Slashdot Mirror
A New Report Finds No Evidence That People Will Work Less Under a Universal Basic Income (theoutline.com)
Economists Djavad Salehi-Isfahani and Mohammad H. Mostafavi-Dehzooeifrom for the Economic Research Forum have released a new report on the results of a basic income scheme launched in Iran in 2011. "In 2011, in response to heavy cuts to oil and gas subsidies, Iran implemented a program that guaranteed citizens cash payments of 29 percent of the nation's median income, which amounts to about $1.50 every day (about $16,000 per year in the U.S.)," reports The Outline. Here are the key findings: The report found no evidence for the idea that people will work less under a universal income, and found that in some cases, like in the service industry, people worked more, expanding their businesses or pursuing more satisfying lines of work. The researchers did find that young people -- specifically people in their twenties -- worked less, but noted that Iran never had a high level of employment among young people, and that they were likely enrolling in school with the added income. The evidence presented in the paper is compelling, but the anecdotal belief that handing people money will make them lazy is hard to shake. "The findings in this paper do not settle this question," the report's authors point out. "What we have accomplished is at the very least to shift the burden of proof on this issue to those who claim cash transfer [sic] make poor people lazy, and to show the need for better data and more research."
I would work less if I didn't have to work for my income. Am I the only one?
Precisely, the provision of minimal support in general simply alleviates some of the burdens of class divide. Enabling more people to exercise creativity and advance the economy has greater gains than the dog-eat-dog model allows.
I acquired a passive income 15 years ago that was roughly equivalent to a UBI. I left my job and let someone else have that income while I developed a new business that I never could have built otherwise. Awesome result with one big caveat: After 10 years my passive income started looking less secure and I suddenly realised I'd been kidding myself about how hard I'd been working. I doubled my productivity instantly.
I had become less productive with a guaranteed income, but even so the effort has given our community a new business that brings in tourist dollars.
May be the perfect formula doesn't actually require 40 hours per week. Maybe we can afford for most people to be a bit less productive (call it more lazy if you like).
I say we should give UBI a try - at least throw a moderate budget into some more thorough research.
Why though? The idea of UBI is that it doesn't change if you get paid for a regular job. You'd get your UBI plus whatever you earn for working.
I guess you could say you're getting out of paying taxes, but how is that any different from the current system where you work at a job and pay taxes on that income? There's no additional incentive from the existence of UBI specifically. I suppose you could argue that payroll taxes are needed to fund it, but that's a big assumption, and many of the cases for UBI assume it's coming from something else (since it often comes in scenarios where there just isn't enough work/jobs for everyone due to automation or such).
He's a corrupt dictator who is tearing down the socialist constructs of that country.
I'm confused. A panel of dictators is better?
The Left's target, and the dictator's target, is always the same: "Here's something that takes precedence over individual rights". Once that's accomplished, it's a guaranteed slide into hell. The only question is how fast the trip is.
Oh please. I made no such allusion at all. Using your logic, we have a panel of dictators here in America. They're called The House, The Senate, and the Supreme Court (and we don't even get a choice with these judges). That is ridiculous. The raiding of the state's coffers is the issue. And I mean actual raiding, as in stealing. Taxes, entitlements, subsidies, etc are not stealing. That is wealth that is recirculated in the general economy. I mean when people like Maduro take the money and buy themselves a new mansion or a yacht or whatever. That is to the benefit of a single person as opposed to the general welfare of the nation.
Also please explain how the following sentence is not correct: "The Right's target, and the dictator's target, is always the same: "Here's something that takes precedence over individual rights"." I'm 40. The right has never, not once, given the people any individual rights as you claim. Name one. They're always taking them away. We've been sliding into said hell here in the US and its worst incarnations so far (cause it started way earlier) are because of the Patriot act. That was a Republican thing. All the stuff conservatives bitch about the Dems doing have been proven time and time again to be exactly what they are doing themselves. Guilty dogs bark and they bark a lot and loudly. Keep barking so we know where you guys are, ok?
Only wankers huh. What a compelling argument.
I'm pissed about it because it's destroying civilization. Every benefit you said is a lie.
Well, I take that back, it's not "helping the needy" it's HOW they help the needy. Unrestricted welfare and medical care creates more problems than they solve for societies, developed and developing. In the US, about half of babies are born on Medicaid. The Medicaid budget is out of control. And yet poor people have the most kids. That's not a very good cycle to be in. Just read an article about England's NHS service considering a plan to let people prioritize their appointments by paying extra, because they need the money. Germany is spending billions on welfare for refugees, and there's basically an unlimited supply of refugees... they can overwhelm any budget. (And yes that's related, the refugees are passing up relatively stingy countries and being drawn to countries with better welfare benefits such as Germany and Sweden.)
You need to take a look at the median income worldwide sometime. Then consider whether you reeeeeally want to redistribute wealth to "help the needy." There are too many needy. Help for the needy has to be done in concert with stuff like long term birth control. And it has to be done in a way that doesn't interfere with the producers of wealth, i.e. the middle class. Otherwise it's the equivalent of eating your seed corn.
The thing is, people whop work just to get money to fund an addiction are most likely working jobs that are going to be gone anyway in the next couople of decades. That is, someone working a warehousing or a fast food job just to be able to afford booze is not going to be able to find work in the future regardless because automation is already making such jobs obsolete and is only going to keep going.
Bullshit. The very poiint of this story for example is to point out that the people who can work will not work any less under UBI because you still get more money if you work rather than just being on the UBI. The incentive to work if you can and those raise your standard of living is still there,
Ah, this argument again. I live in Finland, you know, one of those 'socialist' that offers free healthcare and education with tax money. We have an extensive welfare system already and are also trialing UBI to replace/modernize the wellfare system to make it more flexible. Other countries that have similar systems include but are not limited to: sweden, norway, denmark, Germany, France, etc And last I checked, the US has a social security system also funded by taxes.
There's some sort of weird american myopia, in which the only alternatives seem to be an massive oligarchy á la Russia or modern day US where the top 0,1 % is doing insanely well, the next 9,9 % are doing alright and then the middle and low-income classes are going down, or a 3rd world hellhole. This is just one giant strawman and the age old 'no social policies can ever work because the soviet union' -argument which is utter BS. The advanced European economies have been working as de facto socialist states for the better part of half a century, yet somehow conveniently we are always ignored in these conversations even though we've been far more successful in the implementation of these policies than the 3rd world countries that you just listed. We outperform the US in basic education and health, people are happier, there's less violent crime, less corruption etc. Quoting the study on happiness:
But sure, keep looking at Venezuela if it makes you feel good.
We have both a capitalistic system (a capitalistic economy does not prevent strong social policies) and a multi-party representational democracy. And if I had to choose, I'd much rather stay here (on in any other
"It is the business of the future to be dangerous" -Alfred North Whitehead
You still get your full UBI regardless of how much money you make, dramatically increasing the incentives to work.
No, because employers don't want to dramatically increase the incentives. They are getting enough employees with the current system, so with UBI, they can lower the wages, and still get enough people.
Please understand finally that extremism wants to take your liberties. Left or right doesn't really matter here, any extremist ideology puts the ideology over your personal freedoms.
Thank you. Glad to see someone gets it.
People like to say that the whole R/D thing is just like sports, where you cheer your own team and boo the other one.
But in sports, you're not rooting for the complete, total, and eternal annihilation of the other team. You play the game, you win or lose, no hard feelings (well, not many) and you come back again for a rematch. And again next season. The team is important, but the game is everything.
Ideology is a game for idiots. And far too many people are obsessive players.
You dont understand what UBI is. UBI is not promising prosperty for all, it is promising the basics (literally the "B" in the acronym). People have to give up all their liberties under UBI? You're just making up undesirable atributes for UBI now. What liberties would be lost under a policy of UBI?
You also decided to completely ignore my point that the failed states you mention used COMPLETELY DIFFERENT SYSTEMS and then you just repeated yourself. UBI is the same as these failed state communist policies because they both try to help people? Are apples the same as oranges because they're both food? What about social security, public education, public roads or any one of hundreds of other policies that exist to help people that exist in every successfull country in the world?
There are no negative examples for UBI because there are literally no examples of UBI in any form of meaningfull practice.
Your only valid point is that there are no positive examples of UBI which certainly does not mean it's doomed to failure as it is an untested idea. It only means it is not garunteed to succeed which I would certainly agree with.
I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.