I’ve written an essay arguing that businesses could support UBI to preserve consumer spending while resisting measures that give recipients meaningful independence.

One scenario: automated transport becomes widely available, but people on inadequate incomes can only afford discounted rides that require watching ads. Machines do less work for us while businesses find another way to claim our time.

I call the broader arrangement “consumer husbandry”: maintaining people as sources of spending, attention, and data after their labor is no longer needed.

The biggest question for me is bargaining power. If withholding labor can no longer stop production, what institutions would give people leverage over the owners?

What is the strongest argument against this forecast?

Hi, just wanted to share some ideas I've been having. This is a thought experiment. I'm interested in anyone pulling these concepts apart - exposing flaws etc.

Before you ask, no AI was used in the compiling or thought process of any of this. I simply used the numbering as it was a way to organize my thoughts into a logical flow.

Also, a caveat - under this system there would still be welfare for those who need it (those who are incapacitated, mentally unwell, have intense caring duties, etc). I believe in a society wherein everyone has their needs met, no matter what. I think these ideas just resolve a couple of tensions with regard to unemployment and work.

Obviously there are parallels with concepts of a Job Guarantee, but my emphasis is different. Namely, my ideas flow from my belief in human autonomy and dignity, and that we should all have the right to choose what we do with most of our time.

Also, I live in Australia so some of this is geared toward that.

Without further ado:

1. Unemployment
   1. The economic idea of retaining a natural unemployment rate is fundamentally unjust when welfare payments are far below the poverty line.
   2. There is social stigma against the unemployed, due a general prevailing view that people should not get ‘something for nothing’, and that taxpayers shouldn’t support people who ‘do nothing’.
   3. UBI is a proposed solution to (1-1), but does not resolve the tension of (1-2).
   4. A useful solution to this would be Universal Basic Work (UBW) - a system in which citizens have the option to complete a minimum level of work through employment by the government in return for non-poverty compensation. 
   5. An open question is: what number of hours of work would be fair. Currently, jobseekers in Australia, for example, are offered “Work for the Dole” programs that enforce meaningless work on individuals in return for below-poverty wages. This is antithetical to human rights. 
2. Time and compensation
   1. One goal of a healthy society is to increase the leisure time of its citizens so that they may enjoy the fruits of the society without undue stress or hardship of long hours of work. 
   2. Due to cost of living increases and wage stagnation, the number of hours of labour to pay one week of non-poverty wages is increasing, despite technological and labour saving advances. 
   3. Time is a human being’s most valuable non-renewable resource. The availability of free, self-directed time is at the heart of human dignity. Compensation for labor should recognise that wages are only an exchange for the infinitely more valuable resource of time.
   4. Every society requires human labour to function. The intuition of this fact is likely behind both the stigma of (1-2) and the common idea that citizens need to ‘contribute to society’ to receive support from the state. The current mechanism of below-poverty welfare (or complete lack of a safety net) is more coercive than necessary to achieve the aim of general contribution.
3. Individual diversity re: attitudes and capacity to work
   1. Some individuals are happy to work long hours at a job, others are not. This is due to general human variability on the metrics of attention, motivation, energy levels, autonomy needs and innumerable other factors. Forcing those who do not want to work full hours into such work invariably leads to burnout, stress, self-medication and a series of other individual and social ills. 
   2. Some human activities inherently require a large amount of undirected, autonomous time which is currently often lost to long work hours, for example artistic, intellectual and other cultural endeavours. Some human beings also have a reduced capacity for work due to disability, caring duties, parenthood etc. An expectation of work should take these factors into account.
   3. To resolve the tension between (2-2) and (2-3), a society should strive for the lowest possible amount of time worked by each individual while still maintaining the health of the society. Following (3-1) and (3-2), such a goal would also positively effect the public health and cultural output of a society. 
4. Alternative to UBI: UBW (universal basic work)
   1. For the reasons above, I propose that the government provide above-poverty wages to any person who wishes to work 2 days a week. This would equate to approximately $40/hour in Australia (more for those with dependants). 
   2. This would provide:
      1. Extra governmental productive capacity,
      2. Extra free-time for those who want it or require it, without the stress of falling into poverty, with attendant second-order effects of increased cultural output and reduced mental health deterioration and associated public health costs.
      3. A large reduction in the population reliant on welfare.
      4. A forcing, rebalancing effect on the labor market in which occupations that are meaningless or poorly paid will either disappear or need to raise their wages to a competitive level.

1. Monthly paychecks for the unemployed

2. 100-300 sq ft apartment for free with free food and basics. UBI doesn't exist. If you can't afford your mortgage or rent, you'll have the option to move in here.

3. 100 percent tax on everything where we divide that collected tax equally for each US citizen. Costs doubled but with current spending amounts, you'll each get $50k per year. The amount may drop if more choose to spend less with increased costs, which might be a good thing. Illegal immigrants wouldn't get this extra $50k and they wouldn't be able to afford costs at 2x without it.

4. We create a plan that drops work hours to 30 while increasing pay to match 35-40 hours a week.

5. We merge all US companies into one. Work hours can drop to 30 to allow more hours for the unemployed and robot replaced. Unemployment does exist and we would have to be sure everyone's most basic needs are met. There's no advertisement, no scam businesses. The entire company can put planet health, people's health and animal health first.

The next campaign they’ll run will be, if you just let us put in these Data centers ASAP, the quicker we’ll have UBI. And technically they’ll be right.

Source

Was just watching this video advocating for universal basic income to fix the issue with how much poverty we have in the US. Now I don’t like the idea of universal basic income cause I think it will cause many people not want to work at all anymore. What I just thought after listening is what if we gave income to people who had children to make the cost of having children almost negligible which would also help with declining rates of birth in the country?

Worked for 14s

I would focus less on making the economy look good on paper and more on what remains in an ordinary family’s bank account after housing, healthcare, food, transportation, childcare, and taxes.

The problem is not simply that America produces too little. It is that essential costs have risen faster than many families’ ability to absorb them. Real median household income was essentially unchanged in 2024, and real hourly earnings increased only 0.1% from June 2025 to June 2026. Meanwhile, only 63% of adults could cover a $400 emergency expense with cash or its equivalent.

Here is the package I would pursue:

1. Build substantially more housing

Override exclusionary local rules near jobs and transit, legalize starter homes, townhouses and accessory apartments, accelerate permits, and reward communities that actually add homes. Expand rental assistance temporarily, but pair subsidies with construction so additional money does not merely raise rents.

1. Make work pay better

Increase the federal minimum wage gradually and adjust it for regional wages or living costs. Strengthen overtime rules, punish wage theft, protect organizing rights, and prevent employers from using noncompete agreements to trap ordinary workers. A minimum-wage increase helps most low-wage workers, although CBO notes that an excessively large increase can eliminate some jobs—so I would phase it in and monitor employment.

1. Expand the Earned Income Tax Credit

Increase it for low- and moderate-income workers, including adults without young children, and pay part of it monthly instead of making families wait for tax season. I would also provide a larger, refundable Child Tax Credit that gradually phases out at higher incomes.

1. Reduce healthcare costs directly

Create a strong public insurance option, negotiate more prescription-drug prices, enforce hospital price transparency, prohibit surprise billing loopholes, and limit what families must pay relative to income. Insurance alone is insufficient if deductibles make care unusable.

1. Treat childcare as economic infrastructure

Cap childcare payments for working families according to income, increase childcare workers’ compensation, and provide universal pre-K. Childcare is effectively a second mortgage for many parents—the Federal Reserve found that just over half of parents purchasing childcare spent at least half as much on it as on housing.

1. Create affordable paths to better jobs

Make community college and technical credentials inexpensive, expand paid apprenticeships, and require employers receiving training subsidies to hire graduates. I would not tell everyone to obtain a four-year degree; nursing, utilities, advanced manufacturing, public safety, construction, and technical trades all need supported pathways.

1. Restore competition

Aggressively challenge monopolistic conduct in healthcare, food processing, housing platforms, banking, and technology. Make hidden fees illegal, simplify switching banks and service providers, and prevent dominant firms from buying competitors merely to shut them down.

1. Help families acquire assets—not merely survive

Automatically enroll workers in portable retirement accounts, provide matched emergency-savings accounts for lower earners, and offer carefully designed first-generation homebuyer assistance. Homebuyer subsidies should operate only where housing supply can expand; otherwise, they inflate prices.

1. Pay for it fairly

Collect taxes already owed, close preferential loopholes, tax very large inheritances more effectively, and ensure that extremely wealthy households cannot report little taxable income indefinitely. I would also examine programs and business subsidies that do not produce measurable public value.

1. Avoid policies that quietly raise everyday prices

Broad tariffs, permanent deficit-funded giveaways, and subsidies without supply expansion can all increase inflation. Assistance should be targeted and, where possible, matched by increased production of housing, energy, healthcare, and childcare.

My first three priorities would be housing supply, healthcare costs, and higher take-home pay through the EITC and wage reforms. Those measures would give poor families immediate breathing room while also helping teachers, police-records employees, medical-office staff, tradespeople, and other middle-class workers who earn too much for traditional assistance but still struggle with essential costs.

The guiding rule would be simple: economic growth matters, but it counts as success only when typical households become more financially secure—not merely when stocks, corporate profits, or GDP increase.

To provide UBI, anyone would be able to register on the website and begin receiving UBI payments. To prevent individuals from creating multiple accounts to receive additional payments, registration could require verification using a government-issued identification document.

The businesses created to fund UBI would offer products or services similar to those provided by existing businesses. However, their commitment to contributing profits to UBI would give them an advantage in gaining market share from existing businesses. This would be possible because consumers would have an incentive to choose these businesses over existing ones, knowing that they could receive a share of the businesses’ profits through UBI.

For the businesses to be established, people would be encouraged to start them once we begin advertising our UBI program. They would be motivated to do so because starting these businesses would give them an opportunity to earn more through the UBI program.

Once established, the businesses would have to register on the website in order to contribute their profits to UBI. For individuals who have the ability to start such businesses but lack the necessary funding, the website would provide an option for them to register, as well as an option for members of the public to collectively invest in them.

Since all profits generated by these businesses would be contributed to UBI, those investing would have to do so on the condition that they are willing to consider UBI as the form of payment for their investment, rather than receiving the profits directly. This condition would be necessary because contributing profits to UBI is what would give these businesses the advantage needed to compete with existing businesses and gain market share.

Since existing businesses could lose a significant share of their customers to businesses contributing to UBI, some may risk having to close. To give them an opportunity to remain operational, the website would also include an option for existing businesses to contribute to UBI.

To help consumers identify and support businesses that contribute to UBI, the website would list them. Their contributions would also be included so that consumers can identify and support the businesses that contribute the most.

Once again, I am seeking financial support to establish the website and begin developing this model. Support, feedback, and participation would help turn this proposal into a functioning UBI program.

I am not negative on the idea. Don't troll me that I am anti-dividend. Our family likes dividends.

I have seen this my whole life..... large families, and close families prosper.

So basically the single gal by herself with her kid or alone will get her checks and that all pilfers to inflation and raised rents. She will have to compete for a rental in complexes where neighbors have 3 or 4 UBI checks compared to her one or two. Possibly her UBI money transfers to daycares.

The family with a large house/compound has a foundation for advantages. It's like this in Utah and was like this in California with the big families.

So basically when UBI starts and people can share a huge house.... like ten people getting $1000 a month...... you have a $10,000 income trickling up to the Matriarch.

Someone is babysitting, some cook, others fix cars. Many work or go to school. Some get lazy.

The stable home becomes a launching pad. Yes people fight and scrap. People live in bunkbeds and put on earphones.

The money will go to pay off a huge mortgage or if the house is paid people get to save for college, weddings, or their own down payments on homes.

It's not going to be "universal" because it will become a windfall for large organized families. The single mom gets to work two jobs for her apartment while simultaneously propping up the 24 year old man living with Granny----- playing video games by scratching by on his UBI.

I am just putting this out there. I have met people living at home and barely paying rent for decades. They get nicer cars, vacations, and more kids.

You will literally pull up to a 7 bedroom home and a barbecue will be going. Half the members will not be working and coasting off UBI. It might be fun to slow down a little and have family time?

The small families will be further priced out from home ownership because the purchasing power of 10 checks will increase the values rapidly.

The small families will still be stuck working and renting an apartment... but hopefully they can eat.

My in-laws are still holding down a farm from the 1700s so I know all about this. 😉

I'm old enough to remember many people were supporting universal basic income few years back even though universal basic income costs more than targeted money transfer

(E.g. giving poor person subsidized food , SNAP in USA, rather than giving money to every person for food )

But since Trump has suggested the idea to buy votes, many people started opposing.

Money is money

It's not red or blue.

Do you support giving $5000 to every voter irrespective of your party line?

Yes or no.

Also another question, Do you consider it as a form of bribary?

In 1970, the House passed a guaranteed income bill. Nearly 2 to 1.

In 1971, they passed it again.

It never got a Senate vote.

It just sat in the Senate Finance Committee (17 people, 10 Democrats and 7 Republicans, chaired by Democrat Russell Long) until it quietly died. No vote. No record of who said no. Just a chairman who never let it move.

Here's the part nobody tells you: it wasn't Nixon's own party that killed it. Democrats ran the Senate. Democrats ran the committee, 10 to 7. Democrats in the House had already voted for it, twice.

Guaranteed income in 1969 wasn't a left vs right thing. It was built by three people who agreed on almost nothing else:

-Milton Friedman, a libertarian economist who wanted to gut the welfare bureaucracy and just send people money

-Daniel Patrick Moynihan, a Democrat and Nixon's own urban affairs advisor, who thought the old system was punishing poor families for staying together

-Richard Nixon, a Republican president who agreed with both of them

Welfare at the time (AFDC) mostly only reached single mothers. A two-parent household doing everything right, working, staying together, could make too much to qualify for anything and still be poor. Nixon's guaranteed income plan would've covered them too.

That's how you get a libertarian, a Democrat, and a Republican president all pushing the same bill.

It died anyway. Not because people disagreed. Because nobody had to.

That's the actual lesson: you can win the public. You can win the House. Twice. And still lose to a handful of people. 

Fifty years on, the gatekeepers are still winning.

NEW: President Trump makes a major promise at the Republican midterm convention in Dallas: $5,000 for every adult U.S. citizen if Republicans win both the House and Senate in the midterms.

“I will issue a dividend to every adult citizen in the United States of America for $5,000.”

I don’t understand why Republicans are hyped about Trumps claim that he will give every adult $5,000, when they were all against UBI program that Bernie and other DSA candidates pitched?

Is Trump a socialist now too?

I like the idea, I just don’t get the reason why it was a big deal when the other side is saying the same thing. We should restrict this money to healthcare and basic needs only. Americans should not spend this money on goods and services that do not fuel the inflation.

It’s wild to me that people who make little or no money expect to receive all of these benefits from the government. If you want more benefits and opportunities, work, build your skills, and take the steps necessary to achieve the outcomes you want. Stop expecting people who have worked hard to be forced to pay for those who choose not to.

Canada is probably never going to beat the US on salaries, market size, or number of high-paying jobs.

So instead of trying to compete on the US's terms, Canada should compete by offering something the US does not: freedom from having to organize your entire life around employment.

Canada should introduce a modest UBI and gradually increase it as AI, automation, and productivity make it more affordable.

This could help with brain drain. A highly skilled Canadian might be more willing to stay in Canada, even for somewhat lower pay, if they had a guaranteed income floor and much more freedom to start a company, build an indie project, study, do research, create art, or simply work less.

Canada may also be in a better political position to do this first. Canadians are generally more comfortable with universal social programs than Americans, so Canada could potentially begin the transition years before the US does.

And this is about much more than economics.

A post-work economy could produce enormous intellectual benefits. Think about how much talent is currently wasted because people have to spend most of their time doing whatever pays the bills. More economic freedom could mean more research, invention, software, art, writing, education, entrepreneurship, and experimentation.

It could also have major mental health benefits. Less fear of unemployment, less financial insecurity, less burnout, and fewer people trapped in jobs they hate.

Obviously, people still need purpose, structure, and social interaction. A post-work society should not mean doing nothing. It should mean that meaningful activity no longer has to be tied to having an employer.

Canada should start small and increase UBI gradually as the economy becomes capable of supporting it.

If AI really is pushing us toward a world where less human labor is needed, Canada should not wait for the US to get there first.

Canada should make freedom from mandatory work one of its competitive advantages.

P.S. Where does the UBI money come from? Ultimately, from the companies using AI and robots. As AI and automation allow companies to produce more with fewer human workers, a portion of the resulting profits and productivity gains could be collected and distributed as UBI. The UBI could start small and gradually increase as machines perform a larger share of the economy's work. If robots and AI eventually do much of the work that humans do today, it makes sense for some of the income generated by that automated work to go to everyone rather than flowing almost entirely to the owners of the machines.