4 ms·
It really seems like an insultingly small amount of money. It's almost like they're trying to disprove something like UBI by association while not actually doin
by jonah 4y ago
It really seems like an insultingly small amount of money. It's almost like they're trying to disprove something like UBI by association while not actually doing something that's useful.
If they'd given those randomized amounts monthly for a year or 5 years, I would bet the results would be in line with similar studies which show marked benefits.
- naillo 4y agoYeah were they expecting them to get $500 and within 4 weeks start a company and become cash flow positive? Being poor is often a consequence of education and with a few years of guaranteed income to make them feel safe to take that risk, they probably would have been able to tackle that. But it's not surprising at all that nothing happens in just a month.
- em500 4y agoGook luck trying to fund a sufficiently powered RCT to give people $2/month for a year, let alone 5. $2k for 5 years is $120k per participant, so about $120M for a 1000 sample size study.
- jaclaz 4y agoSure, but imagine making a medical experiment where you give once 1 mg of the drug (that should be dosed at 1 mg/day as per results of previous experiments for at least 2 weeks) and then writing an article in which surprisingly it comes out that it didn't work well.