> You're arguing with a strawman. No, I'm arguing with what you actually said at the start of this subthread. See below. > It isn't a study of Universal Basic

> You're arguing with a strawman. No, I'm arguing with what you actually said at the start of this subthread. See below. > It isn't a study of Universal Basic Income. According to you, it is valid input to decisions about UBI. Here is the original post of yours (responding to Detrytus) that I responded to in this subthread: XXXX > I think someone, soon will try to use this project as an argument in favor of UBI, which is ridiculous. Why's that ridiculous? Testing a small scale trial on the people most likely to be effected by a larger scale program seems pretty reasonable to me. XXXX Your contention that the study is a valid "small scale trial" of UBI is what I and others are disagreeing with. Nothing you have said changes that disagreement in the slightest; you just keep repeating the same contention we have already disagreed with, without addressing the issues we have raised at all. > "the results" are the effect of basic income on homelessness, and only the effect of basic income on homelessness. Which has nothing whatever to do with UBI. Nor is it a "small scale trial" of UBI. It's a study of the effect of providing basic income to homeless people and only homeless people. You can't use the results of that to conclude anything useful about what would happen if you provided basic income to everybody. This has already been pointed out to you multiple times in this subthread.