The main study mention found 3 years of 1k a month had no impact on health, stress, sleep, jobs, income, education, child's education, or time spent with children compared to the control. Other studies have also shown tiny benefits a their headline findings.

I think its clear UBI is not the savior people wish it was, sadly.

▲

vannevar 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

Contrary to the author's assertion, the Denver Basic Income study, which gave $1000/mo, found a significant improvement in housing for the test group vs the controls. She misread the results, failing to note the initial housing rates for control vs test.

https://www.denverbasicincomeproject.org/research

▲

DannyBee 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

I read your other comment with the numbers and I don't think it makes the amazing difference you seem to. Certainly not to the degree i think it makes it all worth it. Maybe if they at least plateau in different places, but they don't. I think you seem fairly defensive (you've posted the same response repeatedly) about what still seem like middling results.

As a basic example: While your point about the starting percentages is correct, the study lost partipicants over time. Group A (the 1k/month group) lost 33% of its participants by T3, and Group C (the 50/month comparison group) lost 38% of its participants.

The table you quote from the final study doesn't include the people who were lost, only those who filled out both surveys, T1 and T3. So using it to say they helped a greater percent of people is a bit weird.

They also don't tell you the table for T2 in the final report, you have to go look at the interim one.

The T2 data makes T1->T3 look much less impressive, and definitely doesn't seem to support some amazing gain for group 1.

As far as i can tell, the data looks even less impressive for your claim if you do t1->t2, and T2->t3, instead of just t1->t3 with only both included.

It would certainly be easier to tease apart the point you try to make if they reported the number of originally unhoused vs originally housed that were retained at each timepoint, but they don't.

So what am i missing? Why should I look at these results and think it is amazing?

(Also, I don't think i'd agree the main argument the author makes is based and refuted solely by the results of the denver study)

	▲	vannevar 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		>I read your other comment with the numbers and I don't think it makes the amazing difference you seem to. Maybe you're looking more at the article headline, which implies the author was focused on the study results. The thrust of the article isn't that the programs are ineffective (in fact, toward the end of the article she's quite optimistic that isn't the case). Her problem is that the results are overstated. But one of the prime examples she cites to support that idea does not actually support it. Denver claimed significance, and the study results support their claim. >The table you quote from the final study doesn't include the people who were lost, only those who filled out both surveys, T1 and T3. So using it to say they helped a greater percent of people is a bit weird. Why is that weird? The percentage of the test group who found housing is significantly higher than control. We don't know what happened to the people who dropped out---the worst case scenario is that none of them found housing, which leaves the stats as they are. >So what am i missing? Why should I look at these results and think it is amazing? They didn't claim it was amazing, they claimed it was significant. The author implied they were lying. They were not. That's what you're missing.

▲

rsecora 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Results for Group A (1000$/m) closely resemble results for control Group C(50$/m). Metrics like % of Unsheltered participants, change in full-time employment, % of participans in a house they rent or own... have a diference of 1 or 2 points.

Thats the point of the author, those are minimal variances, and insuficient to claim inpact due to basic income.

Personal opinion. The study itself exert a nontrivial influence on participants. The act of being engaged, regular check-ins... affect positively. Their lives improve independent of the financial component because they are part of the study, not because of the amount of money in the procedure.

▲

vannevar 2 days ago | parent [-]

Where are you getting the figures for unsheltered participants? The page I linked seems pretty clear: there was a 31% increase in housing for the control group, and a 38% increase for the group that received payments. That's a significant improvement, much more than 1 or 2 points. Especially considering the likelihood that some of the participants in both groups might have no intent to get housing either way.

▲

stickfigure 2 days ago | parent [-]

38% for $1,000/mo vs 31% in the control group seems like a pretty disappointing result to me. Maybe not insignificant, but more lose than win.

	▲	vannevar 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		Maybe 38% vs 31% saved the city a large amount of money. The question wasn't whether the results disappointed any particular individual. The author's claim is that Denver overstated their results and that turns out not to be true.

▲

dragonwriter 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The main point of UBI isn't “more money solves problems”, it is “replacing means testing of benefits with unconditional benefits removes adverse effects of the rapid clawback of benefits with increasing-but-still-low income”.

Giving individuals money without changing the policy context doesn't actually test the mechanism of action proposed for UBI. (It does, arguably, test the mechanism of action of some proposed private charity [or business-linked] alternatives which do involve cash transfers and don't involve changing the public policy context and incentives, but that's a whole different issue.)

▲

billy99k 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

During covid, lots of people received a stimilus. The lines at high-end purse and luxury good stores were longer than I've ever seen.

▲

teaearlgraycold 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

To be fair many people who were still employed and making decent money for their area received stimulus checks. At that point why not treat it as fun money? After all, you’re trying to stimulate the economy. That includes luxury stores.

Others were making more on unemployment than they did while employed. They got checks on a regular basis that meaningfully increased their income level. I’m not surprised or offended if they try to temporarily increase their standard of living in frivolous ways.

▲

cadamsdotcom 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

You might believe that, and who knows, it may be true!

But your one unsubstantiated story doesn’t constitute data that can be used to compare to anything.

▲

billy99k 2 days ago | parent [-]

https://x.com/ManDaveJobGood/status/1752500940845072754

Other people had the same idea as me. With data! PPP loans taken out during Covid to thousands and thousands of one-person companies and eventually forgiven by the Biden administration.

To make another point, why didn't we see a surge in art and positive improvements when someone gets free money from the government? Because what happened is what always happens: It was wasted.

	▲	c22 a day ago \| parent [-]
		I worked at a maker space during the pandemic and I can attest that our membership surged once we were able to resume semi-regular operations.

▲

SkyPuncher 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

I think Covid is unique because people just needed an outlet for something good in their life.