I’ve seen what cash can do for people experiencing financial hardship—and I also know what it can’t do. The nonprofit I lead, UpTogether, has been investing in people for two decades, distributing more than $210 million to more than 200,000 households since 2020 alone. We manage guaranteed income initiatives all over the country.
Unfortunately, the takeaway for many reporters and pundits from OpenResearch’s Unconditional Cash Study was that guaranteed income makes people “less productive.”
Yes, the data showed participants worked slightly fewer hours, spent more time on leisure, and earned less money. However, the conclusions reporters and researchers have drawn from these findings are rooted in painful stereotypes about people experiencing poverty, such as depicting them as lazy and blaming them for their own financial circumstances.
Contrary to the negative headlines, the OpenResearch study confirmed much of what we already know: Guaranteed income increases the likelihood of financial stability, and allows people more freedom to make the choices that are best for their families and their own well-being.
In a randomized control trial, OpenResearch paid a treatment group $1,000 a month to 1,000 households for three years. A control group of 2,000 people was paid $50 a month. The average income of treatment and control groups was $29,900 and more than half of the participants had at least one child.
Compared to the control group, the treatment group:
- Spent more money on basic needs like food, transportation, and housing.
- Gave more financial assistance to others.
- Demonstrated more agency to set goals.
- Pursued jobs they found interesting or meaningful.
- Moved to better housing situations.
- Enrolled in school or job training at a higher rate in the final year of the pilot.
However, skeptics contorted other data points from the OpenResearch study as proof that guaranteed income “doesn’t work.” Compared to the control group, the treatment group:
- Worked 1.3 fewer hours per week and 2% were less likely to be employed.
- Spent more time on leisure.
- Brought in $2,500- $4,100 less in household income, not including the cash transfer.
- Experienced no measurable effect on physical and mental health.
- Saw gains in food security in the first year, but by the end of the study the gains disappeared.
If you believe people who have limited financial resources should pull themselves up by the bootstraps by working multiple, exploitative jobs, denying themselves leisure time, and spending less time with their families, the results would indeed be disappointing.
However, if you believe people experiencing financial hardship deserve dignity and autonomy, the results prove that guaranteed income is a powerful tool. People deserve jobs that don’t exploit their labor with low wages and few benefits. They deserve to be able to make ends meet working just one job. They deserve to live in quality housing in safe neighborhoods. They deserve to keep their heads above water in a crisis. They deserve to have time to spend with their children. They deserve space to care for family members in need. They deserve to have fun.
The bottom line is that guaranteed income provides opportunities many of us take for granted.
However, we need to be clear that guaranteed income is not a substitute for a robust and effective social safety net. The study provided strong evidence that we need more investments in housing affordability, healthcare costs, and childcare availability. That’s why it was disappointing the report did not recommend further investments in these areas.
We disagree with OpenResearch’s call for “more studies” despite its own findings and substantial evidence supporting guaranteed income. We need to immediately make deep investments in people through unconditional cash, essential services, and policy interventions—all the things that lead to thriving families and communities.
More must-read commentary published by Fortune:
- An economic catastrophe is lurking beneath Russia’s GDP growth as Putin ‘throws everything into the fireplace’
- The ‘sustainability recession’ will end soon—and not by choice
- ‘Godmother of AI’ says California’s well-intended AI bill will harm the U.S. ecosystem
- Clichés, exaggerations, overstatements: Our analysis of 23,000 annual reviews shows top performers get the worst feedback
The opinions expressed in Fortune.com commentary pieces are solely the views of their authors and do not necessarily reflect the opinions and beliefs of Fortune.
