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This discussion has been archived.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: 2) by mcgrew on Thursday January 20, @07:06PM (1 child)

    by mcgrew (701) <publish@mcgrewbooks.com> on Thursday January 20, @07:06PM (#1214283) Homepage Journal

    The guy you replied to was using Trump numbers. It's about 6.5 down here, most likely the percentage given above was the world's highest inflation. Either that, or he just pulled that number out of his ass. Either way, he's a liar.

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

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 22, @11:53PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 22, @11:53PM (#1214882)

    Depends on which inflation measure you're using. If you're using the government's official numbers with the whole chained-CPI thing, those are more dishonest than a straightforward consumer basket. They were explicitly chosen way back in (as I recall) the Reagan era to keep SS more affordable by changing the terms of adjustment.