▲ 230 points
back
244 comments
Last year, I had something that was very close to basic income (income-generating website that doesn't require active babysitting).
I knew a life without work would be amazing, but I never expected it to be this great.
I had much more time and energy to enjoy life. There was never a rush to do anything. I woke up when I wasn't tired. I could read in bed for an hour if it felt right. Sometimes I'd just walk 3-5 kilometres to an appointment, and stop for a pint along the way.
I didn't stagnate either. My personal projects became my job. My work day started when I was ready and ended when I was done. With my finances already sorted out, I worked on things I enjoyed, not on potential startups.
Interestingly enough, life got cheaper. I didn't eat out as often, and cooked from scratch. I could afford the time it takes to be frugal.
Never in my life have I been so content with my situation. I didn't make much, but I had all the time in the world to enjoy life. Isn't that what people say they'd do if they won the lottery?
The second part of the experience came when I got a short work contract to finance a motorcycle trip. Suddenly, I was back to losing sleep, skipping breakfasts, waiting for the day to end, commuting and generally trying to fit life around my job.
I give basic income a 10/10, and wish everyone was given the chance to enjoy life on their own terms. I don't know if it's economically viable, but it's definitely the most enjoyable lifestyle I got to experience.
EDIT: this is getting a bit of attention. I'd be happy to answer questions publicly or privately. There's a fair bit of luck involved, but no dirty secrets.
You didn't have UBI, you had a well-paying job. The main UBI proposals for the US target $1k per month and that target means a budget of about 3 trillion per year and does not take into account health insurance.
I don't know about you, but living off $1k a month where I live (and it's a relatively cheap area) isn't feasible. Either you get roommates or you are going to end up in the cheapest most out of the way apartment you can find for $500 a month. If you are eating off $10 a day (which is reasonable, and isn't accounting for the odd pint), you're down to $200 for your monthly budget. You still have to pay for utilities and this isn't taking into account any modern necessities (phones, etc), nor certainly not a car, which you probably need because your cheap apartment isn't close to anything.
You, even with this extreme skimping, basically have no room for anything to go wrong. Hopefully your shoes that you're walking everywhere in don't wear out. Doesn't sound peaceful to me, it sounds like something that would put me always on edge (I've lived making 3x that and it does put you on edge). You felt comfortable because you were lucky enough to have a website that you could make income on by babysitting it. Is that really anything like UBI?
If we're going to discuss UBI, then we need to discuss UBI, not any form of passive income or welfare program, which by their definition are not UBI. Seeing stuff like this get upvoted only leads me to believe that a lot of UBI proponents aren't taking serious how many obstacles there are to overcome actually implementing it, nor what it will look like in practice.
You have to be really careful about generalizing from "personally getting regular free money" to everyone getting it. Under a UBI, everyone, unconditionally[1], gets the free money. That has significantly different dynamics than you alone getting it.
What happens to rents, for example? If everyone's income goes up, so does the rent. If everyone wanted to live in the same places, for the same reasons, and suddenly has higher incomes, they would bid up the rent, just as they do in well-paying urban areas. Would you be so comfortable if everyone used that free money and it established the bare minimum for living expenses?
And before you say it -- yes, I know, the core problem there is actually rent eating up everyone's discretionary income, their "slack" -- hence why I advocate dealing with that problem first (not just rent, but every such eater -- healthcare, education, etc) before letting those things leech the UBI too [2].
[1] yes, yes, up to the age/citizenship eligibility requirements, you get the point
[2] My earlier elucidation of this point: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22604788
You built a passive income business. You were living off your own entrepreneurship. You chose to live off your previous work, and not work as much. It was your achievement and you should be proud that you achieved it. In the back of your mind you also knew that you’re the one who did it and you could possibly do it again.
This is not UBI and it’s certainly not the long term mental state of someone on UBI.
I had something that was very close to basic income (income-generating website that doesn't require active babysitting).
There's a really, really critical difference here: You created something of value and UBI posits that we give everyone money simply for existing, which is inherently problematic for a long list of reasons. The most important problem is that "everyone" (or at least too many people) may become a leach and stop adding value to the system and then the whole thing may fall completely apart in a catastrophic fashion from which the world cannot recover.
The fact that you chose to keep being productive at stuff and life got cheaper and all that is great for your but doesn't generalize. About two-thirds of lottery winners are bankrupt within five years of winning the lottery.
I've chosen to do this twice now, and echo your sentiments
After saving for 2 years I quit my software job and spent two years driving from Alaksa to Argentina. I went on multi-day hiking trips, I poked lava with a stick, I paddled with icebergs, went scuba diving and camped in the mountains of Alaska and Patagonia.
I got up when I pleased, I cooked my own food (except when street food was stupid-cheap) and I worked on my passion projects (photography and writing at the time).
That experience changed my life, and after four more years saving money at a desk job, I quit again and spent three years driving around Africa.
I woke up to elephants and giraffes less than thirty yards from my Jeep-camper-house, I met tens of thousands of extremely friendly people and I ate delicious foods. I had adventures off the scale in the Congo, Sudan and Mali, I swam in white-sand paradise beaches in Mozambique and Ivory Coast and I again worked on my passion projects.
I certainly was "working" on the second trip - I wrote a couple of books, wrote for magazines, blogged, filmed video, etc. but I did it on my own terms. I could sleep in and take a rest day whenever I wanted, and I have not used an alarm for more than five years now.
Work on your own terms is so much more enjoyable, and life has a different focus. I highly, highly recommend people give it a shot!
Some people may not agree with me but I've always felt that there's an interesting take on our history:
Throughout most of civilization, most types of progress has been the result of the intellectual work of an elite. Most progress in science, art, and pretty much anything comes from a "noble" or some kind of free man either doing it themselves, or directly financing someone who did.
Most people today probably wouldn't buy into the reasons for this class society that were given at the time, and I think most people would probably (hopefully) agree that the progress made by these people can't simply have been due to genetic superiority or divine privilege. I would say it's more likely a combination of cultural capital (smart parents and friends) combined with just regular capital that gave you the benefit of not having to worry about surviving from one year to the next.
So if we accept that most of the work that has pushed humanity forward was made by the "nobility" of the age, whether that's lords from medieval times or obscenely rich venture capitalists of today, then what is the most logical way to structure a society if you want further humanity?
Here, the notion of "human nature" comes in. Some state with certainty that this innate nature will stop certain people from achieving success, because they're simply lazy, or dumb, or whatever else. Some people just want to sit around and drink beer and will never do anything else. Sure, that might be true to a larger or smaller extent, those people will always exist, but if we're talking about broad strokes, general humanity, what is the most beneficial policy?
For me, it has always seemed pretty obvious that you don't want the largest amount of people to work for the largest amount of time possible. Quite the opposite, you want to make sure that all goods and services are being provided, but only enough so that the primary goal can be achieved: to give people as much stress-free spare time as possible without breaking the economy.
If the "nobility" is what furthers human progress, why aren't we trying to create more nobility? And I'm not talking about material wealth and castles, I'm talking about the privilege of being able to just sit around for weeks, months on end and just think about what interests you. Why is it that water spins in a certain way, how do you make an automated temperature/watering system, what's the deal with combustion engines?
I can already hear some people screaming about human nature again, and yes, you are correct: some people will never be interested in this stuff. They'll use their free time for something that benefits no-one in any way. But as sure as you can be those people will exist, there will also be people who could have been the next Newton, the next Kierkegaard, slaving away in a warehouse somewhere, dead in the gate before the race even started.
I really, really hope for a future for humanity where free time isn't seen as a luxury for the few, but a requirement to grow as a human being. I hope to see societies and economies that prioritize something else than short term economical gain and meaningless widgets that get thrown in a pile after years or even months.
> wish everyone was given the chance to enjoy life on their own terms
Did anyone ever argue against it? The point of UBI isn’t that anyone wouldn’t want to get it - it’s that noone can pay for it (or rather, we as a society cannot).
I think COVID nicely shows what happens if the society stops working - labour shortages, soon translated into food and material shortages. Some (e.g. in the UK) are even paid by the government, it’s basically a temporary UBI!
The problem I have with studies like this one is that they only measure the effects of getting a stipend during a limited amount of time with a limited amount of people. It's not universal and it's not basic.
From a non-scientific view point, of course giving people free money makes them feel better.
But from an experimental perspective, they aren't getting the 'full package' of UBI. The participants aren't seeing increased taxes and they aren't seeing inflation from this. Chances are, their landlord doesn't know about this extra money and hasn't raised their rent.
Oh, this study was very useful, no matter how the guardian is trying to frame it. There was no clear indication that basic income encourages people to find jobs. You can scratch that one off the list.
Other than that, there's absolutely nothing surprising. You give people a money and they feel better. That's like... not exactly new information. And yeah, it will change their choices somewhat, which again is no big find.
There was a pretty big and important hypothesis that the study was trying to pin down: is UBI profitable? Do you give 500 EUR and get more back? The question is very reasonable and there was quite a bit of clamor for exactly this kind of pilot study to get details. Quite a few mechanisms could potentially get us there - for example people could focus on training for a better position. Or simply having more time to look for jobs they'd find better matches. And so on.
And the answer is: there is no trace of that.
Sure, we do need better studies, longer durations, higher amounts, more people. It's definitely something that's worth studying. But the gold standard so far, the linked study, found nothing in this direction. That's a big negative, and well worth noting - not hiding it into a bunch of "people feel better with more money" like this article is trying to do.
Don't we already know how that works? Folks on a pension; folks in a state that provides stipends (e.g. Alaska); folks who are independently wealthy. Their behavior has been studied repeatedly, I imagine.
In fact I'm confused why this keeps being 'tried' like its some new idea.
> The problem I have with studies like this one is that they only measure the effects of getting a stipend during a limited amount of time with a limited amount of people. It's not universal and it's not basic.
You have to start somewhere before being "universal" and "basic".
As someone who's paid rent for several years, I've found that landlords don't need a reason to raise rent and prices tend to go up irrespective of wages.
Correct. An example would be to look around military bases or colleges that cater to the military. Rents are often on par with BAH (Basic Housing Allowance) and college's per credit hour is often near the $750 rate.
You can study the effect of taxes and benefits separately since they happen to different people. This won't prove anything about inflation, but there are other things people have been concerned about.
In particular, there are people who say that if you give people money with no strings attached they will just spend it on alcohol or drugs, and it's good to have evidence for a more nuanced view.
20 year study of an entire region
https://www.wired.com/story/free-money-the-surprising-effect...
It's true. The incentive problem remains unanswered! Among others.
> From a non-scientific view point, of course giving people free money makes them feel better.
It does? My belief, though I have no facts to back it up, is that some of people (but not all) would feel bad taking charity. For some people knowing they are effectively taking from others bothers them.
Analysis of data from the Canadian Mincome experiment (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mincome) by Evelyn Forget showed more concrete benefits. People's health improved: "Forget found that in the period that Mincome was administered, hospital visits dropped 8.5 percent, with fewer incidents of work-related injuries, and fewer emergency room visits from accidents and injuries. Forget also compared proportions of women with children and suggested lower lifetime fertility as a possible outcome by comparing birth rates of young mothers with those of a control group. Additionally, the period saw a reduction in rates of psychiatric hospitalization, and in the number of mental illness-related consultations with health professionals."
> "Aimed primarily at seeing whether a guaranteed income might encourage people to take up often low-paid or temporary work without fear of losing benefits"
Turns out people do not, in fact, generally want to take precarious or otherwise unattractive jobs unless forced to economically. Who'd a thunk?
You are correct. People also don't seem to take up fulfilling and meaningful jobs /w low wages even with basic income support.
One of the arguments in Finland was that basic income would encourage and enable people to take on meaningful & important NGO jobs and community efforts despite their low pay.
But still:
>"The researchers also noted a mild positive effect on employment, particularly in certain categories, such as families with children"
at least says something.
"low paid" work doesn't automatically mean things people will only do given no alternative. Plenty of people want to work in jobs like childcare, nursing, writing, farming, gardening, etc because they actually enjoy the work and find it rewarding but they can't because it doesn't pay well enough to live.
And then the salary for doing terrible work work will increase until people consider it an option again.
win/win
N = 81 here also, so it's not really a full picture of what "universal" would be.
Interesting exercise in spin here. The German state media tagesschau.de [1] phrases it like this:
> Finns take stock soberly
> More security, fewer depressions: the Finnish UBI experiment benefited the participants. Alas, the results show: the desired effect for the work market cannot be shown.
For me, the German title reads very much like "this doesn't work" while the article mentions that the results regarding the market cannot be distinguished from other interfering changes to the social welfare system that were made in the meantime.
Which funnily reminds me of the top comment in the current ad-tech thread [2]: "The hard part is convincing the [people in charge] to stop messing with stuff long enough that you can actually measure the results."
[1]: https://www.tagesschau.de/ausland/grundeinkommen-finnland-10... [2]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23103492
Yeah some pretty clear propaganda going on... from reading the released summary of the study the vast majority of dependents that did not find employment seem to live in job deserts and economically depressed areas. Obviously UBI won't increase employment if nobody is hiring.
I'm looking at the report's table of contents. It's in Finnish. The report includes overviews of multiple studies and provides plenty of valuable insight on multiple themes.
Here's my rough translation:
1. Introduction
2. Other basic income studies in other countries
3. Effects on employment
4. Perceived health, psychological wellbeing and cognitive performance
5. Economic well-being
6. Experiences on bureaucracy
7. Basic income and trust
8. Participant interviews on basic income's effects on employment, participation, autonomy
9. BI in media
10. General populations views on BI and uncertainty relating to income
I don’t get the goal of trying to get more people to “work”. I would think increasing wellbeing should be the goal. It’s the pursuit of happiness, not the pursuit of hours worked.
I’m sure the hunter-gatherers were upset the farmers weren’t motivated to hunt and gather too.
as long as they don't live from my taxes, they can not work.
The American system is or aims for equality of opportunity. Europe manages for equality of outcomes. These are vastly different. To make UBI work in the US is a much bigger uphill battle as a result. Now, it can be rightly argued that these remain goals to some extent. Civil rights weren't passed until the 60s in the US. So we can inveigh there where gaps remain. Finally, UBI cannot be seriously engaged and implemented without tackling tax breaks, and other social programs like Medicare/Medicade. Otherwise it's just more money. More money isn't always the answer
Of course basic income on a small enough scale to avoid inflation improves recipients' wellbeing. That's not really in dispute.
The challenge is whether or not it is possible to actually implement on a society wide scale without net negative or self nullifying side effects.
One self nullifying side effect: give everyone free money -> prices go up -> everyone is back to where they started.
Has the economics behind a universal basic income been (attempted to be) modelled?
I don't expect a perfectly representative model, but I think a lot along the lines of what made Warren Buffet famous: What is the worth of something vs. the price of that thing? And how does one bring labour into the equation?
This was not really a UBI experiment. Those who got the unconditional payout got it on top of conditional welfare. I don't know why people keep pretending it tells us something about UBI.
I wish there was some study that would actually prove that free money is bad, and that it's required to pay people have a productive society.
Because so far, this sort of belief belongs to religious texts, and it's still an important pillar of how society works. We still judge the homeless and moochers because they are not willing to work. We even put people at job where they're not productive, as long as they look busy, available, and obeying.
Of course redistributing wealth to a person in bulk in the short term is going to improve their wellbeing. Was anybody really wondering if this is true? This is bordering on tautology.
The criticism of these programs is that they will cause economic problems in the long run. It's not to say they won't make anybody happy in the short run.
I believe the study, I would also love to be on BI while the rest of society is not.
UBI will be introduced, just not in the way most of us would like. It will be throught Quantitive Easing, as currently done by FED.
What QE does is - it concentrates the wealth in hands of 0.1% of society. Each financial crisis (2008, 2020) only speeds up this process. Once top 0.1 owns more than, say 90% of wealth we will be back to ancient Rome - "panem et circenses", wealthy people throwing some scraps of wealth towards mases, just enough to keep them from revolting.
Gig economy will also play some role: we are slowly cooking the frog, getting people used to the fact that they don't own their homes, or their cars, they do not have pemanent jobs. Everything they have is a short term rental. They are living using borrowed things, on borrowed time...
UBI should be coupled with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-actualization
Not if you’re looking for an easy life. Self-actualization doesn’t always result in wanting to be a productive monster, it’s subjective and depends on your goals.
Not wanting to be pedantic, but isn't Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs now considered to be quack science?
Important thing to keep in mind regarding UBI is that goverment does not generate any money. In order for goverment to give money, it needs to take it from someone.
So UBI is just proxy for wealth redistribution. Sure, wellbeing has improved for small group of people, but the question is how scalable UBI is? Remember, road to hell is paved with good intentions.
I wouldn't call trying to build and maintain a prosperous society a "road to hell", but it's true that UBI is just a different form of wealth redistribution. But most nations currently achieve redistribution through a convoluted mosaic of overlapping/competing/intertwined systems, each with their own entrenched bureaucracies and complicated rules. In contrast, a UBI system can be streamlined and efficient and, based on studies like these, even have better outcomes for recipients.
Money is generated as a form of basic income but only for chartered banks.
Money supply is generated by banks creating debt on balance sheets while giving out loans of money they don't actually have (fractional reserve banking) and the same story between these banks and regional government proxy federal banks.
> road to hell is paved with good intentions
Unrelated but I really dislike this phrase because it tells us nothing, it's not actionable, nor is it accurate. The road to heaven is paved with good intentions too. There are other roads to hell paved with bad intentions, and probably a few to heaven with bad intentions as well.
A more accurate saying would be "be careful of unintended bad side effects". That's something useful you could say in the workplace in response to a proposal.
It is explicitly about wealth redistribution, one in which there is no skewing of paying people to be in a certain state other than alive (which welfare systems are doing). Of course, no money needs to be taken; inflation can do that for us if we prefer uncontrolled recapture.
Under a basic, reasonable fair model, random economic flows in a free market will tend to have all the wealth accumulated by a few: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-inequality-ine... Depending on the redistribution amounts (not specifically UBI, just aggregate), differing levels of oligarchy will or will not form.
UBI allows for a very gentle way of avoiding all the wealth captured by a few. You could think of it as economic transfers tend to create blackholes and UBI pumps some of the accumulated matter back into the universe to keep activity flowing.
I tried to explain in this comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23033922
...why a UBI at the US federal level takes away freedom to try better ideas to do good at other levels, is morally wrong, is harmful, and that we can do much more good with persuasion, fundraising, letting states handle it (or smaller scopes), etc etc.
(With down-votes, a thoughtful comment is appreciated; thanks.)