I suspect it was because the UBI wasn't enough to live on.

So you believe that the entire driving factor of the consumer goods market would mysteriously disappear if people had enough money to not worry about missing rent?

Rent is defined as unearned income attracted by a dominant market position. If we wanted people to afford rent it'd be more efficient to set rent to zero by fiat.

I agree, but UBI is far more likely to come to fruition than eliminating the majority of the US's largest asset-based speculative market.

There’s no way to test UBI without implementing it fully. Any experiment that gives people a no-strings-attached stipend isn’t accounting for the fact that the money has a negligible impact on the economy and produces no meaningful change in the workforce. Plus, all of these experiments are time-bound. Participants know the payments will stop.

I also get the feeling that such experiments just prove that giving people money makes them happier. But there’s nothing to account for the fact that prices in the market haven’t changed, the tax structure hasn’t changed, and no goods or services experienced any shortages.

> Every test of UBI so far shows that people continue to work.

I'm not aware of any realistic UBI tests. Could you point me to any?

The ones I'm aware of were either or both:

1. Time limited, so participants were aware that they needed to still have a job or at least be employable after the experiment has concluded.

2. Were funded externally, so participants only reaped the benefits of UBI but didn't incur the drawbacks (i.e. didn't have to fund the program by much higher income taxes) which could have discourage them from working.

It was basically a supplementary source of income - money for nothing for a limited time period, not an actual UBI program.

A test of UBI is not UBI. It's not possible to show how UBI works in a isolated test.

If this is true, why are we supposed to accept anecdotes of how it would fail?