To make good policy you should have at least a vague notion of what you are talking about.
However, when it comes to perhaps the biggest reform proposal around, we just do not. I am talking about a universal basic income (UBI), a system of unconditional cash payments to everybody in a given jurisdiction.
The case for a UBI runs as follows: It would reduce poverty, make people healthier and give them more dignity. It would also ease the transition of workers who lose their jobs to robots or artificial intelligence, so they can retrain for different careers. In general, it lets people bridge periods out of work or in bad jobs so they can invest in their own skills and re-enter the workforce at a higher level.
Photo: AP
To get out of a dead-end job, say, they might take a “sabbatical” for adult education. Or they could temporarily contribute in other valuable ways, for instance by homeschooling their children or caring for elderly parents.
Moreover, because a UBI would replace most or (as I would like) all legacy welfare systems, its cost need not be prohibitive.
Now the case against a UBI: It would devalue work as such and reward sloth. Without an existential need to work, why bother? A UBI would create a new and permanently dependent underclass, a lumpenproletariat of the Fourth Industrial Revolution. To provide the nectar that feeds these UBI drones, all those diligent worker bees who still have jobs would have to pay unacceptably high taxes.
This clash between cliches is what the debate has deteriorated to.
However, how, in fact, would most human beings respond to “free” money? We have not the faintest idea.
Lots of people have tried to find out, of course. Starting with Canada in the 1970s, various local, regional and national governments around the world have run experiments.
However, so far these have not yielded much useful information. Sometimes a new government took office and halted a research project or changed its parameters beyond recognition. Or the study was designed poorly.
UBI geeks were particularly disappointed that a Finnish project that began in 2017 was first changed, then stopped after only two years.
It, too, was not very well thought out — 2,000 Finns who were initially unemployed received a modest 560 euros (US$656 at the current exchange rate) a month and were compared against another group who continued to receive means-tested unemployment benefits.
To see the macroeconomic effect of a UBI, of course, you want to test it on a representative slice of the whole population, not just the jobless.
Nonetheless, as imperfect as the Finnish study was, it did debunk one assumption of UBI opponents. Getting unconditional payouts not only increased the well-being of the participating Finns, but also made them slightly more likely to find jobs. In short, they got healthier, but not lazier.
Now there is excitement about another research project getting started in Germany. It might finally get the parameters right. Almost 2 million people from all walks of life have already applied to be guinea pigs.
Starting next month, social scientists are to select two groups. One, consisting of 120 people, will get 1,200 euros a month, starting next spring and lasting three years. They will be compared against a control group of 1,380 who will be monitored, but will not get any cash.
The twist in this experiment is that the organizers are to look for “statistical twins.” So if among the 120 there is a 25-year-old pianist who lives in an urban metropolis, has five years of higher education and good health, she would have a doppelganger in the control group. So would the 40-year-old plumber from the countryside, the gig worker delivering Amazon packages, and so on.
By comparing these statistical twins over several years, said Juergen Schupp, the sociologist who leads the project, it should be possible to single out just the effects of the payments on people’s lives.
Eventually, they will even compare hair samples for clues about stress hormones. As usual in science, the results would not necessarily prove a positive — that a UBI turns us into entrepreneurs, for example.
However, they should be able to falsify bad arguments — that a UBI makes us lazy, perhaps.
Even this project, of course, will not try to answer every question. Which existing welfare services would a UBI replace? Would it extend even to migrants and temporary residents? How would it be financed?
However, it is a step in the right direction, and a reminder that policymakers in poor and rich countries alike need to keep an open mind.
We are indeed in the midst of a digital transformation that would destroy many old jobs and create many new ones, and we need structures that help people adapt.
As this year reminded us all, every now and then something like a pandemic-induced recession comes along, against which a UBI just might be an ideal policy tool. It would certainly help if we could answer some of the big questions.
Andreas Kluth is a columnist for Bloomberg Opinion. He was previously editor-in-chief of Handelsblatt Global and a writer for The Economist. He is the author of Hannibal and Me
This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.
Napoleon Osorio is proud of being the first taxi driver to have accepted payment in bitcoin in the first country in the world to make the cryptocurrency legal tender: El Salvador. He credits Salvadoran President Nayib Bukele’s decision to bank on bitcoin three years ago with changing his life. “Before I was unemployed... And now I have my own business,” said the 39-year-old businessman, who uses an app to charge for rides in bitcoin and now runs his own car rental company. Three years ago the leader of the Central American nation took a huge gamble when he put bitcoin
Demand for artificial intelligence (AI) chips should spur growth for the semiconductor industry over the next few years, the CEO of a major supplier to Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC, 台積電) said, dismissing concerns that investors had misjudged the pace and extent of spending on AI. While the global chip market has grown about 8 percent annually over the past 20 years, AI semiconductors should grow at a much higher rate going forward, Scientech Corp (辛耘) chief executive officer Hsu Ming-chi (許明琪) told Bloomberg Television. “This booming of the AI industry has just begun,” Hsu said. “For the most prominent
PARTNERSHIPS: TSMC said it has been working with multiple memorychip makers for more than two years to provide a full spectrum of solutions to address AI demand Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC, 台積電) yesterday said it has been collaborating with multiple memorychip makers in high-bandwidth memory (HBM) used in artificial intelligence (AI) applications for more than two years, refuting South Korean media report's about an unprecedented partnership with Samsung Electronics Co. As Samsung is competing with TSMC for a bigger foundry business, any cooperation between the two technology heavyweights would catch the eyes of investors and experts in the semiconductor industry. “We have been working with memory partners, including Micron, Samsung Memory and SK Hynix, on HBM solutions for more than two years, aiming to advance 3D integrated circuit
NATURAL PARTNERS: Taiwan and Japan have complementary dominant supply chain positions, are geographically and culturally close, and have similar work ethics Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC, 台積電) and other related companies would add ¥11.2 trillion (US$78.31 billion) to Japan’s chipmaking hot spot Kumamoto Prefecture over the next decade, a local bank’s analysis said. Kyushu Financial Group, a lender based in Kumamoto’s capital, almost doubled its projection for the economic impact that the chip sector would bring to the region compared to its estimate a year earlier, a presentation on Thursday said. The bank said that 171 firms had made new investments since November 2021, up from 90 in an earlier analysis. TSMC’s Kumamoto location was once a sleepy farming area, but has undergone