Lark mirror: “support” does not rhyme with work!

In January of this year, in the pages of Sudinfo, Paul Magnette liked to quote François Rabelais in Pantagruel: “it is very true what they say, that half of the world does not know how the other half lives”. And to denounce “the strategy of the right which consists of perpetually hitting those on assistance who are incapable of taking charge of themselves”. A study funded by the boss of ChatGPT on the concept of “universal income” – mainly supported on the left of the chessboard – is an opportunity to return to this model. She demonstrates

that there is indeed a rhetoric of assisted laziness.

Initially, a postulate At a time when the left is raising fears that artificial intelligence threatens ever more jobs – while it has been proven that hundreds of new jobs will be created in the next ten years thanks to the rise of AI , cloud computing and strengthening cybersecurity – Sam Altman, PDG d’OpenAI (to whom we owe ChatGPT) wanted to know what would happen if“all the inhabitants of the planet received money for free, regularly and without conditions” . An “unconditional” income of 1000 dollars per month was paid for three years to randomly selected low-income households in Texas and Illinois (1,000 participants between the ages of 21 and 40 earning less than $30,000 per year, or a little less than half of the annual salary average in the United States which is 72,000 dollars). The control group to which they were compared received, for its part, 50 dollars per month

over the same period. Each cohort was scrutinized – with their agreement – on how the money donated was spent and its impact on indicators of financial and moral well-being. The researchers expected the test group to use this unexpected windfall of $36,000 to escape the spiral of precariousness. Well, no, not at all! The frog did not grow as big as the ox.

Working is too hard The results show that participants reduced their working time by approximately 1.3 hours per week (8 fewer working days per year) to devote more time to their hobbies. The study also reveals a decrease in professional commitment, with a drop of 2 percentage points in motivation. In addition, for non-active people, only 9% of beneficiaries actively sought employment and very few have expressed the desire to return to studies or to launch into entrepreneurship. Generally speaking, researchers note that the additional free time freed up was not reinvested in productive activities.

“This suggests that universal income reduces the motivation to work, without improving the quality of available jobs.”

Cicadas, rather than ants What remains is the observation of a general increase in expenditure – $310 more per month – which focuses mainly on the categories of food, housing and automobile-related expenses (26% of the test group also gave gifts to loved ones; a significant number moved and changed neighborhoods). On the other hand, net savings are decreasing because they are more than offset by new debts. “Reimbursement incidents and other bank seizures are in no way decreasing and overall the net assets of beneficiaries have decreased slightly after three years.”

The control group (that of 50 dollars per month) on the other hand obtains better results, which is a shame! In summary, universal income – individualized assistance mechanism by the State – joins the cemetery of false good ideas.

A total of 43 million dollars will have been distributed by the Silicon Valley philanthropist to teach us that the problem of poverty is not limited to the lack of financial means and would have socio-cultural roots anchored in the largesse of a State- Providence cannot erase it with checks! As for Rabelais, dear Mr. Magnette, it is very true what the right thinks, that half of the world does not know how the other half works…