[notahacker]

You need a very large proportion to make changes like that if it's offset by people using the money to retire from working life altogether[1]. Since this choice can't be made with this study design, it tells us nothing about what people would actually do with no-strings attached money for life, and indeed actively distorts the reality of how people will respond by at least as much as that other great UBI experiment no UBI advocate ever talks about: state pensions....

[1]actually you need an implausibly large proportion simply to offset the amount of people who already don't work and aren't entitled to benefit payments who would be eligible to receive UBI

[LatteLazy]

Respectfully, that is exactly what we need an experiment to prove\disprove. At least some people took this 9k as an opportunity to sit at home playing video games. At least some got a (small) education or started a business.

The issue with pensions as an example of UBI is that the only people getting them are old. So they mostly already have the assets they want, they don't have careers they want to improve, they don't want to start business or earn money, they want to retire...

[notahacker]

Yes, old people are also an imperfect proxy for the workforce as a whole.

But this experiment which is designed to make it impossible for participants to retire off the money proves even less about people's likelihood of retiring off free money than the natural experiments where they're encouraged to do so.

[LatteLazy]

Yeah, a bigger, longer, better funded trial would be better. But we can still learn some things from this. I actually get a bit frustrated at all the too small/short/low-amount payment studies out there. But c'est la vie.