4 ms·
"nearly three-quarters of respondents who were working when the pilot project began kept at it despite receiving basic income." So can we infer that 25% of thos
by timwaagh 7y ago
"nearly three-quarters of respondents who were working when the pilot project began kept at it despite receiving basic income."
So can we infer that 25% of those working chose to actually quit full time? I think it's safe to say this much reduction in labor availability is not the result the government was hoping for.
The state is right, maybe not to call it off prematurely but if these figures would have been the same after the trial the conclusion would have been: they need to look for another policy. A good 'normal' social security policy would result in 0 people quitting and a lot of people getting employed. That's the kind of result the government should want to see before even considering a change.
- Matumio 7y agoI really don't like using employment as the only valid measure of success. See also David Graeber's "Bullshit Jobs" essay. Government could always create jobs, directly or indirectly, and force the unemployed into them, producing something for which there isn't really a demand. Why were those people quitting their jobs? What were they doing instead? Were they better off? How much did it cost to get those improvements, compared to other ways to get them?
- timwaagh 7y agoPeople quitting their jobs means a not-quite corresponding economic decline because labor productivity can't change in the short term (not quite because these are lower-productivity jobs). Which means less taxes and thus less money to fund programs like this. But more importantly in an import-free economy, less stuff gets produced so everyone would have to make do with less. That's why it's generally considered important.