Will people just play games all day or create new things if they don't have to worry about basic needs?
Will people feel happy and satisfied?
Will they achieve greater things and create more value for society?
Will people create more economic value than they receive?
In 2016, OpenAI had just been founded, and Sam Altman was still the president of Y Combinator.
In his article on Y Combinator, he expressed his interest in the concept of "Universal Basic Income" and raised the above questions.
Simply put, "Universal Basic Income" means providing people with enough money to live on without any conditions, and then seeing how people will live their lives.
Although ChatGPT didn't exist in the world at that time, Altman already believed that future technology would make most traditional jobs disappear while creating enormous wealth, so we'd better think about how society should operate by then.
"Universal Basic Income" was a possibility he decided to research in advance through YC Research.
In November 2020, a "Universal Basic Income" experimental project covering 3,000 people was officially launched, and YC Research had been renamed OpenResearch.
Recently, OpenResearch finally released the first batch of research results from this project.
How did people actually spend this money?
And how did their lives change?
Besides basic necessities, people are also more willing to help others
Cash means flexibility.
If your goal is to promote a specific purpose for everyone, then it's not a precise tool, but it can promote some or even multiple different outcomes for everyone.
Said Elizabeth Rhodes, the project leader of OpenResearch.
Although how to spend the money is up to each individual once they receive it, there are indeed many commonalities in how recipients use it.
The 3,000 people participating in this project were from Illinois and Texas in the United States, aged between 21-40, with family annual incomes not exceeding 3 times the US poverty line.
They were divided into two groups: one group received $1,000 per month, while the other control group received $50 per month.
The result is that among the money given out, people used it most in basic living areas - food, rent, and transportation.
Statistics show that the group receiving $1,000 increased their average monthly spending by $310 compared to before the experiment over three years.
Of this, people spent an average of $67 more on food, $52 more on rent, and $50 more on transportation per month.
So did this make people's bodies healthier?
Basically, we didn't find direct evidence that people's bodies became healthier because of this money, we can even rule out small health improvements.
However, there were changes in participants' actions: they spent more time on their health, and were more likely to see dentists and go to hospitals than the control group.
At the same time, participants also voluntarily reported that they reduced their intake of over-the-counter painkillers and alcohol.
What people found most unexpected was that after gaining more income, besides basic necessities, the category where people increased spending the most was actually helping others - $22/month.
At the same time, this category also had the largest increase in spending for the $1,000 group compared to the $50 group.
Specifically, this category includes gifts sent to relatives and friends, loans to others, donations to charities, and alimony.
One participant, Zelda, had her electricity cut off and had to borrow money from her sister-in-law before she started receiving $1,000 in cash. Later, they became the ones who could help others:
My mother-in-law and sister-in-law started borrowing money from us... My reaction was, "Don't worry, I completely understand. I went through the same difficulties not long ago, I get it."
The study points out that many groups like Zelda may be able to help others for the first time in their lives, which also brings a sense of satisfaction.
At the same time, this effect also shows that the impact of unconditional cash is not limited to the recipients themselves, it spreads to those around the recipients.
Stable life allows for imagination
"Cash means flexibility."
Sometimes, this flexibility brings the possibility of breathing space, the beginning of imagination and planning.
Opponents of "Universal Basic Income" have a concern: if people don't have "survival pressure", who would be willing to work?
As a result, OpenResearch's research results show that participants who received $1,000 did reduce their working hours, and their income also decreased (excluding the additional $1,000 income).
On average, participants' monthly income decreased by $125, and working hours also decreased by 5.5 hours/month.
Behind these numbers, the research team said, is that participants' career agency increased:
They are willing to spend more time looking for jobs, sometimes even willing to accept relatively lower wages to do work that is more meaningful to them personally, and sometimes they just want to pause work and take a break.
For Dominic, who lost his job due to the pandemic, this means:
The biggest change it brought me was giving me some peace of mind, which allowed me to explore what I want in life.
"Agency" refers to a person's ability and resources to think, plan, and pursue their goals in a way that aligns with their values and desires.
At the beginning of the project, participants may have been limited in their ability to pursue their goals due to unstable living conditions, work, and other issues.
Sometimes, these basic life obstacles are so great that people can't even imagine or construct their desired life goals, and then think about pursuing further learning or entrepreneurship.
At the end of the project, participants' entrepreneurial desire or planning had increased. The rate of actual entrepreneurship among Black and female participants also increased.
At the same time, the likelihood of participants planning to pursue more educational opportunities increased significantly, 15% higher than the control group. Their desire for future planning also increased significantly.
This effect was most pronounced in the lowest income group. One participant said the money changed her life:
When I was applying for graduate school, it was like a scholarship supporting me. While in graduate school, it also provided me with a buffer. Without this money, I don't know how I could have made it to graduate school.
What can money buy?
"Cash means flexibility."
OpenResearch's study this time included different groups, with the longest time span among similar studies so far, and participants demonstrated various possible interpretations of "flexibility" after having extra cash.
However, the study authors emphasize that participants also clearly voted with their money for what they want most - time, a period when they don't have to worry about basic needs all the time.
Policymakers should consider the fact that beneficiaries have already indicated through their choices that they highly value their time away from work.
This conclusion reminds me of a passage from Sam Altman's "Moore's Law for Everything" written in 2021:
As AI takes care of producing most of the world's basic products and services, people will be free to spend time with those they love, to care for others, to appreciate art and nature, or to work for the public good.
This seems reasonable at first glance.
Jamie K. McCallum's "Worked Over" describes workers' struggles revolving around time: