They wanted to see whether a guaranteed basic income for those below the poverty line could improve quality of life This is what drives me crazy about these ex

They wanted to see whether a guaranteed basic income for those below the poverty line could improve quality of life This is what drives me crazy about these experiments. Obviously, using straight donations to keep people above a certain poverty line will improve the lives of those particular people. What's always missing is the other half of the equation: the analysis of whether UBI is the most efficient way to spend that money. Every study seems laser-focused on the outcomes of people who received the benefit while ignoring the projected effect on the society as a whole. It's entirely possible UBI is a great choice but its proponents seem bound and determined not to prove it.