There is no data, no credible source, and nothing concrete to base any theories on. The piece reads like an Op Ed with some quotes sprinkled in to attempt to sell credibility. The only information given is a brief discussion about the non-profit, and the area in Stockton California where they are conducting the trial. Also, the scope of this project being a mere 125 people also prevents it from being at a significant enough scale to make any useful inferences about feasibility.

The article lays out not only the current scheme with its funding and rules well isolated from political meddling, but also reminds us of several previous and current programmes offering similar income assistance and some surprising results about loafing and well-being. When reading such an article - especially those of us with more than one job - it's important to be unbiased like the writer, and keep our own politics out of the picture.

An interesting look into a new attempt in California to implement a universal basic income like plan. The headline makes it seem like it's a government experiment, but (as stated later in the article) it's private donations going into the experiment. Includes a nice look into other past plans from various organization.

What a mixed bag of an article -- despite the headline, this is a study of 150 people who make under $46k and receive $500/mo from this program. Despite interesting interviews, their is little meat to this article. Citing previous guaranteed income studies (conducted by Cheney & Rumsfield?!?!? Was that a typo? I'm super curious what their qualifications were to do this kind of study!) which were vaguely referenced but with no hard numbers or statistics, there are several interesting interviews from people who don't have extra money and this has helped them to spend more time with their families or to buy stuff for grandkids. I'm having trouble connecting the dots on what the issues are, but I can infer from the article that: Right wingers are concerned that paying people will either shrink the labor force, inspire people to mis-spend money, or get drunk or buy drugs. Left wingers are concerned that ... No, don't think this POV was articulated. I'm all for giving people money and not having it be based on labor. The CEO's and C-Suite execs have too much money and little accountability linking income to performance, while regular workers have too little income and lots of pressure for accountability & performance. But where should this money come from? AHA! That's missing from the article, but I guess one might imply it's from the endless tax revenue of government? Well, why not be clear & say "We need to raise taxes on the overpaid & redistribute those taxes to the underpaid" rather than all this BS about 'govt guaranteed incomes"? Anyway, quick recap of article -- it's a 'feel good piece' that doesn't explain the full issue with any depth, but it does give a quick 'surface level' look at a few people in Stockton benefiting from an experiment giving out $500/mo to people.

Fantastic and very engaging read about Universal Basic Income's traction in Stockton, California. The article ties in policy specifics, candidates positions, financial figures, and even the real-life experiences of some currently involved in the program. This was a smooth, enjoyable, well-crafted read.