>This seems an unreasonable standard to apply to anything. Hardly any policy is a Pareto improvement. Applying such a tough standard amounts to very strong stat

>This seems an unreasonable standard to apply to anything. Hardly any policy is a Pareto improvement. Applying such a tough standard amounts to very strong status quo bias. Sorry I wasn't clear. I wasn't making that statement as a "justification" for not implementing UBI. It was about how it's being "sold" politically. Personally, if I were to push for UBI, I'd tell people that the only realistic way we can afford it is if we all agree to take a hit in standard-of-living. I don't have irrefutable proof but that's what I think will have to happen. However, it doesn't necessarily we shouldn't do it. With the mass effects of citizens avoiding low-wage jobs, maybe it's better for society that Walmart is open 6 days a week 9am to 7pm instead of 24/7 and for Amazon-Prime to scale back to 1-week delivery instead of 2-day, etc, etc. Or Amazon-Prime costs $199/year instead of $99. If sophisticated dynamic equations show that middle & upper class will have to "suffer" a bit to provide the entire country a UBI... fine. But sell it that way to them and let everyone have open eyes going into it. I'm skeptical that we can fund UBI just by renaming existing govt assistance programs so that it ends up being virtually "free" to taxpayers.