5 ms·

I find this title a good example of framing. From the article: "On the basis of an analysis of register data on an annual level, we can say that during the fir

I find this title a good example of framing. From the article: "On the basis of an analysis of register data on an annual level, we can say that during the first year of the experiment the recipients of a basic income were no better or worse than the control group at finding employment in the open labor market" So you can say "free money didn't help people find jobs", or you could say "free money didn't discourage people to seek jobs". The connotation is a bit different.

rocgf 8y ago
Valid point, but I believe people will be less inclined to support this if basic income basically means "we can give all this money for free to people and they will do about the same as people we don't give money to". It's hard to justify it.
- SiempreViernes 8y ago
  Uh, the very first sentence states that people feel better on UBI, for no loss of employment rate. So basically all the mental suffering associated with unemployment is pointless suffering.
  - askmike 8y ago
    I'm not sure you can deduce that it's pointless. It's not like UBI doesn't have any other consequences (such as the feelings of the people who don't like UBI). Note that I think UBI is a great idea.
- avaika 8y ago
  In the article they mention, that people from experimental group (w money) are feeling better from health perspective than people from control group (w/o money). I believe that's a strong point to justify the expenses.
- mcv 8y ago
  We're already giving free money to people, but at the moment we're giving money to people specifically for not working and for subjecting themselves to humiliating bureaucratic processes. So people get simultaneously rewarded and punished for not working. Instead, let's just give them the money and give them some freedom.
genericacct 8y ago
Besides the entire idea behind UBI is that it is needed because automation has taken / will take most of the jobs. So the headline confirms the need.
Robin_Message 8y ago
And the report I heard said they were happier and had better mental health, which has got to be worth something on its own. Also, only giving basic income to unemployed people doesn't give good data on what a society-wide basic income would do. My reading of the study is "bureaucratic and narrowly defined job search advice and systems depress people but have no positive impact in them getting a job" - as you say, the connotation is quite different!
- vanderZwan 8y ago
  > And the report I heard said they were happier and had better mental health, which has got to be worth something on its own. Even economically, since mental health issues can be very costly
- LoSboccacc 8y ago
  Dunno the society but I would drop jobs to program videogames. Don't think it would be a net benefit for the world but would increase my well being for sure. One question remains tho. If I were to benefit economically from the art production that basic income would enable me to do, would it be ethical to keep that income?
Nursie 8y ago
The wider reporting of this as "Basic Income didn't work" is worrying too. All we can say is it didn't appear to affect the number of people that found employment, and that the supposed effect of letting people seek work without worrying that they might lose their benefits, didn't happen here. It says nothing about the wider implications of BI in a society where there may be limited work in future.
SiempreViernes 8y ago
It's even better than that! The title the authors of the study put on their press release is: "Preliminary results of the basic income experiment: self-perceived wellbeing improved, during the first year no effects on employment"[0] So not only does Bloomberg frame it like the doomsday prediction that everyone would turn into idlers never happened, the significant increase in mental health is just quietly sidestepped. [0]: https://www.kela.fi/web/en/news-archive/-/asset_publisher/lN08GY2nIrZo/content/preliminary-results-of-the-basic-income-experiment-self-perceived-wellbeing-improved-during-the-first-year-no-effects-on-employment https://www.kela.fi/web/en/news-archive/-/asset_publisher/lN...
- VvR-Ox 8y ago
  THAT is exactly the problem: OUR SYSTEM doesn't care how happy you are, as long as you're productive enough for some people to get rich. No one cares if you have a job, if you are homeless or have to suffer poverty. OUR SOCIETY values power and wealth (at least here in the west, I heard about other countries who don't do this so dedicated). If you're poor, sick or have no job than there is even people who'd argue for mercy killing you as not being strong enough for our good society. I think the report about this experiment shows how far away we moved from humanity.
  - askmike 8y ago
    > If you're poor, sick or have no job than there is even people who'd argue for mercy killing you as not being strong enough for our good society. Where do you meet people who argue for that? I Have never heard that outside of (very) dystopian novels.
    - SeaSeaRider 8y ago
      I think he might be a russian troll?
      - VvR-Ox 8y ago
        I think you just try to disqualify my valid arguments because you don't want to see what is happening around here.
avip 8y ago
Yep. It reads like one of those nutrition "studies" that conclude with "none of the participants in the Brocoloy juice diet group developed any signs of cancer".
zozbot123 8y ago
> So you can say "free money didn't help people find jobs", or you could say "free money didn't discourage people to seek jobs". The connotation is a bit different. Right. Most perceptibly, you could even frame it as "Disincentive effects from unemployment benefits may be lower than previously feared; switching to free money didn't make people seek more work."
- pixelbash 8y ago
  Shouldn't that be (s/more/less/)?
  - zozbot123 8y ago
    No, the point is that it doesn't matter if you "pay people not to work" via unemployment benefits that are stopped when they start working again, or just give them a baseline subsidy no matter what - either way, they'll have the same amount of success seeking work. So yes, it's a bit of a failure for basic income, but a win for unemployment benefits.

rocgf 8y ago

Valid point, but I believe people will be less inclined to support this if basic income basically means "we can give all this money for free to people and they will do about the same as people we don't give money to". It's hard to justify it.

SiempreViernes 8y ago
Uh, the very first sentence states that people feel better on UBI, for no loss of employment rate. So basically all the mental suffering associated with unemployment is pointless suffering.
- askmike 8y ago
  I'm not sure you can deduce that it's pointless. It's not like UBI doesn't have any other consequences (such as the feelings of the people who don't like UBI). Note that I think UBI is a great idea.
avaika 8y ago
In the article they mention, that people from experimental group (w money) are feeling better from health perspective than people from control group (w/o money). I believe that's a strong point to justify the expenses.
mcv 8y ago
We're already giving free money to people, but at the moment we're giving money to people specifically for not working and for subjecting themselves to humiliating bureaucratic processes. So people get simultaneously rewarded and punished for not working. Instead, let's just give them the money and give them some freedom.

genericacct 8y ago

Besides the entire idea behind UBI is that it is needed because automation has taken / will take most of the jobs. So the headline confirms the need.

Robin_Message 8y ago

And the report I heard said they were happier and had better mental health, which has got to be worth something on its own. Also, only giving basic income to unemployed people doesn't give good data on what a society-wide basic income would do. My reading of the study is "bureaucratic and narrowly defined job search advice and systems depress people but have no positive impact in them getting a job" - as you say, the connotation is quite different!

vanderZwan 8y ago
> And the report I heard said they were happier and had better mental health, which has got to be worth something on its own. Even economically, since mental health issues can be very costly
LoSboccacc 8y ago
Dunno the society but I would drop jobs to program videogames. Don't think it would be a net benefit for the world but would increase my well being for sure. One question remains tho. If I were to benefit economically from the art production that basic income would enable me to do, would it be ethical to keep that income?

Nursie 8y ago

The wider reporting of this as "Basic Income didn't work" is worrying too. All we can say is it didn't appear to affect the number of people that found employment, and that the supposed effect of letting people seek work without worrying that they might lose their benefits, didn't happen here. It says nothing about the wider implications of BI in a society where there may be limited work in future.

SiempreViernes 8y ago

It's even better than that! The title the authors of the study put on their press release is: "Preliminary results of the basic income experiment: self-perceived wellbeing improved, during the first year no effects on employment"[0] So not only does Bloomberg frame it like the doomsday prediction that everyone would turn into idlers never happened, the significant increase in mental health is just quietly sidestepped. [0]: https://www.kela.fi/web/en/news-archive/-/asset_publisher/lN08GY2nIrZo/content/preliminary-results-of-the-basic-income-experiment-self-perceived-wellbeing-improved-during-the-first-year-no-effects-on-employment https://www.kela.fi/web/en/news-archive/-/asset_publisher/lN...

VvR-Ox 8y ago
THAT is exactly the problem: OUR SYSTEM doesn't care how happy you are, as long as you're productive enough for some people to get rich. No one cares if you have a job, if you are homeless or have to suffer poverty. OUR SOCIETY values power and wealth (at least here in the west, I heard about other countries who don't do this so dedicated). If you're poor, sick or have no job than there is even people who'd argue for mercy killing you as not being strong enough for our good society. I think the report about this experiment shows how far away we moved from humanity.
- askmike 8y ago
  > If you're poor, sick or have no job than there is even people who'd argue for mercy killing you as not being strong enough for our good society. Where do you meet people who argue for that? I Have never heard that outside of (very) dystopian novels.
  - SeaSeaRider 8y ago
    I think he might be a russian troll?
    - VvR-Ox 8y ago
      I think you just try to disqualify my valid arguments because you don't want to see what is happening around here.

avip 8y ago

Yep. It reads like one of those nutrition "studies" that conclude with "none of the participants in the Brocoloy juice diet group developed any signs of cancer".

zozbot123 8y ago

> So you can say "free money didn't help people find jobs", or you could say "free money didn't discourage people to seek jobs". The connotation is a bit different. Right. Most perceptibly, you could even frame it as "Disincentive effects from unemployment benefits may be lower than previously feared; switching to free money didn't make people seek more work."

pixelbash 8y ago
Shouldn't that be (s/more/less/)?
- zozbot123 8y ago
  No, the point is that it doesn't matter if you "pay people not to work" via unemployment benefits that are stopped when they start working again, or just give them a baseline subsidy no matter what - either way, they'll have the same amount of success seeking work. So yes, it's a bit of a failure for basic income, but a win for unemployment benefits.