Federico Pistono writes in a NewScientist (3 October 2015, paywall) opinion piece about the unintended, er, consequences of UBI – unconditional basic income:
It’s a simple concept with far-reaching consequences. The state would give a monthly stipend to every citizen, regardless of income or employment status. This would simplify bureaucracy, get rid of outdated and inefficient means-based benefits, and provide support for people to live with dignity and find new meaning.
Perhaps the biggest UBI experiments, involving a whole town in Canada and 20 villages in India, have confounded a key criticism – that it would kill the incentive to work. Not only did people continue working, but they were more likely to start businesses or perform socially beneficial activities compared with controls. In addition, there was an increase in general well-being, and no increase in alcohol, drug use or gambling.
He notes that this is only an initial study, of inadequate size and design – but still very interesting. I should think one of the eventual study insights will be the recognition by the study participants that they do not have to risk everything in order to try out a business concept – there will always be a way to put food on the table. I recognize this is contrary to the American mythos of the inventor or businessman who risks all to start a business, succeeds, and is granted great riches and glory – but think about it, just how moral is it to risk your family’s security, possibly its very existence, just so you can start a business? That, of course, is a question which a perfectly rational person would shake their head to – but humanity is neither rational nor particularly, in general, moral; we are subject to whimsy, to obsessions, to the needs and requirements of a brain out of context.
Pistono’s statement also punctures another old myth – that humanity is a bunch of lazy SOBs who wouldn’t work without the lash of hunger and insecurity across their shoulders. This old myth, which, it occurs to me, is used to justify the greed at the top of many corporate ladders (and I’ll happily grant this fellow an exception). Remember that out of context brain? It requires stimulation and challenge, the chance to explore, whether it be new ways to make textiles or valleys on Mars. By giving folks a predictable, stable base, they can begin exploring the landscape that interests them the most. From this, I have to wonder about knock-on effects.
- Creatvity. A small explosion of creativity may occur as folks use this modicum of security to try to new solutions to old problems, or attempt solving new problems in themselves. It would be very interesting to watch these experiments and measure the creativity unleashed, and how well it works in Canada vs India. Which culture is more creative? Which upbringing constrains innovation? That could cause some fireworks.
- Employee stability. How stable is employment at established companies in these zones? At larger companies? Smaller? How about measuring companies’ hierarchical components and correlating it with employee stability? If an employee is not constrained by hunger to retain a job, then how much happier must a company keep their employees?
- Employer reactions. I know that, years ago, the large automakers in the United States were actually for single payer health systems, because that would allow them to simplify their HR departments. But how would employers feel about UBI? They could maybe lower wages, but if employee stability was lower, the costs of training more new employees might not be worth it.
I can easily see a healthier, better educated workforce populace.
For those who’ll rear up and shout about socialism, I have a few observations. First, we’re a lot wealthier than we used to be; second, change is good (I’ve observed that many 50+ year old men will hunch their shoulders and mutter, “Change is baaaad!” – including me) in general, as we explore the general problem of societal survival in a world undergoing change that impacts us all; and, as the greater context of this opinion piece is robots and the impact on jobs (I’ve written about that before here and here), we must consider how those whose jobs are eliminated by intelligent robotics (if, indeed, that is permitted to happen) will continue to be fed & housed – because idle, hungry hands are devil’s ….
…. which reminds me of my friend Chris Torkildson, who, declaiming that idle computer cycles were the devil’s plaything, wrote a program of deduction for an otherwise idle computer, and fed it a whole bunch of facts. It was a little stunning when it asked if a platypus was a mammal or a bird. But idle computer cycles does suggest some necessary questions about how much an app, or an AI, should be paid for its work.
Here is the UBI-Belgium website.
