Still, guaranteed income researchers point out that the extra money is finite and can’t solve big structural problems like access to capital, homeownership or health care coverage.
Important limitation: cash helps immediate needs and choices but doesn’t replace structural policy reforms (e.g., universal health care, housing policy). It’s a partial solution, not a cure-all.
If I didn’t have the cash transfers, there is no way I could have taken that pay cut.
People sometimes accept lower pay short-term if it leads to long-term gains (training, promotion paths). Cash provides the breathing room to make that investment in future earning potential.
By the third year of the program, Black participants who received the $1,000 payments were 26 percent more likely
Cash lowered barriers to entrepreneurship for Black participants, showing how even modest regular payments can enable risk-taking and opportunity creation for historically excluded groups.
the participants who received the higher monthly payments worked about 1.3 fewer hours a week than those who got $50
Work hours fell slightly, but not dramatically. Importantly, reduced hours often reflected positive choices (schooling, caregiving, skill-building) rather than inactivity — a nuanced outcome, not a simple “people stop working” headline.
Those who received $1,000 monthly were 5 percent more likely to report having a budget
Beyond spending, recipients did more financial planning. That suggests cash can increase financial agency — people plan instead of just reacting to emergencies.
Right away, the data clearly showed that cash helped people spend more on their basic needs.
A quick, measurable effect: recipients prioritized essentials (food, housing, transport). This rebuts the stereotype that unconditional cash is frivolously spent — it often covers necessities.
On average, 97 percent of participants completed the surveys.
Very high response rates reduce bias from dropouts. When almost everyone answers, we can be more confident the results represent the whole group, not just the most engaged people.
The groups, all made up of people ages 21 to 40, were drawn from rural, suburban and urban counties in Illinois and Texas
Participants came from different community types (not just one city), which helps the findings generalize better across varied U.S. settings — though it is still limited to two states.
the study followed 3,000 participants from 2020 to 2023
A large sample and multi-year follow-up strengthen the study’s reliability. Because it spans several years (including the pandemic), results reflect effects during a turbulent time — useful but also context-dependent.
For three years, 1,000 people received $1,000 per month — no strings attached.
This describes the main experimental treatment: a sustained, unconditional monthly payment. “No strings attached” means recipients could spend the money however they chose, so the study measures real-world behavior, not mandated use.