I think UBI is an essential concept and believe will be no way around it in some fashion. That said, "AB testing" it is really hard. The real idea behind UBI (

I think UBI is an essential concept and believe will be no way around it in some fashion. That said, "AB testing" it is really hard. The real idea behind UBI (for most advocates) is that it is a living wage granted for a very long time (something like lifetimes). $500/mo for a few months or years means that people need to still plan around that loss of income, and are unlikely to act too differently. I like research, but I don't really see much benefit here. I think you justify UBI on these grounds: 1) administration costs are much higher for welfare states than UBI (the US spends more on anti poverty programs than it would take to distribute funds and make nobody below the US poverty line). This should appeal to fiscal conservatives. Our anti poverty programs have failed not due to resources, but rather due to centralized, command and control techniques a la ISSUE. 2) the number of people that are completely unemployable (they are not able to outcompete machines/AI at any narrow job function) will increase. Number (2) is more speculative for most people, but having automated away many jobs myself, I can see that the only reason things are not more automated is the will of leaders to automate. Most people lack the will, but that won't stop it in the long run, only slow it.