
People kept working, became healthier while on basic income: report - fraqed
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/hamilton/basic-income-mcmaster-report-1.5485729
======
simonsarris
This is very misleading reporting. First: All studies so far show a pretty
consistent ~10% work disincentive. This is what all the detractors say when
they say it disincentivizes work. So how about this one? From actually reading
the study's conclusion:

> Slightly less than one-fifth were employed before but unemployed during the
> pilot (17%)

So even worse than what we've seen so far. 17% dropping out of the labor
market when its a short-term study is huge.

For the ~10% figure, Chris Stucchio has a fairly succinct roundup of the work
disincentive of other studies so far:
[https://www.chrisstucchio.com/blog/2019/basic_income_reduces...](https://www.chrisstucchio.com/blog/2019/basic_income_reduces_employment.html)

~~~

Personal opinion: If you consider multi-generational entrenchments of poverty
as its own problem, worth serious merit, then the work disincentive could be a
disaster. In UBI long run, the children of parents who have _never_ worked are
probably going to be at a large disadvantage. I think its already a problem
_today_ for children of SSI recipient parents (even compared to children of
SSDI parents), but its not easy to prove.

~~~
multiplegeorges
And this is a very misleading summary of the results.

Here are some actual quote from the study:

> Ten respondents moved from unemployment to employment while 32 moved from
> employment to unemployment. Of the participants who moved from employment to
> unemployment, 13 (40.6%) enrolled in full-time education during the pilot
> with the intention of re-entering the labour market later as more qualified
> workers.

Almost half of people who stopped working did it in order to train for a
better job. That's great!

> most of the respondents who were unemployed during the pilot reported
> experiencing health issues that made it difficult or impossible for them to
> work.

Receiving BI allowed sick people to not be forced into work to pay for a basic
existence? That's great!

Take into account those two factors and almost no able bodied, employable
person opted to not work.

Sounds like a success to me.

~~~
tic_tac
The point of UBI is not to fund people's vanity adventures in education. It's
to support people who would otherwise be starving or homeless without a job.

Regarding "sickness", the severity is important to know. If UBI enables people
with slight depression issues to just give up working entirely, UBI could be
entirely counterproductive by accelerating depression's spirals of inactivity.

And this completely ignored the issue of inflation that comes with society
wide UBI.

The whole notion of UBI is nonsense. Rather than throwing money at people to
spend on broken institutions like Education and Healthcare, let's reform these
institutions in the first place to make them more affordable and effective.

~~~
einpoklum
So, education is a "vanity adventure"?

Perhaps if you're a person who looks at your cleaners or servers or cashiers
as people with no potential for self-betterment; as people who are unable to
expand their horizons.

Ugh.

------
throwaway13337
The issue I see with basic income is that most money is spent on housing and
health care. These two things are supply constrained so it's more of an
auction for who can afford them.

With basic income, we may just raise the cost of those things.

This problem wouldn't appear in a study that distributed to only some
individuals.

We need to solve the regulatory or otherwise organizational problems of these
things to provide real relief. Throwing money at the problem will just move
money to a few hands.

~~~
AnthonyMouse
> With basic income, we may just raise the cost of those things.

The problem with this argument is that it proves too much. It's true of
_anything that causes the poor to have more money_. Lower unemployment, higher
wages, anything. Heck, it's true of lower healthcare costs, because people
would have more money for housing, or vice versa.

Housing costs and healthcare costs are problems, but they're _independent_
problems.

On top of that, you're assuming the UBI actually results in the poor getting
more assistance rather than merely different assistance. Right now there are
explicit subsidies for housing and healthcare. If they get replaced with a UBI
in the same amount, maybe people just use it to buy housing and healthcare
anyway -- but maybe some of them don't, and that causes those prices to go
_down_.

~~~
ctdonath
Problem is the lack of colloquial objective definition of "poor".

The US "poverty line" is at 80th percentile of world incomes. The US's vast
welfare/entitlement system ensures few indeed net less than that line, shoring
up their shortfall with trillions of $.

What constitutes "poor" keeps shifting. There will always be a bottom 10%.
There is ongoing increase to the standard of living, instilling a sense of
"nobody should go without X" (when X didn't exist not long before, broadband
internet being the latest). Affordable housing gets overrun by population
growth & attracting mobile opportunity-seekers, living space naturally going
to the highest bidder; property taxes being a thing, there is no recognized
natural right to real estate. Health care relentlessly advances, new
lifesaving care objectively costing a great deal ... vs a public sentiment of
a right thereto.

We need an objective redefinition of "poor", predicated on a baseline of
nutrition, housing floorspace, basic tools (stove, disposal, etc), care
(minimum optimistic odds of longevity), information access, etc and an
understanding that the baseline cannot be shifted - that those doing better
are _not poor_ , that accessibility thereto is largely attainable (whatever
the sociopolitical system), and acknowledgement that when/if all are above
that line, poverty services are officially out of a job.

As it stands, "poor" is a moving target for which a great number of people
have a vested interest in covering a consistent, if not growing, population.

~~~
Balgair
> As it stands, "poor" is a moving target for which a great number of people
> have a vested interest in covering a consistent, if not growing, population.

Nearly all Kings and Emperors were 'poorer' than most Westerners under the
poverty line of today. They had no refrigeration, antibiotics, electricity,
etc. But we still agree that there are 'poor' people today, and I think we're
correct to say so. Yes, it is a moving target, and thank God that it is such.
If 'progress' means that we have to drag the least lucky of us up to levels of
decadence that Cesar could never have though of, I'm more than on board for
that. Quibbling about the exact definition of poor for all of time is useless.
Charge ahead, have the 'poor' of our grandchildren's time be the wealthy of
today.

~~~
BlackCherry
I find this trope of Kings/Emperors being "poorer" than most people today, to
be an extremely annoying trope. This trope is purely a rhetorical device used
to justify inequalities, because "look you have a cell phone and infinite
McDonald's deliveries on Seamless, you're richer than a King of old!"
Meanwhile you're shackled to your job, shackled to your location, shackled to
your apartment/mortgage, shackled to your debt, etc.

~~~
ctdonath
I find the annoyance annoying, overlooking how "poor" has been lifted to
heights unthinkable not long ago - and prompting my earlier comment. Those who
have had cellphones for all adulthood don't grasp how limited much was not
long ago; methinks many need a reality check on what basic living entails (I
grew up with wood heat, no A/C, significant homegrown food, walk 2 miles in a
blizzard for help when car slid into a ditch, hand-typed individual copies of
resume, etc). Most "shackling" is for want of imagination to do, not
resources/opportunities. I'm deeply concerned that so many think they're
"poor" when they do in fact have far more resources & opportunities than
"rich" (or at least "middle class") did not long ago.

------
Cthulhu_
From my personal point of view, basic income SHOULD disincentivise work; it's
a boost for society, health, well-being, children, etc.

Because in the current economy, a lot of people have to work unreasonable
hours, multiple jobs, and have all people in a family work to make ends meet,
at the cost of personal health and well-being, personal time, having children
at all or having more children, getting married and buying a house, etc.

Right now I'm stressed because I'm earning less than I spend, my girlfriend is
stressed because she doesn't have a job yet and due to personal reasons may
find it hard to get, keep, and work enough hours at a job, etc. If she earned
a basic income we'd be out of the woods already. If I then also earned one on
top of my job we'd be VERY comfortable.

(And keep in mind I would already pay for both of our basic incomes through
the income taxes I'm paying at the moment. I'm happily paying taxes because
other people paying taxes put me through college and into my current job)

~~~
sabarn01
People should fear being destitute its the natural human condition. Learning
skills is the only way to make wealth.

~~~
hooande
No person who was born rich has to learn skills to avoid destitution. And
poverty isn't the natural condition for humans any more than it is for cats,
or any other animal.

~~~
csa
I’m guessing you don’t know many people who were born into wealth.

The skill that they must learn is how not to lose the money.

This skill is difficult to sustain over more than a generation or two —
grandparent earns it, parent might keep it, child usually ends up destitute
both in terms of financial capital and social capital.

If the “child” in this scenario is lucky, they have some social capital that
will save them, and their branch of the family tree is at an inflection point.

Seeing a family self-destruct like this is tough to watch and surprisingly
common within that class of people.

~~~
munk-a
That skill is so trivial to learn compared with the skill of surviving and
building up income from nothing.

Rich people literally just need to not be complete idiots - if you've got 300
million in the bank put it in some low interest stable investment and you'd be
able to live off the investment earnings alone. There, I just explained all
the life skills you need as a rich person - there is no equivalence between
the road the rich and the poor need to walk to survive.

~~~
csa
I am guessing that you do not know many people who were born into wealth.

There are existential questions that gnaw at some of these people that hinder
them from taking the seemingly simple path that you have presented.

I would also argue that it is not as easy as you would think to park millions
in some "low interest stable investment" that also does not have substantial
(for generational wealth) counter-party risk.

> there is no equivalence between the road the rich and the poor need to walk
> to survive

I agree with this, but I think you are being overly dismissive of the skills
that someone born into a wealthy family needs to keep that wealth.

It requires a healthy amount of self-awareness among other things.

~~~
peterashford
I literally cannot believe you are seriously making this argument.

~~~
csa
I have seen too many people who were born into wealthy families, "have it
made", and yet totally self-destruct in ways that I am not sure I would wish
on my worst enemy.

I think another perspective on this issue is worth making.

------
ajsnigrutin
> The three-year, $150-million program

Three year. Would you quit your job, and move somewhere cheaper if you knew
the money will run out after three years, and you'll have a three year gap in
your CV?

Are there really no lottery winners winning lifetime monthly payouts to study?

Because, if you gave me 5x average earnings for three years, I wouldn't quit
my job. But if you guaranteed the money for the rest of my life, i'd pursue
different activities (fun, good for me, but non-productive for society).

~~~
avanderveen
> non-productive for society

Why? I feel like a lot of people want to do things that are productive for
society, that we have too little of right now. Things like producing art of
all forms, building things, increasing their level of communication with those
around them, participating in community events and activities, etc. Sure,
these things aren't economically productive, but they're still productive for
society, which is the gap that I'd like to see filled, whether by UBI or other
forms of providing more security for the general population.

~~~
allovernow
>Why? I feel like a lot of people want to do things that are productive for
society

Most of the things that are productive for society require study and practice
of skills that aren't particularly interesting to the vast majority of people.

>Sure, these things aren't economically productive

The vast majority of things that are productive for society are economically
productive. That's why people pay for things.

We don't need UBI to go toward funding artists and musicians. That's a waste
of resources. Particularly considering that far too many people are likely to
choose the easy way out, pursuing "what they love", i.e. soft skills like art
and music. You also drastically underestimate the number people who are
perfectly content with doing drugs and watching TV/playing video games all
day.

Unfortunately while resources are scarce, human nature is such that people
require incentives to do the things that need to be done.

~~~
strgcmc
As a slightly different kind of counter-example, see this recent post about
"hard problems":
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22425745](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22425745)

IMO, UBI can actually encourage innovation and productive work, on "hard
problems" that are not economically viable in a short-enough time-frame or
lucrative enough for VCs, but for which society would certainly benefit from.

------
hinkley
I want UBI and a 30-32 hour work week, so I guess I’m proposing a 20%
“disincentivization”.

Would fewer people in the workforce really be so bad? What’s the carbon and
water footprint of all of these goods we really don’t need but we bust our
humps for anyway? At this point, more robots don’t mean more of the stuff we
need. they mean more stuff we _don 't_ need.

~~~
PragmaticPulp
> Would fewer people in the workforce really be so bad?

Yes. Someone needs to work to produce the goods and services they use, as well
as fund their UBI. The more people who opt out of working, the harder everyone
else must work to compensate.

> What’s the carbon and water footprint of all of these goods we really don’t
> need but we bust our humps for anyway?

People dropping out of the workforce doesn't reduce the demand for those goods
and services. In fact, giving people free income might increase the demands
for goods and services as those people would have extra disposable income.

~~~
lidHanteyk
So why don't managers and administrators work to produce things? They seem
capable of labor, and they're paid extra, but they work less. Why?

Edit: You downvoted me within a minute of my posting. I asked two questions.
If you can't answer them, then it is because you fear their answers.

So let's answer them! Managers and administrators don't produce things because
they claim that their positions allow them to optimize labor. Specifically,
their bonus pay is based upon the idea that management and administration
increases output _proportional to their efficacy_. It follows that we should
_measure_ the output of management practices, and compensate managers
according to their actual impact.

~~~
0x4477
>So why don't managers and administrators work to produce things? They seem
capable of labor, and they're paid extra, but they work less. Why?

Management and administration is a skill that not everyone possesses. There
are such things as good and bad managers. Just because the work they do
doesn't directly output a tangible product doesn't mean it's not valuable.
Additionally, it's typically a position with more responsibility as well as
accountability which tends to reflect in higher pay. That's not to say it's a
perfect system but this is generally how it works.

As for working less, unless you mean they do less physical labour than the
people they manage, they often work more. It's unfair to say managers work
less because they do management tasks rather than the work their subordinates
do. In virtually every job I've had, the more senior the manager, the more
hours they worked. Retail especially.

>So let's answer them! Managers and administrators don't produce things
because they claim that their positions allow them to optimize labor.
Specifically, their bonus pay is based upon the idea that management and
administration increases output proportional to their efficacy. It follows
that we should measure the output of management practices, and compensate
managers according to their actual impact.

They don't just claim their positions optimize labour, it actually does
optimize it. I don't understand where this idea that managers are merely
irrelevant middlemen who have no impact on the people they manage comes from.
Companies seek profit and have no desire to pay people simply for existing,
especially if they do not meaningfully contribute to the bottom line. Managers
are hired exactly because they do affect the bottom line in a sufficiently
meaningful way to justify their presence. And, as with almost any other job, a
manager that fails to contribute will be replaced much like any other
underperforming employee.

That isn't to say there isn't a thing as too many managers or levels of
management or even bad managers that do not get fired, but to sweep them all
aside as irrelevant is simply not a realistic interpretation.

~~~
lidHanteyk
> Additionally, it's typically a position with more responsibility as well as
> accountability which tends to reflect in higher pay.

Who has more responsibility for cooking your burger correctly, the cook or the
manager? Who has more responsibility for measuring before cutting, the
carpenter or the architect? Who has more responsibility for not leaving PII
all over service logs, you or your team leader? I would politely suggest that
there are _different_ responsibilities for managers, but not that this somehow
removes responsibilities from laborers.

> It's unfair to say managers work less because they do management tasks
> rather than the work their subordinates do. In virtually every job I've had,
> the more senior the manager, the more hours they worked. Retail especially.

My former CEOs have had enough spare time to show up in the tabloids because
they can't stop having sex with their employees or making questionable
business decisions with authoritarian governments. I don't have time for sex
with my coworkers. Perhaps team leaders or low-level managers have to put in
hours, but administrative management definitely does not.

> They don't just claim their positions optimize labour, it actually does
> optimize it.

In my lifetime, Linux was born and became not just a serious competitor to
proprietary kernels, but supplanted them. Thus, the FLOSS model of a massive
global commune of public-domain information and tools is a viable contender,
able to compete with any corporation.

When I contributed to Linux, I reported to one of the subsystem lieutenants,
and my code was reviewed by them and other contributors to the subsystem. For
no money whatsoever, they advised me on which parts of the subsystem were
worth contributing to, which outstanding tasks were too hard to tackle, and
which documentation to read.

Also in my lifetime, Wikipedia was born, supplanting many proprietary
encyclopedias within only a few years, and today it is another shining example
of the triumph of the FLOSS model.

When I contributed to Wikipedia, I just did whatever I wanted. Whenever
something looked like it could be improved, and I had the time and energy to
improve it, I did what had to be done to make things better. If people
disagreed, they could undo what I did; if I disagreed with them, then there
were community arbiters who could negotiate a solution.

So, like, do managers _actually_ optimize labor to the point where they earn
their keep? I can't tell, and I think that we ought to measure.

> I don't understand where this idea that managers are merely irrelevant
> middlemen who have no impact on the people they manage comes from.

Oh, it's worse than that; the typical manager has a net _negative_ impact on
their direct reports, from what I've seen.

> And, as with almost any other job, a manager that fails to contribute will
> be replaced much like any other underperforming employee.

I no longer believe that you have been gainfully employed in a corporate
hierarchy. This line gave you away.

------
winstonewert
I don't think this fits the definition of basic income.

> Whatever income participants earned was deducted from their basic income at
> 50 per cent

That is equivalent to a massive 50% tax rate on every dollar earned. It seems
to me the whole point of UBI is that its universal and not conditional on how
much you earn otherwise.

~~~
syrrim
How do you expect UBI to be funded? Either taxes or wars, and we haven't
invested very much in our army.

~~~
winstonewert
UBI would be funded by taxes, duh.

But the funding mechanism isn't at issue here. The point is that for every
dollar earned the participants lost 50 cents due to a decrease in support from
the basic income. That's a massive disincentive to work.

~~~
syrrim
Any practical UBI will require a large increase in taxes. If this isn't an
income tax, it will be a payroll or sales tax, which both have a similar
effect. A UBI pilot needs to model that tax just as much as the actual money
transfer. If a practical UBI system contains a "massive disincentive to work",
a model of such a system should contain this as well.

~~~
winstonewert
You make a good point, a good UBI pilot would incorporate the necessary tax
increases.

But that's not what this study did. Crucially, the disincentive to create only
applies to low income earners. Under, UBI everyone pays the taxes and thus
everyone gets that disincentive to work. If we want to see what UBI would do,
we should actually do UBI.

------
jimbokun
> The project worked by recruiting low-income people and couples, offering
> them a fixed payment with no strings attached that worked out to
> approximately $17,000 for individuals and $24,000 for couples.

Why discriminate so heavily against couples?

It creates every incentive to lie about your relationship status. Or to avoid
sharing a household altogether, creating greater economic inefficiencies and
less built in social support of having a partner.

~~~
pjc50
Yeah, that's a means test and breahes the "universal" principle.

~~~
52-6F-62
The program was never a universal basic income, just a basic income pilot.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontario_Basic_Income_Pilot_Pro...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontario_Basic_Income_Pilot_Project)

------
RegnisGnaw
My issue, and I only have one, with these pilot projects for basic income is
that its not realistic. The people in the project know that it will end at a
fixed time, so their actions are different compared to what would happen in a
BI/UBI system.

~~~
stevenwoo
We already have a pilot project - the Alaska Permanent Fund, it's been running
since 1976.

~~~
snarf21
This is very true. Honestly asking: Is it working? I haven't seen lots of data
on the topic. I also know the climate and endless day/night issues weigh into
this too. I'm curious if academia sees this as a success or not.

~~~
ceejayoz
It's a pretty dismal failure if you compare it to the alternative approach,
which is saving the oil revenue for a rainy day.

Norway has saved up $195,000 per citizen.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_Pension_Fund_of_Nor...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_Pension_Fund_of_Norway)

(Alaska's dividend is also a pittance that likely doesn't even start to offset
the higher cost of living there. "Basic income", it's not.)

~~~
eru
If people wanted to save, why wouldn't they do so privately? (And if they
don't want to save, why should the government force them? Isn't a democracy
supposed to reflect what the people want?)

Btw, the Norwegian model is partial about avoiding 'Dutch disease'. That's why
they invest the money abroad. See
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_disease](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_disease)

~~~
ceejayoz
> If people wanted to save, why wouldn't they do so privately?

The "why" is complicated, but the "they generally don't" is not.

> Isn't a democracy supposed to reflect what the people want?

People wanted slavery, segregation, Jim Crow, etc. There aren't many pure
democracies out there as pure mob rule isn't super awesome in the long run.

Alaska's dividend is particularly odd given they were proposing 40% budget
cuts to the state university system recently in order to keep the fund payouts
up.

[https://www.reuters.com/article/us-alaska-politics/deep-
budg...](https://www.reuters.com/article/us-alaska-politics/deep-budget-cuts-
put-university-of-alaska-in-crisis-mode-grappling-with-survival-idUSKCN1UH2H0)

> Dunleavy, who took office in December and is an outspoken supporter of U.S.
> President Donald Trump, has called for major cuts in higher education,
> health care and other social programs as he pushes to sharply raise the
> annual oil revenue dividend that Alaska pays to nearly every state resident.

~~~
eru
In general, just giving people money should be the null hypothesis for how to
spend, and any government spending programme should be measured against this
'placebo'. Instead of against the weaker standard of 'does the spending do any
good at all?'

I have no clue whether those programs he wants to slash are any good or bad.

Higher education is mostly a signalling game. So very useful for individuals
to spend on; but a zero sum game at the level of society.

> People wanted slavery, segregation, Jim Crow, etc. There aren't many pure
> democracies out there as pure mob rule isn't super awesome in the long run.

I'm not a fan of democracy either. But lots of people are. And it beats some
of the alternatives.

------
52-6F-62
There is a lot of misunderstanding in this thread, and a lot of strong
opinions.

"UBI" is mentioned repeatedly, but this wasn't a UBI program.

The intention of the program was looking to replace our existing welfare and
many Ontario works programs.

Instead, the incoming government (after campaigning on completing the pilot)
canceled the program unilaterally, and is looking to outsource our welfare
payment programs to foreign companies.

Please read a summary on the program:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontario_Basic_Income_Pilot_Pro...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontario_Basic_Income_Pilot_Project)

------
onetimeusename
The basic income experiment improved motivation to find a higher paying job
for both employed and unemployed members but

> almost three-quarters of the respondents who were employed six months before
> receiving basic income were still working while receiving basic income.
> Nearly 80 percent of the respondents who were previously unemployed remained
> without work during the pilot. About 20 percent found employment.

So the majority of unemployed people stayed unemployed. Of the people employed
prior to the pilot, about 23% became unemployed although in some cases it may
have been to pursue more education.

> The unemployed group were three times more likely to report their general
> health had declined during the pilot as compared to the employed group.

The majority of the unemployed group reported improved general health but a
significant portion of the unemployed group became worse off during the pilot.

The majority of participants did report improved well-being through a survey.
The survey asked questions about general health, mental health, and financial
well-being among others.

If the cost was $150,000,000 for 4,000 people for 3 years, the cost per year
should be approx $50,000,000.

The articles states there are 2,000,000 people in poverty in the Ontario
province so this program, if scaled up to all those in poverty, would be
expected to cost $25,000,000,000 per year from simply scaling up the cost
500x.

------
luckylion
These studies feel like "free energy machines" that totally work as long as
they are plugged into a wall socket, that is: as long as the budget doesn't
come from the system itself, you're not testing under anything close to real
world conditions.

Otherwise, the results aren't surprising to me. I know very few people that
wouldn't keep/be working if they had a UBI (and the ones that wouldn't aren't
really working now), but I also know very few people that would keep their
current job. UBI, if sustained and sustainable, should work similar to a
roaring economy with full employment in that regard: if you want somebody to
work in the sewers or garbage collection, you'll have to pay them well.

------
pingyong
I really, really like the idea of UBI. However, some napkin math:

In the US, with ~250 million people being eligible, a $1000 UBI would cost ~$3
trillion. That's almost the entire budget of the US. How is this even remotely
realistic right now? Even if you can cut other spending in half due to it,
you'd need an additional $1.5 trillion in "income" essentially. Is that
something that would even be possible? How many rich people are there to tax?

~~~
adrr
Doesn’t Alaska have basic income? How do they afford it?

~~~
stronglikedan
Possibly a simplified answer, but the way I understand it is that the citizens
own the oil rights, and get a cut.

~~~
adrr
That’s way it’s funded just Norway funds their social programs from oil
revenues and tosses the extra in their sovereign wealth fund like Saudi
Arabia. Alaska is listed on the wiki page for basic income.

------
einpoklum
> The ... program was scrapped by Ontario's ... government in July. ...
> minister Lisa MacLeod, said the decision was made because the program was
> failing to help people become "independent contributors to the economy."

Basic income is supposed to help people cover their basic needs, not to make
them "independent contributors to the economy".

This is doubly the case when we remember that doing volunteer work,
social/community organizing, (non-commercialized) art - is not even counted as
part of "the economy".

Also, if you're an employee - becoming an employee or continuing to be one -
you're not an "independent contributor to the economy". But the vast majority
of"contributors to the economy" are wage workers, not independent
tradespeople.

------
timwaagh
"nearly three-quarters of respondents who were working when the pilot project
began kept at it despite receiving basic income." So can we infer that 25% of
those working chose to actually quit full time? I think it's safe to say this
much reduction in labor availability is not the result the government was
hoping for. The state is right, maybe not to call it off prematurely but if
these figures would have been the same after the trial the conclusion would
have been: they need to look for another policy. A good 'normal' social
security policy would result in 0 people quitting and a lot of people getting
employed. That's the kind of result the government should want to see before
even considering a change.

~~~
Matumio
I really don't like using employment as the only valid measure of success. See
also David Graeber's "Bullshit Jobs" essay.

Government could always create jobs, directly or indirectly, and force the
unemployed into them, producing something for which there isn't really a
demand.

Why were those people quitting their jobs? What were they doing instead? Were
they better off? How much did it cost to get those improvements, compared to
other ways to get them?

~~~
timwaagh
People quitting their jobs means a not-quite corresponding economic decline
because labor productivity can't change in the short term (not quite because
these are lower-productivity jobs). Which means less taxes and thus less money
to fund programs like this. But more importantly in an import-free economy,
less stuff gets produced so everyone would have to make do with less. That's
why it's generally considered important.

------
mzs
I wish the report broke out the family health benefits based on if the
participant gained/lost work did/didn't go to school. (edit: Also provide a
category for those that were too ill to work to begin with.) From the
conclusion:

>As for the labour market participation of survey respondents, over half
indicated working before and during the pilot (54%) while less than a quarter
were unemployed before and during the pilot (24%). Slightly less than one-
fifth were employed before but unemployed during the pilot (17%) and a smaller
number reported not working before but finding work during the pilot (5%).
Just under half of those who stopped working during the pilot returned to
school to improve their future employability (40.6%).

>Those who were working both before and during the pilot reported improvements
in their rate of pay (37%), working conditions (31%) and job security (27%).
The entire survey sample reported other work-related improvements such as
searching more easily for a job (61%),staying motivated to find better
employment (79%) and starting school or an educational training program (26%).

[https://labourstudies.mcmaster.ca/documents/southern-
ontario...](https://labourstudies.mcmaster.ca/documents/southern-ontarios-
basic-income-experience.pdf)

------
ravenstine
I'm not optimistic about basic income for the average person.

That said, I know that if I had basic income, I would spend my time building
things for the world. There are lots of side projects that I have worked on or
want to work on, but simply haven't been able to get them off the ground
because I don't have the time to dedicate enough mental energy. There's too
much at stake for me to compromise my current job to work on something that
may or may not succeed. I could work on projects after hours or during the
weekend, but I've found this to be too spiritually exhausting and simply
impractical; I have a hard time maintaining momentum if I can't dedicate more
than half my time to something.

If I could get by with the basics and not have to be employed, I could
actually get something done that not only might help the world but employ
others.

~~~
chillacy
I would think that thousands of people like you trying to build something
innovative and new would be well worth the investment in those who try and
fail or those who are content to "waste it away" (spending their UBI and doing
nothing else is still creating economic activity).

------
amoorthy
As others have said this study doesn't have enough data to be conclusive. So
most people, including me, comment based on which of the following we believe
in:

1\. People are inherently lazy. UBI will encourage them to do less. 2\. People
are inherently interested in maximizing their potential. UBI will enable them
to do more.

I couldn't find any social science research on which of the above is more
true. But if we could tell maybe that can help us guess at how many UBI
recipients will abuse the system as that seems to be the main concern around
UBI.

------
russellendicott
Couldn't you consider older people living on Social Security to be somewhat of
a UBI microclimate? I'd imagine you could learn a lot by sending the same
questionnaire to them. A lot of the mental factors are the same: desire vs.
ability to work, the changes in routine pre and post income, etc.

Also, I wonder if we had UBI there would be facilities that would take care of
you if you turned over your income check to them in the same way that some
nursing homes do. One wonders how different this would be than a minimum
security prison....

~~~
chillacy
We already know that social security greatly reduces poverty
[https://www.cbpp.org/research/social-security/social-
securit...](https://www.cbpp.org/research/social-security/social-security-
lifts-more-americans-above-poverty-than-any-other-program)

It's just hard to maintain from a balanced budget perspective.

> One wonders how different this would be than a minimum security prison....

The difference is that hopefully you could leave anytime and go to the
facility across the street if it has better perks.

------
burlesona
Basic income makes sense to me as a more effective implementation of welfare,
but I personally strongly prefer the negative income tax implementation:
[https://mitsloan.mit.edu/ideas-made-to-matter/negative-
incom...](https://mitsloan.mit.edu/ideas-made-to-matter/negative-income-tax-
explained)

That seems to address many of the concerns that people are raising in this
thread. Namely, it doesn’t require you to work, but ensures that you never
have a disincentive to work either.

~~~
contravariant
Mathematically they're entirely equivalent.

Although I'd be inclined to agree that negative income tax might be the better
model, as it gives the most direct control over the net-income vs gross-income
curve, and it's the properties of _that_ curve that drives people's behaviour.

For instance the steepness of the curve indicates how much someone is
incentivized to earn more (ideally you'd want this to decrease strictly
monotonically as people earn more, but somehow this is rather controversial).
And its curvature dictates whether a stable or unstable income incurs more tax
(this property doesn't seem to be used much but it's still interesting).

One of the problems with income dependent welfare is that it messes up the
lower end of the curve, making its slope smaller or even negative. In the
worst case it provides a financial barrier to people on welfare to re-enter
the work force.

------
elif
The problem is not the productivity of those on UBI, the elephant in the room
is the ideology of humans on this planet who are forced into labor for
survival vs those who are percieved as having a free ride.

That schism will exist for any set of parameters and methods of rolling it
out. It will not solve class imbalances, it will make them painfully clear.

E.G. for those of us who have wealth, own houses, etc, UBI will make having a
job seem like an optional folly to a person with debt and rent to pay. We
really don't want a society like that.

------
joshlemer
The problem I have with all of these studies is that they only look at the
receiving side of the equation. In other words, their experiment is not a
closed system where their subjects have to also provide the free money to each
other, which is what UBI proposes.

The results therefor are completely uninteresting -- do people's quality of
life go up when you just give them free money, no strings attached? I would
certainly expect so! I don't think this is news to anybody. But what about the
people paying for the UBI? If their taxes have to go up 3%.. 5%.. 10%..
whatever it is, then any respectable study of the affects of UBI has to at the
very least take into account the negative affects on the paying population, if
there are any. Otherwise, the conclusions we draw are probably going to be
disastrously wrong.

An other way of thinking about it is with a thought experiment. If scientists
didn't consider the full affects of their experiments on the entire system as
a whole, then they could easily show that entropy decreases over time, or that
momentum or energy or mass are not conserved.

So, I'd like to see a study where participants are divided into payers and
recipients. Perhaps, 90% are payers and 10% are recipients, and we track not
only the benefits in lifestyle that the receiving 10% enjoy, but also look for
any drops in quality of life suffered by the 90%.

------
gridspy
People actually enjoy being useful. We actually enjoy work which preserves
dignity and has visible benefit.

This idea that people only do work because they must is flawed. Most citizens
are happy when they are doing a reasonable amount of work.

Basic Income is crucial because not all useful work is fairly paid. From
parenting to housekeeping, (early) innovating to art - so many beneficial
activities suffer because the stress of financial security grinds them out of
existence.

------
KorematsuFred
None of these empirical studies are useful for broad policy decisions. This is
a bit like linear regression, there are to many dimensions each matters
differently and the same classifier will not hold true if you add more
dimensions randomly or remove few.

There is no "core human trend" to all this that will get revealed only by
empirical studies but not by logic. (Empirical studies are useful to judge say
whether vaping actually makes us more healthy on average. Smoking is so
irrational at some level that no amount of logic can help us predict how
people behave.)

The economics logic is pretty clear. People will react to incentives. But
there is no hard formula that we can apply. Raising minimum wage by few cents
will not cause job loss but increasing it by few dollars will. But if you make
minimum wage around $100 then whole industry might go underground and no
effective jobless but for in government record keeping.

I think effectiveness of UBI will be useful only if we perform far too many
experience under far too variable circumstances and then understand the
broader trends.

------
bparsons
People interested in this UBI should look at the Canada Child Benefit (CCB).

It has been described in many ways, but it is essentially a basic income for
children (or the parents of children).

It is means tested, which allows for the program to be really generous to low
income single parents with young children.

The effect has been a dramatic reduction in poverty -- especially child
poverty-- in a couple of years. This is an example of a modest government
intervention that will have massive positive impacts in the lives of these
families.

More info: [https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/trudeau-s-child-benefit-is-
helpi...](https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/trudeau-s-child-benefit-is-helping-
drive-poverty-to-new-lows-1.1220332)

CCB Calculator: [https://www.canada.ca/en/revenue-agency/services/child-
famil...](https://www.canada.ca/en/revenue-agency/services/child-family-
benefits/child-family-benefits-calculator.html)

------
dahart
I’m glad there are experiments like this actually happening for any amount of
time. It would be great to see the experiment run it’s full course, but it’s
maybe more surprising to me that it got funded, rather than that it got
cancelled. Thinking about how contentious and political funding can be for
things we know we need, like schools, it’s not very surprising that something
expensive and not 100% required ends up on the chopping block.

What do you think it would realistically take to be able to fund UBI (or other
experiments) without running the risk of being cancelled? How could it be set
up so that next year’s political opponent doesn’t have the ability to axe a
project to make themselves look good?

------
rapind
If you raise the bar by $x across the board then doesn't $x gradually becomes
the new bottom? If we give everyone $50k / year tax-free, would that just make
$50k the new $0 relative to cost of living? The effect being the same as a
progressive tax (those who make far more are far less impacted).

If it is basically the same as a progressive tax, then it does strike me as a
much simpler way to implement it (instead of complicated varying brackets).
However adding it on top of an existing progressive tax scheme is adding
another point of complexity right?

Maybe replacing progressive taxes with a flat tax and then adding UBI would be
a better / simpler approach.

~~~
chillacy
The Harvard economist Greg Mankiew has a talk where he shows how a UBI + flat
tax could behave the same as a progressive tax + phased out UBI:
[https://taxfoundation.org/universal-basic-income-ubi-
means-t...](https://taxfoundation.org/universal-basic-income-ubi-means-tested-
transfers/)

~~~
rapind
Seems like it would be more clear and fair all around to have flat tax + UBI
so we aren't mixing solutions to different problems.

Rich and poor probably utilize public services around the same amount (roads,
police, hospitals, fire departments, etc.). (I'm sure there are counter
arguments to this, but if public services we're good enough, can we assume
this?). So a flat tax would be fair. It potentially disincentives better
public services in more wealthy regions if everyone pays the same (again, sure
there are some counter arguments, but it would be better right?).

Then adding UBI is clearly for the purpose of distributing some of the wealth
that our society has allowed to be created back to the people in a non-
prejudiced way. UBI would have to keep pace with inflation of course. A fixed
"thank you for making our rich country work and for buying crap even if don't
need it" that everyone gets doesn't seem too controversial.

Other than accountants, tax lawyers, and offshore havens, who gets hurt?

------
ilikehurdles
I think it's important to study the details of different implementations
before making any conclusions, positive or negative, about basic income. Yeah,
one of the challenges with a test like this is knowing there's a finite end
date.

Another aspect that is often ignored in these discussions is the question of
whether recipients continue to be eligible for basic social safety net type of
services. I've heard the libertarian approach to basic income is essentially a
replacement for the services we consider "welfare", and that's what we're
seeing out of the proposal in California where recipients receiving other
assistance would be ineligible for this kind of income. Medicaid, for one, is
a strike against eligibility.

I haven't looked into Ontario's test in detail, but I doubt the recipients
gave up their single-payer healthcare to receive basic income. Also makes me
think that BI is only so popular because we rarely dive into the details of
what happens to existing social programs, a question that will surely turn the
UI/BI discussion more divisive.

------
jeffy
One argument I never see in UBI discussions is that some people are just bad
with money. If you give more money to someone who doesn't budget, save, live
within their means, etc, it won't help. There are people who spend beyond
their means and then get payday loans. So while it would help some people who
would spend wisely, many would not.

You would have payday loans 2.0 where people would borrow against future UBI
payments, spend on non necessities, and then be in an probably worse situation
compared to the people still receiving UBI.

------
omot
I think a good iterative solution is to keep pay the same but change all laws
to pivot around a 32-hour work week instead of 40. This will force employers
to hire more people or pay more over time for any work past 32 hours. I think
UBI is an extreme solution to the problems that globalization and automation
presents. It's better to spread the existing labor. After a certain point we
could move down to 24 hour work week finally down to a UBI model when no labor
is required.

------
keithnz
I'd be interested to see what would happen in the tech world if there was a
UBI. How many more startups would there be if people could survive on a
UBI.... it's essentially like having an unlimited runway to get startups off
the ground. Not the "we are going to disrupt entire industries and make
billions" type of startups most likely, but still, worthy startups creating
chunks of software for smaller markets that take longer to monetize

------
zazaalaza
Everyone is talking about "receiving money with no-strings attached" however
there is a huge string attached, and everyone knows it very well, especially
the researchers, and that is the experiment will end.

This means that the experiment is temporary whereas real UBI would be
permanent. A temporary experiment where everyone is aware that it will end
cannot simulate the same changes that a permanent experiment would do. But I
guess that wouldn't be an experiement anymore.

------
theuri
Very promising to read this. Feels like many more studies needed and more data
to be collected in order to figure out what is indeed effective and what's
not.

Just like the early hype with microfinance decades ago - there was an initial
hype cycle, then broader cynicism in the academic community, and ultimately, a
data-driven informed understanding of what in fact works (on a more nuanced
level - by country, income levels, program design, etc.)

------
johnchristopher
Totally off-topic so totally relevant: this is the kind of topic for which I
wish each comment had its author's age, location and income displayed.

------
ryanyde
2 thoughts: * Only ~200 people out of 1000 completed the survey. Many of these
people were found by the researchers, so there's likely bias (given the nature
of the report) * Basic income's benefits will eventually go away in a society
with easy access to credit. Similar to comments by throwaway13337.

------
Causality1
Shouldn't it be obvious that the people receiving money would become healthier
and happier? The question is whether they become healthier and happier enough
to offset the cost of making them that way. Are they the best use of that tax
money? What's the lifetime return on investment?

------
EGreg
If you want to make UBI a reality, instead of just talking about it for 50
years, we have to do it from the bottom up.

I supported Yang, my company Qbix even built
[https://yang2020.app](https://yang2020.app) for him. But he didn’t get
anywhere.

We have a project to build UBI from the bottom up, using cryptocurrencies for
communities - including local townships and cities like Stockton. Local
currencies already exist, including casino chips, disney dollars, berkshares,
bristol pounds etc. This just puts them on a blockchain (actually, a new
architecture we designed that’s far faster than blockchain).

If you are really interested, or want to get involved in some way to make it a
reality, I suggest to do the following:

1\. Visit
[https://intercoin.org/feature/ubi](https://intercoin.org/feature/ubi) and
fill out the form

2\. Visit [https://community.intercoin.org](https://community.intercoin.org)
and participate

Or if you are a Javascript developer, contact me. My email is “greg” at that
domain, intercoin.org

~~~
WilliamEdward
What's to stop UBI from eating into other welfare checks? Or what's stopping
renters from simply raising rent 1000 dollars?

~~~
chillacy
> from eating into other welfare checks

I think that's the point for most UBI proposals. The most cash-like welfare
programs are TANF and SNAP, they pay out on the order of $250 (depending on
state), are temporary, hard to obtain, always under danger of being cut, etc.

UBI is an appealing replacement that's universal (more resistant to cuts
because it's more popular), pays out more, has no discontinuities which result
in welfare traps, etc.

The goal should not be to increase welfare recipients but to increase quality
of life and social outcomes. For instance a jobs program like the Green New
Deal would probably "eat into welfare checks" as people become ineligible
through earnings.

------
drummer
Like the brilliant social engineer Jacque Fresco said, we should just give
everyone what they need to live for free in what he called a Resource Based
Economy. That is even better than giving them money. I highly recommend his
book "The best that money can't buy".

------
RegBarclay
I'm not sure anything was proven about people continuing to work during a
temporary basic income study. If the basic income provided is temporary as
part of a study, why would I leave my job when I know I'm going to need the
income from my job after the study is over?

------
thret
Why is there a focus on people working at all? I thought one of the reasons
UBI was so interesting is that people who are stupid, lazy, incompetent or
just too obnoxious to work in customer service can stay at home and out of my
way.

------
nojvek
More than universal basic income, I would love to also see universal basic
services. A guarantee of some sort that the basic income will cover a bundle
of basic things such as housing, transport, food, healthcare, utilities.

------
SubiculumCode
Well I for one voted for Andrew Yang. #CouldhavehadYang. Still, we need more
of these pilots, but unfortunately pilots limited in geography, time, and
universality cannot capture the knock on effects of a universal UBI.

------
AcerbicZero
This misses the point entirely. UBI is the democratic socialist version of The
Great Leap Forward. Its an attempt to better human existence via direct
government intervention, something which rarely works as intended (assuming
you're counting net gains). I'm pretty pragmatic, (and libertarian) so if
we're going to start down this path let's skip the faux capitalism and get
straight to the bread and games part. The government _already_ has a near
limitless amount of power to effect changes in the economic structure of the
country, and this is where they've gotten us. Going further down that path
seems a bit daft.

I realize part of this problem is that we've moved into being a post-frontier
world, where there are few, if any, places left where people can go to govern
themselves, but I don't see why the lack of empty unclaimed space should lead
to the government taking money from some citizens to buy the loyalty of other
citizens.

------
charlus
As a side point - whatever happened to the YC research basic income study?
After great fanfare 4 years ago, it's been very quiet the past year.

------
hkai
Thanks, please give me my money, I will settle in Thailand and will never work
again. I'd rather learn Chinese or violin or read books.

------
exabrial
The end does not justify the means. Forcibly removing someone's money and
transferring it to another person can never be justified. Tax-funded UBI is
theft, slavery, and extortion.

However, if a billionaire wishes to privately sponsor UBI, this is a
completely different story in charity and example that should be regarded.
It's important to differentiate between the two, but unfortunately most UBI
schemes refer to extortion, not charity.

~~~
Seenso
> Tax-funded UBI is theft, slavery, and extortion.

Our law creates both property rights _and_ taxes. Taxes aren't theft because,
by law, that money is actually the government's property. If you want
individualistically overrule our law to make taxes theft, I might as well do
the same to make your property mine.

~~~
read_if_gay_
The notion of property rights is not created by the law, but a law of nature,
a concept intuitively understood by human beings. The same goes for theft. The
law only _adopted_ these concepts, but it _created_ taxes. It is not
intuitively obvious that some entity is entitled to a percentage of the money
you're earning.

You can change the law any way you want, but you're not changing the
underlying laws of nature, and they allow you to make a case that taxes are
theft. Whether that's actually true is then of course debatable and depends on
a lot of variables, but saying that someone else's property should arbitrarily
be yours immediately contradicts those fundamental laws.

~~~
Seenso
> The notion of property rights is not created by the law, but a law of
> nature, a concept intuitively understood by human beings. The same goes for
> theft. The law only adopted these concepts, but it created taxes. It is not
> intuitively obvious that some entity is entitled to a percentage of the
> money you're earning.

Nope, sorry. You might be on to something if you limited yourself to the
"foreign relations" of a community, but we're talking about _intra_ community
relations here. If you're looking for laws of nature, _socially obligatory
sharing_ is far more fundamental and important than any primal notions of
exclusivist private property and theft.

Concepts like private property, theft, _and taxation_ do have primitive
antecedents, but you're guilty of anachronism if you think those antecedents
make some modern ideological notion a kind of fundamental law.

------
jariel
So most people 'kept working' but 25% quit, I think that kind of validates
that a lot of people will quit, which is the concern. 25% is a lot. It'd be
interesting to see numbers from those who were not employed, i.e. how many
gained employment.

The bits about 'having to drop future plans' isn't fair. Of course, people
will have to adjust after losing a major source of income.

~~~
SirLotsaLocks
to be fair, a lot of people are stuck in jobs that don't give them the
benefits they want, don't pay them enough, or just don't suit them very well
but they can't quit and get a new job because they aren't paid enough for
that. UBI gives people a chance to quit and not immediately be on the streets.
This also creates more competition for employers to win over employees instead
of creating wage-slaves. I doubt that's what everybody who quit here did, but
it is part of the idea of UBI.

~~~
jariel
"don't give them the benefits they want, don't pay them enough, or just don't
suit them very well "

80-90% of the population would fit into this category.

You are not entitled to social services because 'you don't like your job'.

~~~
chillacy
Yea the basic income in the study seems to be means tested so it might
incentivize people to quit.

Just want to point out that a universal income would be constant regardless of
job held, so there's no incentive to quit. If the UBI amount is tuned
correctly, then those who don't have a job can subsist long enough to find a
better job, which I'd posit is a net boon for our economy.

------
peterashford
relevant:
[https://www.ted.com/talks/rutger_bregman_poverty_isn_t_a_lac...](https://www.ted.com/talks/rutger_bregman_poverty_isn_t_a_lack_of_character_it_s_a_lack_of_cash?language=en)

------
skocznymroczny
I wouldn't keep working on basic income. I'd stay home and play videogames.

------
jl6
Are trust fund kids an example of what happens when people are given an
unconditional income?

~~~
lonelappde
No because their income it not Basic.

------
thedogeye
Alternative headline:

25% of people receiving free government money quit their jobs

------
swebs
>The report shows nearly three-quarters of respondents who were working when
the pilot project began kept at it despite receiving basic income.

In other words, over 25% of them stopped working. This is a pretty big
contradiction to the title.

------
rhn_mk1
How long did this run?

~~~
52-6F-62
Not even a year! It was scheduled, funded, planned and then cancelled by the
newly elected provincial government after they campaigned on keeping the
program to its completion.

It was designed to run 3 years, and people had barely begun implementing the
plans they wanted over that time.

IIRC some had taken the money and used it to improve their current lives,
others left jobs to pursue schooling or start businesses. Those plans didn't
get to come to fruition because of the drastic about-face by the gov.

A summary on Wikipedia:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontario_Basic_Income_Pilot_Pro...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontario_Basic_Income_Pilot_Project)

------
thedogeye
alternative headline: 25% of workers quit their job after receiving free
government handouts

------
zeta0x10
Things like Kubernetes probably exist to employ engineers to have to do
something and to contra basic income.

------
glennvtx
No one seems to address the idea that coercion is necessary to force people to
pay for this, something i do not wish to do, and many people feel the same. It
has already been shown this disincentives work, Those of us that do work and
are taxed to pay for the already massively wasteful welfare state resent being
enslaved even further to pay for the errors of socialist re-distributive
schemes.

~~~
chillacy
You're already being coerced to pay for social services, I wouldn't compare
UBI to an anarcho-capitalist paradise, but the current situation, and many UBI
proposals are much better than the status quo.

