Not a direct answer to your question. But possibly related. First of all, I think we need a pretty large experiment to reach a conclusion, this because I don't

Not a direct answer to your question. But possibly related. First of all, I think we need a pretty large experiment to reach a conclusion, this because I don't think we are ready to measure the outcome until the experiment has had time to alter our perception of what is desirable. I'm afraid current measuement would be to tied to the current way of thinking, where productivity and gdp is overly emphasized. I'm a proponent of basic income and do believe there are many economic and social benefits in practice, but it's primarily an ethical conclusion. So even if the theoretic benefits turns out to be false, I'd probably still need something else to change my ethical reasoning. Like Thomas Paine, my primary argument for an UBI is that it is the way to make property rights fair. See https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geolibertarianism https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geolibertarianism , but in general my line of thinking is that the right to exclusive control over a resource is not derived from labor alone, as is the popular interpretation of Locke today, but from the agreement with all competing interests. From that I derive that property title must be bundled with full compensation for the opperunity cost incurred on those who now lack access to the resources. To me the most efficient way to implement such a compensation is to demand a rent, equal to what the next highest bid for the resource would be. This rent is distribute equally to all citizen, and thus acts as the compensation for respecting the property owners exclusive rights. I also happen to believe that it would be an effective way to balance the hoarding effect of capitalism. In the simple tax and divide scheme usually thought of it would at least create a flow in the other direction, increasing circulation. But hopefully it would also remove some of the rent seeking possibilities from the market and make sure that resources are employed for more productive uses. However, if you implement UBI my way you probably won't reach levels that would make most UBI proponents happy, which means an additional grant must be distributed according to those people. Perhaps the failure to recognize the true ethical reasoning and instead insisting on treating it as welfare would make me lose hope in ever reaching a workable implementation. If you insist on treating it as welfare you're probably going to end up taxing he middle class to support the lower class. That would probably turn out pretty horrific for everyone.