her for. her. not hey where's my hole punch. up there but i can't reach it what can i do. cause my is quick to help. i stood a chair to climb on. one does so i can reach the hole punch. and. tench the share thank you was super thank you. we help others from a very early age empathy and the willingness to help are inherent in most people these traits develop into a sense of justice only my few want to help someone or be able to do so we must

realize they are in need we have to imagine ourselves in their place in a sense of justice a similarly we have to recognise that they won't like having less than we do. for a long time research has believed as sense of justice was a matter of upbringing more recent studies suggest that it's innate. started in fear or there's a lot to suggest that we have something inside us from birth to develop through evolution a certain sense of justice a certain preference or orientation towards equal distribution studies with monkeys show it to that often a glimpse of our evolutionary past to sex the usual experiment is that 2 monkeys do tasks and then get a reward for the one. we have in this experiment the capitan monkey is to take an object and give it back. as a reward he gets

a piece of bell pepper. but logan's reward is a great the capitan monkeys favorite food. after that liam refuses the bell pepper again and again he wants grapes as a report like logan. and then he usually gets really mad it shows that he's satisfied as long as no one else is getting something better for the same task. even tries to snatch logan's reward. that's just a very real mentor a sense of a preference for equal treatment and the ability to recognize it but the more developed more complex and healthy sense of justice is a small includes other aspects like performance and an individual's needs so does everyone get the same or does the person who worked harder get more or the person who needs it more or maybe the one who profit most if they get it. these

considerations are formed later through education and interaction with others in talks on and on. for children to master a simple justice means the same for everyone. the american philosopher john rules developed a famous theory in the 1971. he said that we can retain the childlike idea of equal distribution so long as we don't know our position within society. rules us thought experiment went like this a group of people are asked to agree on a fair distribution of income in a newly formed society none of them knows which income group belong to. they discuss under what he called a veil of ignorance. his hypothesis no one would accept less in the latest social order in. for others to have. so the result must be equal to be asian.

sense those experiments are difficult to implement in reality in terms of social theory communism so far remains a utopian ideal economist stefan birth thinks there's a very specific reason for that. i think absolute equality would go hand in hand with an absolute lack of reader. if you look at past models of creating very equal societies that is communist systems of they've always come with a lack of political and other freedoms or and if you look at all the political systems and even the philosophical systems that lean towards equal distribution you see they all suffer from the fact that in principle the state has to take on a strong regulating role. stephan voice has designed an experiment from john rules his idea he's tested it again and again on volunteers to find out when people

choose the equality principle and when they choose the principle of performance. welcome to this economic experiment and i'm going to show you some different distribution methods you'll then have time to discuss them as a group with the 7 participants to choose from 4 methods of distributing income within they create with method incomes are extremely equally distributed depending on performance in b. and c. the unequal distribution is watered down while message d. distributes the same amount to all. tests of arithmetic and general education will determine who all the top the fullness but for now john rules is veil of ignorance is in place the point choose d. i wouldn't make an effort to do anything because i'll get the same amount anyway

but i'd go get a coffee instead of doing arithmetic or the crossword puzzle is in real life so i consider that bad but here i think it's ok. better for he would benefit all of us and we'd all get the same. you wouldn't put anyone at a disadvantage. in your monkey engine never know whether you'd really do better at the task than everyone else out if you assume that everyone is better than you then of course from a selfish point of view you'd argue for method day. as in you have to does it i wouldn't care how much i got i just want the one who contributes most to get the highest reward from binged if we go with method b. or c. and i come 7th that would be fine with me. $1030000.00 gross a year yup just that it be pretty bad sure but that's the way it is if i'm not good i get less all related. what follows lots of. things what if you

weren't good simply because he didn't have the right opportunities just because he weren't prepared but only 4 didn't have the right education to master these tasks. after a nearly 40 minute debate they're ready to vote. italy's cast your vote without letting the other see. this vote and the following performance test will determine 90 percent of each participant payment for taking part. and it's a pretty clear result. voted for d. . one for c. one for b. john rules this theory holds up the majority votes for equality. under one for variant c. because i think what happens in the real world should also be represented as much as possible in experiments like this. now stefan farce lifts the veil of

ignorance crossword puzzles and arithmetic tests determine who gets what. the participants have no reason to worry by choosing distribution method the majority voted for everyone to get the same regardless of their performance. then they find out how they did in comparison with the other is. without disclosing their results they move on to the 2nd discussion this will determine the remaining 10 percent if its participants pay. all right let's go out and buy the buttons for that but i could stay with d.d. for example you know me and or if a bunch of us suddenly said i don't want to go with any more of their minds it's not all where the other was i wasn't the biggest fan of di before either but i'd argue in favor of c. like i did before your absolute in autumn has been organic with the i just want to

quickly point out that your argument was that with method nobody would have an incentive for the task and you'd rather go drink coffee. not too much not about you finish the fastest latham at it and i think you still had an incentive. who thought since we're all going to be ok let's just pick a. system but i don't understand putting such emphasis on all having the same blyton pataki and now basically picking the opposite also did they vote for distribution method c fusty of almost as expected actually it's been proven that as a rule people vote 1st pretty and then for a in the 2nd round of our so 1st absolute equality and then switch to absolute any quality this time it was absolute equality and then relatively moderate any quality would often. once a participant knows what position they have reached those in the higher rankings

one to secure a better income so equality only works under john rules this veil of ignorance. the experiment was conducted with 23 groups the result people clearly want inequality based on performance as long as enough basic security is provided that sounds utopian. in fact in some places money is literally being given away since 2014 the berlin nonprofit mine uncommon all my basic income has been randomly selecting people and giving them 1000 euros a month for a year mission is the man behind the initiative. that i have a kind of basic income myself and no strings attached wage from an internet company i co-founded 6 years ago i left the company but still get money as a koa and even though it's not all that much better unconditional money has

transformed my life since then i've been interested in whether that's the effect of an unconditional basic income then comes as the theory is that financial security allows everyone to live a more relaxed life with fewer worries a universal unconditional basic income has been a hot topic in the west for a long time but some say it would make recipients feel secure and no longer want to work and i know. it's not really shown discouraged at some point that sense of justice will be called upon especially with people who are granted a universal basic income bracket of and decide to let society sustain them and not to have a job that contributes to society as a whole. you can think of things like volunteer in the neighborhood and gauge went on from or even taking responsibility and the family. says. responsibility means helping the weaker among us this applies to individuals but

also to the state. the social justice index determines how well the 41 e.u. and o.e.c.d. countries are doing. the categories are poverty prevention equitable education labor market access social cohesion and nondiscrimination health and intergenerational justice. in the last survey in 2019 germany came in 10. iceland is currently 1st followed by norway. denmark. and finland. in 2016 finland's government commission the social insurance institute killa to launch a universal basic income pilot project instead of unemployment benefits 2000 out of

work finns would get 560 euros basic income what's the point in this experiment the point is not make them millionaires in this experiment when you get to these experiments but the clue is that you get to keep the 560 euros whether your. take on a part time job of full time job or jobs or whatever whatever you get. there could sing was one of the 2000 and employed people who received a basic income for 2 years her husband worked at the struggling nokia company once he starts working and then get this extra then these kind of things we can buy for the house and the funding which has happened there and frankly it has let. me have a very kind of leverage or rather i again like a brace of ratings so far something like and kind of things you have. maybe travelling adventure saving some money. for months after the payments began rosa

had a child again. the lucky one that it was. but it was really only an attractive prospect because rosa knew her modest salary would be topped up with an extra $560.00 euros tax free. in fact the government's experiment wasn't intended to find out where the basic income would make finland more socially just all where the recipients would be most satisfied with their lives. this experiment is say a way to see what should we do what what are the actions that we should take and how should we plan our future social security system so that. the needs in future life and future work life and so on but we have been you know talking about the freedom and the equality. kayleigh a guaranteed basic income would encourage unemployed finns to take low wage jobs in

their vendor 2017 a year after the program began we spoke to draws a different kind of they're feeling you gary is that this just going to get like wipe that rug like and should it. yeah which is a bit sad i was hoping that in finland they'd be more like following you know kind of seeing patterns to know now it feels like it's just like someone in. a filing the papers somewhere maybe in the end of the 2 years. in 2018 the project was terminated prematurely according to the finnish government and employed people showed too little initiative to return to the labor market. sociologist year gun shop says the project's biggest problem was that it was commissioned and financed by the government. done canton in finland there was

a change of government in finland and the project was reduced to being only for the unemployed with their original plan was to try it out for employed people as well just. looking at finland's data ship sees positive effects of a universal basic income on the recipients to mention. the sort of people slept better they said that their subjective wellbeing was better and that they had less stress there are. also their trust in state institutions have increased. as it does that's certainly a finding that will remain part of the research you despite a small sample group has been there for a good. 2021 a german study is beginning with 120 such acts and unlike in finland with a control group surveys of previous basic income recipients reveal surprising findings that islam is by no means the case that anyone becomes lazy in fact it's

the opposite people get a new sense of productivity they live healthier lives they become more social we want to find out whether this can really happen so we need in perigal study to ask i want to know if it's worth investing more time in basic income or if we need another idea to solve the big challenges of our time. within 5 days more than 1000000 people applied to mine clint i'm comin to take part in the study . in addition to those in the study the nonprofit continues to wrestle of several basic incomes each year. and 11 of them she works as a carer in a home for the disabled and is also studying education. she applied in august 1900 and was randomly selected. a 1000 year. as a month for 12 months no strings attached.

i truly cried with joy and i wanted to travel. but i also wanted to treat myself to a few things for example barefoot shoes which i couldn't buy otherwise because they're a bit expensive. and lots of other things more training attending seminars workshops i wanted to attend. on without the money it would be difficult with the money i could afford it and made him go qantas. and then no longer receives payments per year is. it gave her some security but her basic attitude didn't change because of it yeah but nothing for i'd always work but the question would be what would i do or where would i work and how would i work. since the start of the coronavirus pandemic discussions about basic income have also intensified in germany more than $4000000.00 people depend on so-called many jobs which are the

1st to because in times of economic crisis only salaried employees get compensation for shorter working hours or unemployment benefits self employed service workers go empty handed and unconditional monthly payment would protect everyone but of course there are also disadvantages. in a democratic society it has to be legitimately guitar it has to be supported by a majority it has to be affordable and it has to be compatible with a capitalist society minimal the undesirable jobs have to get done too and if you apply these criteria to something like a universal basic income then it often seems difficult and. above all discussions focus on how it would be financed. it

wouldn't work without redistribution. and when asked whether they would give up money to make others better off the majority of germany's high earners said no. at the max planck institute for research on collective goods and bond researchers are investigating which injustices divide a society most. norwegian economist run very fault their set up an experiment to find out how much inequality germans will accept. that she's recruited a test subjects they have to solve computer tasks for 5 minutes in return they get a participation feel of 20 euros plus a bonus if they do well that's all the information the participants have. what they don't know is it's going to be really unfair. so today we

are trying to study which inequalities do people find fair how much inequality do they find fair and how does it vary with the source of inequality. the test begins participants have 5 minutes to complete as many tasks as possible the tasks are assigned randomly either mental arithmetic book classifying pictures into categories. for the whole thing takes 5 minutes that doesn't sound like long but it's quite a lot when you have to concentrate for that long between us especially for the mental arithmetic tasks. border of i'd expect to only get the participation fee because i don't think i was particularly good at the math tasks that i've heard with others to model. run by phone once to find out how adults respond to certain types of pay inequality. one way of doing that would be for you an

eye to eye. you know i do some work and there'd be an earnings difference and then i had to decide to reduce that inequality or not but i also have some self interest and we economists know about it so i would also think about what i want for myself now that makes it a bit difficult to figure out what people consider fair so that's why we bring in this impartial observer the 3rd party who can make a decision for 2 other people those 3rd policies are now introduced they've had nothing to do with the experiment so far to test participants are to be paid according to their performance the base a worker gets 60 euros while the other gets nothing but before the payment is made a 3rd person is able to change that decision susan your the 3rd party please decide whether to redistribute the earnings between the 2 networks or. these decision

makers can allocate between 10 and 60 years to the less productive worker or leave the entire weight with the basal worker. or should i wouldn't say that better worker gets everything and the other gets nothing and under the name it's unfair that the person who's also worked gets nothing at all. minus the end it also be unfair if i were to sit there and work but the other person did a bit more times and then he'd be the more productive one so i think it should be distributed but i don't think they should both get the same and i don't i don't put if one of them is more productive then i think they deserve a bit more. stuff i would say the more productive worker gets 40 euros and the less productive worker gets 20 euro cents or. the next 2 decision makers have to assess a different situation they too have to decide who gets paid what however. after

completing the task they were told that the earnings would be determined by a lottery both person and. i was lucky and earned 60 euros for the task person b. was unlucky and earned nothing in the. will of the independent 3rd parties redistribute this isn't bad for the couldn't help it and nobody deserves bad luck it's always better to be fair thank you. so i would say give both of them the same divide the 60 euros into $30.30 or 30 or of places prices for. the decision makers agree on this week distribution for the researchers it confirms that an equal doesn't necessarily mean i'm just one of the things we see in this experiment that maps quite well into society is that people vary in them quality acceptance depending on the source of inequality so when it's luck for instance when there's something that's beyond individual control people would like to reduce

those inequalities more solid than they would when the source of inequality is rather differences in merit but we can also see that these. preferences we measure in the lab they also correlate with important policy preferences such as how much we distribute should do i want society how broad of a welfare state do i want. this subject so should to get 20. but they curious to see how the decision makers have to strip their remaining pay. your share had to do the mental arithmetic is this mess of pottage it's more than i expected from this amount but it might judge that i was still better than the person i was paired with i also wondered how i would decide in a situation like that. probably do something similar for you so the image after i don't know how. my but it also had to do the math and gets 40 euros for it. i don't know now whether i was better than the other person or not but it looks

like it at 60 euros i'd say so so i'm also happy that i did so well philip from the last 3 category is also happy then you've got to give in it was a question of luck nobody had a particular influence on it i think this is a very fair result as if you. report is today's results to colleagues in norway. and in. the ok yeah. yeah they made exactly the experiment is the brainchild of alexander cup pen and bear 2 to guardian of the research institute fair in bed and. this is. no anger so that i think i have it's usually not the case. the experiments been carried out in over 60 countries with nearly 70000 test subjects the results are

almost the same everywhere it's been poor households in. presenting these choices to people. well i mean it's just striking when you're asked people to make a decision for 2 other people even if they're never going to meet them. they take it so seriously and they really think carefully about what they think it's different thing to do. their research is a convinced that this experiment reveals important approaches to solving social inequality. that people in general make this fundamentalist things in between fear and fear inequalities and it's unfair to call it is that we have to fight and i think i mean if you want to succeed i mean then for dishes want to succeed and societies want to succeed in in fighting inequality inequality be have to really make that distinction that we need for focus on the unfair inequalities because if we just you have this like approaching that we just have to fight inequality

a lot of people resist it because they don't take all illegal jesus as their. if they're unfair in change of perspective and. innovative. play from. the way they are high. 10102021. good carona be the start of something completely new it's time to rethink and redesign our 21. 30 minutes on d

w. or. more than a 1000 years ago europe witnesses a huge construction boom. christianity firmly established itself. both religious and secular leaders to display their power. to trace games. and create the tallest biggest and most beautiful structures. stone masons builders and architects compete with each other. this is how massive churches are created. contest of the feel good. story. on t

w. this is deja vu news a lie from berlin world leaders condemned the bloodshed in mir and more military forces there killed scores of people including children as they crackdown on dissent in the deadliest day since facies power last month also coming up at least 20 people are injured after suicide bombers target a packed seat in indonesia as easter services.