Why we should give everyone a basic income | Rutger Bregman | TEDxMaastricht

In September 2013 Bregman joined the online journalism platform "De Correspondent." His article on basic income was nominated for the European Press Prize. In September 2014 his newest book "Gratis geld voor iedereen" ("Free money for everyone") came out.

Rutger Bregman
Basic Income for everyone

Ladies and Gentlemen,

today I'd like to share
a big idea with you.

In fact, I believe it could be

one of the biggest ideas
of the 21st century.

It's an idea that
could unite politicians

from the left to the right

in fixing our broken
social security system.

It's an idea that could
give dignity to millions

and accomplish what we should have
accomplished long ago

especially in our rich
and wealthy countries:

eradicating poverty.

But first,

I have to be honest with you:

it's actually not my idea.

Now, in fact it's
the idea of this man,

Thomas Payne,

who sadly wasn't able
to make it today

(Laughter)

because -- well,
he died 200 years ago.

But it was also
the idea of these guys:

some of history's greatest thinkers.

Now I can hear you think:

What kind of idea
could unite men so different

such as the civil rights campaigner,

Martin Luther King, on the one hand,

and the free market
economist Milton Friedman,

on the other hand?

What idea could
unite thinkers so different

such as Thomas Payne,
who thought that the government

is the solution to most of our problems,

and on the other hand,
Friedrik von Hayek,

the Austrian economist,
who said that, well,

the Government is in fact
the problem, most of the time.

What is this idea, that goes
against the spirit of our time,

right through
the old political divisions

between the left and the right?

What is this great idea,
this Utopian idea

that so many of
history's greatest thinkers

have been dreaming
about for centuries,

yet which has failed to come true,

so far?

Well, some people call it
the "citizen's dividend";

other people call it
the "basic income."

Now, I like to call it

"free money for everyone."

Now, that sounds good, right?

I know, it also sounds

like a Utopian fantasy,

something that will never come true,

especially not in our lifetime.

But I want to remind you beforehand:

Utopias have a tendency
of coming true.

Just think of how
the end of slavery,

equal rights for men and women,
and democracy,

they were all regarded
as impossible ideals, once.

But in history, there is
something called progress.

So let's start with this
simple, basic question:

What is the basic income?

Well, it is a monthly grant,

enough to pay for your basic needs:

food, shelter, education.

That's it.

Now, some of you might ask:

Don't we have this already?

Isn't there something
called social security,

don't we have the welfare state?

Well, yes, but the basic income
is something entirely different.

In the first place, it's universal,

so everyone would get it.

Whether you're a billionaire or a beggar,

whether you're a man or a woman,
employed or unemployed,

the basic income is a right,

a right as a citizen of your country.

Moreover, it's also unconditional,

so you get it no matter what.

No one's going to tell you
what you have to do with it;

no one's going to tell you
what you have to do for it.

The basic income is not a favor,

but it's a right, just like, for example,

the freedom of speech is a right as well.

But most importantly,

in the past few decades,
in the past 30 or 40 years,

it has become more than just an idea.

"Free money for everyone"

is more than just an idea nowadays,

it has become a proven idea.

As you can see on this map,

there have been experiments

-- this map is from 2012, by the way --

there have been experiments
all over the world

and especially in the South,

from Mexico to Brazil,
from South Africa to India,

researchers and governments
have experimented

with giving people free money.

This map shows all the
"cash transfer programs"

as they call them, that reach
at least 5,000 individuals.

And there have also been
very large-scale experiments

in the 70s and 80s in Canada
and in the United States.

They're almost forgotten nowadays,

but they were a big success.

Now, what researchers have shown,
time and time and again,

by comparing a test group
of poor people who receive free money,

and a similar control group,
so that they could see the effects --

time and time again, they have shown
that free money results in --

well, lower inequality,
lower poverty, obviously;

but it also results in
less infant mortality,

lower health care costs,
lower crime rates,

better school completion records,

less truancy, higher economic growth,

better emancipation rates,

and all kinds of other
positive social outcomes.

Time and time again,
researchers have shown

that free money may be
the most efficient,

the cheapest, and the most civilized way

to combat poverty.

Now, I'm not going to
be able to summarize

all the experiments that happened on it,

so I want to tell you
about just one experiment

that was done a few years ago
in the City of London.

Now, this was an experiment
with some homeless men.

To be exact, 13 homeless men

that lived on the streets of London.

They were "street veterans":

Some of them had been living
on the cold tiles of "square mile",

which is the financial district of London,

for more than 40 years.

And I have to mention,

their presence was far from cheap --

think of health care costs,

legal cost, policing costs --

they were costing
the British taxpayers

hundreds of thousands
of pounds every year.

So, everything had been
tried at that point

and it was time for something new.

In the spring of 2009,
a local charity decided:

Well, why not try free money instead?

So, each of the homeless men
received £3,000.

Cash.

No strings attached.

They were completely free to decide

whatever they wanted to do with the money.

The only question they had
to answer for themselves was:

What do you think is good for you?

Counseling services
were completely optional.

Now, of course, most of the aid workers,

they didn't have high expectations:

they thought that, well,

the men are probably going
to spend the money

on alcohol or drugs or gambling
or something like that.

But then, something amazing happened.

What happened in the first place was

that the men turned out
to be extremely frugal

with the money they received.

At the end of the first year

only £800 had been spent on average.

And what did they spend it on?

A phone or a passport
or a dictionary,

each had his own idea

of what would be best for him.

Moreover, a year later
the impossible had happened;

7 out of 13 of the men
had a roof above their head.

Two more had applied for housing.

Some of the men took gardening classes;

another learned how to cook, for example.

They visited their children, again.

And all of the men
made plans for the future.

It sort of seemed as if
the cash had empowered them.

Now, I don't know if there's
a politician in the room,

but a politician would
probably ask at this point:

Well, this is a very interesting story,

but what did it cost?

What did the experiment cost?

Well, the answer is £50,000,

including the wages of the aid workers.

So, in addition to giving
at least seven individuals

another shot at life,
the project had saved money

by a factor of at least seven.

And this is a very
conservative estimate.

Even the liberal,
free market magazine,

The Economist,
concluded at that point:

The most effeicient way to spend
money on the homeless

might be just to give it to them.

(Laughter)

Experiments such as these, and
they've been done all around the world,

show us that we need to rethink
what poverty actually is.

Poverty is not a lack of character;

poverty is a lack of money!

Nothing more, nothing less.

So, it turns out that it's a great idea

just to give money to the poor
if you want to resolve that problem.

Ladies and gentlemen,

we are living through a time and age

in which our societies and economies
are changing faster than ever.

It's an age of automation;

the robots are coming for our jobs.

Now, this will bring, obviously,
great prosperity,

but it also means that
we will have to adjust.

If we do not adjust,

if we keep applying the
solutions of the 20th century

to the challenges of the 21st century,

then the middle class will crumble,
and inequality will soar.

And truly this is a dystopian future.

Nowadays, governments are obsessed

with pushing people into jobs,

even when there are no jobs.

It's like the great inventor
Buckminster Fuller once said:

So we have inspectors of inspectors,

and people making instruments
for inspectors to inspect inspectors.

The true business of people
should be to go back to school

and think about whatever
it was they were doing

before somebody told them

they had to earn a living.

I believe that the basic income
is a better alternative

to our current welfare mess.

But I have to admit, throughout history,

there have always been
three arguments against it,

three formidable objections.

The first goes something like this:

Oh, it's an interesting idea, but --

I've done some calculations
and it's too expensive.

Sorry, can't pay for it.
It's not going to work.

Now, this might have been true

in the times of Thomas Payne,
200 years ago,

when almost everyone,
almost everywhere,

was sick, poor, hungry and ugly.

(Laughter)

But it's not true anymore.

As a society, we are richer than ever!

I'd like to see the basic income

as a dividend of progress.

Because our forefathers worked so hard

to achieve our current
level of prosperity,

we can now afford to give everyone

a share of their accomplishments.

And remember,

eradicating poverty
is actually an investment.

An economist calculated

that it would cost about $175b

to eradicate poverty in United States.

That's quite a lot of money, right?

$175b each year --

But it's only a quarter
of the country's military budget.

So this is entirely possible,
it's entirely doable.

And after ten, or maybe twenty years,

it wll turn out that the investment
has paid for itself.

Because the government will save billions
in lower health care costs,

there will be less crime,

and there will be lots more
productive citizens

who will be able
to fulfill their dreams.

So, let's move onto
the second objection,

maybe that one's better.

The second objection is:

Ah, this is an interesting idea,

we might be able to pay for it,

but um --

when you give people free money,

they will stop working!

You know, it's human nature,
people are lazy,

nothing can be done about that.

The interesting thing, here, is that

if I asked each one of you, in this room:

Would you stop working when I'll give you,

you know, about 1000 € each month?

About 99% of you would say:

Of course not. I've got dreams,
I've got ambitions,

I'm not going to sit on the couch, no.

But if I asked
each and everyone of you,

What would other people do,

when they receive
1000 € each month?

I think about 99% of you would say:

Yeah, other people,

they'll probably stop working!

(Laughter)

You know, it's human nature,
they're lazy --

If that's what you're thinking,
I've got some news for you.

The experiments that were
conducted all over the world,

and also common sense, actually tell us

that most people want
to contribute to society.

Most people want to make
something of their lives!

In fact some of the
experiments have shown

that poor people, especially poor people,

actually work more,
when you give them a free grant.

Because it gives them the opportunity

to invest in their lives,
or in their business, for example.

The third objection,
ladies and gentlemen,

might be the most difficult to overcome.

I hear people sometimes say:

"Well, this is a great idea.

We might be able to pay for it
and I won't stop working,

and maybe they won't too --

-- but er -- this is too big!

You know, politicians nowadays
they're too busy with themselves.

And it's never going to happen,
they're always shortsighted,

and this is just too big an idea.

I don't think it's going to happen."

Well, if that's what you're thinking,
I want to introduce you to this man.

You know him, right?

This is Richard Nixon.

The conservative president,

the corrupt president, from
the Watergate scandal?

Yes! It was this man
who almost implemented

a modest basic income
at the beginning of the 70s

in the United States.

It almost happened!

His proposal got through
the House of Representatives

and it hit the Senate floor
where doubts returned

because some more
progressive senators said:

Oh, this is a great idea,
but we want a larger basic income,

so we're going to reject this proposal,
and --

well, we never heard of it again.

It's an almost forgotten episode
in the history of United States.

But it shows us
that of course it's possible.

Remember, once again:

Utopias have a tendency of coming true.

The end of slavery,

equal rights for men and women, democracy,

they were all regarded as
impossible Utopian ideals once.

But in history, there is
something called progress,

however slow and erratic it might be.

All we need is a little
more patience, sometimes.

All we need is a lot
more collective ambition.

Now, I understand that a short TED talk
is probably not enough to convince you

that free money for everyone
is going to be

the biggest idea of the 21st century.

So, I encourage you
to read more about it,

to look at the evidence for yourself,

and think: Isn't it time
to update my worldview?

As I said, our ideas often
lag behind the speed

at which our societies
and economies are changing.

The basic income may not be implemented
in the next 3 or 4 years,

but it may be implemented
in the next 30 or 40 years.

Ideas can and do change the world.

In fact, history is ruled by little else.

It's like the famous Irish poet,
Oscar Wilde, once said:

"Stronger than a thousand armies
is an idea whose time has come."

And I believe that in this century
the time has come

for free money for everyone.

Thank you very much.

(Applause)