- Position‹2 of 3›
- Yes, UBI is a good idea
UBI can help people during times of economic crisis or widespread unemployment. Everyone should have the unconditional ability to meet their basic needs in life. When basic needs are met, people are healthier and less-stressed, a state of living that everyone deserves.
The argument
Income from a job is not guaranteed. In times of economic recession, famine, or pandemic, the government still has the responsibility to provide for its people when there are no jobs. Even when steady income from a job is not guaranteed, people should have the means to meet their basic needs. When basic meets are met, people are healthier and less stressed. A pilot study of UBI done in Finland found that UBI recipients reported better mental health than those who did not receive UBI. Recipients also reported "greater feelings of autonomy, financial security, and confidence in the future." Another pilot study of UBI done on the Eastern Band of Cherokees' casino dividend program found that recipients had better mental health and decreased substance abuse. The study found that UBI reduced addiction by providing economic security. Though the logistics and overall costs of UBI remain unknown, UBI should still be considered because all members of a society should be given an opportunity to have their basic needs met. In the U.S. where racial inequality remains rampant and black Americans are disproportionately below the poverty line compared to white Americans, UBI provides a solution to economic and racial inequality.
Premises
Counter-arguments
UBI is meant to promote general welfare, but giving unconditional cash may just act as a band-aid to address structural inequalities in education and employment. Better ways to address inequality would be to promote policies that help de-commodify labor, promote strong worker rights and unions, and allow more people to participate in the labor market.
Rejecting the premises
[Rejecting P1] A responsibility to ensure basic needs are met does not select universality as the means: targeted benefits, unemployment insurance and direct public provision address the same duty without paying those who need nothing. [Rejecting P2] Neither study was a universal basic income — one was a time-limited trial among unemployed recipients, the other a dividend paid to members of a single nation — and self-reported wellbeing under a scheme known to be temporary is weak evidence for a permanent, population-wide programme. [Rejecting P3] Cash relieves the symptom of a disparity without touching what produces it; on the counter's account the causes lie in education, employment and bargaining power, so an income floor may leave the underlying inequality in place.
Framing
Poverty is a human rights issue.