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This discussion has been archived.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: 5, Insightful) by vux984 on Thursday January 20, @02:26AM (1 child)

    by vux984 (5045) on Thursday January 20, @02:26AM (#1214033)

    as a whole still looks down on you if you're unemployed

    Cultural/Societal pressures will continue to exist.

    When the study ends you no longer have it.

    Vs you may note have it after the next election cycle? :p

    This provides no information about the long term, society-wide effects (to speak nothing of the economic effects) of deploying basic income.

    That's not really what they were studying though. And the only way to study the 'society-wide effects over the long term' would be to study it on a group large enough to be a 'society' over pretty long time. Ie... implement it somewhere "for realsies" so i don't know what you are asking for here? Because it seems like you want someone to produce a study that can't exist.

    I doubt it would affect people much on the middle to above average salary scales much whatsoever; I actually like working, and would continue to work, so I'm not taking a massive pay cut to sit on my ass.
    I think it would increase the cost of labor for lower wage jobs, particularly those that nobody much wants to do; as you won't be able to rely on people being desperate enough to eat and feed their family to take those jobs anymore. This probably is not a bad thing for society as a whole.

    I also think it would enable a lot of wage-slaves to try their hands at being entrerpreneurs and starting their own businesses and so forth. This is probably a good thing for the economy and society as a whole. There's a lot of people with good ideas that can't afford the risk they'll fail.

    It will also increase job mobility; as people will be able to afford to quit jobs they don't like and look for another one. Right now there are a lot of people are literally trapped. The work

    The elephant in the room of course is whether a big chunk of lower/middle earners will decide 'welfare' is good enough and just become unproductive. That's definitely going to be some people. How many I don't know. It's hard to study, but that is what a lot of UBI studies are attempting to get some insight into.

    And perhaps equally importantly is that there is another group of people who find even the idea that these mooches will exist so objectionable "on principle" that they'd much rather burn it all down than let them exist -- even if it proved to be a net benefit to society and the economy overall.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +3  
       Insightful=3, Total=3
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   5  
  • (Score: 4, Funny) by cmdrklarg on Thursday January 20, @10:28PM

    by cmdrklarg (5048) Subscriber Badge on Thursday January 20, @10:28PM (#1214374)

    And perhaps equally importantly is that there is another group of people who find even the idea that these mooches will exist so objectionable "on principle" that they'd much rather burn it all down than let them exist -- even if it proved to be a net benefit to society and the economy overall.

    Right! We can't have those poor moochers get something they didn't earn; that's the wealthy's job!

    --
    Answer now is don't give in; aim for a new tomorrow.