Over the past 15 years, the idea of giving everyone a “basic income” has been heralded as a promising solution for economic justice and even ending poverty. The California Democratic Party adopted it into its official platform back in 2018, and Andrew Yang ran on the promise of basic income during his 2020 presidential bid. The threat of unemployment from artificial intelligence has made the idea more buzzy.

But recent studies have found that giving poor people unrestricted cash did not produce lasting improvements in their mental health, stress, or, in some cases, even self-reported financial well-being — leading to renewed chatter on the merit of these cash transfers to the poor.

As I’ve tracked the discussion, I started thinking about the asymmetry between the cash transfers debate and another recent one on the “vibescession.” Back in 2022, when Americans reported feeling gloomy about the economy even as GDP was growing and unemployment was low, some political leaders and commentators scrambled to justify why those feelings made sense, pointing to inflation, housing costs, and general uncertainty.

It seems that leaders then bent over backward to defend middle-class Americans for not feeling great despite a strong economy, yet they seemed to expect low-income Americans to respond more predictably — and more positively — to cash aid.

The new research findings are disappointing, and it makes sense to think money should ease stress. It’s not outlandish to hope that a few extra thousand dollars a year would make people feel noticeably better. But if we take a step back, we can see that that’s not really how money works for people higher up the ladder, either. I know plenty of well-off individuals who still frequently feel anxious and stressed, and I’d bet you do, too.

There have been over 160 basic income pilots in the US and more studies all around the world. The debate is complicated, and some people may no longer be as excited about the idea. But the movement is still barreling forward, and it’s clear from my reporting that new pessimism in some corners is far from the full story.

Why people are talking about cash transfers again

Cash transfers are becoming increasingly polarized. Over the past two decades, researchers have coalesced around the promise of targeted, carefully timed interventions for vulnerable groups, but now, the federal government is slashing support for any project that even hints at diversity, equity, and inclusion. That risks hobbling large-scale experiments designed to study the very communities most affected by poverty.

Over the last few years, a half dozen states, including Arkansas, Idaho, and South Dakota, passed new bans on guaranteed income. The Republican bill sponsor for Iowa’s ban said he hoped his law would lead to programs that “foster independence, not dependence” and ensure people can “experience the dignity of work.” This is all happening despite cash transfers showing bipartisan appeal — from President Donald Trump’s stimulus checks to more recent talk of DOGE dividends.

Now comes a few new studies. The Baby’s First Years study recruited 1,000 new mothers. A randomized sample of moms........

© Vox