It’s an unprecedented – and massive – experiment: Since 2017 the U.S.-based charity GiveDirectly has been providing thousands of villagers in Kenya what’s called a “universal basic income” – a cash grant of about $50, delivered every month, with the commitment to keep the payments coming for 12 years. It is a crucial test of what many consider one of the most cutting-edge ideas for alleviating global poverty. This week a team of independent researchers who have been studying the impact released their first results…

  • PugJesus@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    56
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    7 months ago

    When it came to measures of well-being such as consumption of protein or spending money on schooling, all of the groups who were given cash were better off than people in the control group that got no money. This fits with previous studies of no-strings cash aid, which find that poor people generally use the money productively rather than wasting it on alcohol, cigarettes or other vices.

    Conservatives: “I’ll ignore that.”

    Really brilliant work by the researchers though, I’m glad these sorts of experiments are happening.

    • ElephantInTheRoom@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      7 months ago

      True. Facts won’t change their views, no matter how much research went into it.

      And even if they somehow end up being in the same spot as the “test subjects”, it’s other people’s fault - preferably easily identifiable targets like minorities. Zero empathy, massive ego.

    • jasory@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      7 months ago

      Of course one would expect people being given aid in any form to do better than people who did not. That is hardly a useful result, technically all it requires is that a single person in each receiving group do something more productive than burn it. More importantly the claim by UBI proponents is that providing cash payments to everyone produces better outcomes than the current system. In wealthier countries the current system is not “no money” like they tested in the experiment but needs-based subsidies for certain goods. In order to claim that UBI is actually a good option to transition to you need to test it against the current system, not one that doesn’t exist.