The First Basic Income Experiment in Germany Will Start in 2019 (basicincome.org)

Basic income is going to be tested in Germany next year. From a report: The setup of the experiment will be similar to the one now ending in Finland, which means there will be an unconditional cash transfer to 250 randomly selected people among those already receiving benefits (250 others will act as the control group), and evaluate the impact in terms of labor market behavior, health and social relations. Behind this initiative, to be initiated in May 2019, is the Sanktionsfrei organization, a non-profit managed by volunteer professionals from administration, IT-tech, communications and law. Sanktionsfrei (meaning "free from sanctions"), with headquarters in Berlin, specializes in helping sanctioned citizens by the Hartz IV social security system in Germany. It will conduct this experiment in Berlin, for a 3-year period, accepting volunteers who may apply for it through their website.

Comments

Another flawed study

[alzoron]

You can't tell how it actually works unless everyone gets it and the society is given enough time to adjust to it.

Re:Broken by design.

[Sponge Bath]

The people who run the world have announced their intention to starve us to death..

Nonsense. I'm sure every Tuesday will be soylent green day. Om nom nom!

Re: UBI an extension of digital serfdom.

[jd]

It's always a rope held by someone, whether honestly or not, whether accountable or not.

I'd rather have someone who could be held accountable and isn't above the law.

I'd rather a rope of high quality because all resources were put into just the one, than a hundred million rusty ladders that are still being held but could collapse at any moment. Especially as the screams of those falling from the ladders are getting worse.

You're welcome to your choice, just don't get in the way of mine. I'm tired of do-gooders telling me my choices are wrong, my culture is wrong and my philosophy of efficient, compassionate, cooperative societies is wrong.

I don't like their views either, but I'm not into trying to deprive them.

Universal income

[jd]

Is a sensible, logical, rational, cheap way to run a society, and gives the electorate the power to hire or fire those controlling the supply.

It doesn't make people lazy, all evidence says the opposite. Every scrap of evidence shows that crippling people's ability to work is what makes people lazy but that UI facilitates work.

It also facilitates good work, employers can't risk unsafe or abusive conditions. Furthermore, healthy people with adequate resources can - and probably will - work harder as a result.

Real work is about feeling fulfilled and productive, deep inate human needs, not about surviving to the weekend and dying young from work-related conditions.

There are other philosophies. Other countries are welcome to them, so long as they keep them to themselves. Every country should be free to live as it pleases, not as some other country's pet.

Will Germany's program meet the requirements? Doubt it. It's not a scale invariant concept, the numbers aren't statistically useful, the Germans are too rightwing to think collectively.

Re:Universal income

[LynnwoodRooster]

It doesn't make people lazy, all evidence says the opposite. Every scrap of evidence shows that crippling people's ability to work is what makes people lazy but that UI facilitates work.

Would love to see that evidence; what UBI experiment succeeded? Or is this a case of "no True Scotsman" in terms of UBI never really being implemented correctly?

Re:Universal income

[Livius]

Also known as automation. It's been happening for a while.

"accepting volunteers who may apply for it"

[K. S. Kyosuke]

Doesn't self-selection - or even preliminary self-selection - ruin such trials? Your sample doesn't then reflect the average population and you can't extrapolate from it accurately.

This is not UBI.

[thesupraman]

That would perhaps be because there has never been a UBI program, and this is not one?

Or to you not understand what Universal means, and cannot read: 'which means there will be an unconditional cash transfer to 250 randomly selected people among those already receiving benefits'

This is just 'giving more to those already receiving government money' - ie: those least likely to use it well (note I am not commenting on their need, just their likely motivation/ability to work).

Why is it not a TRULY random selection of 250 people? Because the people designing it want it to fail. They cannot accept the possibility that they will lose control of the state dependent level of society where they can basically buy votes in return for welfare.

Simple, really.

You know, there are other things in life

[rsilvergun]

besides the desperate struggle for survival. Sure, you might be shallow to want any of them, but what about the rest of us? Folks who can be content to study, read, play video games, write music, paint, write software.

There's this Puritanical belief, crammed into your skull by various ruling classes, that the only thing that gives meaning to human life is desperately working to survive. We'd shook it off in the 60s and 70s, at least in the nerd community, and were looking forward to a life without constant toil and desperation. And somehow, against all odds, we sucked it down again.

I don't get it. In 2018 we shouldn't be struggling to survive. And we sure as hell shouldn't be romanticizing a desperate struggle for survival. I mean, I get that it's easy to fall for propaganda (that's kinda D'Souza's thing, he's a propagandist) but you'd think we'd have grown out of that too. It's not like we don't know what it is.

Not right wing?

[thesupraman]

What continuously astounds me is people who dont understand that true UBI is actually a right wing/liberal concept.

Most people forget that UBI involves the REMOVAL of almost all other state payouts.
No pension, no unemployment, no housing, no sickness/disability benefit, no parental benefit, etc, etc.
State medical care is a gray area..

That is the reason UBI can function, because it removes a huge amount of corruption, bureaucracy, fraud, and inefficiency from the system and replaces it with something almost trivial to administer and deliver.
It removes the punishments for trying to succeed.

Politically, Socialists generally HATE UBI (at least those who understand it) as they believe the state is the best at decising how everything is distributed, and UBI is exactly the opposite of that.

Unfortunately it ALSO removes the states ability to reward and punish based on cash payouts to voters.
That is why it is never actually tried, and probably never will be, at least by a state - since it lowers their control.

Re:Broken by design.

[cheesybagel]

I am fairly certain that other countries having recovered from WWII, while they stayed neutral in the conflict, had nothing to do with it right?

Predicting the Future

[Livius]

I believe something needs to be done to keep society functioning if, as many expect, automation will lead to a fall in the demand for labour.

But I am skeptical of universal basic income, and there are aspects that for some strange reason never seem to be discussed:

1. Whose definition of basic? Is it subsistence, or some minimum of material comfort?
2. There are people with light mental illness who will still need social workers intervening in their management of adult responsibilities.
3. What happens if there's a change in technology or other societal change (could be global warming, or something else) that leads to a massive labour shortage?
4. Will there be inflation? Will changes in housing costs force people to relocate against their will?
5. Will people really be able to lead meaningful lives without employment? (Maybe you will, but will everyone?)

I'm sugesting that it _is_ trivial

[rsilvergun]

that finding meaning is remarkably easy. Especially in a civilization where so few are needed to do actual work .

Also, you have completley misunderstood basic income. BI means giving everyone enough for food, shelter healthcare, education and a modicum of entertainment. This has enormous society consequences. Here are a few:

1. People don't have to live in major cities just to have work. Housing prices will drop as a result.

2. The wealthy can no longer leverage their wealth into power as easily. They lose the threat of starvation and death from lack of medical care.

3. People can't be frightened into turning on each other by demagogues. Society as a whole becomes more stable.

4. The bad decisions people make when stressed (multiple studies have shown pressure does _not_ make diamonds, it makes garbage more compact) stop.

I can't overstate the impact of #2 and #3. And these are just the most obvious. Keeping our entire society except a lucky few at the top in a constant state of mild terror at the prospect of losing everything has far reaching consequences.