In a series of sketches for Saturday Night Live, Billy Crystal played a fictionalized version of actor and director Fernando Lamas as host of the talk show “Fernando’s Hideaway.” Crystal’s character would often say that it is better to look good than to feel good.
This was on my mind as I reviewed recent evaluations of St. Louis’s guaranteed basic income pilot by Washington University’s Center for Social Development. The review’s claims will sound familiar to anyone who has followed these pilot programs around the country. Participants reported feeling more financially secure. They were better able to pay bills and cover everyday expenses like rent, utilities, and groceries.
In many ways, the findings are exactly what one would expect. St. Louis distributed $500 per month for 18 months to several hundred households using federal pandemic relief funds. If someone suddenly receives an additional $500 each month, it should not surprise anyone that paying bills becomes easier in the short run.
The St. Louis program is also not unique. Over the past several years, cities across the country have launched similar guaranteed income pilot programs. Their evaluations tend to report the same kinds of outcomes: reduced financial stress, improved food security, and higher levels of self-reported well-being.
But as economists Hilary Hoynes and Jesse Rothstein of the University of California, Berkeley note in a review of the universal basic income literature, the new wave of guaranteed-income pilots is “not well suited” to answer the most important questions about the policy. (My colleague David Stokes wrote about this same study in 2024.) The pilot program evaluations tend to measure short-run responses that economists have already examined for decades in earlier experiments.
These evaluations often measure something quite narrow—how recipients say they feel about their financial situation. But feeling good about one’s finances is not the same thing as actually being better off.
More comprehensive research on guaranteed income programs paints a more complicated picture. A recent randomized study published by the National Bureau of Economic Research examined the effects of unconditional cash transfers using a large experimental design. In that study, 1,000 individuals were randomly selected to receive $1,000 per month for three years, while a control group received only a nominal payment.
The researchers tracked employment, income, and time use using administrative data and detailed surveys. Their findings suggest that while the payments increased consumption and temporarily improved subjective well-being, participants also worked fewer hours and saw declines in income earned from work. The transfers reduced labor-force participation and led participants to shift some of their time away from paid work and toward leisure.
In other words, the transfers made recipients feel more financially secure—but they also changed work behavior in ways that reduced earned income.
This should not come as a surprise. Economists have been studying guaranteed income–style policies for decades. Earlier negative income tax experiments and other research on income transfers have consistently found that unconditional income tends to reduce work effort modestly. Those effects may be small, but they are real and have important implications for the long-term economic impact of such policies.
None of this is to say that guaranteed income programs provide no benefit to recipients, or that the research from Washington University is flawed. Reducing financial stress and helping families weather unexpected expenses is not nothing. But policymakers should be careful not to confuse the short-term financial relief detailed in the St. Louis pilot program evaluation with long-term economic improvement.
There are also broader societal concerns that pilot evaluations like this one cannot address. One of the Show-Me Institute’s objectives is to build a state where “all Missourians are free from dependence on government.” Large unconditional cash-transfer programs, such as the program tested in St. Louis, could expand long-term dependency on government support and weaken incentives for work and self-sufficiency. That risk remains a significant policy concern.
Feeling better about your finances is not the same thing as improving the underlying economics—regardless of what Billy Crystal might advise.
Local leaders must be careful not to confuse the two, lest we commit to an expensive program that does more harm than good.
