Quote:
Originally Posted by Regorium
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.
|
I think the biggest flaw in the Mincome experiment was that it was never properly concluded. The raw data was transferred to the University and left to academics to analyze and draw conclusions. No comparisons to current government programs were properly conducted, no actual cost analysis was conducted. I see this Ontario program as more extensive as it is drawing from population in very different regions with different constraints and priorities.
It also isn't like they are burning 50 Mil a year on nothing, like you said this will improve outcomes for a thousands of people, providing them an increase in their standard of living.
This study will help answer the questions of "is it worth it?" and "can this be implemented?" by providing current and relevant data. Trying to make these decisions based on a 40 year old study in a different province or studies in a different country doesn't seem very appropriate.