Money. For free. It's been tested in Canada and India. Now one Dutch city wants to give it a whirl.

The Dutch city of Utrecht wants to run a scientific experiment on its residents.

The researchers want to test a concept known as "basic income." Their hypothesis? People aren't all that bad.


Photo by FuFu Wolf/Flickr.

Basic income is "an income unconditionally granted to all on an individual basis, without means test or work requirement," according to the Basic Income Earth Network, a global network focused on basic income research, education, and advocacy.

The idea is to cut out all the rules and complexity of systems like social security and create a stable socioeconomic floor — a minimum standard of living that's available to everyone, rich, poor, and in between — by simply giving money to people.

To some, it sounds like a fantastic idea. ("I'll vote right now!")


Others, especially those who are generally against government assistance programs, grow prickly at the thought. ("Free money? Try getting a job, leech!")

GIF from "It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia."

The Dutch researchers believe those fears are misguided. In the Netherlands, they say, current welfare policies do something they shouldn't: assume the worst of people.

Jacqueline Hartogs, a spokesperson for the alderman who oversees Utrecht's work and income programs, spoke with Business Insider about the idea:

"The current rules in welfare are bureaucratic and, in a way, based on mistrust. In our scientific experiment, we will approach people with less or no rules, to see whether they still make an effort."

Let's paint a quick picture to see why basic income is an idea at least worth exploring.

Imagine you're one of several dozen worker-shareholders at a technology start-up. Your company is doing something innovative (and doing it well) and has found its place in the market.

Then one day, you get bought out by a giant tech conglomerate and, overnight, your founders join the " three comma club," and you and dozens of worker bees become plain old millionaires — if you're lucky.

Photo by Jan Persiel/Flickr.

If you follow business or technology news, that probably sounds like a familiar scenario. On one hand, it is a fairly common story these days. Though finance geeks call them "unicorns," they've become a lot less rare or mythical than once upon a time.

On the other hand, deals like this are still only slightly more common than winning the lottery. This is a much larger hand. You can slap the entire world in its mostly poor face with this hand.

Technology is reducing the need for a human workforce.

And it's going to continue to do so as we find ways to make it more powerful.

"They took err jerrrbs!" Industrial robots spot weld BMW cars in a factory in Leipzig, Germany. Photo by BMW Werk Leipzig/Wikimedia Commons.

And that's the idea, right? Technology is supposed to make our lives easier. I'd argue that not having to work a job in order to meet our most basic human needs would make life immensely easier.

Technology. Making life easier.

I'd also argue that anyone who desires the perks and comforts of greater wealth will be motivated to work toward that goal.

The ironic thing is most people on earth don't even like their jobs. There's something plainly unsettling about an economy designed to make people unhappy.

But alas, the rules of the economy lag behind technology, and for the time being, financial security for most of us hinges on having jobs.

Former U.S. Labor Secretary Robert Reich explains why this doesn't make entire sense, citing a real-world example:

"[T]he model we're rushing toward is unlimited production by a handful, for consumption by the few able to afford it. The ratio of employees to customers is already dropping to mind-boggling lows.

When Facebook purchased the messaging company WhatsApp for $19 billion last year, WhatsApp had 55 employees serving 450 million customers. When more and more can be done by fewer and fewer people, profits go to an ever-smaller circle of executives and owner-investors. ...

This in turn will leave the rest of us with fewer well-paying jobs and less money to buy what can be produced, as we're pushed into the low-paying personal service sector of the economy."



Based on his views, I imagine Reich would think basic income is a great idea. He even proposes that, in the U.S., it could be paid for, not with higher income taxes, but with a percentage of the profits from all patents and trademarks, which have made some people very rich.

Basic income could solve growing income inequality and poverty in a world where technology makes jobs with living wages harder to come by.

Research by the International Labour Organization shows that, globally, wages are flatlining and more than 200 million people are unemployed. And the lack of a safety net, like basic income, is stoking the flames of social unrest.

The ironic thing is most people on earth don't even like their jobs. There's something plainly unsettling about an economy designed to make people unhappy.

GIF from "Office Space."

But does it have to be this way? There's no telling what sort of world-bettering creativity and innovation could be unleashed if masses of people were freed from working jobs they hate just to survive and have the free will to pursue the things they believe are most important.

"If development is about freedom, one should challenge sceptics to show a better way to expand it."

What better way to find out if basic income works than by actually testing it?

Plus, there are a lot of reasons to be hopeful. A 2013 UNICEF-funded basic income experiment in India resulted in higher economic activity, work, and entrepreneurship; and the socioeconomic boost was especially visible for women, seniors, and people with disabilities.

The researchers also found improved nutrition and health, school attendance and performance, and even sanitation.

A family in Orchha in the central Indian state of Madhya Pradesh. Photo by Rebecca Conway/AFP/Getty Images.

But there's more: Basic income was liberating in the most literal sense of the word, with some families being able to escape or make significant strides out of debt bondage.

"The primary value of a basic income would be its emancipatory effect," wrote Guy Standing, one of the researchers behind the UNICEF study. "If development is about freedom, one should challenge sceptics to show a better way to expand it."

A basic income experiment conducted almost 40 years ago in Canada produced amazing results, too. And today, countries like Finland and Switzerland are considering adopting basic income systems.

Let's hope Utrecht gets this experiment off the ground.

Because they wouldn't just be addressing a question of whether all Utrecht residents should have access to a basic and dignified standard of living. They'd also be demonstrating some truth about human integrity.

More

I'm staring at my screen watching the President of the United States speak before a stadium full of people in North Carolina. He launches into a lie-laced attack on Congresswoman Ilhan Omar, and the crowd boos. Soon they start chanting, "Send her back! Send her back! Send her back!"

The President does nothing. Says nothing. He just stands there and waits for the crowd to finish their outburst.

WATCH: Trump rally crowd chants 'send her back' after he criticizes Rep. Ilhan Omar www.youtube.com

My mind flashes to another President of the United States speaking to a stadium full of people in North Carolina in 2016. A heckler in the crowd—an old man in uniform holding up a TRUMP sign—starts shouting, disrupting the speech. The crowd boos. Soon they start chanting, "Hillary! Hillary! Hillary!"

Keep Reading Show less
Recommended
via EarthFix / Flickr

What will future generations never believe that we tolerated in 2019?

Dolphin and orca captivity, for sure. They'll probably shake their heads at how people died because they couldn't afford healthcare. And, they'll be completely mystified at the amount of food some people waste while others go starving.

According to Biological Diversity, "An estimated 40 percent of the food produced in the United States is wasted every year, costing households, businesses and farms about $218 billion annually."

There are so many things wrong with this.

First of all it's a waste of money for the households who throw out good food. Second, it's a waste of all of the resources that went into growing the food, including the animals who gave their lives for the meal. Third, there's something very wrong with throwing out food when one in eight Americans struggle with hunger.

Supermarkets are just as guilty of this unnecessary waste as consumers. About 10% of all food waste are supermarket products thrown out before they've reached their expiration date.

Three years ago, France took big steps to combat food waste by making a law that bans grocery stores from throwing away edible food.According to the new ordinance, stores can be fined for up to $4,500 for each infraction.

Previously, the French threw out 7.1 million tons of food. Sixty-seven percent of which was tossed by consumers, 15% by restaurants, and 11% by grocery stores.

This has created a network of over 5,000 charities that accept the food from supermarkets and donate them to charity. The law also struck down agreements between supermarkets and manufacturers that prohibited the stores from donating food to charities.

"There was one food manufacturer that was not authorized to donate the sandwiches it made for a particular supermarket brand. But now, we get 30,000 sandwiches a month from them — sandwiches that used to be thrown away," Jacques Bailet, head of the French network of food banks known as Banques Alimentaires, told NPR.

It's expected that similar laws may spread through Europe, but people are a lot less confident at it happening in the United States. The USDA believes that the biggest barrier to such a program would be cost to the charities and or supermarkets.

"The logistics of getting safe, wholesome, edible food from anywhere to people that can use it is really difficult," the organization said according to Gizmodo. "If you're having to set up a really expensive system to recover marginal amounts of food, that's not good for anybody."

Plus, the idea may seem a little too "socialist" for the average American's appetite.

"The French version is quite socialist, but I would say in a great way because you're providing a way where they [supermarkets] have to do the beneficial things not only for the environment, but from an ethical standpoint of getting healthy food to those who need it and minimizing some of the harmful greenhouse gas emissions that come when food ends up in a landfill," Jonathan Bloom, the author of American Wasteland, told NPR.

However, just because something may be socialist doesn't mean it's wrong. The greater wrong is the insane waste of money, damage to the environment, and devastation caused by hunger that can easily be avoided.

Planet

Policing women's bodies — and by consequence their clothes — is nothing new to women across the globe. But this mother's "legging problem" is particularly ridiculous.

What someone wears, regardless of gender, is a personal choice. Sadly, many folks like Maryann White, mother of four sons, think women's attire — particularly women's leggings are a threat to men.

While sitting in mass at the University of Notre Dame, White was aghast by the spandex attire the young women in front of her were sporting.

Keep Reading Show less
More

Men are sharing examples of how they step up and step in when they see problematic behaviors in their peers, and people are here for it.

Twitter user "feminist next door" posed an inquiry to her followers, asking "good guys" to share times they saw misogyny or predatory behavior and did something about it. "What did you say," she asked. "What are your suggestions for the other other men in this situation?" She added a perfectly fitting hashtag: #NotCoolMan.

Not only did the good guys show up for the thread, but their stories show how men can interrupt situations when they see women being mistreated and help put a stop to it.

Keep Reading Show less
Culture