Quote:
Originally Posted by ITraffic
While one kneejerk reaction is to argue that free money creates a lazy working class, research suggests the opposite is true. Supported by the financial safety net, people in one 2013 study actually worked 17% longer hours and received 38% higher earnings when basic income was given a shot.
|
I really don't see what the study has to do with what Ontario is proposing. According to the study quoted in the article:
Quote:
Abstract:
We study a government program in Uganda designed to help the poor and unemployed become self-employed artisans, increase incomes, and thus promote social stability. Young adults in Uganda’s conflict-affected north were invited to form groups and submit grant proposals for vocational training and business start-up. Funding was randomly assigned among screened and eligible groups. Treatment groups received unsupervised grants of $382 per member. Grant recipients invest some in skills training but most in tools and materials. After four years half practice a skilled trade. Relative to the control group, the program increases business assets by 57%, work hours by 17%, and earnings by 38%. Many also formalize their enterprises and hire labor. We see no impact, however, on social cohesion, anti-social behavior, or protest. Impacts are similar by gender, but are qualitatively different for women because they begin poorer (meaning the impact is larger relative to their starting point) and because women’s work and earnings stagnate without the program but take off with it. The patterns we observe are consistent with credit-constraints.
|
So an unsupervised business grant, to people in a predominantly agrarian society, to pursue a trade, after submitting a written proposal, has what to do with what is being proposed here? Unless they are quoting the wrong study.