31 ms·

A Dutch city is giving money away to test the basic income theory

• ryan-allen 11y ago
  I wonder how much you'd need to save and to own in order to conduct this experiment on yourself? I've wondered about what I would do day to day if I didn't 'have to work to live'. I honestly think I'd be doing very similar things. I'd still be programming, and I'd be wanting to make things that'd help people do their jobs better, but I wouldn't feel like I 'had to'. That alone would improve my sanity immensely (I think), and yet it's only a small conceptual jump between what I'm already doing day-to-day.
  • NhanH 11y ago
    The number I've heard is 20x your annual expenses. I don't think there are any meaningful sources to cite here, but I remember reading that from the Mr Money Mustache crowd.
    • davty 11y ago
      The number is actually 25. It is based on a withdrawal of 4 %: http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2012/05/29/how-much-do-i-need-for-retirement/ http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2012/05/29/how-much-do-i-need....
  • adrianN 11y ago
    You need to save about 30 times what you spend in a year. Invested in index funds, you can withdraw 3-4% per year basically indefinitely.
  • mtsr 11y ago
    The problem is that if you're at an income level where you could comfortably save up for something like this, you're also likely to have much higher fixed costs (bigger house, car, etc) and more expensive habits (food, subscriptions, etc). That said, without living particularly frugally I'm currently able to save up to a third of my monthly income. This means that without cutting costs I could spend one month jobless for each two months of saving. Truth be told there's still plenty of spending I could cut back on, although that would mean a change in lifestyle. Time to start saving too?
  • jlarocco 11y ago
    The problem there is that you have a cushy programming job. The bigger question is what about the gas station clerks? Or cleaning people? Or wait staff? Or any of the people working the millions of other jobs that just totally suck. Having done it in the past, I'm 100% sure nobody wakes up totally stoked to go bus tables or wash dishes. So, maybe people who have awesome jobs will just keep doing what they're doing, but for people with shitty jobs, why not say, "F* it, I can get by with the guaranteed minimum, so why bother?"
    • mtsr 11y ago
      Depends. If every euro you earn there adds to your unconditional minimum income, instead of replacing a euro from welfare, the motivation to work for that new car, or whatever, becomes pretty tangible. Note that €900 (or €1300 for a family) is pretty barebones. You won't be putting much more than bread and potatoes on the table using that. And you'll probably live in a rather small house too.
      • Cthulhu_ 11y ago
        Yeah but at the same time, it would allow people to be more picky about where they work. "I need money so I'll take any job" is a different mindset than "I am financially independent and I'm looking to make more monies in a job I like"
        • mtsr 11y ago
          The I'll-take-any-job crowd might not be very motivated in their work anyway. At worst this will force us to pay better salaries for ALL jobs that have fewer applicants, instead of only the ones that require a higher education or lots of experience. Seems fair to me.
      • moonchrome 11y ago
        Income has a diminishing return, once you're out of "minimum income" the ammount requred to take the shit job is not linear. You can either lowball the minimum income to the point where you can't realistically live on it for long or a lot of services get more expensive + tax hike to support it = lower standard of living for normal people (unaffected by minimum income but not rich enouh to ignore the costs)
  • antome 11y ago
    Assuming you average 7% each year on the S&P 500, inflation averages 3%, and 50K per year is your target, you would want at least 1.25 million USD in the bank. Taking into account volatility, you'd probably want at least 1.8M.
  • maehwasu 11y ago
    I sort of ran this experiment on myself this year. The answer is that I have actually probably learned more about coding than I had in the 3-4 previous years when I was working a lot, since I had more time to delve in to topics in depth, rather than rush to ship. It feels great, and I've come out the other side much more productive in the projects I have kept working on.
    • perfunctory 11y ago
      That sounds like the case in favour of basic income
  • lucaspiller 11y ago
    I am kind of in this situation so I'll chime in: I quit my full time job nearly two years ago and since then have been freelancing and contracting remotely. I'm now taking a 'sabbatical' for a couple of months over the summer to recharge and hopefully start my own business. I've had a lot of people asking me when I'm getting a job again, as I assume they aren't in a financial position to be able to do this so wonder how on earth I could afford it. Although I have been lucky to have some jobs that reimburse me well, I also don't have a car, house, wife (that's happening next month!) or go out drinking. The amount I have in savings is equivalent to what friends who own houses have in equity - which is about enough for me to live off for two years, so I'm definitely not retiring yet. The plan for the business is to build something (I'm not 100% sure what yet, but I've been following the bootstrapped community for a good few years) that will bring me in a couple of thousand dollars a month with a lot less stress than a full time job, so it's pretty equivalent to a basic income. I will probably end up moving to somewhere where the cost of living is cheaper (bonus: the cheaper parts of Europe also have much better weather than the UK), and then 'work' on whatever interests me - to start with I'll probably take a break from tech and do something more creative and hands on.
    • perfunctory 11y ago
      I am afraid a couple of months doesn't really count as a sabbatical. In any case wish you all the best with your experiment.
    • ghgr 11y ago
      > Although I have been lucky to have some jobs that reimburse me well, I also don't have a car, house, wife (that's happening next month!) or go out drinking. I find amusing that you include "wife" with all the other expenses. You'll become DINKYs ("Dual Income, No Kids Yet") and thus you will have even more financial independence :-). By the way, congratulations! > [..] but I've been following the bootstrapped community for a good few years) Could you please share the name of the community?
      • lucaspiller 11y ago
        > You'll become DINKYs ("Dual Income, No Kids Yet") and thus you will have even more financial independence Haha, thanks! She is currently studying, and we will probably have kids in the next coupe of years - when we do she wants to take care of them rather than working, so unfortunately not! At least being Europeans we have good social welfare. > Could you please share the name of the community? There isn't a HackerNews-for-bootstrappers, at least I've found nothing worthwhile. There are a lot of disparate communities depending on what area you want to get into (e.g. creating a consulting agency, building a SaaS, internet marketing, brick-and-mortar business, etc). Most of what I follow revolves around Microconf, here are a few notable podcasts: http://bootstrapped.fm/ http://bootstrapped.fm/ http://www.bootstrappedwithkids.com/ http://www.bootstrappedwithkids.com/ http://nightsandweekendspodcast.com/ http://nightsandweekendspodcast.com/ http://www.startupsfortherestofus.com/ http://www.startupsfortherestofus.com/ http://www.tropicalmba.com/ http://www.tropicalmba.com/
  • jackpirate 11y ago
    Sounds more-or-less like grad school to me :)
• vog 11y ago
  Can this really work when applied just partially? This experiment is about ~250 people with basic income in a large city. (The text mentions 300 people, but some of them form a control group that doesn't receive basic income.) So if any of these selected people will try to find a job, they will probably voluntarily "lose" it to somebody to really needs that job. Even without that moral issue, this makes still sense from a business point of view: All else equal, hiring a poor worker is probably perferable to hiring a wealthy one, as the poor worker has more incentives to work really hard.
  • GigabyteCoin 11y ago
    >somebody to really needs that job. That somebody would not "really need that job" because they would be guaranteed a basic income no matter what in a real world scenario.
    • fragsworth 11y ago
      I think you misinterpreted things. Re-read the original comment
    • rktjmp 11y ago
      Yeah, but their point is its not really a real world scenario. Since the other person, who's not taking part in the study, wont receive a basic income, the person in the study might feel morally required to give up their job potential job to the person who really needs it, which means the results of the study will be inconclusive.
      • s73v3r 11y ago
        Are they even going to know who else is participating in the study, and who else is applying for their jobs? When you go apply for a job, do you find out who else applied, and decide if any of them "need" the job more than you?
    • gommm 11y ago
      No, what vog means I think is that if A receives basic income competes with someone B who doesn't receive basic income (because only 250 people gets it in that test), then the moral thing to do from A's point of view is to voluntarily lose to B since B needs it more than he does. So having a small sample set in a big city invalidates part of the experience since the situation is very different from what would really happen if everyone had a guaranteed minimal income.
• onion2k 11y ago
  One of the first pieces of advice I had when my company landed its investment was to pay ourselves a decent (not extravagant) wage so that my time went on worrying about the company rather than how I was going to afford to do things in my personal life. The same is true for employees - if they're paid a good living they will spend more time on thinking about problems in their job instead. If a government were to do that for everyone it seems pretty obvious that society will be better off - people will spend their time working on things to improve everyone's life rather than worrying about how to afford their rent.
  • hueving 11y ago
    >people will spend their time working on things to improve everyone's life Some people will. I have met many plenty of people though that don't care about other people regardless of their income.
    • TisButMe 11y ago
      But those people will always be a net negative for society, basic income or not. Empowering those who would make a positive difference if they had enough time/money sounds like a good idea to me.
      • JustSomeNobody 11y ago
        I think those who are against a basic wage feel the current net negative portion of society would be a greater net negative because not only would they be receiving a wage, but they'd spend it on crap and society would still have to take care of them (hospital bills, food, etc).
        • thuuuomas 11y ago
          > but they'd spend it on crap Sounds like a good deal for the crap vendors. Also, maybe the instant-gratification app scene...
    • Merovius 11y ago
• lumberjack 11y ago
  The article is unclear, if not misleading. They are not testing a universal basic income scheme. They are testing an unrestricted basic income scheme, for welfare recipients only. If the experiment is a success it would mean that welfare schemes will become less paternalistic.
• jwr 11y ago
  Any discussion of basic income should at least mention the excellent novel by Janusz Zajdel, "Limes Inferior" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limes_inferior https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limes_inferior). I think he very accurately portrays a system where everyone is guaranteed basic income (along with some other interesting and mostly terrifying concepts). It is true (and sad, I think) that many people, given basic income, will do nothing to improve themselves or their surroundings. But I still think basic income is an idea worth pursuing.
  • nathell 11y ago
    Limes inferior has not been translated to English (I was only able to find amateur translations of the first chapter [1]) and as such remains largely unknown outside Poland. Which is extremely unfortunate. [1]: http://paczemoj.blogspot.com/2011/11/limes-inferior-chp-1.html http://paczemoj.blogspot.com/2011/11/limes-inferior-chp-1.ht...
• dwightgunning 11y ago
  The international press seemed to get hold of this last week and the early coverage pointed to a Dutch article with far more direct quotes [1]. My Dutch is poor but my understanding is that the primary aim is as much (if not more) about reducing administrative burden as it is about basic/universal income. Also, I haven't seen any coverage in the mainstream Dutch press... which is somewhat telling. [1] http://destadutrecht.nl/politiek/utrecht-start-experiment-met-basisinkomen/ http://destadutrecht.nl/politiek/utrecht-start-experiment-me...
  • wila 11y ago
    Interesting, thanks for that. Here's a quick translation (I tried to do it correctly, but didn't want to spent too much time on it) Utrecht starts experiment with basic income. 16-06-2015 • 10:15 Everhardt2 After the summer holidays Utrechts starts an experiment around the basic income. Counciller Victor Everhardt from "Work and income" likes to see if a basic income principle works in practice. "It would be more simple if the system is again based on trust." Why this experiment? I have been counciller "Work and Income" for a year and I think that it's a sign of civilisation that people who, usually temporary, but sometimes also longer, cannot take care of their income get social security benefits. At the other end of that system we have built up a huge verification system, often based on mistrust. People with benefits usually have to take into account a large number of rules, like welfare, special welfare, rent assistance, children welfare etcetera. All these systems have their own verification mechanisms. There's a forest for the trees amount of rules and verification methods. It's quite easy to get stuck here. It would be a lot simpler if we could base the system again on trust. People could abuse this and not go to work? From our data it appears that less then 1.5 percent abuses the welfare payments system. However, before we get into all kinds of principle debates about should we do this or not, we would like to research how a basic income system works. What happens if somebody gets a monthly payment without additional rules and verifications? Will such a person go sit at home passively or is that person more motivated to develop him/herself and make a meaningful contribution to our society with paid or voluntary work? How are you going to research that? Together with the University of Utrecht we have designed an experiment at which people who live on welfare get to meet specific regimes. For example a group that works with rewards and 'jobs' for a payment, another group with a basic income without any additional rules and of course a control group that lives by the current rules. And are you allowed to do this from the minister? We have verified this at official level to see if an experiment with a basic income is possible and we have not yet heard "njet". In addition, minister Plasterk of internal affairs has announced that cities should get more room to experiment with existing law. We think the basic income is very suitable for this. When does the experiment with basic income start? End of June we have an expert meeting about basic income with other cities that also have plans into the same direction, like Nijmegen, Wageningen, Tilburg and Groningen. Together we can make our call for more room of possibilities for cities stronger. In addition we like to start with the experiment in the second half of this year. (deStadUtrecht.nl – Mario Gibbels) edit: spelling, readability and line spacing
• piokoch 11y ago
  When I see that discussion about basic income I am always wandering, who is going to pay for that? I assume the money will not be printed (this would not help, as inflation would make that income very small). So the country that applies such policy must have some way of finding money. Some countries have natural resources that they can sell, so the problem is solved. But how about the rest? I guess this will be financed by those, who are earning more money. Let's forget about the question if this is moral or not to take away money from people who are working hard just to give away these money to those, who are not working at all. However the taxation will make costs of work higher and higher. Country economy would become less competitive. In addition avoiding taxes would start to be really profitable - people would start opening fake companies abroad, create fake costs, etc. it happens now as well, but the scale could be much bigger. As usually, big players would be able to avoid taxes, so the one who would be hurt most are the "middle class". Taxes will eat their profits and the gap between the best earning people and the rest would be growing and growing. For me it looks a bit as if we were trying to solve the problems caused by goods redistribution by applying more goods redistribution.
  • Swizec 11y ago
    Most civilized countries already have something very similar - social security. Everyone who works pays into the system that distributes that money among those who are unemployed. It's a type of insurance if you will. If I participate in the system, I can be reasonably sure that were I to lose my job, I wouldn't end up on the streets. A spectacular example of why this is a good thing is J.K Rowling who was able to write Harry Potter because the British welfare system kept her in reasonably good shape after she lost her job -> http://imgur.com/gallery/FIQYq http://imgur.com/gallery/FIQYq I've never understood the exact differences between basic income and social security, but it fundamentally feels like such a safety net should exist.
    • mcv 11y ago
      > I've never understood the exact differences between basic income and social security, The difference is that everybody gets basic income, and not just the unemployed. You don't get a sharp division between the employed and the unemployed, your welfare won't get cut when you start earning money. Work is always rewarded, and it's easier to get out of the poverty trap.
• weddpros 11y ago
  Basic income usually assumes money comes from nowhere, from "the state"... This experience is fun, but to be correct, those who find a job should in turn pay 1300/m... because the money cannot come from anywhere else than people. Or you'll get VERY biased results. Think of it: they could have tested the financing instead. 300 workers get to pay 1300€/m to the city. Who wants to be first?
  • weddpros 11y ago
    France spends 600B/y in social spending. That's about 15k per citizen (minus children). 1/3 of the GDP. So let's change it to a Basic Income of 1000+/m for everybody... Many will loose a lot... because that's what France is already spending, for a lot less than 40ish M citizens. I know downvoters would love this to work. But think about it: today, the system cares for people with a handicap (for which 1000/m is not enough), for single families (for which 1000/m is not enough), etc... You just can't have everybody receive the same amount and remove help from those who need more... So Basic Income will need much more money than what is already spent... just to take care of inequalities it will create. If you think a country like France needs more redistribution (than 1/3 of the GDP), okay... but Basic Income will not achieve that. Proponents often say BI will replace social spending. I think that's impossible. If you just want more taxes, just say it. Be clear. BI is not clear at all, even if it looks easy to understand. Source: http://www.contrepoints.org/2013/09/30/140878-france-championne-du-monde-depenses-sociales http://www.contrepoints.org/2013/09/30/140878-france-champio...
• PinguTS 11y ago
  Basic income is a nice theory, but completely ignores the financing part. The money has to come from somewhere. I would be really fine with receiving a basic income. From the social side I would support it. People can do what they like, like artists, developers, and creative people. May be there will be the next business opportunity, startup from that work. Yes, may be other people are lazy, that is like today. There is a big BUT. Where does the money comes from to support this basic income? All those experiments, which are regarded as successful had the wonderful position, that the money came from outside. From the outside there was money put into the experiment, including the so successful experiment in Canada, where 75% of the money came from Ottawa, people, which where not part of the experiment. I have not seen any experiment, the people taking part in the basic income have supported them-selfs, meaning the money for the basic income came from within this community. Only if the money can come from within the community them-self I would regard that experiment as successful.
  • collyw 11y ago
    The money can come from the same place it came from when the banks needed bailed out.
    • notahacker 11y ago
      Unsustainable increases to national debts and/or the IMF? Good luck running a country on that basis...
  • siscia 11y ago
    Where the money came from in our society ? Let's normalize the total amount of money of today at 100. If the economic grow of a 5% a year, in 365 days the total amount of money will be 105, where those 5 come from ? Suppose you build a fountain, you pay whoever physically build it, and your money go from you to the builder, the total amount of money in the system is the same, it just change hand, however now your city enjoy a new fountain which bring some amount of new value.
  • tonyedgecombe 11y ago
    It could be self funded, most advanced economies have a progressive tax system, if they switched to a flat tax system and moved the lost tax benefit to basic income it would be mostly cost neutral.
• verinus 11y ago
  when it comes to utopian ideas i would prefer the right to work, to get a job to handing out cash to everybody. my reason: handing out cash destroys the incentives to do better and improve...and not all necessary jobs are actual fun to do and others would surely completely vanish...
  • sktrdie 11y ago
    That's probably because you've found a job that you like. In reality however most people hate their jobs and would rather do something else. This idea of living in a society where people need to do something they don't want in order to survive is a form of slavery.
    • verinus 11y ago
      > This idea of living in a society where people need to do something they don't want in order to survive is a form of slavery. i want do dispute this. it disregards and diminishes true slavery. having to support one self is not slavery but the normal way of living...
  • s73v3r 11y ago
    Except your vision causes people to be forced into shitty jobs where they're abused by management, because they're forced to do so to survive. Under your vision, there is absolutely no incentive for a shitty, low end employer to really improve, because there are more people that need a job than jobs available.
• noreasonw 11y ago
  The problem I see with any basic income scheme is that lazy people can get in the trap to become trapped in a lazy for ever state. Basic income should be accompanied with a policy to motivate people to develop their capabilities and enhance their self confidence. Once you are trapped in the basic income scheme and automation replaces all the low skilled jobs, lazy people can see themselves as completely disposable objects, so you need a great self-confidence and a change of mentality to change from a lazy people to a do it person.
  • atlih 11y ago
    You can't change people with a formula. There's a lot of lazy people working now today, to the detriment of society and the economy. Think of the opportunities though, a bunch of nerds could move up to the countryside and work on nuclear fusion and cure for cancer instead of having to apply at a bank or some ladder-climbing corporate gig.
    • noreasonw 11y ago
      I think that if you are able to do deep research in nuclear fusion or a cure for cancer you should also be able to find the way of earning a good salary under any circumstances and at the same time finding a way of allocating time for your real passion. Great people become greater under difficult circumstances. I don't think basic income should make a real difference in that. You can't change people with a formula but I think there is a lot you can do to motivate and coach people, opium is not a solution. Could be basic income the opium for the people?
      • s73v3r 11y ago
        "I think that if you are able to do deep research in nuclear fusion or a cure for cancer you should also be able to find the way of earning a good salary under any circumstances and at the same time finding a way of allocating time for your real passion." In theory, sure. But in reality, most jobs suck. Even if you are of that level, odds are the job you'll get is going to be emotionally or mentally draining, and at the end of the day, you'll really just want to relax.
• siscia 11y ago
  I wonder if it is possible to design a schema to provide basic income to whoever need as a startup... For sure you won't have problem find user, the churn rate would be very low, and you will really change the word.
• eddd 11y ago
  Collect taxes at high stakes -> Give money away for free -> Expect from people to be happier. Why governments just decrease some tax rates and let people to choose what to do with their own money?
  • calanya 11y ago
    Err, to help people who don't have any money?
    • eddd 11y ago
      You won't help people by addicting them to free money. Individuals should be independent, what if government change their mind and stops giving money away for free?
      • s73v3r 11y ago
        I dunno, what happens if your job stops giving you money?
  • fwn 11y ago
    Redistribution is not a zero-sum game. With every redistributional loop, politics get influence they can convert in votes, power, etc. ..and this is not cynism, just regular public choice.
• jokoon 11y ago
  I live in france (10% unemployment), and unless you're listed as seeking work, you're not given welfare. It's odd because they don't really check that you send resumes, nor do they really try to contact companies or just propose you a shitty jobs. The "get a job" mentality is really weird to me, because if you have freedom, and you can't find a job that suits you or that you're just too humiliated to beg all those employers, why punish people for being moochers ? Unemployment is such a political subject, it always ends up being about social stratification anyways. Employed people are just safe and sound, and there are many parameters and behaviors that keep many individuals away from employment or social integration. Being a marginal and being unemployed, to me are the same problem. The UBI solves this problem, since it's injecting money that increase consumption, which in turn also increase business and growth.
  • dantheman 11y ago
    That money has to come from somewhere, it will either reduce the consumption from where it was taken or it will reduce capital stocks that can be used for investment.
    • deleted 11y ago
      [deleted]
    • DanBC 11y ago
      Look at, eg, the English "Working family tax credits" system. People on low wages pay some tax on those wages, then apply to have some of that tax returned. There's a lot of bureaucracy involved. It's not great to be on those benefits because you can't budget your money. Scrapping that system and then just reducing the amount of tax that everyone on low wages pays would probably be better.
      • JesperRavn 11y ago
        That may be true, but dantheman was simply correcting jokoon's implicit claim that paying people money is good in itself ("since it's injecting money that increase consumption, which in turn also increase business and growth.") I think there are good arguments for basic income, but they get obscured by the fact that it has become a political campaign, so people like you argue for their own side rather than correcting people who support basic income but for the wrong reason. You are correct that there are reasons why basic income be more efficient than other redistribution measures. But this doesn't contradict the fact that the money has to come from somewhere, and it isn't relevant to this particular thread of discussion.
• FHorse 11y ago
  Having lived under a communist regime and also in the ghettos of NYC decades ago, I can tell you just how idiotic this is. But I guess there's no shortage of idiotic ideas when you are playing with other people's money.
  • vfdva 11y ago
    What was it about living in NYC ghettos that suggests basic income is a bad idea?
    • FHorse 11y ago
      Witnessed the total lack of motivation of people to do anything for themselves. It was the result of the policy at the time. When the policy changed, the behavior also changed. BMI provides no incentives for people to do the right thing, which is to work hard to better themselves. Quite the opposite. By removing any requirements, it enables unmotivated people to just sit on their ass. Nor does it discourage antisocial behavior. Just giving people free money doesn't do that in itself. All it does is set up an expectation of free money. I believe the best way to spend the money is to help people who work hard to improve themselves, regardless of their income level. The money is given according to the impact of the money. So people with low income would benefit proportionally more because the before and after difference is larger percentage wise. Edit: The thing that should redistributed is not wealth, but opportunity.
      • ZenoArrow 11y ago
        What about making higher education free, do you see benefits in doing that?
• ed_blackburn 11y ago
  Basic Income is sometimes dogmatically derided as 'socialist' thus evil. Proponents of Basic Income - or varieties thereof - can be found on the left and the right of the economic political compass. Even Milton Freedman was a proponent of some guise. Personally I think it is lazy to dismiss the thinking behind Basic Income as merely communism.
  • TeMPOraL 11y ago
    That's why I hate political labels. People say UBI is 'communist' because it's similar to one aspect of communism, and therefore must be bad because of all the other aspects of communism. It's a strong failure mode of human thinking.
    • orangecat 11y ago
      The Worst Argument In The World: http://squid314.livejournal.com/323694.html http://squid314.livejournal.com/323694.html
  • JackdawX 11y ago
    There is no arguing that basic income, welfare, disability benefit etc. are socialist. That is not deriding them, it is an accurate description. It's strange that this is a bad term in the US, not so here in the EU.
    • Retric 11y ago
      It's not even slightly socialist. People talk as if all government action is socialist, but socialism includes controlling the means of production not just taxes. In the end the problems with socialism are organizational in nature, and large corporations face the same issues of misaligned incentives. Edit: A minimum wage is socialist a minimum income is not. PS: Now you could call it collectivist.
      • rjtavares 11y ago
        Since he mentions he is European, I think that he is thinking about Social Democracy rather than Socialism (which has a very clear economic meaning which, like you said, assumes state/social control of the means of production).
• noreasonw 11y ago
  What about the following flavor of Basic Income: In order to reduce the amount of money needed to support the BI scheme, you are given a card to buy some standardized products: jeans, bread, soup, chairs, tables, beds, bikes, ubuntu and the like. The main point is that those products are cheaper to produce and distribute. You lose some of the power of money but since society is paying the bill I think you should accept the deal. Edited: grammar and shorter.
  • pakled_engineer 11y ago
    You reinvented food stamps. There will be costs running that card scheme and costs for retailers accepting it, and maybe the BI recepient wants to buy used clothing p2p or not have to go to bigbox retail corp to buy jeans. Maybe they buy fabric and make their own unique clothes now that they have time. My city is full of hipster hobbyist dressmakers and drop in sewing lounges, maybe they will become successful designers if not forced to do meaningless work to survive.
  • Lawtonfogle 11y ago
    It'll be gamed by corps wanting to get their products on the approved list while cheaper products might end up not being approved. I've seen government justify buying items costing 4 times the price with less than half the features due to cost saving measures, because the expensive crap was approved but the cheaper consumer item was not.
  • __z 11y ago
    I buy tables, bikes, and beds solely second hand (oftentimes from an individual not a store). If I had to buy new it would destroy the second hand market and encourage massive amounts of waste.
• stretchwithme 11y ago
  Ah, finally everybody can work on their personal projects instead of an annoying job. But won't someone have to pay all those annoying taxes? And when we go to spend other people's money, won't someone have to be there earning that money?
• kriro 11y ago
  The pirate party in Germany had this as one of their ideas (Grundeinkommen), not sure if they still do. I like this. My basic economic instincts scream "nonsense" but I like testing it even if the test results are likely useless because the city is still surrounded by "normal" ones. Reminds me a bit of the socialist calculation debate. There's enough money wasted on stuff I consider more useless and at least this experiment has the potential to generate surprises. I'm all for experimenting with economic systems, worst case it generates some new ideas.
• ppereira 11y ago
  It looks like this is not a "saturation" site for testing the basic income theory. All participants appear to start with the same income, but the basic income group receives their income with no strings attached. This can create some unfortunate incentives that would not occur had everyone received a basic income. For example, if you have one group with a basic income and one group without a basic income in the same population, the group without would be more likely to be hired for low wage jobs because that salary is much more important to them. If everyone had a basic income, then all potential hires would be on an equal footing and it would not look like the non-basic income group is more employable. One way to test the basic income theory is to give everyone a very low basic income and then slowly increase that amount over time. If basic income works, it should be beneficial even at low rates that do not massively disrupt the tax and welfare system. When this is seen to have beneficial effects (or at least not adverse effects), the rates can be increased.
  • squids 11y ago
    >the group without would be more likely to be hired for low wage jobs because that salary is much more important to them. That's not necessarily how it would work. In the UK we've had a top up with tax credits for low paid jobs. What we've seen is an explosion of low paid part time jobs as businesses know people will take them as their income will be topped up by the govt.
    • johnchristopher 11y ago
      That's irritating to read because when basic income is being discussed it's always about people taking advantage of it for not working when in the real world it's more likely the bosses and the people in power who will take advantage of it (and they will, a relative of mine lost his job at 50 because a govt sponsored win-win program targeting the youth: hire a young gun and the govt will pay a part of his salary. Now they had to pay my relative a hefy sum of money in social benefits. He luckily found a better job later and his old company is now playing carousel with young guns and getting less done of course.)
      • 11y ago
• TeMPOraL 11y ago
  I'm a strong supporter of the concept and motivation behind universal basic income, but I admit I don't understand one part of the calculations - what's the solution for the problem of prices universally rising to the point of cancelling out the UBI? I mean, if everyone suddenly gets additional $500 a month to spend, how do you prevent the market from correcting for that?
  • chi-sq 11y ago
    IANAE and would like to hear an expert's answer as well. But as far as I can see, the demand for basic food and shelter is not elastic, people need roof and bread always. And the capital is mostly reallocated from existing subsidies, not created. With UBI, prices for non-essential goods and services would maybe increase a little, and there would be a revolution in employment market, but my guess is that potatoes and basic accomodation prices would stay low.
    • rhino369 11y ago
      I think basic income is a bad idea, but if you liberated people from seeking jobs, many of them wouldn't live in overcrowded cities. If rent is too high in the bay area, you'd go live in Madison, Wisconsin. Or in a pre-fab house in the middle of nowhere.
      • ghaff 11y ago
        In the context of a thought experiment, where people would live is an interesting question. There are certainly many places today that are inexpensive in no small part because there are few jobs. It doesn't have to be in the middle of nowhere. Detroit qualifies too. On the other hand, moving somewhere cheaper would imply moving away from existing family and social support structures. However, I suspect a lot of the people who are championing basic income are implicitly envisioning living in a relatively comfortable apartment in the Bay area from which they can follow their muse--not public housing in Detroit.
  • benkuykendall 11y ago
    It changes the allocation of resources. Let's play with some numbers. We will say that 5 people have the following monthly incomes [ 0, 500, 500, 2000, 3000, 4000] Our economy only makes one good: bread. There are 1000 loaves of bread produced. Assuming everyone spends all of their money, since there is a total of 10000 dollars, the price of bread will be 10 dollars. Each person can buy = [ 0, 50, 50, 200, 300, 400] Now, let's say in 2016, everyone gets 500 extra dollars from some outside source, giving incomes [ 500, 1000, 1000, 2500, 3500, 4500] There are now 13000 dollars. The price of bread will be 13 dollars. Each person can buy [ 38, 76, 192, 269, 346] Some people can buy more bread. Some can buy less.
• uhwhat 11y ago
  Basic income would need to be pegged to the CPI or some standard of living. I imagine partitioning living NEEDS [housing, food, transportation] as an area of the economy with its own money/token/basic-income-credits system separate from the WANT economy of everything else.
• Rumford 11y ago
  Economic experiments can never really have a control group, so what the Dutch government learns from this will depend greatly on the theory they already have when interpreting the data.
  • mattchew 11y ago
    IIRC the previous article I read on this, the Dutch are at least attempting to set up a control group.
    • Rumford 11y ago
      I suppose they should be commended for the effort, but the other issue is that the experimental group is unlikely to represent what things would be like under a truly universal basic income. Incentives throughout the economy will shift and cause reactions none of us can predict, except in very broad strokes. For example, €1000/mo for a tiny experimental group will probably not have the same buying power as the same amount given to millions.
• toong 11y ago
  Are there any studies out there about the second order effects ? If everyone is getting BI, I'm expecting rent to go up. Like, waaaaaaay up. Up to the point where no one can live from BI anymore.
  • orangecat 11y ago
    Then the third order effect is that it becomes more profitable to supply housing, and rents come back down.
    • toong 11y ago
      Right, that's what you're seeing in SF or London right now ?
  • fchollet 11y ago
    When people don't have to pick their housing based on the location of low-wage jobs (dense cities), I would expect the rent to go down due to better utilization of the total housing supply.
    • err4nt 11y ago
      I don't think that's how rent is set right now. I believe people charge rent based on what people can bear to pay - so as long as another person with BI comes along willing to pay the higher rent, the landlord will sell to him instead!
      • ItsDeathball 11y ago
        It's not the house that's valuable to a renter, though. Most of the price variation for a given floor space comes from location-driven land cost. If someone on basic income plans to live solely on their BI for a bit, maybe to work on a personal project, maybe just to play videogames, they won't be location-bound and can seek cheaper housing in the suburbs or a rural area. There is a lot of underutilized land in America that could become very attractive to developers if the pool of available consumers suddenly included a subgroup that didn't care about commute time. That's not just greenfield developments, either; it would also apply to major cities, like in the Rust Belt, where housing and land are incredibly cheap because there are no jobs available.
• Expez 11y ago
  Every time universal basic income is discussed someone claims it can't be done because if we were to do this tomorrow the costs would be astronomical. That's true, but it's a bit like stating in 1950 that the world will never see personal computing because a computer costs millions and there are billions of people. Universal basic income amounts to (providing or) paying for food, clothing and shelter. What is the cost of food when we have labgrown meat, the robots till the farm and self-driving cars deliver it everywhere? What's the cost of shelter with industrial scale 3d-printing and robotic assembly? What is the cost of providing everyone with basic clothing when all the factory workers are replaced with robots? Stop worrying about the price of everything and start thinking in terms of scarcity. Will the stuff required for basic human survival still be prohibitively scarce in 5 years, 10 years, 50 years?
  • dagw 11y ago
    What's the cost of shelter with industrial scale 3d-printing and robotic assembly? The cost of land plus the cost of raw materials plus the cost of extending the necessary infrastructure, so basically the same as today. What is the cost of providing everyone with basic clothing when all the factory workers are replaced with robots? The cost of raw materials plus the cost of machinery, so basically the same as today. Basic labor is incredibly cheap today, (desirable) land and resources aren't.
• LBarret 11y ago
  it is quite funny and sad how many comments focus on how this system can be abused (and implicitly why it is inefficient). I think this is a bias from our programming/hacker culture where things (aka programs) tend to work with absolute. My experience in economic policy has more to do with relatives ( a trend vs another one, the percentage of free rider vs the gain for the whole population ) and tuning ( adding counter-balance and conditions as we get feedback from the terrain ).
• SimpleXYZ 11y ago
  In theory, a basic income should shift wages from skill to demand. For example, sanitation workers and doctors would get a high wage whereas video game designer wages would drop. (You won't care about a video game when there is 3' of garbage on your lawn.)
  • ocb 11y ago
    I don't think demand is the word you're looking for... Maybe necessity or importance?
• stefn 11y ago
  What I find is often not considered when discussing this topic are fundamental economics. Giving everyone a basic income will almost certainly be consumed by an increase in the price level of that country. A somewhat similar example are countries with very high wages like Switzerland. Wages are high but not in real terms as their price level is high also.
• clavalle 11y ago
  > “People say they are not going to try as hard to find a job,” Or they will bargain for a job that is worth their time so they won't accept a job that won't improve their lives. That is a subtle but important difference from just sitting around because they can. My bet is that when people aren't bargaining for their life -- food, shelter etc because those things are a given they will begin making trades that are a net positive for them rather than just trying to control their losses. 'Head above water' bargaining is a fact of life for the poor that is easy for the middle and upper classes to forget. It leads directly and almost inevitably to exploitation by the other party that is in a better bargaining position. Further in the article it talks about young men continuing school and mothers staying home and taking care of children. These are decisions that are made by people who are not desperate and not in a terrible bargaining position. I'm excited to see the results whether they agree with my intuition or not. We need more policy experimentation in the US and I'd love to see some of that experimentation in this direction.
• knodi123 11y ago
  In a heavily automated society, the only question we need to answer is, should people have only as much money as they have earned, or only as much money as they need? If the former, then it will be seen as almost immoral or evil to give a comfortable wage to someone who didn't earn it. If the latter, then it will be seen as almost immoral for the one guy who owns the robotic factory to reap all of the profit and earn a fortune every year by having made workers redundant. The third option is to eschew automation entirely and keep a steady supply of make-work jobs, just to justify enough salaries to keep everybody from starving. Which strikes me as more dystopian than the oligarchy in option #2.
  • JulianMorrison 11y ago
    The third option is what society does now. Every time you hear politicians talk about "creating jobs", that's what it means, nearly always: the amount of available make-work just went up. We don't so much eschew robotics, as under-bid them. McDonalds finds it cheaper to hire humans than automate - for now. (The touch screen, card-accepting menus I've seen appearing lately, make the case that this won't last much longer.)
    • knodi123 11y ago
      > The third option is what society does now Yes, I did start off stipulating "in a heavily automated society". I don't think we're quite there yet, but we will be soon, and increasing our make-work programs in lock-step with the progress of automation is a quick road to dystopia #3.
• deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
• gregjwild 11y ago
  The main thing to remember with this is that even if you do end up with a % of people who do just bum around on basic, a lot more still would rather earn enough to live a more interesting life. And wages will probably go up to incentivize people to do the crap jobs - or encourage someone to find a way to automate it.
  • gdewilde 11y ago
    Hiring people will be so much more enjoyable : Hire when business is booming Send people home when business is slow No tears if you let someone go No more billing the customer for employees who do nothing More skilled people to hire Training employees for the price of training More people to chose from No more minimum wage(!) Free employees who want to learn Honest short job interviews (starting wages as low as zero) No more complex pension plans No more complex insurance Less medical tests No more unreliable temp employees No more employees who hate you with a passion Less theft and vandalism A lot more customers as the economy now works for human beings A lot more businesses to buy from and to sell to as anyone can now start a business More competition thus more efficiency More social interaction and empathy And (I jokingly add) Incentive for employers to stop acting like assholes And the social benefits and savings are also huge: We could stop breeding massive amounts of criminals whose annual cost is equal to four years at Harvard[1] Police officers would be able to do their job without fear of being killed and without killing people. But the greatest social and economic accomplishment is to set people free from the life of fear that is job insecurity. People can stop living from day to day, dream the big dream, learn what needs to be learned and accomplish the big dream. This might be hard to imagine if you have a nice life and know nice people who are doing well for themselves. But even then you know how nice it is to have help from friends who believe in accomplishment. A few words of encouragement, a bit of help with your weaknesses. Ohh it is a world of difference from being surrounded by people who believe in failure because they've seen nothing else. Imagine the kind of help you would get from friends or relatives who just want to get drunk or high simply to forget what miserable lives they have. They will be there for you every day to remind you that whatever it is you are trying to do won't amount to anything - and then they will enjoy your failures. Not unlike the people who don't want to see a basic income because other people might enjoy their lives. Those of us who want to build a modern, functional, resilient and happy society have to work with these people who want nothing more than to see others suffer. shrug [1] - http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/cost-inmate-nyc-ivy-league-tuition-article-1.1471630 http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/cost-inmate-nyc-ivy-leag...
• noarchy 11y ago
  Who are the groups driving all of the mentions of basic income/mincome on social media? Or is it a coincidence that we're seeing more and more discussion of the topic on places like reddit and HN? I'm genuinely curious to know how organic this topic is, versus whether or not there is a concerted effort to "get the word out".
  • flycaliguy 11y ago
    I'm not sure if there is a conspiracy, I've observed a slow increase in it's coverage over the last few years. Much in line with the mainstreaming of ideas about robotic work forces and other technological advances like uber which are bringing unpredictable disruption to the labour market. My guess would be a more so organic reaction to labour predictions.
  • _greim_ 11y ago
    My guess is that much of it comes from technologists and futurologists, who are over-represented online, and way over-represented on Reddit and HN. Perhaps we've even filter-bubbled ourselves a little bit here. In any case, the relationship between technologists/futurologists and basic income advocacy would be that basic income is the solution to an ever-shrinking labor market as automation gets better. Sort of an exit strategy from the current economic regime.
  • droopyEyelids 11y ago
    It's an organic effort to get the word out. The idea really got a hold of me in 2008 and I've been a proponent ever since. It does a great job of both stimulating my imagination and being a fun topic of conversation. For history's sake, I first came upon mention of it on this website, while searching for 'the art of conversation' which was a phrase that i randomly googled. http://www.basicincome.com/bp/artofconv.htm http://www.basicincome.com/bp/artofconv.htm http://www.basicincome.com/ http://www.basicincome.com/
  • marcosdumay 11y ago
    Well, the developed world is in a crisis, with unemployment levels not seen since the inter-wars period. At the same time, robots are happening, and visibly so. It would be strange if people weren't think about it.
• frogpelt 11y ago
  The basic income concept is intriguing to me (because it simplifies things) but I do not think it will work for this reason: Who administers the basic income? The government and by extension politicians. Once they have every single person who breathes on the dole, this will give them unbelievable leverage against the people. If the government is giving everyone a check, how hard is it to argue that the check should be more? Not hard. How hard is it to reduce the amount of the check. Almost impossible. It will eventually devolve into a problem like Greece has now. Too many people receiving money, not enough people paying in. Besides that, asking any government to take money from the people, run it through the giant bureaucracy machine, and magically produce a net benefit to the people is both logically impossible and naturally never going to happen. I'm sure it will be attempted in America at some point and the "public servants" are licking their chops.
  • a_c_s 11y ago
    Cutting all the programs needed to enable basic income would mean most public servants would lose their jobs.
    • frogpelt 11y ago
      I'm talking about elected officials.
      • a_c_s 11y ago
        The vast majority of bureaucrats are not elected officials
    • epylar 11y ago
      At which point they could go on basic income.
    • killface 11y ago
      that's not a bad thing. reduces costs, reduces HR overhead, etc.
  • djb_hackernews 11y ago
• macspoofing 11y ago
  The more I think about it, the more I really like the idea of a basic income. One of the great things about universal healthcare is that you just never worry about it. I never have to think about what would happen to myself or my spouse or my kids if they get cancer after I quit or lose my job. Whether my insurance will fight me on some treatment, or if it covers the rights things. It's nice. Basic income seems like it will give you that kind of piece of mind as well. You know that in the worst case, you'll have a hassle-free, indefinite, (modest) income to get you by. That's worth something.
  • cmdkeen 11y ago
    You're describing non contributory Social Security not a basic income. The difference is that those systems usually make everyone but the retired look for work or be in education etc.
    • Chinjut 11y ago
      Where did the grandparent commenter say anything about "mak[ing] everyone but the retired look for work or be in education etc."? Their comment seems to describe basic income just fine to me.
  • refurb 11y ago
    Whether my insurance will fight me on some treatment, or if it covers the rights things. I don't think universal healthcare addresses those issues. I'm from Canada and people fight with the gov't all the time over the coverage of medical care and drugs. Sure, if you have a really common condition you might get everything you need, but if you have a rare condition, you're often stuck trying to fight it out for coverage.
    • macspoofing 11y ago
      >I'm from Canada and people fight with the gov't all the time over the coverage of medical care and drugs. I'm from Canada too, and yeah, the system isn't perfect. Generally conditions which require a more intensive and personalized long-term care (read: expensive) are lacking. Drugs may be expensive. Dental isn't covered. But let me tell you, you need to see your family GP? You'll see them without worry. Your GP refers you to a specialist for tests? No charge. Your specialist orders more tests because of a finding? No charge. Surgery? No charge. You're hospitalized for a few weeks? You'll never get a $70,000 bill. There is a certain freedom in being able to go through all that, even when unemployed, and never think about whether you'll have to re-mortgage your house.
• crimsonalucard 11y ago
  How about a guaranteed job rather then a free paycheck.
  • normloman 11y ago
    When technology automates the all the worthwhile jobs, should we be paid to dig holes and bury them back up?
    • crimsonalucard 11y ago
      What kind of fantasy world do you live in where you think technology will automate all jobs? If it happens I can assure you it won't be within your lifetime or your children's lifetime. Also why would I pay you to dig a hole and bury it? Are we really so dense that we have to give people free money and not find them anything to do? No. I believe humanity is greater than that. I have a dream about a world where we all have the power to tell someone to mow the lawn or clean up the house AT THE VERY LEAST.
      • normloman 11y ago
        Never said all jobs would be automated in my lifetime. I'm thinking long term (1000 years). And maybe we won't automate all the jobs, but the only jobs left are ones only a few people can do. Though mowing the lawn... that could be automated today.
  • bomaqhbk 11y ago
    The main problems I see with the guaranteed job idea are that it presupposes a judgment about what types of work are inherently valuable (and does so at the cost of exploring the unknown) and it sounds a lot like a life of forced servitude for which the only rational was the original income inequality.
    • crimsonalucard 11y ago
      Forced servitude? you gotta be kidding... Let's look at the world as it is today: work for money. Is that slavery? No. Let's look at the world I'm proposing: guaranteed work for guaranteed money. Is that slavery? according to you, yes. If you're saying one is slavery and the other isn't, then I have to disagree. >guaranteed job idea are that it presupposes a judgment about what types of work are inherently valuable (and does so at the cost of exploring the unknown) Picking up the trash and cleaning up the neighborhood are unknown high risk ventures? Fixing pot-holes, washing graffiti off walls, planting trees, picking litter off the beach, helping the environment have no benefit to society? There are PLENTY of jobs that can be created that are not high risk ventures and can benefit all of society. I'm not proposing to start another NASA program. Are you trying to say that paying people money to sit on their asses while entire cities have thousands of little problems is a more worthwhile venture then telling someone to help out the community in exchange for the same amount of money? Your reasoning being that we as human beings are not intelligent enough to make judgement about which types of work are more valuable? Make a judgement on this: which is more valuable? Helping the community for money OR sitting on your ass for money?
• mikehawkins 11y ago
  My knee-jerk reaction was 'ah, jeez - there's going to be a big percentage of lazy people just gaming the system'. But on reflection, as some other posters have already said, these folks would probably not being looking for work regardless - and if this helps the majority be more productive and happy... to me, it's worth a punt to see what happens. Good on you Utrecht - I love the bold thinking. It might not work - but at least they tried something new to address one of our oldest problems!
• tumdum_ 11y ago
  I will just leave https://mises.org/sites/default/files/For%20a%20New%20Liberty%20The%20Libertarian%20Manifesto_3.pdf https://mises.org/sites/default/files/For%20a%20New%20Libert... here, especially chapter 8.
• chatmasta 11y ago
  How good of a test could it be, if its population is limited to a single Dutch city? Europeans from small countries love to tout their welfare policies as "so much better" than places like the U.S., but they ignore one massive difference: Small European countries are localized, ethnically homogenous populations. The U.S. has to deal with more land, and more people, from more places. You cannot make an apples-to-apples comparison between welfare systems in the U.S. and small countries.
  • stephentmcm 11y ago
    I'll give you the size and population thing but "ethnically homogenous populations" is bullshit: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/us.html https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/... - ~79% White https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/nl.html https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/... ~80% White/Dutch So both nations have a similar level of "ethnically homogenous populations".
    • chatmasta 11y ago
      Is the U.S. 80% Dutch? No. There is more than "white" and "all other ethnicities." Considering geneology is important when designing systems like healthcare, for example. If a disease is isolated to a gene present in only people of Irish descent, and not Scandanavian descent, then the country with more Irish people will pay a higher healthcare cost than one with less. The more unique subsets of genes present in a population, the greater the ethnic diversity. Since the U.S. is comprised almost entirely of immigrants, it will naturally have a more ethnically heterogenous population than a country with population centers dating back millenia.
• somberi 11y ago
  Quoting a recent article in The Economist (Edited by me) " The Swiss will soon vote on a proposal for a basic income of 2,500 francs ($2,700) per month, following the success of a national petition.... Turning it into a substitute for all welfare payments would be prohibitively expensive. But it might work as one element of the safety net.... Although the basic income has so far failed to take off, it does have a commonplace cousin: the tax-free allowance.... It is feasible only if it is small, and complemented by more targeted anti-poverty measures. Basic income: the clue is in the name. " Full Link: http://www.economist.com/news/finance-and-economics/21651897-replacing-welfare-payments-basic-income-all-alluring http://www.economist.com/news/finance-and-economics/21651897... Also of interest (US trying basic income): http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2013/11/government-guaranteed-basic-income http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2013/11/go...