into society to fund all the other stuff that government will want money for. So, basically, we will have more takers than producers, therefore, it cannot possibly work. Sure, you'll get poets, artists and the like taking advantage of it and society will be better off in the long run for it... probably. I don't know, never studied that stuff before. But the immediate problem is that you will have a shit-ton of leeches that will take the money and play video games all day long. It can't possibly be financially viable. But to pick up a point from your comment: > Is (for example) cooking and cleaning and caring for others 'productive'? I'd wager that it can be for two possible reasons: 1. It perhaps allows the person being cared for to help society in some way (either directly through taxes or poetry etc.) 2. The cleaner gets paid and ultimately puts money back into society. And yes, there are tons of "non-jobs" where nothing is ultimately created, I get it. But that won't go away with UBI: banks will still have too many employees doing nothing all day (source - worked in banks for years!) On another note: I live in Scotland and I will bet that within 5 years we will have UBI... we're already bankrupt so, hey, what's another £50Bn a year added to the unpayable debt pile :)
- spyckie2 6y agoA much better article covering the same experiment here: https://www.kela.fi/web/en/news-archive/-/asset_publisher/lN08GY2nIrZo/content/results-of-the-basic-income-experiment-small-employment-effects-better-perceived-economic-security-and-mental-wellbeing#:~:text=In%20the%20basic%20income%20experiment,were%20actively%20looking%20for%20work.&text=The%20experiment%20was%20implemented%20by,Social%20Insurance%20Institution%20of%20Finland https://www.kela.fi/web/en/news-archive/-/asset_publisher/lN...).
- the-dude 6y agoIf there is anything boring about HN, it must be the UBI articles. Reading the comments I see no new arguments. It feels like Groundhog Day.
- Kiro 6y agoIsn't this experiment widely considered unsuccessful? https://www.helsinki.fi/en/news/nordic-welfare-news/heikki-hiilamo-disappointing-results-from-the-finnish-basic-income-experiment https://www.helsinki.fi/en/news/nordic-welfare-news/heikki-h... https://www.businessinsider.com/finland-basic-income-experiment-reasons-for-failure-2019-12 https://www.businessinsider.com/finland-basic-income-experim... https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/feb/08/finland-free-cash-experiment-fails-to-boost-employment https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/feb/08/finland-free-c... https://www.jacobinmag.com/2019/12/basic-income-finland-experiment-kela https://www.jacobinmag.com/2019/12/basic-income-finland-expe... https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-02-08/finland-finds-basic-income-failed-to-boost-employment https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-02-08/finland-f... https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/finland-universal-basic-income-trial-unemployment-experiment-trial-a8769621.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/finland-univ...
- dschuetz 6y agoI don't understand why Germany's socialist ministers don't accept the concept of universal basic income. It's baffling to me. https://www.t-online.de/nachrichten/deutschland/id_88448378/auch-heil-lehnt-bedingungsloses-grundeinkommen-ab.html https://www.t-online.de/nachrichten/deutschland/id_88448378/...
- akvadrako 6y agoWhy would anybody in government support UBI? If it works, a huge amount of decision making power is moved from the government to the free market.
- spyckie2 6y agoIn the preliminary survey, the average working days was 49 for both UBI and control group. In the final, the average was 78 for UBI and 72 for control group. What happened to make the numbers jump up so much for both? Data error?
- 0-_-0 6y agoWhen UBI comes up lot of people on HN ferociously debate the merits of UBI vs. negative income tax, but they are mathematically equivalent. For example, a UBI of $1000 and 25% tax is the same as a (possibly negative) income tax of 25% above $4000. That's because: (1-0.25)*x+1000 = x+0.25*(4000-x) You can convert from one to the other.
- zajio1am 6y agoThey are equivalent under certain assumptions, but there are still differences (assuming negative income tax would operationally work in the same manner as current tax systems), e.g.: 1) UBI is targeted to citizens, while income tax affect tax residents, these may be different groups of people. 2) tax refund is paid once a year, which would be problematic for people with bad money management abilities.
- imtringued 6y ago2) Taxes are already being deducted from your paycheck every month. Negative taxes would instead increase your monthly paycheck.
- imtringued 6y agoOk, then let's go with a negative income tax instead. Other than avoiding welfare traps there is not much merit to the idea of a UBI anyway. People have always worked, the only ones that really need a UBI are those that cannot do work or are in the process of seeking better work but are trapped in their existing one. A negative income tax serves them just as well but people won't associate it with "free money for everyone". I know a friend who would love to work as a software developer but can't afford even the relatively small tuition that a German university charges its students with his current job. A negative income tax would help him out.
- known 6y ago"Give me control of a nation's currency print/supply, and I care not who makes its laws" --#Rothschild (b. 1744)
- known 6y agoMay be we should call it Universal Basic INSURANCE;
- rv-de 6y agophilosophically I like the idea of a UBI. but realistically I don't believe anymore in solutions based on financial reorganizations. the society needs a fundamental shift of how resources are allocated and used. I expect a UBI to only produce a low-income class that depends on UBI and can't find a job that pays sufficiently well and another high-income class that just gets the UBI on top of their ample salary. prices will factor in the new offset and adapt positively. we'll see more low paying jobs for UBI-dependent people who can't choose.
- xchaotic 6y agoIn the end there will always be critics of UBI just as there were critics of combustion engine and now EVs. It’s progress and not everyone gets along but UBI does circumvent some evolutionary barriers in modern society- the fact that even the most rich still hoard stuff is just natural instinct and you need some artificial mechanisms to work around that.
- zajio1am 6y agoSeems to me if people had required similar trials before establishing public pensions and public healtcare then it would never have been established.
- fallingfrog 6y agoSince wealth attracts more wealth, and power attracts more power, in any capitalist system, without constant redistribution of wealth to the bottom, eventually you wind up in a situation where a tiny group of people at the top have all the wealth and power. It’s a basic feature of any society where property can be used to make money. UBI would appear to be a pretty straightforward way to keep things balanced and stable, in the long term.
- achenatx 6y agoThe total spent on all welfare programs is about 1T. If all adults got UBI, assume around 256 million people above 18 1) 256 million @ 12K each is 3T, the current budget is 4.7T, current revenue is 3.5T. Good luck raising taxes by almost double. It will never happen. So UBI will need to be means tested. Ideally it would slowly phase out so there is no disincentive to work. 2) how do you handle UBI for large families? Does each child get UBI? If so I promise you people will have more children to get more UBI. If people dont get more UBI per child, people will have too many children, UBI wont be enough and children will go hungry. Which is why we give food instead of cash 3) How will you handle people selling their UBI income stream for a lump sum, blowing it all, then starving anyway? 4) 10% of the population is pretty much incompetent either in IQ or in emotional intelligence. That would be 30 million that simply wont be able to handle being given money.
- zajio1am 6y ago> 1) 256 million @ 12K each is 3T, the current budget is 4.7T, current revenue is 3.5T. Always seems to be that 12K is too big for first iteration. 3T is about 15 % of US GDP. When i computed UBI for my home country (not US) with the same level as existing (means tested) minimum income social welfare benefit, i got that it would need 8 % of GDP. > Good luck raising taxes by almost double I also found that about 1/3 of necessary money could be get by removing basic per capita tax deduction. Which is technically tax increase, but it is neutral if one counts UBI as negative tax money. Another more than 1/3 could be get from state pensions by relabeling part of pension income as UBI. Some small part could be get from removing the minimum income social welfare benefit (but not other social welfare). Altogether that would cover more than 80% of necessary money and one would only need additional taxing of 1-2% of GDP (compared to existing 35%). 3) How will you handle people selling their UBI income stream for a lump sum, blowing it all, then starving anyway? Personal bankrupcy laws? 4) That would be 30 million that simply wont be able to handle being given money. If they had not be able to handle UBI money, then they would not be albe to handle wage money or existing means tested welfare money as well.
- axilmar 6y agoTruly universal UBI will result in reductions in paychecks by the amount of UBI. Business owners will think like this: "Hey Joe, from today we all are getting X amount of dollars from the government. Thus, I am going to reduce your paycheck by the almost the same amount. You will have more money than now, and our business will get a break in these unfortunate economic times". For Joe, that would be a good offer: we will get effectively in increase in the money in his pocket, while minimizing the danger of being laid off since the business he works for will get 'a break'.
- dogma1138 6y agoUnlikely since UBI will likely be essentially offset by income tax so above a certain threshold (likely just slightly above full time minimum wage) the net benefit will be zero. If businesses reduce their pay they’ll have to pay higher rate taxes on their end (CIT, payroll tax, business rates). Also in many countries reducing income is illegal, especially in western countries. It’s often can only be done during restricting after going through an employment court as an alternative to redundancy and it’s limited both in amount and duration. That said truly universal UBI would require a considerably change to how and what we tax as well as the general employment market you likely won’t see basic income until there will be no means of offering sufficient employment to the majority of the population until then UBI is often less effective than direct benefits simply because it’s less. The main less from these UBI studies is that the threshold for cutting off means tested benefits is way too low and there is quite a bit of benefit to gain at continuing proving direct cash benefits at higher income levels. That said we currently don’t have any reasonable way to fund it, as well as to ensure that UBI isn’t going to be just a wealth transfer program from the working and middle class to corporations.
- eqdw 6y agoWhat does it do to the poor suckers who keep working only to have all their money given to people who sit on their asses all day doing nothing?
- foolzcrow 6y agoHere's your sign. Do the 1% support it? Yes they sure do. So the 1% will help up get a higher piece of the pie of we let them control our lives but they won't just give us the money and let us keep our freedom. Hmm. I wonder if it's a trick.