I want to re-iterate that I'm in favour of UBI. I can imagine there are potential pitfalls to UBI, but I think those pitfalls are not as dangerous as the altern

I want to re-iterate that I'm in favour of UBI. I can imagine there are potential pitfalls to UBI, but I think those pitfalls are not as dangerous as the alternative. I really do think we should have some form of UBI (though I don't think it would be a panacea). I just think that there isn't actually anything meaningful to be learned from this study about how things would play out if we implemented actual UBI. The reason this doesn't tell you anything is that economies are strongly interacting systems, and humans are tricky test subjects. If you give a couple thousand people a couple years of money, that's a very different situation than an entire country of people being promised that money forever. People against UBI worry that it'd cause people to quit their jobs or be lazy. Who is going to quit their job to live off UBI if they know the money will dry up in two years? Furthermore, one might be concerned that even if the first generation of people to get UBI treat it responsibly, what if the next generation who grows up taking it for granted don't treat it responsibly? One could play this game all day where people who are against can come up with rationalizations for why the results of the study don't scale and people who are pro-UBI can come up with reasons why it would scale.