
A Dutch city is giving money away to test the basic income theory - bemmu
http://qz.com/437088/utrecht-will-give-money-for-free-to-its-citizens-will-it-make-them-lazier/
======
onion2k
One of the first pieces of advice I had when my company landed its investment
was to pay ourselves a decent (not extravagant) wage so that my time went on
worrying about the company rather than how I was going to afford to do things
in my personal life. The same is true for employees - if they're paid a good
living they will spend more time on thinking about problems in their job
instead.

If a government were to do that for everyone it seems pretty obvious that
society will be better off - people will spend their time working on things to
improve everyone's life rather than worrying about how to afford their rent.

~~~
anticon
People starting companies are driven, determined people who want to create
things.

The vast majority of people are not. You're vastly over-estimating the general
population. The majority are lazy, and if given money, will sit watching
reality TV and stuffing their face with ice cream. (Step outside the startup
bubble for a while). Most people are also selfish. The idea that they'll all
start doing things to benefit others is a bit far fetched.

Communism (Which is what this is), has failed. Why this generation seems
determined to try it again is beyond me.

This is about stealing money from the successful, and giving it to everyone,
regardless of merit. It's a fantastic way to reward failure and penalise
success, and society will suffer because of it. The numbers are also
staggering - it just doesn't work mathematically unless you can magic up
billions from somewhere each year.

Also be under no illusion - if a basic income was implemented, the chances are
(Assuming you're better off than the average person) you would have to reduce
your quality of life substantially to pay for it.

~~~
Fuxy
> Communism (Which is what this is), has failed. Why this generation seems
> determined to try it again is beyond me.

A bit of a stretch there and i should know i was born in a communist country.
The reason Communism has failed is because of the lack of checks and balances
on power compounded with corruption not because of concepts like this.

> This is about stealing money from the successful, and giving it to everyone,
> regardless of merit.

Be realistic most rich people are not rich because they are extraordinarily
successful it's because they are born rich and there's entire companies with
the sole goal of taking advantage of the system (in some cases doing morally
wrong things that are technically legal) in order to make rich people get
richer. Over the past 5 - 10 years the middle class has been getting poorer
while the rich have been getting richer even with the economy collapsing. If
you start off rich a lot of doors that are closed for regular people are wide
open to you so you don't have to be successful just don't be a fool.

I see basic income as more of a equalizer so people who can't afford billion
dollar companies and robotics to replace the workers get to eat as well.

~~~
goldfeld
The real reason Communism couldn't succeed (not necessarily the reason it
failed) is because none of the countries trying it were or are advanced
capitalistic economies before the revolution. Imagine a transition into
communism in a less-scarcity scenario, where robots generate so much material
wealth as to provide it to everyone, and no one HAS to work, and technology
married to political science in turn allows more distributed forms of
governance by the people for the people. Once you have that, and of course
less bigots running the roost, you have a shot, as a society, to completely do
away with 'marginalization', since every city and every community will be
self-contained and no one will have to do commutes to serve a master.

Communism, for all I know, is the alternative to Totalitarism (be it from
American corporate overlords or from so called extreme "left") in a future
where jobs are no longer to be found lying around. It probably won't be called
communism, though. China or Germany (and other smaller european countries) may
have a shot, but the US seems destined to be ruled by corporate emperors.

~~~
ajuc
> because none of the countries trying it were or are advanced capitalistic
> economies before the revolution

revolution was the least common way to turn communist. Far more common was
"forced by nearby communist country"

Also for example Czechoslovakia was advanced capitalist country. It's often
overlooked - it was very industrialized country, with long capitalistic
traditions, and democracy before WW2. It also went through war relatively
unscratched. In 1950 it had GDP per capita roughly equal to Italy and Ireland,
50% higher than Spain.

> Imagine a transition into communism in a less-scarcity scenario

From the POV of medieval people We're already in a less-scarcity scenario. We
just don't like to share, as a species. I highly doubt technology will change
that.

~~~
vidarh
> Czechoslovakia was advanced capitalist country

Did it have sufficient over-production that redistribution would remove
"common wants" for everyone?

As early as 1845, Marx set that out as a central criteria that would have to
be met before a socialist revolution would have any hope of succeeding.

> We just don't like to share, as a species.

And in fact, this is a central aspect of Marx' argument _for_ socialist
revolutions: We don't like sharing, and so for the vast majority of workers,
the only way of getting a reasonable share is to join up and force the upper
classes to surrender their wealth.

Marxism is basically founded on two ideas: 1) Capitalism will eventually make
production efficient enough to produce substantial surpluses. 2) Workers will
only get "their" share by cooperating to fight the ruling classes, and if they
don't they will eventually get marginalised as capitalist competition starts
driving down employment and/or incomes.

Nothing assumes people wanting to share. On the contrary, the Marxist focus on
revolution is basically based on the idea that there's no chance you'll get
wealthy ruling classes to voluntarily give up their wealth.

~~~
ajuc
> Nothing assumes people wanting to share.

It assumes once workers won the surpluses won't decrease.

This turned out to be false assumption, because people don't like to share, so
they don't work as well if they only get part of the fruits of their work, as
they would if they got most of the fruits of their work for themselves.

~~~
vidarh
Today they don't generally get a share of the surplus, so by your argument
they should be working even worse.

~~~
ajuc
In "the west" they get less than in 50s, but they still do.

The important thing is - salaries depend on their performance and on the
demand for given product/service.

------
frogpelt
The basic income concept is intriguing to me (because it simplifies things)
but I do not think it will work for this reason: Who administers the basic
income? The government and by extension politicians. Once they have every
single person who breathes on the dole, this will give them unbelievable
leverage against the people. If the government is giving everyone a check, how
hard is it to argue that the check should be more? Not hard. How hard is it to
reduce the amount of the check. Almost impossible.

It will eventually devolve into a problem like Greece has now. Too many people
receiving money, not enough people paying in.

Besides that, asking any government to take money from the people, run it
through the giant bureaucracy machine, and magically produce a net benefit to
the people is both logically impossible and naturally never going to happen.

I'm sure it will be attempted in America at some point and the "public
servants" are licking their chops.

~~~
rconti
America will be about the last place to attempt this, if the past (and our
current welfare) are any guide.

It's an interesting concept. My immediate reaction is that it creates
disincentives to work. In theory it does, but the only data we have is those
who are currently on welfare and do not work -- but maybe those people were
basically not going to work anyway! We have no competing group of people who
are on welfare yet still CHOOSE to work to better their lives, because as soon
as someone gets a job, no more benefits! So it's natural that an outsize chunk
of people on public assistance don't work -- and the ones who stay on the
longest, of course, don't WANT to work. But it undercounts those who go on the
system then back out of it as they get work.

Other things that seem "obvious" to result: inflation. If everyone can afford
$x for housing, why should housing costs not go up by a similar amount? The
same way 2 incomes is now "normal", and the same way giving tax deductions on
mortgage interest to make housing "more affordable" means, now that everyone
can afford more housing, housing is bid up.

I don't know, but it's a fascinating experiment, anyone who is not paying for
it should be in favor of this experiment -- unless you just hate poor people.

~~~
CONTRARlAN
> I don't know, but it's a fascinating experiment, anyone who is not paying
> for it should be in favor of this experiment -- unless you just hate poor
> people.

What a bizarre statement. It's really easy to read that as two things:

1\. You're totally game to experiment, just so long as it's not your money.
2\. Anyone who doesn't agree must hate poor people.

I'm pretty certain you didn't really mean either, but the net result of that
sentence is awfully unproductive: "anyone who doesn't like this must either
have skin in the game or hate poor people!"

~~~
eplanit
That's the common tactic of argument these days. The notion of "criticism" has
been re-cast as "hate". Hate is more easily dismissed, ridiculed, and
trivialized.

~~~
rconti
After re-reading your parent's statement a few times, I think (s)he thought I
was saying you must dislike it if you're paying for it, but if you're not
paying for it, you can't dislike it.

I merely was saying I can't see a valid criticism for those of us who aren't
paying for it. There may be some valid criticisms of the idea, but I'd rather
see how this goes.

I can't think of a single (valid) reason to oppose basic research on solving
poverty, when that research has no negative impact on the person who might be
opposing it. Can you? The only one I can think of is "I want to ensure poor
people are kept poor."

------
ppereira
It looks like this is not a "saturation" site for testing the basic income
theory. All participants appear to start with the same income, but the basic
income group receives their income with no strings attached. This can create
some unfortunate incentives that would not occur had everyone received a basic
income.

For example, if you have one group with a basic income and one group without a
basic income in the same population, the group without would be more likely to
be hired for low wage jobs because that salary is much more important to them.
If everyone had a basic income, then all potential hires would be on an equal
footing and it would not look like the non-basic income group is more
employable.

One way to test the basic income theory is to give everyone a very low basic
income and then slowly increase that amount over time. If basic income works,
it should be beneficial even at low rates that do not massively disrupt the
tax and welfare system. When this is seen to have beneficial effects (or at
least not adverse effects), the rates can be increased.

~~~
squids
>the group without would be more likely to be hired for low wage jobs because
that salary is much more important to them.

That's not necessarily how it would work. In the UK we've had a top up with
tax credits for low paid jobs. What we've seen is an explosion of low paid
part time jobs as businesses know people will take them as their income will
be topped up by the govt.

~~~
johnchristopher
That's irritating to read because when basic income is being discussed it's
always about people taking advantage of it for not working when in the real
world it's more likely the bosses and the people in power who will take
advantage of it (and they will, a relative of mine lost his job at 50 because
a govt sponsored win-win program targeting the youth: hire a young gun and the
govt will pay a part of his salary. Now they had to pay my relative a hefy sum
of money in social benefits. He luckily found a better job later and his old
company is now playing carousel with young guns and getting less done of
course.)

~~~
Shivetya
well those who take advantage of it from the top down tend to be those who
already are willing to work and employ others. As in, those who don't want
work are not likely to see it.

So I would not worry about it when the bosses and people in power step in
unless they are laying off those already employed to do so. That is the area
where abuse would be bad and must be prevented

------
ed_blackburn
Basic Income is sometimes dogmatically derided as 'socialist' thus evil.
Proponents of Basic Income - or varieties thereof - can be found on the left
and the right of the economic political compass. Even Milton Freedman was a
proponent of some guise.

Personally I think it is lazy to dismiss the thinking behind Basic Income as
merely communism.

~~~
JackdawX
There is no arguing that basic income, welfare, disability benefit etc. are
socialist. That is not deriding them, it is an accurate description. It's
strange that this is a bad term in the US, not so here in the EU.

~~~
Retric
It's not even slightly socialist. People talk as if all government action is
socialist, but socialism includes controlling the means of production not just
taxes. In the end the problems with socialism are organizational in nature,
and large corporations face the same issues of misaligned incentives.

Edit: A minimum wage is socialist a minimum income is not.

PS: Now you could call it collectivist.

~~~
rjtavares
Since he mentions he is European, I think that he is thinking about Social
Democracy rather than Socialism (which has a very clear economic meaning
which, like you said, assumes state/social control of the means of
production).

------
dwightgunning
The international press seemed to get hold of this last week and the early
coverage pointed to a Dutch article with far more direct quotes [1]. My Dutch
is poor but my understanding is that the primary aim is as much (if not more)
about reducing administrative burden as it is about basic/universal income.

Also, I haven't seen any coverage in the mainstream Dutch press... which is
somewhat telling.

[1] [http://destadutrecht.nl/politiek/utrecht-start-experiment-
me...](http://destadutrecht.nl/politiek/utrecht-start-experiment-met-
basisinkomen/)

~~~
wila
Interesting, thanks for that.

Here's a quick translation (I tried to do it correctly, but didn't want to
spent too much time on it)

Utrecht starts experiment with basic income.

16-06-2015 • 10:15

Everhardt2

After the summer holidays Utrechts starts an experiment around the basic
income. Counciller Victor Everhardt from "Work and income" likes to see if a
basic income principle works in practice. "It would be more simple if the
system is again based on trust."

Why this experiment?

I have been counciller "Work and Income" for a year and I think that it's a
sign of civilisation that people who, usually temporary, but sometimes also
longer, cannot take care of their income get social security benefits. At the
other end of that system we have built up a huge verification system, often
based on mistrust.

People with benefits usually have to take into account a large number of
rules, like welfare, special welfare, rent assistance, children welfare
etcetera. All these systems have their own verification mechanisms. There's a
forest for the trees amount of rules and verification methods. It's quite easy
to get stuck here. It would be a lot simpler if we could base the system again
on trust.

People could abuse this and not go to work?

From our data it appears that less then 1.5 percent abuses the welfare
payments system. However, before we get into all kinds of principle debates
about should we do this or not, we would like to research how a basic income
system works.

What happens if somebody gets a monthly payment without additional rules and
verifications? Will such a person go sit at home passively or is that person
more motivated to develop him/herself and make a meaningful contribution to
our society with paid or voluntary work?

How are you going to research that?

Together with the University of Utrecht we have designed an experiment at
which people who live on welfare get to meet specific regimes. For example a
group that works with rewards and 'jobs' for a payment, another group with a
basic income without any additional rules and of course a control group that
lives by the current rules.

And are you allowed to do this from the minister?

We have verified this at official level to see if an experiment with a basic
income is possible and we have not yet heard "njet". In addition, minister
Plasterk of internal affairs has announced that cities should get more room to
experiment with existing law. We think the basic income is very suitable for
this.

When does the experiment with basic income start?

End of June we have an expert meeting about basic income with other cities
that also have plans into the same direction, like Nijmegen, Wageningen,
Tilburg and Groningen. Together we can make our call for more room of
possibilities for cities stronger. In addition we like to start with the
experiment in the second half of this year.

(deStadUtrecht.nl – Mario Gibbels)

edit: spelling, readability and line spacing

------
jokoon
I live in france (10% unemployment), and unless you're listed as seeking work,
you're not given welfare.

It's odd because they don't really check that you send resumes, nor do they
really try to contact companies or just propose you a shitty jobs. The "get a
job" mentality is really weird to me, because if you have freedom, and you
can't find a job that suits you or that you're just too humiliated to beg all
those employers, why punish people for being moochers ?

Unemployment is such a political subject, it always ends up being about social
stratification anyways. Employed people are just safe and sound, and there are
many parameters and behaviors that keep many individuals away from employment
or social integration.

Being a marginal and being unemployed, to me are the same problem.

The UBI solves this problem, since it's injecting money that increase
consumption, which in turn also increase business and growth.

~~~
dantheman
That money has to come from somewhere, it will either reduce the consumption
from where it was taken or it will reduce capital stocks that can be used for
investment.

~~~
DanBC
Look at, eg, the English "Working family tax credits" system.

People on low wages pay some tax on those wages, then apply to have some of
that tax returned. There's a lot of bureaucracy involved. It's not great to be
on those benefits because you can't budget your money.

Scrapping that system and then just reducing the amount of tax that everyone
on low wages pays would probably be better.

~~~
JesperRavn
That may be true, but dantheman was simply correcting jokoon's implicit claim
that paying people money is good in itself ("since it's injecting money that
increase consumption, which in turn also increase business and growth.")

I think there are good arguments for basic income, but they get obscured by
the fact that it has become a political campaign, so people like you argue for
their own side rather than correcting people who support basic income but for
the wrong reason.

You are correct that there are reasons why basic income be more efficient than
other redistribution measures. But this doesn't contradict the fact that the
money has to come from somewhere, and it isn't relevant to this particular
thread of discussion.

~~~
jokoon
Voting a budget is a tricky subject. Sometimes ideals will get you nowhere,
but I think developed countries have showed that redistributing improve not
only the country as a whole, but it also improve the status of the wealthiest,
the wealthy people will benefit from the fact that people are fed, educated
and not just wandering around either stealing or doing shitty jobs.

At that political level, money becomes an abstract thing, and I think it
becomes a matter of national interest, not individual interest. Try to think
about absolute wealth, not relative wealth. If the koch brothers can have 100
villas, would they be able to have so many without a redistribution system ? I
don't think they would. Look at developing or third world countries, and look
at their wealthiest, I'm sure they don't even have proper health care.

------
clavalle
> “People say they are not going to try as hard to find a job,”

Or they will bargain for a job that is worth their time so they won't accept a
job that won't improve their lives. That is a subtle but important difference
from just sitting around because they can.

My bet is that when people aren't bargaining for their life -- food, shelter
etc because those things are a given they will begin making trades that are a
net positive for them rather than just trying to control their losses. 'Head
above water' bargaining is a fact of life for the poor that is easy for the
middle and upper classes to forget. It leads directly and almost inevitably to
exploitation by the other party that is in a better bargaining position.

Further in the article it talks about young men continuing school and mothers
staying home and taking care of children. These are decisions that are made by
people who are not desperate and not in a terrible bargaining position.

I'm excited to see the results whether they agree with my intuition or not. We
need more policy experimentation in the US and I'd love to see some of that
experimentation in this direction.

------
macspoofing
The more I think about it, the more I really like the idea of a basic income.
One of the great things about universal healthcare is that you just never
worry about it. I never have to think about what would happen to myself or my
spouse or my kids if they get cancer after I quit or lose my job. Whether my
insurance will fight me on some treatment, or if it covers the rights things.
It's nice.

Basic income seems like it will give you that kind of piece of mind as well.
You know that in the worst case, you'll have a hassle-free, indefinite,
(modest) income to get you by. That's worth something.

~~~
sliverstorm
The output side of BI is naturally attractive. Everybody gets money. How could
that _not_ be attractive?

I'm just skeptical about how we would fund BI to a level that is meaningful
while maintaining some modicum of equitability and equanimity. Just to lift
everyone to the poverty line in the USA ($11,770) would require paying out
more than $3 trillion in net benefits, or roughly the size of the entire
federal budget today.

~~~
alexnewman
What if it was per family-ish. Then it'd only be about military exp size

~~~
sliverstorm
For poverty line, on a family basis, the incremental cost of another person
approaches $5k (compared to $11.7k) so taking families into account the lower
bound of payments is $1.5-2 trillion (if all we had were really big families)

[http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/15poverty.cfm](http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/15poverty.cfm)

------
lumberjack
The article is unclear, if not misleading.

They are not testing a universal basic income scheme. They are testing an
unrestricted basic income scheme, for welfare recipients only. If the
experiment is a success it would mean that welfare schemes will become less
paternalistic.

------
vog
Can this really work when applied just partially? This experiment is about
~250 people with basic income in a large city. (The text mentions 300 people,
but some of them form a control group that doesn't receive basic income.)

So if any of these selected people will try to find a job, they will probably
voluntarily "lose" it to somebody to really needs that job. Even without that
moral issue, this makes still sense from a business point of view: All else
equal, hiring a poor worker is probably perferable to hiring a wealthy one, as
the poor worker has more incentives to work really hard.

~~~
GigabyteCoin
>somebody to really needs that job.

That somebody would not "really need that job" because they would be
guaranteed a basic income no matter what in a real world scenario.

~~~
tremon
There are other reasons to "really need a job" though. Self-realization,
fulfillment, social coherence come to mind. Or are those factors of happiness
reserved only for the 1%?

~~~
mtsr
Yeah, seems like as good a time as any to pull out Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow's_hierarchy_of_needs](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow's_hierarchy_of_needs).

~~~
pizza
[http://cogsci.stackexchange.com/questions/169/does-
evidence-...](http://cogsci.stackexchange.com/questions/169/does-evidence-
support-maslows-hierarchy-of-needs)

------
ryan-allen
I wonder how much you'd need to save and to own in order to conduct this
experiment on yourself? I've wondered about what I would do day to day if I
didn't 'have to work to live'.

I honestly think I'd be doing very similar things. I'd still be programming,
and I'd be wanting to make things that'd help people do their jobs better, but
I wouldn't feel like I 'had to'.

That alone would improve my sanity immensely (I think), and yet it's only a
small conceptual jump between what I'm already doing day-to-day.

~~~
jlarocco
The problem there is that you have a cushy programming job.

The bigger question is what about the gas station clerks? Or cleaning people?
Or wait staff? Or any of the people working the millions of other jobs that
just totally suck. Having done it in the past, I'm 100% sure nobody wakes up
totally stoked to go bus tables or wash dishes.

So, maybe people who have awesome jobs will just keep doing what they're
doing, but for people with shitty jobs, why not say, "F __* it, I can get by
with the guaranteed minimum, so why bother? "

~~~
jkarneges
If nobody is required to do the "shitty jobs", I wonder if those jobs would
increase in value as less people do them? Maybe having a waiter at a
restaurant would become a luxury.

Perhaps all the jobs would continue to exist but there'd be some very
interesting rebalancing.

~~~
Turing_Machine
Very likely. Think of how uncommon household servants are today compared to
before the industrial revolution. Now only the super-rich have them, as a
rule. The rest of us get by with automation (washing machines, vacuum
cleaners), with the occasional hiring of a temporary "servant" when neccessary
(e.g., calling a cab compared to having a dedicated chauffeur, or having a
landscaper or cleaning service come in once in a while).

~~~
jlarocco
I'm almost certain household servants have always been for the rich.

I'm curious what makes you think otherwise?

~~~
Turing_Machine
No, middle-class people had servants back then. It wasn't just the rich.

The lower class, of course, largely _were_ servants.

The industrial revolution opened up other avenues for employment.

Edit: see, for example, [http://www.bl.uk/victorian-britain/articles/the-
victorian-mi...](http://www.bl.uk/victorian-britain/articles/the-victorian-
middle-classes)

"A middle class woman was entirely dependent on a supply of domestic servants,
ranging from the untrained ‘slavey’ to a staff of several highly trained
specialists."

------
piokoch
When I see that discussion about basic income I am always wandering, who is
going to pay for that?

I assume the money will not be printed (this would not help, as inflation
would make that income very small).

So the country that applies such policy must have some way of finding money.
Some countries have natural resources that they can sell, so the problem is
solved. But how about the rest?

I guess this will be financed by those, who are earning more money.

Let's forget about the question if this is moral or not to take away money
from people who are working hard just to give away these money to those, who
are not working at all.

However the taxation will make costs of work higher and higher. Country
economy would become less competitive.

In addition avoiding taxes would start to be really profitable - people would
start opening fake companies abroad, create fake costs, etc. it happens now as
well, but the scale could be much bigger.

As usually, big players would be able to avoid taxes, so the one who would be
hurt most are the "middle class". Taxes will eat their profits and the gap
between the best earning people and the rest would be growing and growing.

For me it looks a bit as if we were trying to solve the problems caused by
goods redistribution by applying more goods redistribution.

~~~
Swizec
Most civilized countries already have something very similar - social
security. Everyone who works pays into the system that distributes that money
among those who are unemployed.

It's a type of insurance if you will. If I participate in the system, I can be
reasonably sure that were I to lose my job, I wouldn't end up on the streets.

A spectacular example of why this is a good thing is J.K Rowling who was able
to write Harry Potter because the British welfare system kept her in
reasonably good shape after she lost her job ->
[http://imgur.com/gallery/FIQYq](http://imgur.com/gallery/FIQYq)

I've never understood the exact differences between basic income and social
security, but it fundamentally feels like such a safety net should exist.

~~~
mcv
> I've never understood the exact differences between basic income and social
> security,

The difference is that _everybody_ gets basic income, and not just the
unemployed. You don't get a sharp division between the employed and the
unemployed, your welfare won't get cut when you start earning money. Work is
always rewarded, and it's easier to get out of the poverty trap.

~~~
Swizec
That sounds even better than welfare then!

And for the countries that have already got welfare, the argument of "But
nobody is going to work!" is already out the window. If that were a real
problem, everybody would already be on welfare.

Yes there are people that abuse it. The vast majority doesn't. Even if it's
just because they couldn't look their friends in the eye if they did.

------
Expez
Every time universal basic income is discussed someone claims it can't be done
because if we were to do this tomorrow the costs would be astronomical. That's
true, but it's a bit like stating in 1950 that the world will never see
personal computing because a computer costs millions and there are billions of
people.

Universal basic income amounts to (providing or) paying for food, clothing and
shelter. What is the cost of food when we have labgrown meat, the robots till
the farm and self-driving cars deliver it everywhere?

What's the cost of shelter with industrial scale 3d-printing and robotic
assembly?

What is the cost of providing everyone with basic clothing when all the
factory workers are replaced with robots?

Stop worrying about the _price_ of everything and start thinking in terms of
scarcity. Will the stuff required for basic human survival still be
prohibitively scarce in 5 years, 10 years, 50 years?

~~~
dagw
_What 's the cost of shelter with industrial scale 3d-printing and robotic
assembly?_

The cost of land plus the cost of raw materials plus the cost of extending the
necessary infrastructure, so basically the same as today.

 _What is the cost of providing everyone with basic clothing when all the
factory workers are replaced with robots?_

The cost of raw materials plus the cost of machinery, so basically the same as
today.

Basic labor is incredibly cheap today, (desirable) land and resources aren't.

------
SimpleXYZ
In theory, a basic income should shift wages from skill to demand. For
example, sanitation workers and doctors would get a high wage whereas video
game designer wages would drop. (You won't care about a video game when there
is 3' of garbage on your lawn.)

~~~
ocb
I don't think demand is the word you're looking for... Maybe necessity or
importance?

------
knodi123
In a heavily automated society, the only question we need to answer is, should
people have only as much money as they have earned, or only as much money as
they need?

If the former, then it will be seen as almost immoral or evil to give a
comfortable wage to someone who didn't earn it.

If the latter, then it will be seen as almost immoral for the one guy who owns
the robotic factory to reap all of the profit and earn a fortune every year by
having made workers redundant.

The third option is to eschew automation entirely and keep a steady supply of
make-work jobs, just to justify enough salaries to keep everybody from
starving. Which strikes me as more dystopian than the oligarchy in option #2.

~~~
JulianMorrison
The third option is what society does now. Every time you hear politicians
talk about "creating jobs", that's what it means, nearly always: the amount of
available make-work just went up.

We don't so much eschew robotics, as under-bid them. McDonalds finds it
cheaper to hire humans than automate - for now. (The touch screen, card-
accepting menus I've seen appearing lately, make the case that this won't last
much longer.)

~~~
knodi123
> The third option is what society does now

Yes, I did start off stipulating "in a heavily automated society". I don't
think we're quite there yet, but we will be soon, and increasing our make-work
programs in lock-step with the progress of automation is a quick road to
dystopia #3.

------
jwr
Any discussion of basic income should at least mention the excellent novel by
Janusz Zajdel, "Limes Inferior"
([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limes_inferior](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limes_inferior)).
I think he very accurately portrays a system where everyone is guaranteed
basic income (along with some other interesting and mostly terrifying
concepts).

It is true (and sad, I think) that many people, given basic income, will do
nothing to improve themselves or their surroundings. But I still think basic
income is an idea worth pursuing.

~~~
nathell
_Limes inferior_ has not been translated to English (I was only able to find
amateur translations of the first chapter [1]) and as such remains largely
unknown outside Poland. Which is extremely unfortunate.

[1]: [http://paczemoj.blogspot.com/2011/11/limes-inferior-
chp-1.ht...](http://paczemoj.blogspot.com/2011/11/limes-inferior-chp-1.html)

------
kriro
The pirate party in Germany had this as one of their ideas (Grundeinkommen),
not sure if they still do. I like this. My basic economic instincts scream
"nonsense" but I like testing it even if the test results are likely useless
because the city is still surrounded by "normal" ones. Reminds me a bit of the
socialist calculation debate.

There's enough money wasted on stuff I consider more useless and at least this
experiment has the potential to generate surprises. I'm all for experimenting
with economic systems, worst case it generates some new ideas.

------
gregjwild
The main thing to remember with this is that even if you do end up with a % of
people who do just bum around on basic, a lot more still would rather earn
enough to live a more interesting life. And wages will probably go up to
incentivize people to do the crap jobs - or encourage someone to find a way to
automate it.

------
mikehawkins
My knee-jerk reaction was 'ah, jeez - there's going to be a big percentage of
lazy people just gaming the system'. But on reflection, as some other posters
have already said, these folks would probably not being looking for work
regardless - and if this helps the majority be more productive and happy... to
me, it's worth a punt to see what happens.

Good on you Utrecht - I love the bold thinking. It might not work - but at
least they tried something new to address one of our oldest problems!

------
noreasonw
The problem I see with any basic income scheme is that lazy people can get in
the trap to become trapped in a lazy for ever state. Basic income should be
accompanied with a policy to motivate people to develop their capabilities and
enhance their self confidence. Once you are trapped in the basic income scheme
and automation replaces all the low skilled jobs, lazy people can see
themselves as completely disposable objects, so you need a great self-
confidence and a change of mentality to change from a lazy people to a do it
person.

~~~
MDCore
> lazy people can get in the trap to become trapped in a lazy for ever state

Do you have any evidence for the existence of these lazy people, and in any
significant number? The literature and actual experiments done with basic
income shows that people are not lazy, but rather they lack opportunities, or
a safety net for small risks, or any of a number of other things.

~~~
noreasonw
Thanks for asking for real data about this. I was only giving my very humble
opinion about what could happen, I would like to know some links to literature
and actual experiments with basic income. I think that laziness is learned and
you need to be kicked strongly to move in a doers direction. In a weak economy
with no expectations for people to progress laziness and hopeless bloom, if
basic income is a step in the right direction it should be along with a way to
foster better expectations. Your are not in an asylum for live.

~~~
MDCore
Here are two articles that gave me insight:
[http://mondediplo.com/2013/05/04income](http://mondediplo.com/2013/05/04income)
and
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MINCOME](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MINCOME)

Basically, people who were working out of desperation worked less, otherwise
people used the money to ensure food safety, invest in businesses or improving
their lives.

I really don't think "lazy" is a valuable label. It tends to be applied when
there are underlying causes for the supposed "laziness". When those causes are
repaired the laziness tends to go away. For example: illness, precarity,
hopelessness (as you mentioned), a lack of opportunities. I'd suggest doing
away with the overly simplistic "lazy" and using more accurate words which
express the underlying causes.

------
Rumford
Economic experiments can never really have a control group, so what the Dutch
government learns from this will depend greatly on the theory they already
have when interpreting the data.

~~~
mattchew
IIRC the previous article I read on this, the Dutch are at least attempting to
set up a control group.

~~~
Rumford
I suppose they should be commended for the effort, but the other issue is that
the experimental group is unlikely to represent what things would be like
under a truly universal basic income. Incentives throughout the economy will
shift and cause reactions none of us can predict, except in very broad
strokes. For example, €1000/mo for a tiny experimental group will probably not
have the same buying power as the same amount given to millions.

------
toong
Are there any studies out there about the second order effects ?

If everyone is getting BI, I'm expecting rent to go up. Like, waaaaaaay up. Up
to the point where no one can live from BI anymore.

~~~
fchollet
When people don't have to pick their housing based on the location of low-wage
jobs (dense cities), I would expect the rent to go down due to better
utilization of the total housing supply.

~~~
err4nt
I don't think that's how rent is set right now. I believe people charge rent
based on what people can bear to pay - so as long as another person with BI
comes along willing to pay the higher rent, the landlord will sell to him
instead!

~~~
ItsDeathball
It's not the house that's valuable to a renter, though. Most of the price
variation for a given floor space comes from location-driven land cost. If
someone on basic income plans to live solely on their BI for a bit, maybe to
work on a personal project, maybe just to play videogames, they won't be
location-bound and can seek cheaper housing in the suburbs or a rural area.
There is a lot of underutilized land in America that could become very
attractive to developers if the pool of available consumers suddenly included
a subgroup that didn't care about commute time. That's not just greenfield
developments, either; it would also apply to major cities, like in the Rust
Belt, where housing and land are incredibly cheap because there are no jobs
available.

------
somberi
Quoting a recent article in The Economist (Edited by me) " The Swiss will soon
vote on a proposal for a basic income of 2,500 francs ($2,700) per month,
following the success of a national petition....

Turning it into a substitute for all welfare payments would be prohibitively
expensive. But it might work as one element of the safety net....

Although the basic income has so far failed to take off, it does have a
commonplace cousin: the tax-free allowance....

It is feasible only if it is small, and complemented by more targeted anti-
poverty measures.

Basic income: the clue is in the name. "

Full Link: [http://www.economist.com/news/finance-and-
economics/21651897...](http://www.economist.com/news/finance-and-
economics/21651897-replacing-welfare-payments-basic-income-all-alluring)

Also of interest (US trying basic income):
[http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2013/11/go...](http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2013/11/government-
guaranteed-basic-income)

------
TeMPOraL
I'm a strong supporter of the concept and motivation behind universal basic
income, but I admit I don't understand one part of the calculations - what's
the solution for the problem of prices universally rising to the point of
cancelling out the UBI? I mean, if everyone suddenly gets additional $500 a
month to spend, how do you prevent the market from correcting for that?

~~~
chi-sq
IANAE and would like to hear an expert's answer as well. But as far as I can
see, the demand for basic food and shelter is not elastic, people need roof
and bread always. And the capital is mostly reallocated from existing
subsidies, not created. With UBI, prices for non-essential goods and services
would maybe increase a little, and there would be a revolution in employment
market, but my guess is that potatoes and basic accomodation prices would stay
low.

~~~
rhino369
I think basic income is a bad idea, but if you liberated people from seeking
jobs, many of them wouldn't live in overcrowded cities. If rent is too high in
the bay area, you'd go live in Madison, Wisconsin. Or in a pre-fab house in
the middle of nowhere.

~~~
ghaff
In the context of a thought experiment, where people would live is an
interesting question. There are certainly many places today that are
inexpensive in no small part because there are few jobs. It doesn't have to be
in the middle of nowhere. Detroit qualifies too. On the other hand, moving
somewhere cheaper would imply moving away from existing family and social
support structures.

However, I suspect a lot of the people who are championing basic income are
implicitly envisioning living in a relatively comfortable apartment in the Bay
area from which they can follow their muse--not public housing in Detroit.

------
noarchy
Who are the groups driving all of the mentions of basic income/mincome on
social media? Or is it a coincidence that we're seeing more and more
discussion of the topic on places like reddit and HN? I'm genuinely curious to
know how organic this topic is, versus whether or not there is a concerted
effort to "get the word out".

~~~
_greim_
My guess is that much of it comes from technologists and futurologists, who
are over-represented online, and _way_ over-represented on Reddit and HN.
Perhaps we've even filter-bubbled ourselves a little bit here.

In any case, the relationship between technologists/futurologists and basic
income advocacy would be that basic income is the solution to an ever-
shrinking labor market as automation gets better. Sort of an exit strategy
from the current economic regime.

------
stretchwithme
Ah, finally everybody can work on their personal projects instead of an
annoying job.

But won't someone have to pay all those annoying taxes? And when we go to
spend other people's money, won't someone have to be there earning that money?

------
chatmasta
How good of a test could it be, if its population is limited to a single Dutch
city?

Europeans from small countries love to tout their welfare policies as "so much
better" than places like the U.S., but they ignore one massive difference:
Small European countries are localized, ethnically homogenous populations. The
U.S. has to deal with more land, and more people, from more places. You cannot
make an apples-to-apples comparison between welfare systems in the U.S. and
small countries.

~~~
stephentmcm
I'll give you the size and population thing but "ethnically homogenous
populations" is bullshit: [https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-
factbook/...](https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-
factbook/geos/us.html) \- ~79% White

[https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-
factbook/...](https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-
factbook/geos/nl.html) ~80% White/Dutch

So both nations have a similar level of "ethnically homogenous populations".

~~~
chatmasta
Is the U.S. 80% Dutch?

No.

There is more than "white" and "all other ethnicities." Considering geneology
is important when designing systems like healthcare, for example. If a disease
is isolated to a gene present in only people of Irish descent, and not
Scandanavian descent, then the country with more Irish people will pay a
higher healthcare cost than one with less. The more unique subsets of genes
present in a population, the greater the ethnic diversity. Since the U.S. is
comprised almost entirely of immigrants, it will naturally have a more
ethnically heterogenous population than a country with population centers
dating back millenia.

------
noreasonw
What about the following flavor of Basic Income:

In order to reduce the amount of money needed to support the BI scheme, you
are given a card to buy some standardized products: jeans, bread, soup,
chairs, tables, beds, bikes, ubuntu and the like. The main point is that those
products are cheaper to produce and distribute. You lose some of the power of
money but since society is paying the bill I think you should accept the deal.

Edited: grammar and shorter.

~~~
pakled_engineer
You reinvented food stamps. There will be costs running that card scheme and
costs for retailers accepting it, and maybe the BI recepient wants to buy used
clothing p2p or not have to go to bigbox retail corp to buy jeans. Maybe they
buy fabric and make their own unique clothes now that they have time. My city
is full of hipster hobbyist dressmakers and drop in sewing lounges, maybe they
will become successful designers if not forced to do meaningless work to
survive.

------
stefn
What I find is often not considered when discussing this topic are fundamental
economics. Giving everyone a basic income will almost certainly be consumed by
an increase in the price level of that country. A somewhat similar example are
countries with very high wages like Switzerland. Wages are high but not in
real terms as their price level is high also.

------
uhwhat
Basic income would need to be pegged to the CPI or some standard of living.

I imagine partitioning living NEEDS [housing, food, transportation] as an area
of the economy with its own money/token/basic-income-credits system separate
from the WANT economy of everything else.

------
siscia
I wonder if it is possible to design a schema to provide basic income to
whoever need as a startup...

For sure you won't have problem find user, the churn rate would be very low,
and you will really change the word.

------
LBarret
it is quite funny and sad how many comments focus on how this system can be
abused (and implicitly why it is inefficient). I think this is a bias from our
programming/hacker culture where things (aka programs) tend to work with
absolute. My experience in economic policy has more to do with relatives ( a
trend vs another one, the percentage of free rider vs the gain for the whole
population ) and tuning ( adding counter-balance and conditions as we get
feedback from the terrain ).

------
FHorse
Having lived under a communist regime and also in the ghettos of NYC decades
ago, I can tell you just how idiotic this is. But I guess there's no shortage
of idiotic ideas when you are playing with other people's money.

~~~
vfdva
What was it about living in NYC ghettos that suggests basic income is a bad
idea?

~~~
FHorse
Witnessed the total lack of motivation of people to do anything for
themselves. It was the result of the policy at the time. When the policy
changed, the behavior also changed. BMI provides no incentives for people to
do the right thing, which is to work hard to better themselves. Quite the
opposite. By removing any requirements, it enables unmotivated people to just
sit on their ass. Nor does it discourage antisocial behavior. Just giving
people free money doesn't do that in itself. All it does is set up an
expectation of free money.

I believe the best way to spend the money is to help people who work hard to
improve themselves, regardless of their income level. The money is given
according to the impact of the money. So people with low income would benefit
proportionally more because the before and after difference is larger
percentage wise.

Edit: The thing that should redistributed is not wealth, but opportunity.

~~~
ZenoArrow
What about making higher education free, do you see benefits in doing that?

------
eddd
Collect taxes at high stakes -> Give money away for free -> Expect from people
to be happier. Why governments just decrease some tax rates and let people to
choose what to do with their own money?

~~~
calanya
Err, to help people who don't have any money?

~~~
eddd
You won't help people by addicting them to free money. Individuals should be
independent, what if government change their mind and stops giving money away
for free?

~~~
s73v3r
I dunno, what happens if your job stops giving you money?

------
crimsonalucard
How about a guaranteed job rather then a free paycheck.

~~~
bomaqhbk
The main problems I see with the guaranteed job idea are that it presupposes a
judgment about what types of work are inherently valuable (and does so at the
cost of exploring the unknown) and it sounds a lot like a life of forced
servitude for which the only rational was the original income inequality.

~~~
crimsonalucard
Forced servitude? you gotta be kidding... Let's look at the world as it is
today: work for money. Is that slavery? No. Let's look at the world I'm
proposing: guaranteed work for guaranteed money. Is that slavery? according to
you, yes. If you're saying one is slavery and the other isn't, then I have to
disagree.

>guaranteed job idea are that it presupposes a judgment about what types of
work are inherently valuable (and does so at the cost of exploring the
unknown)

Picking up the trash and cleaning up the neighborhood are unknown high risk
ventures? Fixing pot-holes, washing graffiti off walls, planting trees,
picking litter off the beach, helping the environment have no benefit to
society? There are PLENTY of jobs that can be created that are not high risk
ventures and can benefit all of society. I'm not proposing to start another
NASA program.

Are you trying to say that paying people money to sit on their asses while
entire cities have thousands of little problems is a more worthwhile venture
then telling someone to help out the community in exchange for the same amount
of money? Your reasoning being that we as human beings are not intelligent
enough to make judgement about which types of work are more valuable?

Make a judgement on this: which is more valuable? Helping the community for
money OR sitting on your ass for money?

------
verinus
when it comes to utopian ideas i would prefer the right to work, to get a job
to handing out cash to everybody.

my reason: handing out cash destroys the incentives to do better and
improve...and not all necessary jobs are actual fun to do and others would
surely completely vanish...

~~~
sktrdie
That's probably because you've found a job that you like. In reality however
most people _hate_ their jobs and would rather do something else. This idea of
living in a society where people need to do something they don't want in order
to survive is a form of slavery.

~~~
verinus
> This idea of living in a society where people need to do something they
> don't want in order to survive is a form of slavery.

i want do dispute this. it disregards and diminishes true slavery. having to
support one self is not slavery but the normal way of living...

------
tumdum_
I will just leave
[https://mises.org/sites/default/files/For%20a%20New%20Libert...](https://mises.org/sites/default/files/For%20a%20New%20Liberty%20The%20Libertarian%20Manifesto_3.pdf)
here, especially chapter 8.

------
weddpros
Basic income usually assumes money comes from nowhere, from "the state"...
This experience is fun, but to be correct, those who find a job should in turn
pay 1300/m... because the money cannot come from anywhere else than people.

Or you'll get VERY biased results.

Think of it: they could have tested the financing instead. 300 workers get to
pay 1300€/m to the city. Who wants to be first?

~~~
weddpros
France spends 600B/y in social spending. That's about 15k per citizen (minus
children). 1/3 of the GDP.

So let's change it to a Basic Income of 1000+/m for everybody...

Many will loose a lot... because that's what France is already spending, for a
lot less than 40ish M citizens.

I know downvoters would love this to work.

But think about it: today, the system cares for people with a handicap (for
which 1000/m is not enough), for single families (for which 1000/m is not
enough), etc... You just can't have everybody receive the same amount and
remove help from those who need more...

So Basic Income will need much more money than what is already spent... just
to take care of inequalities it will create.

If you think a country like France needs more redistribution (than 1/3 of the
GDP), okay... but Basic Income will not achieve that.

Proponents often say BI will replace social spending. I think that's
impossible.

If you just want more taxes, just say it. Be clear. BI is not clear at all,
even if it looks easy to understand.

Source: [http://www.contrepoints.org/2013/09/30/140878-france-
champio...](http://www.contrepoints.org/2013/09/30/140878-france-championne-
du-monde-depenses-sociales)

------
PinguTS
Basic income is a nice theory, but completely ignores the financing part. The
money has to come from somewhere.

I would be really fine with receiving a basic income. From the social side I
would support it. People can do what they like, like artists, developers, and
creative people. May be there will be the next business opportunity, startup
from that work. Yes, may be other people are lazy, that is like today.

There is a big BUT. Where does the money comes from to support this basic
income? All those experiments, which are regarded as successful had the
wonderful position, that the money came from outside. From the outside there
was money put into the experiment, including the so successful experiment in
Canada, where 75% of the money came from Ottawa, people, which where not part
of the experiment.

I have not seen any experiment, the people taking part in the basic income
have supported them-selfs, meaning the money for the basic income came from
within this community. Only if the money can come from within the community
them-self I would regard that experiment as successful.

~~~
tinco
In The Netherlands we are already spending that amount, so it doesn't need to
come from anywhere. We spend well over 1000/mo on services for unemployed and
poor people. We send social workers, health care all sorts of things. The
general theory is that if we would supply these people with basic income they
will live healthier lifestyles and not need so much care. In the long run it's
thought basic income might even save The Netherlands money.

There's a lot of complaining about how it will make people 'sit around and eat
ice cream' as if that's all the unemployed do. They've clearly not gone
outside much. The unemployed drink a lot of beer, they do meth and they walk
around aimlessly through the city and generally cause all kinds of damages and
harm.

I live in the east of The Netherlands with pretty high unemployment, and it's
already quite visible. But I've been to San Francisco and that's just
horrible. I can't imagine how a rich person (and you have to be rich to live
there) would want to live there amongst so many homeless and desperate poor
people. Would it really be so bad to pay a bit of extra tax just so those
people have a little less shitty lives and don't need to stroll around the SF
center? It's not like they enjoy that.

Of course, it's not 100% certain that the basic income will solve that
particular problem, but I feel it's worth a shot, so I'm happy Utrecht is
trying it.

edit: Also let's remember that most people are simply decent. There's not much
wrong with watching American Idol and eating some ice cream. If people do
decide to not work under basic income (I don't think the majority will) they
won't because they have a satisfying way to spend their time at home or
wherever. Why is that a bad thing?

~~~
PinguTS
The problem is, all the calculation I have seen so far (by different members
and friends of the Pirate Party Germany) included also the benefits for people
with disabilities, and other illnesses. It included also the money currently
used to support the public health care system and other social benefits.

If you remove all those also to finance basic income, then you are taking the
money who really need it.

If you are saying - like some who support basic income - here is your basic
income and now you need private health care and also all those other things of
the safety net removed, than this is pure capitalism in the form of "take it
or leave it".

I am more for the safety net. I am the one who also pays extra for public
health care. I could easily switch to private health care and safe some big
bucks monthly. No, because public health care is an important part for the
society.

All the working financing models I have seen so far meant: less then 500 EUR
as basic income, which does not work. Or they took the money from important
parts of the social net.

May be there would one financing model: remove the costs for the military
system. But that will never happen, I assume.

~~~
tinco
Ah no. Some benefits would become obsolete, The Netherlands already gives
basic income to artists and people with work prohibiting disabilities for
example. But it's obviously not a substitute for health insurance and other
public health care systems.

The idea is that it would reduce the expense on health care services because
people would become ill less often. Whether this is true remains to be tested
on a larger scale, but I think some research has pointed to this being the
case.

I think you are right, 500 euro would be extra spending money, not a basic
income and quite possibly would have the reverse effect. It's why the basic
income in Utrecht is 900, which is enough to live off as a single person.

