
Results of Findland's basic income experiment - angrygoat
https://stm.fi/en/article/-/asset_publisher/perustulokokeilun-tulokset-tyollisyysvaikutukset-vahaisia-toimeentulo-ja-psyykkinen-terveys-koettiin-paremmaksi
======
thdrdt
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
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.

~~~
oneplane
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?

~~~
acarrera94
What makes it evil? That word is thrown around too easily. If there is an
incentive, it has to be considered as a possible explanation

~~~
oneplane
It is evil to assume everyone else is evil and the only difference between
people is those who have been caught doing evil things and those who are
hiding it well. It assumes there are no well-intentioned people or people who
wouldn't feel the need to lie.

~~~
xondono
Why would you assume that I’m assuming everyone is evil?

I’m just assuming that people generally follow incentives and thus averages
will reflect them. If you need any evidence for “People follow incentives”, we
have full branches of studies built on that premise.

My guess would be that you’re assuming I think people would lie, and you find
lying reprehensible (I don’t).

In any case, IMO the biggest problems here are that apples to apples
comparisons are very hard to make, and long term effects are essentially
unknowable.

------
mchusma
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.

------
walt0
Please correct "findland" to finland.

~~~
unicornporn
Came here to protect my neighbouring country's pride by saying that. Thanks
for not making me the first and only one. :)

~~~
maest
Hello fellow Baltic Sea inhabitant .

------
rvnx
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
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
_" 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."_

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

~~~
sidpatil
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23103251](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23103251)

