SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
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?
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Kell on Thursday January 20 2022, @02:03AM (29 children)
UBI wouldn't change my life much, but it would radically change that of my husband. He is a sculptor who is just starting out, and I have been slowly subsidising his work, equipment and time to work on his portfolio. He's very good and he's got huge potential, but his opportunity to break into the industry is really being limited by his ability to sink time and investment into portfolio pieces and build a catalogue. A UBI of even a modest few thousand dollars per year would revolutionise his ability to produce and sell art, especially fine arts bronzes which have the best ROI. A lot of folks forget that capitalism rewards those with capital; if you have no capital you can't readily participate and "living wages" pay for living with precious little left over to invest. Sure; some people will squander that investment on beer, cigarettes or working less, but that will be more than made up for by those individuals who will suddenly be freed to create new businesses, inventions, artworks and services. As a society we're so afraid of rewarding work sloth that we will happily smother nascent enterprise.
Scientists ask questions. Engineers solve problems.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by khallow on Thursday January 20 2022, @02:57AM (21 children)
Same with risk. There's a great fear of it that smothers many a nascent enterprise. My take is that someone who won't try a nascent enterprise with the light levels of risk we have now, wouldn't with UBI.
For me, the problem here is that the benefits just aren't that much. Sure, your husband would have a somewhat more extensive sculpting business, but the work sloths wouldn't be so contributing. Call it fear or whatever, I find that the work sloth albatrosses likely to be significantly bigger costs than the wonderful benefits we would allegedly do, if we're held back by the need to work for our own income.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 20 2022, @03:10AM (10 children)
My god you're delusional.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by khallow on Thursday January 20 2022, @04:51AM (9 children)
Kell pointed out a strategy that worked really well. One spouse does something risky while covered by the work of the other spouse. There are hundreds of millions of households throughout the developed world that can do that without needing UBI.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 20 2022, @10:03AM
Being on the right side of the political spectrum doesn't preclude being delusional, in fact the symptoms commonly present together.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 20 2022, @10:16AM (7 children)
So simple. How has that plan worked for you?
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday January 20 2022, @01:36PM (6 children)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 20 2022, @07:24PM (1 child)
Working pretty well? They're right, you are delusional.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday January 20 2022, @08:00PM
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 21 2022, @10:13AM (3 children)
Just gotta find a spouse first. Maybe you could give some tips. How did you nail yours down?
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday January 22 2022, @01:38PM (2 children)
I suggest starting by not being a shitty human being. You can do that, right? You could also try saving money. I get that this is an alien concept to most UBI advocates, but you can self-fund your own basic income.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 23 2022, @02:27AM (1 child)
Then what? You aren't giving a lot to go on here.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday January 23 2022, @02:55AM
(Score: 2) by Kell on Thursday January 20 2022, @03:12AM (3 children)
It's a fair thought: some will aspire and some will retire. The question is how to identify which is which. Perhaps BMI could be indexed according to educational attainment, such that those who complete grade school would be given more resources than those who down, and so on vis tertiary education. By the time someone has completed a PhD, they've shown themselves to be committed and capable and exactly the sort of people society should be providing more resources to in order to create new endeavours. Of course, not everyone has the opportunity to put themselves through school, but that's one of the baseline problems that BMI is supposed to be helping to solve.
Scientists ask questions. Engineers solve problems.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 20 2022, @08:31AM
> exactly the sort of people society should not be providing more resources to
Academia is NOT a measure of success. Or at least it does not have a monoply on it, unless you've been duped by the edu-industrial complex. Those darn professors, stealing ur money. Hint: that is sarcasm, professors get paid less the higher the fees go, and coincidentally, the more mirror window administration offices go up on campus.
(Score: 4, Touché) by mhajicek on Thursday January 20 2022, @09:21AM (1 child)
So go to school your whole life, rake in the dough, and never produce anything.
The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 20 2022, @06:11PM
Make dough, produce turds.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 20 2022, @05:14AM (2 children)
Do you have any evidence for this, or is this simply unsupported conjecture?
Again, do you have evidence for this, or is this simply unsupported conjecture?
Since we're dealing in conjecture, I'll offer my own. We don't really have a free market economy. Instead, the massive wealth disparity means that a few individuals with massive wealth have outsized control over the market. For example, those people might see a need for more corporate lawyers when most people would prefer that we have fewer corporate lawyers. But because those people have a massively disproportionate influence on the market, we end up with large amounts of corporate lawyers. Worse yet is that an estimated 74% of billionaire wealth comes from rent-seeking. The idea that people ought to work and contribute value is diametrically opposed to rent-seeking behavior. In other words, the people who exercise an outsized control over the market largely didn't earn their wealth by actually contributing value. Providing everyone with a basic income would give people more choice about how to work and contribute value to society, reducing the disproportionate influence that a tiny portion of the population has over the market.
I believe universal basic income would move us significantly toward having an actual free market economy. It would be far closer to Adam Smith's concept of a free market and would be beneficial for capitalism.
Since we're only offering conjecture, my conjecture is at least as valid as yours.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 20 2022, @08:33AM
Evidence is for dorks. Nobody on this website gives a... wait, what website is this?
(Score: 1, Interesting) by khallow on Thursday January 20 2022, @01:34PM
It is its own evidence. After all, they didn't try that nascent enterprise now.
We already do things very similar to UBI. For example, putting a huge number of people through college subsidized, public pensions, and of course, public welfare. Consider retirement investment (and similar things like medical products) marketing. The basic message is that retirement is some glorious, nirvana-like phase of your life. If people really had this insuppressible urge to work, then where does it go when they retire? Answer: culture mores changed inside of a human lifetime.
So when I read "A basic income would not necessarily mean that people would work less." I have to roll my eyes. In today's world, where the mores are pressure to work, this may be true. But what will happen after society and a variety of marketing departments have a chance to work that over? My take is that in a generation we'll see people who believe they have a right not to work and a willingness to raise UBI every time they want more and can find a politician to promise that. Never underestimate the sense of entitlement that one can build.
In other words, bribe people to go along with the status quo. My take is that the mess has gotten as bad as it has in the US because nobody can address that financial mess without dealing with Social Security and other entitlements. A UBI looks to me to be more of the same.
Here's the fundamental problems I have with UBI: UBI doesn't deliver anything of value outside of redistribution of wealth, disincentive to work and help make our society better, incentive to go with the status quo including those rent seeking billionaires, and incentive to steal from the future, like voting for politicians that promise more UBI though borrowing.
I hear about those evil billionaires only as an excuse to get a bigger piece of cheese, not to fix anything. Similarly, the economy is only a tool to extract stuff with UBI being the "more magic" setting. Here's my take on that.
A lot of the problems you describe have been created or aggravated by existing UBI-like systems. The power to dish out money to everyone amd manipulate so much of the economy evolves into the power to establish rent seeking arrangements with those billionaires. US Social Security is particularly notorious because it allowed the US to spent hundreds of billions extra a year until recently when money paid out finally started to exceed money in. And one can't balance budgets fiscally without touching Social Security (it's gotten that big). It's a great defense for those looting the public coffers in the US.
Another is that the same government, that has to be pervasive in order to administer present day UBI-like programs, is in a powerful position to create and maintain rent seeking niches. Also, there's a vast amount of feelgood regulation and taxation that suits soulless huge corporations particularly well, both economy of scale and in perversely rewarding ruthlessness.
As to the economy, since it's paying for your UBI, someone ought to pay attention to it other than those rent seeking billionaires. Too often, it's just seen as a magic black box that just delivers UBI. My take is that it's like a garden. You want more from the economy, you'll have to pay attention to it - like making it more free market, for example.
Finally, there was that weird bit about corporate lawyers. I'm fine with more corporate lawyers because the people who need them pay for them, and the rest of society for whom it's not their business can just get lost. Just because society might collectively want more or less of something doesn't mean that they should get it - this applies to UBI like it applies to corporate lawyers.
You've already claimed that you're just making up shit, so I don't take the 74% claim remotely seriously.
To summarize, we already have plenty of UBI-like programs out there. And the problems I describe do indeed appear in those programs. Further, a lot of the problems you describe are created or made worse by these UBI-like programs. My take is that UBI will turn out to be another self-inflicted injury that makes things worse - creating more big, ruthless business, a weaker economy, and eventually causing the UBI scheme to collapse, one way or another.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 20 2022, @12:29PM
You're an idiot. The bums are like you, me, and fusty: we're already bums that don't work, and won't start just because we're being paid not to.
(Score: 2) by mcgrew on Thursday January 20 2022, @06:24PM
Were it not for the UK's very generous welfare, you would likely never have had Harry Potter.
mcgrewbooks.com mcgrew.info nooze.org
(Score: 2) by Nobuddy on Friday January 21 2022, @05:35PM
"Same with risk. There's a great fear of it that smothers many a nascent enterprise. My take is that someone who won't try a nascent enterprise with the light levels of risk we have now, wouldn't with UBI."
this is the opposite of reality. With zero risk to family or self from failure, far far far more will try. The biggest impediment to entrepreneurial action is risk of financial ruin. Starving or making your family homeless if it fails. UBI removes that risk.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Thexalon on Thursday January 20 2022, @03:45AM (3 children)
It's worth noting about the arts in particular that a significant majority of people creating art good enough to get paid money for it either have day jobs that pay the bills, or a partner or parents or other family members or inheritance paying their bills. It's very much the dirty secret of the arts world.
For example, I went to one of the top music conservatories in the country. I'm not a full-time professional musician ... and neither are any of the classmates in my major as far as I can tell. And it's not because they sucked: They were on average quite talented and creative people with good technical skills who made stuff I and many audiences of ordinary non-musicians genuinely enjoyed listening to, and none of it was worth a dime after graduation. I've known musicians of many stripes and styles, and maybe one of them makes a living (by teaching on weekdays, leading a jazz combo on Friday and Saturday night, and spending Sundays as a church organist good enough to have performed several times at the Vatican). For example, one of my acquaintances was the lead singer of this band [youtube.com], good enough to rock one of the major metal festivals in the world, but not able to make enough to live on from it, so he's given up on trying to make it as a rocker and instead makes his living as a massage therapist.
There are exactly 2 writers I know who've made enough to live on. One did it by writing werewolf erotica day and night for not great rates until she quit from the stress of trying to keep up with her publisher's demands. The other was born into relatively wealthy circumstances, inherited a home, and lived on her family money until she got relatively well-known.
And you can get similar stories from most of the visual artists you'll encounter at arts fairs or colonies. A lot of them are producing stuff that would be at home in big-name art museums and galleries, but sells for maybe $500 a pop if they're lucky.
And of course filmmakers and actors are far from immune to this as well. None of the people with IMDB profiles that I've ever known have ever earned enough from acting to make ends meet, and we're talking about folks about 3-4 degrees from Kevin Bacon.
So yes, I'd expect one of the effects of UBI is you'd see more people focusing their time on making art. And I'd bet we'd all get a lot of really cool paintings, sculptures, novels, films, and music out of it.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by bradley13 on Thursday January 20 2022, @07:01AM (2 children)
Here's the thing: basically everybody does art. Dancing, singing, drawing - these are very human activities that nearly everyone enjoys. Sure, some people are more talented than others, but being good is not a prerequisite for enjoyment.
The aspiring wannabe professional artists I have known strike me as arrogant. *Their* art deserves money. What *they* want to express is more important than what some amateur has to say.
Personally, I prefer the amateur to the professional. Art makes a great hobby for anyone - for example, the world created by a gamemaster is just as much art as the world created by an author.
tl;dr: arguing that UBI would support wannabe professional artists is, IMHO, not a persuasive argument. Art is better, when it isn't professional.
Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 20 2022, @08:38AM
The fascist isn't wrong. My libby libby fluffy bunny budget for art is $0.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Thursday January 20 2022, @08:11PM
The value of art, as far as I have been able to discern, primarily comes from marketing of said art - just as most less than essential things in this world find their "value points."
Aspiring artists have various approaches, but if they are hoping to make a living from their art, they need heavy marketing to make that happen. This is usually self-promotion, but the lucky few have family / friends who help them, and the extremely lucky few "catch fire" just like sports / music and other mass-media stars.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by richtopia on Thursday January 20 2022, @03:35PM (1 child)
I have similar aspirations if UBI became a thing. Even if health care became free I would seriously consider leaving my engineering job and trying to take my hobbies professional. I don't expect to earn as much as I do today, but being my own boss sounds really appealing, especially if I don't need to worry about healthcare or starving.
I believe UBI studies suspect an increase in job turnover and independent businesses. Typically this type of behaviour should be beneficial to the quality of life for the workers: you can leave a job you aren't satisfied with and seek out your life's passion instead of taking the first next job you find. However, the labour market on the whole will struggle to compete. Not just entry level jobs that could be priced out by competing UBI, but high-stress high-paying jobs could lose people like me who are there for the paycheck.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by cmdrklarg on Thursday January 20 2022, @10:45PM
This is not necessarily a bad thing, as this would force business to "sweeten the deal" to get employees on board. It would cut down on the workplace abuse, and wages would rise. Wages have been stagnant for decades while productivity and executive pay have soared. Time to rebalance.
The world is full of kings and queens who blind your eyes and steal your dreams.
(Score: 2) by mcgrew on Thursday January 20 2022, @06:21PM
Indeed. It's damned hard to make money in the arts; making money isn't what art is for. Sculpting, painting, writing, playing music, are all addictions. Why else is the very wealthy, very old Stephen King still writing? Why are the Rolling Stones still playing?
But as to the arts, Phillip K Dick (and most rich writers) was a poor man almost all his life. He made most of his money not from writing but being a cook or dishwasher or other low paid guy. He got rich when a movie studio wanted to make one of his stories into a movie.
For every successful sculptor there are a thousand who have never sold a piece. Van Gogh was less financially successful with his paintings than I was with mine; he only sold one painting in his life, when I was in the Air Force no sooner would I hang a painting than another airman wanted to buy it. But I never made much money with it. Went to Disney looking for artistic work and they put me to work in their gas station.
mcgrewbooks.com mcgrew.info nooze.org