Does Unconditional Basic Income Create A More Productive Society? Some Dutch Cities Are About To Find Out!
Language
Reading Level
Listen to Article
In June, the City Council of Utrecht in The Netherlands announced that starting January 2016, a few lucky residents will receive a monthly stipend to cover their basic needs with no strings attached. That means that the recipients will have to do nothing in return and can spend the rest of their days lounging by a pool if they so wish.
Of course, the officials who are working on this social experiment with researchers from the University of Utrecht, hope that will not be the case. Instead, they believe a guaranteed basic income will motivate residents more than the current welfare program that is conditional on them seeking a job.
While that may seem strange, proponents believe that when people do not have to worry about paying for basic needs, they are motivated to seek out other opportunities. This could range from going back to school, to achieving a better work-life balance with flexible hours or even, giving back to society by volunteering.
Utrecht City Alderman Victor Everhard believes that the freedom to choose allows individuals to make more meaningful contributions to society. And he is not the only one. Earlier this week, the neighboring city of Tilburg announced it would conduct a similar social experiment to try to improve the lives of its 200,000 residents.
To be clear, basic income is exactly that - just enough money to pay for necessities like food and rent. Hence order to be able to afford anything else, people do need to seek out some form of employment. However, the logic is that since the core needs are covered, they will gravitate toward careers that are more fulfilling than ones that merely help pay the bills. This eventually results in a happier, more content society.
For its basic income program test which starts in January 2016, Utrecht officials plan to select 300 welfare recipients and divide them into six groups of 50 each. The control group will continue with the current regulations with its requirements around job-seeking and qualifying income. Three other groups will have to "earn" their money through a different system of incentives and rewards. And then there will the chosen 50 who will receive an unconditional monthly basic income stipend of between $900 (for an adult) to $1,450 (couple or family). Members of all groups will be monitored carefully and the results, evaluated at the end of the year.
The idea of basic income is not new. Over the years, the experiments have been tried in countries around the world, from India to Uganda. One of the most famous such trials was conducted in the town of Dauphin in Manitoba, Canada. From 1974 to 1979, the Minicome project provided a stipend, of varying amounts depending on individual income, to the town's entire population.
According to skeptics, the program was a failure given that the number of hours worked dropped dramatically. However, University of Manitoba economist Evelyn L. Forget who studied the experiment in detail, begs to differ. She says the loss of working hours can be attributed to the fact that the basic income allowed youngsters to continue studying and mothers to take longer maternity breaks to tend to their newborns. An unexpected benefit? The rate of hospital visits especially for mental-health-related complaints dropped dramatically! Unfortunately, the program was stopped before a full evaluation of its long-term impact could be made.
Though the Netherlands experiment is slightly different in that it is reserved only for those on welfare, its results may finally appease skeptics who believe that that unconditional basic income results in an unmotivated population . . . Or, it could just prove them right! So stay tuned!
Resources: qz.com, dutchnews.nl,zmescience.com
Learn Keywords in this Article
51 Comments
genius1326about 9 yearsAlso, it is a human instinct to survive, like animals. Hunt, or be hunted, so really, it won't work that well, because the human brain/instinct is too strong. Like how people would be able to relax, but what if groceries closed and supermarkets close? What if the army gets closed? It seems as if only people with small jobs get a break, which is not cool. Unfair, really.- staceyabout 9 yearslove it
sushi321about 9 yearsuh......... not cool- srongabout 9 yearsamazing
- srongabout 9 yearscool
- srongabout 9 yearsawesome
- HOTDOGSabout 9 yearsI am completely against this. The USA is a socialist country (light communism) and people are starting to become extremely lazy. People who work lots of hours get paid less, so the lazy people are benefiting.
- Markahn77about 9 yearsI totally disagree, even though there small, minute fights and wars, I had never thought Basic Income will succeed. For example, a country had used Basic Income, and the title of "poorness". First, this country was excessing, but people who live in the country did not think about working hard and just got poorer and poorer, and finally: 1$ in USD is 0.00783$ in this country. Do you really want to live in a poor country like that? everyone wants to live better, and rich. Plus, theres more reasons Basic Income is bad. As said in the video, money comes only comes from people working hard. What if the company does not have enough money to pay for workers? They will close the company. There is way way way more, but il stop here.
- JACOLINEOabout 9 yearsI dont think that it is good
bigmeloabout 9 yearsThis is rather interesting - there are pros & cons to the idea of an unconditional based income. As for the pros, I believe that having a system of fixed incomes will make people in the middle-class & lower feel more secure with themselves; knowing that you're supported can give you peace of mind. As well, people are likely to be under a substantially smaller amount of stress due to less hours of work. I'd also like to point out that the second picture of the article portrays that if money is no longer required, people can focus more on making themselves better & helping others. This would lead to serenity & harmony across the world. All of this sounds pretty sweet, but you could look at this situation in an entirely different perspective. It's time to look at some of the cons. According to the fourth picture in the article, the number of hours people worked in Mincome, Canada dropped a decent amount. Sure, peace of mind is good to have, but not all the time. I concur with the comments posted by a user named dogbearmoo a short while ago. One comment states, "if there is permenant unconditional income, students a round the world will feel like the no longer have to learn in school because there lives are paid for. That would not be good for our world." This basically means that students, likewise to everyone that has a permanent income, would not truly experience everything that there is to learning because they feel as if their lives are being handed to them. Going into theory, our future generations would accustom themselves to having their lives being paid for. Growing up, all of them would remain calm. However, this wouldn't be good if any of them ended up dealing with frustration or chaos. Anyways, let's read the other comment: "interesting idea but I don't think governments can pay everyone." I think you're onto something, dogbearmoo. There is a certain limit to the amount of money in total that a country may have. This may affect a country's wealth in the long run. It might not be a problem, though, considering that the government may or may not earn more money per unit (household {taxes; bills; checks}) than they are giving out the fixed income. Well, that's really all I have to say, but I'm willing to bet that there's a lot more to the idea of unconditional basic incomes than I think there are. I saw the comment entered by smartpanda, which says, "i dont understand :P". In reply to that, I hope my comment helped you comprehend the article more efficiently, smartpanda! In my opinion, I obviously had a lot to say on this particular article, seeing as it is one of the longest comments I've ever made. Notwithstanding, I'd like to hear your perspective of this article, & this comment! Please, it'd mean a lot to me if you'd let me know! :D - BigMelo
crystalmoriabout 9 yearsI really like that you considered both sides of the argument instead of just pushing one way and trying to counteract the opposition without considering what they have to say. That is a really valuable quality in a human being, I think. (I hope it won't become harder for me now that I have speech and debate class.) Though I guess in saying that, I'm pushing the way of considering all ways without really considering the way of considering the one way.- bigmeloabout 9 yearsThanks, crystalmori! Greatly appreciated that you took the time to reply to this comment. Also, I'm kind of in the same situation as you are. You see, I've got Public Speaking as a class this year. I may be a mediocre rhetorician when it comes to writing on the computer, but I don't quite know if I've got the guts to pull it off in real life. :P
