A new randomized controlled trial reports the impacts of guaranteed income—regular cash payments with no strings attached—to low-income households in Compton, California on an extensive list of outcomes including labor supply, income, spending, debt, and psychological well-being.
This doesn’t appear to get into the why in any way.
The title of the article says “How”, not “Why”.
But if I were to take a guess before reading the article (and therefore not having the specific context), the answer to “Why” is probably “Because they have more money”.
EDIT: After looking through the webpage, I’m going to change my guess to “It might’ve been less money than other studies that had better findings”.
$500 per month means you can quit that second job you took. It means you can focus on saving, and maybe you’ve got some more time to be able to cook dinner (rather than order fast food). So you’re spending less.
It’s not enough money to reskill/go back to school. It’s not enough money to risk losing your shitty job by spending the time looking for a better one.
They gave enough money to help, but not enough to see the major benefits.
This is still an important study because it can help determine the “right amount” that people need to get the optimal benefit for society.
The mechanisms aren’t really the focus of the study but the conclusion does have some mild speculation
HOUSEHOLD RESPONSES TO GUARANTEED INCOME: EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE FROM COMPTON, CALIFORNIA