If the goal is normalization, why not just wage caps instead of minimum wages?
Only an anecdote but where I live in Quebec welfare is almost $1K a month, there are flats for $400, electricity is subsidized.
There are dudes who live on the street and use the money for crack. Many.
Now, I have no idea if this is any kind of plurality, probably not, but it's common enough.
Yes 'money' is always part of the problem, but at the lower levels, it's a huge mess of social deviance, real mental issues, medical-grade psychological problems, anti-social behavior. And if you dig up just a little bit of 'the past' it's full of abuse, neglect. Now throw in the availability of drugs and alcohol and then you have some serious malaise.
So for the 'working poor', it's a different story, it's hard to tell what UBI would mean.
BUT - there's another way. Land reform.
The avg. home price in Canada last year, increased in value literally more than the average wage. That is unsustainable and crazy. Basically it's a 'class war' between the middle class making their money from leverage, while the working poor make jack.
'Rent' and 'Mortgage' is our most gigantic expense and yet it's a 'nonproductive asset! Yes, it costs money to 'build homes' but the other bit, real-estate is a mess.
Net-net-net - there should be no material gains from this.
It's economically feasible to create a situation wherein 'rent is free' for everyone, and to still have the same amount of economic productivity and growth.
Low-interest rates have exacerbated this problem.
FYI this 'land reform' is one of the massive differences between North America and Europe: North Americans were given 'free land' to tend and owned their farms, in contrast to the serfdom they had in Europe.
Another reform in the 20th century was the push to get the plebes to own their homes through mortgages.
But now the weirdness of the economy has made real problems in the cost of education and homes.
I think re-thinking the economics of property without going Marxist would go further than UBI which is a kind of indirect thing.
The parallel in software is management buying terrible products on others' behalf. If you want good software, you ask the users to define requirements. Imagine telling the users, "We purchased SAP, because it checks all the boxes. You might prefer something else, but we know what's best for the company. You're welcome."
Giving people vouchers for goods and services creates a lot of bloat for politicians to then run against and remove entirely.
I’m for UBI because I’ve seen time and time again the market fail far too many people to be relied upon exclusively. But I don’t think it’s a wise priority right now.
The first and top priority is for people to get off their butts and do their civic duties. Learn your political economic history. Learn the systems and political institutions at play. Then contribute at all levels of government: locally through to nation wide. Until that happens we’re going to be stuck with two parties that are essentially the same thing with superficial differences - or worse.
Edit-oh and stop throwing your hands up anytime an outrage or corruption is revealed. It’s not acceptable for politicians to be corrupt anymore than it’s acceptable for individuals to shirk their civic duties. The one thrives on the other. And fatalism is just ridiculously destructive.
An individual's debts are related to near-term life needs: making rent, putting food on the table, paying bills, paying for an education, and paying to assist friends and loved ones with each of those same things.
A local government has to use taxation and debt to take on major infrastructure projects and provide ongoing public services. The money represents some mix of the will of the taxpayers and creditors, plus any private interests brought on to finance a project.
At an international level, money represents the trade and economic competitiveness of the nation and is a mode of diplomatic influence and trust in the nation's stability and internal control. A country that wishes to import more goods will seek a stronger currency; one that wishes to pay off debts will probably inflate their way out. The spending of the nation is reflective of the size of the government relative to the private market, and so high public spending may "crowd out" private, but it can also bolster markets by giving them confidence in demand for goods or availability of labor.
And at each scale you can make cases for earmarking some things, pushing them up or down a level, or letting them be resolved through a general fund. That's the incentivization that drives the specifics of an economy. Most countries now agree that fire protection should be financed as a public good, for example, rather than having each resident contract for fire services. But with health care there is disagreement, with employment benefits there are disagreements, with education there are disagreements and so on.
Basically, UBI is a statement that some amount of the public trust should be redistributed as money rather than as a specific good. This puts a lot of flexibility into the hands of the taxpayer. The arguments against whether UBI at all tend to be either "save the little people from themselves" (while wealthy investors get a pass), or "we cannot afford it" (while larger organizations are bailed out on the regular) - and topics at this scale get entangled with national character too.
If in the USA one would ultimately want to evaluate the idea of UBI according to the Constitutional Framers' "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness." Life - yes. Pursuit of happiness - yes. Liberty - up to interpretation, given the "money is debt" premise. In another country other principles would structure the test.
This is a good question but contains a false dichotomy. It's perfectly possible to provide both.
Basic income is not incompatible with many existing tax-paid services and subsidized goods.
Wage caps just encourage hoarding capital, and accrual of wealth thru capital gains instead of wages.
So, everybody has a food account, an internet account, a housing account, a healthcare account, and a ‘fun’ account for whatever. Funds cannot be intermingled, nor spent on out of category items/services.
In most developed countries they would end up in a homeless shelter or social housing and be covered by national healthcare.
Who are you to say a smartphone isn't the best thing a needy person can buy?
In contrast, we currently are dumping vast amounts of money onto corporations, banks, and investors to try prop up the economy. That money just ends up bidding up stocks, bonds, and real estate prices. The stimulative impact is minimal, and mostly results in inflating asset prices.