this post was submitted on 13 Apr 2025

192 points (99.5% liked)

Global News

3771 readers

488 users here now

What is global news?

Something that happened or was uncovered recently anywhere in the world. It doesn't have to have global implications. Just has to be informative in some way.

Post guidelines

Title format

Post title should mirror the news source title.

URL format

Post URL should be the original link to the article (even if paywalled) and archived copies left in the body. It allows avoiding duplicate posts when cross-posting.

[Opinion] prefix

Opinion (op-ed) articles must use [Opinion] prefix before the title.

Country prefix

Country prefix can be added tothe title with a separator (|, :, etc.) where title is not clear enough from which country the news is coming from.

Rules

1. English only

Title and associated content has to be in English.

2. No social media posts

Avoid all social media posts. Try searching for a source that has a written article or transcription on the subject.

3. Respectful communication

All communication has to be respectful of differing opinions, viewpoints, and experiences.

4. Inclusivity

Everyone is welcome here regardless of age, body size, visible or invisible disability, ethnicity, sex characteristics, gender identity and expression, education, socio-economic status, nationality, personal appearance, race, caste, color, religion, or sexual identity and orientation.

5. Ad hominem attacks

Any kind of personal attacks are expressly forbidden. If you can't argue your position without attacking a person's character, you already lost the argument.

6. Off-topic tangents

Stay on topic. Keep it relevant.

7. Instance rules may apply

If something is not covered by community rules, but are against lemmy.zip instance rules, they will be enforced.

Companion communities

!legalnews@lemmy.zip - International and local legal news.
!technology@lemmy.zip - Technology, social media platforms, informational technologies and tech policy.
!interestingshare@lemmy.zip - Fascinating articles, captivating images, satisfying videos, interesting projects, stunning research and more.
!europe@feddit.org - News and information about Europe.

Icon generated via LLM model | Banner attribution

If someone is interested in moderating this community, message @brikox@lemmy.zip.

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

BrikoX@lemmy.zip

192

German experiment gave people a basic monthly income – the effect on their work ethic was surprising (edition.cnn.com)

submitted 2 days ago by BrikoX@lemmy.zip to c/globalnews@lemmy.zip

46 comments fedilink hide all child comments

A German experiment has found that people are likely to continue working full-time even if they receive no-strings-attached universal basic income payments.

Archived version: https://archive.is/20250412140637/https://edition.cnn.com/2025/04/11/health/germany-universal-basic-income-study-intl-scli-wellness/index.html

Disclaimer: The article linked is from a single source with a single perspective. Make sure to cross-check information against multiple sources to get a comprehensive view on the situation.

all 47 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] SoftestSapphic@lemmy.world 12 points 1 day ago

Literally every UBI test is a massive success and then we pretend like we shouldn't ever change anything.

We are going to have to kill world leaders to end the 40hr work week.

[–] LovableSidekick@lemmy.world 52 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

Not surprising to me - a Canadian study 10 or 15 years ago produced the same results - the only people who stopped working were moms who quit to take care of children, and students who returned to school (having quit school to work because their families needed money). The conventional "wisdom" that says getting free money will turn people into bums is a traditional conservative misconception that goes with thinking people are inherently bad.

[–] SpicyColdFartChamber@lemm.ee 6 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

I don't even get this notion.

"Everyone will become a lazy bum!". Humans are biologically coded with the want to do SOMETHING. If you took current day scenarios of people wanting to not work at all, that's only because WE HAVE TO WORK to live.

People want to remove stress, not be "lazy".

And lazy is such a defective term.

[–] LovableSidekick@lemmy.world 2 points 7 hours ago

A lot of "conventional wisdom" turns out to be just catchy little sayings that vindicate people's personal attitudes.

[–] Diplomjodler3@lemmy.world 53 points 2 days ago (1 children)

How totally surprising. The results have been the same every time this has been tried, so who could have possibly have foreseen that?

[–] tquid@sh.itjust.works 5 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Thank you! Honestly UBI studies only make me feel angry and hopeless anymore, since it’s so clear policy will never change.

[–] Diplomjodler3@lemmy.world 4 points 1 day ago

Of course not. If people aren't desperate any more, they're far harder to control.

[–] ArchmageAzor@lemmy.world 56 points 2 days ago (4 children)

Didn't Finland also try it, and found the same thing?

I really think UBI has no downsides.

[–] BestBouclettes@jlai.lu 11 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

The downside is less money going towards the rich

[–] Korhaka@sopuli.xyz 3 points 1 day ago

Still not hearing any downsides

[–] Quetzalcutlass@lemmy.world 25 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I believe a province in Canada was also trying it with promising results until a right-wing politician got elected and scrapped the trial program.

[–] deeferg@lemmy.world 25 points 2 days ago

Yup, Ontario had it for a small community and the people on it were doing great. They're still just running these programs in other areas to try and find the one with negative results so every country can point to that as their reason to not do it longterm.

That's why you keep seeing 100 of these "trials".

[–] gurnu@lemmy.world 8 points 2 days ago

Yes, they did. Sadly the body that's studied the effects said the sample size (a couple thousand unemployed people) was too small... Gee, I wonder who would've designed the experiment in such way?

[+] rikudou@lemmings.world -34 points 2 days ago (4 children)

It's money that has no value if it's truly universal. If it's not universal, but only a select group gets it, yep pretty much no downsides.

[–] cynar@lemmy.world 4 points 1 day ago

Let's say it's set at $10k/year. To someone on $20k that's a 50% boost. To someone on 100k, it's only 10%. At a million a year it's down to 1%.

If it's accompanied by a 20% tax, it would significantly rebalance income inequality, and provide a reliable financial buffer for the poor to negotiate from.

[–] ChicoSuave@lemmy.world 21 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Saying money is worthless if everyone has it is asinine. Gatekeeping shit is an idiot's idea of intelligence. The money won't change spending at the top levels because they already spend that much daily on services alone. But at the lower income brackets it generates lots of purchases on products and goods. It boosts manufacturing which in turns buoys stock market valuation and guarantees value for the investor.

UBI is so good for everyone, even the super rich, that it's insane not to participate. But without the threat of lifestyle shock, the wealthy don't have leverage to make exasperated workers try to achieve more for less. It will literally help people with the stress of living paycheck to paycheck.

If it's universal then it guarantees a minimal capital throughput at each nexus of value and the market. That's extra income at all levels from spending, taxes, and the buyer's unspent capital - it's huge and is a means to jumpstart any economy and keep it running for as long as the UBI flows.

[+] rikudou@lemmings.world -9 points 2 days ago (2 children)

Okay, humour me. Everyone suddenly gets $100 per month. Now, some big grocery chain knows that every single one of those customers has an extra $100. What do you expect to happen? They'll be like, "cool people will buy more stuff" or they'll be like "that's an extra $100 we can extract by making the most common things people buy more expensive," which do you think is more likely?

[–] YouAreLiterallyAnNPC@lemmy.world 6 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I'll humor this, even though I'm tired of answering this same question. I'll do you a favor and give you the short version, first: Inflation has nothing to do with how currency is distributed and everything to do with the supply of currency in circulation. Now that we've established the basic concept, let's break some of it down. If there's $100 in circulation, it doesn't matter if one person has all of it, or 100 people have $1. The value of $1 is the same. If $1000 is in circulation, then $100 is worth less than if only $100 is in circulation, even if one person has $901 and everyone else has $1. Why is this so difficult to understand? Why do you believe that money is somehow worth more if its distribution is unequal? If people buy more stuff, that's called a healthy economy. If people buy 'too much milk and the prices go up' then someone will sell milk for less to undercut the competition in a healthy economic system. If you can't sell it for less, you innovate. If you can't innovate, or sell for less, then you can't compete and you lose. Everyone being able to afford more milk doesn't cause $1 to be worth less. Of course, this example isn't realistic anymore, but that's due to capitalism failing -- the underlying principals of the example still hold true.

[–] Korhaka@sopuli.xyz 2 points 1 day ago

The problem is in markets with little to no real competition. So, housing. But really that is a separate problem that also should be fixed and could be but for some reason is apparently politically unpopular to do so.

We literally fixed this exact problem before.

[–] jjjalljs@ttrpg.network 14 points 2 days ago (1 children)

If there's only one grocery store, maybe. But that's a monopoly, and that's going to be shit no matter what. Ideally you have multiple grocery stores that compete, and if one raises prices the other will take their customers. (If they all coordinate to raise their prices, that's a cartel and that's also bad.)

So you're not really exposing a problem with UBI, but rather with unregulated capitalism.

[+] rikudou@lemmings.world -9 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (2 children)

We live in a real world, not a hypothetical scenario. There are multiple stores and they're all either in a cartel or just blindly copying each other in extracting the maximum value out of their customers.

This brings them more money, they pump more into marketing and voilà, only the shitty stores remain. If a newcomer joins, you can enjoy a few pretty good years until they inevitably join the shitty cartel or cease to exist.

So yeah, that's a problem of capitalism but that doesn't mean it's not a problem preventing UBI actually ever being implemented.

[–] adespoton@lemmy.ca 9 points 1 day ago

But we’ve already seen this without UBI. So worst case, nothing changes. Best case? There’s more opportunity for change.

[–] jjjalljs@ttrpg.network 13 points 2 days ago

I don't think "This other, largely unrelated, problem is bad so we shouldn't do this thing" is good reasoning.

I don't think in the real world, in all places (or even most places) all the stores are in a cartel. Where I live, there are several large supermarkets and a handful of smaller groceries all within walking distance. They are not a cartel. They compete. You're just making stuff up for some weird dark fantasy of yours.

Furthermore, if there was a monopoly, and we have the political might to implement UBI, I dare say we'd also have the political power to do a tried-and-true popular move of breaking up monopolies.

[–] grue@lemmy.world 11 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Tell me you don't understand income inequality without telling me you don't understand income inequality.

[+] rikudou@lemmings.world -13 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Well, definitely more than you understand economy, it seems.

[+] grue@lemmy.world 7 points 2 days ago (2 children)

[removed by mod]

[–] Rhaedas@fedia.io 9 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Aka the same line companies used when some places tried and succeeded in raising wages. Turns out the prices didn't go up, only the spending power of those with those wages, who bought more stuff. Some people have a beef against the idea of any sort of welfare net because it might be abused. Then try to make it less abusable, or better yet, try it and see what works, don't say "we tried nothing and we're all out of ideas."

[–] grue@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago

Some people have a beef against the idea of any sort of welfare net because it might be abused.

Yeah, if by "abused" you mean working-class people getting "uppity" because they actually manage to get ahead for once.

[+] rikudou@lemmings.world -11 points 2 days ago (3 children)

Just a side note, if you want people to even consider your point of view, don't call them idiots. Off to blocklist you go! Bye.

[–] HikingVet@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

Seems like you don't actually want to communicate

[–] rikudou@lemmings.world -2 points 1 day ago

I did want to and as you can see in a sibling thread, we actually did discuss with someone who didn't decide that calling people idiots just because you don't have anything smarter to say is appropriate.

[–] Gronk@aussie.zone 6 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Artificially inflating prices to cancel out UBI would create economic incentive to undercut those corporations in a free market.

Government intervention could also be used in a less free market to ensure subsistence items aren't artificially inflated, after that who cares if some company inflates their price? Go work if you want a new shiny thing.

You know what's really good? Having a safety net to prevent the lowest suffering class of our society dying from things that we've been able to prevent for decades.

Having reduced crime because people aren't fighting over scraps.

Having more mobility in society so people can pursure careers and education that aligns with their own self fulfilment goals.

Stop fighting against a better world for all of us please.

[–] rikudou@lemmings.world -5 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Artificially inflating prices to cancel out UBI would create economic incentive to undercut those corporations in a free market.

That hasn't worked historically for any reason and UBI is not so magical that the whole of capitalism will sit on its ass and stop doing what it's doing.

Government intervention could also be used in a less free market to ensure subsistence items aren’t artificially inflated, after that who cares if some company inflates their price? Go work if you want a new shiny thing.

Pretty much the same response as above, good luck with that.

You know what’s really good? Having a safety net to prevent the lowest suffering class of our society dying from things that we’ve been able to prevent for decades.

Having reduced crime because people aren’t fighting over scraps.

Having more mobility in society so people can pursure careers and education that aligns with their own self fulfilment goals.

Fully agree, I don't see how that relates to UBI, though.

Stop fighting against a better world for all of us please.

I'm not, I'm just trying to explain that while UBI sounds good on paper, it can't work and never will. It's free money for everyone who owns capital, be it landlord or huge chains. They'll have your UBI, you'll have nothing and you'll pay for it from your taxes, because rich don't pay their taxes, definitely not the amount they should. So, where in that is your better world?

[–] Gronk@aussie.zone 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I get the point youre trying to make but a UBI is still a step in the right direction, I'd rather take the gamble and pay my taxes on it than have what we do now.

At the very least it would expose a lot of the systemic issues you've mentioned to the broader public, and hopefully that would lead to meaningful change.

I'd prefer a world where people are guaranteed the basics to survive without having to capitulate to the system, we have the technlogical progress and productive capabilities to do this we're just not there in terms of societal progression.

And I'm going to continue advocating for that world, whether it's UBI or unbiased infrastructure and systems to provide people with basic needs

[–] rikudou@lemmings.world -1 points 1 day ago

I’d prefer a world where people are guaranteed the basics to survive without having to capitulate to the system, we have the technlogical progress and productive capabilities to do this we’re just not there in terms of societal progression.

I get that and I agree, but I don't think giving everyone money that can be stolen by the usual suspects is the solution. Safety nets are the way to go, not UBI.

If someone some day proves me wrong, I'll be happy to admit I was wrong, though I'm not gonna support UBI until that happens, because of the issues I outlined.

[–] grue@lemmy.world 9 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

LOL, says the guy whose previous comment was nothing but a personal attack. You're just throwing a tantrum because you have no rebuttal.

[–] Rhaedas@fedia.io 10 points 2 days ago (1 children)

If everyone is getting it but only the poorer are using it, it most certainly has value.

[–] thejoker954@lemmy.world 11 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I'm gonna be real. Theres no way in hell I would continue to work fulltime.

Especially with the amount of wasted time at work when you can't even be productive if you wanted to.

[–] cynar@lemmy.world 9 points 1 day ago

One of the unspoken benefits of UBI is that it rebalances the power dynamic between employer and employee. When your back's not against the wall financially, you can negotiate a lot better for a reasonable setup.

People getting a decent living wage via a 3 day week should be the norm, not an exception. I've seen several studies where companies went to a 4 day week, for the same pay. Actual productivity went up, not down. It turns out a happy, rested workforce is a lot more than 20% more productive.

[–] Dyskolos@lemmy.zip 25 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Noone likes doing nothing. Some may very well like doing something that is not directly or instantly netting a financial gain. Which is great, as every civilized culture needs artists and such. People who'd wither in some silly office-jobs but burst of creativity. Those who may currently be forced to a useless life just to have one.

But the opposition is clear, although not honest. A happy worker is a worker I can't oppress. If noone is always endangered of starving, who would do the jobs noone wants and are paid like shit or even dangerous?

No country will ever see a UBI. Sadly so.

[–] BrikoX@lemmy.zip 12 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (2 children)

Except there are already countries that have UBI. Namely Iran and Macau. There are also multiple different state/cities across the world that also have it.

What is unlikely is that happening in any country run by a capitalist system.

[–] rikudou@lemmings.world 6 points 2 days ago

That universal income can't even pay rent, at least in Iran, don't know about Macau.

[–] Dyskolos@lemmy.zip 0 points 1 day ago

Didn't know Macau had one, and it sounds pretty nice, despite it being "too low and infrequent". But I don't know enough to form an opinion. At least good to know, thanks.

Iran...i meant at least half-assedly civilized countries, not those running sharia-law, death-sentence, no press-freedom, systematic discrimination of minorities etc. Can't judge the effectiveness or the UBI there, and also don't really care.

[–] tiredofsametab@fedia.io 13 points 2 days ago (1 children)

If I had UBI that covered my food and shelter, I'd ... keep working because I love it. I'd probably work about half as much at my main (software engineer) job and split the new free time between taking some uni courses and a little more relaxation. My second job is as a farmer and, aside from the paperwork and accounting I don't fully understand yet in Japanese, I enjoy the work the majority of the time.

[–] Korhaka@sopuli.xyz 2 points 1 day ago

I would potentially try to create something that may or may not be financially successful. Maybe it won't work for me, but if a bunch of people now feel able to do that some of them will be successful.

[–] 001Guy001@lemm.ee 5 points 2 days ago

I remember hearing about a similar experiment from the 70's in Canada

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/1970s-manitoba-poverty-experiment-called-a-success-1.868562

https://www.bbc.com/worklife/article/20200624-canadas-forgotten-universal-basic-income-experiment