In a general sense it is though. The long-term group did as well as the lump sum group.
Comment on The first results from the world’s biggest basic income experiment in Kenya are in - Vox
MHLoppy@fedia.io 6 months ago
Actual summary:
- The article's focus is: lump sum payment vs regular payment.
- Program had three groups: $20/month for 2 years, $500 lump sum, $20/month for 12 years.
- Lump sum allowed people to invest (e.g., to start a business) in a way that monthly payments didn't.
- Monthly recipients often pooled funds in rotating savings and credit associations (ROSCAs) to provide a lump-sum-like investment ability.
- Monthly recipients were "generally happier and reported better mental health" than lump sum recipients. Articles quotes speculation of cause to be stress related to investment vs the stability from having monthly payment.
- "The researchers found no evidence that any of the payments discouraged work or increased purchases of alcohol".
While you're free to circlejerk about how the article shows how great UBI is, that's not really what it talks about.
Maggoty@lemmy.world 6 months ago
idunnololz@lemmy.world 6 months ago
Im jerking off so hard rn
reflex@kbin.social 6 months ago
Im jerking off so hard rn
otp@sh.itjust.works 6 months ago
I’d say that this is a pretty important finding. This is a common talking point for people against UBI, so finding evidence to the contrary is promising
sabreW4K3@lemmy.tf 6 months ago
I’d say that’s the takeaway!
MHLoppy2@aussie.zone 6 months ago
I agree it’s a useful insight, but it’s the only sentence in the entire article that isn’t instead discussing the merits of lump sum vs regular payment. Saying that “it’s the takeaway” from the linked article is insanity.
The Wikipedia page for Hitler includes the sentence:
That doesn’t make it the takeaway of the article!! If you want to make a case for something, bring the right evidence. As the researchers themselves have said, this study can’t just be generalized to high-income countries.
Showroom7561@lemmy.ca 6 months ago
Be careful of this conclusion. When a similar pilot project was done for homeless people (in Canada, I believe), the methodology was rigged. They made it so only people they felt would be most likely to give the pilot a positive result were selected. This created an overwhelming bias towards the outcome.
I’m not sure exactly what the methodology was for this Kenyan project, but I’m hoping that there was no selection bias.
bouh@lemmy.world 6 months ago
That’s not what rigged means. And either you didn’t understand the selection process or you don’t want to understand it because you are against the idea of the UBI
Showroom7561@lemmy.ca 6 months ago
Just to put it out there, I COMPLETELY AND FULLY SUPPORT UBI.
My example of the (I think Canadian) study, was set up in a way that could only produce a positive result. In other words, they excluded people who would contradict the result that the study organizer was after. It was rigged in quite a few ways, not only in selection bias but also in publication bias, and researcher bias.
That particular study left me doubting other studies, which is why I think it’s important to acknowledge that these bias’ exist.
That’s not to say that this pilot wasn’t a huge success, as I do think it was!
But if you specifically omit alcoholics or drug users, then it’s hard to conclude that “The researchers found no evidence that any of the payments discouraged work or increased purchases of alcohol".
It’s a bit of a sham research in this regard, but that doesn’t detract from the fact that UBI can improve someone’s quality of life.