[요약리뷰] 언더스탠딩 - 이게 실험중이라고?

 

 

 

한국어 요약:
- 서울시 디딤돌 소득 실험 소개 (한국 최초의 정책 실험)
  * 2022년부터 4년간 진행
  * 중위소득 85% 이하 가구 대상
  * 소득에 따라 차등 지원
- 주요 연구 결과:
  * 소득과 지출 증가
  * 전체적인 고용률 소폭 감소
  * 고령자, 미취학 아동 가구는 고용률 크게 감소
  * 정신건강 개선 효과 있으나 시간 지남에 따라 감소
  * 식료품, 의료비 등 기본 생활비 지출 증가

English Summary:
- Seoul's "Stepping Stone Income" experiment (Korea's first policy experiment)
  * 4-year study from 2022
  * Targets households below 85% of median income
  * Support varies based on income level
- Key findings:
  * Increase in income and spending
  * Slight decrease in overall employment
  * Significant employment reduction for elderly and households with preschool children
  * Mental health improvements but effects diminish over time
  * Increased spending on basic necessities
- Important implications for future welfare policy design
- Demonstrates value of evidence-based policy making through experiments

 

 

전세계가 주목한 소득 실험, 한국에서 진행중입니다 (연세대학교 & 홍콩과학기술대학교 김현철 교수) - YouTube
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RLgIzBg77Dk

Transcript:
(00:00) 세상의 모든 지식 언더스탠딩네 동아시아에서 가장 중독성 강하기로 유명한 성인형 교육 방송 언더스탠딩 있니다 어 늘 죄송하죠 항상 여러분들이 이제 빠져나올 수 없는 수렁에 항상 저희가 그러니까요 저희가 항의 엄청 받습니다 너 때문에 시간이 없다 어 지금 할 일도 많은데 이거 보느라고 너무 바쁘다 건강에 나빠서 즘 식약처에서 저희를 주시하고 있답니다 아 이거 너무 중독성 강해서 단속해야 되는 거 어 그렇 그렇습니다 저희는 항상 말씀드렸죠 3년 전부터 조심하시라고 네음 자 오늘은 야 오늘 의미 있는 날이에요음 1년 전 1년 전에도 한번이 사회 정책 실험에 대해서 우리가 한번 배웠고 이런저런 이런저런 지원금을 주면 사람들이 어떻게 어떻게 바뀔까 어떻게 바까 요거는 실험을 해 봐야 아는거다 어 그냥 추측하지 말고 그렇습니다라는 이야기로 전 세계에서 각 여러 가지 이제 벌어지고 있는 다양한 사회 실험들에 대해서 좀 배웠고요네 우리나라도 하고 있죠 뭐 기본 소득
(01:04) 안심소득 뭐 다양한 정책들이 실제로 어떻게 적용되는지에 대한 고민을 좀 사전에 해보자라는 차원이었다 노벨상을 받는 사람이 나온다면이 분일지 모른다 어 그렇다 국제 국제적인 경제학자 어 보통 이런 이야기 나오면 아유 아니에요 저는 그런 자격이 못 돼요라고 보통 겸손하면 본인은도 그럴 수도 있지라는 뻔한 표정을 짓고 계셔서 더욱 화제가 되고 있는 김현철 교수님과 함께합니다 어서 오십오 아네 노예 경제학상 받을 가능성이 있는 김현철입니다 근데 사실은 제가 노벨 경제학상을 받을 확률보다 노벨 평화상 받을 확률이 더 높습니다 왜 왜요 왜요 진짜 끝이 없구나 정 아니 그만큼 노벨 경제학상 받을 확률이 0이니까 아 낮아서 맞아서 그래도 이건 중요한 실험이 그요 이렇게 돈 많이 들이고 뭐 이렇게 해서 한 집단을 가지고 사회 실험을 하는 사례가 많지는 않잖아요네 그렇습니다 오늘 뭐 디딤돌 소득 뭐 구 안심소득 얘기 이제 하려고 하는
(02:09) 건데요 작년에 제가 나와서 도대체 이런 사업을 하면 이런 프로그램들을 하면은이 효과는 어떻게 평가하는 것인가 거를 쭉 설명을 한참 해 드렸습니다 오늘은 그 부분에 대해서 조금만 할게요 그래서 혹시 궁금하신 분들은 1년째 영상을 한번 좀 젊은 김현철 교수님 보면 된다 저희가 댓글에 링크를 걸어드릴테니까 혹시이 주제가 어 의료를 재밌고 좀 공부해 보고 싶은데라는 생각이 들으시면 지난 저 링크를 함께 영상을 보시면 훨씬 더 유익하게 보실 수 있겠습니다네네 좋습니다 오늘은 현금 지원 정책 돈을 주는 사람들한테 돈을 주 주긴 주는데 어떻게 주는 것이 좋을까에 대한 큰 논의를 좀 설명을죠 사실은 뭐 어려운 분들 도와주는 거야 누가 반대하겠다는 괜히 자칫 잘못 주면 네 그냥 아이 일도 안해도 되겠네 약간 그런 모럴 헤저드가 나올 수 있는 거 아니야 그런 걱정이 늘 있죠 그죠네 맞습니다 그래서 효과적인 현금 지원 정책은 그 보통은 이제 가지 크게 두
(03:13) 가지 목표가 있습니다 첫 번째 슬라이드 좀 보여 드리면 그 뭐 소득 저하되고 소비 감소하고 건강 악화되고 이런 이게 다 가난하면 나오는 거잖아요 그런 사람들의 고통을 덜어 줘야 된다 이건 뭐 당연한 거고요 그런데 지금 말씀하는 것처럼 말씀하 주신 것처럼 아 돈을 많이 주면은 아유 나나 일 안 해 그래라고 할 것이 걱정이 되잖아요 예 예 근데 이것도 한번 잘 생각해 봐야 되는게 어떤 사람들이 일을 안 할까도 되게 중요합니다 그러니까 어 사지 멀쩡하고 정신 건강 좋은 사람들이 일어나면은 그러면 좀 문제지만 아뭐 폐지 줍는 노인들 어려운 정말 어려운 사람들이 억지로 억지로 정말 정말 힘들게 일하는 것이 줄어드는 것은 또 뭐 그래도 괜찮지 않을까 이런 생각도 하게 됩니다이 안 되는 분들이 억지로 생계 때문에 일하는 분들의 경우에는 그러다가 일을 좀 놓게 되면 그 자체가 복지 아니냐 저는 그렇게 생각합니다 그래서 어떤 사람들이 일을 안 하게 되느냐 이것도 굉장히 중요하게 봐야 된다 그리고 보통은 이게 이제 약간 오해의 소지가 있는게 이런 거 주면 일을 안 하지
(04:16) 않겠느냐라는 그런 걱정들이 있는데 그거는 사람이 어디서 누가 돈 주면 게을러져 이게 아니라음이 정책 설계를 할 때 소득을 설계를 할 때 일을 내가 하면 일한만큼 내가 받아 받으면 좋은데음 어 이런 복지 혜택과 함께 일을 같이 하면이 일을 할 때 받은 일당에서 일부를 뭐 뺀다는가 복지를 줬을 때 그 사람들이 여전히 일을 이제 하고 싶은 사람들이 많을 거 아니에요 했을 때 국가가 너무 많이 떼 가면은 사실 또 그 일을 왜해 이렇게 되는 거니까 그 접전도 굉장히 중요하다이 말씀을 드리겠습니다 그렇네음 지금 그럼 우리나라라는 어떻게 하고 있느냐 우리나라는 국민 기초 생활 보장 제도 소위 국기초음 라는 걸 합니다 근데 요게 핫 하튼 말이 많고 탈이 많습니다 훌륭한 제도이나 어 대표적으로 어려운 것들이 이제 복지 사각지대음 혹시 들어보셨어요 창신동 모녀 사건 신촌 신촌 모녀 사건 뭐 아 이게 어디서 다 나오는 거냐면 선별 조건 신청주의 이런 것이 나옵니다 선별 조건은 뭐예요 그니까
(05:19) 예를 들면은 예전에 도심에 한옥을 가지고 계신 분들이 있었어요 근데 그게 이제 자산 가치로 한 2 3억 쯤 돼요 도심이 아주 뭐 100년 된 한옥인음 그런데 그것 때문에 소득은 한 푼도 없어도요 제도에 들어올 수가 없는 겁니다 자산이 있다 너 자다이 근데 그게 100년 된 100년이 뭐야 더 오래된 한옥 쓰러져 가는 한옥에 사시던 분들이 그래 갖고 자살 하셨거든요 그분들이 근데 이제 그런 그런 기준들이 선별 조건이 있고 예를 들어서이 자산 기준도 있고 뭐 또 의료 급여 같은 경우에는 아직도 연락도 안 되는 우리 자식이 돈 벌고 있으면은 너는 안 돼 뭐 이런 거 있죠 이런 거 있죠 그런 거 일종에 선별 조건 네네 그런게 있요 또 신청 내가 신청을 해야지만 그 해지만 이게 문제야 내가 알아서 딱 줘야지 그 세금은 그렇게 국세청이 알아서 잘 대가면서 어 다 하면서 알면서 제 말이요 아 정말 세금은 그렇게 뛰어가면서 돈 주는 건 왜 그렇게 못 해 혹시라도 신청 안 하시면 돈 남지 않을까 호 아 진짜 진짜 짜 반성하십시오 정말 근데 신청이 이게
(06:24) 문제가 뭐냐 하면요 어렵고 힘든 분들일수록 신청하기가 힘들어요 그렇죠 맞습니다 네 몰라 그리고 잘 몰라 맞아요 다요 복지 사각지대는 선별 조건과 신청 주의에서 주로 나오거든요 또 하나 문제는 또 일할 유인이 부족하다는 겁니다 아까 그때 저번에 나와서 제가 말씀드렸듯이 이렇게 계단 형이 되는 경우가 많고요 어쩌다가 내가 소득 수준이 이렇게 샥 넘어가면 소득이 좀 그 어떤 특정 커프를 넘어가면 갑자기 내가는 돈이 확확 줄어 버린다 말 그럴 바야 내가 일 안 하지 이렇게 생각 그 되는 경우가 많습니다 그래 안전하게이 확실히 돈 받는 쪽으로 와 있는 맞아요 요런게 있고 아까 또 그 이프로 님 말씀하신 것처럼 그 소득 대체율이 그러거든요 글로 열심히 했을 때 돈을 얼마나가 다시 빼 가냐 이제 이게 이게 또 중요합니다이 이게 말하자면 텍스에 텍스 그 내가 예를 들어서 우리나라 같은 경우에 가장 돈 많이 버는 분들이 마지널 텍스라즈 가장 높은 구간에서 대략 한 50% 정도 뛰어갑니다 지방까지 치면 50% 뛰어가는데 그런데 이제 가난한
(07:28) 분들한테는 사실 적기 때 가예 아니에요 일했을 때 근데 지금 료고 소득 대체율이 그 말하자면은 세 텍스를 많이 갑니다 그러니까 어 내가 예를 들어서 5만 원 벌었는데 25,000원 3만 원을 택스로 내야 돼 그러면 또 하기 싫어질 수도 있는 거 여러 가지 이유로 인해서 일할 유인이 좀 부족하다 저는 사실 진짜 문제는 예측 불 불가능성이 생각해요 내가 이만큼 이랬으면 얼마를 떼 가게 될지 불안하다 그것도 있고요 내가이 복지를 마 얼마 받을지 사실 알 수가 없어요 내가 대상이 됐다 안 됐다 왔다 갔다 한다 왔다 갔다 합니다 예를 들어 우리나라에서 뭐 아 중위 소득은 올해 얼마입니다 막 그렇게 발표를 하거든요 그 중위 소득에 의해서 복지가 모두 다 결정이 이렇게 되는데 중위 소득이 몇 % 중위 소득이 몇 % 이렇게 되는데 그 중위 소득이 몇년 바뀐단다아요 자꾸만 그러면 내가 이게 복지 대상자가 내년에 될지 안 될지 이렇게 모릅니다 주인 주인 소득이 너무려 단위도 엄청 구체적이아요 뭐 몇백 몇십 몇만 원 이렇게 해서 딱
(08:31) 중간으로 딱 정확하게 자르니까 알 수가 없어요 뭘 그렇게까지 해 청약 같은 거 신원 그 신원 부부들 하면요 그래서 예 그 됐을 때음 됐을 때 빨리 청약해 버리고 말자 내년에 우리 연봉이 조금 오르거나 다른 사람 연봉이 조금 달라지거나 하면 우린 혜택이 안 돼음 그럴 수 있죠 예측 불가능성 저는 이거 진짜 문제라고 생각하고요 사람이 미래를 플랜 하기가 힘듭니다 그죠 그러다 보면 또 아예 그냥 확실히 밑으로 떨어지자음 그렇게 됐어요 안전하게 안전하게 일 안 하면 되지 뭐 그렇 그음데 이런 것들 때문에 저는 정말 문제라고 생각하고요 복지 한번 신청해 보면요 그니까 내가 얼마 받을지 그다음에 어 내가 정말 받게 될지 그 알아내는 과정이 정말 길고 길고 깁니다네 그러면요 공무원 한 명이요 그 사람의이 복지 혜택이 되는지 안 되는지 알아야 되는데 거의 하루가 넘게 걸려요 한 사람이 하루가 한 사람이 하루가 거 이 거기에 소비 돼요 아 전산으로 다 확인하는 것임에도 불구하고네 그래서 이런
(09:34) 것들이 좀 문제다 그래서 대안들이 나오고 있습니다 예 대한이 뭐냐 기본 소득 유명한 기본 소득 있고요 일단 일단 깔아주자 그냥 그냥 깔아주자 그네 그냥 깔아 주자가 있고요 사실 이제 음의 소득세는게 먼저 나왔습니다네 음의 소득세는 걸 설명할 텐데요 요게 이제 기본 소득은 실험한다 이런 식으로 많이 들어 보셨을 거예요 그래서 뭐 케니아 미국 핀랜드 기본 소득 오늘 많이 실험을 했고음 최근에 실험을 했죠 이제 그거로 설명을 드릴 거고 음의 소득세는 것도 사실은 기본 소득보다 더 먼저 등장한 개념이고 예전에 미국과 캐나다에서 많은 실험을 했었는데요음이 기본 소득이 그냥 쭉 깔아주자아요 그러다 보니까 돈이 많이 필요하거든요 그니까 요거는 좀 이피션시 떨어 효율성이 떨어지지 않냐 요런 지적들이 많아서 예전에 논의가 활발하게 되었던 40년 전에 논의가 활발하게 되었던 그러나 그 당시에음 아 이건 좀시기 상조가 아닐까라고 해서 미국 정부가 결국 안 받았던 그렇던음 그 음의 소득세가 다시 다시 우리나라와 다른 나라들에서 살아나기
(10:38) 시작했어요 그 음의 소득세는 건 소득세 반대로 한다는 뜻입니까 아 그래서 음의 소득세를 좀 소멸 령을 좀 드리겠습니다 도대체 음의 소득세가 뭐냐 하면은 정확하게 말씀드렸듯이 소득세는 돈을 많이 벌면 벌수록 더 많이 내잖아요 소득이 있으면 세금을내는 거죠 소득이 있으면 세금을 내는데 소득이 많아지면 많아질수록 더 많이 낸다 네면 어 그네 그니까 가하면 가할수록 너의 소이 없어지면 없어질수록 돈을 더 많이 줄게 줄게 이건 줄게 이건 줄입니다 그래서 음이 음의 소 네가티브 텍스 그 텍스를 마이너스로 준다는 뜻이니까 그렇죠 서시를 준다 보조금 개념이 보조금이 보조금 정확하게 보조금 개념인데 너의 소득 파악이 잘 되니까 우리나라 같은 경우에 소득파악이 되니까 가난하면 가난할수록 더 많이 주는데 아까 우리나라의 그 기초 는 이렇게 계단형이고 언제 내가 탈락할 막 이러는 모르 이런 이런 일 때문에 아 나는 일 안 하고 이렇게 붙어 이제 일 안 하는 쪽으로 붙어이 이렇게 되는데 음의 소득세요 그림을 한번 좀 보여 드리면요 여기 x 축에 총소득이
(11:43) 있고 y 축에 이제 세금을 낸 후에 혹은 섭시디 받은 후에 이제 되는 건데 여기 커프가 있습니다요 컬러보다 많이 벌면 예를 들어 월 200만 200만 원보다 많이 내면 많이 벌려면 이제 세금을 내라 내라음 45 예를 들어요 선이요 선이 소득 이었으면요 커러 넘으면 돈 내라 그러니까 소득이 줄어 주황색은 세금으로 걷어가는 거 세후 세 후로는 버는게 적어지죠 그렇죠 근데 음의 소득세를 하면은 이제요 컬러보다요요 전보다 낮아지면 돈을 더 많이 버 돈을 받는데 세후로 돈이 들어오면 진짜 좋 소득이 적으면 더 죽 돈을 줄게 많이 적으면 많이 더 줄게 그런 거지 그런 개게 조금 모자라면 조금 더 보해 줄게 음 그런 겁니다 그러면 이렇게 되면 어떻게 되냐 하면요 아 막 확 탈락하거나 확 줄어들거나 이런 일은 바람 발생하지 않습니다 그 그렇네요네 그리고 사실상 이제 미래에는이 우리 소득을 잘 아니까요 이게 우리나라 같이 소득을 실시간으로 파악하는 거는 말 마치 세금을 잘
(12:48) 매길 수 있으니까 서시도 그런 식으로 좀 줄 수 있으면 좋겠다 그 아까 이프로님 말씀하신 것처럼 보조금도 알아서 국가가 좀 챙겨 챙겨 줄 수 있는 그런 개념으로 갈 수음 있다 말씀드리겠습니다음 기본 소득은 사실은 다 아실 겁니다 그 모든 사람들한테 그냥 다 일정한 액수를 주자음 이런 건데 한번 생각해 보시면은 이게 지원 대상자를 선별하는 건 필요가 없죠 아예 그냥 다 주니까 밑에서 저 막대기 좀 밑에 그냥 쫙 깔아 주는 거군요 그냥 쫙 그렇죠 그래서 요건 어떻게 되냐 하면요 요게 지금 이제 뭐 세후 소득 이전 소득인데 기본 소득은 모든 사람을 다 똑같이 팔 색으로 올려주자 그러네요 아까 요거 여기 여기 빨간색은 예를 들면은 그 음의 소득세 있으면은 모든 사람들을 다 이렇게 올려 주자는 건데 이거는 돈이 굉장히 많이 들어갑니다 그렇 다 줘야 되니까 그리고 뭐 부자들한테 다 줘야 되니까요 이거는 인컴 택스 그러니까 소득세든지 다른 재원 마련을 어마어마하게 해야 되는 그런게 예를 들어 10만 원만
(13:53) 5만 원만 줄거다 이러면 모르겠는데 유의미한 수준으로 주려면 돈이 어마어마하게 많이 들죠음 경제학자들은 기본적으로 기본 소득을 대부분은 시리어스한 경제학자들은 대부분 반대합니다 왜냐하면 실현 가능성이 너무 낫다음 뭐 그게 가장 큰 이유고요 그돈 있으면은 저돈이면 다르게 할 수 있는 방법이 얼마든지 있는데 그렇습니다 아이 저 기본 소득은 약간 철학의 문제긴 한데 효율성으로 따지면 음의 소득세다는 효율적이지 않을 것 같아요 그 장점은 아예 없어요 장점은 뭐 그런 거겠지 모든 사람은 그냥 기본적으로 일단 비 받고 시작한다 그런 거지데 그래프를 보니까 음의 소득세가 소득 불균형을 좀 완화시켜 주는 효과는 확실히 있는 거네요 얘 예 기본 소득은 그래프의 곡 기울기가 그대로인데 요거는 기울기가 조금 조정이 되니까 같은 재원으로 가난할수록 소득이 낮을수록 더 많이 주니까음 그래프가 기울기가 약간 완만해지는 관 있 인컴 퀄리티 소득 불균형이네 인컴 퀄리티를 극복하는
(14:57) 데는 뭐 압도적인 차이음 그 효과성의 차이가 있죠 어쩔 수는 없습니다 그럼 뭐 디자인이 그렇게 되는 거니까요 예예예 그래서 아까 그 이런 대안들이 모색되고 있고 대한민국 혹은 뭐 어느 나라든지 미래의 소득 보장 방식에 대한 이야기가 있습니다 우리나라는 세 개 중의 하나로 갈 겁니다 첫 번째 우리나라 지금 기존의 국민 기초 생활 보장 제도로 보완하자 예 선별주의 신청주의 이런 불편함이 있다 하셨으니네 그거를 뭐 하튼 최소화시키는 방향으로 기존 제도를 좀 뜯어 그 보수하다 이제 요런 논의가 당연히 있는 거고요 두 번째는 아까 그 음의 소득세와 기본 소득이 세 가지로 분명히 논의가 될 거고음이 정도는이 정도 국가 틀을 바꾸는 거는 대선주자급이 나와서 공약 사항 걸어도 될까 말까기 때문에 뭐 대선 다음에 대선 나오시는 분들이 누가 될지 모르겠지만 분명히 여기 갖고이 세계 가지고는 얘기를 할 것이다 이름이 다 달라도 하여튼 저 바운더리 내에 다 들어가겠군요 대체로네 오늘 좀 자세하게 공부를 하려고 하는 그 디딤돌 소득 예전
(16:01) 안심 소득은 어디에 속하는 거예요 음의 소득세 소득세에 속하는 겁니다네 아까 국가 기초 생활 보장 제도를 제가 조금 비판을 했는데 사실 뭐 좋은 제도 아 훌륭한 제도고 많은 어려운 분들을 살렸지만 얼마나 복잡한지 좀 말씀드리겠습니다음 3단계의 그 허들을 넘어야 되는데요 이제 어떻게 되냐면 첫 1단계가 소득 인정액이 아는 걸 계산해야 되고 내 소득이 아니라 소득 인정액 예데 그거를 내 그으면 내 소득이 얼만지 알았어 그러면은 그거 거를 중위 소득과 비교한 다음에 그 중위 소득 대비 얼마냐에 따라서 내가 얼마를 받게 되는지를 알게 됩니다음 아 첫 번째 소득인정액으로 갑니다 소득인정액은 소득 평가액과 재산의 소득 환산액 그 더한 값 있습니다 아 집 있으면 집도 얼마 본 걸로 간주할게 그렇습니다 저기에서 좀 이상은 하더군요 그러니까 자동차나 회원권이 있으면 예를 들면 회원권이 동네에 무슨 뭐 천만 원짜리 회원권이 있다음 는 가격이 그러면 너는 한 달 소득이 1천만 원인 걸로 가정할음라고
(17:04) 해 버려요 어 그렇죠음 그러니 이거 이거는 아니 이건 내가 한 달에 천만 원 번다는 의미가 아니잖아요라고 따져 봐야 회원권 식이나 있는 분이 왜 말이 많으세요라는 컨셉이죠 저건 그렇습니다 억울하면 억울하면 파세요 아니 왜 그런 것까지 갖고 있으면서 왜이 앞에서 알짱 거리요라는 컨셉이 들어갈만큼 매우 잔인한 방식인 거 같아요 저는 사실은 자동차가 제 제일 심각했다고 생각하거든요 고급 자동차라고 나오는데 이게 약 예를 들어서 누가 아는 분이 너 어렵잖아 그러면서 자동차를 뭐 그냥지 출 수 있어요 오래된 거래된 거 2c 2500cc 뭐 이런 거데 근데 뭐 CC 높아 각그랜저 뭐 저도 안 타는 거네 근데 그거는요 0.
(17:46) 04를 곱하는게 아니라 그냥 가격이 그냥 가격 도예요 저것도 어디 그랜저 식이나 있는데 왜 위 앞에서 뭐라고 하세요이 맞습니다 그서 그냥 탈락입니다 그래서 이런 일단은 근데 이런 인정액 계산하는 것조차 얼마나 복잡하 지금 벌써 서 많아요 금융 자산 알아야지 모든 자산 다 알아야지 그다음에 내 어디 얼마 어디서 벌고 있는지 다 조사 일단 해야 됩니다 좋 그렇게 어렵게 어렵게 소득인정액을 계산했고 저도 제 소득 인정액 계산 못할 하루 걸릴 거 같아요 근데 그거를 중위 소득과 비교하는데 보니까 뭐 예를 들어인 가구 같은 경우에는 471만 원 그 연간 아니 월 월 471만 원이 우리나라 딱 그 가운데다라는 사실을 알았습니다 예 자 그러면은 우리 집의 소득인정액과 우리 집이 3인 가족이라 하면은 그 3인 가구의 평균을 알았잖아요 예 3인 가구의 평균이 500만 원이면 내가 200만 원을 벌면 500만 원의 몇 프로입니까 40% 예 그러면 얼마를 받을 수 있느냐 이제 여기서부터 계산을 하는 거예요음 보시면은 중위 소득의 30% 미만이면 30 요게 요게 2022년
(18:52) 기준인데요 30% 2024년 32% 바뀌었습니다네 그 32% 미만이면 생계 급여를 생계급여 의료 급여 주거 급여 교육급여 다 봤습니다 아 근데 30% 40% 사이면 의료 급여 주거 급여 교육 급여 세 개만 받는 거 세 개만 받고요 사이면 주거 급여 교육 받고요 사이면 교육만 받고 그 이상이면 안 안 봤는데 요게 지금 제가 그림을 2022년 걸로 그렸는데 2024년에는 또 바뀌었습니다음 32 40 48 50 아 그것도 바뀌어요 그것도 바뀌어요 매년 년 요 중의 소득의 50% 정도의 소득이 있는 분은 교육 급여를 받는데 교육 급여를 받으면 밑에 생계 급여 의료 급여 주거 급여도 다 받고 받는 거예요 아니면 이름이 바뀐 급여를 받는 겁니까 아하 내가 30% 미만이면이네 개를 다 받는 거 아 다 받는 거고 밑으로 밑 밑으로 생각해야지 밑으로음 알겠어요 이제 그러면요 여기서 예측이 되겠습니까 내가 그래 어느 날 40이
(19:56) 있다가 39가 되는 순간 쑥 딱 살 잘라져 버 표적 관이 왔다 갔다 하 왔다 갔다 하는데 내 소득도 왔다 갔다 내소 관도 왔다 갔다 하는데 내가 형 어디 들어갈 있지를 알아 되니까 야 이거 진짜 어렵죠 이거 말이 안 돼요 이게 중위 소득의 40% 든요 그니까 중위 소득도 모르는데 내가 40% 고기 왔다가 정확하 정확하게 올지도 모르고 매년 소득도 내 소득이 아니라 소득 인정 얘기야 차준다 그 안돼 주지 마 야 이게 어디로 틀지 몰라 이러면 그냥 특히 의료급여 같은 거 아픈 분들은요 이게 지금 의료비가 거의 공짜가 되는데음 이거 아픈 아파서 병원비 많이내는 분들은요 무조건 바닥으로 붙어서 일 안 해야 돼요 아 아 자치 저게 날아가면 안 됩니까 저거 날아가면이 의료비 폭탄 맞는 거거든요 저거는 현금으로 한 달에 뭐 몇십만 원 이렇게 주는 거예요 아니면 병원 관리 있을 때 공짜로 해주는 혜택으로 주는 겁니까 의료 급여는 현물 급여고시 세 개는 현금 급여입니다 야 저거 계산 잘못해서 떨어지면 저거 내년 기다려야 되는 거잖아요 국가 실손 보험 같은
(20:57) 거잖아요 국가 실손보험 그런 컨셉인 거잖아요 가실 수보 그런 거지 그런 거지 이게 진짜 문제가 많고요 의료 구별은 아직도 부양 의무자 조건이 있습니다네 그러니까 연락 안 되는 아들이 돈 벌고 있으면은 탈락될 가능성이 있어서요 이게 73만 명이 혜택 배제되고 있고요 또 뭐 65세 미만은 이거 받으려면 또 근류 능력이 상실됐다는 걸 증명해야 되거든요 막 이런 증명의 과정들 이런 것들이 다 하나 하나가 굉장히 큰 허들이이 엄청난 신 신청주의 근데 질문이 있습니다 내가 받는 사람 입장에서 예측 안 되는 거는 확실한 거 같아요 근데 주는 사람 입장에서는 어차피 계산해 중위소득과 인정액 그 계산해서 이제 네가 어느 구간에 들어가느냐 그걸 계산하는 건데 아까 전에 말씀하셨던 음의 소득세 그것도 얘 소득에 따라서 계속 주는게 달라지지 않습니까 그거나 저거나 계산하는 비용은 비슷할 거 같은데 아니에요 주는 입장에서는 뭐 대충 예를 들어서 뭐 아 이게 30% 32% 컬러를 올리면 예 대략 얼마가 더 지겠다 그거는 알 수 있죠 어느
(22:02) 정도네 전이니까 그건 전 그건 수 산수요네 저는 생각하면요 제공자 입장이에요 이거는 정확하게음 무슨 말이냐면 국가 입장입니다 국민을 하나하나 잘 배려하는 느낌 저는 없 그니까 아이 돈을 주니까 배려하는 거지만 만약에 이거가 지금 커스터머 그은 되게 아 그냥 이렇게 이렇게 그 뭐랄까 배리 없이 준다 이런 생각이 좀 듭니다 정부가 두 개 세 개 있고 국민 보고 선택하라고 하면 저런 식으로 했겠냐 정부가 하나뿐이니까 우리가 대한이 없으니까 그렇지 그서 미국 이민가고 하는 거야 그러니까 말레이시아로 이민가고 미국으로 이민가고 선택하려고 하튼 그 커스터머를 충분히 생각하는 그런 느낌은 아니다 네라고 생각합니다 아까 그 서울 서울시의 디딤돌 소득 그 음매 소득세 일부라고 했 일부라고 했는데요 어 그거를 조금 더 구체적으로 설명을 좀 드리 드리도록 하겠습니다 2022년도에 처음 제도 시작할 때의 소득 이고요 y 축은 무언가 무언가 정부가 나서서 도움을 준 다음의
(23:06) 소득입니다 음음 그러면은 정부가 아무것도 안 했으면은 그냥 45도 45도 선인 거죠 왜냐하면 세후 근로 소득과 소득 보장이 없으면은 그냥 똑같은 45도 선인데요네 우리나라의 그 아까 생계급여 주거급여 그를 이제 받게 되면은 어떤 모양이 되냐면 여기 빨간선 모양이 됩니다 음음 밑가 올라가니까네 내가네 왜냐면 여기 30% 소득의 30% 미만에는 뭘 주고 아까 의료 급여는 현물급여 요거 소득 돈은 아니고 요런 모양인데 안심 소득은 어떻게 하겠다는 거냐 디딤 소득은 어떻게 하겠다는 거냐면요 여기 중위소득 85%요 커프를 기준으로 해서음 요거보다 낮으면 돈을 주는데 돈이 가난하면 가난할수록 더 돈을 많이 준다 요겁니다 예 그니까 기 제도보다는 일반적 무조건 지금 설계로는 더 후하게 했어요 그러네요 지금껏 주는 건 그대로 주고 어 그 위에 덧붙여서 지금 거 아 요거 생계
(24:10) 급에 주교 급에는 안 줍니다 안심 소득을 받게 되면은 아 안 줘요 요거는 안 주고 대신 이제 훨씬 더 후하니 아 렇게 요렇게 된 거죠 요게 지금 그 안심 소득인데 요거를 만약에 그 전국 단위로 확장한다면 대략 한 30조원이 추가로 듭니다 음 돈 많이 드는 거예요 이거 근데 요거를 사실은 여기 커프를 지금 여긴데 더 낮출 수도 있겠죠 뭐 그건 그럴 수 있겠죠네요 기울기를 요렇게 수평으로 할 수도 있고 굉장히 타이트하게 할 수도 있네 안심 소득 이제 요런 소득은 결국은 얼마가 들지는 나중에 판단을 한 번 더 해야 되는 겁니다음 근데 어쨌든간에 지금 현행으로 하면 대략 한 30조원 정도가 됩니다 아 일단 그래서 가난한 사람들에게 더 많은 돈을 주자 이게 기본적으로 그 디딤 소득 안심 소득 네가티브 인컴텍스 다 같은 개념이지만 어 이거의 스프입니다음 이제 가장 좋은 거는 무자기 배정 실험 랜더즈 컨트롤 트라이얼 이거는 이제 딱 그 백신 연구하 있이 딱 하는 거죠 백신
(25:14) 연구할 때 어떻게 하냐하면 어 위약 그룹 그니까 컨트롤 그룹 하고요 그다음에 트리트먼트 그룹 처치 집단 요거 두 개를 비교하는 거죠 근 랜덤이 뽑아서음 그렇죠 이거는 뭐 유명 유명해 한쪽은 주고 한쪽은 안 주고네 어떻게 하 하냐하면 이게 그렇지만 어 사회 실험은 개인으로 할 수도 있지만요 시군구로 할 수도 있습니다 아요 지역은 주고요 지역은 안 주고 렇 우리나라가 250 아 예전에 256개 있데 뭐 300개는 안 돼 270 몇 개면 한 뭐 반은 주고 반은 안 주고 이런 식으로도 해 볼 수가 있는 거죠 예 그래서 이제 무자기 통제 실험은 정책 대상이 있으면 표범 집단이 들어오고 예 이게 뭐 전국일 수도 있고 너무 어 너무 사람이 많아지면 힘드니까 일부 줄여 줄인 다음에 그런 다음에 뭐 트리트먼트 그룹과 컨트롤 그룹을 한 다음에 쭉 따라가서 어떻게 본다음 이렇게 실험을 하면은 a 0 b0이 무슨 말이냐면 정책 실험 전에 실험 집단의 평 평균값 뭐 예를 들어 얼마나 해피했던 near 얼마나 했냐 모든 모든 결과 변수를 거의 비슷할
(26:20) 겁니다 a0 b0 일반적으로 거의 비슷합니다 약간의 차이가 있을 수 있지만 그런 다음에 나중에 얼마나 달라졌냐고 거죠 알겠어요 알겠어 이거는 쉽게 이해가이 이해 빨간 편 선생님 모시고 왔더니 3개월 후에 성적이 어떻게 달라졌냐고 팬 안 한 아이와 비교할 때 거 컨 아 그런데 한 아이 두 아이만 하면 안 되고요 우리 동네에 한 1천명의 아이가 있는데 제비 뽑아서 500명은 주고 500명은 안 줘야 됩니다 하면 그게 랜덤 랜덤 거죠 그렇 그런 거 안 하면 이제 아침을 먹는 아이의 성적이 좋다더라 뭐 그래서 아침 먹자 이런 얘기 하게 되는 거지 네 엄마가 정성 있는 집 수 있었음 맞습니다 그런데 빨간 팬을 랜덤하게 못 했지만 어 빨간 팬이 예를 들어서 서울 시부터 시작한 다음에 점점점점 퍼져 나갔어요 예를 들어서 그러면은 이중 차분법 쓸 수가 있습니다 이건 랜덤하게 뽑은 건 아니지만 예를 들어 빨간 편 선생님들이 사업을 확장해 나가는 과정에서 미리 들어온 지역과 좀 나중에 들어온 지역이 조금 다를 거
(27:24) 아니에요 하지만 애들의 성적 트렌드는 비슷할 수 있습니다 예 그렇죠 그렇죠 그런데 빨간 팬 스님이 들어왔을 때 요렇게 더 늘어난다고 하면 그러면 그건 빨간 팬의 효과다 안 들어왔으면 요렇게 갈 건데 요렇게 바뀌다요 차이요 차이로 그 그래서 나중 차이와 처음 차이를 뺀가 차이에 차이를 뺀다 그래서 이중차분법 제가 여러 차례 말씀드렸고 아직 헷갈리시는 분들은 옛날 그 제제 영상을 한번 보시면 좋겠고요 그다음에 회기 불연속 설계에 아슬아슬하게 그 인생이 바뀐 예를 들어서 뭐 대학 입학 성적이 네 380점 381 받은 9점 받은 친구 최대한 비슷한 애들로 실험한다 그리고 한 가지 오늘 제가 또 최근 최근 경제학에서 많이 쓰고 있는 방법인데요 저건 처음 들어보는 거네 처음 들어보실 겁니다 통제집단 합성법 테틱 컨트롤인 어렵지 않아 아 이거 어렵지 않아요 어렵지 않아 문이야 어려울 리가 없어 어렵지 않아 이거 이거 쉬워요 어떤 거냐면 예를 들어서
(28:27) 서울에서 뭔가를 했어요 예 그런데 다른 집단들이 뭐 경기도 뭐 뭐 경 경기도 경상북도 다 좀 다르잖아요 그런데 어떻게 하는 거냐면 서울시와 가장 비슷한 사람들을 그런 집단을네 경기도의 일부 뭐 경상도의 일부 런 사람들을 샥 가져와서 최대한 서울 시랑 비슷하게 만들어 일부 인공적으로 만드 인공 인공적으로 만어 인공으로 그래서요 그런 다음에 이중 법을 하는 거예요 아 비교 집단이 없으니까 애매하니까 야 그럼 그걸 어떻게 만들지 소득으로 만들려면 만들 수 있을 건데 뭐 그 그거는 이제 뭐 다양한 예측 변수들을 쓴 다음에 그니까 이중 차분법 그냥 크루드 하게 예전에 서울시와 경기도에 이렇게 트렌드를 맞춘다면 이렇게 했는데 이미 존재하는 집단으로 했는데 이건 인공으로 집단을 만 가상으로 만드는 거군요 개인 정보가 많이 오픈되어 있다는 전자에 아 약간 인공으로 만든 나랑 또 똑같은 복재 인간을 만들어서 한 명은 담배피고 왕창 먹고 한 명은 안 안 하고 그렇게 비교해 보는
(29:31) 컨셉이네요 그런 컨셉입니다네네 똑같이 이중 차분법 쓰는데 통지 집단 합성을 한 다음에 이중 차 법을 합니다네 런 법이 활용되고 있다 런 것이 활 활용되고 있다 이래서어요 정도의 느낌을 가지고 제가 오늘 조금 아주 어렵게 어렵게 조금 아주 어렵지만 최대한 이해하실 수 있게 기본 소득 실험에 대해서 쭉 설명을 좀 드리도록 하겠습니다 최근에 기본 소득 실험이 전 세계적으로 많이 일어나고 있는데 그 기본 소득 실험네 가지를 대표적인 실험 막 잡스러운 실험들이 많아요 실험도 아닌 것들이 실험이라 그래음 그런 거 빼고 진짜 경제학계에서 인정하고 하는 기본 소득 실험네 가지 소개를 하겠습니다네 첫 번째 기본 소득 실험 1 어 알래스카 연구 기금 실험음 알래스카에서 기본소득 기본 소득을 합니다 아 어 요게 논문이고 그 2022년에 그 제 친구인데 이 친구가네 친구가 거 좋은 논문에 좋은 논문 썼습니다 요게 이제 그 논문 표지 그요 나중에 진짜
(30:34) 궁금하신 분들은 요거 처 요거 그대로 치신 다음에 논문 찾아보시면 나옵니다 나다는 거죠 아 그럴 분은 많지는 않을 것 같은데 한번 알겠습니다 아유 계세요 의외로 어 봐 이거 차 언더스탠딩 시청자는 프로야 시청자 수준이 제일 높고 그다음에 출연자 수준이 높고 진행자 수준이 제일 낮아 참 이참이 걸 요걸 찾아본 말이야 아 경제학 교수들도 보십니다 예아네 그래서 알래스카 연구 기이 뭐냐 알래스카에서 석유가 많이 나니까 거기 수입이 많단 말이에요 그거를 무분별하게 사 이제 하지 말고 잘 기금을 만들어서요 영구 기을 만들었습니다 그런 다음에 거기서 나온 돈 배당을 계속 하는 거죠음 그런데 누구한테 하냐 하면은 알래스카에 1년 이상 살면은 합니다 아 그 심플하네 그냥 거주한 사람 준다네 그렇습니다 그거를 지난 5년간의 기금 수입에 10% 골고루 배당하는 요게 얼마냐 얼마냐 봤더니 많이 줄 거 같은데
(31:37) 왠지 요게 지금 보시면은 여기 1980 7 80 44년 터 이제 주기 시작해서 지금까지도 계속 주고 있어요 그랬을 때 여기 노미널 페이 여기 파란색이 이제 노미널 페이 아웃이란 말이에요 뭐 얼마를 주는지를 이렇게 보시면은 매년 좀 바뀌어요 예 그렇죠 근데 얼마냐 대략 아주 안 좋을 때도 뭐 한 1천불 정도는 주고음 음 많이 줄 때는 3천불 넘게 줍니다 이게 1년에 어 5년간 기금 수입을 나눠 주는 거니까 그 5년간의 기금 수입이 많을 수도 있고 적을 수도 있어 그렇습니다네 그렇게 됐고요 요거를 이제 어떤 식으로 분석을 하냐면 알래스카와 다른 미국의 50개 주가 있을 거 같아요 그런데 알래스카 최대한 비슷하게음 다른 주의 사람들을 이렇게 이렇게 이렇게 이렇게 붙여 갖고 알래스카 미니미를 하나 만드는 거지 통제집단 통제 집단 합성법 그런 다음에 differ in diff 아까 예 이중 하는 겁니다 그렇게 해봤습니다음 그렇게 했더니 노동 공급 일단 궁 궁금하잖아요 요게 이제 알레스카 그요 파랑색이 1977년부터 2014년까지 요게 신세틱 알레스카
(32:44) 알래스카 그 미니미 합성 합성 알래스카 가짜 가짜 가짜 알래스카 컨트롤인 거죠 말하자면 전체적으로 큰 차이 없다음 그 이후에도네 뭐 이렇게 조금 뭐 올라가 는 거 같기도 하고 내려가는 거 같기도 하고 뭐 왔다 갔다 거리지만 이게 통계적으로 유해하지 않아요 다 그 다 비슷비슷한 수준입니다 한번 보세요 64% 70% 든요 그니까요 차이가 끽해야 뭐 1% 안 나고 뭐 나봤자 2% 그러면서 그냥 왔다 갔다 거리고 이서 이게 전체적으로는 통계적으로 유의하지 않은데 저거는 혹시 저런 소득을 주면 사람들이 저 소득 믿고 일을 혹시 안 하는 경향이 생기지 않 않나 싶어서 확인해 본 거죠 그렇죠 그리고 기본소득 장자들은이 더할 수도 있다 이렇게도 얘 주장하거나 의욕이 더 생기니까 영향을 안 미치니까 그냥 내가 일하는 거 똑같이 돈이 들어오니까 가정은 그럴 수 있을 것 같아 더하지도 않고 덜하지도 않더라 얼마를 줬다고 하셨죠 한 4천 천불 아까 여로가 볼까요 여기 불에서 3천불 사이 정도를 평균적으로 줬습니다 1년에 1년에 우리 돈으로는
(33:48) 한 달에 한 50만 원 50만 원 약간 애매한데 애매하다 그죠 어네 그 정도입니다 어 그런데 이게 파트타임이 오히려 좀 늘 이거 확실하게 넣 거 보이세요 여기 알레스카 어 이제 요거는 가짜 알레스카아요 근데이 파타임 늘었어요 그래서 글로 여부는 모든 직종 모든 파트타임 풀타임을 해보면 저 똑같지만 그 풀타임은 오히려 살짝 주는 경향 있고 파트타임이 살짝 느는 실제 노동 시간은 그럼 넣다는 얘기군요 노동 시간이 줄 수 있는 거죠 줄어들 수 있는 거죠 파트타임 근로를 더 많이 하니까 파트타임을 더 하는데 풀타임을 적게 해야지 근로 여부가 이게 모든 직종에 모든 거니까 아로 우가 계 했 네네 아 그 파트타임으로 많이 돌아섰다는 뜻이에요 타임으로 일부 돌아설 수 있다 뭐 근데 크 막 엄청난 효과는 아니에요 보시면은 여기 또 뭐 한 11% 14% 수준이니까요 막 예 크지는 않으나 약간 파트타임 근로가 늘어났다네 왜 늘어났을 것 같아요 모르겠어요 왜 늘어났을까 아 뭐 돈이
(34:52) 돈이 좀 들으니까 아 뭐 풀타임 일하지 않고 그 하고 좀 편하게 하자 나 우버 우버 기사로 하자 그냥 아 정규집 그만두고 그냥 파트타임으로 바꿨을 수도 있고 그럴 가능성도 있는 거죠음음 돈이 좀 들어오기 시작하니까 일단 쓰기 시작하지음 그런데 쓰기 시작하니까 사람은 더 쓰고 싶거든음 그러니 처음에는 아예 그냥 안 쓰던 예를 들면 뭐 음반을 처음에 사기 시작했다 하나 두 개 그럼 보통 한두 개 가지고 안 되고 이제 다음 달에는네 개 사고 싶고 다음 달에는 열 개 사고 싶고 그러면서 아 돈이 더 필요한데라는 생각이 들었을 수도 있겠다는 뭐 그럴 수도 있을 것 같습니다 아 뭐뭐 왜 그랬을까 어쨌든 튼 약간 뭐 애매하네네 이렇게 막 엄청난 변화가 있지는 않았습니다 예 그리고 또 뭐 그 타지역과 교역이 불가능한 뭐 예를 들어 서비스 관광업 이런 거는 조금 올라가고요 다른 직종 같은 경우에는 줄어들고 그래서 이렇게 약간 캔슬 아웃이 있어서 전체적으로는 큰 효과 큰 방 큰 저건 없다 예 근데 또 이럴 수 있어요 노동 공급이 그러면은 안 준 것도 사실 되게
(35:55) 유의미하다고는 생각합니다 돈을 줬는데 10만 어쨌든 뭐 일을 계속 하니까 평균적으로는 그러니까 크게 나쁘지 않았다 정도 알레스카요 not B 어네 오케이이 정도 그다음에 기본 소득 실험 2번 그 유명한 핀란드 기본 소득 실험 야 요건 기사에도 많이 나왔어 기사 엄청 많이 나왔죠 2022년도 요거는 진짜 실험을 한 겁니다 아까 그 알라스카는 그 성 합성 가상으로 만든 거고 요거는 이제 어 진짜 실험을 한 거고요 을 만들어서네 요게 2022년도에 aj이 컨퍼런스에 나온 거고 어 요거는 이제 선진국에서 진행된 전국적 규모의 최초 사회 실험이죠 기본소득에 대해서 요거는 컨트롤 집단이 뭐냐 하면요 실업 급여를 받는 사람들이에요 급 실업급여 기본 소득이나입니다 그러니까 이거는 실직자 대상 실험이에요 예 실직자들 테네 실직자들 자 너 예전에는 너는 실업 급여 받았지 실업급 받았지 지금은 이제 그게 아니라 기본소득
(36:58) 줄게 이겁니다 선생님 그럼 실업 구배와 기본 소득이 어떻게 차이 나는데요라고 질문하실 텐데요 바로 그겁니다 제가 기사를 쭉 다 찾아봤는데 그런 거를 설명한 기사가 없어요 컨트롤 그룹이 뭔지 설명을 안 해 기사가 그냥 기본 소득 하면은 뭐 안 좋다 뭐 뭐 뭐 없다 뭐 이런 지금 뭐 뭐 뭐워 기자들 힘들어요 바빠 몰라서 그래요 몰라서 아 죄송합니다 기자분 기자 출신 분들 앞에서 제가네네 아 하여튼 그렇습니다 여기서 설명을 좀 드릴게요이 음 싱 트 커플이니까 혼자 사는 사람이랑 그 부부가 사는 건데 트리트먼트와 컨트롤이 있고요 트리트먼트가 이제 기본 소득이고 컨트롤이 어 컨트롤이 이제 실업 구별을 받는 사람들요 예전 그니까 실업을 해서 너는 실업자가 실업 급여를 주던 사람이었는데 그 사람한테 실업급여 대신 기본 소득으로 썼다 그니까 실업과 상관없이 무조건 주는 거야 한 거네 그렇죠 그리고 실업 급여를 했을 때 뭘 그게 약간씩 파트타임이나 돈을 벌고 막 이제 요런 복잡한 과정들 그 그러면은 내가 일을
(38:03) 좀 더 하면은 얼마가 국가가 가져갈게 뭐 이런 것들이 좀 있거든요 좀 복잡해요 그래서 트리트먼트 그룹이요요 이제 실선이 컨트롤이 점선이 그 무슨 말이냐 면요 내가 돈을 벌면 벌수록 기본 소득을 하면은 그냥 그만큼 많이 가져가는데 기존에 기존의 실업 급여는 어쨌든 일을 하면은 실업 급여 뺏기자아요 너 돈 좀 버는구나 그럼 실업급여를 좀 덜 줄게 그렇습니다 그런데 뭐 그 일하는 시간에 따라서 막 다르고 하기 때문에 예전보다는 돈을 더 많이 받는 거예요 기본적으로는 아 예 그렇게 바꿨었다 실업 급여를 받던 분들의 일부 그러니까 필 핀란드 실험의 컨셉은 실업 급여는 실업 하면 돈을 주는 건데 실업 하면 돈 주지 말고 그냥 주면 네가 자꾸 실업 급이야 받을 생각하지 말고 이것도 받고 일도 해라고 혹시 하지 않을까 그런 컨 실업이 아니 아니지가 이미 실업급여를 받고 있는 실업자들 중에 실업자들 중에 한 그룹은 계속 실업급여 받으세요 다른데 돈 벌면 저희가 좀 실업급 줄이는 거 아시죠 그렇게 하세요 한 그룹 나머지 그룹은 너희들
(39:08) 저 그냥 주는 거니까 실급 받고 있지 어 그런데 그 대신 기본 소득으로 바꿔 줄게 이제부터는 기본 소득으로 바꿔 기본 소득이 실업 일을 내가 해도 해도 건드리지 않을게 이거 줄여지지 않으니까 혹시 일을 더하지 않을까 두 실업자 그룹에게 주는 그 급여의 종류를 다르게 바꾼 거죠 맞습니다 정확하게 그말이 그 말이야 그 말인 거예요 저도 그렇게 이해했는데 이플 님께서 완벽하게 재해석해 주셨고요 그래서요 트리트먼트 컨트롤이 이런 그래프다 내 소득에 따라서 사실은 그 내가 얼만큼 그니까 내가 일을 많이 할 만한 유인이 사실 좀 있는 거예요 그랬을 때 정말 일을 좀 더 하냐 이거 보고 싶었던 거죠 그렇죠 왜냐면 지금 2,000불 벌면 컨트롤은 10000불 밖에 안 되는데 옛날에는 지금 이제 실 급별 아니 기본 소득을 받으면 소로는 그건 말이 될 수도 있을 것 같은데 가정상 어땠을까네 그래서 한번 봤습니다 어떻게 갔느냐 봤더니 이게 노동 공급 효과입니다 자 컨트롤이 어 컨트롤이 여게 하얀 하얀 동그라미
(40:12) 그요 트리트먼트가 이제 까만 동그라미 그요 축이 뭐냐 시간이에요 시간 예 그래서 처음 시작한 다음부터 2년까지 따라갔습니다음 그다음에요 빨간 까만 동그라미와 하얀 동그라미의 차 차이가 여기에 있어요 차이가 거의 없을 때는 0에 0 근처에 있겠죠 점점 차이가 생겼네요네 맞아요 그다음에요 막대 요게 뭐냐면 소위 말하는 그 95% 실내 구간 그거죠 그래 그래서 보시면 1년 차에는 노동 공급이 더 증가하지는 않았어요 근데 뒤로 가면 갈수록 어 어 좀 차이가 벌어지네요 정도는 있어요 그러니까 아까 그렇게 했을 때 1년 차에는 런 요렇게 다르게 했을 때 당장 막 더 일을 더 많이 하지 않지 1년차 말고 2년차로 갔을 때 시간이 흐르면 시간이 흘러서 조금 더 일을 하더라 아 근데 그 차가 몇 프로예요 요게 0.
(41:08) 05 아아 5% 차이 나는 거거든요 그러니까 2 3% % 정도 차이나요 2 3% 살짝 살짝음 금액은 거의 똑같았어요 기본 소득이나 실업급 변화 아 아니죠 그 이게 기본 소득이 훨씬 더 많이 많이 많은 거군요 예 예음음 기본 소득을 주면서 1을 더하면 더하는만큼 네가 다 다가져가 그 되는 거 그런 집단과 일을 하면 되는데 하는 거에 반은 나라에서 가져가라는 집단을 비교했더니 다 가져가는 집단이 조금 일을 좀 더하기는 하는데 뭐 그리 많이 더하지는 않 제 생각에 금액이 기본 소득과 실업 급여의 금액이 비슷했으면 조금 더 차이가 있었을 것 같아요 그니까 금액은 지금은 기본 소득이 좀 더 많아지는 구간이 되니까네 금액이 많으니까 사실은 노동을 덜할 유인이 생기잖아요 아 아 천재 아니세요 아 진짜나 무슨 질문인지 이해 못하고 있어서 무슨 얘기한 거야 무슨 얘기한 거야 지금 다시 다시 다시 뭐라고 신 설 설명하겠습니다네 자 사람은 돈이 생기면은 어 나 일을 안 해도 돼
(42:12) 이게 하나 있어요 이게 그 나 내 소득 효과 그렇지 그런데 어 거 디자인이 일을 하면 할수록 내가 더 많이 버네 요건 인센티브 효과 그런데 아까 이제 핀란드 같은 경우에는이 기본 소득이 소득을 소득을 늘리니까 소득 효과 자체로는 노동공급이 줄어야 돼 그렇지 그런데 인센티브가 더 훌륭하 그래서 이게 다시 올라간 그 더 올라간다 말이에요 그래서 소득 효과를 상쇄하고도 인센티브 효과로 한 2 2 3% 올라 올 매달 받는 실업 급여보다 그냥 주는 기본 소득이 절대 금액이 높았어요 많았어요 많았어요 그 많았으니까 사실 그 금액이 많은 때문에 노동 하려는 욕구로 줄었을 수도 있었다 만약에 실업 급여하고 기본 소득이 거의 비슷했다면 저거보다는 오히려 노동 참여율이 높아졌을 수도 있 왜 시험 설계를 그렇게 했죠 당연히 그 소드 추가 소득에 따른 인센티브만 다르게 하려면 실업 급여의 절대역과 기본 소득의 절대를 같이 만들었어야 되는데 왜 실험을 저렇게
(43:15) 했죠 왜 그렇게 하냐 이거 돈 엄청 들고요 그 그렇게 설계하기도 사실 하면은 굉장히 이상적인데네 뭐 정 정치하시는 분들이 이거 지금 이프로님 님 이해하시는 수까지 막 이해해서 그거 설득하는 과정도 어렵고음 그래서 사실은 그렇게 할 수 있으면 제일 좋습니다 그니까 원래는 가정의 컨셉은 기본 소득으로 주면 이것도 받고 일을 더해서 소득을 더 늘리지 않겠느냐는 가정을 실험해 본 건데 실제 실험하려는 좀 많이 준다고 해야 이쪽으로 지원자가 좀 몰리니까 지원자 구하기 좀 쉬워서 그냥 높 높이셨다 그 아니 아니지만 사실 사실 맞아요 그 미국의 옛날 실험들은 막 그래서 되게 다양하게 할 수 있으면 좋고요 이거는 국가 나서서 막 정치적으로 하는 거기 때문에 실험 실험 설계도 막 되게 많은 디스커션 들어 같은 금액인 줄 알았는데 저걸 보고 어떻게 다른 금액일 거라고 생각하고 질문을 했어요 네가 뭐 다른 금액이지 물어봤거든요 왜냐면 그 금액이 다르면 좀 다를 수도 있다고 생각해습니다 제 유즘이 정도입니다 제 명하십니다 자 세 번째로 가겠습니다
(44:19) 케냐 케냐 저개발 국가로 갑니다 저개 굴까 여기 아부지 배너지 아저씨 노벨 경제학상 수상자입니다음 어 케냐에서 실험을 했고요 어떤 식으로 했냐 요요요 분들은 이제 어 코로나 팬데믹 기간이 마 마침 딱 겹쳤어요 케냐에서 기본 소득 어 하는데 그 실험 설계하고 딱 시작했는데 팬데믹이 딱 왔어음 그래서 이분들이 그래서 지금 1년 2년 레포트를 일단 냈거든요 그러니까 그 기간이 분석한 기간은 코로나 기간이었다 정도 알 수 있고요 어떻게 하냐 내 룬으로 나눴습니다 근데 사람대로 나누는게 아니라요 마을대로 마을로 나눴어요 아까 제가 시군구 단위로 실험할 수도 있다 그랬잖아요 마을 단위로도 실험할 수 있습니다 마을은 주고요 마을은 안 주고 뭐 안 주고 뭐 그게 가능합니다 그래서 비교 가구는 백 마을인데 그냥 안 아무것도 안 한 거고 옛날처럼 그냥 있는 거고요음 장기 지원 가구 아 예 이거는 매일음 어 1달러 좀 안 되게 1,000원 정도를 12년 동안 받기로 처음부터 약속하고 약속하고 왜냐하면 이게 2년 기본 소득이나 12년 기본 소이에 따라서 좀 비해
(45:23) 달라질 수 있잖아요 내 미네 그 느낌이 그렇지 아 그럴 수 있겠다 단기 주면 난 그냥 그돈 저축하고 말지네 맞아요 단기는 2년음 그다음에 시 지급 가구도 했습니다 그래서 한 방에 털었습니다 아 야 요거 재밌네 요거 재밌네 어떻게 다를까 아 네네네 그런 다음에 기본 소득이 식량 확보 기약 계선 건강해 주는 영향서 노동 공급도 봤거든요 근데이 케니아 시골은 노동 공급의 의미가 약간 애매해요 직장이 없어서대 사고 있니까 이게 노동을 하는 건지 안 하는 건 안 하기도 어려워요네 그래서 기본 여기서는 노동 공급이 그렇게까지 막 중요한 이슈가 아닙니다네 그래서 한번 봤어요 그랬더니 가구의 이제 그 후생 상태를 봤더니 확실히 어 우울증 기아 질병 감소 다 이제 굉장히 많이 줄어들고요 주면 좋을 주면 다 좋습니다이 아까 모터가 세 가지인데 공이 다 좋아요 다 좋고 노동 공급 감소 효과 거의 없고 예네 근데 확실히 확실히 장기지원 가구에서
(46:28) 효과가 제일 큽니다 아 좋아지는 느낌이 그럼이 좋은게 12년간 유지 된다니까 얼마나 더 좋겠어 일단 마음이 좋은게 마음이 마음이 좋은 거 아니 내가 보기엔 2년 주는 곳은 갈수록 우울증이 심질 거 같아 이게 이제 다음 달까지 밖에 안 나온다는 거야 이러면서 그럴 수 있을 것 같아 야 얼마 남았다고 이건 좀 어떡하지 끊어질 때 힘들 거 같아요 그죠 근데 막 되게 큰 차이냐 또 그렇지도 않았습니다 그 전체적으로 봤더니 그 코로나 19로 인한 그 로 소득 감소 상세 효과가 있었다음 전이 모든 마을이 다 힘들었을 거 아니에요 코로나 19 때문에 일 못 하고 막 이런 것들을 다 감소할 수 있었기 때문에 야 이거 기본 소득이 예상치 못한 소득 감소 요인을 보호해 주는 일종의 보험처럼 작동하더라도 사실을 이제 밝혔고요 이분들 이제 12년 따라갈 거기 때문에 계속 논문이 나올 겁니다 그래서요 두요 세 가지의 차이가 장기 장기가 확실히 돈 더 많이 주는 거잖아요 맞네 계산해 보니까요 두 개가 액수가 거 예 비슷하거든요 합치는 뭐 디스네 그래서 이게 제일
(47:31) 큰 제일 좋은 효과가 너무 당연한 건데 그렇다고 해서 막 그 1 2년 사이에 받고 있는 동안에는 장기와이 큰 차이이 알겠습니다네 번째로 가겠습니다 야 이거는 샘 올트먼이라고 a 오픈 AI이 아저씨가 또 기본 소득에 뭐 막 고추 있어요 신자요이 아저씨가 돈 다 냈어요 해 그 논문이 최근에 나왔습니다 년 7월에 나왔어요음 어 이게 이제 가장 최근에 시 어 미국에서 한 거고요 세 트맨이 돈 냈고 어 몇백억 냈죠 500 550억이가 뭐 엄청나게 돈 많이 냈고요 그걸로 했는데 텍사스와 일리노이주에 있는 뭐 젊은 젊은 저소득층 미국인들 중에서 랜덤이 뽑아서 천 가구에게는 조건 없이 천불 좋습니다 월 천불 예 그리고 나머지는 비교 가구인데 비교 가구도 뭐 50불 줬다 아요 금액의 줘본 거구나 다 주고 50불 주는 건 되게 사실 저는 그 아주 똑똑한 생각인 게요 예 나중에 서베이를 하면요 비교 가구가
(48:35) 자꾸만 안 하려고 그래요 아 서민 조사 하러도 안 오고 야시 돈도 못 받았는데 너 지금 나 조사하러 와 그 지금 장난해 지금 짜증나는데 근데 너 왜 매다 전화하 이유가 뭔데 도대체 저기는 살짝만 주고 그냥 그래서 50 불이라도 받으니까 예 그래 설문 조사 해 줄게 거 연구 참가비 그냥 매우 소액 매우 소액 그서 서울시도 지금 같은 문제가 있어요 비교 가구가 한 분도 못 받으니까 너 나 찾아오지 마 이런 사람들이 한 10% 돼요 5,000 원이라도 줘야지 아 그래서 제가 아 또 좀 돈 들여야 된다 그래야 되는데 이게 또 뭐 선거법 뭐 이런 거 문제가 걸릴 수도 있다 막 이래 갖고 그 실험 한답시고 저 서울시에서이 2만 원씩이도 주면 안 되지 않냐 그렇게 볼 수도 있겠네 그래서 아 좀 안타깝습니다 그 이건 되게 클레버 한 아이디어인데 예 하고 있는 타요네 그래서 이제 이런 다음에 어 각 가구의 지출 형태든지 근로소득이 어떻게 되는지 보았습니다 어떻게 됐을까 자 노동 공급 컨트롤
(49:39) 그룹이 취업률이 한 58% 되는데 56% 줍니다 컨트롤 그룹이 뭐 한 그룹이죠 그러니까 50불 받은 그룹 예 어 50불 받은 그룹은 한 대략 한 58% 정도 일하시는데 예 그 천불 받은 분들은 56% 일한다는 거죠 아 이게 많이 준 건가요 적게 준 건가요 어떻게 생각하세요 감소한게네 2% 포인트 감소음 그래도 한번 그렇게 많이 감소한 거 같지 않았데 모르겠네요 어음 감고 저도이 정도는 감소한 거지만 유임이 통계적으로 유임이 하지만 예 이게 무슨 막 어마어마한 재앙적인 결과냐 저는 뭐 그렇다고 생각하지 않습니다 뭐 그리고 마찰적 실업이라는 이제 아이 정도 돈벌이가 계속 된다면 나는 이제 이일 안 하고 다른 일로 바꿔 볼래라는 과정에서 바꾸는 기간에 실업이 있을 수 있잖아요 맞아 그런 것도 있을 수 있죠 창업 준비하는 것 뭐 그런 걸니까 저건 저렇게 나타날 수 있죠네 그래서 2% 감소는 감소했지만 저는 뭐 이게 계산을 해봤더니 연간 한 8일 정도 덜이라는 거음 그니까 8 8 64 64시간 정도 덜 덜 일라는
(50:44) 정도거든요 좀 긴장 풀리긴 풀린다 좀 살 사람이라는 건 어쩔 수가 없어 어 민 구석이 생기는 거지 근데 교수님 이거 실험할 때마다 느끼는 건데 저분들은 내가 실험 대상이라는 걸알 알잖아요 그러니 요거를 받다가 언제는 끊긴다는 것도 알잖아요 근데 직업이라는 건 내 평생 가는 거 아닙니까네음 그러니 내가 이게 있다고 해서 그럼 직업을 만약에 안 구했다가이 실업이 실험 끝나고 난 나면 그럼 나한테 그럼 직업을 주냐면 그게 아니잖아요 하나는 내 인생인데음 이거 실험에 참가한다고 여기에 폭 빠져서 그래 나는 평생 동안 그렇게 몰두해서이 직업을 안 구한다는게 좀 그런 일 안 벌어지 사실 굉장히 많는 말씀이시고요 그런 것 때문에 아까 그 케니아 실험에서 12년 어 12년 줄게 2년 줄게 이거를 하는게 바로 그런 이유니까 충분히 길어 보이니까 근데 저라면 모르겠습니다 이게 내한테 65세에 이런 제한을 해 주면 모르겠는데네 12년도 금방 지나가는데 인생 그런데 저 저런 실으면 어려운게
(51:49) 노모는 12년 이후에 써야 되잖아 중간중간 쓸 수 있는데요 그 평생 커트하는 사실 쉽지 않고요 이게 두 개가 별 차이가 없었다고 한다면 만약에 그렇다면은 야 그렇게 롱하게 지금 말씀하시는 걱정이 조금 줄어드는 거고이 두 개가 차이가 아까 12년과 2년이 차이가 크더라 그러면은 지금 이프로님 말씀하시는 부분이 진짜 또 정말 걱정스러운 거고 뭐 그런 알겠습니다 어쨌든 케냐 실험은 그렇게 그 부분까지도 고려한 실험이었고 트만 실험은 이제 그런 건 아니었고요 시간 사용과지 더요 여가시간에 쓰는 시간이 좀 늘어나고요 그다음 저축 들고 돈 많이 돈 벌었으니까 당연 전체적으로 뭐 괜찮은 효과가 있었다음네 돈 쓰는 데는 확실히 효과가 있었다 교통 수단 이용 시간이 증가한다는 건 어디를 빨빨 그러고 돌아다니기 시작했다는 거로 다녔다는 뜻이지 놀러 다녔다 맞아요 그리고 재밌는 거는요 기부도 좀 더 해요 오 그렇지 근데 하여튼 그래서 꼭 월 천불이 다 느는 건 아니었을
(52:52) 거고요 어 뭐 한 열 월 900불 정도 느은 효과였습니다 거고요 데 모든 돈을 또 다 쓰는 건 아 아니잖아요 한 310불 정도 썼대요 900불 정도 더이 늘 늘어나고 310불 정도 더 쓰는데 의료비도 많이 쓰고 빨빨거리고 돌아다니고 좀 이사 가기도 하고 기분도도 하더라네음 저거는 그 괜찮은 결과네요 그니까 노동 감소는 그렇게 많지 않은데 전체적으로 뭐 음식도 사 먹고 여가도 늘어나고 당연한 예상이 돈이 더 들어왔으면 더 쓰겠지 근데 이게 꼭 좋은 거냐라고 하면은 사실 잘 모르겠어요 왜냐하면요 이렇게 의료비도 더 쓰고 그러는데 사실 궁극적으로 건강이 좋아져야 되잖아요 예 그렇죠 그런데 건강 개선 효과는 전혀 없었어요음 정신 건강 효과도 여기서는 없었습니다음 이거는 누구나 다 준 거니까네 그 이건 저소득층 테만 줬다고 그래 아 전체적으로 저소득층을 이게 대상이었기 때문에 저소득층을 했는데도 불구하고 의료비를 또 이렇게 늘렸음에도 불구하고 건강 개선 효과가 거의 없었거든요 세러 밀러이 팀이 와서 무슨 얘기를 하냐면요 예 정신
(53:57) 건강 육체적 건강 계산 효과가 거의 없었 없었고 이렇게 이게 무슨 부의 부의 재분배 효과도 거의 없었고 요동 공급은 살짝 감소됐고 이래서 이제 얘기가 이게 돈만 줘서는 돈만 줘서는음 정신 건강 그다음에 건강 불평등 이런 거 해소하는 거는 사실 어렵다 뭔가 인센티브로 작용하는게 약하다 약한 거죠 그러면 이제 사람들이 건강하기 위해서는 아까 우리나라 의료 돈만 준다고 해서는 이게 뭐 건강이 막 딱히 좋아지더라 이렇지는 않다네음 그냥 다이리 uing poty via cash transp 그 돈 조서는 그렇게 건강하는 건강 증진하는 데는 이펙티브 하지 않더라 예 예 그래서 폴로스 메이커들은 어떻게 해야 되냐 하면은 정말 타겟을 잘해라음 그 정말 아픈 사람들한테 줘라 정말 아프고 힘들고 그런 사람들 다 찾아가서 주지 의료 그렇게 써야지네 그냥 뿌려서 쓰지 마라 얼굴로 나눠 주면 저건
(55:00) 당연히 그렇겠죠 뭐 같은 돈이라면 불편하고 아픈 사람에게 집중해서 주는게 훨씬 효율적일 건 같고요 계속 그 얘기하는 겁니다 저거는 뭐 당연한 얘기고 다만 이제 돈을 주었을 때 전반적으로 건강 증진 효과가 없었다고 보기에는 조금 돈을 더 더 쓰면 더 나아질 수 있고 보통 우리가 돈으로 행복을 살 수 없다고 생각이 들거든 그때는 돈을 좀 더 벌어 봐라 네가 돈이 충분히 없어서 그런 느낌을 갖는거다 또라는 충고를 하시도 하잖아요 그래서 뭐 흥미로운 거는요 샘 몰트만 돈 다 냈잖아요 근데 이제이 저자들이 결론이 좀 애매하네 결론이 아 이렇게 이거 이거 아니야 아니야 이렇게 쓰는 이렇게 쓰지 마 돈 이거예요 그래서 알트만이 그래서 다 한 다음에 좋은 결론을 얻었 좋 잘 배웠습니다 하고 말았어요 았 샘 몰트만의 의욕이나 희망은 저건 아니었을 텐데 기본소 기본 소득 나눠 줘야 된다는 주장인데 왜어야 기본 소득 했더니 오 왜 노동공급 늘어나고
(56:04) 사람들 건강해 줘 이렇게 말하고 싶었지만 그렇지만 이제 본인도 과학을 믿는 거잖아요 그렇니까 실험을 해 볼 뿐이지네 그래서 이제 말하자면은 그럼 샘 몰트만 직접 한게 아니라이 교수들 왜 붙여요 왜 붙이는 이유는 과학적으로 확실히 알려 달라 예 그런 거니까 했더니 야 약간 애매하다네 당신께서 생각하시는 것만큼은 아니 아니 아니 달라지지 않 그래서 정말 아픈 사람들한테 더 집중해 주십시오라고 결론 결론을 내고 끝냅니다 좋습니다요 그러면 그러면 이제 기본 소득 실험 다 끝났습니다네 대충 이런 결과였고네네 아 힘드네요 음의 소득세네 이제 음회 소득세로 갈까요네 자 사실 음회 소득세가 먼저 있었다고 했었잖아요 음의 소득세 실험이 1970년대 80년대에 엄청 했어요 엄청 아 이건 되게 오래된 거군요네 그니까 기본 소득은 최근에서 야 이제 좀 약간 그 미디어 어텐션을 받은 거고요 사실은 이제 음의 소득세가 먼저 나왔고 그래 갖고 실험을 한게 여기 보면 뉴저지에서도 하고요 어 여기 라인 프로젝트라고
(57:09) 이게 어디서 했더 아이오와주 노스 캐롤라이나에서 했고 그다음에 시애틀 댐버 실험이 있고 인디애나주 실험이 있고 그 민컴이라고 이거는 캐나다에서 한 실험이 있습니다 이게 다 음의 소득세 실험을 한 거거든요 그런데 아까 왜 음의 소득세가 요렇게 기울기가 있잖아요 그 기울기도 막 좀 다르게 보고 막 그랬어요 음음 그럴 수 있겠죠 그 그게 다양한 제도를 막 만들어 보는 되게 되게이 실험 되게서 되게 잘 디자인되어 있었는데요 문제가 좀 아쉬운게 여기 샘플 사이즈가 좀 다 약해요 1,200명네 800 809 가고 요거만 좀 좀 크고요 돈 많이 드는 시험이니까 많이 해 주려면네 맞아요 이거 정부가 나서지 않으면은 사실 쉽지 않고요 서울시 시 서울시도 몇백억 단위로 쓰죠 그렇죠음 500억 제가 알기로 500억 넘게 쓰고 있는데 아요 실험하는데 아 사람들한테 돈을 줘야 되니까 봐야 되는 거니까 이뭐 어마어마한 돈을 합니다 튼 그 그렇습니다 그래서 했는데 이게 제 안타깝게도 이게 1978 70년대 80년대는요 실험을 하는 경험치가 좀 들 쌓였어요 경제학자들 경들
(58:14) 사이에서도 몇 실험이 망했어 망했다는게 뭐야요 어떻게 설계를 잘못했어 설계를 잘못했다 설계를 잘 설계는 그래도 했는데 실제 임플리멘테이션 시킬 때 컨트롤 그룹과 트리트먼트 그룹 확실 하게 또 다르게 해 줘야 되는데 막 트리트먼트 그룹 아니 컨트롤 그룹에서 나 더 줘 막 그러면은 좀 주 주기도 하고 이거 뭐 이렇게 막 실수로 막 랜덤지지 못하고 막 막 이런 일들이 벌어진 거예요 그래 갖고 후대에서 평가를 해 보니까 아 이건 좀 못 믿겠는데 이런게 좀 나오고요 아 시럼 다시 한번 해 봐야 되겠다 그리고 소득도 내가 얼마 벌었는지 자꾸만 레포트 하게 해요 예이 옛날에는 이제 행정력이 그만큼 못 따라가니까 너 얼마 벌었어 이렇게 물어보면 알아야 되니까 네네 물어보는데 이거 믿어 믿어지십니까 그렇지 아 자 왜 괜히 많이 벌었다 그러면 내가 좀 줄어드는 거 아니냐 이런 생각할 것 같아요 그럴 수도 있고요 그다음에 내가 얼마 번인지 사 몰라음 그렇기도 하고 그 그렇기도 하고요 그렇죠 그래서 여러 가지 에러들이 많이 생겼습니다 아 그렇겠네 그래서 최근에 정말 따끈따끈한
(59:17) 논문인데요 음의 소득세 실험을 재해석한 논문이 나왔어요 예 아 재밌다 저것도 실험을 다시 한 건 아니고 옛날 실험 데이터를 가지고 험 데이터를 가지고 야 이거는 망했네 그리고 버리고 좀 잘된 실험을 가지고서 다시 한번 재해석을 해봤어요 옛날 실험에서는 아 보통 아 노동 공급이 많이 줄더라예요 줄더라음 그러니까 음의 소득세 하면은 돈이 어쨌든 늘어나니까네 받는 돈 그 아까 인컴 효과가 있고 인센티브 효과가 있다 그랬잖아요 그런데 복지 지도가 아무것도 없는 상황에서는 돈이 확 들어오니까 예 확실히 줄더라 음음 노동 공이 확실히 줄더라 이제이 얘기가 나왔었는데 미혼모 미혼 그니까 싱글 싱글 머덜 미혼모를 위주로 좀 많이 팠어요 예 가족이 양부모가 있는 가정이 있고 싱글 머더가 있는데 어 싱글 머더를 조금 더 집중적으로 파 봤습니다 예 어 양부모 있는 집에서는 노동 공급이 감소되는데 싱글 머더인더퍼스트 [음악]
(1:00:27) 월별 최대 5,000 불까지도 주는 거였고요 예 어 단 근로 소득이 1 1달러 증가하면 혜택이 0.5 0.5 달 감소한다네 덴버는 최대 5,600 아지 주지만 뭐 가구원 인구에 따라 다르지만 요것도 1달러 증가시 혜택이 감소하는데 싱글 머더로지 이렇게 주로 봤더니 어 공급이 여기 보시면 실험 집단이 근 근로 여부와 4개월 동안 근로 시간이 컨트롤 집단에 비해서 좀 더 늘더라 근데 누구음 싱글 머더에서 싱글 머더에서 늘더라라는 사실을 밝혔습니다 그니까 아무런 복지가 없었던 집단과 비교할 때 음해 소득세 소득을 주니까 오히려 일을 더하더라 전체적으로 많이 줄어드는데 예 그 싱글 머더 임 집단 그러니까 양부모 과정 다 있는 데까지 다 치면은 그러면은 노동 관급이 줄 줄어요 그런데요 특정한 그룹 있잖아요 싱글 머더에서 올라가더라 왜 그랬을까요 싱글 맘은 돈 써야 될게 많은가 아이를 위해서 그 처음에는 싱글
(1:01:30) 맘이니까 아이들 돌 보내라고 소득 활동을 너무 못 하고 있다가 나라에서 돈을 주니까이 돈으로 파트타임 내니를 사고 자기는 나가서 더 많이 벌기 위해서 일할 수 있는고네 뭐 유치원에 보낼 돈도 생겼 생겼을 수 있고 그랬을 수 있으니까 오히려 일을 이제부터 나는 아이로부터 자유로워지니까 더 열심히 해서 벌 벌어야 되겠다 네네 저는요 논문을 최근 보면서 무슨 생각을 했냐면요 아 전체적으로 예를 들어 노동 공급이 감소한 다고 해서 모든 그룹이 다 감소하는 건 아니잖아요 평균의 함정이라는게 있잖아요 그러니까 어떤 그룹은 부작용이 적고 더 더 혜택을 많을 수 있고 어떤 그룹은 좀 더 부작용이 많을 수 있는 그룹이 있으니까 또 잘 타겟 해서 찾는 것이 필요한게 아니겠는가 그걸 먼저 알았다면이 재원을 싱글 맘들에게 집중할 수 있었겠네 돈도 아껴가면서 그래서요 재해석하는 논문이 그런 임플리케이션 있다는 사실이야 저건 돈 안 들리고 실험 했네 옛날 거 가지고 그네요 또 한 가지는 노동 공급만 중요한게 아니라 노동 공급 이외에 또 다른 변수들 아까 정신 건강 건강 뭐
(1:02:36) 이런 것까지 다 같이 보는 것들이 필요하다 뭐이 정도가요 그 논문의 결과라고 말씀드릴 수가 있겠습니다네 자 이제 드디어 디딤돌 디딤돌 실험으로 넘어가네음 이게 우리나라의 의의 소득세 실험인 거죠 맞습니다음 언제부터 우리나라도 실험을 언제부터 했어요 지금 이제 2년차 보고서가 어 나왔으니까 2년된 거네 2년 동안 실험한 거요 2년 이상 하고 있는 거죠 누가 지금 하고 있는지 좀 소개드릴게요 저랑 서울대 이정민 교수랑 홍콩 과기대 그 박상윤 교수님이랑 사실 이거를 굉장히 많이 준비하신 고성환경 교수님 아 돌아가셨어요 돌아가셨습니다 이거 하시다가 이거 하는 중간에 돌아가셨어요네 그래서 이게 어떻게 된 거냐면요 그 이제 오세훈 시장이 어 시작을 하셨죠 그 하신 다음에 이거를 좀 독립적인 연구자들 좀 맡겨서 그 서울시 이김을 좀 좀 빼고 아 진짜 좀 과학적으로 평가해 보자 해서 공모를 했어요 공모를 해 갖고 저희가 이제 지원을 해서 저희가 성이 돼 갖고 이제 하고 있는 중입니다네
(1:03:39) 디딤돌 사업인데요 이게 아까 음의 소득세 아고 말씀드렸잖아요 이게 저는 어 어떤 어떤 가치가 있는 것인가라고 했을 때 저는 첫 번째로 제일 중요한 게요 우리나라에서 최초로 정말 정책을 실험을 해본 최초의 사례입니다 전 처음이에요 우리나라로 처음입니다 아 본격 도입하기 전에 임상 실험을 해보는 느낌으로 그런 거로는 정말 처음이고요 아 그니까 예를 들어 미국은 되게 경 미국은 50년대 아까 저에 제가 보여드렸던 1900 70년대 80년대도 막 하고 있었는데 우리나라는 그냥 직관과 당이 높은 분들이 아 이거 해야 이거 해야지 부작용 뭐 나오지 생각도 안 해 그래 모르 막 아 뭐 그러고 하거든요 저는 이게 어쨌든간에 최초의 정책 실험에 우리의 그 DNA 처음 들어왔다 그거 자체가 굉장히 의미가 있다고 생각이 들리고요 이걸 하고 나서 아 안 해도 되고 해도 됩니다 예 저는 만약에 이거를 안 하겠다고 오시장이 예를들어 하는 거는요 그것도 굉장한 결단이라고 생각을 합 실험
(1:04:42) 해봤더니 생각보다 정책 효과가 적을 수도 있겠네라고 하면네 그러면은 안 하는 거는 굉장히 큰 용기든 자기 브랜드를 가지고서 얘기를 했다가 야 이게 내가 생각했던 거보다 효과가 이만큼 안 나오네 음 그 그렇지 그렇지 그건 그 과학을 믿는 거지 과학의 힘을 믿는 거죠 어 하튼 그래서 저는 이거를 저희가 하게 됐을 때 아 진짜 객관적인 근거를 제시하자 예 이제 요건 거고요 지금 어떻게 하고 있냐면 2026년에 최종보고서가 나오는 그니까 2022년도에 시작했고 2026년까지 4년 동안 그 3년 주고 계속 따라가면서 끝나고도 수집을 합니다 근데 어떤 어떤 자료를 수집하면 서이도 하고요네 그 이후에네이 계속 서베이 하고 행정 자료도 봤습니다음 으흠네 그런데 서베이 하면 아까 무슨 문제가 있다고 말씀드렸면 대답 안 해 대답 안 해 대조군에서 응답을 안 해 그런 문제가 실제로 발 발생해요 화해
(1:05:45) 좋 나면 화해 그거요 그 항암제 임상 시험할 때도 똑같아요 한 쪽에다가 진짜 항암제를 주고 한 쪽에다가 똑같이 생긴 설탕 덩어리를 줍니다 그 모르 모르게 하잖아요 그러니까 항암 넌는 항암제 먹는 거야 당연히 블라인드로 모르게 하지 모르게 하는데 그래도 귀신 같이 알아내고 어 그러면 아니 내가 차도가 있고 없고는 내 몸이 느끼잖아요 어 그리고 그지 주는 의사도 사실은 모르는데 아무튼 그렇데 그래서 화내시고 막 그런데 어 어네 하여튼 그렇습니다 그래서 이렇게 좀 객관적으로 해 보자 이런 것이고요 2022년도에 시작한 코트가 있고요 사람들이 있고요 예 2023년부터 이제 급여를 받기 시작하신 분들이 있습니다 아 달라요 두 분이네 2022년도에 그요 아까 기준 중위 소득 50% 이하 가구를 대상으로 했고요음 2단계 사업부터 진짜로 처음에 디자인했던 85% 이하 가구를 대상으로 했습니다 무슨 말이냐 하면요 x 축이 세후 근로 소득 y 축이 뭔가 돈을 준 소득인데 요게
(1:06:52) 기준 중의 소득 85% 다 돈이 돈이 적게 벌면 돈을 조금씩 조금씩 점점 늘려면 주는 거잖아요 네네 1차 년도에는 여기 반으로 잘라 갖고 여기 한 50% 미만인요 사람들한테만 했어요 줬다 그러다가 이제 2차 년도부터 여기 모두 다 해보겠다 이렇게 간 겁니다 예음 그니까 1차 년도에는 진짜 더 가난한 사람들이 더 많이 됐고 2차 년도에는 모두 다 포괄하는 예예 그렇게 해서 지원자가 3 3,000명이 있으면요 그중에 1,00 가구만 랜덤하게 먼저 뽑아요 3만 가구로 다 하기 너무 힘드니까 그런 다음에 500 가구는 484 가구는 돈을 주고음 139 가구는 안주고로 야 그러니까 안중 가구에 전화해서 매번 어떻게 변했냐고 난 지원도 했는데 아니 근데 저는이 그렇게 했어야 된다고 생각하는게 지원 가구는 지원한 분들 중에 뽑고네 대조하는 대조군은 그냥 그냥 랜덤하게 뽑았으면 아 률이 어차피 마찬가지였죠
(1:07:57) 그러나 지원하는 분들은 되게 적극적인 분일 거 아니겠어요 어 그 그분 자체가 왜 지원하는 분들로 구원 그 그러니까 지원한 분들 중에는 지원 각으로 만들면 나중에 이걸 가지고 이분이 얼마나 의욕적인 얼마나 뭐 삶에 뭐가 달라지는지 이걸 할 때 분포가 달랐을 텐데 적극적인 지원자들 중에 양쪽으로 나눴다는 건 되게 좋은 실험을 설계했다는 의미입니다 굉장히이 프로님은 사실 공부했어야 된다는 생각이 드는 게요 그 보시면은 지원자와 자 아닌 그룹은 다른 그룹입니다 여기서 나온 실험 결과가 전국을 확대했을 다 다른 일반적인 사람들을 했을 때 똑같은 결과냐 물어보신다면 사실 아닐 가능성도 있습니다 그 하지만 어쨌든간에 지원 가구와 비교 가구를 여기서는 그런 적극성은 컨트롤이 되는 거죠 그렇죠 그죠네 그렇고요 2단계는 조금 더 사람들이 많이 지원했어요 76 가구가 지원을 했고요 또 다 관리하려면 힘들잖아요 그래서 대략 한 3,500 가구를음 하 뽑은 다음에 그중에서 또 랜덤하게 1가구는 지원을 하고 288
(1:09:02) 가구는 비교 가구로 만들어서 이제 트리트먼트 컨트롤 소위 사회 실험을 했다 그런 다음에 뭐 연 2회 설문 조사하고 공 자료 조사해서 패널 데이터를 구축하고 있습니다음 아하 이게 실험입니다 예 디딤돌 소득을 주면은네 돈이 일단 느니까 노동 공급에 감소가 생겨요 생길 수가 있어요 예 이건 인센티브 제도 효과가 까 요거는 노동 공 감소는 이제 인컴 효과인 거죠 돈이 어쨌든 늘었으니까네 그런데 또 다른 채널도 존재할 수가 있어요 왜냐하면 뭐 예를 들어서 소비가 증가하고 가족이 안 안정적이고 안정적이 된다면은 뭐 그러면 노동 공급이 증가할 수 있을지 않을까 이런게 하나 있고요 아이를 맡기고 본인은 공적으로처럼 그런 것도 하나 있고요 또 하나는요 이게 아예 복지 혜택을 안 받던 사람들이랑 비교하는 경우가 있고요음 음 기초를 이미 던 사람들하고 비교하는 경우가 있습니다 예 그렇네요 기초보다 근로를 하려는 그런 인센티브가 더 잘 디자인되어 있어요 예 소득 효과는 많지 않은데
(1:10:06) 그니까 소득 효과로는 공급을 노동 강무 감소해야 되는데 인센티브 디자인이 국 기초는 막 일을 안 하려는 인센티브인 여기는 좀 더 일을 해도 괜찮은 인센티브가 그 인센티브 효과로 노동 공급이 올라가는 부분이 있단 말이야 있을 수 있겠죠 그래서 그 두 개가 어떻게 달라지는지 모르겠다 그 야 잘 발라내야 되겠네 네네 그래서 어 설문을 이거 저거 다 물어보고 한 1천개 물어봐 뭐라도 잡혀요 그러데 그런 걸 막기 위해서요 사실 경제학자들이 여기 aea rct 레지스트라 그요 이게 전미 경제 학회에서 이런 사회 실험을 다 사전에 등록을 하고요 우리는 무슨 아웃컴 보겠다는 어떻게 보겠다는 다 사전 등록을 다 합니다 아 나중에 질문 바꾸지 못하게 나중에 다 바꾸지 못하게 다 아 아 나중에 처음에 디자인 한 한 대로만 해라 뭐 결과 안 나온다고 자꾸 중간에 막 끄집어내려고 하지 마라지 그전에 얼마나 많은 경작자의 저걸 했다는 뜻이야 저걸 만들 정도면 그 엄밀하게
(1:11:10) 하겠다는 얘기도 얘긴데요 또 비판도 있어요 뭐냐하면요 아 콜럼버스가 인도를 발견하려고 떠났는데 미국을 발견했아요네 아 그럴 수도 있는 거지 하다 걸리는 거 이제 왜 못하게 하냐 이제 그런 얘긴데 그럴 거면 다시 해 약간 이런게 아 엄격하다 빡세지네 그렇게 하고요 자 결과 보여 드리겠습니다 결과 와 드디어 나온 드디어 나왔습니다 자 첫 번째 다 소득이 굉장히 많이 증가합니다 근데 증가해요 왜냐면 돈 좋으니까 받으니까 아 그건 좀 당연한 거예요 근데 확실히 디딤터 소득 준 것만큼 다 증가하지 않아요 요동 소득 감소 부분이 약간 있습니다 실제로 예 아 일을 조금 안 하는 사람이 생기니까 예네 그렇고요 그다음에 지출 지출이 증가하죠 당연히 근데 소득 증가한 것만큼 증 증가하지 않고 저축을 하는 거죠 그러니까 어느 정도 저축도 하고 어느 정 여기 자산 형성이 어느 정도 저축도 하고 어느 정도 지출도 하더라 소득이 느니까 증가 유리라는 거죠네 예 요거는 뭐 당연한 뭐 당연한 결과라고 보실 수가
(1:12:13) 있겠습니다 그런데 지출이 릅니다 한 88.1% 느는데 그게 얼마 넣느냐 하면 17 17만 5,000원 느는 거죠 예 자산도 한 23만 원 정도 가지고 계신 분들인데 26,000원 정도 좀 더 좀 더 하더라 뭐 그 정도 결과입니다 뭐 당연한 거라고 할 수도 있죠 그렇네 노동 노동이 중요하겠네요 노 노동 굉장히 중요하죠음 자 전체 가구를 봤더니 확실히 고용 감소합니다음 돈을 좀 주니까 돈을 많이 주니까음 사실 이제 그 가난한 분들한테 몰빵 하자는게이 개념이지요 그러니까 돈 많이 그니까 확실하 확실한 이제 복지 혜택을 준 거거든요 그러다 보니까 인컴 효과가 소득 효과가 뭔가 도하는 부분이 좀 있는 거죠 안 주던 걸 주니까네 그런 고용효과가 주는데 근데 진짜 중요한게 뭐냐면 안 주던 사람들이랑 비교하는게 아니라요 지금 우리가 어떤 복지로 어떻게 계산하려 그러냐면 국기초 대비 어떻게 할 거냐 이게 문제인 거잖아요 예 국기초 대비는 고용 하이 하락이 없어요 똑같아요음네 무슨 말이냐 면요 지금
(1:13:16) 안심 소득이 국기 초보다 더 훨씬 더 제너러스 하게 돈 많이 줬잖아요 그러니까 노동효 노동 공급이 감소돼 되는 거죠 예 그런데 인센티브 효과가 더 좋잖아요 그 기초는 일 안 해야 되는데 안신 소통 일해도 괜찮잖아요 그러니까 율지네 그래서 요게 사실 이렇게 극복이 돼서 요게 똑같아요 아 그래요 같아요 기초 대상자는 고용 하락이 없 별로 안 나타나고 고용 하락이 없습니다네 국기초 대신 이제 디딤초 소득을 봤는데 디딤초 소득이 기초보다 훨씬 더 제너스 많이 돈을 줘 많이 주는데도 불구하고 근데 돈을 많이 주면 줄어야 되잖아요 소효과 때문에네 소득효과 때문에 줄어야 되는데 음인 효과가 있 다시 걸 극복해서 여기 똑같더라 비교를 해봤다 이거죠 그것도 그럼 사실상 이거는 꽤 인센티브 효과가 있었던 거네요 어느 정도 있었던 거죠네 그럼 세율을 낮추면 인센티브가 생긴다니까 세를 낮춘 거잖아 이게네 그래서 여기 한번 보시면요 디딤돌 소득이 생계 급여보다 크 크기 때문에 원래고 고용률을 하락 시키려는 소득
(1:14:19) 효과가 발생해야 되는 거죠 그런데 그거 그것에도 불구하고 고용률에 하락이 없다 얘 는 소득 효과를 통제하고 난 뒤에 다시 이렇게 뭔가 일을 하려는 유인이 있어 갖고 다시 올렸다 그런 건데 그게 또 엄청 크냐 그렇지 않아 한 2% 2% 예 돈은 또 제너러스 하게 줬을 때 노동 공급이 감소될 정도가 한 2% 인센티브 디자인을 잘해서 그걸 올린 것도 한 2% 그 정도입니다 교수님 근데 저거는 시간을 좀 더 오래 지속 시키면 어쩔지 모른다 야 계속 이런 상황이라면 내가 좀 다른 일을 좀 해 볼까 말까 해볼까 말까지 고민하는 중인 상황이라서 저 저건 높아질 수도 있을 것 같은데요 시간이 흐르면네 아까 핀란드에서 사실 1년 차에는 별게 없었고 2년 차에서 올라왔잖아 그래서 어떻게 될지 아직 모르고 계속 이제 추적을 하려고 하고 있고요 그리고 또 이제 재밌는 건 이질성 분석인데요 고령자나 미취학 아동이 있는 경우에는 오히려 고용률이 크게 감소했어요 예음 저는 이게 오히려 괜찮다는 생각이
(1:15:23) 들어요 무슨 말이냐 하면요 아 일 일 안 나가시고 집에서 애 보시는구나 그냥 그 진짜 진짜 고령자들은 얼마나 힘들게 일하시는 분들이잖아요 그 그런 분들은 이제 소득이 늘었을 때 나 그래 이제 나 허리도 아프고 무릎도 아픈데 일 안 할 수 있는 거고요 그다음에 애 돌보 야 돌보고 싶은데 방임 할 수밖에 없었던 그런 가정에서도 이제 일을 안 할 수 있다는 얘기는 엄마가 뭔가 돌봐 수 있다는 얘기니까 저도 이게 나쁜 거라고 생각하지 않고요 이런 단에서는 고용률이 감소돼 돼 아 복지 혜택을 줬으니까음 저는 그래서 요런 거는 나쁘지 않 오히려 괜찮은 거 아닌가 뭐 이런 생각도 가지고 있습니다 고용률이 늘었냐 줄었냐 볼 때 어떤 업종이고 어떤 대상들이 늘었냐 따져 봐야 된다는 거네요 그거 맞 말이네 아 대단하다 그 야 멋 멋진데요 교수님 어 늘 늘 그렇지 않지만 맞는 말이야 맞는 말이야 감소했다고 저게 꼭 나쁜 거냐 고용률이 그리고 마지막으로 뭐 평상시에 근로를 하지 않고 있었던 분들은 또 오히려 고용률이 증가하는
(1:16:26) 것으로 발견됐습니다 평상시에 일하고 있던 분들은 좀 떨어지는데 떨어지는데 안 하던 분들은 돈이 생기면 더 한다네 뭐 이건 인센티브 효과가 좀 있다네 그랬습니다 왜 그런지는 저도 아직 좀 더 살펴봐야 될 거 같아요 나가면 돌아다니기도 하고 세상을 또 보기도 하고 그러면서 의욕도 생기고 교통 비례도 생길 수 있 뭐 그러면서음 그럼 나가서 좀 뭐 소득 활동도 해 볼까 뭐 하 수도 있죠 그 아니야 약간의 소득이 생기면 뭔가 하여튼 그걸 기반으로 해서지 말 그대로 디딤돌 럼 뭐 할 수 있는 있는네 여지는 있을 것 같아요 진짜 너무 없으면 근데 저분들은 평상시 근로를 하지 않고 있었던 거지 소득이 없었던 분은 아니죠 뭐 가족한테 실 좀 이렇게 붙어서 살 수도 있는 거고 그럴 수도 있고음 알겠습니다네 그래서 사실 저희가 이제 1차 년자 2차 년자 길게 보는 것도 중요하고요 샘플을 많이 키워서 다양한 집단이 어떤 식으로 이제 이거를 받았을 때 어떤 식으로 달라지는지를 보는 것이 나중에 이거를 이제 요거 고대로 확대를 하겠습니까 그게 아니라 어떤 집한테
(1:17:27) 어떻게 해야 되는지를 잘 디자인하려면 요거 이렇게 이렇게 좀 잘 나눠서 보는게 중요하다라고 말씀드릴 수가 있겠습니다 예 지출 증가했는데요 아까 지출이 어디서 많이 증가했면 그 식료품 사 먹는게 원래 한 56만 원 쓰시던 분들이 한 60만 원 정도 쓰시고 4만 원 더 쓰고 의료 서비스도 한 11만 원 쓰시던 분들이 한 13만 원 이상 쓰시고 교통비 쓰시고 약간 직업 교육도 좀 더 받으시고 주택 관리도 좀 더 하시더라음 음네 그래서 식료품 소비와 주택 관리비가 많이 아까 증가하다 사실을 알 알 수 있었고요 요건 흥미롭게도 1년 차부터 바로 탁 릅니다 오 다이나믹한 효과가 별로 없는 거죠 딱 늘고 그대로가 계속 가더라 아까 노동 공급은 근데 어떻게 될지 모르는 거죠 또 아직 아직 모르는 거고 지출은 지출은 바로 바로 하더라 보시면요 기분은 또 기분은 2차 년도부터 효과가 나타납니다 아 2차 조사 요게 한 이제요 2차 조사 3차 조사가 2차년도 그든 분들이 무슨 기부를 해요 어디에 그니까 저 진짜 어디 뭐 교회에다 교회내는 그런
(1:18:30) 거 그렇지 그럴 수 있겠지 목사님들 특히 여기지 교회 제일 많은데요 목사님들 책임감을 가지고 헌금 쓰셔야 됩니다 정말 그러네이 이거 정말 이렇게 어려운 분들이 늘리네 이걸네 이걸 늘려서 하는 헌금이라고 생각하시고 종교인들 혹시 이거 보고 듣고 계시면은 정말 정말 뭐 피와 땀이 있는 돈이다 생각하고 좋습니다 그 생각 보셔야 됩니다 네네 교육 훈련도 바로 늘지 않고 서서히 늘어나더라음 야 저 믿음을 줘야지 조금씩조금씩 늘어나는구나 것도 흥미롭죠 그러니까 노동 공급이 좀 줄었다고 해서 나중에 미래가 어떻게 될지 어 잘 모르는 그렇지 어 나 좀 다른 직업 준비하느라고 좀 쉬래 할 수 있죠네음 그리고 정신 건강이 개선됐어요데 자존감이 좀 올라가고요 우울감이 떨어지고 스트레스가 떨어지거든요 좋아졌네요 정신 정신 확시 좋아져요 근데 되게 재밌는 게요 1차년도 다 2차년도에 개선이 줄 줄어들어요 그렇지 그건 당연히 한계 한계 회용 효과 늘 들어오던 거니까 뭐 요거를 이제 경제학적 용어는 헤도닉
(1:19:33) 어댑테이션이라고 하는데요 기분 좋은 게요 어댑트 된다는 거죠 그니까 맨날 들어오는데 맨날 기분 좋으면 참 좋을 텐데 요즘 어 언더스탠딩 잘 보고 있어요 안님 그러면 이제는 그러려니 하죠 오늘은 왜 잘 보고 있다는 사람이 이렇게 없나 그래서 무슨 뭐 핀란드 기본소득 이런 데서 정신건강 개선됐다고 이게 뭐 이거 엄청난 효과다 말하기에 사실 조금 어려운 게요 정신 건강 개선 정도는 아까 말씀드린 헤도닉 어댑테이션 합니다 그래서 이런 이거를 가지고서 대단한 효과라고 보기에는 조금 어려운 부분이 있습니다음 저희가 이제이 실험을 하면서 그이 이것이 뭐 정답이라고 말하려고 실험을 하는게 아닙니다 예 그 정말 저희 두 번째 빌렛 포인트 한번 보시면요 이걸 통해서 진짜 우리나라의 필요한 복지 제도가 무엇이고음 그고 정말 에비던스 만들어 간다는 거 이게 얼마나 중요한 일이라는 사실을 좀 국민들이 좀 같이 좀 관심을 기울여 주셨으면 좋겠어 그건 의미 있는 거 같아 그니까 정책 실험할 때 말씀하셨듯이 이게 물론
(1:20:35) 돈이 드는 일이죠 그렇지만 실험을 해보고 이걸 진짜 할지 말지를 한번 테스트 한번 해 본다는 컨셉트 자체는 매우 좋은 거 같습니다 그 이번에 실험을 통해서 알게 된 사실로 우리가 응용 적용할 수 있는 거는 뭐가 있을까요 지금까지 도출된 지금까지 보시면요 정말 정말 누가 도움이 필요한 것인가음 아까 왜 그 싱글맘 싱글맘네 싱글맘이 그 캐나다 실험이 마이터 아는데요 캐나다 실험에서는 아 미혼모가 진짜 확 적극적으로 반응을 하면서 정책 효과가 높구나 좋다 이런 얘기가 나왔고요 아까 아까 저희 같은 경우에는요 노인들과 그 미취학 아동이 있는 경우에는 고용률이 줄었 아아 그거를 또 어떻게 해석할 것인가 이게 무슨 의미가 있는 것인가 생 그런 복지가 충분히 못 갔다는 뜻이지 그런이 수 있을 같고요 국민 기초생활 수급 대상자가 이미 됐던 사람들과 그렇지 않았던 사람들 그러니까 이미 기존 제도보다는 괜찮은 제도일 것이야고 말할 수 있는데 그러면은 지금처럼 그렇 그렇지만 그렇지만 전체
(1:21:41) 가구를 봤 봤더니 고용률이 많이 감소하자아요 그 얘기는 소득 효과가 좀 크게 나타난 거거든요 그래서 안심 소득을 시작할 때는 지금 실험하는 것보다는 조금 더 작게 시작해야 되지 않을까 주는 급여 급여 라든지 그런 것들을 작게 시작해서 늘려나가는게 필요한게 왜냐하면 지금처럼 좀 크게 하면은 고용 감 감소 효과가 아무래도 좀 세게 나오니까 세게 나올 수 있으니까네 그걸 좀 더 그거보다는 좀 작기 시작하 의미는 응용이 거 같아요 예산이 있더라도 단계적으로 늘리면 정신적인 건강에 도움을 주는 것도 훨씬 더 단계적으로 높아지 원래 행복은 그래서 강도가 아니라 빈도라고 그러잖아요은 좋은 지적입니다 그렇게 주는게 필요할 것 같다 또 근로인 이 인컴 효과에 의해서 많이 줄어들기 때문에요 지금 이제 서울 시랑 준비하고 있는 건 뭐냐 하면요 아 그러면은 좀 근로를 할 수 있는 너찌 결합해 보면 어떨까 근로하면 뭐 준다 이렇게 이런 컨셉으로 뭐 그렇게 할 수도 있지만요 지금 보니까 어디서 어떻게 근무해야 될지도 모르는 분들도
(1:22:44) 있어 갖고 예를 들면은 얘를 면접 볼 수 있도록 도와주 주는 거라든지 아니면은 그런 저 매칭을 좀 더 시켜 준다는 건지 그런 거라든지 뭐 그런 근로 유인 혹은 근로 정보 요런 것들과 결합하면 요런 뭐랄까 근 전체적으로 인컴 효과 때문에 소득 효과 때문에 근로가 주는 것이 조금 더 미팅이 되는가 뭐 이런 것도 좀 보일 수 있을 것 같아서 그런 것도 한번 같이 해보려고 하 생각하고 있습니다요 실험은 몇 년짜리 실험이에요 총 몇 년 동안 하는 거예요 3년간 지원을 하고 5년간 팔로업을 하는 겁니다 그 아 그 사람들 그 사람 어떻게 됐는지 아 아 안 주는데도 효과는 뭐 지속될 수도 있고 반감 오 야 진짜 대단한 실험이네요 아닙니까 노벨상 노벨상은 못 나오고요 그렇지만 노벨 경제학상 수상자들이 궁금해서 왔어요 와 갖고 사진 한번 보여 드릴까요에 듀플러 아주 유명한 그 여류 경제학자 배상 받으셨죠 이분이 사실 프랑스 좌파다 그래갖고 되게 좌파적 사고를 많이
(1:23:48) 하세요 예 어 그런데 한국에 오셔서 무슨 말씀을 하셨냐 하면요 한국처럼 소득통계 시스템이 제대로 작동하는 국가에서는 선별적 지원해야 된다음 아 너무 타게팅 하기 좋은 시스템이다 우리 타게팅 하기 너무 좋은데 선별 지원 하기 쉽지네 선별적 지원할 수 있고 선제적 지원할 수 있다음 선재적 지원이라 하면 무슨 무슨 말이냐 하면요 세금 뛰어 가듯이 미리 줄 수도 있는 거 아니냐 니네 그네 정말 그럴 수 있는 나라고 나는 그에 듀플로 나는 만약에 기본 소득을 한다 그러면 케냐에서 해라 아 소득 하기 힘들고 답도 없고 정말 선진국 가서는 이거는 선별하는 것이 훨씬 더 효과가 크다 보편적 기본소득 하려면은 진짜 돈이 많이 드는데 지금 갖고 있는 예산 가지고서 제깍제깍 해 갖고는 사람의 인생에 큰 영향을 줄 수가 없다 그래서 정말 가난한 사람들한테 몰빵할 수 있는 가장 좋은 나라 대한민국이다 그렇게 한번 해 봐라 이렇게 얘기를 하고 가셨습니다 그러게 그러게 저의 경험을 미뤄 보면음 어 그 많은 분들이
(1:24:53) 비슷한 얘기를 하시는데 소득이 늘어났거나 자산이 늘어난 분들한테 뭐 어떻게 인생 사시니까 어때요라고 얘기를 해보면 늘 공통적으로 하는게 내가 이렇게 고소득이 되고 이렇게 자산이 많아질 줄 알았더라면음 이게 좀 평탄화 됐었으면 참 좋았을 텐데음 옛날에는 이거 이거 5만 원이 없어서 그랬는데 내 많은 걸 놓쳤던게 지금 물론 거기서 배운 것도 있고 뭐 어려움을 극복하는 의지도 생기고 했지만 이럴 줄 알았으면 좀 더 평탄 에 됐으면 좋겠는데 요즘엔 아니 한 달에 막 10억씩 들어오는데데이 다 필요 없다 사실 어 그니까 물론 안 들어오는 거보다 낫고 이걸 가지고 계획도 세울 수 있지만 그 효용이 매우 떨어지더라 거죠 어 이거 내 젊은 시절 10년 동안 나눠서었으면 나는 정말 인생 달라졌을 텐데 어 그렇더라는 건데 대체로는 그런 인생들이 되게 그렇게 되잖아요음음 그런 복지를 좀 해 줬으면 좋겠어요 저 같으면 예를 들면 제가 25살 때 난 신청해 난 이런 이런 사람인데 지금 나한테 이런 지원을 좀 해주면 나중에 나의 그
(1:25:58) 소득 세율을 뭐 더 더 낼게 5% 포인트 더 낼게 뭐 그네 그래서 뭐 40세부터 더 낼게 뭐 그러면 일종에 일때 나이 대형사도 도박이지만음 어 그거 뭐 일종에 인슈런스 아아 그죠 어 보면 그러면 그렇게해도 될 수 있을까 물론 걸러내기 해야 되겠죠 뭐 자격도 봐야 되고 하겠지만 충분히 싹수가 보이는데도 불구하고 미래 소득을 못 당겨 쓰는 거는네 비 인 거 같다는 생각도 들고 그러네요 사실 그 미래 소득을 당겨 쓰는 부분이요 가구 내에선 이루어집니다 어 그렇죠 부모가 주자 네네 그래서 국가가 지원할 때 그러면 똑같이 청년한테 줄 때 부자 청년한테 왜 돈을 굳이 줘요 집에서 주는데 집에서 주는데 가난한 수 지금 말씀하신 거는 정말 5만 원이 없어서 힘들었던 그 어린 시절에 내가 그게 있었으면 얼마 나왔을까 이런 생각 집에서 못 손 못 벌리니까 그래서 사실은 국가가 재원을 가지고 있으면은 음 돌려쓸 수 있는 거고네 그렇게 쓰는 생각고 있습니다 아깝다 한 3년만 하고 실험하고
(1:27:02) 그러는게음 그 소득 뭐 효과도 있지만 예를 들면 인센티브 효과가음 어떤 연령층에서 더 강하게 작동하는지 그것도 궁금하고 진 그렇기도 하고 특히 청년들은 똑같이 놀더라도 노는 거에 대한 타격이 더 크고 저는 아까지 그 소 그 고용률이 툭 떨어진 그 계급 예를 고령자나 그분들 고용은 떨어지지만 다른게 어떻게 변했는지 뭐 그런 것도 궁금해 건강 상태가 어떻게 변했는지 아니면 실제로 뭐 어떻게 됐는지음 행복감이 높아졌는지 뭐 그런 거 저희가 열심히 논문 정리하고 있고요 뭐 조만간 공개 공개 예정입니다네 이미 뭐 발표자료 공개되어 있습니다 야 정부 한 달에 500만원 주면 언더스 안 할 거죠 어 전 말레이시아로 문제 그래서 안 주나 봐 내이 마음을 알고 내려다보고 계십니다 어러네 이거 왜 나는 그럴 거 같은데네 이런 거 할 때마다 이게 어 언더 스탠딩이 보람이고 야 경제 경제학이 참 경제학이 새로운
(1:28:06) 재발견이네 이런 이런 건지 몰랐어요 형지 목이 되이 아프지만 재미없는 거 같은데 교수님 이야기를이 정도로 집중해서 들어 주는 시청자도 여기 말고 가면 딴데 가면 없습니다 어느 프로에서 제가 이만큼 두 시간 동안 기본 소득이 어쩌고 그 안심 소득이 어쩌고를 떠 주겠습니까 언더스탠딩 보물입니다네 네 잘 배웠습니다 야 감사합니다네 김현철 교수님하고 디돌 소득 뭐이고 관련된 정책 실험 재밌게 들어 봤고요 앞으로 사회에 여유가 생기거나 특게 개인적으로 좀 여유가 생기시는 분들은 사회에 환원하는 다양한 방법 중에 이런 사회 실험을 좀 지원해 주시면 감사하겠습니다네 알겠습니다네 잘 들었습니다 고맙습니다 [음악] s [음악]