Universal Basic Income is a promising solution to save ordinary hard working citizens from a COVID-19 caused recession, eliminate poverty and support people who lose their jobs to technological advances.

A universal basic income (UBI) is a fixed income that every adult (rich or poor, working or idle) automatically receives from the government. The New Yorker

Arguments in favour of UBI come from both liberals and conservatives. However, there is only limited evidence to support it and it needs testing on a large scale.

Why test it now? 

COVID-19 has presented us with the necessity for governments to take unprecedented action to save ordinary citizens from starvation and a recession. We have the choice, do we bail out big corporations and hope they invest their handouts in the production of goods and services people will want? Or, do we bailout individuals who will purchase the goods and services they want thus rescuing the right business anyways.

We know the corporate bailouts have only served to widen the income gap since 2008 and one time payments, which will not be sufficient to restart the economy.

“All of a sudden, the cost of a UBI isn’t nearly as big a worry as it was even a month ago,” Matt Zwolinski, director of the Center for Ethics, Economics and Public Policy at the University of San Diego

What can you do?

1. Join the cause to stay up to date and take action
2. Share in your community – the press pays attention to what’s trending on social media
3. Pressure your elected officials to support UBI legislation

• Extreme poverty is “living at $2 or less in income per person per day” (The World Bank’s measurement)
• At the beginning of 2011, about 1.46 million U.S. households with 2.8 million children were surviving on $2 or less per day per person.
• In the U.S. households in extreme poverty has risen from 10.2% in 1996 to 18.4% in 2011
• Resource –  National Poverty Center – Policy Brief

• Social support for the unlucky – in particular, the poor who cannot stay in full-time employment – has been falling substantially in recent years, and is facing even more threats today. The Guardian – Carol Graham
• Cash assistance to needy families has dropped from serving 68% of low-income families in 1996 to only 23% today Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

• Bureaucracies eat up tax dollars. “Current programs, Lowrey [economic journalist] points out, favor the working poor over the jobless. Race or racism plays into the way that certain policies are shaped, and bureaucratic requirements for getting help can be arcane and onerously cumulative. Who will certify the employee status of a guy who’s living on the streets? How can you get disability aid if you can’t afford the doctor who will certify you as disabled? The New Yorker – Nathan Heller

• States which loosen strict work requirements rules see recipients move to higher wage, higher benefit work, presumably because they have the breathing room to search for a good job rather than take the first one that comes along. BIEN – Leah Hamilton, MSW, PhD
• The welfare “Cliff Effect ” which puts a mother in a worse financial situation for earning more because she loses ALL benefits including child care assistance. International Journal of Social Welfare

• According to the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, there has been a decline over the last 25 years in support for programs that aid those who cannot care for themselves. In 1987, 71 percent of people supported such programs; in 2012, that percentage fell to just 59 percent. Most of the decline is accounted for by Republicans, whose support has fallen to 40 percent from 62 percent. But Democrats and independents are also slightly less willing to support government programs that aid the poor than they used to be. New York Times – Bruce Bartlet

• “workers of the gig economy [think uber eats driver], who know what it’s like to feel on the edge of a financial cliff with or without a pandemic.” Washington Post – Jada Yuan
• “They’re “not hanging out with the home health-care aide or the Uber driver, so [they] don’t know how tenuous a financial life most Americans have.” Andrew Yang

• A detailed analysis by Mckinsey Global Initiative found that 25 percent of Americans work in jobs in which 75 percent of tasks could be automated by currently available technologies, and 40 percent are in jobs in which at least half of the tasks are automatable
• One out of three workers who lose a long-tenured job is not re-employed
• The occupations declining the fastest from 2016 to 2018 are those rated most at risk of automation. Nearly half (44 percent) of the fastest-declining occupations have automation risks of at least 70 percent, compared to just one in four for all occupations across the economy
• Jobs employing large numbers of low-wage working women, such as bookkeeping clerks and retail salespersons, dominate the list of occupations currently in decline and in the crosshairs of technological change.
• Technology is eliminating jobs “Robots, we are told, will drive us from our jobs. The more this happens, the more existing workforce safety nets will be strained.” The New Yorker Nathan Heller

• While 90% of the children born in 1940 ended up in higher ranks of the income distribution than their parents, only 40% of those born in 1980 have done so. The Guardian Carol Graham 
• “Andrew Cherlin of Johns Hopkins University finds that poor black and Hispanic people are much more likely than poor white people to report that they live better than their parents did. Poor whites are more likely to say they live worse than their parents did; they, in particular, seem to be living the erosion of the American dream.” The Guardian Carol Graham
• Belief in the “American Dream” has also diminished. “in 2016, only 38% of Americans thought their children would be better off than they are.” The Guardian Carol Graham
• “the problem may actually be the American dream. Blue-collar white people – whose parents lived the American dream and who expected their children to do so as well – are the ones who seem most devastated by its erosion and yet, on average, tend to vote against government programmes.” The Guardian Carol Graham
• Poor people in the US were 20 times less likely to believe hard work would get them ahead than were the poor in Latin American [countries], even though the latter are significantly worse off in material terms. The Guardian – Carol Graham

• G.D.P. — or gross domestic product, the economy’s total output — keeps on rising, but it no longer tracks the well-being of most Americans. Instead, an outsize share of economic growth flows to the wealthy. And yet G.D.P. is treated as a totemic measure of the country’s prosperity. New York Time – David Leonhardt
• GDP has expanded since the 2008 financial crisis setting a record number of consecutive years of growth. But, the typical household is still poorer than it was before the crisis and life expectancy has been declining. New York Time – David Leonhardt

• The aim should be to obtain enough data to determine if UBI should be rolled out across the country
• During COVID-19 there are millions of people out of work (almost 30million as of April 30th in the US).
• These people need aid regardless, and they will need aid past the end of the pandemic. Our economic recovery depends on people having money to spend on goods and services. That is why a UBI (with ongoing payments to citizens) can kickstart our economy, while single payments to citizens can not. 
• Thus, this is an opportunity to test UBI to determine whether the following cons are valid:

1. Is it affordable?
2. Does it actually dissuade people from working?
3. Do recipients still need other social support?
4. Do wages decrease?
5. Has it triggered inflation?

• We can also test whether the following pros are valid:

1. Does it reduce poverty on a mass scale?
2. Does it ensure everyone in need is cared for (no one is left behind)?
3. Do people get more education or vocational training to find a better job?
4. Do wages increase for undesirable unfulfilling jobs?
5. Does it reduce the government’s administrative costs?
6. Do people feel truly free to change careers or leave a negative abusive situation?
7. Does it improve our outlook on the “American Dream”?

• If everyone suddenly received a basic income, it would create inflation. However, a gradual introduction would allow manufacturers time to adjust the supply to meet and follow the demand. Thus, helping maintain prices and the standard of living.

• Governments are finding ways to spend vast amounts of money to rescue our economy. It no longer seems unreasonable to believe we can find the money to test UBI on our most needy citizens during COVID-19.
• Governments find a way to do things they want to do:

“The Bush tax cuts were not ‘paid for.’ The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were not ‘paid for.’ ” When the country wants to launch a big project, she [Lowery – economic journailst] insists, the double joints and stretchy tendons of a giant, globalized economy come into play.” The New Yorker – Nathan Heller

• Money spent on goods and services will prevent a deep COVID-19 caused recession. NOT money in the bank accounts of the rich where it sits and collects interest.
• Offshore bank accounts do absolutely nothing for our economy
• Chris Hughes [Facebook co-founder] argues that the money can be found by closing tax exemptions for the ultra-wealthy— “people like me.” The New Yorker – Nathan Heller 
• Justification for higher taxes on the ultra wealthy: 

1. The rich have taken the most from our society and our planet. It is fair and just that we should strive for a more equal distribution of wealth.
2. “Conservatives always point out, correctly, that the share of taxes paid by the wealthy greatly exceeds their share of aggregate income. In 2011, the top 1 percent earned 18.7 of all adjusted gross income and the top 5 percent earned 34 percent. But keep in mind a couple of points. Adjusted gross income excludes a number of important sources of income for the wealthy, including unrealized capital gains and interest on state and local government bonds. There are also a number of deductions from gross income to derive adjusted gross income, including contributions to retirement plans, alimony paid and others. Thus, adjusted gross income is considerably lower than what economists would call economic income — the total increase in someone’s ability to command resources during a year. And of course the data are only for the federal income tax and exclude other taxes that those with low incomes pay, such as the payroll tax, federal excise taxes like the gasoline tax, and state and local government taxes.” New York Times – Bruce Bartlet

• Who should pay for a corporation’s destruction of our environment? The corporation carrying out and benefiting from the destruction or our children?

• It has the potential to reduce big government
• This is a “test” run to obtain data
• It has the potential to save rural communities where industry has dried up, by providing sustenance to the residents preventing forced mass exodus to urban centers to find new jobs
• It is given to everyone, not just the disadvantaged – “makes the program palatable to those who cannot stomach anything resembling government handouts. A wide range of people stand to benefit from a cushion: any worker with an abusive boss is free to take the basic wage and leave. By certain measures, in fact, giving everyone a flat check naturally rebalances opportunities for choice. A thousand bucks handed to a multimillionaire means almost nothing, but it’s significant for a middle-income person, and for a poor person it could open up the world.” The New Yorker – Nathan Heller 
• Conservative who support or demostrated support for UBI:

1. Milton Freedman and Richard Branson
2. “George H. W. Bush, then a congressman, supported the guaranteed-income scheme. So did Donald Rumsfeld. From the late sixties into the seventies, he and Dick Cheney helped run trials on thirteen hundred families to see how much a modest financial top-up discouraged them from working. The falloff was smaller than expected, and the researchers were pleased. We might hope that, with Speenhamland’s false myths finally cleared, the United States will do better going forward.” The New Yorker – Nathan Heller
3. Truckers for Yang, whose members saw him as the one candidate who realized they were at risk of being replaced by self-driving cars. Washington Post – Jada Yuan

• With regards to cost, a 2018 Parliamentary Budget Office report found that a national UBI plan modelled on the then-Liberal government of Ontario’s proposed plan would cost approximately $76 billion annually. With a reduction in government-funded programs that currently replicate benefits covered by UBI, such as employment insurance and subsidized housing, the cost would actually end up closer to $43 billion.
• This lesser number also doesn’t factor in two other major savings. Firstly, that key costs to government directly related to poverty would be reduced or eliminated, including health care and social assistance costs. And secondly, that the newfound purchasing power of vulnerable people would feed back into government revenues and create economic stimulus. CBC – Tim Ford

• “Business centrists and Silicon Valley types appreciate it as a way to manage industry side effects—such as low labor costs and the displacement of workers by apps and A.I.—without impeding growth.” The New Yorker – Nathan Heller 
• With mass unemployment, the workforce safety nets will be pushed to their limits. UBI will alleviate the strain on such safety nets

• COVID-19 requires governments to take radical economic action to avoid starvation and a recession
• UBI it is currently being implemented in some form or another across the globe. In the US
• “When Milton Friedman first started conceptualizing some of the intellectual framework for our current discussions around UBI, the country was in the midst of the Great Depression, an economic downturn that likely matches our current moment. The infrastructural gaps revealed by the pandemic’s havoc, coupled with a changed ideological landscape, have strengthened the argument for UBI for some.” Mashable – Natasha Pinon
• “UBI has been a topic of debate for years in Canada, but if there was ever a crisis that showed its benefits, it is the impact of COVID-19 as people find themselves out of work and wondering how they’ll pay their bills.” CBC – Tim Ford
• “there are considerable numbers of people who are not working right now, and more will likely join them. In this type of environment, UBI would be at worst a lateral move, and at its best would save people from falling through the social safety net and dragging at an economic recovery.” CBC – Tim Ford
• More than 17 million Americans have filed jobless claims in the past four weeks — a staggering, unprecedented figure. International humanitarian advocacy group Oxfam warned in a new study that the pandemic may force 500 million people around the world into poverty if urgent government action does not alleviate their plight. Washington Post – Ishaan Tharoor

• No one will be forced to go hungry
• No one will be forced to live on the street

• With a universal income, just deserts don’t seem at issue. Everybody gets a basic chance.” The New Yorker – Nathan Heller
• “everybody gets a strong boost off the blocks” The New Yorker – Nathan Heller

• With no minimum requirements, no one can be left behind
• “Who will certify the employee status of a guy who’s living on the streets? How can you get disability aid if you can’t afford the doctor who will certify you as disabled? Lowrey [economic journalist]” The New Yorker – Nathan Heller 
• Descrimination based on race, gender, age, income, etc are eliminated when no individual, bureaucrat, judge or state decides who gets what
• Current programs favour the working poor over the jobless. Thus, those who can’t work for whatever reason are not discriminated against

• Freedom to return to school or stay home to care for a relative
• “The further you get from subsistence, the easier it is to ask fundamental questions like: What do I want, and how do I get it?” he [Hughes, Facebook Co-founder] writes. The covetable entity that […a child born into wealth] possessed wasn’t actually wealth. Their crucial asset was the assurance of choice. The New Yorker – Nathan Heller
• A wide range of people stand to benefit from a cushion: any worker with an abusive boss is free to take the basic wage and leave. By certain measures, in fact, giving everyone a flat check naturally rebalances opportunities for choice. A thousand bucks handed to a multimillionaire means almost nothing, but it’s significant for a middle-income person, and for a poor person it could open up the world. The New – Yorker Nathan Heller

Only when you have the knowledge and belief that you will always be taken care of no matter your luck and no matter your choices, will you truly have the freedom to:

• Escape a negative or abusive environment, household, family, spouse
• Start over (change careers, leave a dead-end job, avoid exploitive positions) 
• Pursue training and education when you or your family relies on your present income

• If welfare recipients make too much, they lose food stamps, free medical care, and housing vouchers. This is a form of structural inequality that prevents the poor from getting enough wealth to better their lives.

• The government would spend less to administer UBI due to its simplicity
• Direct payments to every citizen requires far fewer resources and less paperwork (no income-verification paperwork)
• “Rather than fester for years under the mismanaging claws of Big Government, Lowrey [economic journalist] thought, money could flow directly to individual recipients.” The New Yorker – Nathan Heller 
• It would replace housing vouchers, food stamps, and other programs. The Balance – Kimberly Amade

• Direct payments to every citizen require minimal work from applicants that can free up time to work, care for families, obtain further training or education, etc.
• It also frees up time for individuals involved in certifying the application (e.g. doctors who must certify the applicant is disabled or a lawyer who must attest to an applicants marital status)

• “If workers are no longer compelled to take any available job to put food on the table, supporters say, work must be worth their while. Certainly, this will be true for highly undesirable jobs: the latrine cleaner can expect a pay bump and an engraved pen.” The New Yorker – Nathan Heller 
• In other words, workers would have the confidence to bid up wages The Balance – Kimberly Amade

• “Purely as a kind of foreign aid, Lowrey [economic journalist] suggests, a basic income is better than donated goods (boxes of shoes, mosquito nets), because cash can go to any use.” The New Yorker – Nathan Heller

• Has seen positive results
• Before GiveDirectly sent everyone the equivalent of twenty-two U.S. dollars a month (delivered through a mobile app), Village X had dirt roads, no home electricity, and what Lowrey [economic journalist] genteelly calls an “open defecation” model for some families. Now, by her account, the village is a bubbling pot of enterprise, as residents whose days used to be about survival save, budget, and plan. (The payments will continue until 2028.)” The New Yorker – Nathan Heller 
  

200 participants in Ontario from 2017 to 2019:

• From New Atlas – Rich Haridy
• A disincentive to work was NOT found: only 17% stopped working and almost half of those who stopped working returned to school or university to gain training for future employment.
• Improved employment stats: many noted improvements in working conditions and job security, often through a sense of being empowered to find better jobs.
• The report suggests participants saw improvements in mental health, housing stability and social relationships, along with less frequent visits to hospitals and doctors that lowered the impact on general health services.
• Around half of the subjects reported decreased use of alcohol and tobacco, while 79 percent reported better physical well-being and 83 percent reported better mental well-being.

• “George H. W. Bush, then a congressman, supported the guaranteed-income scheme. So did Donald Rumsfeld. From the late sixties into the seventies, he and Dick Cheney helped run trials on thirteen hundred families to see how much a modest financial top-up discouraged them from working. The falloff was smaller than expected, and the researchers were pleased. We might hope that, with Speenhamland’s false myths finally cleared, the United States will do better going forward.” The New Yorker – Nathan Heller
• Aspects of Friedman’s ideas caught on more in the 1960s: In 1969, President Richard Nixon presented the “Family Assistance Plan,” a poverty alleviation program that would have given working and, notably, nonworking poor families a form of negative income tax. Unlike other programs comprising the social safety net, providing cash to nonworking families would have marked a major step towards implementing a program like UBI, since a common means test (employment) wouldn’t have impacted one’s ability to get aid. Mashable – Natasha Pinon

• Spain’s center-left government became the first to unveil plans regarding some form of guaranteed income to a large segment of its population. Though details remain unclear, with one report suggesting monthly payments of around $475, Spanish officials believe there’s broad legislative consensus behind the effort. And there also appears to be political will to ensure that payments continue beyond the passing of the pandemic. Washington Post – Ishaan Tharoor

• An open letter signed by more than 500 academics around the world, which called on governments to look beyond “traditional welfare policies” in this time of crisis. Washington Post – Ishaan Tharoor
• Matt Zwolinski, director of the Center for Ethics, Economics and Public Policy at the University of San Diego,“All of a sudden, the cost of a UBI isn’t nearly as big a worry as it was even a month ago,” told American Public Media’s Marketplace radio show. “Americans across the political spectrum are calling for the government to spend very large sums of money to keep families on their feet, to keep small business afloat, and to keep the economy from collapsing. And there is a growing recognition that cash grants do that in a way that provides maximum flexibility in a time of drastic uncertainty and rapid change.”

Nancy Pelosi

• ”Pelosi says guaranteed income could be ‘worthy of attention now’ as COVID-19 stifles economy” NBC – Christina Wilkie

Martin Luther King Jr.

• ‘A guaranteed income would abolish poverty”

Milton Friedman:

• He proposed a negative income tax. The poor would receive a tax credit if their income fell below a minimum level. It would be equivalent to the tax payment for the families earning above the minimum level. The Balance – Kimberly Amade

Pope Francis:

• He expressed support for the idea, arguing earlier this month for consideration of a Universal Basic Wage “that would ensure and concretely achieve the ideal, at once so human and so Christian, of no worker without rights.” Forbes – Andrew Solender

Andrew Yang

• During his presidential run, Yang’s UBI proposal, which he called the “Freedom Dividend,” advocated for “a form of universal basic income” in which every U.S. citizen over the age of 18 would receive guaranteed payments of $1,000 per month (totaling $12,000 per year).
• For an old idea, Yang’s reasoning was distinctly modern. His “Freedom Dividend” was proposed as a solution to potential job loss from automation spurred by new technologies, such as AI. His argument throughout his campaign went like this: Though the labor force in the U.S. has withstood previous waves of automation, new technologies like AI could present a threat to jobs in a way that current policies won’t be able to handle. Mashable – Natasha Pinon

Chris Hughes – Facebook Co-Founder in his book “Fair Shot”

• “Cash is the best thing you can do to improve health outcomes, education outcomes and lift people out of poverty”
• Hughes’ guaranteed income is financed by taxes on the top one percent. It would work through a modernization of the earned income tax credit.
• To Hughes, it’s the only solution to an economy where “a small group of people are getting very, very wealthy while everyone else is struggling to make ends meet.” Hughes said automation and globalization have destroyed the employment market. It’s created a lot of part-time, contract, and temporary jobs. But those positions aren’t enough to provide a decent standard of living. 

Bill Gates:

• It is a necessity because automation has fundamentally changed the structure of the U.S. economy.

Mark Zuckerberg:

• “We should explore ideas like universal basic income to give everyone a cushion to try new things.”

Jack Dorsey:

• “Twitter cofounder Twitter cofounder and CEO Jack Dorsey announced that he’s moving $1 billion (which he says is 28 percent of his wealth) to UBI and girls’ health and education programs after first using the money to fund global COVID-19 relief.” Mashable – Natasha Pinon

Sir Richard Branson:

• Says guaranteed income is inevitable. Artificial intelligence will take too many jobs from people

Elon Musk

• Robotics will take away most people’s jobs, so a universal income is the only solution.

Truckers for Yang:

• Members saw him as the one candidate who realized they were at risk of being replaced by self-driving cars. Washington Post – Jada Yuan

• “[UBI] lumps people with different needs and different situations into one bucket, which means we would still need most of the myriad programs we have today for those with differing needs.” The Globe and Mail – Ken Boessenkool

• Current programs provide valuable aid to the poor and UBI could provide justification to remove them
• What would happen if UBI replaced means-tested aid. “Trading in benefits earmarked for the poor for a benefit like guaranteed income, which is designed to provide financial stability to the middle class and the poor alike, would be regressive.” [Hughes says] “Why spray so much money over people doing fine, he wonders, when you could direct cash as needed?” The New Yorker – Nathan Heller 
• Those in the bottom 20 percent of households had 2.3 percent of all market income, such as wages and private pensions, but received more than a third of all Social Security and Medicare benefits and almost half of other transfers like Medicaid and unemployment compensation. The effect of these programs is to quadruple the share of post-tax and transfer income going to those in the lowest quintile. Raising their market income to 9.3 percent. New York Times – Bruce Bartlet

• Is a U.B.I. fiscally sustainable?
• In the US if UBI is $1,000/month per person it would cost $3.9-trillion a year “close to the current expenditure of the entire federal government. The New Yorker – Nathan Heller 
• In Canada at $1,000/month it would cost $342-billion, if we sent it to the “28.5 million Canadians that filed income tax last year” The Globe and Mail – Ken Boessenkool However, “a 2018 Parliamentary Budget Office report found that a national UBI plan modelled on the then-Liberal government of Ontario’s proposed plan would cost approximately $76 billion annually. With a reduction in government-funded programs that currently replicate benefits covered by UBI, such as employment insurance and subsidized housing, the cost would actually end up closer to $43 billion.” CBC – Tim Ford

• “a society with a basic income has no pressure to pay employees a good wage, because the bottom constraint, subsistence, has fallen away. We see such an effect already in the gig economy [think uber eats], where companies pay paltry wages by claiming that their endeavors are flexible and part-time and that workers surely have subsistence income from elsewhere.” The New Yorker – Nathan Heller

• “What is to stop perfectly able-bodied persons from stopping work, collecting the benefit and enjoying some leisure time?” The Globe and Mail – Ken Boessenkool
• Many recipients might prefer to live on the free income rather than get a job. They would not acquire work skills or a good resume. It could prevent them from ever getting a good job in a competitive environment. It could reduce an already-falling labor force participation rate.

• If demand increases to rapidly, suppliers cannot meet demand and prices rise causing inflation
• Inflation would then prevent an increase in the standard of living

Finland – 2017-2019:

• “Basic income recipients did not have more work days or higher incomes than those in the control group,” writes Hiilamo. “Despite the fact that basic income recipients had clearly better incentives to work, there were no statistically significant differences between the groups. The results show that among the young and the long-term unemployed other obstacles for work, such as outdated skills and health issues, are more important than financial incentives.” New Atlas – Rich Haridy
• Many see this experiment is flawed. One reason being that all participants were already receiving social support and the increase in government payments was negligible. Another issue with the Finland trial was that participants’ response rate to a government survey was extremely low – around 25%, on average. That gives the experiment an unacceptable level of uncertainty, according to standards set by the US Department of Education. “It’s barely a test of basic income,” he said. “At best, it is a test of a very limited basic income in an extremely specific context for an extremely specific population.” Business Insider – Aria Bendix

• Canada – Ontario
• Finland
• Sockton California
• The Netherlands
• Namibia
• Germany
• India
• Alaska
• Hawaii
• Taiwan
• Scotland

Mor info at:

• Universal Basic Income on The Balance
• What is Universal Basic Income on Mashable

• BIEN – Leah Hamilton, MSW, PhD “Why Welfare Doesn’t Work: And What We Should Do Instead”
• Business Insider – Aria Bendix “One of the world’s largest basic-income trials, a 2-year program in Finland, was a major flop. But experts say the test was flawed”
• CBC – Tim Ford “A universal basic income could help counter COVID-19s economic damage 
• Forbes – Andrew Solende “Pushing Universal Basic Income, Andrew Yang Supporters Get #CongressPassUBI Trending”
• Mashable – Natasha Pinon “Everything you need to know about Universal Basic Income” 
• National Poverty Center “Policy Brief”
• NBC – Christina Wilkie ”Pelosi says guaranteed income could be ‘worthy of attention now’ as COVID-19 stifles economy”
• New Atlas – Rich Haridy “Canada’s cancelled basic income trial produces positive results” 
• New York Times – Bruce Bartlet “Who Pays the Taxes and Gets the Benefits”
• New York Times – David Leonhard “Why You Shouldn’t Believe Those G.D.P. Numbers”s
• The Balance – Kimberly Amade “Universal Basic Income, Its Pros and Cons With Examples”
• The Globe and Mail – Ken Boessenkool “In normal times, universal income is a bad idea. But it’s the wisest solution for COVID-19 economic strain”
• The Guardian – Carol Graham “Is the American dream really dead?”
• The New Yorker – Nathan Heller “Who Really Stands to Win from Universal Basic Income?”
• Washington Post – Ishaan Tharoor “The pandemic strengthens the case for universal basic income”
• Washington Post – Jada Yuan “The surprising, enduring relevance of Andrew Yang and his ideas”