Here is a study: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305750X1830024X https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305750X1... Their chos

Here is a study: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305750X1830024X https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305750X1... Their chosen highlights: >Highlights >The Alaska Permanent Fund Dividend (PFD) has provided UBI averaging $6600 US (2015) dollars for a family of four since 1982. >The PFD reduced the number of rural Alaska Indigenous people in poverty during 2011–2015 by 22%, down from 46% in 2000. >The PFD reduced poverty among rural Alaska Indigenous seniors by more than 40%, to rates that are now relatively low. >Child poverty rates have been increasing; however, the PFD reduced 2011–2015 rural Alaska Native child poverty rates by 25%. >Errors in official statistics will cause them to understate the actual rise in poverty rates as future PFD amounts decline. Note that the PFD amounts are about a quarter of what Yang suggests (assuming two parents; number of children is irrelevant to his plan). The last line of the abstract is "Evidence has not appeared for commonly hypothesized potential adverse social and economic consequences of UBI." I personally would be curious to know more about what kind of UBI-ish payments have been made, in what amounts, how it varies from group to group, and what are the differences in outcome. I imagine that a lot has to do with the actual amounts received and if there are conditions for receiving it (such as staying on the reservation) and what kind of restrictions might be in place for building up infrastructure or doing other economic activities in addition to surrounding oppressive attitudes. There would be a lot of interesting stuff that could be looked into.