Slash Boxes

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This discussion has been archived.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: 2) by mcgrew on Thursday January 20, @06:21PM

    by mcgrew (701) <> on Thursday January 20, @06:21PM (#1214255) Homepage Journal

    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.

    Free Martian whores! []
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2