7 ms·

Results of Findland's basic income experiment

68 points by angrygoat 6y ago

tutfbhuf 6y ago
Maybe Im allowed to make a meta comment here. I would have anticipated more comments on this topic.
- sidpatil 6y ago
  https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23103251 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23103251
rvnx 6y ago
In short, people with basic income work less, feel happier, produce less. Nothing too extraordinary. "The response rate for the survey was 23% (31% for the basic income recipients and 20% for the control group), which is typical for surveys." At least they should answer the study they were enrolled into :| This shows the recipients have little consideration for the tax-payers.
- ttonkytonk 6y ago
  Did you read the article? The result was that recipients had a modest increase in employment compared to nonrecipients. edit: to be clear, there was no effect either way in the first year of the test. The modest increase in the second year is complicated by something called "the activation module".
  - ttonkytonk 6y ago
    "In accordance with the preliminary plan for the evaluation, the employment effects of the basic income experiment were measured for the period from November 2017 to October 2018. The employment rate for basic income recipients improved slightly more during this period than for the control group. During the reference period, the basic income increased the number of days of employment by 6 days and the basic income recipients were employed for 78 days on average. However, the interpretation of the effects of the experiment is made more complicated by the introduction of the activation model at the beginning of 2018, which meant more stringent entitlement criteria for unemployment benefits asymmetrically in both groups."
- new2628 6y ago
  The result is plausible, I would also feel happier if I was on BI while the rest of society is not.
walt0 6y ago
Please correct "findland" to finland.
- angrygoat 6y ago
  Oops - yes, please correct :)
- unicornporn 6y ago
  Came here to protect my neighbouring country's pride by saying that. Thanks for not making me the first and only one. :)
  - maest 6y ago
    Hello fellow Baltic Sea inhabitant .
thdrdt 6y ago
Better wellbeing is so important. Less health cost, less safety service costs (police for example), better performing people, less sick people at work, and so on. It is unfortunate most countries today are reigned by short term money while happy people means long term profit.
- xondono 6y ago
  Better reported wellbeing is not that important. I would also report being happy if I think saying the opposite could cost me this nice additional income.
  - Jackim 6y ago
    So the additional income is "nice", but wouldn't that mean it is improving your wellbeing? Removing the extra income would reduce your happiness, would it not?
    - xondono 6y ago
      Not necessarily. That the additional income is “nice” means that you personally think it has improved your wellbeing, not that it has. I might think that bacon makes me feel happier, until I need a bypass 10 years later.
      - Jackim 6y ago
        Fair enough. Re-reading your comment now and I understand your point better.
  - oneplane 6y ago
    That's a rather pessimistic and evil stance to assume other people to have. At the same time: if that was someones incentive, wouldn't that also cause happiness or well-being to increase anyway?
    - xondono 6y ago
Proven 6y ago
1) Before any of these wasteful experiments started, we knew how they'd go 2) Statists and socialists are desperately trying to show BI "works" (or whatever) to be able to justify it 3) Nothing matters though, because most states in the West are bankrupt. They already print money and give it away in all sorts of ways. When government borrows money that you can't pay off (that is, your ideal share of it), that is already a form of BI. Please stop trying to persuade us that this makes sense. It doesn't. Socialism and thievery always destroy value.
mchusma 6y ago
While I fully support basic income, I don't feel a survey is very insightful. I mean, we have to work with the tools we have got, but it's not like this was a blinded result. All survey participants would have been aware: 1) they did get money or not 2) the survey is being used for a study about potentially getting money in the future, if it shows positive impacts. People are smart, they know what the "right answer" is to have this declared positive. Maybe if the study was run 30 years people would forget the effects or something. I don't think a short term study of basic income looking for survey results was ever going to give us insight into whether we should do it. Again, I support basic income, but as a more efficient and fair redistribution tool with fewer malincentives and as a necessary tool to morally give people a minimum quality of life. What was interesting was the increased work hours from the pool that got basic income. To me that is the only meaningful signal from this study.

68 points by angrygoat 6y ago

tutfbhuf 6y ago

Maybe Im allowed to make a meta comment here. I would have anticipated more comments on this topic.

sidpatil 6y ago
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23103251 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23103251

rvnx 6y ago

In short, people with basic income work less, feel happier, produce less. Nothing too extraordinary. "The response rate for the survey was 23% (31% for the basic income recipients and 20% for the control group), which is typical for surveys." At least they should answer the study they were enrolled into :| This shows the recipients have little consideration for the tax-payers.

ttonkytonk 6y ago
Did you read the article? The result was that recipients had a modest increase in employment compared to nonrecipients. edit: to be clear, there was no effect either way in the first year of the test. The modest increase in the second year is complicated by something called "the activation module".
- ttonkytonk 6y ago
  "In accordance with the preliminary plan for the evaluation, the employment effects of the basic income experiment were measured for the period from November 2017 to October 2018. The employment rate for basic income recipients improved slightly more during this period than for the control group. During the reference period, the basic income increased the number of days of employment by 6 days and the basic income recipients were employed for 78 days on average. However, the interpretation of the effects of the experiment is made more complicated by the introduction of the activation model at the beginning of 2018, which meant more stringent entitlement criteria for unemployment benefits asymmetrically in both groups."
new2628 6y ago
The result is plausible, I would also feel happier if I was on BI while the rest of society is not.

walt0 6y ago

Please correct "findland" to finland.

angrygoat 6y ago
Oops - yes, please correct :)
unicornporn 6y ago
Came here to protect my neighbouring country's pride by saying that. Thanks for not making me the first and only one. :)
- maest 6y ago
  Hello fellow Baltic Sea inhabitant .

thdrdt 6y ago

Better wellbeing is so important. Less health cost, less safety service costs (police for example), better performing people, less sick people at work, and so on. It is unfortunate most countries today are reigned by short term money while happy people means long term profit.

xondono 6y ago
Better reported wellbeing is not that important. I would also report being happy if I think saying the opposite could cost me this nice additional income.
- Jackim 6y ago
  So the additional income is "nice", but wouldn't that mean it is improving your wellbeing? Removing the extra income would reduce your happiness, would it not?
  - xondono 6y ago
    Not necessarily. That the additional income is “nice” means that you personally think it has improved your wellbeing, not that it has. I might think that bacon makes me feel happier, until I need a bypass 10 years later.
    - Jackim 6y ago
      Fair enough. Re-reading your comment now and I understand your point better.
- oneplane 6y ago
  That's a rather pessimistic and evil stance to assume other people to have. At the same time: if that was someones incentive, wouldn't that also cause happiness or well-being to increase anyway?
  - xondono 6y ago

Proven 6y ago

1) Before any of these wasteful experiments started, we knew how they'd go 2) Statists and socialists are desperately trying to show BI "works" (or whatever) to be able to justify it 3) Nothing matters though, because most states in the West are bankrupt. They already print money and give it away in all sorts of ways. When government borrows money that you can't pay off (that is, your ideal share of it), that is already a form of BI. Please stop trying to persuade us that this makes sense. It doesn't. Socialism and thievery always destroy value.

mchusma 6y ago

While I fully support basic income, I don't feel a survey is very insightful. I mean, we have to work with the tools we have got, but it's not like this was a blinded result. All survey participants would have been aware: 1) they did get money or not 2) the survey is being used for a study about potentially getting money in the future, if it shows positive impacts. People are smart, they know what the "right answer" is to have this declared positive. Maybe if the study was run 30 years people would forget the effects or something. I don't think a short term study of basic income looking for survey results was ever going to give us insight into whether we should do it. Again, I support basic income, but as a more efficient and fair redistribution tool with fewer malincentives and as a necessary tool to morally give people a minimum quality of life. What was interesting was the increased work hours from the pool that got basic income. To me that is the only meaningful signal from this study.