[Miner49er]

How does that change my point though? Either way they end up net poorer. If you're poor and don't take the $1000, you are the same and everyone else is $1000 richer. This makes you effectively $1000 poorer. Yang actually says UBI will save money compared to benefits. So if you pick UBI you're even more than $1000 poorer, if he's right.

[matz1]

>If you're poor and don't take the $1000, you are the same and everyone else is $1000 richer. This makes you effectively $1000 poorer

$1000 poorer relative to other person but not actually poorer in terms of my purchasing power.

[jonnycoder]

What do you think purchasing power for common goods will do once millions of people are on UBI? My bet is that prices will go up.

[matz1]

Could be stay the same or even go down. Producer still have to compete with each other and they even might lower their price to entice buyer to spend their UBI.

[cameronbrown]

I doubt it.

[michaelmrose]

There is no particular reason to believe that increases in costs would exactly match the benefits granted leaving you 1000 dollars poorer even if ssdi income was better than ubi. Furthermore ubi would not be negatively effected by a spouse earning money in a way that actually punishes families for working nor would it require suing the government for 5-10 years while they pretend your family member isn't disabled.

On net the only people who come off worse are unmarried individuals receiving ssdi who are too young for social security retirement income.

Average ssdi income is around 1200 10 million people are on ssdi aprox 6 million under 65 45% in the overall US population are unmarried.

One could reasonably suppose at least 2-3 million out of 327 million will make no more money and will see slightly to somewhat higher costs. This could be corrected by cola.

In comparison the bottom 25% is 82 million strong and will benefit substantially as will the next quartile to a lesser extent another 82 millions