Those experiments are worse than useless for predicting what would actually happen in a "true UBI" environment. I say "worse than useless" as opposed to just "useless" since they make people think they have some insight into what a UBI world would look like, but they really don't.

Giving a small number of people an amount of money below what they'd need to actually survive, with them knowing perfectly well it won't last forever has effectively zero in common with UBI. Give an entire contained population of people enough money that they can have all their basic needs met just with that money, and guarantee them it will continue for the rest of their lives, and I'd bet quite a lot that the results would be drastically different.

Also, not a big deal since you also provided two reasonable links, but many people will see that you linked motherjones and likely discount your comment entirely. It's on the same tier as OANN and breitbart.

Nah, empiricism is not bad. And attacking a single link in one isolated post that took me two minutes to search up links for hardly discredits an entire field of interest. Thanks for the concern though but this is hardly a thesis.

Sure whatever, but the rest of my post is more pertinent. These experiments have no value. Measuring the wavelength of the color of the sky is empirical and offers roughly the same insight into the impact of UBI on society. Empiricism on its own is nothing.

Okay, then sounds like the only way to know whether UBI is good or not is to go ahead with it and try it out. Good to know you fundamentally disagree with the ancestral post that claimed that it would empower idleness and drug addiction, like a puritan decrying alcohol, or dancing.

Yes, that would be the only way, but basic arithmetic yields the conclusion that it is not possible at present, even ignoring the political impossibility of it. And no, I very much agree with the ancestral post. I think it would empower a significant amount of addiction and other lazy and wasteful behavior. Which doesn't necessarily mean it would be a net negative for the world on the whole, but to deny that that would happen is to be disconnected from reality. I frankly don't trust the judgement or diversity of life experience of anyone who doesn't recognize that.

Any form of welfare or public benefit can be abused, obviously. But to claim that it would lead to significantly detrimental and widespread abuse is a serious criticism that requires serious study and analysis to back up. Without it, both your post and the ancestral post are simply posting polemics based on your own specific subjective viewpoint.

By your own measure, basic arithmetic has roughly the same insight into the impact of UBI on society. As is judgement and diversity of life experience. As you say, empiricism on its own is nothing.