Discussion
RECRUITMENT
Integrated analysis indicates GI recipients were rational economic actors, using GI to manage risk by supporting themselves and their networks while weathering the pandemic. There is a causal link between GI and reduced income volatility and improved psychological and physical health, that created opportunities for agency. These results support the counterfactual—as income volatility is associated with negative financial and health outcomes, then guaranteed income does mitigate them.At the onset of the unprecedent social, economic, and health crisis of the pandemic, the treatment group was overall more financially secure and healthier. There was no significant difference between the treatment and control group on labor—a particularly important finding given the speculation that individuals may become unproductive if given unconditional cash. The significance of those impacts dissipated as the pandemic had critical financial and health impacts across both the treatment and control groups. We note that the trends of a positive trajectory remained higher in the treatment than control group, yet did not reach the level of statistical significance for most measures—possibly due to attrition or simply that the $500 per month was simply not enough to overcome significant structural inequalities that proliferated during the pandemic. In sum, the evidence of the RCT suggests that guaranteed income, under normative economic and health conditions, does calm income volatility and allay financial, emotional, and psychological distress. In atypical conditions, the effects of guaranteed income are inconclusive and worthy of additional investigation. As the withdraw of the intervention and final observation occurred during the pandemic, the lasting effects of guaranteed income are also unknown. As the world returns to normative economic and health conditions, the public health impacts of a national GI could be profound.These results have limitations. Limited power prevented subgroup analysis and attrition may have impacted the ability to detect effects of the intervention during the pandemic observation period. Generalizability is limited to the population the sample drew from. Some benefits were unable to be preserved, prompting some to withdraw and others to ignore recruitment. This limits findings to those comparatively less fearful of benefits loss. Moreover, attrition in the study could have been differential by outcome variables. However, because those participants did attrite, there is no possibility to test this. These limitations inspire future research that will be undertaken with the SEED data. Notably, future research could investigate long range outcomes on interactions with public systems including safety net programs, incarceration, and education as well as intergenerational impacts. Future research on guaranteed income writ large should focus on differential impacts of dosage and duration on the previously tested outcomes.When Thomas Paine argued for basic income in 1797 [Given promising new evidence that could have a nontrivial impact on public health, we must consider which policy pathways GI could follow. As the number of pilots continues growing, a federal waiver is necessary for all safety net benefits to test GI’s impact alongside existing structures. GI should not replace the existing safety net, as the affordable housing crisis and lack of infrastructure for working families threatens economic mobility. Exemptions of GI payments from counting as income have been granted in a handful of locations [