Universal basic income: Pros and cons of free money for all

Open full sized image

Money, no strings attached.

© Arkadiusz Wargu?a—iStock/Getty Images

If you’ve ever wondered what it’d be like to have some money coming in whether you have a job at the moment or not, you get the idea behind universal basic income (UBI). It’s a simple premise that could change lives, but implementing UBI is complex.

UBI is a social welfare program that provides residents of a city, state, or country with a minimum income with no conditions or requirements. Under a universal basic income program, a Fortune 500 CEO, unemployed computer programmer, college student, and stay-at-home parent would all receive cash with no strings attached.

UBI may refer to various programs that provide income but often come with stipulations on current income, employment status, and other prerequisites. The phrase guaranteed basic income is often used instead, since truly universal programs are rare.

When Democratic candidate Andrew Yang made UBI the cornerstone of his 2020 U.S. presidential campaign, he brought the topic to the forefront of political, social, and economic debate. His plan came as close to the definition of UBI as you can get: Every adult would receive $1,000 a month. Technologies like automation and artificial intelligence (AI) would put so many people out of work, Yang said, that UBI was necessary to avoid damaging the U.S. economy.

Yang was not the first to champion a basic income. Upon his death in 44 BCE, Julius Caesar bequeathed money to every free, common Roman citizen (they were known as plebeians), who numbered about 250,000 at the time. English humanist and statesman Thomas More advocated for it in his book Utopia, published in 1516. In the 1790s, philosopher Thomas Paine proposed monetary support for the elderly, disabled, and young adults. More than a decade before he won the Nobel Prize for Economics in 1976, Milton Friedman backed the idea of basic income, arguing that it was more efficient than welfare programs and their accompanying bureaucracy.

U.S. Presidents Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon favored payments to fight the War on Poverty, as did Martin Luther King, Jr. The Roman Catholic Church and several of its popes, including Pope Francis, have endorsed the idea, as has Facebook cofounder Mark Zuckerberg. Tesla (TSLA) CEO Elon Musk has described it as inevitable.

Proponents of UBI believe it would promote several worthwhile social aims:

Critics argue the pitfalls of UBI make such programs unfeasible. Objections include:

There are dozens of examples of guaranteed income programs, in the U.S. and worldwide, that vary drastically in size and scope. The arrival of COVID-19 prompted many locales to start new programs (some of which have expired). In response, at least four states—Arkansas, Idaho, Iowa, and South Dakota—enacted legislation prohibiting them.

Iran has the world’s only nationwide program, begun in 2010, but other sizable programs exist. Thousands of households are participating in a long-term program in Kenya. The Brazilian town of Maricá has increased the number of participants in its Citizens’ Basic Income program while raising their monthly income.

Europe has experimented with universal basic income on a small scale, but as of 2024, few programs existed.

The U.S. is home to numerous pilot UBI programs, mostly involving local governments. The initiatives are often public-private partnerships, meaning they’re not exclusively government funded, and typically target low-income residents. Participants are often selected randomly or through a lottery but must meet eligibility requirements such as income or specific demographics. For instance, a yearlong program begun in 2022 in Durham, North Carolina, accepted only former prisoners.

In addition to these pilot programs, economists note other examples in the U.S. that could be considered UBI:

Most UBI programs have reported positive outcomes but in varying degrees based on their objectives, amount of income distributed, and program duration. But they don’t necessarily move the needle much in terms of employment or entrepreneurship.

In Alaska, dividends from the state’s Permanent Fund have been shown to reduce childhood obesity. Each dollar a child receives yields more than a dollar in return through reduced health care costs. The program has also encouraged Alaskans to have more children, since each additional child means more money. The dividend was shown to have “no significant effect on employment,” although it did increase part-time work.

Kenya’s implementation of UBI resulted in “substantial economic expansions” in the rural communities where the funds were to be given long term. Researchers saw no evidence that the supply of labor—those willing to work—fell, although the program spurred many workers to switch from wage-paying jobs to self-employment, resulting in higher incomes.

The goal of universal basic income is to provide a guaranteed, unconditional income to everyone where a program is implemented, whether at the city, county, state, or national level. It aims to reduce poverty and improve financial stability. Backers say UBI does that and more, including reducing income inequality, encouraging employment, and boosting entrepreneurship.

Critics say it’s expensive and diminishes workers’ motivation to find jobs. Support for UBI has increased following the COVID-19 pandemic and with the expansion of AI and automation, as these technologies threaten jobs and livelihoods. Established and pilot programs worldwide have been encouraging, but high costs and uncertain outcomes have resulted in few large-scale deployments.