Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Thursday January 20, @01:12AM   Printer-friendly
from the of-course-nobody-ever-gets-bored dept.

Study: Basic income would not reduce people's willingness to work:

A basic income would not necessarily mean that people would work less. This is the conclusion of a series of behavioral experiments by cognitive psychologist Fenna Poletiek, social psychologist Erik de Kwaadsteniet and cognitive psychologist Bastiaan Vuyk. They also found indications that people with a basic income are more likely to find a job that suits them better.

The psychologists received a grant from the FNV union to research the behavioral effects of a basic income. They simulated the reward structure of different forms of social security in an experiment. "We got people to do a task on a computer," says De Kwaadsteniet. "In multiple rounds, which represented the months they had to work, they did a boring task in which they had to put points on a bar. The more of these they did, the more money they earned."

The psychologists researched three different conditions: no social security, a conditional benefits system and an unconditional basic income. De Kwaadsteniet: "In the condition without social security, the test participants didn't receive a basic sum. In the benefits condition they received a basic sum, which they lost as soon as they started working. In the basic income condition they received the same basic sum but didn't lose this when they started work."

The basic income did not cause a reduction in the participants' willingness to work and efforts, say the psychologists. Nor did their salary expectations increase. "In the discussion on a basic income, it's sometimes said that people will sit around doing nothing if you give them free money," says Poletiek, who saw no indications of such a behavioral effect.

What would you do if you were to receive a basic income?


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 20, @02:03AM (1 child)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 20, @02:03AM (#1214027)

    The idea is it's enough to live on, but not enough to *live* on.

    Provides enough money for students to pay the rent and buy groceries. But if they want to do what young people do - buy fancy cars, save for a house, buy the latest iPhone, go out to expensive concerts and socialize then get working.

    Who pays for it? Well we all pay taxes, and you'd pay more tax but get less rorting deductions.

    where it matters is early retirement - a couple in their late 50s needed feel demonized at not being able to find a job once they've paid off the house and their kids have left home. Why chase unemployment benefits for jobs that don't exist years before you're eligible for a pension or superannuation? That in turn frees up the labor market for young folks.

    Starting Score:    0  points
    Moderation   +3  
       Interesting=2, Informative=1, Total=3
    Extra 'Interesting' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   3  
  • (Score: 2) by Nobuddy on Friday January 21, @05:25PM

    by Nobuddy (1626) on Friday January 21, @05:25PM (#1214539)

    "Who pays for it?"

    Money put in to the economy at the bottom always returns more tax revenue than spent. Every time.
    People who need it, spend it. Spending it puts it in motion, generating far more revenue than existed before.