Universal Basic Income (UBI) has many supporters and it would be our right for being born, proponents say. It would be enough to cover basic needs.
But if UBI was to replace anything, it would have to be social welfare benefits. Except they would be universal, but only really making a dent for those in need.
It wouldn't replace the income from jobs, simply because it would only cover basic needs, and here we would have an entire class of (former) employees who could have done much more with their salary (+bonuses).
So, let's say UBI would be something between the amount of social welfare benefits today and the minimal salary.
Of course, the same income can have a different value in different parts of the world, so it can't be the same worldwide.
I've seen some news recently that in Spain they are trying to implement UBI already and it would have a value of around 400 Euro. For reference, I found that the minimal wage in Spain in 2019 was 900 Euro. So, their UBI experiment would offer about half that amount for a single adult - in other situations a household could get more.
I know UBI supporters don't like when it is being compared to social welfare benefits. If we think of UBI as a birth right, they are right.
However, there are some similitudes that need to be taken into consideration.
- the amounts would probably be comparable, maybe a little higher if lucky for UBI
- in many cases, they are both offered without giving something in return (like your work time)
There are many stories when people who received social welfare benefits simply wasted their lives drinking or doing drugs or something similar. TV is an obvious way for them to kill time, of which they have plenty.
I'm not a psychologist nor a sociologist, but my intuition is telling me they felt useless and everything else was their attempt to get rid of that sentiment.
So, how would UBI improve this situation? In my opinion, it probably wouldn't, it would amplify it. Because there will be more people not working either because they can't find a job or because they feel UBI is enough.
UBI has a few benefits:
- it's inclusive (universal)
- it covers the individual (/family?) basic needs
- lazy people get it too, so they won't starve to death
What isn't UBI good for?
- having a purpose
- being active
- avoiding depression
- replacing job income (for something like the average wage or even below that)
UBI focuses on the masses. Other passive incomes are not for everybody, generally.
Pros for passive income (different than UBI):
- gives you a purpose (to increase it or to keep it)
- it keeps you active if you haven't become financially independent (and beyond, in most cases)
- forces you to keep your mind active and learning new things
- unlike UBI, it can replace job income after enough time or money are invested into them, and can even generate wealth
Cons for passive income:
- it's not universal, many won't bother building it
- it starts from zero
- it takes time or money or both to build it
In the end, it probably matters what you want. You hope to survive or you want to afford a decent life and maybe more than that?
Where UBI will be implemented, because its universal component is important, it's essential potential bad implications are also taken into account. We will see how Spain's experiment works out.