[pierrebai]

Strawman detection activated.

The goal of giving money is not to make those who receive it more educated, better parents or making them politically active. I mean, why did I have to say that?

(The amount of money is also unlikely to enbale to make savings for the future.)

The goal is that their immediate poverty decreases. Why is the author insistent on the measurement of unrelated stats? Because he has an ax to grind.

[DoneWithAllThat]

So to be clear you would consider UBI a success if the only detectable change in metrics is simple arithmetic in the form of “we gave them money and then they had more money”?

I’m sorry to sound snarky but I’m struggling to read this comment any other way. You seem to claim any metric that isn’t a number representing dollars a person has (however ephemeral) is “unrelated” which seems completely bonkers to me.

[scythe]

Early advocates (e.g. Friedman) for UBI (and also NIT) often focused on broader distributional outcomes for society and the economy as a whole. One is the reduction of the "welfare cliff". Another is the increase in relative spending power of the lower class as a group, which could lead to growth in businesses that serve these cohorts. Neither of these effects is assessed at all by RCTs that look at a small population of individuals for a period of less than a decade, because they are effects that occur over a long time and among a necessarily large (millions) group of people.

There is a sort of unstated assumption among some social policy critics that goes, roughly, "we can test most policy effects that matter with well-designed trials". People believe this less because there is any evidence for it and more because modern experimental science is impressive and successful in many ways and so therefore must have the answer to any question. However, many policy questions remain "wicked" and outside of a reasonable experimental domain.

[csours]

I think that's "shifting the goalposts", not strawman - unless I misunderstand