Sponsored Links
The world’s most robust study of universal basic income has concluded that it boosts recipients’ mental and financial well-being, as well as modestly improving employment. Finland ran a two-year universal basic income study in 2017 and 2018, during which the government gave 2000 unemployed people aged between 25 and 58 monthly payments with no strings attached.
The payments of €560 per month weren’t means tested and were unconditional, so they weren’t reduced if an individual got a job or later had a pay rise. The study was nationwide and selected recipients weren’t able to opt out, because the test was written into legislation.
The study compared the employment and well-being of basic income recipients against a control group of 173,000 people who were on unemployment benefits. Between November 2017 and October 2018, people on basic income worked an average of 78 days, which was six days more than those on unemployment benefits.
There was a greater increase in employment for people in families with children, as well as those whose first language wasn’t Finnish or Swedish – but the researchers aren’t yet sure why.
[email protected]
“The basic income recipients were more satisfied with their lives and experienced less mental strain than the control group,” the study, by researchers at Helsinki University, concluded. “They also had a more positive perception of their economic welfare.”
“Some people said the basic income had zero effect on their productivity, as there were still no jobs in the area they were trained for,” said Prof Helena Blomberg-Kroll, who led the study. “But others said that with the basic income they were prepared to take low-paying jobs they would otherwise have avoided.
The scheme also gave some participants “the possibility to try and live their dreams”, Blomberg-Kroll said. “Freelancers and artists and entrepreneurs had more positive views on the effects of the basic income, which some felt had created opportunities for them to start businesses.”
“The security of the basic income allowed them to do more meaningful things, as they felt it legitimised this kind of care work. Many of the people who performed such unpaid activities during the two-year period referred to it as work.”
“While basic income can’t solve all our health and societal problems, there is certainly a discussion to be had that it could be part of the solution in times of economic hardship.”
freetoread@theGuardinia
You not think it's telling that Iran is the only country that make it 'work'
Perhaps they should
Adult minimum wage is currently £10.42 an hour.
The full new State Pension is £203.85 per week.
Sponsored Links
D
Deleted member 221031
So the £1600 is more than working a 40 hour week on minimum wage.
Like I said. It’s going to make a lot of people want to sit at home who have previously worked for a living.
That’s if it’s given instead of and not on top of a wage.
How many people in the UK are capable of being of greater benefit (to both themselves, and the country), but are "trapped" in their current situation?
Their "current situation" being a wage slave, doing something that guarantees their survival / existence, but offers little more?
For every 1 person offered as a reason to not implement UI ("slobs' charter" was a phrase used, IIRC), I'd wager there would be 7-10* who would add some benefit to themselves, and improve the country as a whole.
To say that the non-feckless would just start writing poetry, or composing wistful ballads is a lazy trope. Creativity isn't limited to "the Arts"; many would offer genuinely needed and productive additions to the economy.
* I picked the 1:7 to 1:10 ratio of feckless:decent from my own life experience and observations, as it seems fairly representative.
For a multi-house landlord as an example, whether they have 10 or 100 properties, they seem to have that proportion of "trouble tenants".
Staff? Tend to have a reliable "core", with a less-able / desirable proportion that either rotate in and out, or are managed out.
Their "current situation" being a wage slave, doing something that guarantees their survival / existence, but offers little more?
For every 1 person offered as a reason to not implement UI ("slobs' charter" was a phrase used, IIRC), I'd wager there would be 7-10* who would add some benefit to themselves, and improve the country as a whole.
To say that the non-feckless would just start writing poetry, or composing wistful ballads is a lazy trope. Creativity isn't limited to "the Arts"; many would offer genuinely needed and productive additions to the economy.
* I picked the 1:7 to 1:10 ratio of feckless:decent from my own life experience and observations, as it seems fairly representative.
For a multi-house landlord as an example, whether they have 10 or 100 properties, they seem to have that proportion of "trouble tenants".
Staff? Tend to have a reliable "core", with a less-able / desirable proportion that either rotate in and out, or are managed out.
- Joined
- 22 Jan 2007
- Messages
- 16,660
- Reaction score
- 2,341
- Country
Successive governments have failed to ensure enough council/social houses are built, so they come up with schemes like this to deflect. Having said that, on the surface it might not be a bad scheme depending on the specifics. For example would the owner of the derelict property (if found) be given a reasonable opportunity (minimum 24 months?) to get the property up to a reasonable standard to sell it themselves before any compulsory purchase order. Could be a good way for a youngster to get on the BTL ladderCommunism?
Scotland likes to be ahead of the curve on these sort of things.
Scottish Labour unveils policy to sell empty homes for £1
The move is part of measures to increase home ownership.www.standard.co.uk
buy the house for £1, get the cheap loan to do it up, live in it for 5 years then rent it out and move on. Sorted
D
Deleted member 221031
Think you’ve missed my link. It’s been/being trialled on far more that 30 people.
30 is the uk
15 minute cities aren’t imho a good idea. I won’t get dragged into another argument. That’s just my opinion through life experiences.
D
Deleted member 221031
It equates to less monthly, and you know that.
- Joined
- 22 Jan 2007
- Messages
- 16,660
- Reaction score
- 2,341
- Country
Min wage is £1667 every 4 weeks. £1600 is less than that.
D
Deleted member 221031
Is it ?
Attachments
D
Deleted member 221031
Are we not paying tax then ?
Once tax is paid you’ve worked 40 hours for less than the £1600.
Not really fair now is it ? Someone works hard in a care home. Someone sits at home and gets more.
- Joined
- 22 Jan 2007
- Messages
- 16,660
- Reaction score
- 2,341
- Country
Of course it is. £1667 is more than £1600.
Sponsored Links
