Multiple large randomized trials of guaranteed income in American cities show little to no sustained improvement in mental health, stress, physical health, child development, or employment. Work hours dip slightly, but without corresponding gains in wellbeing. This undercuts the expectation that unconditional cash alone will move chronic poverty outcomes.
— It shifts anti‑poverty strategy away from cash‑only fixes toward rebuilding institutions in education, health care, and housing.
Noah Smith
2025.09.04
86% relevant
Noah Smith highlights a Denver basic income trial that didn’t reduce homelessness, a large Texas/Illinois RCT where $1,000/month led about 2% of recipients to stop working, and Kelsey Piper’s review of trials (e.g., Baby’s First Years, Compton) finding minimal improvements on health, education, and other outcomes—directly reinforcing the claim that unconditional cash alone shows weak, often null effects in U.S. settings.
Matthew Yglesias
2025.08.27
90% relevant
Yglesias endorses the recent U.S. RCT/large‑pilot findings Kelsey Piper summarized—minimal durable gains from guaranteed income—and contrasts them with stronger impacts abroad, arguing the domestic poor differ in ways cash alone doesn’t fix.
Arnold Kling
2025.08.20
95% relevant
Kling quotes Kelsey Piper’s summary that randomized cash programs left recipients 'practically invisible in the data' on key outcomes, reinforcing the evidence that U.S. guaranteed‑income pilots show little sustained benefit.
Kelsey Piper
2025.08.19
100% relevant
Eva Vivalt’s comment on an OpenResearch study: 'the larger and more credible studies... have tended to find worse effects,' plus trial results for homeless adults and new mothers receiving thousands of dollars.