Universal Basic Income is an intriguing idea, and I’d love to see more experiments with it. The city of Stockton, however, is conducting a sham experiment in many ways, both in design and reporting:

[N]ow when you mention Stockton people say, “Oh, the city that is doing basic income,” which is a much better designation than the city that is miserable or bankrupt.[5]

But it’s actually a no-questions-asked welfare payment — not in any way “basic income” or “universal basic income”. Consider: just 120 low-income people are receiving $500/month on top of any other benefits. [2] That’s far from the Universal Basic Income vision: No income restrictions, everyone qualifies, are given enough money to survive on, probably while receiving no other government support [3].

— not in any way “basic income” or “universal basic income”. Consider: just 120 low-income people are receiving $500/month on top of any other benefits. [2] That’s far from the Universal Basic Income vision: No income restrictions, everyone qualifies, are given enough money to survive on, probably while receiving no other government support [3]. The experiment is paid for by an organization (SEED) which claims the thing it’s seeking to prove. Let that settle in for a minute: SEED wants to prove a point (Ie., that no-questions-asked welfare improves peoples moods.) And so they hire researchers to produce the results they’re looking for. That is not science. In their words, the study will…

…prove to supporters and skeptics alike that poverty results from lack of cash, not character. [1]

SEED is making unsupported claims about how recipients are spending the money (e.g., only on wholesome, necessary items). They can’t back this up, however, because they’re not tracking the rest of the subjects’ spending. They also did not track the subjects’ spending before the intervention to learn how it changes. [2] Thus, they cannot rule out “lifestyle inflation”, yet they claim to:

[T]he economic decisions they made during the first five months of the program were “really rational,” said Stacia Martin-West, an assistant professor at the University of Tennessee College of Social Work and the co-principal investigator on the project. [4]

Before the results are known, SEED will use 25 subjects for “political” PR during the course of the study as…