>Conservative economists do not like it because it would harm economic growth, he adds. This is almost guaranteed not to be the case. For this to be true, the

>Conservative economists do not like it because it would harm economic growth, he adds. This is almost guaranteed not to be the case. For this to be true, the marginal propensity to consume of rich people would have to be higher than the MPC of poor people. >"The evidence is that robotics is a labor complement and is increasing skilled wages. While robotics are replacing some lower-skilled jobs, the most efficient response is to not kill the golden goose but to make sure we have job training programs that are effective in increasing skills." Again, this assumes that UBI "kills the golden goose", which is exactly what neoliberals don't want to do. >“I find it very hard to envision political support in this country for that kind of radical increase in taxation.” This is an argument about whether UBI is a realistic proposal, not about whether it's a "good idea" (the article's stated title). >"Instead of a UBI to help the poor, Feldstein recommends the “negative income tax” plan" How functionally different is a NIT from UBI? It seems like the author is trying to equate Feldstein's and Smetter's positions when they're actually very different. >Benjamin Lockwood (sic) favors the idea of offering a guaranteed basic income, which he says is a better term than UBI. Huh. So now your argument is just against the name UBI, not the policy itself.