While I agree with UBI at a philosophical level, attempting to study it scientifically with a sample size of N people in an existing functioning economy is pointless. If 10 people have UBI and 1000 others are doing regular work, you can't turn around and say "see how much happier the 10 people are!" Of course they are happy. They earn more money than their neighbors for doing less work. Now give everyone else the same amount of money and see how things play out. Is rent going to be the same? Is anyone going to be working menial jobs? Is UBI going to increase income inequality by sending more money to the capital class (like say COVID relief checks did)? We won't know all this until such an experiment is done at an economy-wide level.
> Is UBI going to increase income inequality by sending more money to the capital class (like say COVID relief checks did)?
How did COVID relief checks 'send more money to the capital class'? Are you saying that putting money in the hands of ordinary citizens is ineffective because they spend it on stuff sold by the capital class? Perhaps I'm misunderstanding, but that sounds idiotic.
We have a whole village in MN running on something like UBI. 800 members of the Shakopee Mdewakanton each receive ~$1m/year because of casino revenues. Apparently, their unemployment level is like 98%; I really wonder how they spend their day.
The cited studies, like most sociopolitical studies, probably don't prove anything. The article doesn't specify how the subjects were selected, unless I missed something. If I were an advocate for UBI and wanted to organize a study like this, I'd make sure to select people who are likely to keep working and not just quit and smoke weed all day so I could reinforce my narrative. If I were an opponent of UBI I'd do the opposite and enroll people who are unlikely to keep working when they don't have to.
"To determine whether the measured effects were actually due to receiving the basic income and not, for example, to broader societal developments, the Basic Income Pilot Project was designed as a randomised controlled trial. This ensured that the participants in the control group were so-called 'statistical twins' of the basic income group. This meant that they were very similar in their sociodemographic characteristics and differed mainly in whether or not they had received a basic income.
Both groups were essential to the success of the study. Only by comparing their experiences could scientific conclusions be drawn.
To prevent bias, care was also taken to ensure that both groups included equal numbers of ideological supporters and opponents of basic income.
The study focused on people between the ages of 21 and 40 living alone in a household with a net income of between €1,100 and €2,600 per month. We explain why these characteristics were chosen in our journal."
Arguably, those people won't be productive members of the society either way. With UBI, they could even be less likely to shoplift, mug/rob people, or otherwise cause harm.
I studied at a German university where one of the prominent advocates for universal basic income, Götz Werner (the owner of a well-known German health and beauty retail chain), gave several talks. As a member of a student club, I participated in a smaller event with him, which allowed for plenty of questions and interaction. At that time, the concept of universal basic income wasn’t particularly associated with left-wing politics.
To summarize: Universal basic income can be seen as a kind of negative poll tax (a poll tax being a fixed tax per person). Werner argued that the current tax system is unsustainable because it places a disproportionate burden on labor. He suggested that instead of taxing income, we should tax consumption—essentially, by significantly increasing sales tax and eliminating income tax. Of course, this would make life unaffordable for low earners, so a negative poll tax (i.e., a basic income) would be necessary to make higher sales taxes socially acceptable.
In practice, a large portion of the universal basic income would end up returning to the state through sales tax anyway.
Even back in 2010, I sensed that Mr. Werner was promoting a system that would benefit his own financial interests. As an employer with high labor costs, he would gain from lower taxes and fees associated with employment in Germany. And, as a wealthy individual, only a small part of his wealth would be subject to sales tax, since he wouldn’t need to spend most of it on taxable purchases.
When pressed about numbers (how high the sales tax, how high the negative poll tax) he just wouldn't discuss numbers saying society would have to figure it out and potentially one might start out with some amount and then progressively increase the negative poll tax, increase the sales tax and decrease other taxes. It really felt like someone not having done any actual simulations / calculations.
oh and one thing he really emphasized is, that UBI could allow for people to go from like a 40h work week to a 30h work week being employed and use their fridays for example to become entrepreneurs/artists/etc. That really felt like as close to prosperity gospel as one can get in germany.
Trump was inspired by a similar consumption tax based on tarrifs and he oft cited the days before income tax. He was expecting Congress to provide an income tax relief package to compensate.
You will have to work more and more, your coworkers will be fired one by one, supposedly replaced by AI, you will take over their work too, then at some point will will be fired too, won't be able to find a job, and when the unemployment benefits end, you will wish to have UBI.
About giving money to people that don't work: get the official statistics and calculate as % of your country's budget. You'll probably want to look elsewhere for the money required for UBI. Maybe at the (corrupt) government's contracts and subsidies. No, there are no statistics on those, i'm sure.
Oh, so just like it happened during the Industrial Revolution, right? Where everyone was supposed to eventually go out of a job because machines would replace us…
I live in a country where we need unchecked immigration because “nationals don’t want to do the jobs they do” (never mind less than a 3rd of those immigrants are actually working). So, kind of hard to fit reality with your predictions when there’s clearly work to do (hard work for sure), but lot of people already prefer to live off the welfare state than to bother doing it.
Exactly, that's my point. AI will not replace the workers, they will migrate to other jobs, like it happened during the Industrial Revolution. People will continue working.
I think you didn't understand what I said. It's not because it happened in the past that there is space to happen again, work will move from services to where?
Yes, I did misunderstand you, but you also are pretending that the Industrial Revolution removed the need for human workers in any sector of activity whatsoever.
If anything, and even in percentage of the world population, it created a lot more jobs in the industry sector itself - the main one the doom sayers at the time predicted it would replace.
According to the official Portuguese data, 700000 persons between the age of 25 to 65 are not working. So, more than 11.5% of the population between those ages already - population between 20-65 is 6 millions.
So, get this correctly. More than 11.5% of the population between 25 and 65 are already not working and living off the welfare state.
That's how many. Great, isn't it. May be because all the robots are already doing our work, I guess...
No, it's 5 out of 10 not working if you count everyone. What I'm saying is that even among those that are the population that can work, more than 1 out of 10 are also not working.
So yeah, every worker, is not supporting himself and somebody else. And even when you discount children and older people, more than 11.5% of them don't want to work already.
This is completely unsustainable and has nothing to do with AI replacing us.
P.S. Never mind that Portugal (and from what I understand, most Europeans countries) don't have a proper Retirement fund, and present workers are basically paying the retirement of retirees. This is because they contributed too little compared to what they receive now, and the state never invested their money - but used it to pay people that came before them and never made discounts for retirement.
11.5% is the total. My question was how many of them actually receive any benefits? Or, even better, how much of the budget is spent on benefits for those that don't work?
49.50% of the Population in Portugal doesn't work and needs to be supported by those who work.
And there are 6 millions capable of working between the ages of 20-65. Of those, only 5 millions work.
So, you need to calculate the budget spent on those half of the population that doesn't work - in some cases because they are too young or too old, and then ask: why is close to a million of those that can actually work, living off the state anyway, instead of working for them, and for the other person they should be supporting.
Maybe they built their own AI robot I guess, and now they don't need to do anything... Surely a case for UBI.
https://msutoday.msu.edu/news/2025/msu-study-finds-number-of... (“We found that the percentage of nonparents who don’t want any children rose from 14% in 2002 to 29% in 2023,” said Jennifer Watling Neal, professor in MSU’s psychology department and co-author of the study. “During the same period, the percent of nonparents who plan to have children in the future fell from 79% to 59%.”)
You have to pay for UBI somehow. You basically have two options: pay for it through taxes, or pay for it by printing money. If you rule out the second option because you don't want hyperinflation, then you have to pay for it through taxes.
Then it's a simple exercise: how much can you increase taxes to pay for UBI? You can't increase taxes above 100%, so UBI has to be less than the average per-person income, and we still need to fund defence and other essentials, so it has to be significantly less.
Until the economy adjust for the additional money in the system and prices rise, thereby going back to square one. A universal basic income is impossible without strict price controls.
Inflation is coming regardless due to global structural demographics.
Handing out fiat is likely infeasible, it’s too brute force without being able to control inflation per category, but a bifurcation with housing, energy, food, etc provided and fiat more reserved for human labor purchases is possible imho. I came across the idea somewhere of two currencies: one for things made by machines, and one for things made by humans. The first can be printed, the second worked for or otherwise constrained. I think that is what the future may look like as energy and tech abundance hits the declining demographic curve.
Government has no money. They do not produce anything. There is printing. Govt can print money and give it to people, which causes inflation.
I live in Poland. When I as 4 people were losing every money they had at their own because of hiperinflation because govt was spending too much money. They just printed it.
When it started my parents were earning 1000zl monthly, a few years later I could buy one ice cream ball for 2500zl.
Does Poland not have public housing? Public transport? Roads? Government owns infrastructure. If you don't want to call printing money to provide that to citizens, I'm open to other verbiage as it relates to what UBI and future monetary systems look like. Government creates money. Government builds things. The money is just the accounting.
Universal Basic Income is the billionaire’s consolation price for the working class once the workers have automated the economy to a certain degree. They get to keep the resources while the workers/former workers get to subsist “for free” on a livable pittance. Helped along ideologically by useful idiot multi-millionaires[1] who chant about “just upskill”/“just be Mensa-level intelligent”.
I think the SC software mindset here is: I am in that group, got mine. The analysis ends there. And the higher your perceived ability the less worried you are about the future.
reply