Universal basic income: German experiment bring surprising results(ctvnews.ca)
ctvnews.ca
Universal basic income: German experiment bring surprising results
https://www.ctvnews.ca/lifestyle/article/a-german-experiment-gave-people-a-basic-monthly-income-the-effect-on-their-work-ethic-was-surprising/
108 comments
The study actually shows that the people on UBI switched their jobs more often than the control group.
Considering that the group on UBI was also happier, felt more financially secure and freer than the control group, this is hardly surprising.
Considering that the group on UBI was also happier, felt more financially secure and freer than the control group, this is hardly surprising.
If you run the math, the max financially sustainable UBI for the US is about $1500/month, less for most other countries. Very few people are going to quit their jobs for $1500 a month. Even if you're only making $7/hour, the difference between $1500 and $1500+$7/hour is the difference between rice and beans for every meal and a somewhat normal life.
Those making $7/hour are often working two jobs, UBI would allow them to quit one of them.
Those making $7/hour are often working two jobs, UBI would allow them to quit one of them.
How do you get to those figures? I get much less.
Oh and if you own a house $1500/month is easy to live off. You can probably have a car for that.
Oh and if you own a house $1500/month is easy to live off. You can probably have a car for that.
Average income is $48k in the US. Increase income tax rate enough that somebody with average income nets at 0. So having them pay $18k more in taxes while receiving $18k in UBI seems feasible-ish, if barely. Having them pay $36k more in taxes puts the rate over 100%...
That's assuming this never results in a single job not getting done. For example, I'd stop working and just live on rents, some trading, how many would do the same?
This is a more general problem with UBI of course, they all depend on a global desire for every single individual to contribute to society. And here I am, I don't think more than 10% or so of people feel that need. Of course 50% just outright can't, due to being too young or too old.
And assuming you're figures are correct that would already drop $1500 to $750, which wouldn't cover rent at all.
This is a more general problem with UBI of course, they all depend on a global desire for every single individual to contribute to society. And here I am, I don't think more than 10% or so of people feel that need. Of course 50% just outright can't, due to being too young or too old.
And assuming you're figures are correct that would already drop $1500 to $750, which wouldn't cover rent at all.
Most people living on rents make above average income. They'd pay more in increased taxes than they'd get from UBI.
The $1500 was after taxes. If it wasn't, the average person would end up paying more in taxes than they receive in UBI. The goal was to net the average person to $0.
The $1500 was after taxes. If it wasn't, the average person would end up paying more in taxes than they receive in UBI. The goal was to net the average person to $0.
So how much increased tax on everyone is there? Basically 100% tax on everything over 1500?
On the order of 15% more, which puts top tax bracket above 50%.
My understanding is that US food stamps provide significantly better than rice and beans for every meal.
Yeah, I'm really surprised how useless this study is. They just gave some money away and that's the end of it. That being said, I do think that it's really hard (if not impossible) to simulate how UBI would work in the real world.
It's funny how UBI is one of the few economic policies that require such rigorous study to be considered for implementation. Pretty much every other aspect of our economic system was just implemented because of economic theory building without much empirical justification.
Give them a shoddy paper based off a wrong Excel formula like the one they used to support austerity measures. Maybe that’ll do.
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/04/microsoft-excel-...
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/04/microsoft-excel-...
[deleted]
Something that sounds implausible and at the same time prohibitly expensive requires way higher standards of proofs, that have not been met.
[deleted]
> implemented because of economic theory building without much empirical justification
Not even that sometimes. Like the US attempting to re-ordering the world trade system by imposing massive tariffs. They did this even though both economic theory and empirical evidence (previous historical attempts at doing this), showed it would be disastrous.
Not even that sometimes. Like the US attempting to re-ordering the world trade system by imposing massive tariffs. They did this even though both economic theory and empirical evidence (previous historical attempts at doing this), showed it would be disastrous.
Yeah, for some things a bit of speculative imagination, thinking through possible outcomes isn't actually that bad compared to more evidence oriented alternatives. You can't really have a control group for community wide effects and without a control group you don't even know if an observed change happened because of what you did out despite of what you did even after the experiment. Sometimes hindsight isn't 20/20 at all but surprisingly blind.
What I think could be a very interesting on-ramp to something more UBIesque, in an environment with lots of need-based social support payments like Germany, would be an opt-in flat taxation mode for earning on the side of receiving aid: taxed high starting with the first cent earned, and in exchange those earnings are explicitly excluded from and need-based considerations or thresholds. That could greatly reduce all "not worth the hassle" considerations and uncertainties. It could be implemented as a special bank account where every incoming transaction is automatically taxed, and every payment or withdrawal certified "I'm allowed to have this without putting anything need-based in question.
What tax rate? The logical first candidate would be wherever the income tax curve tops out for high earners. If that's the highest those can be bothered with before they "stop performing", you should not be surprised if low earners would not want to perform at a higher effective tax rate either. But that tax rate should not be so low that a shift to regular taxation makes no sense in cases sufficiently permanent and wellhpaying that the administrative change isn't just overhead.
What I think could be a very interesting on-ramp to something more UBIesque, in an environment with lots of need-based social support payments like Germany, would be an opt-in flat taxation mode for earning on the side of receiving aid: taxed high starting with the first cent earned, and in exchange those earnings are explicitly excluded from and need-based considerations or thresholds. That could greatly reduce all "not worth the hassle" considerations and uncertainties. It could be implemented as a special bank account where every incoming transaction is automatically taxed, and every payment or withdrawal certified "I'm allowed to have this without putting anything need-based in question.
What tax rate? The logical first candidate would be wherever the income tax curve tops out for high earners. If that's the highest those can be bothered with before they "stop performing", you should not be surprised if low earners would not want to perform at a higher effective tax rate either. But that tax rate should not be so low that a shift to regular taxation makes no sense in cases sufficiently permanent and wellhpaying that the administrative change isn't just overhead.
It's not useless in promoting UBI given the uncritical news coverage in Germany.
Would €1,200/month "for life" inspire you to behave any differently? I suspect relatively few Germans aspire, long-term, to the lifestyle which that income would support. And then there are long-term considerations - like inflation. And gov't spending programs going away after either an election, or a financial crisis.
If it's inflation adjusted and I trust it's forever, I would 100% quit my job and work on something less stressful that I enjoy more. 1200 Euro is slightly below my average monthly expenses; my job pays multiple times this, but I keep at it to save and make sure I won't ever want for money.
(I live in Spain, not Germany)
(I live in Spain, not Germany)
It would greatly reduce the barrier between receiving transfer money and earning for yourself that the existing need-based transfer system creates. This is a huge hindrance for jumping off the receiving end. Lump sum transfer also creates an incentive situation where non-standard frugality approaches can thrive (e.g. various shared living concepts), whereas need-based transfer really only just shoves every receiver into a pretend-middle class standard cookie cutter pattern.
It sure would. I was living off of a way smaller stipend for 2 or 3 years (the Austrian "Selbsterhalterstipendium"), and it was the most unproductive time of my life because I got enough to get by with minimal effort, since the conditions for the stipend were ridiculously low. I learned that if I can get money with basically no strings attached, I become lazy. Nowadays I'm not, simply because I have to work for stuff. I enjoy my work, but I wouldnt do it if it wasnt necessary.
It was a great time, but it tought me that people get lazy if they don't have to work. So now I am obviously projecting my own lazyness to the general population, which is why I am against UBI.
It was a great time, but it tought me that people get lazy if they don't have to work. So now I am obviously projecting my own lazyness to the general population, which is why I am against UBI.
One area I would like to see more data on is how UBI will be paid for and the impact of this on worker preferences. If taxes increase on medium-high earners to pay for it, you very well could see a drop-off in labor force participation even if it isn’t directly related to the receipt of UBI.
This seems to be a common thread in articles about UBI experiments: Economists, critics, and others expect the behavior of the recipients to be determined by either (1) "economic rationalist" clockwork, or (2) some laughably simplistic (and very demeaning) stereotype of poor people.
And the results generally bear little resemblance to either (1) or (2).
Napoleon supposedly said "the moral is to the physical as three to one" in reference to the battlefield performance of military units. But the same is true across extremely wide ranges of human behaviors.
And the results generally bear little resemblance to either (1) or (2).
Napoleon supposedly said "the moral is to the physical as three to one" in reference to the battlefield performance of military units. But the same is true across extremely wide ranges of human behaviors.
The most common thread in these articles is that people treat the discovery that young people don't retire after receiving $10k or €43.2k from a magic money tree as proving UBI is economic panacea but handwave away the issue of paying for it.
> The most common thread in these ...
Superficially, yeah. I'd read that situation as a combination of (1) "millions of clicks from wanna-feel-happy lefties pay the bills" journalism, and (2) editors wanting "friends" in the "so rich I can afford to be a blinkered ideologue" progressive set.
For those inclined to real-world public policy, the main result I see is that the complex "needs testing" part of existing entitlement and welfare programs is 99% ideological/political bullshit and bureaucratic make-work.
Superficially, yeah. I'd read that situation as a combination of (1) "millions of clicks from wanna-feel-happy lefties pay the bills" journalism, and (2) editors wanting "friends" in the "so rich I can afford to be a blinkered ideologue" progressive set.
For those inclined to real-world public policy, the main result I see is that the complex "needs testing" part of existing entitlement and welfare programs is 99% ideological/political bullshit and bureaucratic make-work.
surprisingly people do love to work.
Although I have a masters degree I worked for 10 years, 3 nights each week, as a volunteer psychotherapist, providing free therapy to those that could least afford psychotherapy, those that needed it most.
I obviously had a day job too. I loved working for free, the benefits are huge, less stress and autonomy in how you choose to spend your time and skills and a greater sense of achievement.
If I had CBI I would work for free.
I am all for social devotional work backed with CBI.
CBI and work for free if you want to.
I can definitetely understand the sense of feeling more mentally stable without the daily stresses that come with not enough money to live on.
Most people who earn a decent salary are generally against CBI because of their own values around their own working ethic. There is nothing written anywhere that says that work is beneficial to a human being.
The money for nothing crowd always raises its ugly head when talking about any support that benefits human development especially of the poor.
As a retired therapist the majority of my lower socio-economic clients problems where due in full to the finanacial situation they found themselves in.
All therapists carry a sense of helplessnes when dealing with such clients becaue we cannot help them.
Although I have a masters degree I worked for 10 years, 3 nights each week, as a volunteer psychotherapist, providing free therapy to those that could least afford psychotherapy, those that needed it most.
I obviously had a day job too. I loved working for free, the benefits are huge, less stress and autonomy in how you choose to spend your time and skills and a greater sense of achievement.
If I had CBI I would work for free.
I am all for social devotional work backed with CBI.
CBI and work for free if you want to.
I can definitetely understand the sense of feeling more mentally stable without the daily stresses that come with not enough money to live on.
Most people who earn a decent salary are generally against CBI because of their own values around their own working ethic. There is nothing written anywhere that says that work is beneficial to a human being.
The money for nothing crowd always raises its ugly head when talking about any support that benefits human development especially of the poor.
As a retired therapist the majority of my lower socio-economic clients problems where due in full to the finanacial situation they found themselves in.
All therapists carry a sense of helplessnes when dealing with such clients becaue we cannot help them.
>Most people who earn a decent salary are generally against CBI because of their own values around their own working ethic. There is nothing written anywhere that says that work is beneficial to a human being.
I'm not against UBI, I just don't see how it can be done. It seems fundamentally impossible to finance at scale, which all of these experiments ignore. They are always experiments where a tiny number of people get money generated by a vast majority of people.
Which we have already, in the form of needs-based welfare.
I'm not against UBI, I just don't see how it can be done. It seems fundamentally impossible to finance at scale, which all of these experiments ignore. They are always experiments where a tiny number of people get money generated by a vast majority of people.
Which we have already, in the form of needs-based welfare.
People love meaning and purpose in their life and they typically find that in work as its a complex amalgamation of all sorts of challenges and rewards.
I believe UBI would be a net benefit for society it would enable the poorest to survive better and the rest of us more flexibility in how we life our lives.
I believe UBI would be a net benefit for society it would enable the poorest to survive better and the rest of us more flexibility in how we life our lives.
>A German experiment has found that people are likely to continue working full-time even if they receive no-strings-attached universal basic income payments.
Surprising only to those who have not read literally any other study on UBI. They all come to this conclusion.
The only reason we don't have nice things like this: universal housing, healthcare, income, food security, is because a handful of dragons sit on and hoard unfathomably sized mountains of gold and convince the uneducated and those ignorant of economics and politics that the real problem is average people getting what they deserve - A dignified life where their basic needs are met and they have the dignified freedom to pursue a fulfilling life rather than spend it enriching aforementioned dragons for exploitative wages.
Surprising only to those who have not read literally any other study on UBI. They all come to this conclusion.
The only reason we don't have nice things like this: universal housing, healthcare, income, food security, is because a handful of dragons sit on and hoard unfathomably sized mountains of gold and convince the uneducated and those ignorant of economics and politics that the real problem is average people getting what they deserve - A dignified life where their basic needs are met and they have the dignified freedom to pursue a fulfilling life rather than spend it enriching aforementioned dragons for exploitative wages.
This was exactly my reaction.
It says a lot about how much the ideology that "rich people deserving, poor people are lazy" has affected people's attitudes.
It says a lot about how much the ideology that "rich people deserving, poor people are lazy" has affected people's attitudes.
Capital and ideology by pikkety goes in to great detail in to how consent for gilded age wealth inequality is and has been manufactured. Most effectively, unsurprisingly, in the minds of... people like those replying derisively to my comment and this thread in general.
I greatly enjoy your casting of the existential struggle into fantasy role-playing terms. This is a relatively fresh treatment that is worth celebrating for its own sake.
In this context, what seems missing is the Ecclesiastes realization that 'fulfilling' (for some) is always going to mean becoming a dragon.
That is, the purported us/them separation between 'we' and 'dragons' is a mirage--there is only the full spectrum or humanity in view.
One example of a dragon was Saddam Hussein, who characterized oppression of the marsh Arabs as "being firm".
So it goes. One possible exit from the cycle is the realization the 'fulfilling' is not necessarily measured in materialistic units.
In this context, what seems missing is the Ecclesiastes realization that 'fulfilling' (for some) is always going to mean becoming a dragon.
That is, the purported us/them separation between 'we' and 'dragons' is a mirage--there is only the full spectrum or humanity in view.
One example of a dragon was Saddam Hussein, who characterized oppression of the marsh Arabs as "being firm".
So it goes. One possible exit from the cycle is the realization the 'fulfilling' is not necessarily measured in materialistic units.
>I greatly enjoy your...fantasy role-playing terms
It's not that, dragons hoarding mountains of gold has always historically been an allegory for the rich hoarding wealth.
>'fulfilling' (for some) is always going to mean becoming a dragon.
Luckily we have anti dragon tools, like progressive taxation, wealth taxes, and robust social programs to prevent the dragons from sitting on too much gold.
>One example of a dragon was Saddam Hussein, who characterized oppression of the marsh Arabs as "being firm". So it goes. One possible exit from the cycle is the realization the 'fulfilling' is not necessarily measured in materialistic units.
Yeah, the fulfillment is the downstream byproduct of not having to worry about the difficulty of meeting daily material needs, not the justification for the policy itself.
It's not that, dragons hoarding mountains of gold has always historically been an allegory for the rich hoarding wealth.
>'fulfilling' (for some) is always going to mean becoming a dragon.
Luckily we have anti dragon tools, like progressive taxation, wealth taxes, and robust social programs to prevent the dragons from sitting on too much gold.
>One example of a dragon was Saddam Hussein, who characterized oppression of the marsh Arabs as "being firm". So it goes. One possible exit from the cycle is the realization the 'fulfilling' is not necessarily measured in materialistic units.
Yeah, the fulfillment is the downstream byproduct of not having to worry about the difficulty of meeting daily material needs, not the justification for the policy itself.
> Luckily we have anti dragon tools, like progressive taxation, wealth taxes, and robust social programs to prevent the dragons from sitting on too much gold.
1. If you think that a Bezos, or a Buffet, or a Musk, is paying a "fair" amount, then fine. Your faith in mortal systems stands rewarded.
2. This is less a question of basic needs--look at how fat and unhealthy so many are today--and perhaps more a question of envy. Do I really think that joy is a function of loot? Is more stuff the answer to our existential questions?
1. If you think that a Bezos, or a Buffet, or a Musk, is paying a "fair" amount, then fine. Your faith in mortal systems stands rewarded.
2. This is less a question of basic needs--look at how fat and unhealthy so many are today--and perhaps more a question of envy. Do I really think that joy is a function of loot? Is more stuff the answer to our existential questions?
>1
Sorry, I guess I should've been clearer and added Properly implemented anti dragon tools. I assumed that was self evident. I suspect it is, given you clearly are capable of recognizing the problematic dragons I allude to.
>2.
No, it's definitely a question of basic needs. I exclusively mentioned income, healthcare, housing, food security as the policy objectives, and not cheap consumable goods/treats. There's a wealth of evidence that a society that provides guarantees around those basic needs has way fewer issues downstream. For a start, look to the healthcare outcomes in countries that have universal healthcare vs the US.
An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, as they say.
Sorry, I guess I should've been clearer and added Properly implemented anti dragon tools. I assumed that was self evident. I suspect it is, given you clearly are capable of recognizing the problematic dragons I allude to.
>2.
No, it's definitely a question of basic needs. I exclusively mentioned income, healthcare, housing, food security as the policy objectives, and not cheap consumable goods/treats. There's a wealth of evidence that a society that provides guarantees around those basic needs has way fewer issues downstream. For a start, look to the healthcare outcomes in countries that have universal healthcare vs the US.
An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, as they say.
> There's a wealth of evidence that a society that provides guarantees around those basic needs
I'm totally in agreement, in the abstract. It would take a sick mind to enjoy observing poverty/starvation.
The details of how a sustainable economy that affords all the opportunity to thrive is provided is still non-trivial.
The Five Year Plans of the Soviet Union, to drop a specific example, were full of great ideas, but the society was corrupt and everyone lied about the reality, until the lies collapsed at the three-quarter-century mark.
I'm totally in agreement, in the abstract. It would take a sick mind to enjoy observing poverty/starvation.
The details of how a sustainable economy that affords all the opportunity to thrive is provided is still non-trivial.
The Five Year Plans of the Soviet Union, to drop a specific example, were full of great ideas, but the society was corrupt and everyone lied about the reality, until the lies collapsed at the three-quarter-century mark.
Do you believe the economy is a zero sum game?
I believe the mountains of evidence that money in a 'poor' person's hands does more for the economy than when it is added to a dragon's pile.
Taxing the workers and giving the money to the 'poor' is an indirect subsidy to the dragons. Dragons are rich and cunning enough to afford to 'plan' their taxes, so it's not like they need to contribute to the UBI. They just reap the benefits.
The German UBI experiment we're discussing didn't involve 'taxing workers to give to the poor' - it gave unconditional payments to people across economic backgrounds, most of whom continued working.
Your assertion about tax planning misses that proper UBI implementation would include tax reform to ensure the wealthy can't avoid contributing. If anything it demonstrates your clear understanding of whom would actually be taxed to achieve the funding for such social programs. The dragons.
More importantly, the data shows UBI recipients spent money locally on necessities and small businesses, not funneling it to large corporations. The 'indirect subsidy' theory contradicts spending patterns observed in UBI trials.
Your assertion about tax planning misses that proper UBI implementation would include tax reform to ensure the wealthy can't avoid contributing. If anything it demonstrates your clear understanding of whom would actually be taxed to achieve the funding for such social programs. The dragons.
More importantly, the data shows UBI recipients spent money locally on necessities and small businesses, not funneling it to large corporations. The 'indirect subsidy' theory contradicts spending patterns observed in UBI trials.
Well, all I can say that if I was a major shareholder of Volkswagen I'd be 100% in support of UBI and made sure everyone can afford a new car, not just a used one.
Yeah, almost like a rising tide lifts all ships. Almost like the wealth hoarding dragons are fundamentally anti social.
If only there was a metaphor to explain that. Maybe something about a mythical creature, hoarding piles of treasure.
If only there was a metaphor to explain that. Maybe something about a mythical creature, hoarding piles of treasure.
It's a poor analogy. Dragons take the gold from the people and kept it from them so it can't be used.
The 200 billion that Bezos is assumed to be "worth" is currently in the hands of the people, being used by us. If we wanted to fix society instead of buying amazon shares we could do it today. Bezos hasn't "hoarded" it, we have it.
"To the dismay of Thorin, Smaug the horrible turned out to sit on a pile of paper that anyone could buy if they wanted to and all the gold was already in circulation in the town of Bree."
The 200 billion that Bezos is assumed to be "worth" is currently in the hands of the people, being used by us. If we wanted to fix society instead of buying amazon shares we could do it today. Bezos hasn't "hoarded" it, we have it.
"To the dismay of Thorin, Smaug the horrible turned out to sit on a pile of paper that anyone could buy if they wanted to and all the gold was already in circulation in the town of Bree."
If the taxes are landing just on "the workers" then that sounds like a poorly designed tax system, not a problem with UBI. Replace UBI with anything (roads, defense, welfare) and it is the same problem.
I believe extreme wealth inequality is bad for economies and society.
No, but that does not undermine the case for UBI.
Not the economy as a whole, but there are some aspects of the economy that are. Indeed, negative externalities can be worse than a zero-sum game to those affected.
To be frank, this whole “the economy is not a zero-sum game” argument is kind of a meme at this point.
To be frank, this whole “the economy is not a zero-sum game” argument is kind of a meme at this point.
>The only reason we don't have nice things like this: universal housing, healthcare, income, food security, is because a handful of dragons sit on and hoard unfathomably sized mountains of gold
This is simply not true. Barring pathologies like dictatorships, Billionaires ("Dragons") are generally not hoarding anything that affects anyone. Their fortunes are not "mountains of gold", but an estimate of how much value they could theoretically get from the rest of society if they sold their company.
It's not money that is "kept away" from the rest of us, in any way at all. We already have it. And if we don't, neither does the Dragon.
A wealthy society will create more billionaires ("Dragons") than a poor one, and a wealthy society also has more hospitals and food to share with the unfortunate than a poor society does.
Bezos, Gates etc are not hoarding hospitals, cheese or apartments. They cause more hospitals, cheese and apartments to exist since their companies employ people that need and can pay for all those things.
Even China has realized this by now. Hundreds of millions of people in China have had immense increase in standard of living the past few decades, while a few hundred billionaires have appeared.
Nobody has figured out how you get one without the other.
This is simply not true. Barring pathologies like dictatorships, Billionaires ("Dragons") are generally not hoarding anything that affects anyone. Their fortunes are not "mountains of gold", but an estimate of how much value they could theoretically get from the rest of society if they sold their company.
It's not money that is "kept away" from the rest of us, in any way at all. We already have it. And if we don't, neither does the Dragon.
A wealthy society will create more billionaires ("Dragons") than a poor one, and a wealthy society also has more hospitals and food to share with the unfortunate than a poor society does.
Bezos, Gates etc are not hoarding hospitals, cheese or apartments. They cause more hospitals, cheese and apartments to exist since their companies employ people that need and can pay for all those things.
Even China has realized this by now. Hundreds of millions of people in China have had immense increase in standard of living the past few decades, while a few hundred billionaires have appeared.
Nobody has figured out how you get one without the other.
"Let us disown the kulaks. This has never been tried before."
Shocker, a retort against evidenced based advocacy for clearly beneficial social policy utilizing red scare propaganda within 10 minutes.
cladopa(3)
>> A German experiment has found that people are likely to continue working full-time even if they receive no-strings-attached universal basic income payments.
That's because this is not basic income but just an additional, lucky source of income, for a limited time. It's effectively landing a contract job on top of a regular job. I'm gonna go to great lengths to keep both since I can save the additional money and they might have quite an impact on my life.
I'm guessing the target people were not the best paid workers in Germany but still, saving €1200 per month is a lot more than the average of €450 ("According to a survey conducted in 2020 in Germany, the average monthly savings among the population amounted to 451 euros."). So if they were an average family that had a job and saved €450, with the "UBI" they just managet to triple their savings over a period of three years! Of course people won't quit their jobs, they're not stupid.
Overall it shows absolutely nothing on UBI but maybe it shows something on human psychology and rational behavior.
That's because this is not basic income but just an additional, lucky source of income, for a limited time. It's effectively landing a contract job on top of a regular job. I'm gonna go to great lengths to keep both since I can save the additional money and they might have quite an impact on my life.
I'm guessing the target people were not the best paid workers in Germany but still, saving €1200 per month is a lot more than the average of €450 ("According to a survey conducted in 2020 in Germany, the average monthly savings among the population amounted to 451 euros."). So if they were an average family that had a job and saved €450, with the "UBI" they just managet to triple their savings over a period of three years! Of course people won't quit their jobs, they're not stupid.
Overall it shows absolutely nothing on UBI but maybe it shows something on human psychology and rational behavior.
I've been thinking about UBI a bit.
One effect it might have, is that employers need to go above and beyond to keep their workers happy. So, so many people have a job which they at the very best tolerate, but would quit on the spot - if they had the economic means to do so.
Some of those jobs are quite critical for society. Just think about healthcare...plenty of people enter healthcare with high morale and a desire to help, but find them completely disillusioned due to overwork, shitty shifts, unappreciation, mediocre pay, and what have you. If half of healthcare workers quit on the spot, that would lead to a societal crisis. But maybe it would also force the employers to fundamentally change the space, in order to not lose their employees.
I also think UBI would give people a "second chance". Lots of people enter the workforce before they know what they want to do, and find themselves lock into the profession or work - due to financial reasons.
One effect it might have, is that employers need to go above and beyond to keep their workers happy. So, so many people have a job which they at the very best tolerate, but would quit on the spot - if they had the economic means to do so.
Some of those jobs are quite critical for society. Just think about healthcare...plenty of people enter healthcare with high morale and a desire to help, but find them completely disillusioned due to overwork, shitty shifts, unappreciation, mediocre pay, and what have you. If half of healthcare workers quit on the spot, that would lead to a societal crisis. But maybe it would also force the employers to fundamentally change the space, in order to not lose their employees.
I also think UBI would give people a "second chance". Lots of people enter the workforce before they know what they want to do, and find themselves lock into the profession or work - due to financial reasons.
I think it would certainly redistribute wealth from going into the pockets of the top 10% since they'd have to make their workers' jobs more enticing or get out there and do it themselves.
So you're basically in favor of making it more difficult to create wealth and grow the economy?
I don't understand arguments against UBI that rest on people not working anymore if they get UBI. A society where UBI is possible surely has to be one where humans no longer have to work. Otherwise it's impossible to finance.
I've never seen any explanation for how it's going to be financed that passes even the most rudimentary fact check. There is not enough existing money to pay for it, and if we create new money it will lose value.
As long as necessities are valuable, meaning people actually have to work to make them, we can't pretend that they're worthless by covering their costs with a UBI. I see no way around that.
Before we reach the stage where necessities are free, UBI seems to result in taking thousands from people in need in order to give twenties to everyone including FAANG-programmers and lawyers.
I'd rather see the ones in need get thousands and actually survive.
I've never seen any explanation for how it's going to be financed that passes even the most rudimentary fact check. There is not enough existing money to pay for it, and if we create new money it will lose value.
As long as necessities are valuable, meaning people actually have to work to make them, we can't pretend that they're worthless by covering their costs with a UBI. I see no way around that.
Before we reach the stage where necessities are free, UBI seems to result in taking thousands from people in need in order to give twenties to everyone including FAANG-programmers and lawyers.
I'd rather see the ones in need get thousands and actually survive.
This could be true. One area I would like to see more data on is how UBI will be paid for. If taxes increase on medium-high earners to pay for it, you very well could see a drop-off in labor force participation even if it isn’t directly related to the receipt of UBI.
> If half of healthcare workers quit on the spot, that would lead to a societal crisis. But maybe it would also force the employers to fundamentally change the space, in order to not lose their employees.
In a capitalist society, wages would rise and conditions will improve as people are willing to pay as much as needed for health care.
The problem is that in the current rent-seeking economy (capital gets all the money while work is worth very little) all that money is redirected to the owners of middleman companies that add nothing to the economy. Produce no services nor products. Our current system is very inefficient and cannot last as it is today.
To increase wages and improve the situation of most workers will assure increased productivity and citizens well-being. It is a no-brainer. But it is not easy to implement as the people in power profits handsomely with the current bad situation.
In a capitalist society, wages would rise and conditions will improve as people are willing to pay as much as needed for health care.
The problem is that in the current rent-seeking economy (capital gets all the money while work is worth very little) all that money is redirected to the owners of middleman companies that add nothing to the economy. Produce no services nor products. Our current system is very inefficient and cannot last as it is today.
To increase wages and improve the situation of most workers will assure increased productivity and citizens well-being. It is a no-brainer. But it is not easy to implement as the people in power profits handsomely with the current bad situation.
> In a capitalist society, wages would rise and conditions will improve as people are willing to pay as much as needed for health care.
People also need food, which is a labor-intensive business, and it is one of the main drivers of human trafficking in the US: https://www.ice.gov/news/releases/human-trafficking-forced-l...
People also need food, which is a labor-intensive business, and it is one of the main drivers of human trafficking in the US: https://www.ice.gov/news/releases/human-trafficking-forced-l...
All this simulations and experiments always have the same problem: They simulate giving people free money, but you are not simulating the other side of the coin: extracting the money from other people to pay for it(a.k.a stealing or "redistributing" euphemis)
The "surprising results" are so surprising to me because I talk to people in Germany and most people believe they pay too much taxes, specially young people. The difference is that middle class Germans are actually paying for the system. No free lunch there.
If robots take over human labor, you can always own robots(privately owning distributed means of production) instead of having a central planning system that never worked but interested people are hell bent designing so they benefit.
The "surprising results" are so surprising to me because I talk to people in Germany and most people believe they pay too much taxes, specially young people. The difference is that middle class Germans are actually paying for the system. No free lunch there.
If robots take over human labor, you can always own robots(privately owning distributed means of production) instead of having a central planning system that never worked but interested people are hell bent designing so they benefit.
> people in Germany and most people believe they pay too much taxes
100% this. The average worker pays too much indeed. Mega-corporations and the super-rich do not pay anymore their share. It is a shame.
100% this. The average worker pays too much indeed. Mega-corporations and the super-rich do not pay anymore their share. It is a shame.
I'm not sure about which taxes you're talking about, but employees pay about 50% of the taxes for any of their workers' income. I think this is the same for Germany as a lot of other countries in the EU.
> but employees pay about 50% of the taxes for any of their workers' income
That is wrong. Employers pay a small fraction of taxes per each one of their employees.
I think that there is a big problem with education and the tax system. When people thinks that the "employer part of the salary tax" is 50% of the employee tax we are failing to provide education to our own citizens. And I think that HN readers are more informed that the average person.
But this is by design. Misinformed citizens have a more difficult time realizing how much money big corporations and the rich are stealing.
That is wrong. Employers pay a small fraction of taxes per each one of their employees.
I think that there is a big problem with education and the tax system. When people thinks that the "employer part of the salary tax" is 50% of the employee tax we are failing to provide education to our own citizens. And I think that HN readers are more informed that the average person.
But this is by design. Misinformed citizens have a more difficult time realizing how much money big corporations and the rich are stealing.
Sure, go ahead and insult me instead of providing any actual facts.
Now, I've searched for the actual contributions, and indeed the actual income tax is not covered by the employer at all. The only parts of the full levied amount that are shared 50% are: pension, unemployment, health and long-term care insurance, (plus some other things that the employee doesn't have to pay).
So in the end it's about 1/3 (or under that based on tax class) of the total levied amount that gets covered by the employer. (PS. All of this for Germany, cribbed from one of those tax calculator websites)
Now, I've searched for the actual contributions, and indeed the actual income tax is not covered by the employer at all. The only parts of the full levied amount that are shared 50% are: pension, unemployment, health and long-term care insurance, (plus some other things that the employee doesn't have to pay).
So in the end it's about 1/3 (or under that based on tax class) of the total levied amount that gets covered by the employer. (PS. All of this for Germany, cribbed from one of those tax calculator websites)
Well, money is just a coordination tool for tracking who is "owed" what. What people are actually consuming is labor and natural resources.
From that point of view, getting "free money" (which in effect may mean for example getting someone else to deliver food to you without you working) is not much different from all kinds of other rent-seeking behaviors.
From that point of view, getting "free money" (which in effect may mean for example getting someone else to deliver food to you without you working) is not much different from all kinds of other rent-seeking behaviors.
This experiment, like all similar UBI proposals, is not serious because indeed they are impossible: it is not possible for the state to fund giving €1,200 a month to every adult "for free".
The scary bit is that this seems not to be immediately obvious to many people.
The scary bit is that this seems not to be immediately obvious to many people.
Central planning targets what is good, but inefficiently. Private enterprise targets what is profitable very efficiently. There's a combination of the two that is a happy medium.
Depends who's doing the owning. Do you own Uber? "You will own nothing and be happy."
Any proper experiment for UBI requires 1) to do it for a whole economy. You can't have 10 or 100 people on UBI where the job market, prices etc aren't affected by UBI. And 2) For life. The small effects on behavior if I'm given UBI for 1, 3 or 5 years are going to be so small as to be uninteresting. The surprising results will just be artifacts of the experiment.
In the US at least, UBI would basically mean the rent and monthly mortgage prices increase by the same amount as the monthly UBI.
>Mein Grundeinkommen (My Basic Income), the Berlin-based non-profit that ran the German study, followed 122 people for three years. From June 2021 to May 2024, this group received an unconditional sum of €1,200 ($1,365) per month.
122 people for 3 years seems worse than useless, worse in that it probably makes people think this isn't statistically useless.
122 people for 3 years seems worse than useless, worse in that it probably makes people think this isn't statistically useless.
122 is not a low number, i'm doing a course right now where medical datasets have <50 people. My professor would be very happy to have 122 people. Although, i don't know whether soft sciences require more people than hard ones to be significant
a medical dataset with 50 people may or may not be a low number depending on the rarity and the profile of people being affected by the disease. But as it happens low counts for studies are often a problem so maybe I shouldn't be so snippy, that said I would say yes, soft sciences often require more people in studies to be significant, but that is just my opinion on it.
Why?
You think 122 people for 3 years is likely to be a statistically meaningful sample? Germany is 44.4 million people in the labor market.
Isn't the experiment to show the effects? Why would a country matter , it's about people. It wasn't to see if the country could implement it.
Drug trials often include can go to several thousand but only in a later stage, earlier stages are a few hundred. https://www.fda.gov/patients/drug-development-process/step-3...
Drug trials often include can go to several thousand but only in a later stage, earlier stages are a few hundred. https://www.fda.gov/patients/drug-development-process/step-3...
>Matthew Johnson, a professor of public policy at Northumbria University in the U.K., who works on basic income and authored a book on the topic, called the findings “unsurprising.”
Seems like the article undermines its own headline.
Seems like the article undermines its own headline.
None of this matters because the premise, that is to hand €1,200 per month to people "for free", is totally unrealistic and unsustainable at scale.
“We find no evidence that people love doing nothing,”
Come talk to me
Come talk to me
csunbird(6)
That study has shown exactly nothing. Of course I'm not going to quit if I'm out of job and UBI after three years.