- Anyone except previous winners can enter.

- You can only enter once per drawing.

- As the pool increases the payout does not, only the number of winners.

- Winners get a basic income for life.

- As another condition they agree to an amount of monitoring so that we can effectively study how they behave with the basic income.

- This one would be hard, but you might have to be made ineligible for other government assistance programs maybe?

State lotteries already offer annuity payouts and even better they sometimes have 100k for life lotteries. These aren't perfect as the amount is too high but it's worth studying anyway. The basic income lottery described above would be an even better approximation.

EDIT: I just did a bit of googling and it looks like this has been tried before [1][2] , but the amounts were time-limited and low. It would probably have to be state-sponsored to take off.

[1] http://www.businessinsider.com/germany-basic-income-lottery-... [2] https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/the-my-basic-income-proje...

Now, my parents run a company which mostly has physical workers - and for a physical worker, in the "poorer" part of the country, 1500PLN/per month(after taxes) is an ok salary.

The day the 500+ program started, several employees left, literally saying that they have 3-4 children, so by just getting the money from the government they will be better off than working and they don't need a job anymore. They are all jobless and living off 500+ as far as I know.

I would say that's a pretty good indication what will happen with UBI - I'm sure there's loads of people who wouldn't leave their jobs because they like having more money(me included) but for a lot of people if free money is enough to get by then that's what they are going to live on.

There may be other issues baked into the implementation, but it will be hard to say the result until it goes into action and we start getting data

"It will give them benefits automatically, absent bureaucratic hassle and minus penalties for amassing extra income."

even though the taxes from that is exactly what would make the whole program absolutely free - and is the basic point behind a UBI. It really is "free" for the country.

A proper test of UBI has to make it available to everyone.

Advocate for the Unconditional Universal Basic Income. All citizens deserve an equal allotment of the benefits, especially because no nation's populace is ever 100% mobilized as workforce.

But a detail: it will not be 'streamlined'. Those government workers are not going anywhere.

It's worth an experiment, though.

Don't give them the money just for two years, but guarantee them the money over their whole life and you will see vastly different results.

Another "problem" with this kind of study is that they are giving money only to unemployed people. Because it would be also interesting to see what people with jobs would do. I suspect a lot of people would switch from full-time to part-time jobs (at least that's what I would do).

The time limit may, to an unrealistic degree, encourage the subjects to look for solutions for the long term. Then again the question of whether UBI encourages laziness seems to be out of scope already, since this targets only people who are already unemployed.

I am concerned about housing though. In some places, the supply is extremely inelastic, limiting competition, and the demand is also inelastic due to the difficulty of moving. Although UBI could make moving to a cheaper area easier.

I don't know enough to advocate for or against basic income, but I'm pretty sure that it doesn't amount to a no-op. Whether it's done through printing money or taxation, it ends up redistributing wealth from wealthier people to poorer people.

In the case of printing money, the resulting inflation would cause everyone's money to be worth less: rich people, having more money, would end up losing more. In the case of taxation, the redistribution is more direct.

Consider in these terms. % of economy going to the bottom may raise from say A% to B% but it's that does not push inflation. Because X% of the population has slightly less money to pay for the wealth transfer ~B-A.

Poor people get 1000% more money rich people get 1% more.

Or a poor persons income goes from 1% of a rich persons to 2%

It's already a problem that the benefits are such that net income from an actual job may be negative. But even with that, people might take a temporary job to get the experience. But they cannot afford it, because getting a job cuts the benefit payment instantly, and they can't afford to wait the time that it takes the bureaucracy to resume payments.

https://web.archive.org/web/20160321083817/http://mattbrueni...

Negative income tax (more emphasis) + basic income (less emphasis) would be a better system. A negative income tax would encourage people to work. Basic income by itself may just remove some barriers to working but may not result in a change (basic income > costs).

You need to understand how people react to the idea of "not doing anything and still get paid".

Do they give up? Do they get depressed? Do they create things? Does entrepreneurship increase? Violence rate?... These are all interesting questions

As long as it's within the law, on paper. If you're taking undocumented work then you're also taking a risk where you might lose your benefits if found out.

I think maybe there is a larger chance for undocumented work in countries like the US. I have an impression that there is a more prevalent culture of cash-in-hand jobs due to the sheer size of the country.

So maybe you react more to the quote than I would because I've always had documented work, whether it was 25%, 50% or 80% it was always documented and known to the government what I was doing so I could always apply for the necessary benefits I was eligible for.

What motivates people to work is MASTERY, AUTONOMY and PURPOSE. This is very different from the profit motive, and is why people contribute to open source and science.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=u6XAPnuFjJc

And anyway, why in the 21st century does everyone need to work? Why should wages be the primary mechanism by which living wages trickle down to the plebes?

McDonalds will soon cut its workforce. So will Uber. Thanks to automation.

If you are jealous that someone somewhere is receiving free stuff, realize how much free stuff you have just by being alive in the 21st century!

If you are upset that you'd be taxed for the free stuff -- then make sure that we develop systems to tax machines. Yes you heard me, start taxing the machines.

If people were more free to choose what to do with their time, they'd probably spend more time with their family and study more and contribute more knowledge to society. Instead of working a dead-end job at McDonalds.

If you want to read more about the economics of this, I wrote an article:

http://magarshak.com/blog/?p=185

The problem with this particular restriction is jobs that don't pay sufficiently, have wildly varying hours or are pretend part-time to stay under some benefits threshold. The solution can not be subsidize exploitative employers who don't provide a livable wage through UB. These jobs are a net cost to society and plain should not exist.

1. Anyone I know that has received benefits for being unemployed desperately wants to be employed again.

2. In the UK, unless things have changed, you can work up to 16 hours per week while receiving unemployment benefits and I believe the benefits you receive gradually falls with the amount of work you get paid for.

3. If you suddenly lose your job benefits aren't built so that you can maintain your current life style. You likely have car, insurance, and mortgage payments to make and the benefits you're receiving either just get you by or you have to renegotiate some of that debt. Not a situation you want to be in long-term.

This is modern day slavery. There is nothing universal about this. It if was universal income than you must get that money irrespective of what choices you make in life. Just because you are getting money from government, government puts up a chain around your neck and says you cant work.

In USA such people might turn to underground economy such as drug peddling.

One example we can look at are university students in Finland. They get 340€ per month student benefit plus €200 student rent support, a total of 540€ per month.

This student benefit is not decreased as long as a student earns less than 1000€ per month from other income. And yes, the students are quite eager to take part-time and short-term jobs.

edit: i misunderstood your comment, seems like your interpretation lines up with mine.

The problem is - Government Unions are the most powerful in every state, and they will never, ever allow any significant layoff of personnel.

So you get a 'new program' without the most important stated benefit.

The reality of government, is that it is systematically inefficient because of entrenched labour practices - no just because they 'may not be good and doing some thing'.

I love public transport.

In Toronto - we still have people at every station selling tickets and making change. 17 of them were on the 'sunshine' list last year as earning over $100K in the year. You read that right: the guys in the booth making over $100K. Granted, this is with 'overtime', but probably not more than many people in the private sector work.

So the government can't help put pay many of it's entities wages that are quite above normal, with massive add-ons and incentives.

Given that small tidbit - can you fathom why it's so gosh-darn expensive to add public transit services???

There are a few other fairly fundamental problems with the program as well, first being simply the cost (Ontario government that is 'pro' program said it would cost $175 Billion a year, basically our whole budget) - and then the moral/incentive issue: where I live in Montreal everybody is an 'artist' 'photographer' 'cinematographer' 'choreographer' 'dancer' 'writer'. But they all work in coffee shops and restaurants. Montreal would go bankrupt instantly because the 'cinematographer' that makes my latte in the morning will quit instantly. In my community - there is absolutely no sense of 'industriousness' in the Anglo sense - they see no problem with fussing about making quite bad films that nobody wants to watch. Were there some latent amazing output I might think it's a good tradeoff, but no, they're seasoned amateurs.

In a rational and sensible society ... this program would be amazing. But then, in a rational and sensible society, there would be very low unemployment, and streamlined government so that the 'means testing' issue would be moot.

It might work in some specific places.

For instance, food: Handing people a government decided food basket will not optimize for what people want to eat, or know how to prepare. Give them enough money to feed themselves, and we spend the same amount and we have happier people and less distortions. Same thing with shelter: Money means that we let people make their own choices, instead of recreating a new version of the projects. The one place where the market tends to fail is medicine, but that's because people's preferences there are a lot less valuable, as all people really want is someone to help them get healthy when they are sick. And even then, there are cases where giving people choices is better: The US' end of life care is so expensive and so dismal in part because what is covered and what isn't is decided by third parties: Often people prefer to end their life comfortably than to do many of the uncomfortable, but somewhat life extending things that we do to them.

That's the ultimate argument for money: Maximizing people's choices in how to go around getting the basic necessities of life. The trick is that the amount of money we give people would have to be modified to make sure said necessities can be met.

The moment someone stops producing, he is a burden. He must be carried on by someones else production. The government does not produce anything. The moment he starts handing over cash to people who do not produce, he is transferring the production of someone who works hard to someone who does not.

You want to help those people? Pay them to study, get some skills. Pay then to clean the streets or the public bathrooms.

But for God sake, do not pay them to do nothing. It's unfair with the rest of those who actually work really hard for this handed cash.

I'm not against basic income, but there absolutely is risk to society.

I'm not trying to convince you that their worldview is better. But if you're talking about state-wide things, you have to take those people in consideration, too.

Do we need force to do this? Do we need cronyism? Do we need corruption?

>> Now, the Finnish government is exploring how to change that calculus, initiating an experiment in a form of social welfare: universal basic income. Early next year, the government plans to randomly select roughly 2,000 unemployed people — from white-collar coders to blue-collar construction workers. It will give them benefits automatically, absent bureaucratic hassle and minus penalties for amassing extra income.

>> The government is eager to see what happens next. Will more people pursue jobs or start businesses? How many will stop working and squander their money on vodka? Will those liberated from the time-sucking entanglements of the unemployment system use their freedom to gain education, setting themselves up for promising new careers? These areas of inquiry extend beyond economic policy, into the realm of human nature.

Basically, no one knows how humans/societies will react to such a hand-out, and this is trying to figure out if an eventual universal income will be effective.

Also, this quote from later in the article:

>> Mr. Saloranta has his eyes on a former Nokia employee who is masterly at developing prototypes. He only needs him part time. He could pay 2,000 euros a month (about $2,090). Yet this potential hire is bringing home more than that via his unemployment benefits.

>> “It’s more profitable for him to just wait at home for some ideal job,” Mr. Saloranta complains.

>> Basic income would fix this, he says: “It would activate many more unemployed people.”

The "universal" quality is that all people will be eligible for UBI. Everyone will receive the difference between what they make and what UBI guarantees.

It's sort of like the popular phrase in the U.S. - "everyone is guaranteed the same opportunity but not the same outcome". Thus, while all will have access to UBI, the payout will be determined by individual circumstances.

Regarding Finland's program, it's likely they had to choose a group of individuals who were easiest to justify paying UBI under current popular-thought. Therefore, they chose a group already receiving or eligible for unemployment/assistance and argued they were simply replacing one for the other. That is of course just an educated guess on my part.

So, yes, UBI itself is in fact universal although the initial rollout, or test, is highly compartmentalized.

Edit: As someone pointed out, I'm probably confusing UBI with GMI - Guaranteed Minimum Income.

It's starting to feel like we're discussing rules on laying a foundation while others are already fast at work on their fourth and fifth floor, i/e, what's the point of giving everyone a ladder if the roof is consistently growing out of reach?

It ignores where the resources come from and the jobs being performed in other parts of the global economy that must be cut, often in some other country, because the resources are being used for something else.

If a country is going into debt to stimulate, its pulling resources from other countries where jobs have to decline. But perhaps those declines are more spread out and harder to measure and understand. So we can make the mistake of thinking they don't happen.

But what if a country stimulates by printing money, not borrowing? Money is only a medium of exchange, not an actual resource. Creating more of it just means more it has to be used to get the same result, if you look at what really happens over time, as opposed to comparing prices the day before you print with prices the day after.

It is a try to save capitalism from itself. You see, today's tech is turning entire sectors obsolete (e.g. self-driving cars). In a standard capitalistic economy, you work at XCorp who pays you (the employee) in order to be able to buy their products. This model worked in the 20th century where industries (e.g. Ford) had thousands or even millions of workers all over the place. Now we have 5-member companies running startups with millions in turnover.

Today average Joe has a very hard time finding a job that will allow him to create a family and live well and no, not everyone can become an engineer, lawyer, doctor or banker.

So, we either find a way to re-distribute wealth or we're up for a bumpy ride that will end bad for everyone...

Universal income is an idea that is making rounds and is generally accepted by modern economists (left, right and liberals) in various forms of course. The idea is that someone with rather basic needs, will spend all his income in food, shelter, clothes, etc. So, since it's nearly impossible for them to find job, just give them money to spend buying stuff, even iPhones if possible...

I believe that we're in a phase of uber-consumerism. To sustain this kind of unnatural growth, capitalism needs to find virtual ways of creating demand or we need to start exporting to mars.

it's not gonna have much effect if only a few thousands people are paid (who may already get unemployment benefits by the way).

Inflation is generalized increases in prices.

I really dont understand why people make the argument that UBI would cause inflation due to demand: it would shift prices of many products (because increased demand in basic cheap goods) but probably marginally so and even then it would not affect inflation rates as a whole. High luxury cars are not going to have more demand.

> If you just pay everyone X amount of money every month for whatever, it just means that in order to produce something you'll need to pay someone a lot more than that X amount in order to work and produce it and also it means that that item is gonna increase massively in cost in order to pay the items production itself.

Outlandish claim! We dont know how its going to happen. Its not true that you have to pay more, actually you could argue you will have to pay less, as UBI supplements the income: i.e. someone that wants to make 1500U$S a month, and with UBI gets 500, might be satisfied with an easy 1000U$S job.

True, the jobs that nobody wants to do will probably have a higher premium: it gives higher leverage to every human being as they can choose not to work a bad job like garbage disposal, or cleaning up road kill. So some labor is subject to decreased supply,and others of increased demand. Its impossible to know what would happen without experimentation.

> You want to solve issues? Give free food/water and shelter for survival, thats all a human needs.

This is the exact opposite point of whats truly attractive about UBI. Free food and shelter is very expensive to give through the state ,and much cheaper to just hand out money!

For example, SF spent 241 million dollars in homeless programs in a year[1]. There are about 6,500 homeless people in SF[2]. Alternatively, the city could have given them 37k U$S cash and come out ahead, effectively putting them above the median income in the US[3]

In theory, the city could literally make the homeless people disappear overnight at no extra-expenditure.

http://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/S-F-spends-record...

http://projects.sfchronicle.com/sf-homeless/numbers/ [2]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_income_in_the_United_... [3]

At some point it becomes worth automating the work and that means no rising pay and fewer humans having to do jobs they dislike.

It's by no means a perfect test of UBI, but "re-branded welfare" isn't really fair either.

1) for the immediately unemployed that have had a history of paying tax, give them generous payment coverage between jobs for a 3-6 month window type thing. Something like 60% of their pay.

2) after said time window, if no unemployment is found you are given guaranteed 30 hours (or whatever is right) work at minimum wage in areas that are as non competing the the economy as possible. E.g. Beautifying the city or helping seniors etc.

3) if you refuse to take minimum wage work you can get a set amount of food and basic accomodation to keep you from beng homeless/starving.

From point 2, as automation becomes more prevalent and effective the number of hours worked can be reduced to match this progress.

Now I'm all for spending money on the commons in ways the private sector is too petty to address, but do this for the results of the investment, not just for employment.

I'm more OK with adjusting UBI to cancel out fluctuations in infrastructure spending.

The problem is the people coming in: how do you stop high levels of immigration from people that would not be as productive as finnish people and hence would quickly become a drain on the state. The greatest single enemy of open immigration is welfare.

Edit: This was too snarky but also the parent comment is such a bold claim with no evidence justifying it. Counterclaim: Canada and the US have done plenty to destroy the fabric of native societies since their inception. As an example, the residential school system of Canada[1] which ended in 1996. History is so forgettable isn't it?

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Indian_residential_sc...

What has always been more appealing to me than UBI is just the idea of sustainable living... i.e. people own their own houses and there is no property tax and they have very cheap renewable energy sources and maybe cheap robots to grow food. making really cheap stuff to survive just seems like a better long term plan to deal with technology than giving money away. that just devalues money causes inflation.. makes prices higher. seems to me.

So it's not UBI, it's a test.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

And Finland doesn't have Taco Bells.

I hope this won't create material to make a case against basic income in future.

- UBI's lack of criteria is supposed to remove distortions. The population is minimaly incentivized.

- Employers loose leverage with UBI; large companies are major employers.

- Everybody loves to hate on population size, but shrinking/aging populations are dangerous for the economy. It's a much more complex problem.