Basic income experiment in Kenya goes awry

[Deleted]

It's just a weird argument, to me. It's like saying "yeah, like anyone would try and get a raise when they're already making a whole $10/hour." Of course people would, and do, because that $10/hour really isn't that much money.

Exactly. And honestly, I know you just used $10/hour as an example but it's good that you brought it up because I don't think people even realize how much we're talking about. $10/hour would be an insane amount to get in benefits in Finland as an example. If we go by a 40 hour work week, 52 weeks in a year since you don't take vacation from benefits, it would come down to $20800/year, or around $1733/month, which would be around 1554€/month. That'd be almost 1.5x what unemployed Finns get, for example, and we live in a pretty expensive country.

In truth, in Finland, the base benefits and welfare we get come down to something like 5-5.50€/hour (with cheap rent, as it depends on that), or $5.60-6.10/hour. So while the people in the US are having a row over a minimum wage of $15/hour, people in Finland are (already, and have been) getting benefits of around $6/hour, and when that's brought up, people go crazy and think it's nuts socialism and can't work, and that people would just simply live on that $6/hour (going by an 8 hour workday) benefit forever.

Nah, nobody would want to do that. It's just not enough to get by properly.

I mean, if the benefits were as high as $10/hour, it'd be almost double of what it is now, and high enough to equal some really low-paying jobs, so yeah, perhaps then. I think when people make the argument that people would just live on benefits or a "basic income", they've got way too high an amount in mind, and I think that's where that argument stems from.

I don't know how much $1/day really is in Kenya but I can't imagine it's enough for anyone.

The reality is that the vast, vast majority of people want to better their lot in life, given the opportunity. So they'll work, regardless, and the only reason they wouldn't is if they felt they had something more important to do. In which case, basic income affords them that opportunity.

Indeed, and it'd really have to be an exceptionally high basic income or benefits that people would seriously even consider not finding a job to get some actual cash.

Although, I do have to say that I keep bringing up Finland, but I'd claim that Finland is much closer to the US or European countries than Kenya is, so while this thread is about Kenya, it's good to have another perspective from a more "western" country where there already exists a type of basic income in the form of unemployment and housing benefits and welfare and such.

[Endus]

Exactly. And honestly, I know you just used $10/hour as an example

Just for what it's worth, I usually talk about a Basic Income that's around $20,000 in current dollars as a reasonable target, and I got the $10/hour figure by taking a normal 40 hour workweek over a year (2080 hours) and dividing it into that; that's about $9.60 and change, and I rounded up. So while it's hypothetical, it's not pulled out of nowhere, either.

but it's good that you brought it up because I don't think people even realize how much we're talking about. $10/hour would be an insane amount to get in benefits in Finland as an example. If we go by a 40 hour work week, 52 weeks in a year since you don't take vacation from benefits, it would come down to $20800/year, or around $1733/month, which would be around 1554€/month. That'd be almost 1.5x what unemployed Finns get, for example, and we live in a pretty expensive country.

Yeah, I'm talking in US dollars, living in most places in the USA, where a living wage is generally pegged around the $10/hour mark for a single person. And before anyone takes issue with me advocating for a higher minimum wage than that; this is two separate things. A minimum wage still means there's a wage earner, and they have to pay for their kid's support out of that income; the living wage for a single-income family is upwards of $15/hour. With a basic income, though, both parents get the BI stipend, and the kids would get an additional (smaller) supplement as well, most likely.

I mean, adjust these numbers for your local cost-of-living and so forth. The idea is that a BI stipend should just about grant you a living wage, but barely.

[NED funded]

The idea that people would just not work is basically overblown. When Canada put in a form of Basic Income with the Mincome experiment, the only demographics which showed any reduction in employment behaviour were students (who could more easily focus on their studies without needing a job for basic expenses) and new mothers (who could take time out to raise their kids without struggling for basics, again).

I think working was a bad choice of words. But here in the US we already see the effects of welfare. It creates poverty traps, basically there is no incentive for poor people to move upwards since being poor is getting considerably better and with direct cash transfers I think this effect would just worsen.

[Endus]

I think working was a bad choice of words. But here in the US we already see the effects of welfare. It creates poverty traps, basically there is no incentive for poor people to move upwards since being poor is getting considerably better and with direct cash transfers I think this effect would just worsen.

Poverty traps are bad, but Basic Income isn't one, and it's incredibly easy to ensure it can't become one.

Welfare traps exist because benefits are taken away above certain income levels, so your effective income actually drops if your work income climbs above a certain point, which incentivizes people to not cross that line unless they can completely offset that dip, which is often significant. Basic income doesn't "cut off", or if it does it's with a system like in Mincome, where your benefits were reduced by $0.50 for every $1 you earned. There was no possibility of a "trap", since any extra dollar you earned was an extra $0.50 in your pocket.

[Deleted]

Poverty traps are bad, but Basic Income isn't one, and it's incredibly easy to ensure it can't become one.

Welfare traps exist because benefits are taken away above certain income levels, so your effective income actually drops if your work income climbs above a certain point, which incentivizes people to not cross that line unless they can completely offset that dip, which is often significant. Basic income doesn't "cut off", or if it does it's with a system like in Mincome, where your benefits were reduced by $0.50 for every $1 you earned. There was no possibility of a "trap", since any extra dollar you earned was an extra $0.50 in your pocket.

You would have to take any savings cap into account too.

[Sorrior]

Is this 20k a year per person or household? Do I have to have a job to get the money? If its each person gets 20k a year. Then honestly I'd see no reason to work other than to keep busy. My current situation I'd like like a king if me and the spouse got 40k a year with out working.

What's the incentive to work if you are handing someone "free" money.

I have a few friends who would work and people have forgotten philosophy writing art and other leisure activities that people no longer really do can contribute as well.

Honestly if anything I see it creating a new ancient athens/advanced society where thought philosophy and art become king.