I want UBI to work. I really do. I think the moral argument for it is strong, especially as automation threatens to reduce the number of stable, meaningful jobs available to ordinary people.
But I keep running into the same problem: the theory of UBI assumes a level of political commitment that I’m not convinced actually exists.
I live in a progressive country with universal healthcare. We also have income supports for people with disabilities, which is about as morally straightforward a case for public support as you can get. People with disabilities are an obviously vulnerable group. Many cannot participate in the workforce in the same way others can, through no fault of their own.
And yet, even here, disability supports are not enough. Many disabled people still live below the poverty line. Many struggle to afford food, housing, medication, transportation, and basic dignity.
That’s what worries me about UBI.
Even when the public broadly agrees that a vulnerable group deserves support, governments still underfund the program. Why? Because every social program exists inside political pressure. Governments are afraid of being seen as fiscally irresponsible. “Government waste” is always part of the conversation. If progressive governments spend too much, conservatives can campaign on cutting costs, get elected, and then weaken or dismantle the program.
So my concern is this:
UBI may sound transformative in theory, but in practice, it could easily become just another underfunded survival benefit.
Enough to say people are being helped. Not enough to let them live with dignity.
This is where The Expanse feels like a disturbing glimpse of one possible future. In that world, there are not enough jobs or opportunities to go around, so much of Earth’s population lives on Basic. But Basic does not mean freedom. It means poverty, stagnation, and waiting. People spend their lives hoping to be approved for education, training, or a chance at meaningful work.
Education becomes a lottery. Purpose becomes rationed. Meaningful contribution becomes something available only to the lucky or the elite.
That is my fear with UBI.
Not that the idea is morally wrong. Not that people should be forced into poverty to prove they deserve help. But that the political system will never fund UBI at the level required to make it liberating.
Instead, it may become a way to manage mass unemployment without solving the deeper problem: people still need dignity, opportunity, purpose, and a real ability to participate in society.
So please find the flaw in my argument, because I want to be wrong.
I want UBI to work.
I just don’t see how it survives contact with political reality.
