They organized the recipients in the following groups, "Eligible applicants were randomly assigned to one of three payment groups: A) $1,000 a month for 12 months, for a total of $12,000 in a year; B) $6,500 upon enrollment and $500 a month for the subsequent 11 months, for a total of $12,000 in a year, C) $50 a month for 12 months, for a total of $600 in a year."
This is odd, why don't they have a control group that received $0 per month? Could it be that they knew most of these people would find housing of their own volition regardless of the payment provided, and that by excluding an actual control group, they don't have to compare against the null results???
Maybe by providing $50/month to people that would find housing anyway, they could claim that participants showed these incredible improvements (ignoring the fact that the payments are not the reason why)?!?!? No, that would be disingenuous! Leftists wouldn't do such a thing!!!
Actually, that's exactly what's going on here. If you look at Figure 16 on page 27, it turns out that the $1000/mo payment is statistically no more likely to reduce the probability of a participant being unhoused as compared to the $50/mo payment. Does anyone actually believe that $50/mo is enough to solve homelessness? No, that's silly.
Leftists want to believe that UBI will work SO BADLY that they take taxpayer money, funnel it to a group of homeless people they know do not need it (they deliberately chose participants without disabilities and illness), construct a purposely deceptive "study" based on this scientifically unsound process, and then plaster the "promising results" all over the internet, using leftist propaganda accounts on X to trick people.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Why don't all the lines start at 1? Only ~80% of group c were actually homeless when they started payments?
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
There's a vertical line there so It could be that a big chunk of them just found housing really quickly. (Most homeless spells are very short term.)
Also, the lump sum group starts the highest. I'd bet that all three groups had comparable dips in homelessness at the start, but some of them lied about it because they didn't want to get kicked out. (They wouldn't have been. That would be bad study design to kick them out, but the filthy lying
homelesshomehavers wouldn't understand that.)Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
We follow the one drop rule here when it comes to homelessness
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
Or maybe they found housing between the time they signed up for the study and when the study actually started
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context