Universal Basic Income Shows Why Giving People 'Free Money' Doesn't Work
According to recent data, people work less—and actually end up deeper in debt.

Some politicians and activists are eager to give you "free" money.
They call it universal basic income (UBI)—cash for everyone, no strings attached.
Comedian Dave Chappelle thinks UBI would "save my community almost instantly."
In my new video, UBI activist Conrad Shaw agrees, "You would effectively get rid of extreme poverty immediately."
He says a UBI will help people "start businesses, fix their homes, or invest in sustainable gardens."
Well, "sustainable gardens" might be nice, but someone still has to make stuff. And that requires work—often difficult work.
When I was young, If I hadn't needed to work to support myself, I wouldn't have pushed so hard to overcome my fears, my stuttering, and my reluctance to speak publicly. I wouldn't have become successful. I might have stayed in bed most of the day.
But Shaw disagrees. "I don't believe you," he says. "Nobody actually wants that….People find their passions not simply because they need to make money."
We could argue about this all day. It would be nice if someone ran a serious test of UBI—give a lot of people significant money for, say, three years. Would people still work? Improve their lives? Their families' lives?
It turns out that Sam Altman, the guy behind ChatGPT, helped create such a test. His big study gave 1,000 low-income people $1,000 per month for three years—no strings attached. What happened?
Not the great things that were promised. After three years of getting $1,000/month, UBI recipients were actually a little deeper in debt than before.
Why? Because they worked less. Their partners did, too.
Some recipients talked about starting businesses, but few actually tried it. Most who said they did start a business waited until the third year of the study—when their free money was about to end.
I'm not surprised. Give people free money, you take away an incentive to work. Incentives matter.
Shaw argues, "We conflate the idea of work with jobs."
It's true, people do meaningful work outside jobs. But being paid to do a job does say you're worth that amount to somebody.
"How much money are you worth to the kid you're raising?" Shaw replies. "The parent who's sick that you're taking care of?"
A lot. "But it doesn't address that other people have to work to pay for it."
Shaw replies, "We pay taxes towards things that are better for our population, for the general welfare. It's…something we do as a country."
"But this would pretty much double it!" I point out. "We already spend almost $2 trillion on welfare programs. You want to add to that?"
Shaw says, no, UBI should "replace existing welfare programs."
That's an interesting idea.
"If we were to get rid of unemployment insurance, food stamps, welfare, and all the other insane policies we have, and just have a moderate universal basic income," says Harvard economist Jeffrey Miron, "I think it would be a huge improvement."
But that will never happen. Anytime anyone tries to cut any government program, people freak out. Imagine trying to cut all welfare.
"The chances politically that will happen are probably zero," says Miron.
Progressives want to add UBI to already existing programs.
"Adding more programs is insane!" says Miron. "It will make the entire country melt down. The people who will bear the brunt of that will be people who are poor. The rich will move to other countries…hide their assets. We will have a debt crisis like nobody's ever seen before."
We already have a debt crisis like nobody's seen before!
Let's not make it worse with a UBI.
COPYRIGHT 2024 BY JFS PRODUCTIONS INC.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
JD Vance is right about The Stoss
You’re not talking about income, you’re talking about charity.
income
“The amount of money or its equivalent received during a period of time in exchange for labor or services, from the sale of goods or property, or as profit from financial investments.”
The cheapest way to help the poor is to get the government out of the way and make it not try to help the poor.
$7T a year federal spending is $20,000 per person. It's all inefficient bureaucracy.
"The cheapest way to help the poor is to get the government out of the way and make it not try to help the poor."
This is true.
LBJ's War on Poverty has spent trillions of taxpayers dollars, and guess what?
Poverty won.
"We have all been lied to about Lyndon Johnson"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nq9jEaKhfOY
The war on Vietnam was more successful.
Universal Basic Income Shows Why Giving People ‘Free Money’ Doesn’t Work
Also, repealing The Jones Act won’t make things any cheaper in HI, Guam, and PR, the internet will continue to survive, with comments, without Section 230, drug legalization is in no way guaranteed to lower prices or lead to fewer overdoses, and treating abortion as a felony and expecting women to be as responsible as men with reproduction won’t produce the Republic of Gilead rape fantasies that feminists and pro-abortionists wish it would.
It’s almost like ‘personal responsibility for individual actions is an association that can just be wished away’ is between fevered dream and religious fervor advocated by a zealous, insane minority. Especially if that minority claims to be libertarian.
Maybe if we just put feeders in the park. Filled with seed and hung high up in trees.
Will these feeders have mobility scooter access? Asking for an obese commenter whether their Lil Rascal can travel to these feeders.
As long as they can fly. I also support installing trebuchets to launch anyone into the trees that requests the assistance.
The US tried UBI during the pandemic. It was a colossal failure. Millions exited the workforce and the average person put on 20 lbs.
I still have that money.
I never got any of that money, despite being retired.
Might as well give Cloward-Piven a try.
I have no problem with the idea of universal basic income as long as it doesn't come from the taxpayers.
Instead, the UBI should come from rich leftists like Soros, Oprah, Gates, etc.
Let's see how liberal they are with THEIR money.
^THIS^. +10000000000
Nothing is stopping Democrats from start a UBI insurance company for all those like-minded who want to participate.
WHY then do they insist the Gov-Guns involvement???
The bottom-line of their 'pitch' is to STEAL labors from those 'icky' people who aren't like-minded (i.e. To Re-enact slavery).
Once the party of slavery; still the party of slavery.
The problem is that dependency is a wretched way to live, regardless of whether the money's coming from the taxpayers or any other source.
-jcr
So all of the sore-in-the-cunt cuntsorevaturd cummentors here cum out in drives, against the UBI. And I agree with them!!! So long ass taxpayers are FORCED to fund shit, that is!!
Now WHEN, at long last, will most or all of the cuntsorevaturd cummentors AGREE that a UFSA (Universal Free Speech Allotment at the expense of web site owners) is ALSO a VERY shitty idea?!?!? AKA a “UBIFS”, a Universal Basic Income of Free Speech!
Need I remind you of the below FASCIST shit?
Hey Damiksec, damiskec, and damikesc, and ALL of your other socks…
How is your totalitarian scheme to FORCE people to buy Reason magazines coming along?
Free speech (freedom from “Cancel Culture”) comes from Facebook, Twitter, Tik-Tok, and Google, right? THAT is why we need to pass laws to severely constrict these DANGEROUS companies (which, ugh!, the BASTARDS, put profits above people!)!!! We must pass new laws to retract “Section 230” and FORCE the evil corporations to provide us all (EXCEPT for my political enemies, of course!) with a “UBIFS”, a Universal Basic Income of Free Speech!
So leftist “false flag” commenters will inundate Reason-dot-com with shitloads of PROTECTED racist comments, and then pissed-off readers and advertisers and buyers (of Reason magazine) will all BOYCOTT Reason! And right-wing idiots like Damikesc will then FORCE people to support Reason, so as to nullify the attempts at boycotts! THAT is your ultimate authoritarian “fix” here!!!
“Now, to “protect” Reason from this meddling here, are we going to REQUIRE readers and advertisers to support Reason, to protect Reason from boycotts?”
Yup. Basically. Sounds rough. (Quote damikesc)
(Etc.)
See https://reason.com/2020/06/24/the-new-censors/
(And Asshole Extraordinaire will NEVER take back its' totalitarian bullshit!!!! 'Cause Asshole Extraordinaire is already PERFECT in every way!!!)
This (above damikesc quote) is a gem of the damnedest dumbness of damikesc! Like MANY “perfect in their own minds” asshole authoritarians around here, he will NEVER take back ANY of the stupidest and most evil things that he has written! I have more of those on file… I deploy them to warn other readers to NOT bother to try and reason with the most utterly unreasonable of the nit-wit twits around here!
Stossel is spreading untruths.
I’m retired from having been shot/disabled in the line of duty.
I’m just as lazy and in debt as I’ve ever been.
“Stossel is spreading untruths.”
Which are… TWAT, exactly?
You LIE, butt… Shit isn’t worth my trouble to tell ANYONE, exactly TWAT your lies are!
Butt THANK You for Your UDDERLY WORTHLESS inputs!
Also let shit be known that the Lizard People are FAR better than the Amphibian People! Why, you say? I say “That’s for MEEE to know, and for YOU to find out”! Good luck to YOU!
Well I sure would like to know what I’m lying about! THAT could be a sign of a serious mental disorder! I could lose my counseling job here at Reason!
First thanks for whatever service you did.
Well, I work and in debt.
I do think that if you give people free stuff they don't appreciate it as much as working for it. I think welfare also shows that a lot of people would just not work and be productive.
You know - your very first sentence .... that very first impulse of yours... makes it impossible to continue reading your comment.
Are you here just to scream at the sky like that woman from the Trump election aftermath? - you know the one.
Or, do you want to actually engage people and maybe pursuade them to your point of view? I can tell you - even a partially self-aware person could see they are sabotaging their own efforts if the effort was to engage and pursuade. That leave the alternative - that you just want to be an irritant and pollutant in this comment section. Which is it, really?
You talkin to me?! I prefer to be an irritant and pollutant over engaging in meaningful dialogue any day of the week! You aren’t? You must be some kind of crackpot!
no – not you … you’re not tracing the comment back to its proper source. Its for sqrlsy
hmmm maybe i misplaced it...
Maybe You misplaced your Ersatz brain... Maybe You could buy a new one? One that actually WORKS, with data from this thing called the "Real World"? With such data, You might becum a REAL boy or girl! Or a that or a them or a zem, twatever the newest fashion is...
YOU would not recognize the real world if it rolled out it’s long tongue and dropped a hit of acid on your big, flat, buck-toothed head!
A hit or twenty of acid might help you to recognize the real world... It sure ass hell could SNOT make you worse in this category!
You expect the PervFected Love and Adoration of udders for YOU and Your PervFected Mindless drivel? Is THAT twat Ye are PervFectly Drooling about?
I belong to the data-driven tribe of truth and benevolence, which spans fractions of ALL other tribes, butt clearly does NOT include YOUR Perfectly UGLY (malevolent, narcissistic, power-addicted, self-righteous) ass.
You resent the hell out of the fact that many other people are flat-out, better, more honest people than you are, right? More “live and let live”, and WAAAY less authoritarian?
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/in-love-and-war/201706/why-some-people-resent-do-gooders
From the conclusion to the above…
“These findings suggest that we don’t need to downplay personal triumphs to avoid negative social consequences, as long as we make it clear that we don’t look down on others as a result.”
SQRLSY back here now… So, I do NOT want you to feel BAD about YOU being an authoritarian asshole, and me NOT being one! PLEASE feel GOOD about you being an evil, lying asshole! You do NOT need to push me (or other REAL lovers of personal liberty) down, so that you can feel better about being an asshole! EVERYONE ADORES you for being that asshole that you are, because, well, because you are YOU! FEEL that self-esteem, now!
No sir, you are in fact an authoritarian asshole but unfortunately you don’t know it. Again though, where have I lied?
Sometimes it's hard to trace responses back to the upstream, especially when the upstream comment is nothing but a lovely quiet grey box.
'Well, "sustainable gardens" might be nice, but someone still has to make stuff. And that requires work—often difficult work.'
Fuck sustainable gardens. If only 5% of people "want" to work in gardens all day, they better produce enough food to feed 20 people, year-round, i.e. even when they don't want to work.
And how many people want to do constant "sustainable" work on building and maintaining shit, from roads to roofs, on trash and sewage collection and disposal, loading baggage on planes and trains, stocking shelves and filling Amazon delivery boxes, etc.
Fucking communists all want to be artists and discussion session leaders at the great commune they imagine society should be. Perhaps we should brand their foreheads with a leach graphic.
" If only 5% of people “want” to work in gardens all day,"
Let's assume then that 95% don't "want" to eat. Which is fine, and cleansing for short periods of time.
"And how many people want to do constant “sustainable” work on building and maintaining shit, from roads to roofs, on trash and sewage collection and disposal, loading baggage on planes and trains, stocking shelves and filling Amazon delivery boxes, etc."
This kind of work can best be done by our non-communist comrades. And there are many. Leave the arts and leadership roles to the communists. This is probably not all that much of a change from the way things are now.
"Give people free money, you take away an incentive to work. Incentives matter."
The incentive is not taken away. It's still there. Employers are still offering to pay wages for work done. The issue is the incentives they offer aren't sufficient to attract workers who already have enough money to cover their daily needs. As John says, incentives matter.
You’re so damn stupid you fail to recognize when you refute yourself.
I’m impressed.
Yes, that's pretty damn astonishing level of stupidity.
"The incentive to work is still there unless you're given enough money to not need to work, yup yup."
Doesn't even touch on what would happen to prices if money just fell out of the sky. It wouldn't take long at all before 'enough money to not need to work' turned into "OMG UBI isn't even enough to afford the basics! GIMME MORE!" without the actual amount of money being doled out changing.
Everything depends on maintaining the myth of artificial scarcity. It's the only thing we've got to keep the proles in line with their noses to the grindstone. Well, that and armies of cops, of course.
Scarcity is real, or do you think long wait times in the NHS in the UK are a result of doctors being lazy?
Hasn't the NHS been subject to cut backs? Less resources allocated means poorer service.
If scarcity did not exist (for example, if it were mythical), neither could cutbacks.
UBI is completely retarded. Any rational humanoid can see that.
Communism isn't rational.
-jcr
So someone ran the test, and found that if you give people free money they work less and get into a deeper hole than before?
Surprise, surprise, surprise!
Not only do I support this, I encourage it.
Do not ask about my ulterior motives. Or my plans shortly after that for cutting off escape/isolating blue cities.
I'm reminded of Speaker Pelosi's comments on the passage of "Obamacare":
“This is what our founders had in mind--ever expanding opportunity for people...You want to be a photographer or a writer or a musician, whatever -- an artist, you want to be self-employed, if you want to start a business, you want to change jobs, you no longer are prohibited from doing that because you can’t have access to health care, especially because you do not want to put your family at risk,” she said.
Every time I stumble into a discussion of universal basic income, it's always people wanting to be artists or poets who are advocating for it the hardest. For example, California's got a new stipend for artists...The Yerba Buena Center for the Arts explains that artists are “essential drivers of economic well-being.” in touting it.
Why is that? It's because making money as an artist or poet is damn hard...people will simply not pay for art that does not move them (or at least represent a decent investment because it will move someone else down the road). So lots and lots of failed or wanna-be artists and poets can sit around and produce their craptastic pieces and Vogon-like poetry? No thank you.
I always ask: "Will I finally be able to pursue my dream of playing basketball professionally without worrying about health care or basic income to feed my family?"
People can look at me and realize I suck at basketball, I'm barely 5' 10" and clearly have no more than 2.5 inch vertical leap..."But MO, you suck at basketball, no one is going to pay you to play basketball"..."You'll never be able to make a living playing basketball, you ain't got game (you simply have no talent)."
Exactly!
"It’s because making money as an artist or poet is damn hard"
One reason is that our society perpetuates the myth of the starving artist - that suffering and privation are necessary to experience to sharpen and polish an artist's talents. You never hear about the struggles of the starving basketball player.
Artists in search of money give up self expression and take jobs in advertising. Andy Warhol did this back in the 50s after he graduated from school and moved to New York. He drew picture pictures of shoes and designed album covers, one of the most prestigious assignments at the time. (Velvet Underground and Sticky Fingers came much later.)
Maybe a stipend paid to artists so they can express themselves is better than having them ensconced in the corporate world encouraging consumption and acquisitiveness.
“”Maybe a stipend paid to artists so they can express themselves””
Feel free to donate.
I will consider donating, but in the mean time I think it best that the government looks after this from the taxes we are forced to pay. Who is more worthy of receiving this dole than the taxpayers? In any case we'll all be better off. Artists will no longer be impelled to put their talents to scamming us into buying crap we don't need for a start.
""Artists will no longer be impelled to put their talents to scamming us into buying crap we don’t need for a start."
That's not happening to me now.
So you want to federalize that scamming?
"That’s not happening to me now. "
Not all of us are as strong minded as you. The entire advertising business, where many artists make their living. is founded on our acquisitiveness, suggestibility, weak mindedness, lack of impulse control, and susceptibility to social status shaming. We'd all be better off if these artists occupied themselves with producing work they feel inspired to make, which we are free to buy or not buy according to our taste, and not through psychological manipulation.
I don’t need the garbage most artists produce when they’re free to draw/paint/sculpt whatever they want. Art is by its nature a luxury purchase.
I think most artists today are working in the film or music business. What they produce is mass produced and relatively cheap. They're not like the oil paintings or sculptures of olden times.
Movie tickets, streaming services, and mp3s are still luxury purchases. You don't need any of them.
You don't need to buy them. Look up bittorrent for further information. I've been getting these 'luxury goods' for free for decades. If you don't have internet access, visit your local library.
You never hear about the struggles of the starving basketball player.
There are literally thousands upon thousands of people who strive (or strived) to play at the top levels of professional basketball and other sports, where millions are made, and never make (or made) it. Same goes with any other professional sport. The multimillionaires represent a small fraction of the people who make the attempt. Most are playing in developmental leagues, leagues in other countries, minor leagues, semi-pro leagues, etc.
"Most are playing in developmental leagues, leagues in other countries, minor leagues, semi-pro leagues, etc."
That's not starvation or privation. There's a wikipedia page devoted to the starving artist:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starving_artist
Needless to say, there is no such page dedicated to the starving basketball player.
I’ve never heard the first paragraph. Yet more of the insane, dishonest, anachronistic “The Founding Fathers created this country so we could land on The Moon.” drivel.
The FF didn’t envision that. The intervening generations, even fairly recent ones, didn’t either.
If you were 5′ 7″, wanted to play in the NBA, had talent, and didn’t have healthcare, you played with a goddamned broken wrist and a broken nose.
Wait? A Reason article without TDS? Stossel they might send you to reeducation camp.
UBI would "end extreme poverty" in pretty much the same manner that handing out stilts would make everyone taller.
Wearing stilts doesn't give you more free time or incentivize working less.
It also doesn't increase the distance between your head and your feet. It just raises your eye level for as long as you're wearing the stilts and standing up.
UBI only gives people more money for the duration which they're given more money, and if it's given to everyone "universally", it should also raise the threshold for defining "extreme poverty" since wealth/poverty is really a relative condition, especially when fiat currency is the unit of measure.
"UBI only gives people more money "
It also gives people the sense of security and freedom to pursue the things they want to pursue.
"since wealth/poverty is really a relative condition,"
Poverty is also an airy fairy idea that nobody can properly define. Nobody dies of poverty. They succumb instead to more concrete issues like hunger, malnutrition, homelessness, illnesses and bad health. UBI might help to address these issues while not doing anything about the gap between the haves and have nots.
It also gives people the sense of security and freedom to pursue the things they want to pursue.
Turns out what they mostly want to pursue is indolence.
And that offends your Puritan sensibilities.
And that's not a denial of my statement.
Anyone who isn’t a grasshopper should be offended at the idea of ants being robbed to feed grasshoppers.
"And that’s not a denial of my statement."
No, it isn't. Grasshoppers don't used labor saving devices or automation. People do.
UBI is only as secure as the government's ability to fund it. Look at the Greek Pension system; every attempt at "austerity" was met with protesting and rioting from a public who didn't care that the alternative was going to be the fiscal collapse of the government (some might argue that's the ultimate version of austerity where everyone takes a 100% reduction instead of just the 5-10% needed to keep things afloat for another few years.
Sweden re-adjusts their "safety net" payments annually based on what the government calculates to be sustainable, and sometimes that adjustment means lower benefits. Sweden (Iceland as well, probably most of Norther Europe, really) also has a fairly strong cultural element of what marxists would call the "puritan work ethic", since the long winters and cold climate in the area go back a lot farther than most modern economic concepts, and over the generations it gets reinforced that regardless of the "system" in place, a lot of people won't have enough unless everyone "carries their weight".
"Poverty is also an airy fairy idea that nobody can properly define. Nobody dies of poverty. They succumb instead to more concrete issues like hunger, malnutrition, homelessness, illnesses and bad health. UBI might help to address these issues while not doing anything about the gap between the haves and have nots."
It's true that nobody dies from lack of paper in their pocket, It's also true that inflationary programs intended to help the less fortunate (or "stimulus" concepts based on the idea that putting more money into the hands of the poor causes more activity because they'll spend it all right away) never seem to lead to any kind of lasting improvement, or reduction of inequality and there's a very good reason for that; the reason is myopia on the part of those policies and their popularity being rooted in a lack of comprehension of higher-order effects. Giving poor people just enough to get by doesn't help them improve their situation; it does make them permanently dependent on government and easy to manipulate by pols who weaponize claims that their opponent "wants to see people starving in the streets" and would leave people to "fend for themselves" (which is a description of what the Scandinavians would call "carry their own weight", just spun through a different filter). Once the increase in the money supply creates inflation which raises the prices of necessities, having that extra money in their hands won't reduce their danger of being unable to afford what they need, and as has been demonstrated multiple times throughout history, the kinds of price controls which "progressives" favor to prevent that effect eventually lead to supply shortages once the cost for farmers to raise crops/livestock exceeds the amount they're allowed to sell their produce for.
As I noted when the results of the 3-year study were first reported I like a more granular analysis of what happened. Primarily were there people who successfully used the UBI and why were they different from the study as a whole. I do think there is a place for UBI to help the working poor. I also don't see it as a panacea for ending poverty. What I like to know is could we decrease some social safety net programs for a subset of the poor that can actually use a simple grant effectively.
Conspiracy theories believable only to idiots CANNOT be dangerous.