4 ms·

They all know the money is going to stop coming in.

• Balgair 1y ago
  Yeah, I've heard this critique too and I'm not sure how to address it. Like, the whole point of a 'study' is to test things out. That's temporary by design. But yes, it's a giant confound too. I guess what the DBIS showed is that the results are not spectacular and automatic. They are slight-ish, grey, muddled. Like, if UBI was a panacea like insulin was to diabetics, then we'd expect a huge result and difference. But it wasn't, and that a good result to report out too. I just wish there was a silver bullet.
  • srcreigh 1y ago
    If they did a study about insulin where they give it to you for 1 year then take it away, the results wouldn’t be positive.
    • Balgair 1y ago
      Oh no, they would very much be positive. You'd know that insulin would have saved every one of their lives. Even a very small does of insulin is just that good. But these studies aren't like that. They aren't that good. UBI isn't that good. That's what I get out of these studies.
      • srcreigh 1y ago
        If insulin was already GA, and you gave it to people without insulin, and they believed that you’d stop giving it to them in a few months. The people would be healthy temporarily while preparing for immanent suffering. The study would likely report mixed psychological benefits. I hope the analogy makes sense. A better UBI study would bucket people into a lifetime monthly payout (with inflation increase etc). Give them an opportunity to invest in their lives.