I don't care where anyone stands on the UBI proposal but we should demand a higher quality from a supposedly scholarly news source. This article reads like a first year econ class paper. Nobody who reads this piece who supports UBI will be convinced in any way by these arguments and the comments seem to suggest that this site is entirely an extremely libertarian echo chamber.
The author makes matter-of-fact claims that are not backed by anything -- no data, no argument, no analysis, no citations, nothing. Even if I agreed with the author it's hard to believe him.
As the author progresses it's clear that he actually has a problem with all progressive taxation, social welfare, and most government regulations and actions. It's fine to take this position but it's completely useless in a discussion about regulatory policy. You wouldn't answer a public policy question like, "should we raise the federal minimum wage to $9.25/hr" with, "I deny the authority of the federal government".
Someone in support of UBI is likely fine with all of the listed 'downsides' in general -- arguments that would convince them would be an analysis or data showing that it would be ineffective. A lecture on econ 101 free market fanboyism is exactly the wrong approach to this discussion.
The author makes matter-of-fact claims that are not backed by anything -- no data, no argument, no analysis, no citations, nothing. Even if I agreed with the author it's hard to believe him.
As the author progresses it's clear that he actually has a problem with all progressive taxation, social welfare, and most government regulations and actions. It's fine to take this position but it's completely useless in a discussion about regulatory policy. You wouldn't answer a public policy question like, "should we raise the federal minimum wage to $9.25/hr" with, "I deny the authority of the federal government".
Someone in support of UBI is likely fine with all of the listed 'downsides' in general -- arguments that would convince them would be an analysis or data showing that it would be ineffective. A lecture on econ 101 free market fanboyism is exactly the wrong approach to this discussion.