Open AI founder Altman is considered a big supporter of the unconditional basic income. He invested millions in a study on the subject, which has now produced disappointing results.
This is original content from the Capital brand. This article will be available for ten days on stern.de. After that, you will find it exclusively on capital.de. Capital, like the star to RTL Germany.
Proponents of an unconditional basic income for financially weak households expect many positive effects for society: more voluntary work, more time for the family, more time to further educate oneself and take up a better-paid job, and overall greater equality of opportunity.
Silicon Valley greats such as Twitter co-founder Jack Dorsey and Open AI founder Sam Altman are among the prominent advocates. Altman was also the one who initiated a comprehensive study on the effects of a guaranteed income on employment. The results that have now been published are not very encouraging, however: the study participants and their partners worked less and their annual income was reduced overall. However, no positive effects on education could be found.
Even supporters of basic income and the new work bubble must admit that the reality check is disappointing.
Study participants use the time gained for leisure
According to the New York Times, a budget of $60 million was available for the study. Altman founded the organization Open Research for this purpose, into which he is said to have invested $14 million of his own assets. Another $10 million came from OpenAI and $15 million from Dorsey’s fund for global Covid aid.
The money then went to the study participants, among others. 1,000 randomly selected people with a low income of less than $28,000 a year in the states of Illinois and Texas received an unconditional income of $1,000 every month for three years. A control group of 2,000 people received only $50 a month.
A key result: Compared to the control group, the total income of those receiving an unconditional basic income fell by around $1,500 per year. This corresponds to the reduction in working hours of 1.3 to 1.4 hours less per week. The people’s partners also reduced their working hours. Even supporters of basic income are aware that this can happen.
However, the study now provides clues as to what people do with the time they gain: they do not continue their education or take more time for childcare, but use it primarily for leisure activities.
They also spent a little more time on finances and transport, but not on sports or education. Only a few people took advantage of the additional opportunities, for example to continue their education. “If participants invest more in education, we can expect them to achieve better long-term employment outcomes, all other things being equal,” it says. However, the authors could not confirm this, nor could they confirm better quality of employment.
However, there was an increase in the duration of unemployment. On average, people on basic income were unemployed 1.1 months longer than people in the control group. The results on job search also indicate that people on basic income are more likely to look for a job, but are more selective in their choice of jobs.
Supporters demand more honesty
Although US media in particular reported positively on the study, many experts agree that the results are rather negative. “We need more intellectual honesty here,” writes Rutger Bregman on Platform X. He supports the basic income and supports the thesis of “working less to do more.” “It’s not about being for or against the basic income. It’s about what works in the fight against poverty, injustice and so on.”
Sam Altman also said years ago that there could be no real equality of opportunity without some kind of guaranteed income. He was interested in basic income even before his big breakthrough as a tech investor. Now he shared the study results on X with praise for the team, but without any contextual classification.
Interestingly, the participants in the study who received support showed stronger entrepreneurial intentions – but this did not lead to actual entrepreneurial activity. The study authors therefore believe “that very few people generally have the inclination to become entrepreneurs.”
Source: Stern
