Basic Universal Income (BUI)

[iNow]

56 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

I disagree with this on a couple different fronts. For starters I do not like the idea of increasing sprawl. I think have people in the large cities is superior as it pools the tax revenue and resources which allows for mass public works like transportation, Academies, and etc. Dispersing people out isn't the answer. Better infrastructure and city planning in the answer. Secondly I do not believe people living in larger cities like NYC, Philly, San Fran, and etc are trapped. I think it is the people living in rural areas that are trapped. People living in rural areas are the ones unable to afford a move to larger areas and often lack the experience and education to compete if they did.

You seem to be responding to an argument I didn’t make. I spoke of high versus low cost of living environments, not cities versus rural spaces, or sprawl versus housing density. 

As a clear example, one could move from San Francisco to Austin or from Miami to Des Moines and significantly lower their cost of living while still being in a city. These folks don’t need to relocate to a corn field in Nebraska or to the hills of Appalachia to lower their cost of living. 

That’s where my comment was focused and why it remains accurate. Was speaking of cost of living, not housing density, services, or city versus rural, etc. Your disagreement is tangential to what I actually shared and I suspect we agree more than it may appear. 

[Ten oz]

1 minute ago, dimreepr said:

Well, you did start this thread, which, BTW, seemed to be a diversion from my argument in the previous.

Accusing me of a diversion and insisting I have said work=meaning doesn't make a case for BUI. You appear to be focusing your posts on me rather than the topic. No amount of proving anything about me is an effective agrument for BUI.

I have posted what my concerns are regarding BUI including the data which influences my opinions. What else can I do? You have not provided any data. Just philosophical positions. To ever have a chance to become a reality BUI will need to specifics which can be implimented as policy. 

[iNow]

1 hour ago, Ten oz said:

People living in rural areas are the ones unable to afford a move to larger areas and often lack the experience and education to compete if they did.

This seems to add to the point I was making, not subtract from or refute it. My commentary has largely been about how UBI increases mobility and provides flexibility in situations where it’s lacking for so very many today. 

[Ten oz]

4 minutes ago, iNow said:

As a clear example, one could move from San Francisco to Austin or from Miami to Des Moines and significantly lower their cost of living while still being in a city. These folks don’t need to relocate to a corn field in Nebraska or to the hills of Appalachia to lower their cost of living. 

This is already possible and happening. 

Quote

 

Bottom line: The Austin metro saw an annual net gain of nearly 3,000 metro-dwelling Californians. That’s close to 15,000 California transplants during the entire five-year period — or roughly the same number of people who live in the Austin suburb of Taylor. Put another way, the Austin area gained about eight Californians per day.

http://austin.culturemap.com/news/city-life/12-2-16-californians-moving-to-austin-census-data/

 

 

[iNow]

4 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

This is already possible and happening. 

Exactly. I’m aware, and that’s why I raised it to clarify my point. 

Guess what, though.... There are thousands in SFO who can’t afford to move to Texas. UBI would provide them opportunity and mobility. 

That’s all. 

[Ten oz]

6 minutes ago, iNow said:

This seems to add to the point I was making, not subtract from or refute it. My commentary has largely been about how UBI increases mobility and provides flexibility in situations where it’s lacking for so very many today. 

Yes, increases mobility and flexibility for some while further repressing the same for others. My 2 main concerns regarding BUI are that immigrants and minorities will be forced into low paying poor work environment labor markets careating a defacto caste system akin to what we see in the wealthy  mid east OPEC countries and BUI pulls energy away from fixing the safety nets we have like Social Security and the ACA.

7 minutes ago, iNow said:

Exactly. I’m aware, and that’s why I raised it to clarify my point. 

Guess what, though.... There are thousands in SFO who can’t afford to move to Texas. UBI would provide them opportunity and mobility. 

That’s all. 

It would provide them that opportunity until cost of living increased to a level that eased the benefit. You live in Austin so I won't waste your time with any links but the cost of living has been rising in Austin over the last several years. 

[iNow]

3 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

BUI pulls energy away from fixing the safety nets we have like Social Security and the ACA.

I’m reminded of the evolution versus abiogenesis conversations. They’re different things which shouldn’t be conflated. Universal pre-K, Medicare for all, tax funded community colleges, and all manner of other things also don’t fix social security, etc.

These are separate issues and, while overlapping in various ways, should be treated separately as part of a larger project or strategy. There need to be multiple parallel work streams to fix the various issues we face in society, and I reject the idea that focusing on one prevents us from focusing on others.

Acknowledging the obvious and rampant dysfunction in our modern governance, we can, in fact, successfully walk and chew bubble gum at the same time. 

[Ten oz]

5 minutes ago, iNow said:

I’m reminded of the evolution versus abiogenesis conversations. They’re different things which shouldn’t be conflated. Universal pre-K, Medicare for all, tax funded community colleges, and all manner of other things also don’t fix social security, etc.

These are separate issues and, while overlapping in various ways, should be treated separately as part of a larger project or strategy. There need to be multiple parallel work streams to fix the various issues we face in society, and I reject the idea that focusing on one prevents us from focusing on others.

Acknowledging the obvious and rampant dysfunction in our modern governance, we can, in fact, successfully walk and chew bubble gum at the same time. 

If BUI were to be pursued I think we all know it would be exclusively from the left. One needs to only look at the unnecessary amount of damage friendly fire between Sanders and Clinton did in 2016 for an example of the importance of maintaining clear policy focus. Not just that but fixing Soc Sec, the ACA, and so on is more obtainable, inmy opinion, that creating a system from scratch. 

[dimreepr]

4 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

If BUI were to be pursued I think we all know it would be exclusively from the left.

Right...

[CharonY]

1 hour ago, Ten oz said:

I believe it does hinder them. It deepens the cycle where citizens refuse to work in labor or sanitation and enact policies that force other populations of people into those fields. 

If you wanted to enact policies to counteract that, you would effectively have to ban or severely limit immigration. Let me explain: according to research on the impact if immigration, including unskilled labour, the effect was not a direct competition in the job market. I.e. immigrants are not taking away jobs from citizens or even depressing wages (at least not universally). What ends up happening is that there is a) an increase in the overall job market (due to demands of a larger population) and b) there is a re-allocation of the citizen workforce. Essentially immigrant workers take over the low-paying jobs but seem to open up other opportunities for the citizens (including immigrants that became citizens or PRs). 

I.e. the effect that you fear that would come from UBI is already happening as a direct consequence of immigration of unskilled workers. It does not seem like a good argument against UBI specifically. Moreover, it seems that you assume that UBI would only go to citizens. However, if it is used to replace welfare income, it would most likely have to be available for all legal residents, who would otherwise be eligible for benefits. 

 

[Ten oz]

19 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Right...

Right, the same left who currently controls zero branches of govt and minority of state legislators or governorships. I don't see how we can pursue this discussion while completely ignoring all the steps which would be required to make it a reality. 

[ALine]

8 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

Right, the same left who currently controls zero branches of govt and minority of state legislators or governorships. I don't see how we can pursue this discussion while completely ignoring all the steps which would be required to make it a reality. 

 

32 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Right...

This is a discussion concerning UBI and not political viewpoints. That just starts un-needed emotional associations. How about we stick with UBI and consider it's possibilities of affecting future and current generations.

[dimreepr]

5 minutes ago, ALine said:

This is a discussion concerning UBI and not political viewpoints. That just starts un-needed emotional associations. How about we stick with UBI and consider it's possibilities of affecting future and current generations.

 

We can try...

[Ten oz]

24 minutes ago, CharonY said:

If you wanted to enact policies to counteract that, you would effectively have to ban or severely limit immigration. Let me explain: according to research on the impact if immigration, including unskilled labour, the effect was not a direct competition in the job market. I.e. immigrants are not taking away jobs from citizens or even depressing wages (at least not universally). What ends up happening is that there is a) an increase in the overall job market (due to demands of a larger population) and b) there is a re-allocation of the citizen workforce. Essentially immigrant workers take over the low-paying jobs but seem to open up other opportunities for the citizens (including immigrants that became citizens or PRs). 

We wouldn't have to end immigration we would have to have pathways to citizenship. You are correct about immigrants being willing to take lower paying jobs. However their kids don't necessarily want to do the same. That is part of what the DACA fight is about. Many children of immigrants are in college now hoping for equal opportunities. Without citizenship they wont get those opportunitiea and will be forced into low income jobs. We aren't merely talking about immigrants either. Millions of citizens are forced down the ladder as well from court convictions. Living in an over policied community is a huge burden. 

24 minutes ago, CharonY said:

 

I.e. the effect that you fear that would come from UBI is already happening as a direct consequence of immigration of unskilled workers. It does not seem like a good argument against UBI specifically. Moreover, it seems that you assume that UBI would only go to citizens. However, if it is used to replace welfare income, it would most likely have to be available for all legal residents, who would otherwise be eligible for benefits

I see it as worsening the situation. We struggle to deal with things like DACA now and giving children of immigrants raise here citizenship wouldn't come with an income. Providing the bulk of people a basic income while freezing tens of millions out would leave those tens of millions at an even greater deficit. Even if cases where all things were equal in terms of hours worked, type of work, and salary the folks not receiving BUI would be poorer. At least today an immigrant working at a McDonald's atleast has the same relative income to their peers at McDonald's within their communities. That wouldn't be true with BUI.

Additionally no one has really outlined how it would be paid for exactly. 

[CharonY]

7 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

We wouldn't have to end immigration we would have to have pathways to citizenship. You are correct about immigrants being willing to take lower paying jobs. However their kids don't necessarily want to do the same. That is part of what the DACA fight is about. Many children of immigrants are in college now hoping for equal opportunities. Without citizenship they wont get those opportunitiea and will be forced into low income jobs. We aren't merely talking about immigrants either. Millions of citizens are forced down the ladder as well from court convictions. Living in an over policied community is a huge burden. 

I think you are conflating a huge set of very different issues here. You seem to imply that only or predominantly undocumented immigrants are taking over these jobs. However,  this is only true for certain sub-sectors. As a whole, the majority of low-income jobs are filled by regular immigrants. Also, you seem to be under the impression that they are stuck in these jobs forever. In fact there is generational increase in income among immigrants (documented as well as undocumented).  The limitations are less about citizenship, but rather legal status. Documented immigrants can have decent jobs without ever getting citizenship.

What really is happening with regard to immigration and low-skill worker is that over time the children move up to better jobs (as indicated by higher educational attainment and higher average income over time) and the pool is replenished with new 1st gen immigrants. DACA would not change that aspect.

It is true that undocumented immigrants face barriers that will pose hard limits, but I do not see a possible connection to UBI. Yes there should be a solution for undocumented immigrants in good standing but it looks like an entirely different discussion. In fact, I would think a separate thread would be far more beneficial to an ordered discussion as it seems that this thread is jumping from topic to topic with only the most strenuous connection (other that it is all about economics).

[Bender]

2 hours ago, Ten oz said:

If BUI were to be pursued I think we all know it would be exclusively from the left.

Utter nonsense.

It was Nixon who came closest to implementing a BI. There was also a republican major (I forgot which city) who built free appartments for all homeless.

The funny thing about UBI is that the idea finds support and opposition across the entire political spectrum.

While I agree with you that you raise important questions and that UBI on its own won't solve the problems of our current system, you left an important issue unanswered. I provided data that there is a decoupling between productivity and job creation and gave examples of why I think that will get worse in the future. How do you suggest we deal with a job shortage in a system that requires people to have one to live a decent life?

[Ten oz]

1 hour ago, CharonY said:

I think you are conflating a huge set of very different issues here. You seem to imply that only or predominantly undocumented immigrants are taking over these jobs. However,  this is only true for certain sub-sectors. As a whole, the majority of low-income jobs are filled by regular immigrants. Also, you seem to be under the impression that they are stuck in these jobs forever. In fact there is generational increase in income among immigrants (documented as well as undocumented).  The limitations are less about citizenship, but rather legal status. Documented immigrants can have decent jobs without ever getting citizenship.

What really is happening with regard to immigration and low-skill worker is that over time the children move up to better jobs (as indicated by higher educational attainment and higher average income over time) and the pool is replenished with new 1st gen immigrants. DACA would not change that aspect.

It is true that undocumented immigrants face barriers that will pose hard limits, but I do not see a possible connection to UBI. Yes there should be a solution for undocumented immigrants in good standing but it looks like an entirely different discussion. In fact, I would think a separate thread would be far more beneficial to an ordered discussion as it seems that this thread is jumping from topic to topic with only the most strenuous connection (other that it is all about economics).

I have also repeatedly mentioned the criminal justice system and its impact of an individuals ability to qualify for quality levels of employment. I am referencing ALL the various ways people are disenfranchised. My point about DACA was just one example. I used it because they are easily identifiable group we are all familiar with. My point is not exclusive to immigrants. There is true income inequality in the U.S. in my opinion and I am concerned something like BUI would make it worse. Sure second generation immigrants do better but relative to what? Hispanic and Black people have been in the U.S. since its founding yet still earn significantly less money and have significantly less median net worth. 

Quote

 

The income of households headed by blacks has persistently lagged behind that of white households since the U.S. Census Bureau began collecting these data in the late 1960s. In 2014, median black household income was about $43,300, while white household income was about $71,300. 8 By comparison, 20 years prior, black household income was about $37,800 compared with $63,600 among white households. And in 1967, the first year for which data are available, median black household income was $24,700, compared with $44,700 among white households. 9

Household heads with higher levels of formal education tend to have higher household incomes. However, the black-white gap in income occurs across all educational levels. For example, the median adjusted household income among black householders with at least a bachelor’s degree was $82,300 in 2014, while the income of college-educated white householders was $106,600.

The median adjusted income for households headed by Hispanics in 2014 was about the same as that of households headed by blacks – $43,300. The income gap between Hispanics and whites has also persisted over the past four decades; Hispanic median household income ($34,000) was 67% that of whites in 1970, the first year that data were available for Hispanics. 10 By 2014, it was 61% of white household income. Conversely, the gap between Hispanics and blacks has narrowed. In 1970, Hispanic household income was about 20% higher than that of blacks, but that gap has more or less disappeared over the past two decades.

 

Quote

 

Blacks are more than twice as likely as whites to live in poverty. 11 In 2014, about a quarter (26%) of blacks were poor, compared with 10% of whites. The black-white poverty gap has narrowed somewhat since the mid-1970s, when 30% of blacks were living below the poverty line – a proportion nearly four times the share of whites living in poverty (8%).

Hispanics, too, were more than twice as likely as whites to be living in poverty in 2014 – 24% were. While Hispanic poverty has fluctuated over the years, today’s rate is similar to what it was in 1974 (23%).

http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2016/06/27/1-demographic-trends-and-economic-well-being/

 

This is why I have asked for specifics regarding who would receive BUI. With Soc Sec people receive what they have earned via contribution. So denying people Soc Sec is debated much. One only gets what they put in. With BUI that wouldn't be the case. Would we be giving it to felons, people on probation, registered sex offenders, naturalized citizens, green card holders, people with one of the hundred types of visas, people who are in collections, people who owe the IRS, people who have outstanding local fines and penalties, and etc, etc? Because if the answer is no to any combination of those groups we are talking about tens of millions of people. 

[CharonY]

So technically you are talking about disadvantaged segments of the population and the impact of BUI on them, which, does not seem to be a different discussion than the overall pros and cons of BUI. As noted, the impact of BUI on them would dependent a lot on how it is implemented what levels are being proposed etc. Of course you could in theory propose a model which would systematically disadvantage certain folks (like many current policies still do). But again, that would be a criticism on the implementation not on BUI itself. It is akin to saying that the criminal justice system is enforced unequal and thus we should not have one.

[Ten oz]

38 minutes ago, CharonY said:

So technically you are talking about disadvantaged segments of the population and the impact of BUI on them, which, does not seem to be a different discussion than the overall pros and cons of BUI. As noted, the impact of BUI on them would dependent a lot on how it is implemented what levels are being proposed etc. Of course you could in theory propose a model which would systematically disadvantage certain folks (like many current policies still do). But again, that would be a criticism on the implementation not on BUI itself. It is akin to saying that the criminal justice system is enforced unequal and thus we should not have one.

Yes, which is why I have asked about implementation. Specifically who would receive it and how it would be paid for. For example if it was done ACA style where states could opt out or al la carte various taxes and fees I think it goes without saying some states, specifically in the South, would aggressively write in local policies to disenfranchise groups of people. 

3 hours ago, Bender said:

Utter nonsense.

 

Really?

Quote

 

In a Gallup and Northeastern University poll released Monday, 48 percent of those surveyed said they would support a universal basic income (UBI) compared to 52 percent who said they would oppose it.

There was a large difference in responses based on respondents' political identification.

Of respondents who said they are Democrats, 65 percent said they would support UBI, while only 28 percent of Republicans said they would support the measure.

http://thehill.com/policy/technology/375587-gallup-poll-americans-split-on-giving-a-universal-basic-income-to-workers

 

 

3 hours ago, Bender said:

While I agree with you that you raise important questions and that UBI on its own won't solve the problems of our current system, you left an important issue unanswered. I provided data that there is a decoupling between productivity and job creation and gave examples of why I think that will get worse in the future. How do you suggest we deal with a job shortage in a system that requires people to have one to live a decent life?

I addressed this in the Automation taking jobs threads. 

 

 

[CharonY]

28 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

Yes, which is why I have asked about implementation. Specifically who would receive it and how it would be paid for. For example if it was done ACA style where states could opt out or al la carte various taxes and fees I think it goes without saying some states, specifically in the South, would aggressively write in local policies to disenfranchise groups of people. 

In that case, how about a perfectly even distribution for everyone typically eligible for benefits, including documented foreign workers after one year of employment? Perhaps with a cap on high incomes.

Alternatively, how about a negative income tax as a similar tool?

Edited July 5, 2018 by CharonY

[Ten oz]

37 minutes ago, CharonY said:

In that case, how about a perfectly even distribution for everyone typically eligible for benefits, including documented foreign workers after one year of employment? Perhaps with a cap on high incomes.

Alternatively, how about a negative income tax as a similar tool?

All people legally eligible to work in the U.S. with caps on high income might be something I can get behind. There would need to be safety policies in place to protect against predator lending. However I still wonder if raising the minimum wage, providing free high education (college or trade school), and maintaining ongoing infrastructure projects as federal jobs programs (rather than our military) wouldn't be more effective?

Also money is relative. Its buying power easily manipulated and interest rates can be adjusted to slow or increase it flow. Money placed into individual saving accounts by the govt in peoples names they can draw from (Al Gore's locked box proposal) may have a stimulus effect as that money would increase the on hand money in accounts for banks where as an increase in monthly income via wage increase or BUI may slow growth over all as interest rates would be raised to combat inflation. I honestly do not know and would need to see it all projected out.

I definitely wouldn't want Soc Sec gutted to make way for BUI. Nor would I what BUI to be considered a replacement to govt tuition assistance program or Healthcare. Soc Sec is an earned program we know works when money isn't being shaved from it and tuition and healthcare costs can far exceed that which BUI would provide.  

[iNow]

8 hours ago, Ten oz said:

There is true income inequality in the U.S. in my opinion and I am concerned something like BUI would make it worse.

I want to ensure I’m clear on this point specifically.

I have the impression that a UBI would alleviate some of the toxic effects of income inequality, more specifically poverty, by providing a floor or common baseline minimum income to all. We’d still see haves and have-nots, but essentially zero have-nothing’s. 

You raised a concern, however, about UBI exacerbating inequality and I’m not easily comprehending the underlying reasons for that. 

Are you suggesting that there will be some populations not eligible for UBI and hence they’d fall ever farther behind on the income spectrum, or something else?

If the former, then I suspect those challenges could be overcome with intelligently architected legislation, but again... I’m not confident I’m clear on this specific point you’re making. Can you help clarify and accept my apologies for being daft?

[Bender]

7 hours ago, Ten oz said:

Really?

Yes. Your survey shows that 65% of the right and even 28% of the extreme right supports it.

 

7 hours ago, Ten oz said:

I addressed this in the Automation taking jobs thread

I'm only following this one. Where can I find it?

6 hours ago, Ten oz said:

Soc Sec is an earned program we know works

No it doesn't. Even European countries with the best social sec have problems with poverty.

The Soc Sec I know relies on lots of control and actively discourages people to work because even a small part time job will loose them their benefits while now they have to pay for transportation and day care. Starting a business with initially small and uncertain revenue is completely out of the question.

Moreover, our Soc Sec system pushes millions of people in useless jobs, some of which were created specifically to keep them occupied, and have an excuse for paying them. It also gives employers the power to exploit people and unions the power to screw everyone. 

My approach to UBI is from the right: more freedom to quit an abusive job, and less government control.

[Ten oz]

5 hours ago, Bender said:

I'm only following this one. Where can I find it?

https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/115225-is-automation-taking-our-jobs/

5 hours ago, Bender said:

The Soc Sec I know relies on lots of control and actively discourages people to work because even a small part time job will loose them their benefits while now they have to pay for transportation and day care. Starting a business with initially small and uncertain revenue is completely out of the question.

Moreover, our Soc Sec system pushes millions of people in useless jobs, some of which were created specifically to keep them occupied, and have an excuse for paying them. It also gives employers the power to exploit people and unions the power to screw everyone. 

The Soc Sec I know is the single best reducer of poverty in the U.S. there is or has been. Before Soc Sec back in the late 20's early 30's over have of all elderly people lived in poverty.  

Quote

 

Social Security benefits play a vital role in reducing poverty in every state.  WITHOUT SOCIAL SECURITY, 22.1 MILLION MORE AMERICANS WOULD BE POOR.Without Social Security, 22.1 million more Americans would be poor, according to the latest available Census data.  Although most of those whom Social Security keeps out of poverty are elderly, nearly a third are under age 65, including 1.1 million children.  (See Table 1.)  Social Security is particularly important for elderly women and minority families, who have fewer retirement resources outside of Social Security.  Depending on their design, reductions in Social Security benefits could significantly increase poverty, particularly among the elderly.

https://www.cbpp.org/research/social-security/social-security-keeps-22-million-americans-out-of-poverty-a-state-by-state

 

 

[Ten oz]

6 hours ago, iNow said:

I have the impression that a UBI would alleviate some of the toxic effects of income inequality, more specifically poverty, by providing a floor or common baseline minimum income to all. We’d still see haves and have-nots, but essentially zero have-nothing’s. 

You raised a concern, however, about UBI exacerbating inequality and I’m not easily comprehending the underlying reasons for that. 

Are you suggesting that there will be some populations not eligible for UBI and hence they’d fall ever farther behind on the income spectrum, or something else?

If the former, then I suspect those challenges could be overcome with intelligently architected legislation, but again... I’m not confident I’m clear on this specific point you’re making. Can you help clarify and accept my apologies for being daft?

Like any policies UBI would need to be negotiated and passed by Congress. No proposal, especially progressive ones, remain totally unchanged in Congress. So whatever the best people proposal one has in their mind at this moment it is fair to say what would be delivered would be worse. So my concern is that groups citing religious, moral, ethical, and etc concerns would craft rules making millions ineligible to receive UBI. It is easy for me to imagine  Conservatives demanding that felons or registered sex offenders not be eligible. As it exists today there have been rumblings about changing our law defining citizenship. Of course the anti immigrant right wouldn't make an argument against Naturalized citizens and Green Card holders receiving the entitlement. Then there is the argument about abortion....will a person be allow to spend their income on anything they want: alcohol, cigarettes, abortions?

We could potentially end up with tens of millions of working age people, primarily  minorities, ineligible for UBI. The relative average median income would increased for those receiving UBI but the disenfranchised groups would fall further behind and be forced into undesirable labor markets those who receive UBI we simply refuse to consider. We would basically be lifting up the middle class on the backs of the poor.

I understand the appeal among middle class younger people. UBI for any young person born into a comfortable suburb would be enough for them to just roommate up with their bros and pursue college, starting a business, finding the ideal job, or whatever. I am concerned that the cost of that flexibility and mobility for middle class kids will come at the price of faux indentured servitude for others. Lets not forget that there are people alive today who grew up sitting in the back of buses. Hell, we have immigrant families being separated at out borders today and officials using bible verse to justify it. I struggle to wrap my head around a version of UBI which actually includes every without exception. The right would 100% demand certain groups be disqualified and I do not believe the left has the strength to refuse concessions. Many of the left are actually apathetic to race issues or even any issue which isn't there own. 

It is why I feel things like raising the minimum wage is a better way to achieve a similar goal. A federal minimum wage would absolutely apply to everyone across the board without caveats. Everyone who works would earn at least that minimum regardless if they are a green card holder, on probation, or whatever. The analogy I used before was an Immigrant working at McDonald's. A green card or work visa holder or undocumented immigrant  McDonald's employee has income parity to their peers. If some of their peers were receiving UBI that would no longer be true. They would be poorer than their peers besides having the same job and working just as hard. It would be an ugly situation in my opinion. Increasing minimum wage, reforming criminal justice, and immigration reform are the things I rather see. I do not feel that middle class suburban young adults need anything to be honest. They have it pretty good in my opinion. They are not on my radar and yet that is who I believe would benefit the most from UBI. 

*I grew up in a middle class suburb.