Michael Bohmeyer is the founder of a Berlin-based startup called "Mein Grundeinkommen" or "My Basic Income." In the six years since he first asked for donations, his company has given more than 650 people a no strings attached stipend of 1,000 euros a month for one year.
The idea has been to test whether or not a basic income payment could, among other things, improve people's happiness and improve the way that governments manage their social welfare systems. According to this recent NY Times article, Germany spends almost a third of their GDP on social welfare.
Since founding "My Basic Income," Michael has gone on to publish a book and also partner with the German Institute for Economic Research in Berlin. And so far, his findings seem fairly positive. Instead of valuing the money itself, people seem to really value the sense of security that it brings.
Few people quit working, because a basic income is exactly that -- basic. Instead, people seem to be using it to do things like quit that job they hate in order to find a better one. The payment provides some downside protection and that can be empowering.
Michael Bohmeyer is the founder of a Berlin-based startup called "Mein Grundeinkommen" or "My Basic Income." In the six years since he first asked for donations, his company has given more than 650 people a no strings attached stipend of 1,000 euros a month for one year.
The idea has been to test whether or not a basic income payment could, among other things, improve people's happiness and improve the way that governments manage their social welfare systems. According to this recent NY Times article, Germany spends almost a third of their GDP on social welfare.
Since founding "My Basic Income," Michael has gone on to publish a book and also partner with the German Institute for Economic Research in Berlin. And so far, his findings seem fairly positive. Instead of valuing the money itself, people seem to really value the sense of security that it brings.
Few people quit working, because a basic income is exactly that -- basic. Instead, people seem to be using it to do things like quit that job they hate in order to find a better one. The payment provides some downside protection and that can be empowering.
This is obviously not a new concept. It's been tested and even implemented in many places around the world, and it has become increasingly popular as an idea in recent years. So here are some additional data points. If you're interested in this topic, you may want to
One of the obvious counterarguments is that free money will make people lazy. But there are a number of studies out there, including real world examples, that suggest this isn’t necessarily true.
Wired recently published an interesting recount of one such example.
In the late 90′s the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians in North Carolina opened up a casino. Many would argue that casinos are horrible as an economic development tool, but in this instance the roughly 15,000 tribal members were all promised an equal cut of the casino’s profits.
The first payments worked out to about $595 each. But in 2016, each tribal member received approximately $12,000.
The operator takes 3% of annual profits as a management fee, and then the rest is funneled back into the community to cover things like healthcare and infrastructure. About half of the casino’s profits go toward these “per capita payments.”
All of this has made for an interesting case study on what can happen when you distribute unconditional money to low-income households.
What researchers discovered was a slew of positive externalities ranging from not only higher household incomes and fewer people below the poverty line, but also better health outcomes and children staying in school longer.
This is obviously not a new concept. It's been tested and even implemented in many places around the world, and it has become increasingly popular as an idea in recent years. So here are some additional data points. If you're interested in this topic, you may want to
One of the obvious counterarguments is that free money will make people lazy. But there are a number of studies out there, including real world examples, that suggest this isn’t necessarily true.
Wired recently published an interesting recount of one such example.
In the late 90′s the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians in North Carolina opened up a casino. Many would argue that casinos are horrible as an economic development tool, but in this instance the roughly 15,000 tribal members were all promised an equal cut of the casino’s profits.
The first payments worked out to about $595 each. But in 2016, each tribal member received approximately $12,000.
The operator takes 3% of annual profits as a management fee, and then the rest is funneled back into the community to cover things like healthcare and infrastructure. About half of the casino’s profits go toward these “per capita payments.”
All of this has made for an interesting case study on what can happen when you distribute unconditional money to low-income households.
What researchers discovered was a slew of positive externalities ranging from not only higher household incomes and fewer people below the poverty line, but also better health outcomes and children staying in school longer.
. Albert is a venture capitalist and is currently working on a book called World After Capital, which I have mentioned before on this blog. He is also an advocate of
as a solution to the growing inequality that the modern economy seems to be producing.
In this latest post he wades into the world of architecture with two assertions that I would like to respond to today. The first is that with basic income the current trend of everyone piling up in large cities will end. We will decentralize in search of cheaper land on the outskirts of cities. And the second is that affordable housing could perhaps be produced with a more open source approach to architectural drawings and new construction.
In terms of his first point, I’m not entirely clear why someone earning a basic income would suddenly decentralize. In the comments there is some discussion about how retirees, on a fixed income, often move outward in search of more affordable housing. I understand that phenomenon, but I am not convinced in this scenario.
There has been lots of talk about the demise of cities because of new technologies and other factors. But agglomeration economies have proved, again and again, to be a powerful centralizing force. Let’s also not forget about the environmental impacts of large scale decentralization, which would only be partially mitigated by the widespread adoption of electric vehicles.
Secondly, you can build a house without an architect. The issue isn’t that good bathroom details are hard to come by. Some of the bigger issues are likely the availability of land (decentralization, I guess, is supposed to solve this); construction costs (it’s a highly inefficient process that generates copious amounts of waste); and the immense regulatory burdens imposed on new construction (process, time, and costs).
All of this stemmed from a visit that Albert did with a group of architecture students who are researching the relationship between architecture and basic income. I would be very curious to see what they produce.
. Albert is a venture capitalist and is currently working on a book called World After Capital, which I have mentioned before on this blog. He is also an advocate of
as a solution to the growing inequality that the modern economy seems to be producing.
In this latest post he wades into the world of architecture with two assertions that I would like to respond to today. The first is that with basic income the current trend of everyone piling up in large cities will end. We will decentralize in search of cheaper land on the outskirts of cities. And the second is that affordable housing could perhaps be produced with a more open source approach to architectural drawings and new construction.
In terms of his first point, I’m not entirely clear why someone earning a basic income would suddenly decentralize. In the comments there is some discussion about how retirees, on a fixed income, often move outward in search of more affordable housing. I understand that phenomenon, but I am not convinced in this scenario.
There has been lots of talk about the demise of cities because of new technologies and other factors. But agglomeration economies have proved, again and again, to be a powerful centralizing force. Let’s also not forget about the environmental impacts of large scale decentralization, which would only be partially mitigated by the widespread adoption of electric vehicles.
Secondly, you can build a house without an architect. The issue isn’t that good bathroom details are hard to come by. Some of the bigger issues are likely the availability of land (decentralization, I guess, is supposed to solve this); construction costs (it’s a highly inefficient process that generates copious amounts of waste); and the immense regulatory burdens imposed on new construction (process, time, and costs).
All of this stemmed from a visit that Albert did with a group of architecture students who are researching the relationship between architecture and basic income. I would be very curious to see what they produce.
