Here's what I see as the three most important paragraphs from the labor effect report from @sama's basic income experiment. Read and understand these and you'll grok the key nuances that match previous pilot findings. Always remember that averages can hide really important details. This experiment involved people between the ages of 21 and 40. Turns out there was no employment decrease among those over 30. It was only those under age 30 who worked less. Previous experiments also show that young adults are more likely to decrease their employment to increase their education. This happened here too. Young adults also tend to not have jobs they enjoy. This means these jobs are likely to pay more when UBI exists. They'll need to, or they'll need to be automated. Kids also made a difference. Turns out there was no employment decrease among those without kids. It was really only single parents who worked less. Previous experiments also show that parents are more likely to go from paid work to unpaid care work as a result of UBI, especially parents of newborns. This should never be considered as working less. It's just different work that many single parents can't afford to do. (Note: if you want fewer parents jobbing less as a result of UBI, then offer free or affordable childcare) There was also a difference between income brackets. Turns out that those with low- and middle-incomes decreased their hours the least. It was those with higher incomes who decreased their hours the most, which dragged the average down. This helps explain why so many other recent pilots show increased employment, because so many other recent pilots focus on those under the poverty line or just above it. This seems to suggest that those with higher incomes would be the ones most likely to work less if UBI existed, but remember that because of taxes, those with higher incomes would see smaller disposable income boosts. Perhaps someone earning $45k would work less with a $12k boost, but realistically, their boost after taxes would be more like $7k not $12k. A smaller boost means a smaller income effect. It's also interesting how UBI recipients were 5.5 percentage points more likely to say that "interesting or meaningful work is an essential condition for any job they would accept." UBI recipients were 10% more likely than the control to be actively looking for a job. Clearly they were looking for the right job vs the first job. It also blows away the assumption that UBI hurts the pursuit of meaning. This also matches previous pilot experiments where the decrease in days employed was not because people stopped working, but because they spent more time between jobs looking for the next job. It's good for productivity for people to find the right jobs. What appears at first glance to be 8 fewer days employed is actually 8 more days looking for a job. But what about job quality as defined by earnings? One participant named Chloe left her waitressing job where she was getting sexually harassed to earn less money in an office job. Her basic income helped her make that change. Is that a bad outcome because she switched to a job that paid less thanks to her UBI? I don't think so. Some economists might because numbers. The nuances of the findings from this pilot are very interesting, and what appeared to be disappointing at first glance actually reflects previous findings once you dig below the averages and understand that saturation pilots show similar results but see increased employment from the groups who don't decrease their hours because the spending generates more jobs. As usual, employment decreases really only exist within specific groups, mostly single parents and young adults. And in a saturation pilot, those decreases would likely be nullified by others thanks to stimulated local economies. Hopefully I can get a new article out tomorrow about all of this and more.