Should America Have a Universal Basic Income?

AI and robotics negatively impact workers and increase inequality

AI and robotics are negatively impacting workers and increasing inequality in a way that is not offset by new or better jobs. A universal floor ensures everyone shares in the upsides and is protected from the downsides of the automation of work.

Direct cash transfers work

Randomized control trials — Stockton's SEED program, GiveDirectly, Finland's pilot, and many more — show unconditional cash improves health, wellbeing, and many other important outcomes without significantly reducing work.

Simplifies a broken welfare system

The current patchwork of 80+ federal programs traps recipients where earning more can mean losing benefits to the point of becoming worse off. A single universal payment eliminates poverty traps and bureaucracy.

Enables entrepreneurship and care work

A basic security floor enables and empowers people to take risks, start businesses, pursue education, or care for children and aging parents — contributions the current system fails to reward.

Fiscally unsustainable

A universal $1,000/month to 260 million American adults costs over $3 trillion annually — more than total current federal discretionary spending. No credible funding mechanism exists at that scale.

Reduces labor participation

The 1970s U.S. negative income tax experiments, Manitoba Mincome, and the 2019 Finland pilot all showed reductions in labor supply. Less work shrinks the tax base that would fund the program.

Drives inflation

Injecting trillions of dollars into an economy without a corresponding increase in productivity drives prices up. The people with the least buying power — those UBI is meant to help — are hurt most by inflation.

Targeted programs work better

The Earned Income Tax Credit, SNAP, and childcare subsidies reach those who need help and are empirically proven to reduce poverty. Sending checks to millionaires is inefficient by design.