Is Universal Basic Income bad for your mental health?
The idea of giving everyone enough money to live off, every month, with no conditions, is not new. But we do get newly excited about it every couple of years, usually following some economic disaster where more people than normal are out of work.
The current economic catastrophe *gestures to the whole planet*, which is likely only the overture to an imbroglio of long-term unemployment, has provided just such an occasion to dust off the debating gloves.
Most arguments centre around whether a Universal Basic Income (UBI) can ever be affordable and sufficient to live on. We’re going to side-step that for the moment and ask: what kind of impact could UBI have on mental health and wellbeing?
This isn’t straightforward, as income is a poor indicator of happiness and if free cash solved mental health disorders then psychologists would be out of a job quicker than you can say ‘Freud’s invoice return’. But then again, people are rarely happy if they can’t afford food.
Wellbeing is a broad term, so we’ll break it down into the six major factors below. Mental health disorders, such as depression and psychosis, are a slightly different concept to wellbeing but overlap to a large extent, so we’ll look at those as they crop up.
Definitions of UBI can differ, and here it means:
a government-paid salary to every child and adult
is reasonably sufficient for them to afford the basic necessities of life
is granted without assessment or restrictions
does not decrease or increase with hours worked
replaces existing government welfare payments
1) Basic security
This is the bottom of Maslow’s Hierarchy and roughly means access to food, shelter, clothes and heat. For greater wellbeing there also needs to be the belief that access to these things will continue for the foreseeable future.
The case against: Most recipients of UBI (about 80% in the western world) won’t see an improvement in this domain because they can already afford the basics.
The remaining 20% will likely see their existing government-funded support programmes disappear, as this must almost certainly happen in order to afford UBI.
That means years of engagement work and community development will stop, and cash in the bank is not the same as the qualitative benefits from such programmes - especially for difficult to reach groups. People that need help to pay bills, buy food or budget, such as the elderly or people with intellectual difficulties, might find that support evaporate.
The case for: absolute poverty is a killer for wellbeing since it’s hard to ‘be well’ when you’re cold and malnourished. Even though most people won’t see a benefit in this area, a staggering 36% of the world lives in absolute poverty. That’s almost 2 billion people who would see a wellbeing uptick if UBI were rolled out worldwide.
The world’s most ruthless killer and the greatest cause of suffering on earth is without a doubt extreme poverty
- The World Health Organisation
Having a guaranteed income doesn’t just provide actual security, it also gives a sense of security, which is also important for wellbeing.
If you feel more secure you will naturally take more ‘risks’, similar to how you’ll volunteer to help out with an event, start painting a room, and spend more time chatting with people when you feel happy and energetic, but will avoid leaving bed at any cost when you’re ill. You’re not totally focused on survival so you start doing more ‘thriving’ activities.
Feeling secure reduces anxiety and depression, and encourages potentially beneficial risk taking such as holding out longer for a more suitable job or continuing education, all of which are more likely to help us thrive as individuals.
2) Status and control
Most societies, both human and animal, have a hierarchy, whether that’s a school yard pecking order or an office org chart. People tend to be happier when they’re closer to the top of the hierarchy and miserable when they think they’re at the bottom. Everybody’s wellbeing takes a hit when there is a big gap between the top and the bottom of the social pyramid, known as social inequality.
Control refers to how much freedom a person believes they have to choose what happens to them, which tends to decrease the further down the pecking order they are.
The case against: status is relative and UBI won’t do much to close the gap between the richest and poorest; so while it may eliminate absolute poverty it won’t get rid of relative poverty and all the mental health implications that brings. Since income inequality is a major driver of depression, anxiety and stigma, UBI will likely have surprisingly little mental health impact in this domain despite being a financial stimulus.
The case for: there is something to be said for the status gain of 9.7 million people in the UK who will suddenly join the ranks of the ‘rich enough not to need foodbanks’ classes. Relying on benefits that you must apply (beg) for, don’t cover basics and can be taken away at any moment has a significant toll on mental health and has contributed to at least 69 deaths in the last few years.
Having more control over your time and income - combined with the absence of stigma because everybody get the same and no one must jump through hoops for it - could bring significant mental health and wellbeing gains to millions.
UBI might also benefit those who are already on the higher end of the wellbeing spectrum. A guaranteed income gives us more freedom in how we use our time; there is less risk for example in taking a year out to write your novel or start a new business. Evidence from developing countries where cash grant schemes are used show a rise in entrepreneurship which is also linked to better all-round health and wellbeing.
Following your dreams is great at an individual level, and since secure people with higher wellbeing are more likely to do social good activities, this has a positive knock-on effect to the rest of the population too. A virtuous cycle in the making.
3) Quality relationships
Humans are happiest when they have a few good friends they can talk to about important things and can communicate their needs well. This works between people, but also between a client and a service or a citizen and their government. High wellbeing correlates with more trusting, empathetic relationships, whereas low wellbeing is linked to higher rates of substance misuse and ‘frivolous’ spending.
(This area is lacking quite a bit in the UBI research, but we’ll use the best we’ve got)
The case against: poor quality relationships tend to lead to more -aholics, including shopaholics, alcoholics and cataholics. Or to put it another way, we substitute connection for stuff (or cats). Money directly provides the means for buying things, whether it’s drugs or handbags, and doesn’t directly support quality relationships, suggesting UBI might tip the balance in favour of stuff.
For instance research into the Alaska Permanent Fund, which has given every Alaskan resident a condition-free payout of the equivalent of $1,600 a year since 1972, shows a 14% increase in substance misuse the day after payments.
The case for: While free money might increase substance misuse on a particular day, overall it tends to decrease use for the majority of people. A report of 19 different studies looking at how people spent their money after being given a cash transfer (where people are free to spend it) found that they tended to drink and smoke less as well as buy fewer other such ‘temptation goods’.
This suggests that poverty is a cause of substance misuse and makes it harder to connect with others. Again, if you’re starving or stressed by a late payment you’re less likely to be at your social best.
The quality of our relationships determines the quality of our lives
- Esther Perel
This is backed up by similar studies showing that domestic violence, female empowerment and marriage rates are all improved under cash payment schemes.
4) Support networks
Having people and services we can tap when we need help makes us more (mentally) resilient to crises, helps us recover more quickly, and gives us a sense of belonging. Since we are part of that network we can also support others when they need it. Large, strong networks are a marker for high wellbeing.
The case against: as mentioned earlier, there’s a very good chance that existing government-back support services will be dissolved or severely scaled back in order to pay for UBI, such as affordable housing schemes and parenting groups, with the justification that such services will either not be necessary or can be purchased directly by individuals using UBI. In the UK, popular job support schemes are currently accessed through the job-seekers benefit system, which would not exist under UBI.
This will hit hardest those who struggle to access mainstream services or support networks, such as recent migrants or new parents, likely exacerbating existing mental health or wellbeing issues.
The case for: the only way to make up for the withdrawal of state support is for non-state entities to step in. People with high wellbeing are more likely to do things to help others, so in theory the wellbeing gains from other areas combined with a surge in entrepreneurship, free time and capital will try to fill this gap. Whether this will be enough is uncertain based on existing literature.
Technology is nothing. What’s important that you have a faith in people, that they’re basically good and smart, and if you give them tools they’ll do wonderful things with them
- Steve Jobs
5) Problem solving
Problems aren’t a problem as long as we know what to do about them. Higher levels of education and cognitive functioning can help in this department, as well as having more resources (time, money, contacts) to solve problems with.
The case against: UBI isn’t meant to provide a large surplus at the end of the month, so it won’t improve financial resources to tackle problems that much. The higher people’s income, the less difference UBI will make.
Money can also interfere with generating solutions by disincentivising more frugal innovations and encourage waste.
The case for: the research is fairly clear on this one - having enough to live off and a secure income that won’t dip you in and out of poverty is good for your brain. UBI-style payments are linked to better educational attainment, staying longer in education, and higher cognitive development.
These UBI recipients came up with a novel solution to the puzzle of what to do when life gives you lemons, which was to ignore the lemons and have exciting outdoor sex.
One study found school girls were almost 40% less likely to experience psychological distress following a cash grant to their parents, partly through reliably staying above the poverty line, and also improved their school attendance (although this was also a condition of the payment).
6) Physical Health
Physical health directly impacts mental health through various pathways, such as inducing depressive states when inflammation is high, and indirectly such as affecting participation in joyful daily activities. It’s a bit of a complex mashup of chicken and egg problems, but generally speaking higher physical health is associated with improved mental health and wellbeing.
The case against: one of the greatest worries in UBI is what people will do when they don’t have to work for an income. The general assumption is they will descend into lazy drug addicts, which is a sure route to poor physical health.
An American pilot of UBI in the 60s and 70s showed people on average worked less, particularly women, although this is partly because they under-reported their hours in order to receive larger payments (which is relatively common in modern benefit systems but would not be incentivised under the UBI definition used here, as it is not dependent on working hours).
A similar study in Canada found the only groups who reduced their working hours were new mothers and teenagers, the latter of whom stayed longer in education instead.
As mentioned before, substance misuse could increase the day after UBI payments are made, which is likely to have a negative impact on physical health.
Studies consistently showed Universal Basic Income payments were linked to a greater consumption of fancy drinks with small plants in them, but only amongst UBI researchers
The case for: aside from the aforementioned North America pilots, most studies find UBI-style payments support work participation, particularly in starting new businesses. Rather than being lazy and hedonistic, people tend to find more meaningful ways to spend their time, whether it’s running a business, looking after family or studying. This is vitally important to wellbeing as it incorporates aspects of control, purpose and problem solving.
Cheerfulness is the best promoter of health and is as friendly to the mind as to the body
- Joseph Addison
Studies also generally find UBI leads to better physical health, such as higher birth weights, less smoking and drinking, better diets, and less stress-related illnesses. Any negative health effects seem to be far outweighed by the positives.
So, in conclusion
Introducing a Universal Basic Income will have an impact on people's mental health and wellbeing. Most of that is positive, with the biggest changes coming from raising almost two billion people out of survival mode. When people don’t have to worry about where their next paycheck will come from, anxiety and depressive disorders drop and they devote more of their energy to improving their lives and those around them.
While some of the most clear-cut benefits come from better physical health, problem solving capacity, and quality relationships, there are some downsides. The group that will benefit the most, i.e. those in absolute poverty, will also suffer from the withdrawal of existing supports. Drug use may be made more acute at certain points, even though generally there is likely to be a reduction.
Some of the bigger drivers of nation-wide low wellbeing, i.e. social and economic inequality, won’t really be dented by UBI, so this is by far a panacea for mental health. And the evidence suggests that most people - those who already have secure incomes, good support networks, etc. - won’t feel much of an impact at all.
If UBI is not implemented in the way we have defined it, either by being targeted to only low-income houses or being less than a living wage, then gains will be even smaller. The universality of UBI is especially important, as otherwise it’s another opportunity to rain stigma and shame upon recipients.
The debate about UBI rages on and will likely remain a hot topic for the foreseeable future as the world reels from the economic uppercut of Covid. There is enough evidence out there to suggest it could be a very good thing, albeit an expensive one.