Not surprising to me - a Canadian study 10 or 15 years ago produced the same results - the only people who stopped working were moms who quit to take care of children, and students who returned to school (having quit school to work because their families needed money). The conventional "wisdom" that says getting free money will turn people into bums is a traditional conservative misconception that goes with thinking people are inherently bad.
this post was submitted on 13 Apr 2025
193 points (100.0% liked)
Global News
3846 readers
1059 users here now
What is global news?
Something that happened or was uncovered recently anywhere in the world. It doesn't have to have global implications. Just has to be informative in some way.
Post guidelines
Title format
Post title should mirror the news source title.
URL format
Post URL should be the original link to the article (even if paywalled) and archived copies left in the body. It allows avoiding duplicate posts when cross-posting.
[Opinion] prefix
Opinion (op-ed) articles must use [Opinion] prefix before the title.
Country prefix
Country prefix can be added to the title with a separator (|, :, etc.) where title is not clear enough from which country the news is coming from.
Rules
1. English only
Title and associated content has to be in English.
2. No social media posts
Avoid all social media posts. Try searching for a source that has a written article or transcription on the subject.
3. Respectful communication
All communication has to be respectful of differing opinions, viewpoints, and experiences.
4. Inclusivity
Everyone is welcome here regardless of age, body size, visible or invisible disability, ethnicity, sex characteristics, gender identity and expression, education, socio-economic status, nationality, personal appearance, race, caste, color, religion, or sexual identity and orientation.
5. Ad hominem attacks
Any kind of personal attacks are expressly forbidden. If you can't argue your position without attacking a person's character, you already lost the argument.
6. Off-topic tangents
Stay on topic. Keep it relevant.
7. Instance rules may apply
If something is not covered by community rules, but are against lemmy.zip instance rules, they will be enforced.
Companion communities
- [email protected] - International and local legal news.
- [email protected] - Technology, social media platforms, informational technologies and tech policy.
- [email protected] - Fascinating articles, captivating images, satisfying videos, interesting projects, stunning research and more.
- [email protected] - News and information about Europe.
Icon generated via LLM model | Banner attribution
If someone is interested in moderating this community, message @[email protected].
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
I don't even get this notion.
"Everyone will become a lazy bum!". Humans are biologically coded with the want to do SOMETHING. If you took current day scenarios of people wanting to not work at all, that's only because WE HAVE TO WORK to live.
People want to remove stress, not be "lazy".
And lazy is such a defective term.
A lot of "conventional wisdom" turns out to be just catchy little sayings that vindicate people's personal attitudes.
Didn't Finland also try it, and found the same thing?
I really think UBI has no downsides.
I believe a province in Canada was also trying it with promising results until a right-wing politician got elected and scrapped the trial program.
Yup, Ontario had it for a small community and the people on it were doing great. They're still just running these programs in other areas to try and find the one with negative results so every country can point to that as their reason to not do it longterm.
That's why you keep seeing 100 of these "trials".
The downside is less money going towards the rich
Still not hearing any downsides
Yes, they did. Sadly the body that's studied the effects said the sample size (a couple thousand unemployed people) was too small... Gee, I wonder who would've designed the experiment in such way?
It's money that has no value if it's truly universal. If it's not universal, but only a select group gets it, yep pretty much no downsides.
Saying money is worthless if everyone has it is asinine. Gatekeeping shit is an idiot's idea of intelligence. The money won't change spending at the top levels because they already spend that much daily on services alone. But at the lower income brackets it generates lots of purchases on products and goods. It boosts manufacturing which in turns buoys stock market valuation and guarantees value for the investor.
UBI is so good for everyone, even the super rich, that it's insane not to participate. But without the threat of lifestyle shock, the wealthy don't have leverage to make exasperated workers try to achieve more for less. It will literally help people with the stress of living paycheck to paycheck.
If it's universal then it guarantees a minimal capital throughput at each nexus of value and the market. That's extra income at all levels from spending, taxes, and the buyer's unspent capital - it's huge and is a means to jumpstart any economy and keep it running for as long as the UBI flows.
Okay, humour me. Everyone suddenly gets $100 per month. Now, some big grocery chain knows that every single one of those customers has an extra $100. What do you expect to happen? They'll be like, "cool people will buy more stuff" or they'll be like "that's an extra $100 we can extract by making the most common things people buy more expensive," which do you think is more likely?
If there's only one grocery store, maybe. But that's a monopoly, and that's going to be shit no matter what. Ideally you have multiple grocery stores that compete, and if one raises prices the other will take their customers. (If they all coordinate to raise their prices, that's a cartel and that's also bad.)
So you're not really exposing a problem with UBI, but rather with unregulated capitalism.
We live in a real world, not a hypothetical scenario. There are multiple stores and they're all either in a cartel or just blindly copying each other in extracting the maximum value out of their customers.
This brings them more money, they pump more into marketing and voilà, only the shitty stores remain. If a newcomer joins, you can enjoy a few pretty good years until they inevitably join the shitty cartel or cease to exist.
So yeah, that's a problem of capitalism but that doesn't mean it's not a problem preventing UBI actually ever being implemented.
I don't think "This other, largely unrelated, problem is bad so we shouldn't do this thing" is good reasoning.
I don't think in the real world, in all places (or even most places) all the stores are in a cartel. Where I live, there are several large supermarkets and a handful of smaller groceries all within walking distance. They are not a cartel. They compete. You're just making stuff up for some weird dark fantasy of yours.
Furthermore, if there was a monopoly, and we have the political might to implement UBI, I dare say we'd also have the political power to do a tried-and-true popular move of breaking up monopolies.
But we’ve already seen this without UBI. So worst case, nothing changes. Best case? There’s more opportunity for change.
I'll humor this, even though I'm tired of answering this same question. I'll do you a favor and give you the short version, first: Inflation has nothing to do with how currency is distributed and everything to do with the supply of currency in circulation. Now that we've established the basic concept, let's break some of it down. If there's $100 in circulation, it doesn't matter if one person has all of it, or 100 people have $1. The value of $1 is the same. If $1000 is in circulation, then $100 is worth less than if only $100 is in circulation, even if one person has $901 and everyone else has $1. Why is this so difficult to understand? Why do you believe that money is somehow worth more if its distribution is unequal? If people buy more stuff, that's called a healthy economy. If people buy 'too much milk and the prices go up' then someone will sell milk for less to undercut the competition in a healthy economic system. If you can't sell it for less, you innovate. If you can't innovate, or sell for less, then you can't compete and you lose. Everyone being able to afford more milk doesn't cause $1 to be worth less. Of course, this example isn't realistic anymore, but that's due to capitalism failing -- the underlying principals of the example still hold true.
The problem is in markets with little to no real competition. So, housing. But really that is a separate problem that also should be fixed and could be but for some reason is apparently politically unpopular to do so.
We literally fixed this exact problem before.
Tell me you don't understand income inequality without telling me you don't understand income inequality.
Well, definitely more than you understand economy, it seems.
If everyone is getting it but only the poorer are using it, it most certainly has value.
Oh, so you're putting unrealistic constraints on it. Then yes, it has value. But no, the rich are using it, too. And because for them it's such a small amount, they're extracting your UBI as well.
Let's say it's set at $10k/year. To someone on $20k that's a 50% boost. To someone on 100k, it's only 10%. At a million a year it's down to 1%.
If it's accompanied by a 20% tax, it would significantly rebalance income inequality, and provide a reliable financial buffer for the poor to negotiate from.
How totally surprising. The results have been the same every time this has been tried, so who could have possibly have foreseen that?
Thank you! Honestly UBI studies only make me feel angry and hopeless anymore, since it’s so clear policy will never change.
Of course not. If people aren't desperate any more, they're far harder to control.
And thus we see why UBI will never be a solution. You need an overwhelming political movement by the people outside the electoral system. And if you can force through UBI, why would you, when the people could actually take the reins.
I'd quit my job... and do something that actually creates value in my community like being a teacher or some shit.
Noone likes doing nothing. Some may very well like doing something that is not directly or instantly netting a financial gain. Which is great, as every civilized culture needs artists and such. People who'd wither in some silly office-jobs but burst of creativity. Those who may currently be forced to a useless life just to have one.
But the opposition is clear, although not honest. A happy worker is a worker I can't oppress. If noone is always endangered of starving, who would do the jobs noone wants and are paid like shit or even dangerous?
No country will ever see a UBI. Sadly so.
Except there are already countries that have UBI. Namely Iran and Macau. There are also multiple different state/cities across the world that also have it.
What is unlikely is that happening in any country run by a capitalist system.
That universal income can't even pay rent, at least in Iran, don't know about Macau.
Didn't know Macau had one, and it sounds pretty nice, despite it being "too low and infrequent". But I don't know enough to form an opinion. At least good to know, thanks.
Iran...i meant at least half-assedly civilized countries, not those running sharia-law, death-sentence, no press-freedom, systematic discrimination of minorities etc. Can't judge the effectiveness or the UBI there, and also don't really care.
If I had UBI that covered my food and shelter, I'd ... keep working because I love it. I'd probably work about half as much at my main (software engineer) job and split the new free time between taking some uni courses and a little more relaxation. My second job is as a farmer and, aside from the paperwork and accounting I don't fully understand yet in Japanese, I enjoy the work the majority of the time.
I would potentially try to create something that may or may not be financially successful. Maybe it won't work for me, but if a bunch of people now feel able to do that some of them will be successful.
I'm gonna be real. Theres no way in hell I would continue to work fulltime.
Especially with the amount of wasted time at work when you can't even be productive if you wanted to.
One of the unspoken benefits of UBI is that it rebalances the power dynamic between employer and employee. When your back's not against the wall financially, you can negotiate a lot better for a reasonable setup.
People getting a decent living wage via a 3 day week should be the norm, not an exception. I've seen several studies where companies went to a 4 day week, for the same pay. Actual productivity went up, not down. It turns out a happy, rested workforce is a lot more than 20% more productive.
Literally every UBI test is a massive success and then we pretend like we shouldn't ever change anything.
We are going to have to kill world leaders to end the 40hr work week.
I remember hearing about a similar experiment from the 70's in Canada
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/1970s-manitoba-poverty-experiment-called-a-success-1.868562
https://www.bbc.com/worklife/article/20200624-canadas-forgotten-universal-basic-income-experiment