4 ms·
Results of Finland's basic income experiment
- sharemywin 7y agoThe argument has never been it wouldn't help people with the money problems. The main arguments against are: 1. assuming a limited budget what other priorities would it take funding from? 2. what are the macro economic effects on things like inflation and size of workforce.
- sharemywin 7y agoAlso, I never heard of a spray and pray approach working for anything. In fact, why not look at things like income, demographics other types of factors of the groups. And I bet you could figure out which groups where helped more by the money and target it towards more of those groups. then, rinse and repeat.
- eesmith 7y agoOne of the arguments against it was that it had never really been tested before[1], making it hard to understand what the actual effects might be, vs. the theoretical benefits ... or worries. For example, one of the arguments against basic income is that people would stop working. This experiment observes "The employment rate for basic income recipients improved slightly more during this period than for the control group." Thus, at least for Finland, basic income does not appear to get a large number of people to stop working. It's hard to know how to prioritize things if you don't know the effect. Perhaps if people are "satisfied with their lives" then there's less need for mental health care? In which case there's a possible re-prioritization there. BTW, the summary doesn't appear to address if the experiment helped people with money problems. It describes the weaker "more positive perception of their economic welfare". [1] "Really" here being "nationwide, statutory and randomised".