Item — HN Reader

> A selection of only 2000 people seems too small

The population of Finland is 5.503M. A sample size of 663 represents 6M population at 99% confidence levels. 2000 is more than a decent sample size. You may argue for the sample quality but the size seems beyond question here.

2 comments

It’s not about sample quality or size - it’s about the behavior of a group when condition change, but the conditions didn’t change. For example, under a proper UBI I’d quit my job and start a business. Under this time limited experiment I never would have. In a proper UBI environment I might scale down my living to fit in only the UBI so I won’t be dependent on a job. Under a 2 year experiment I don’t.

There are some minor effects that don’t need universal+indefinite basic income to show up, but tbh those aren’t very interesting.

It would have been a more interesting experiment to fund just 100 people for life, with the same money, even though that sample would have been smaller! But even with say 10k people funded for life, you wouldn’t see the most important effects on the job market, prices, rents...

> more interesting experiment to fund just 100 people for life

Are there any good natural experiments like this?

Some lottery winners take the annuity, maybe that is close? (Although they are selected both to play the lottery, and to have the sense not to immediately buy a ferrari.)

Some places have pretty generous disability pay, I wonder if people who just got it or just didn't might be a useful experiment?

> For example, under a proper UBI I’d quit my job and start a business. Under this time limited experiment I never would have.

What business would you start that takes more than 2 years to validate but takes basically no funding?

With UBI I’d be happy if my new business made 50% the money I need for my lifestyle because the UBI could provide the rest. I’m confident I could start a business that does that. But what it would validate would be that the business would not be sustainable when the UBI disappears.

So by “business” I mean a UBI subsidized hobby, basically.

I agree that the other critizism are much worse (too little money for a too short time).

But while a sample size of 2000 is statistically enough, a study this small can't find the effects of giving a basic income to an entire country. Giving income to one person changes that person, giving income to everyone changes the entire economy.

For an initial experiment this is actually fine. You first want to check that the effect on the individual is beneficial and people don't just stop contributing to society. But to draw useful conclusions you would need a second experiment that gives basic income at least to an entire community, preferably even an entire region, for a duration that allows people to forget about the "after".

>For an initial experiment this is actually fine. You first want to check that the effect on the individual is beneficial and people don't just stop contributing to society.

Is it though? With the knowledge that it will be over in 2 years you get a different sort of behavior then if it actually functioned as a guaranteed support net.

I would have found it much more interesting, if it supported people 10 year from retirement for those 10 years. They could just stop everything and dont have to care for after the project ends.