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.
The $50 is presumably so the homeless keep showing up for the study for over 400 days
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
The $50 is so that the near-homeless stop paying their rent, quit their jobs and sell their cars so taht they can get $50 for free.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
It should be distributed as coins thrown from the window of a car moving at high speed
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Should be distributed like this
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
and they saw the same housing outcomes as the ones receiving $1000/mo
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
Good point actually
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
A third of all three groups dropped out of the study so I guess it didn't work
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Probably died ...
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context