[home_boi]

There would need to be at least ~50-60 years before evaluation of the results

There needs to be at least 2 generations that have had UBI for their entire life. UBI affects the motivation to work on skills, so the subject would need UBI for their entire life.

The parents of the subject also needs to have UBI for their entire life because the parents could transmit the scarcity, pre-UBI mindset onto the subject. There is a still chance that the pre-UBI mindset of the grandparents could be transmitted to the subject. Ideally the subject would be at least 3-4 generations removed from the start of UBI

[thereisnospork]

While not exactly the same, wouldn't the children/grandchildren of lottery winners/successful entrepreneurs/old money provide a reasonable proxy? People having been 'gifted' allowances/trust funds over a few generations is hardly unprecedented in modern history.

[freen]

No, because they are a substantial abberation from the norm, which is essential to what the BGI attempts to achieve.

[notatoad]

from that perspective wouldn't any trial of basic income then be invalid, because the trial participants are a significant abberation from the norm?

[robertelder]

I came to the same conclusion when thinking about this too. It might even make sense to counsel people too about what they can do with the extra time/money. There are a lot of amazing things to do in the world, but most people will always try to emulate their immediate environment.

For some people, I would expect they would end up getting hooked on something unwholesome (drugs for example) with their newfound free time. You could probably make a huge difference in this just by suggesting the right things at the right times.

[SomeCallMeTim]

> hooked on something unwholesome (drugs for example) with their newfound free time

Based on what the "Rat Park" studies show about the natures of addiction, that seems very unlikely: People get addicted when their lives suck, not when they have free time.

Having money enough to eat is going to go a long way to making peoples' lives suck less.

Not to say that helping people direct their energies wouldn't be useful. It may take a few months of vacation or longer before people can recover enough drive to do anything with their time that they can make themselves do anything other than relax. When you've spent your life being told what to do and driving yourself with fear of losing your job, it may take months or even years of recovery before you can be self-motivated effectively. Telling them that too might be useful.

I think the government should offer "jobs" that don't add a huge amount of money over the basic income, but that provide some public good, to help people who are just terminally uncreative direct their time, but should also offer free education in how to start their own businesses for those who do want to create something, build something, or provide a service. Or alternately they could learn new professions in their now-free time and get higher paying jobs.

So yes, I agree with your conclusion (education and guidance is important). Just not the reasoning that got you there. :)

[raarts]

Not specifically directed at you but whenever poverty is being raised I keep seeing reactions that bring up drug abuse. It's almost like they are seen as highly related.

This correlation is questionable at best.

[1] http://www.politifact.com/texas/statements/2012/nov/26/josep...

[Uhhrrr]

It might take 50-60 years to declare it an unvarnished success, but it could take a very short amount of time to declare it a failure.

[aangjie]

Err... No.. There could be long-term effects.. If you take a very short time to declare it a failure, have you tested the long-term effects at all? (For ex: Like the OP mentioned, have accounted for scarcity mindset being communicated by the parent to child effect?).