UBI undermines social cohesion

The argument

The objection to universal basic income made here is not fiscal but social: it treats employment as something that does far more than deliver an income, and holds that a policy designed to replace the income will damage everything else attached to it. Income is far from the only meaningful aspect of employment. People's work and the skills that go with it are deeply linked to their social status, their sense of self-worth, their friendships and their social networks. A job supplies a place in the world and a reason to be somewhere, neither of which a payment can provide. By removing the need to work and incentivising people to stay at home, UBI undermines that social fabric at a fundamental level, and it does so whether or not the recipients are financially better off. The evidence offered is the condition of places where work has already disappeared. The deleterious effects of UBI would resemble those seen in areas where unemployment is prevalent: where fewer people work, crime and drug addiction are higher, and family structures are more likely to break down. Those areas are not poor in income alone — they have lost the institution around which daily life and community were organised, which is precisely what a basic income leaves out when it replaces the wage. The distribution of the harm makes it worse. UBI would reduce the incentive to work most in areas already burdened by social problems, so the areas with the deepest social problems would see the sharpest fall in the incentive. Those communities would become even more disconnected from the rest of society, with no corresponding gain in inclusion into any wider community. Because UBI undermines social cohesion in this way — removing what work provides beyond money, and removing it first where least can be spared — UBI is a bad idea.

Context

The financial aspects of UBI are not the only consideration. Stable societies depend on strong social links between their citizens, and UBI could affect those links in meaningful ways.

Premises

Counter-arguments

1. There is little evidence that people stop working once their basic needs are met. In fact, almost all societies show overwhelming evidence in the other direction. The assertion that "income is far from the only meaningful aspect of employment" is a reason why people are likely to continue working with UBI, rather than stop working.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] UBI does not provide all the benefits of employment, so people still need to work to supplement their income. [ P2] When people do not work because they don't have to, they have more time to focus on how to get ahead in life rather than developing dysfunctional behaviors.

Framing

Social cohesion depends on core values; like the idea that wealth is connected to work.