Dutch city of Utrecht to experiment with a universal, unconditional "basic income"

[Jayjay]

Just thought of one possible caveat in this experiment: The job market probably follows laws and regulations based on current welfare rules. In particular, laws about minimum wage or minimum number of hours worked and such. This means that even if the test subjects might want to take certain jobs as they would be incentivized, the employers can't offer them or they would be breaking the law.

For example:

Group B could have a rule that they get benefits if they take any job, so it makes sense to accept jobs that you can't live on because the gap is filled by the stipend. But due to your lack of work experience you can't get a minimum wage job (too many other qualified candidates), and the employer can't pay you any less.

 

[ronburgundy]

#3 is valid only if the qualifier "directly measure" is added.

bzzzt. Wrong. It won't measure it at all.

#3 is absolutely correct without any qualification.

The point is moot, because #3 is (with or without qualification) is irrelevant as to whether the results inform predictions about what will happen.
It has zero to do with the study being a scientific investigation of the effects of different systems on relevant behaviors that are predicted by various theoretical assumptions.

"Indirect measures" are used all the time in science and they mean the X specifically is not measured but proxies for X that are highly predictive of X. They are called operational definitions and they are talked about as "measures of X", assuming the reader is literate enough grasp that there can be a variable distance in the mapping from how something is measured to the theoretical construct of interest. IOW, as per usual, your harping on meaningless red-herring distinctions without a difference because you have rational argument to back up your faith-based response.

 

[laughing dog]

I don't know about the Netherlands, but in the USA most people receiving "welfare" are not on it for generations but weeks to months. So, this experiment may be helpful in untangling short-run reactions to different schemes of income maintenance.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Basing policy on actual science? I think conservatives everywhere are asking, "Whut ya doin' that fur?"

I think that the rest of the free-world will owe them a massive favor for having the guts and sense to actually conduct an experiment, which despite lack of perfect controls, will likely yield more meaningful data for evaluating competing theories than any that exists to date.

LOL @ science. This can only provide some nice data on how some people react to being placed in this experiment.

No sane person in this experiment would make decisions as if they were in an actual society that guaranteed them cradle to grave UBI.

And my read of it is that they're only applying it to those on welfare, not society at large.

 

[RavenSky]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-universal-unconditional-income-10345595.html

There will be three groups:

1) Group A will get the stipend with no strings attached,
2) Group B will get the stipend with strings attached, and
3) Group C will continue under current rules.

What do you guys think will happen?

I think group C are going to be mighty pissed off

 

[dystopian]

I'm excited about it precisely because I don't think UBI has any particular threshold for being useful. UBI should work even if it is not enough to live on, and actually I think that if UBI is implemented somewhere it would be better to start off conservatively so it doesn't bankrupt the entire system.

Actually no, a UBI that is not enough to live on would be an unmitigated disaster. One of the main draws of a UBI is that among other things, it's meant to *replace* all of the various forms of welfare, disability, and rent subsidies. If the UBI isn't at least equally as high (thus providing a living wage), then hundreds of thousands of people who are unable to work or find work on short enough notice will suddenly be unable to afford to live. In order to avoid that, you'd have to raise the UBI for certain groups of people... which means it is not a UBI and which defeats the point of replacing complicated bureacracy with a simplified UBI in the first place. Now, so long as we have a transitional period with the aim being to raise the UBI to living wage standards and with the disadvantaged getting that living wage to begin with; I don't have any issues with what you're saying perse... but that might cause all sorts of problems by itself and it might be better to just go all in straight away. Which shouldn't be impossible to achieve, financing wise.

 

[dystopian]

I don't know about the Netherlands, but in the USA most people receiving "welfare" are not on it for generations but weeks to months. So, this experiment may be helpful in untangling short-run reactions to different schemes of income maintenance.

Keep in mind that that in Dutch, welfare is referred to as 'uitkering', which can refer to unemployment welfare, supplementary income for those unable to provide a full wage (for example, single moms) for themselves, or long-term disability. There are specifics words that one can prefix to 'uitkering' that allows one to reference the kind, but this sometimes gets lost in translation.

The maximum duration of the unemployment kind of welfare (referred to as WW) is 3 years and 2 months, with number of WW recipients needing it longer than a year having dropped from 40% a number of years back to around 25% in 2012. Anyway if, after this period you still haven't found work, you end up under one of several other welfare laws. There absolutely are people who end up on one form of welfare for much of their lives for various reasons beyond their control. The various basic income experiments will almost certainly include those people. Indeed, there's some cynical thought suggesting that there's those who'd set these experiments up to failure by giving it to the long-term disabled and then at the end of the experiment proclaiming that the people on the basic income didn't do any work... which is a messed up argument I'm sure certain politicians might like to use.

 

[barbos]

Karl Marx and Vladimir Lenin would have been proud.

 

[barbos]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-universal-unconditional-income-10345595.html

There will be three groups:

1) Group A will get the stipend with no strings attached,
2) Group B will get the stipend with strings attached, and
3) Group C will continue under current rules.

What do you guys think will happen?

I think group C are going to be mighty pissed off

Yes, group C and .... Greeks.

 

[PyramidHead]

#3 is valid only if the qualifier "directly measure" is added.

bzzzt. Wrong. It won't measure it at all.

#3 is absolutely correct without any qualification.

In the same way, clinical trials that last only 2 years will not measure how people will respond to a given drug for the rest of their lives. However, this does not mean clinical trials provide no information about the effectiveness of a drug.

 

[dismal]

bzzzt. Wrong. It won't measure it at all.

#3 is absolutely correct without any qualification.

In the same way, clinical trials that last only 2 years will not measure how people will respond to a given drug for the rest of their lives. However, this does not mean clinical trials provide no information about the effectiveness of a drug.

Most of the hypothesized costs and benefits of UBI are not short term. And this not UBI.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

In the same way, clinical trials that last only 2 years will not measure how people will respond to a given drug for the rest of their lives. However, this does not mean clinical trials provide no information about the effectiveness of a drug.

Most of the hypothesized costs and benefits of UBI are not short term. And this not UBI.

Only Dismal UBI is the TRUE UBI.

 

[dismal]

Most of the hypothesized costs and benefits of UBI are not short term. And this not UBI.

Only Dismal UBI is the TRUE UBI.

I think it's fair to say this is not even slightly "universal".

 

[PyramidHead]

Most of the hypothesized costs and benefits of UBI are not short term. And this not UBI.

Only Dismal UBI is the TRUE UBI.

I don't think that's a fair portrayal of his position. While we could learn something about guaranteed income from this experiment, you have to admit it leaves out a big element of why people suggest it in the first place: what it is like for the average person living in a society where EVERYBODY has a guaranteed income. As it is, the people in group A can buy things sold by businesses run by group B people, and they will all be surrounded by people from all groups. The long-term effects on poverty, health, crime rate, education, etc. kind of depend upon the U in UBI being broader than it is here.

That said, I think this study may provide some insight into how people behave in the different categories, depending on what they are actually measuring. It's not a pointless exercise, but neither is it a perfect test of UBI.

 

[dismal]

Only Dismal UBI is the TRUE UBI.

I don't think that's a fair portrayal of his position. While we could learn something about guaranteed income from this experiment, you have to admit it leaves out a big element of why people suggest it in the first place: what it is like for the average person living in a society where EVERYBODY has a guaranteed income. As it is, the people in group A can buy things sold by businesses run by group B people, and they will all be surrounded by people from all groups. The long-term effects on poverty, health, crime rate, education, etc. kind of depend upon the U in UBI being broader than it is here.

That said, I think this study may provide some insight into how people behave in the different categories, depending on what they are actually measuring. It's not a pointless exercise, but neither is it a perfect test of UBI.

It seems to be more of a test of whether people like their welfare with strings or without than anything to do with UBI.

 

[PyramidHead]

I don't think that's a fair portrayal of his position. While we could learn something about guaranteed income from this experiment, you have to admit it leaves out a big element of why people suggest it in the first place: what it is like for the average person living in a society where EVERYBODY has a guaranteed income. As it is, the people in group A can buy things sold by businesses run by group B people, and they will all be surrounded by people from all groups. The long-term effects on poverty, health, crime rate, education, etc. kind of depend upon the U in UBI being broader than it is here.

That said, I think this study may provide some insight into how people behave in the different categories, depending on what they are actually measuring. It's not a pointless exercise, but neither is it a perfect test of UBI.

It seems to be more of a test of whether people like their welfare with strings or without than anything to do with UBI.

Well, I don't know what the outcome measures are, but the question asked in the OP's article is this:

"What happens if someone gets a monthly amount without rules and controls? Will someone sitting passively at home or do people develop themselves and provide a meaningful contribution to our society?"

It is a common accusation of many welfare programs, not just UBI, that it will encourage people to be lazy and unproductive. At the very least, this study can address that on the individual level, even though the total societal implications may be beyond its scope.

 

[Jayjay]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-universal-unconditional-income-10345595.html

There will be three groups:

1) Group A will get the stipend with no strings attached,
2) Group B will get the stipend with strings attached, and
3) Group C will continue under current rules.

What do you guys think will happen?

I think group C are going to be mighty pissed off

Eh, why? Nothing changes for them, and they're not worse off than all the other welfare recipients who are not part of the experiment.

 

[Jayjay]

I'm excited about it precisely because I don't think UBI has any particular threshold for being useful. UBI should work even if it is not enough to live on, and actually I think that if UBI is implemented somewhere it would be better to start off conservatively so it doesn't bankrupt the entire system.

Actually no, a UBI that is not enough to live on would be an unmitigated disaster. One of the main draws of a UBI is that among other things, it's meant to *replace* all of the various forms of welfare, disability, and rent subsidies. If the UBI isn't at least equally as high (thus providing a living wage), then hundreds of thousands of people who are unable to work or find work on short enough notice will suddenly be unable to afford to live. In order to avoid that, you'd have to raise the UBI for certain groups of people... which means it is not a UBI and which defeats the point of replacing complicated bureacracy with a simplified UBI in the first place. Now, so long as we have a transitional period with the aim being to raise the UBI to living wage standards and with the disadvantaged getting that living wage to begin with; I don't have any issues with what you're saying perse... but that might cause all sorts of problems by itself and it might be better to just go all in straight away. Which shouldn't be impossible to achieve, financing wise.

Who says UBI has to replace all other forms of welfare? If other benefits are reduced by 50%, and you get 50% of "enough to live on" UBI, nobody would fal off the wagon. And you still get roughly 50% of the incentivizing effects of pure UBI.

I think evolution is better than revolution. And as for the argument about reducing bureocracy, I think it's been greatly exaggerated because you still need to have some special arrangements for the disabled and such who need assistance beyond UBI, not to mention that politicians - even those who advocate UBI - are liars who love using "reducing bureocracy" as a catch-all campaign promise that they can never quite deliver.

 

[Jayjay]

I don't think that's a fair portrayal of his position. While we could learn something about guaranteed income from this experiment, you have to admit it leaves out a big element of why people suggest it in the first place: what it is like for the average person living in a society where EVERYBODY has a guaranteed income. As it is, the people in group A can buy things sold by businesses run by group B people, and they will all be surrounded by people from all groups. The long-term effects on poverty, health, crime rate, education, etc. kind of depend upon the U in UBI being broader than it is here.

That said, I think this study may provide some insight into how people behave in the different categories, depending on what they are actually measuring. It's not a pointless exercise, but neither is it a perfect test of UBI.

It seems to be more of a test of whether people like their welfare with strings or without than anything to do with UBI.

I'd say that welfare without strings attached is big part of what the UBI is.

 

[dismal]

It seems to be more of a test of whether people like their welfare with strings or without than anything to do with UBI.

I'd say that welfare without strings attached is big part of what the UBI is.

A big part of UBI is that it's universal and permanent. It is not welfare at all. Everyone gets it. Everyone can make life decisions based on it. This will not create that.