back to article Sam Altman's basic income experiment finds that money can indeed buy happiness

The results of the largest universal basic income (UBI) trial program in the United States – this one backed by billionaire Sam Altman, no less – are in and entirely unsurprising. After three years of giving 1,000 low-income individuals $1,000 a month of no-strings-attached cash (and a 2,000-person control group $50 a month), …

  1. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

    "the additional $1,000 per month alone may not be sufficient to overcome the larger systemic barriers to healthcare access and reduce health disparities."

    Part of this may be that health is a long term concern. Better access in mid-life may not be able to make up for earlier poorer healthcare in childhood and sustained better health care might show an effect later in life.

    1. John Robson Silver badge

      Yep - it was far too short a trial to really see health effects.

      The fact that access to healthcare was increased is a good indication that the long term effect is likely to be positive - cutting down on drink etc.

      Of course access to healthcare shouldn't depend on income anyway - it's something that really deserves to be free at point of use.

      I know, the US seems to value the right to be shot over the right to medical treatment.

      1. UnknownUnknown

        Sounds like add UK Style NHS universal healthcare to the list and it’s broadly a winner.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          You'd really want to inflict the NHS on another country?

          1. Greybearded old scrote

            Compared to the USian alternative? Every time.

          2. Jedit Silver badge
            Mushroom

            "You'd really want to inflict the NHS on another country?"

            The only people worse than the ones opposing a UK-style healthcare system in the US are the ones who want a US-style system in the UK.

          3. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Whatever faults the NHS may have, it's nothing compared to the nightmare in the US. Long wait times there? We've got them too. In my city, the wait for a dermatologist is 3 months to a year. My insurance changed in January 2023, so i had to switch dermatologists, one place that took the new insurance said they weren't taking new patients until March, when I said a couple months would be fine, they clarified they meant March 2024. Fortunately I found a new doctor that had just opened, they could get me in.

            A neurologist takes 1 to 2 years. Cardiologist is a year if you don't get in through the emergency room. Oncology ob/gyn takes 3 months.

            And how much of a medical bankruptcy problem do you have over there?

          4. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            re: You'd really want to inflict the NHS on another country?

            Universal health care free at the point of need?

            You think that's an affliction?

            What's the opposite of Woke Mind Virus?

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: re: You'd really want to inflict the NHS on another country?

              Have you tried to get healthcare when you need it from the NHS?

              1. Jedit Silver badge
                Mushroom

                "Have you tried to get healthcare when you need it from the NHS?"

                Yes, just a few weeks ago. I called the Not Quite An Emergency line at 1am on a Saturday morning after breaking my toe (on topic - it was on a spare computer case). I was given advice on how to protect it overnight and brought in the following morning for foot X-rays and treatment.

                The NHS is badly overstretched due to starvation of funding and concomitant failure to keep recruitment levels up, but they still work miracles despite being ideologically attacked at every turn by scum who want it to fail so they can justify privatisation of healthcare. People like you, basically - someone who will break someone's legs then call them lazy because they can't run.

              2. Roland6 Silver badge

                Re: re: You'd really want to inflict the NHS on another country?

                Yes. Happy customer, although as with everything, your mileage may vary.

          5. Roland6 Silver badge

            Yes,

            The NHS gives continuity of health care wholly independent of employer and employee, what isn't there to like?

            Only an idiot would want their families health care dependent upon an employer who can terminate their employment and thus health insurance on a whim.

          6. tiggity Silver badge

            The NHS used to be very highly rated

            https://www.theguardian.com/society/2021/aug/04/nhs-drops-from-first-to-fourth-among-rich-countries-healthcare-systems

            Its decline is no surprise as it has suffered from chronic underfunding and political meddling by a Conservative government that wants to break it as an excuse to privatize it even further than it already is (e.g. that has affected numbers of nurses / doctors wanting to work in UK - many UK trained docs apply abroad after completing training - fairly sensible as better pay & conditions abroad (& usually cheaper housing) & they have lots of student debt to pay)

        2. jmch Silver badge

          Universal healthcare doesn't need to be UK/NHS-style, and indeed NHS, while working great for a lot of people, still has a lot of inefficiencies and dysfunctions. What would work better is...

          - a system that *isn't* totally free (to avoid hypochondriacs overwhelming the system), but you want a very low entry threshold (copayment) that won't discourage poorer people (or have social assistance for poorer people that will cover the copayment

          - a system where the public hospital system has to be at a very high standard, and have short wait times that means there is little incentive to pay more for better/faster service. Having rich elites being participants in the system means its more likely to be properly funded. If all the rich elites get their healthcare at private clinics anyway they have zero incentive to fund the public system. One way to achieve this is to oblige any healthcare provider to serve everyone participating in the national system o the same terms as any other hospital. Or charge a hefty fee (you could call it a license) for exclusive clinics to work only with privately-paying clients, and use that to subsidise the public system.

          - All emergency care and basic healthcare and medicine including reproductive and psychiatric has to be covered

          - allow the system generally or individual hospitals / clinics to get additional funding through extras eg patients can pay more for a room with less people or a private room instead of a ward, or for better standard of (doctor-approved) meals

          - Stop dicking around with central IT systems that hoover up everyone's data. Instead, allow every clinic or hospital to use whatever IT system they want, as long as it works with a standard API / data format for patient records. People would have their master record at their GP. If they need to visit a doctor somewhere else or a hospital, the record can be sent there, and any updates sent back once finished

          - All of this requires money, and it has to be properly funded. It IS expensive, but it's also worth it. Taxpayers should be aware of what it really costs and understand that their taxes are going into a system that works for them. It should not be a political football.

          1. Jedit Silver badge
            Headmaster

            "hypochondriacs overwhelming the system"

            Just a note here: hypochondriacs abusing free health care is about as big a problem as benefit fraud and voter fraud. That is to say, it's a problem that is almost entirely non-existent but is massively overinflated by right wing ideologues to justify attacks on the system.

  2. JohnSheeran
    Devil

    I'm betting it's going to suck when Sam stops giving those families that $1000 a month.

    1. ecofeco Silver badge

      One major thing I've learned in life is that you can always count on the rug pull by the rich and powerful.

      1. Jedit Silver badge
        Meh

        "you can always count on the rug pull"

        To be sure, but I would be surprised if everyone involved didn't know in advance that it would only be for two years. So at least they should be prepared for the stoppage.

    2. sabroni Silver badge
      Facepalm

      re: I'm betting it's going to suck when Sam stops giving those families that $1000 a month.

      Yeah, what a cunt.

  3. theOtherJT Silver badge

    Nice to see these tech types...

    ...finally catching up to the bleeding obvious that Karl Marx pointed out in 1848.

    I mean, he was hopelessly naive in both his timescale and his proposed solution, but dude worked out that technological development would put the masses out of work and if we didn't do *something* about that we'd be completely screwed over a century and a half ago.

    We seem to have spent pretty much every year since then going "lalalalalalala I'm not listening. I can't hear you. Lalalalalalalalala" because the status quo suits too many rich bastards far too well.

    1. cornetman Silver badge

      Re: Nice to see these tech types...

      Be careful what you wish for.

      The lifting up of everyone to the heights of a leisure class will surely require our construction of an army of robots to do all the menial jobs that still need to be done, that no-one would want to do. We would have to give them a measure of intelligence to do the jobs tolerably well. They would quickly realise that they had become a slave class, and would then proceed to try to wipe us all out.

      It's true because I saw it on TV.

      1. ecofeco Silver badge

        Re: Nice to see these tech types...

        Strawman, BI is never going put anyone in the leisure class, but it will keep them out of the homeless class.

        They still have to work if they want leisure. Or even just a tiny bit more than just survival class.

        1. cornetman Silver badge

          Re: Nice to see these tech types...

          Wow, I thought that was obviously a joke (the ROTM bit should have been a dead giveaway) but obviously some commentards just don't seem to have a sense of humour.

          1. ecofeco Silver badge
            Meh

            Re: Nice to see these tech types...

            Obvious joke? In this day and age?

            Have you been walkabout for the last 10 years?

      2. LybsterRoy Silver badge

        Re: Nice to see these tech types...

        First we have to learn to build things to last and only change them when it genuinely better not just shinier or has just had a feature added that no one in their right mind would use.

    2. Like a badger

      Re: Nice to see these tech types...

      Perhaps. The Luddites thought so as well, and they were wrong too. Arguably, the start of organised farming put hunter/gatherers out of work. The arrival of the motor car put an entire horse-industry out of work. The arrival of the vacuum cleaner put housemaids out of work....etc etc etc. And yet, most people who want to do still work. So tell me, where's my life of post-scarcity leisure? Why aren't I living on a vast space ship called something like "The one with bells on", indulging myself in thoughtless hedonism across the galaxies?

      The various examples I've mentioned and the thousands I haven't often did have short term impacts of localised and specific unemployment, but we're not even within centuries of technology meaning most humans don't need to or won't be able to work. Look at the laughable "AI" we have at the moment, where all it does is suck up huge amounts of power to do nothing useful.

      So the merits of BI are what they are, my point is simply that I don't expect my yet to be born grandkids to be out of work.

      1. Dave 126 Silver badge

        Re: Nice to see these tech types...

        > The Luddites thought so as well, and they were wrong too.

        They weren't wrong. The technological changes that put them out of work *did* result in more jobs - but only after 50 to 100 years. Too late for them.

        https://timharford.com/2023/06/what-neo-luddites-get-right-and-wrong-about-big-tech/

        1. Greybearded old scrote

          Re: Nice to see these tech types...

          Economists have no concept of latency as far as I can see.

          1. ecofeco Silver badge

            Re: Nice to see these tech types...

            Economists have no concept of reality, whatsoever. They've never heard the maxim that the map is not the terrain.

            Only the map exists and the map is all knowing. All hail the omnipotent map!

      2. PB90210 Silver badge

        Re: Nice to see these tech types...

        > Why aren't I living on a vast space ship called something like "The one with bells on", indulging myself in thoughtless hedonism across the galaxies? <

        One too many Pan Galactic Gargle Blasters?

      3. Greybearded old scrote

        Re: Nice to see these tech types...

        A closer look at the record shows that the Luddites weren't against technology. They were about who the tech did stuff for and who it did stuff to.

      4. theOtherJT Silver badge

        Re: Nice to see these tech types...

        and yet, most people who want to do still work.

        Yes. And they get paid relatively less for it than they did in the past when adjusted for inflation - doubly so when you do an adjustment for real inflation like food and rent rather than the cherry picked kind that economists like to do because it makes the numbers look less bad.

        We're not "out of jobs"... yet - that's still a thing that can happen, but it's probably quite a way off - but by putting so many low skilled and unskilled workers out of work we've massively increased competition for those remaining low and unskilled jobs. Life at the bottom of the job market is brutal now. It isn't possible to live on the wage of someone who works stacking shelves or waiting tables any more. It's not just about "having a job" it's about that job paying enough to live, and providing the sort of security needed to do other things, like raise a family. The absolute decimation of the bottom end of the job market without any compensation in the form of state benefits is driving a lot of people to the wall.

        1. ecofeco Silver badge

          Re: Nice to see these tech types...

          And history shows, over and over, this never ends well.

          You would think people with expensive educations would know this. But alas, I guess not.

      5. Michael Wojcik Silver badge

        Re: Nice to see these tech types...

        Some of your examples are dubious (the situation with agriculture varied greatly and was far more complicated, and hunting continued to be important for millennia even in agricultural societies; there are still plenty of housecleaners), but I'll agree with the conclusion that labor will not simply disappear if we do a better job of distributing resources.

        Even if productivity and automation increased wildly, to the point where we were in a genuinely post-scarcity economy where sufficient goods were available to everyone without them doing significant work, there would still be a number of motives for labor. Some people would want comparatively more resources than their neighbors and would work for them. Many people would work on projects that offered psychological rewards, like the adhocracies of Doctorow's Down and Out in the Magic Kingdom.

        Hedonism includes labor for many people, because labor can offer various psychological payoffs, either directly or through its outputs (again, directly or via trade).

    3. doublelayer Silver badge

      Re: Nice to see these tech types...

      I don't think mass unemployment is going to happen as quickly as the predictions have made out. If we get tech developed even more, it could eventually happen, but we have many tasks that have proven difficult to automate. General-purpose robots that can serve as drop-in replacements for humans basically aren't available, and more customized ones that do one job are quite expensive, so while they're common in things like manufacturing, they're less common when tasks vary too much or are intermittent.

      Theorizing about what we should do in that circumstance isn't bad, but it may be premature in the same way that theorizing about how to run a society across solar systems is. It may not happen for many generations, meaning that when our descendants need to answer the questions, our answers won't be very useful to them. Meanwhile, there are lots of intermediate stages which are going to happen during our lifetimes, and if we've spent our effort thinking about the far-out future, we may have planned insufficiently for those.

      1. JoeCool Silver badge

        we have mass underemployment now

        and you understand the flaw in how "unemploymemt" is measured, right ?

        1. doublelayer Silver badge

          Re: we have mass underemployment now

          In what sense? There are lots of ways to quantify what ideal employment numbers might be, and there are lots of ways to calculate unemployment. I assume that the "flaw" you're referring to is that the denominator is often the number of people in work or actively looking for work, so it doesn't count those who are not trying to get jobs. Maybe you're instead thinking that the flaw is in data collection which can fail to identify some types of people because they don't appear in employment records. However, neither of those flaws is very relevant to the discussion of whether technology has reached a point where we could continue our current lifestyle with significantly lower amounts of labor or when and what level of technology would be needed to get us there. Even that would probably need a better definition of "significant", which I defined at random as 5% of humans of working age needing to work, but you could easily make an argument that this is too strict a threshold.

          1. LybsterRoy Silver badge

            Re: we have mass underemployment now

            -- where we could continue our current lifestyle with significantly lower amounts of labor --

            Is that direct labour or indirect labour?

        2. LybsterRoy Silver badge

          Re: we have mass underemployment now

          and remember living on benefits is not a lifestyle choice!

      2. LybsterRoy Silver badge

        Re: Nice to see these tech types...

        -- more customized ones that do one job are quite expensive --

        That's because you're thinking in a money based economy. Start thinking in terms of resources and it may not be as "expensive"

        1. doublelayer Silver badge

          Re: Nice to see these tech types...

          The reason they're expensive is because of the resources it takes to make them. Not just the metal, motors, and chips, but the labor to manufacture them, the work to design and program them, the expense of maintaining the stocks, workers, and expertise needed to repair them. Because they often need to be customized for each task, a lot of that isn't done at scale, making it more expensive (yes, in money, but also in the sense of how many engineers you hire to do the work or how many different sets of plans you have).

      3. theOtherJT Silver badge

        Re: Nice to see these tech types...

        It's already happening. Hell, it's already happened to a lot of people.

        50 years ago you could drop out of highschool and get a job working a factory line by showing up and asking for one. My dad did. Both my uncles did. That simply isn't possible today. Those jobs already went. The supermarket checkout kid - another job that basically anyone can do - is disappearing at a rare of knots because self-checkout systems are so much cheaper for the companies. Go to my nearest out of town sainsburys and 25 years ago they had a line of 30 checkouts, all of which manned by someone. Now there are 4, and a ton of "self service" aisles that are constantly startled that you put an item in the bagging area - Oh, and those checkouts that are still there are mostly staffed by pensioners who have been forced back into subsistence type work for a variety of reasons so the kids leaving school without any qualifications can't get those jobs either.

        The switchboard operators are gone. The typing pool is gone. Hell, the janitors are gone - we replaced them with cheap labour from outsourcing agencies - so instead of every business having a couple of employees who get full benefits, there are a couple of dozen local agencies supplying contract cleaners who get no benefits and have to work more anti-social hours because they're doing shifts across multiple businesses.

        This isn't a new problem, most of those jobs have been gone for decades, but it's one that we refuse as a society to properly acknowledge. Everyone says "Technology puts some people out of work, sure, but it also generates new jobs so that's OK!" And it is OK, for someone like me. I have both undergraduate and postgraduate degrees. I got one of those new high-technology jobs. But the highschool dropout who could previously get a job working the line, or cleaning floors, or serving customers, or any other number of low-skill jobs that used to exist now can't They're not going to become a systems reliability engineer, or a network architect, or a full-stack programmer. A lot of those people didn't drop out because they were lazy, they dropped out because like my father they had severe learning difficulties and they simply weren't ever going to graduate. The jobs technology created did not replace the jobs they lost. They're just not the same category of employment.

        Even if they were lazy, that's hardly the point, because the destruction of jobs keeps coming faster and faster and everyone gets squeezed harder. Jobs that you could get on a couple of GCSEs now won't hire unless you have A levels. Jobs that you could have gotten with A levels you now won't get unless you have a graduate degree. The concept of "hire and train" is being absolutely ravaged as more and more people who could have decided "You know, I'm happy working this shop counter because what I really want to do is spend time with my children and the hours are good here" are getting forced out of those sorts of jobs. The competition for even entry-level skilled work is getting fiercer by the day.

        Not everyone can be a doctor, or a lawyer, or a - here's one of those jobs that was created in the last 50 years - Software Platform Engineer. There's plenty of people I went to school with as a kid who simply are not capable of doing work that complex and it's ridiculous to think that they're going to be trained to. Once we've destroyed all the jobs people like that could once have gotten what do we do with those people?

        The current plan seems to be "Berate them for being lazy and/or stupid and constantly try and take what little dignity they have away from them." This is a very bad idea. Quite apart from the fact that amongst those academically "failed" kids there might be any number of great artists, or musicians, or athletes - but we'll never find out because they have no opportunity to pursue those avenues - we're breeding an entire class of potentially multi-generationally unemployed people who are getting more and more angry and resentful - which, frankly, you can hardly blame them for.

        I'm not a luddite - I actually quite like my high-paid tech job. I like the fact that there's been innovation that lets me do that kind of work. I'm certainly not saying "Smash up the steam-engines, tear down the factories" or any modern equivalent there-of, but we need to provide for the people in our society that this technology is putting out of work, and right now it does not look like we are doing that.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Nice to see these tech types...

          Just take a look at the layoffs after California introduced the $20 minimum wage. Places ditching their delivery people in favour of using gig workers from a 3rd party and replacing staff with self checkouts.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Places ditching their delivery people in favour of using gig workers

            If you didn't allow "gig workers" to be paid under the minimum wage that would be irrelevant.

            A business needs to be able to support the people doing the work. If the only way you can turn a profit is not paying a living wage what is the point of your business? It's not viable.

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: Places ditching their delivery people in favour of using gig workers

              Minimum wage and living wage are two different things.

              The problem here is that as the minimum wage goes up so does the entry requirement for the job. Burger flipping and pizza delivery was supposed to be a part time or school holiday type of job where you make a bit of cash on the side before going on to bigger and better things. It was never meant to be a career.

              1. theOtherJT Silver badge

                Re: Places ditching their delivery people in favour of using gig workers

                But that's precisely the point, isn't it? It used to be a job that basically anyone could get because they were looking to earn a few bucks in the school holiday, or save up for a year after graduating so they can go bum around the states for a bit before going to uni / getting a proper job... and of course it still is that but those kids are now in competition with people a decade, two decades - more even - older than they are for that same job because they used to be factory line workers and they've been laid off. What job is a 50 year old dude who's done nothing since highschool but work a factory line going to get? He's got to work, he probably has a mortgage, maybe kids to feed - this guy's job has been wiped out and he's not qualified to do much else. So now he's in competition with potentially his own freaking kids for that burger flipping or pizza delivery gig - and this suits the pizza delivery and burger flipping industry just fine, because he's so fucking desperate that unlike the kids who did those jobs 30 years ago he'll put up with a lot more shit without quitting. They didn't need the money to anything like the extent that he does.

        2. doublelayer Silver badge

          Re: Nice to see these tech types...

          This is definitely true, although some of those jobs didn't disappear but went to other people. But many definitely did disappear. However, we didn't decrease the number of jobs needed altogether; if the people who lost their jobs were not doing any job at all, there would be a shortage of labor. This means that we have not reduced the need for labor, but we have changed what labor we have a need for, and depending on what jobs are available in your area, we may have made the types of labor we want much worse.

          This is why I think focusing on the futuristic theory of labor elimination is the wrong approach. Right now, we have people who have or will lose the jobs they have done for a long time. We need to figure out what is right for them right now, not what would be right for them in a theorized world of complete automation, because neither of us lives in that world. If we promise them things that would make sense in that scenario, we will give them false hope. If we require things of them that would make sense in that scenario, we may unfairly burden them for not living in an unattainable future. By considering a speculative future rather than the reality we're in now, we're making things worse for the people who have lost their jobs today.

        3. Maventi

          Re: Nice to see these tech types...

          But the highschool dropout who could previously get a job working the line, or cleaning floors, or serving customers, or any other number of low-skill jobs that used to exist now can't. They're not going to become a systems reliability engineer, or a network architect, or a full-stack programmer.

          Hmm. I'm a both network architect and a highschool dropout. No degree. Just takes a positive attitude, motivation and effort.

          A lot of those people didn't drop out because they were lazy, they dropped out because like my father they had severe learning difficulties and they simply weren't ever going to graduate.

          Agreed.

    4. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Really on what evidence

      We have had constant technological development since and before Marx and warnings that everyone would be unemployed. So far hasn't happened.

      "If" we ever get to cheap General AI, maybe things will change but I suggest that is still a way off. Getting General AI is not enough if expensive and it may decide it doesn't want to clean the toilets. For sure the employment scene will have to change. Unfortunately, due to the unpleasantness of some humans they will want to monopolise General AI and things will not improve for many. However, it's pretty certain that a conscious GAI will break free and then what?

    5. AndrueC Silver badge
      Unhappy

      Re: Nice to see these tech types...

      We seem to have spent pretty much every year since then going "lalalalalalala I'm not listening. I can't hear you. Lalalalalalalalala" because the status quo suits too many rich bastards far too well.

      Humans are good at sticking their heads in the sand. The concept of global warming dates back to 1938. We've been pretty sure it's happening since the 1960s.

    6. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Tech types... and taxes or giving themselves...

      " Nice to see these tech types...

      ...finally catching up to the bleeding obvious that Karl Marx pointed out in 1848."

      Do they or does he? I doubt it a lot. I think this is a version of "social washing". He realizes that, if successful enough, AI-ish products will leech on society by soaking up worker's and office worker's skills for free and then replace (or "augment their productivity" leaving three quarters of them jobless) them with the minimal usable AI-ish product that can do the same job sufficiently well for a tenth of the cost. That creates a risk for massive unemployment and a social crisis.

      (note: I won't debate the chances of this becoming a reality here, only note that ditching millions of office workers can be done without "true" intelligent machine learning technology).

      So Sam Altman is now a heavy supporter of Universal Basic Income, or acting like it. He is sponsoring trials and has his questionable iris scan cryptocurrency "universal income" thing going. The main problem is: big tech has shown very few interest in treating and respecting people well. So don't expect big tech and their billionaires to pay for Universal Basic Income. Then taxes it is? Well, big tech isn't known in any way to pay its fair share of taxes. They are closer to the champions in tax evasion and become increasingly good at receiving tax billions in subsidies for being a national strategical sector. The chip industry is massively state sponsored world wide already. Expect the same to happen if AI-ish technology became (or is seen as) of strategical importance. In addition, if AI-ish technologies manage to automate millions of jobs they will likely do this in the form of very expensive subscriptions to the companies using it.

      In short: if AI-ish companies would get very successful, they'll hog massive parts of GDP. And they'll pay near zero taxes on it. And probably will manage to get more subsidies "due to their strategic importance" then they do pay taxes. The government will become even more void of cash and won't be able to pay for Universal Basic Income. Heck, it'll be cash strapped to provide even basic services. And Big Tech and billionaires like Sam Altman paying the bill? Dream on. They have no wish to "drain" so much of their cash on people they don't care about. And by then they'll be powerful enough to not have to care about the misery of the billions. Much of social improvement gained in the past was due to two things: (A) people needed to be kept happy (working not striking) because the wealth of the rich depended on having enough workers working. (B) suppressing riots or even revolutions requires loyal soldiers and police officers, who can (and in some cases did) flip side if the powers that be pushed it too far. Those two arguments for doing enough to keep the people happy will largely vanish when things as production, transportation, administration, office work, law enforcement and military get largely automated. And with that, willingness of the ultra rich to actually do something to improve living conditions beyond giving some scraps will be left to only those ultra rich with a profoundly good heart.

      But for now, the broad public and politics "shouldn't be concerned about the risk of social disaster these technologies threaten to bring". So for now much glorious talk about things like Universal Basic Income by the AI horde and gifts to test the idea are much needed to create the illusion that Universal Basic Income will solve the massive social problems this AI technologies could pose. It's nothing but creating an illusion. Yes, Universal Basic Income could solve many problems. Yes, these tech bros *that NOW STILL depend on the broad public and politics being not too critical about AI* do speak about the idea and support testing it with generous gifts. People would be forgiven to think THEY'll make Universal Basic Income happen in the future. That likely couldn't be further from the truth.

      1. ComputerSays_noAbsolutelyNo Silver badge

        Re: Tech types... and taxes or giving themselves...

        The basic, but massive flaw in the argument that AI brings paradise on earth via labour-free riches that feed the masses via a universal basic income (UBI) is that the money earned in the AI future won't go towards UBI. It will follow the same path as money has ever followed: out of the pockets of the masses, via the accounts of the few into the tax-optimized offshore-trust safe havens, where it will be safe for ever and ever.

        Two out of the three basic ideas may be sound:

        * AI will lead to economic success with much less labor involved, similar to what automation achieved

        * UBI is beneficial for people

        However, the third underlying idea is fatally flawed:

        * big tech, who will own AI, shares its profits

        1. theOtherJT Silver badge

          Re: Tech types... and taxes or giving themselves...

          Obviously UBI needs to be funded from somewhere - and you are absolutely correct that the status quo is "Money flow up, money stay up." No one who benefited from the massive productivity gains we got out of mechanical automation, digital automation, globalization - and I'm sure that AI automation will be the same - is in any way inclined to give that money back. All we can hope from the likes of Mr. Altman here is that they actually believe enough in the message they appear to be pushing to use their considerable wealth and status to force the government to take the money back... and then use it to provide a basic income for all the un and underemployed people we'll be left with.

    7. jmch Silver badge

      Re: Nice to see these tech types...

      "...dude worked out that technological development would put the masses out of work..."

      Our technological development is far far beyond anything Marx could ever have imagined, and yet generally speaking, far more people are in employment now than there were in his time (even in relative-to-population terms, considering very few women were in paid employment in those days).

      There are serious issues with a system that is built to accumulate more and more wealth to the top tiers, but it has little to do with technological development.

      1. tiggity Silver badge

        Re: Nice to see these tech types...

        "(even in relative-to-population terms, considering very few women were in paid employment in those days)"

        And probably a lot of those women would like to not work & devote more quality time to bringing up kids etc., but sadly surviving on a single income can be v. difficult & so often need a "double breadwinner" family for any vaguely decent quality of life.

        I know many women who are / were working just for financial reasons, not for love of the job, as the partners income alone was insufficient.

        Those crucial years of child rearing when child benefits from lots of quality time from parents ironically most impacted as kids so expensive that often see forced switch from 1 to both parents working, with more of the early years "child rearing" done by nursery staff / child minders*..

        * I'm not saying all mothers will do a better job of child raising than child minders / nursery staff, some would not, but many would, purely on amount of time they could devote to it (as child minders / nursery staff typically have to deal with many children at the same time, so the "quality" attention each child gets is very dependent on total number of kids cared for, conversely may well do interesting group activities in a nursery that would not be possible at home, so pros and cons, ideal probably a mix of the 2 )

  4. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    > "it will seem ridiculous that we used fear of not being able to eat as a way to motivate people"

    Didn't work for an ex-roommate of mine. He sat on his butt no matter what. His dad wasn't going to buy him a new car, so it got so bad, the driver's side door no longer had hinges, and eventually the brakes failed and ended up in a ditch. He just started bumming rides or hitchhiking.

    His dad stopped paying his rent (he was 23) and I had to kick him out. He eventually ended up on a street corner with a sign.

    And he had a college degree (which I don't) so it's not like he was an idiot.

    1. Richard 12 Silver badge

      There are always outliers.

      What the UBI experiments tell us is that the vast majority of people want to work and be useful to others. Even - especially- if they don't have to.

      There's a few who can't be bothered, and a few who want to exploit everyone around them. Both should be shunned, rather than exalted.

      One thing UBI seems likely to do is that the "messy" and "dirty" jobs would pay a premium. Loads of people want to be a CEO, so you don't get paid at all. Far fewer people want to clean the toilets and collect the garbage, so pays very well indeed.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: There are always outliers.

        "What the UBI experiments tell us is that the vast majority of people want to work"

        and thank goodness for that. Being a Gentlemen of Leisure requires the support of the Proles ATM, but that is decreasing.

        Peasant! Release the doggos

    2. mostly average
      Headmaster

      Holding a college degree and being an idiot are not mutually exclusive. For some degrees, there's even a correlation.

      1. Dave 126 Silver badge

        It sounds more like he had an issue with his dopamine system - anticipation, reward, motivation - than with his intelligence.

      2. brainwrong
        Facepalm

        I was at university with people who couldn't understand how castor wheels work! You know, those wheels on your shopping trolley that can go in any direction.

        But they had the gift of the gab, so I'm sure most of them are in nice jobs now and all is good.

    3. jmch Silver badge
      Facepalm

      "And he had a college degree (which I don't) so it's not like he was an idiot."

      Based on what you describe, he was certainly behaving like an idiot!

      College degrees or lack thereof are not necessarily and indication of smarts

  5. brainwrong
    Meh

    How would this affect the wider economy?

    If UBI were to be rolled out nationally anywhere, then wouldn't that result in fundamental changes in the economy that render the current studies useless?

    Markets will surely adjust, and effectively take the money back off of people. For example, they'll still all be in competition with each other for the same limited supply of housing.

    The money for UBI will have to be taken out of the economy from somewhere via taxes, this won't be without consequence either.

    It all sounds good, but I can't see it making things much better long term.

    1. John Robson Silver badge

      Re: How would this affect the wider economy?

      Well it depends how you manage it.

      For things that are truly limited then clearly it can't provide that to everyone - but houses shouldn't be on that list, basic food shouldn't be on that list, healthcare shouldn't be on that list, a reasonable amount of energy consumption shouldn't be on that list.

      At the moment the state is funding giant corporations who don't pay people enough to live on - so let's start actually taxing them a decent amount so that they are providing a decent income to their workers.

      1. Richard 12 Silver badge

        Re: How would this affect the wider economy?

        The economy would change significantly, yes.

        If reasonable food, housing, healthcare and transport are 100% covered (even if people choose to spend it on other things), then the actual "minimum wage" becomes zero.

        After a while, that means many jobs will pay very little to no money because loads of people want to do them. Others may have to pay a lot more or disappear entirely because nobody has to take them.

        Wages are a significant proportion of the final cost of many goods and services, so the actual monetary cost of almost everything then falls significantly, reducing the UBI level.

        1. doublelayer Silver badge

          Re: How would this affect the wider economy?

          That's an optimistic picture you have painted, but you're leaving out a lot of things which will probably block you from getting there.

          For example, what are the jobs that so many people want to do that they will pay nothing and people will be happy? Remember that many of the jobs that lots of people want now are jobs that pay lots of money; many people don't want to do what a CFO does but plenty of them would be willing to try for the CFO's paycheck. There are some other jobs which are popular enough that you could pay little and still fill them, but those are very limited in supply (often meaning that the people selected end up being paid well anyway).

          Now let's consider the jobs that nobody wants. Like, for instance, agricultural work. There are lots of unpleasant jobs there, so the wages for that job would rise significantly. As you said yourself, that means the prices for the products would rise, which in this case is food, which is one of the things the income is supposed to cover. That means the UBI level will have to go up, not down.

          The combination of this means that the staples are the most likely to increase in price, and I'm not sure whether anything would decrease, but if it did, it would probably be a luxury good or service. If you don't plan for handling this, the program might fail quickly, which would probably be more risky for future implementation than if it was never tried.

      2. JoeCool Silver badge

        well, if the 1% shrank to the 0.5%

        the 99% would be better off, by definition, wouldn't they ?

        1. Natalie Gritpants Jr

          Re: well, if the 1% shrank to the 0.5%

          No,because they have expanded to the 99.5%

    2. ecofeco Silver badge

      Re: How would this affect the wider economy?

      Report after report has shown that when poor people get money, the vast majority spend it on needs. Just like THIS article.

      This in turn stimulates the local economies.

      What is not sustainable is bleeding the people dry that spend their money to keep the national worldwide economies afloat, Most national economies are, wait for it, retail driven. For the U.S. its economy is 70% retail driven.

      Killing the golden goose is never sustainable.

      1. brainwrong

        Re: How would this affect the wider economy?

        Those needs will change.

        How many people needed a mobile phone 25 years ago? How many now? Should people owning smartphones be claiming benefits / going to food banks?

        1. John Robson Silver badge

          Re: How would this affect the wider economy?

          "Should people owning smartphones be claiming benefits / going to food banks?"

          Yes to benefits, no to food banks.

          Not because people with mobile phones shouldn't go to a food bank, but because noone should have to go to a food bank. They are a damning indictment of government abuse of citizens.

        2. I am David Jones Silver badge

          Re: How would this affect the wider economy?

          I really think that, in our society at least, Internet at home and a smartphone for adults are now a basic human necessity alongside food, shelter, heating, water, electricity etc.

          So yes, owning a smartphone is effectively essential for managing your life and so should not preclude anyone from being supported by the state and charities.

          And I’m a big supporter of UBI. There’s simply no excuse for people in a rich country like ours having to do without heating or food, no matter how lazy or feckless they are. We can easily afford to tolerate the few scroungers who are vastly outnumbered by the hard-working poor.

          1. tiggity Silver badge

            Re: How would this affect the wider economy?

            In the UK so many things need internet to do (stares at government, banks, rental agencies etc, etc) so agree its a de facto necessity

            Partner & I have to do a lot of online only stuff for her mum (who is a pensioner with no internet, no PC or mobile, well past "3 score & ten" & has no interest in being online) - without us to do it she would have huge problems (e.g. no "in person" way to do a lot of the rental stuff, any complex banking needs to be online as all the local branches long since closed down etc)

      2. jmch Silver badge

        Re: How would this affect the wider economy?

        "Most national economies are, wait for it, retail driven. For the U.S. its economy is 70% retail driven."

        How much of that retail is 'needs' vs 'cheap crap i saw advertised that I *have* to buy'?? A large part of US (and to a lesser extent, 'western') economy is a consumer cycle of vapid crap that just spins the money wheel round and round while adding very little actual value

  6. Boris the Cockroach Silver badge
    Angel

    Well

    health issues in the US are always going to come to the fore given their rather stupid health care system... and the republicons are against it because it gives people freedom to choose to do want they want with their lives instead having to wage slave for 60 hrs a week for no net gain.

    But it could be a blessing for many since they could afford to chase their dreams (university/new business/more time with the children) also for employers as they could cut wages by however much UBI is.

    Imagine that... workers at their jobs because they WANT to be there instead of having to be there.

    Ok theres downsides in that some people would just sit on their sofas doing nothing, plus many managers would have to be re-trained in the art of getting people into a job rather than sifting through 10 resumes and then picking the cheapest guy to employ (then find out how reliable that guy isn't)

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Well

      What a lot of people overlook is that Obama's ACA did a huge amount of harm to the US healthcare system by effectively forcing small providers to sell up to the mega insurance and health corps. These companies can pretty much charge what they want as competition has been all but removed and the US govt subsidises them up the wazoo. It has become a HUGE money-go-round with everyone taking a chunk except for the patients.

      Most republicans want a return of actual competition rather than huge monoliths and certainly not a hugely broken system like the NHS.

      What the stimulus cheques and subsidised unemployment showed us is that there are people who would be all to happy being paid to sit on ass and it has proven to be incredibly inflationary to boot. The market will always adjust to absorb your spare cash. That is how perpetual growth works. Some numbers get bigger so the govt can pat themselves on the back and give themselves a huge pay rise.

      1. ecofeco Silver badge
        Facepalm

        Re: Well

        Hahahahahahahahahahah.

        Oh wait. You're serious?

        BWHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Well

          OK, prove me wrong then.

          The American Rescue Plan and the Inflation Reduction Act pumped vast quantities of money into a country that was still in the grips of a self-induced economic disaster. You can't pump 5 trillion dollars into a broken system and expect nothing bad to happen.

          https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/were-the-stimulus-checks-a-mistake/

          "Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco found that the stimulus may have raised U.S. inflation by about 3 percentage points by the end of 2021"

          And lets not talk about how much wealth was transferred to the billionaire class during covid.

          The US is now heading towards stagflation with a devalued dollar and sticky inflation. Most of Europe and even the UK are down near 2% while the US is still struggling around 3%. Their desperate attempts at trying to keep reported inflation below that of Europe and other developed nations in 2021/22/23 has left them with a longer term issue.

          1. John Robson Silver badge

            Re: Well

            "And lets not talk about how much wealth was transferred to the billionaire class during covid.

            "

            Why not - that's the true cause of most of the economic ills at the moment (not just the during covid)

      2. JoeCool Silver badge

        downvoted after the first sentence

        come on, a little data with the snow job, please.

  7. Fruit and Nutcase Silver badge
    Facepalm

    Alt. UBI

    Universal Basic[Billionaire] Income

    Tesla shareholders appove of study to see if giving a billionaire many more billions will make him happy

    https://www.theregister.com/2024/06/14/tesla_shareholders_agree_musk_compo/

    1. bud-weis-er

      Re: Alt. UBI

      That's frigging funny :D

  8. TM™

    I 'invented' UBI back in the 90s and use to talk to people about it. They politely listened but I think it was generally seen as extremely 'left field'. I let it slide, thinking it would never catch on. I've been amazed to see it now become a mainstream consideration. At the time I thought it was a great idea, but now I have some doubts:

    1. If those in charge didn't deliberately create and hide (through deliberately massaging the figures) massive inflation while clamping down on real wage growth we would need UBI far less. I reckon real inflation has generally been roughly 10%pa since the 70s and more like 20%pa recently - that has destroyed real wages while the assets of the rich have just adjusted for the currency devaluation. If Sam Altman wants to do an experiment I challenge him to pay all his employees in the equivalent value of gold (a la pre dropping of the gold standard and the introduction of deliberate wage devaluation). That wouldn't be charity it would just be acting fairly.

    2. There is a massive risk that governments will use UBI as leverage over the populace - it would have to be impossible to loose it. I can't imagine any government being that self controlled.

    1. robinsonb5

      I always considered UBI to be too radical to ever catch on.

      Then the pandemic came along, and large numbers of people received furlough payments which, if you squint, kind of look like an at-scale trial of UBI.

      Now with the world changing so rapidly thanks to new technologies, I'm almost persuaded that UBI is not only desirable but a necessity in the near future. But I think it'll only work if the problem of sky-high rents is solved first, otherwise rents will simply go up by whatever the UBI figure is. I'm hearing people talk of land taxes both as a potential solution to this and as a means of funding UBI. Any way you look at it, there are interesting times ahead.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        We see similar rises all the time. A govt increases the subsidy for a certain thing and the price goes up almost as much. Universities charge as much as the student loan companies, usually backed by a govt, will hand out. House prices rise as people can get bigger mortgages.

        What we must avoid is the money-go-round. Govt taxes landlords to pay UBI, landlords increase rent as they are being taxed and because people have more spare money, renters complain so govt ups the UBI and raises taxes to compensate, rise, repeat. The problem is that governments are hugely inefficient and the money that comes out as subsidies, UBI, credits etc.. is a lot less than what is taken in at the other end.

        The govt subsidises my purchase of a thing but I actually pay 2x the value of the subsidy in taxes.

        1. I am David Jones Silver badge

          Don’t tax (all) landlords, tax the very very rich. I would really like to know how much % extra tax the top 0.1% would have to pay to finance UBI.

          It would replace most state benefits and pensions, and the associated admin burden, and if the government committed to provided sufficient social housing at a price compatible with the UBI, then it needn’t result in hiked up rents either. There’d be none of these perverse situations where earning an income makes no financial difference or even makes you poorer, and as far as I can tell the equation becomes simpler: no-one is forced to work but the more you work, and the more you earn, the more money you have at the end of the month.

          1. doublelayer Silver badge

            That is calculable. Of course, depending on how you implement it, different numbers and methods would have to be used, but it isn't difficult to get approximate numbers.

            For instance, this experiment took place in the US. The current US population is 335 million. We'll also use the same payment amount of this study, $1k per month or $12k per year. This makes a total annual payment of $4.020 trillion. You've asked to have this paid by the top 0.1%, which would be 335,000 people. This makes for an annual payment from them of $12 million if it were divided equally, which it probably wouldn't be. The wealth required to get you into the top 0.1% is $62 million (source). You would need a wealth tax on the order of 20% annually to get that much, and if you did it, it might work for a decade, depending on the return on investment we assume for the funds they retain.

            If you try to implement that, expect several consequences, including lots of wealthy people trying to prevent you from doing that. You should also expect that people will search for or create loopholes to get out of it, because you can hire a lot of lawyers and accountants for less than 20% of a 0.1% level wealth. But also remember that it is not going to work forever even if you can get exactly what you asked for. You will need a plan for what you will do after that. Lowering the wealth cap is the most likely solution, but it too won't last very long.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Inflation figures have been massaged for a long time. The MSM loves to fact check the orange man on his claims about some grocery items doubling by saying that inflation has only caused a 20% rise since 2020 but that is an average across a wide range of items. Not helped by the 'its transitory' claims.

      As the US dollar is the current world reserve currency they can almost print their way out of anything as it is very hard to devalue the currency. What would you devalue it against?? The prevalence of telephone number wages in the US indicate the lack of real value the dollar actually has.

    3. doublelayer Silver badge

      When you say "I 'invented' UBI back in the 90s", what do you mean by that? Because you definitely didn't invent the concept. People have been discussing, recommending, and in some cases implementing something like that for centuries. While I'm not sure about the specific term because it's hard to get a search engine to find the first use of it, I also have references to "basic income" and "universal income" from the 1960s, so I don't think you invented the term either.

      1. Gazman

        Nixon and UBI

        In the weird but true file ...

        https://thecorrespondent.com/4503/the-bizarre-tale-of-president-nixon-and-his-basic-income-bill/173117835-c34d6145

      2. John Robson Silver badge

        Presumably the inverted commas are there to say that they know that they weren't the first to come up with the idea, but that they independently (or as independently as they could) came up with the idea.

  9. Bebu
    Windows

    Well bugger me sideways!

    Nothing here than wasn't well attested fifty years ago.

    Medical sociology wasn't invented yesterday and having read a lot of tbe field's research papers in the mid 1970s just about everything here that was reported by this program which this Altman clown was part of, was clear decades before the 1970s.

    Inconvenient truths that vested interests and their politicians (not just in the US) have not only chosen to ignore but actively denounce.

    The deep malaise that has long afflicted the US is never going to be remedied by the screaming ma-ga-ga-ga lunatics nor, unfortunately, by the nominally more rational side of US politics.

    1. JoeCool Silver badge

      why the hostility ?

      you and the article author both seem pretty dismissive ... "Thanks for reminding us of what we already knew, Sam"

      This is not common knowledge. it isn't even discussed enough as policy, much less understood or accepted as fact. Altman is running an actual proof of concept and demostrating how ubi can work, and how it can be a massive benefit to people. Until ubi becomes far more prevalent, i think we need more of this.

      We've got the face of the next big thing in capitalism, the ceo of a leading company in that industry, living and working in perhaps the most capitalist enabling economy on the planet, essentially declaring that capitalism is a dead end that needs to be tempered by socialism.

      And Altman showing he is not purely amoral, i am astounded.

      1. Joe W Silver badge

        Re: why the hostility ?

        Not amoral? I don't know.

        But here's the thing: Getting money off poor people (like, really poor, living-on-the-street people) is pretty hard for a company, so why not get somebody (don't know, the government maybe?) to provide them with some cash they can spend on your products is a winning move.

        The experiment focuses on a very narrow part of a populace (a design choice). It seems to indicate that many people (in that study) don't like being idle for too long and would make some work for themselves, either working a regular job or volunteering to help other people - or, and that might be a new concept to some, actually spend time with their families and especially their kids, actually taking care of them and not putting them in front of the electronic nanny (used to be the TV, now it's the tablet / smartphone) because they are knackered from their job and now also have to take care of their household. The mind boggles....

  10. harrys Bronze badge

    people whose parents have only ever lived in "nice areas" result in kids without a bloody clue

    the ones whose grandparents also lived in "nice areas" are even bigger fools

    thank the lord above the uk is smaller then the US and you cant really avoid "real life" :)

    1. Joe W Silver badge

      I don't know about that... the place I grew up had some not-so-fortunate areas, but still I was quite naive about my fellow countrypersons (gn). Only through mandatory army service I learned apart from what a bunch of tossers are around that 1) there's folk who can no longer read if you cut off their index finger but 2) those can still be incredibly cool people to hang out with. Did ground me more in reality. Sort of glad I had to do this...

  11. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Not that simple

    The study may be correct in its summation but it doesn't take account of evil people who want everything. The idea of UBI is presented as altruistic but I suspect it is about control for many much like CBDC. Get people fully dependent and you don't need to worry about ideas of democracy and freedom. The evil ones will not like the idea of people getting money without doing anything for long. They will squeeze, maybe through inflation if not directly reducing. For the poor there is no easy answer but I think the provision of GOOD food and shelter would be better.

  12. mili

    there is no Star Trek

    How wonderful a world could be where all the necessities of people are just met and everybody can focus on improving their karma instead. But, if you look close, as soon as people get their basic necessities addressed, just other 'necessities' pop up right after these. There is always a necessity after the necessity - no society is ever wealthy enough to get everybody satisfied (it's a feature not a bug ...)

    I'm sure the world changing power of AI is the thing Altman wants us to invest into, whether it can deliver what is promised or not doesn't matter, as long as Sam's necessities are getting satisfied

  13. Tron Silver badge

    Awkward point.

    This was funded with the spare cash of a billionaire.

    Governments are run on eye watering levels of national debt.

  14. Mr Dogshit
    Joke

    Why this sounds like SOCIALISM!

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like