3 ms·
>Mein Grundeinkommen (My Basic Income), the Berlin-based non-profit that ran the German study, followed 122 people for three years. From June 2021 to May 2024,
by bryanrasmussen 2y ago
>Mein Grundeinkommen (My Basic Income), the Berlin-based non-profit that ran the German study, followed 122 people for three years. From June 2021 to May 2024, this group received an unconditional sum of €1,200 ($1,365) per month.
122 people for 3 years seems worse than useless, worse in that it probably makes people think this isn't statistically useless.
- Braxton1980 2y agoWhy?
- bryanrasmussen 2y agoYou think 122 people for 3 years is likely to be a statistically meaningful sample? Germany is 44.4 million people in the labor market.
- Braxton1980 2y agoIsn't the experiment to show the effects? Why would a country matter , it's about people. It wasn't to see if the country could implement it. Drug trials often include can go to several thousand but only in a later stage, earlier stages are a few hundred. https://www.fda.gov/patients/drug-development-process/step-3-clinical-research https://www.fda.gov/patients/drug-development-process/step-3...
- amarcheschi 2y ago122 is not a low number, i'm doing a course right now where medical datasets have <50 people. My professor would be very happy to have 122 people. Although, i don't know whether soft sciences require more people than hard ones to be significant
- bryanrasmussen 2y agoa medical dataset with 50 people may or may not be a low number depending on the rarity and the profile of people being affected by the disease. But as it happens low counts for studies are often a problem so maybe I shouldn't be so snippy, that said I would say yes, soft sciences often require more people in studies to be significant, but that is just my opinion on it.