Zac_A:
Franglais:
Are you saying…I think I’ve made my views fairly plain, there’s no sense in debating them further. Yes, poorer people are frequently bad at managing money, sometimes because they have so little money in the first place, sometimes their money managenent inabilities are what made them poor.
A sample size of 30 is statistically meaningless (basic statistical teachings, not open to debate), so even if this trial did have a “positive” result, no mathematically-intelligent person is going to stick their neck out and make decisions based on it.
Speaking of maths:
We have 33 million people in employment right now
33 million x £1,600 = £52.8 billion per month
That’s £633.6 billion per year, which equates to 25% of our national debt, or 29% of our GDP
Where exactly is the forest of magic money-trees located so we increase our GDP to these levels?
What are the criteria for success/failure? Are there any? It is probably an experiment rather than a trial or a survey.
A bigger number of participants would be more informative, but it is what it is.
So, going back to the basic premises, IF AI really does take away 23 million of those current 33m jobs?
IF AI can make for a different world?
Would we be stuck with a huge proportion of the population on minimal benefits? With a complicated system of qualification for those benefits?
If there was ever increasing competition for a shrinking number of jobs? Where would pay levels go then?
I`d bet a few of those who currently profess to be “capitalists” would think again! 
A small study now isnt chucking billions at summat we may never need, but may reveal problems making further study useless, or show a way to improve things. If it shows you are totally correct, and its a disaster then that too is money well spent. It saves throwing tax monies at summat that doesn`t work.
For myself I don`t see UBI as a fix for our existing society, (although it might do some good) but as a clue about how to plan for future events.