Overall, the picture drawn by the two recent studies on this policy is underwhelming in my estimation. Looking at both studies together, it seems like when you give people a guaranteed income, they become a bit wealthier and more financially stable, but the gains are small because the policy disincentivizes working relative to leisure. We would expect this problem to worsen if the policy were permanent, and this may cause the benefits to evaporate almost entirely.
On the flip side, such programs on a large scale would be extremely expensive—meaning that taxpayers would have to give up a lot. To give a stipend to every adult would be more than a trillion dollars every year.
And you thought if you gave money to people for not working they would work more? If you thought that you were mistaken according to this study. I think many people knew this already by just observing the people around them when choosing between work with more money and leisure time. I have noticed that Mercan workers enjoy leaving work early versus earning slightly more money for the extra time. What have you seen in your life?