Giving people money that you take away if they work dissuades them from taking jobs, especially jobs that net them the same or less than they get without working.
That doesn’t really prove anything about how giving people money that you don’t take away if they work effects their willingness to work.
They already live on the bare minimum, but they have to clean toilets to get it. Now the government says you can live on the bare minimum, but you do not have to clean toilets.
So now you have to raise wages to entice people to clean toilets.
You are correct that it is not the exact same situation, but I think there would be even more disruption of the same kind the more you increase the government assistance.
Or so now people doing even more distasteful and/or lower-paid work outside of the formal economy because it can stack with means tested benefits can afford to clean toilets for low wages in the formal economy because it stacks with the now-unconditional benefits. Conjecture as to which effect dominates based on behavior with additional means-tested benefits is on extremely shaky ground.
But my conjecture would be we might see lower wages for desirable work, but higher wages for undesirable work.
I’ve spoken to a lot of hotel owners and restaurateurs lamenting their inability to hire people for low wages part time work. And there are fast food restaurants around me that are closed at many times because they have no workers, especially for late night hours that they used to. Some hotel owners I know are closing off portions of their inventory because they cannot find housekeeping staff to clean their rooms for the wages/quality of life/stability they want to provide.
That is also the reason for all the PPP nonsense. Rather than simply paying the workers for lost wages and paying the businesses for lost revenue, PPP stipulations make it so the worker stays tied to the business.