Share Reddit Email WhatsApp LinkedIn Pinterest

(Last Updated On: December 14, 2019)

The Sacramento Bee published an article titled: Stockton’s mayor doesn’t like Andrew Yang’s universal basic income plan. Here’s why. In the 30 minute interview about Mayor Tubbs own universal basic income (UBI) pilot, the interviewer asks Tubbs, “do you support Andrew Yang’s UBI plan?”

In response, Tubbs says he does not support the plan because participants will need to choose between Yang’s $1,000 UBI or existing federal aid. Tubbs was concerned that this opt-in model for UBI would leave many of the most vulnerable people in need.

In the essay below, I’ll explain why I disagree with Mayor Tubbs on this point, and believe, perhaps, as he does, that implementing a UBI may be one of US’s greatest policy achievements.

This article is not a critique of Mayor Tubbs as a person or as a Mayor. Tubbs is an American hero and thought leader, who has been able to accomplish more since taking office than I have, or perhaps ever will by espousing my ideas from a computer. Keep your eye on Mayor Tubbs. He is a star of American leadership. His TED Talk is fantastic, and insightful.

Tubbs critique is one of the most prominent (though flawed) criticisms of Yang’s UBI from the left. I would love to see Tubbs and Yang have a public meeting to discuss UBI and this important reservation. After the article was published Mayor Tubbs and Yang had a brief Twitter exchange, but I’d love to see them go deeper.

I appreciate that brother and also am fine if there’s a point of disagreement (opt out and who has to opt out vs stacking benefits for example) The challenge before us is how do we increase economic security and build an income floor for all, and we have a lot of work to do! https://t.co/EUn4HLzQj4 — Michael Tubbs (@MichaelDTubbs) October 11, 2019

Before I begin, this essay does not get into the myriad societal benefits of UBI. I’ve written about that elsewhere, and there are now numerous books and YouTube videos on the topic. Scott Santens is a great UBI resource too. Instead, this article’s focus is on rebuking the idea that the opt-in model is flawed.

Andrew Yang’s UBI, which he calls the “Freedom Dividend” doesn’t stack with federal welfare, but it does stack with:

Social security

State and local assistance

Yang’s proposed medicare for all

Yang’s proposed single parent assistance programs

Yang’s proposed zoning policy to increase housing availability

Tubb’s assessment doesn’t factor in universality. All US adults having an extra $1000/month is estimated to grow the US economy by 12.5%, which will increase jobs and prosperity. In mayor Tubbs’s own Stockton, with a population of 252,000 adults, it will receive $252 million dollars every month, or over $3 billion per year under Yang’s plan.

A cash influx like this to a city will change everything. At an even smaller scale, however, friend groups, family, church congregations, will all be getting the UBI each month, producing the potential for individuals and small groups to take care of themselves as need arises. Even Tubbs says that many people in his pilot, are using their basic income as a way to help friends and family.

The $1000/month doesn’t gut welfare, it eliminates the need for it in all but the most severe cases. Welfare shouldn’t go away, but it should be updated to tackle the circumstances that $1000/doesn’t fix. At this stage, a UBI isn’t intended to replace work, and most people will continue to work, but those workers can be more selective. They can be entrepreneurial, all without the means testing of federal welfare.

Our current welfare system is flawed. It does help millions, but it doesn’t reach everyone who is eligible, and it’s often not enough. Season one of podcast ‘The Uncertain Hour’ is a master class on this broken system and gets into how Reagan, then Clinton were the ones to “gut” welfare by dramatically reducing benefits and increasing the stringency of means testing, which can create the dreaded welfare trap. Rather than reversing those policies, and fixing a broken system, or even layering on top of it as Tubbs proposes with his UBI, we should simply let people determine if they prefer cash to existing federal programs.

The Freedom Dividend is not a ‘gutting’ of welfare like the reforms of Reagan and Clinton. It’s not reducing total benefits or adding new regulations. Instead it will lead to an evolution of welfare where it can be targeted to the people who need it most. According to a recent study, in my home state of Oregon, 156,000, households are a paycheck or emergency away from homelessness. The study also found that our current public and private programs cannot address the scope of this vulnerability. With the Freedom Dividend, however, every two adult household will receive $24,000/year, with no conditions or special qualifications.

On paper, it would be pretty incredible if people could receive UBI and welfare, however, the budget for this is the sticking point. Reductions in federal welfare spending are likely needed for Yang’s Freedom Dividend to pencil out. It’s an important funding source representing 10-20% of Freedom Dividend funding.



The reduction in federal welfare will be offset by everyone literally having money. The $12,000/year will lift many people out of poverty. Friends and family will have the means to help out in a pinch. Emergencies will no longer be financially devastating, especially when paired a public option for healthcare as Yang proposes. Tubbs’s heart is obviously in the right place – a place with love and empathy. His Ted Talk is a testament to that. I hope he’ll reconsider his stance on Yang’s UBI.

Read Next:

Six existential problems universal basic income is likely to solve.

To Appreciate Andrew Yang’s Message, Listen to a Long-form Interview or Podcast

The Promise of Self Driving Cars