The article presented various arguments; to simplify:



"In the US (population: 327 million), a UBI of just $1,000 per month would cost around $4 trillion per year"



The writer is taking into account EVERY PERSON; not adult citizens over 18. This balloons the numbers, creating a much higher cost. This is; I would consider; a scare tactic for readers.



"Sacrificing all other social programs for the sake of a UBI is a terrible idea. Such programs exist to address specific problems, such as the vulnerability of the elderly, children, and disabled people."



I think we can all agree that to sacrifice them all is a bad idea. That is not what Yang has suggested. There is much waste in the bureaucratic overhead of these systems; the opt-in model would allow for downsizing. Those that need and receive more from these programs can retain them. Some would even stack with them.



"Basic economic theory implies that taxes on income are distortionary inasmuch as they discourage work and investment."



In the 1960's taxes peaked at around 90%. This was also a time when we went to the moon; and economic growth was regularly between 5-8% (2-3x the growth we have had in recent years). Your 'theory' seems to contradict facts of history.



"Automation and globalization are indeed restructuring work, eliminating certain types of jobs and increasing inequality. But rather than build a system where a large fraction of the population receives handouts, we should be adopting measures to encourage the creation of “middle-class” jobs with good pay, while strengthening our ailing social safety net. UBI does none of this."



First- the writer is not presenting a solution just a problem. That's too simple to do. I would argue that UBI does exactly this. Putting money in the hands of people to help them pursue their dreams and start businesses all over the country. A paper by the Roosevelt institute concluded that 1,000$ a month would create over 2million new jobs - much of which would be in small towns/rural areas.



"On the business side, reducing the indirect costs and payroll taxes that employers pay for hiring workers would spur job creation, also at a pittance of the cost of a UBI. With higher minimum wages to prevent employers from free riding on workers’ tax credits, an expanded EITC and reduced payroll taxes would go a long way toward creating worthwhile jobs at all levels of the income distribution."



I can agree that reducing taxes that businesses pay in order to hire an employee would help; I disagree with the idea of raising the minimum wage. This will disproportionately hurt small businesses; many would have to close all over the country. This would also give larger incentives to companies investment in A.I and automation for a more rapid adoption of the technology. This will hurt more people than help; and after you lose your job - what do these people have?



" It neither empowers nor even consults the people it aims to help. (Do workers who have lost their middle-class jobs want government transfers or an opportunity to get another job?)"



First; how do you (the writer) know what people want? Did you go around discussing this with thousands of people to come to an empirically backed consensus? Something leads me to believe you did not; and therefore are just writing out your ass. That said; many people are going to be losing their jobs in the near future. Federal retraining has low success rates; and if recent history can be used as a lesson - we can expect 50% of all workers who do lose their middle class jobs to join the ranks of disability claims. Only ballooning our current welfare system significantly.