New data shows how basic universal income recipients spent free money
U.S.
October 4, 20194 min read, 890 words

New data shows how basic universal income recipients spent free moneyNew data shows how basic universal income recipients spent free money

Adam Beam
 in pbs.org
Published: October 4, 2019  |  4 min read, 890 words
The first data from an experiment in a California city where needy people get $500 a month from the government shows they spend most of it on things like food, clothing and utility bills. The 18-month, privately funded program started in February and involves 125 people in Stock...
New data shows how basic universal income recipients spent free money Read more

Scores for this article.

Percentage of critic and public trust in this article.
Balanced4
img-trusted
N/A
critic score
critic reviews: 2
img-trusted
100%
public score
public reviews: 6

CRITIC REVIEWS

Investigative
October 4, 2019
Investigative
Very interesting piece on a much debated issue as of late. A fine look at the referenced matter with good expository quotes and sourcing. The author takes a commendably balanced approach belying no bias. A worthwhile read which will leave the prospective reader better informed.
Is this helpful?
Balanced
October 8, 2019
Balanced
I think I like the balance of this one--the pros and cons come at/near the top before we get into the details of the data. Good. This indirect quote from a professor gave me a bigger Q than A: Plus, he said previous studies have shown people don’t spend the money on frivolous things. So basically, the prof was arguing that they already know this, that people don't spend frivolously when given money, and the prof seemed to be indicating that people spend properly long-term (that's what the other studies support, I think). That's where my question comes in: what do the other studies show? Why not drawn that, quickly, into this story?
Is this helpful?

PUBLIC REVIEWS

Great Context
October 8, 2019
Great Context
Nice context around the universal basic income "experiment" taking place in Stockton, California and a brief update on the information that is being generated. It's obviously very early, but the article is very balanced on the issue and mentions the caveats to the study while including some specific anecdotes from participants.
Is this helpful?
Balanced
October 4, 2019
Balanced
This user only left a rating
Is this helpful?
Balanced
February 22, 2020
Balanced
Author did a good job of reporting on the experiment - offered competing analysis. Good articlw
Is this helpful?
Balanced
February 21, 2020
Balanced
The article presents a great context of the new data from this research in California. It's good to know they're validating some hypotheses before turning it into a real social program. I liked to read the first impressions, and I'm interested in following this research results. We have some examples of the same kind of "basic universal income" politics/actions around the world, and the results vary a lot.
Is this helpful?
Credible
February 21, 2020
Credible
Honest article detailing the results of this particular study, however I’m not sure the underlying premise of the study makes any sense. People receive income from multiple sources (job, families, Universal Income, etc). Then people spend their money on things they need/want (food, clothes, bills, entertainment, etc). It’s kind of a silly “study” to pretend that the dollars received from one part of income are the same dollars spent on expenses. In reality, they are not the same dollars. They are just a subset of total income - total expenses in aggregate. However, while I find the premise of this study kind of silly, the article does a good job reporting on its results, and so this article is credible
Is this helpful?
Well Sourced
October 4, 2019
Well Sourced
This article is very well sourced and strikes the right balance of opposing and critical viewpoints throughout. I especially like how this article discusses the way these anecdotal stories are used for positive PR, but are not necessarily large enough sample sizes to be considered accurate scientific studies.
Is this helpful?