I am an economist with several degrees (bachelor, master's, phd) in economics as well as other related degrees, and with all my heart, I can honestly say that the claim in this post is PURE AND UTTER NONSENSE.

In economics, we differentiate between REAL and MONETARY / NOMINAL variables. Money is not a real variable and Changes of its quantities does not have real long run consequences. Changes in Money supply can NEVER have a positive impact on a functional (properly working) economy and it will only harm it possibly at the cost of some short run benefits. Monetary policy is only instrumental if the economy is away from its long run equilibrium (potential level, as in recessions).

First of all, this is a social science, a study does not find a certain result, they don't have a perfect simulator machine! It is all a thought-experiment after probably some vague economic model. Let me bring it to you, 90% of economic models are wrong (some are inaccurate, most are dead wrong).

Secondly, there are already many countries doing the exact same thing one way or another. Free education, free healthcare, free transportation, free broadcasting, food and rent subsidies etc all are direct or indirect aids to people that amount to way more than $1000 a month per adult. Guess what, they have negligible effect on the level of GDP (but a substantial impact on the income distribution!).

Third, giving away money is nothing but a re-distribution of income, which will create inflation (dozens of countries have already experienced this; Germany, Yugoslavia, South America, Turkey etc...), and instead of handing out money, US should tackle with the more fundamental issues in the country such as those counted above. The vast majority of the disposable income goes to SERVICES in America, and they need to be addressed. A few things that should be done.

1) Fierce price controls on health care and universal completely free (basic) healthcare.

2) Education price controls and free education till college. The number of colleges must be kept to a low (there are way too many colleges in the US, where everyone, even the non-smart people go, and the education level is too damn low).

3) Any private insurance must be entirely abolished. Car insurance or insurance for goods etc are complete scams.

4) Fierce rent controls must be placed especially on public institutions (such as college dorms etc).

5) Fierce property taxes should have a certain bracket of exclusion. For instance, depending on the state, say houses valued less than 50K must be excluded from property tax. On the other hand, government should pay a certain amount of rent for everybody below a certain income level.

6) Eliminate the Wall Street and Federal Reserve entirely, and give the monopolistic non-interest yielding money issuing right to the American state.

etc etc etc...

However, I know none of these will happen because the US and the government is entirely hijacked by corporations and everything is run by a business model. It is not about the level of income (as US is rich enough to have a very comfortable life for everybody) but it is the distribution of it.

But will the increase in skilled jobs make up for the decrease in unskilled jobs? And how long until skilled jobs start becoming more and more automated?

Best comment yet. I agree completly. It will however never happen, too many people are now in a position of power who continue to get rich off the way the system works. 

Exactly, thanks for understanding.

@Bold Yes! just because you automated a part of production of goods or services doesn't always mean a decrease in labour, it could also translate to increased productivity as well ... 

Even if there were less jobs to supposedly go around under automation, it could still very well be a benefit to the economy since the price of goods/services would be lowered and raised in quality to accommodate for the lower income ... (lower income earners in developed countries are almost living like kings did a century ago) 

And if all skilled jobs are eliminated it would be a dream come true in achieving a post-scarcity economy since prices would be crashing everywhere, can imagine being able to buy the same big house today that you could get for hundreds of thousands of dollars for just tens of thousdands of dollars in the future with more features too ?! 

Nobody taught you that price controls are the quickest way to make a bad situation worse?

Bakers make bread for 9 cents and sell for 10 cents. Government increases money supply causing inflation. It now costs bakers 10 cents to make bread and they have to sell at 11 cents. Gov decrees bread must be capped at 10 cents (no profit for the bakers). Bakers stop making bread for the poor and bake cakes for the rich instead. No bread on shelves but black market bread is available at 20 cents (risk-reward cost for breaking law). The poor starve, the rich get cheaper cake. Socialism wins again.

...Once an item becomes required or mandatory it needs to 100% be regulated and pricing controlled.

...Price controls on items like housing, not on food or food ingredients. 

We don't disagree, this is what I've been talking about all the time. I fully believe people will live better lives in the future thanks to automation and AI making production cheap. I just believe the transition to a post-scarcity economy/civilisation might be troublesome, and that we need to start looking now at ways to make that transition smoother.