A variety of arguments have been made in support of a Universal Basic Income (UBI). I am most interested in the argument that says that technology will destroy the jobs of the worst off, and so for them to survive society would be justified in giving them a basic income. I do not believe that in a free society technological progress will on balance destroy the jobs of the worst off. If innovative entrepreneurs are free to innovate, especially in labor markets, they will find ways to employ the worst off.
Others have argued that giving a basic income to the worst off will make them better parents, measurable by better child outcomes in terms of language skills and better behavior and cognition. Several years ago these advocates setup a big, expensive randomized controlled trial to test their argument. The results? None of their hypotheses were supported. The passages quoted below are from a front page New York Times article in which they express their surprise, and for some, their incredulity.
(p. A1) If the government wants poor children to thrive, it should give their parents money. That simple idea has propelled an avid movement to send low-income families regular payments with no strings attached.
Significant but indirect evidence has suggested that unconditional cash aid would help children flourish. But now a rigorous experiment, in a more direct test, found that years of monthly payments did nothing to boost children’s well-being, a result that defied researchers’ predictions and could weaken the case for income guarantees.
After four years of payments, children whose parents received $333 a month from the experiment fared no better than similar children without that help, the study found. They were no more likely to develop language skills, avoid behavioral problems or developmental delays, demonstrate executive function or exhibit brain activity associated with cognitive development.
“I was very surprised — we were all very surprised,” said Greg J. Duncan, an economist at the University of California, Irvine and one of six researchers who led the study, called Baby’s First Years. “The money did not (p. A15) make a difference.”
The findings could weaken the case for turning the child tax credit into an income guarantee, as the Democrats did briefly four years ago in a pandemic-era effort to fight child poverty.
. . .
Though an earlier paper showed promising activity on a related neurological measure in the high-cash infants, that trend did not endure. The new study detected “some evidence” of other differences in neurological activity between the two groups of children, but its significance was unclear.
While researchers publicized the earlier, more promising results, the follow-up study was released quietly and has received little attention. Several co-authors declined to comment on the results, saying that it was unclear why the payments had no effect and that the pattern could change as the children age.
For the full story see:
(Note: ellipsis added.)
(Note: the online version of the story has the date July 28, 2025, and has the title “Study May Undercut Idea That Cash Payments to Poor Families Help Child Development.”)
The academic presentation of the research discussed above, can be found in: