Quote:
Originally Posted by belsarius
The analysis is a lot more complex than "Does free money improve outcomes?", it gets into the how much does it improve. The studies in Dauphin, Manitoba in the 70s gave lots of feedback on hospitalization rates, employment participation, education participation etc. These trials should be updating this information for current standards as well as help understand how much secondary costs can be saved.
There are a lot of interesting stories regarding the Mincome studies, both anecdotal from the participants and analytical from the data.
|
Some of those studies on the Dauphin experiment conceded that the structure of the Mincome (temporary, small population selected) led to difficulty in generating conclusions. This pilot project does not change those parameters.
I have read that hospitalization rates go down and employment participation goes down and education participation goes up. All great things from the first pilot project. I don't see how the structure of the current pilot project gives us additional information - perhaps modern experimentation and recordkeeping techniques - but I believe the big picture will be very similar. Is more modernized and precise data worth another 150 million over 3 years?
Basically, I feel that the improved outcomes of basic income are well known by this point and not worth 150 million to explore further. The questions need to shift to "is it worth it?" and "can this be implemented?" Without any sort of test for these questions, we are repeating the Mincome experiment from the 70s.