The amount is simply way too small to make a dent in our life style.
I understand that logic, and I also understand the idea that basic income would replace means-testing or expensive welfare bureaucracies designed to police people and judge “worthiness.” What happens, however, when those people who will behave irresponsibly (and they will always exist) crash and burn, and their families (if they have them) get sick of dealing with them? Is society really going to let them starve in the street, or are we going to end up setting up yet another means-testing bureaucracy to care for them in addition to the basic income everyone gets? I don’t believe any kind of “basic income” scheme can replace the welfare state programs, because there will always be a significant subset of people who can’t or won’t use the money rationally and beneficially.
Housing inflation, I think, would skyrocket if everyone’s income increased by $1,100 a month.
Re the “experiment”: the participants know they are being watched and evaluated, and this fact will certainly change their behavior. If basic income were just another entitlement program and your use of the money was not monitored, you’d most likely behave differently than if the eyes of the world were upon you.
I am more about rewarding good behavior and help people become self supporting. When I had babies and was also in the beginning of my career, I often thought about quitting to stay home because I couldn’t find quality child care. I think a lot of women quit their jobs because of it. I think that money could be better spent in providing quality childcare for every working parent. I remember when I visited my home office in Sweden years ago, my colleague told me that the government was paying her sister in law to take care of kids and her SIL own kids. With combined subsidies from the government, someone like her SIL could stay home and she could work at a higher paying job.