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This discussion has been archived.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: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 20, @03:30AM (6 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 20, @03:30AM (#1214050)

    Always the same complaints about lazy people gaming the system, yet we never see this level of propaganda regarding all the private businesses getting free money from the taxpayers. Get fucked you stupid shit.

    Starting Score:    0  points
    Moderation   +4  
       Insightful=4, Total=4
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   4  
  • (Score: 1, Troll) by Runaway1956 on Thursday January 20, @04:41AM (4 children)

    by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Thursday January 20, @04:41AM (#1214066) Homepage Journal

    Maybe you could define these 'private businesses' for us. WalMart, Amazon, Boeing? Or, did you mean small businesses, like the family owned restaurants I prefer? Or the family owned outdoor clothing store I shop at? The hardware store, with the 80 year old man running it. The grocery stores I shop at? Those 'private businesses' I prefer don't get free money from taxpayers.

    --
    Our first six presidents were educated men. Then, along came a Democrat.
    • (Score: 3, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 20, @04:52AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 20, @04:52AM (#1214070)

      Federal bailouts - too big to fail and all that jazz. Failing "essential" businesses, particularly publicly traded ones, should not receive government handouts.

      Instead they should be, at least in part, nationalized. No secret that Singapore have transformed themselves into one of the wealthiest nations in the world because they own their infrastructure.

      But, uh, the socialism bogeyman.

    • (Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 20, @12:37PM (2 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 20, @12:37PM (#1214129)

      Think back to the time of your orange god, when he handed out billions to corporations, and a whole bunch to wealthy coasties with BS jobs, and nothing at all to real people who actually work... remember that?

      • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Thursday January 20, @06:32PM (1 child)

        by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Thursday January 20, @06:32PM (#1214260) Homepage Journal

        Actually, I remember a couple of checks from the government during Trump's days in office. In fact, I wrote a comment that it was nice, but I didn't really need it. I opined that maybe my money, and the money given to people in similar financial situations might have been better spent if it were given to people in more dire straits than I was. My sons and grandchildren ultimately got that money - Trump might have won more votes if that money had gone directly to the most needy people.

        Yeah, Trump gave a lot to big corporations, but he actually did send me a a financial bailout.

        Maybe you didn't get it because you're a Democrat? Did only Republicans and Independents get that money?

        --
        Our first six presidents were educated men. Then, along came a Democrat.
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 20, @09:37PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 20, @09:37PM (#1214354)

          Did you get paid not to work for the better part of a year?

  • (Score: 3, Informative) by mcgrew on Thursday January 20, @06:47PM

    by mcgrew (701) <publish@mcgrewbooks.com> on Thursday January 20, @06:47PM (#1214273) Homepage Journal

    Just because a business is incorporated, like WalMart or Microsoft doesn't mean they're not private businesses. A publically traded company like Apple is still a private business.

    You are just being deliberately obtuse.

    --
    Free Martian whores! [mcgrewbooks.com]