Which parts of it ignore economics and human nature?

The first thing that comes to mind is that rents would quickly adjust to extract as much money as possible from someone on UBI. And any increase on UBI would just lead to an increase in rent prices. People working while on UBI would squeeze those not working, or not earning enough, out of the housing market. Meaning people will probably need to work to afford living. So back to square one.

Now you need to figure out rent-control.

But that could screw up the construction market, reducing the incentive to build, and thus the supply. And quite possibly the quality of said supply.

And that’s just housing.

In reality, it's more likely that UBI-happy people would move to cheap backcountry while working people would move to more productive areas. Resulting in ghettos with little interaction between both groups. I wouldn't be surprised if over time one group decided it's about time to stop paying to strangers far away. Democratical process would be awesome too. With both groups split along UBI size.

> UBI in the ideal world replaces welfare, food stamps, and rental assistance.

That's never going to happen. UBI will not replace existing welfare payouts, it will augment them.

Until society is ready to let people and children die in the street because they (or their parents, in the case of children) gambled or boozed all of the UBI away, or it got stolen from them, or they simply burned it due to mental health problems, we still have to have safety nets for people who don't have money.

Which is the whole point of the current welfare assistance system.

UBI is also a no-go in terms of "universal". It's just too unfair. Why should a healthy 20yo get paid (to play video games) the same as a crippled 40yo? The latter literally needs more money just to survive, and doesn't have the same employment options as the healthy 20yo gamer.

If ever UBI is rolled out, you'll see on day two the complaints come rolling in from special groups.

> UBI is also a no-go in terms of "universal". It's just too unfair.

What's unfair is to take away someone's welfare once they finally land a minimal pay job. That diminishes or removes the incentive to actually find a job.

> What's unfair is to take away someone's welfare once they finally land a minimal pay job.

Did I say otherwise?

No. But then if UBI is unfair and welfare is unfair, then what's fair? Providing neither?

> No. But then if UBI is unfair and welfare is unfair, then what's fair? Providing neither?

Me agreeing that taking away

> someone's welfare once they finally land a minimal pay job.

Is not the same as me agreeing that all welfare systems are unfair (You're only considering unemployment welfare payments. There's others).

I don't understand how you can confuse the two.

It's possible to have what almost everyone would consider a fair welfare system.

It's not possible to have what even a significant minority would consider to be a fair UBI system.

Welfare systems have a goal of ensuring that people who need more get more.

UBI has the goal of ensuring that no one gets more than anyone else.

UBI doesn't prevent a fair welfare system on top of it. It doesn't have to be one or the other. UBI replacing unemployment welfare but not other welfare makes the most sense, IMO.

> UBI doesn't prevent a fair welfare system on top of it. It doesn't have to be one or the other. UBI replacing unemployment welfare but not other welfare makes the most sense, IMO.

Another welfare system in addition to the existing welfare system is quite undesirable for most proponents of UBI who (like the parent I responded to earlier) present "no other welfare system" as a benefit of UBI.

I like the idea of UBI, but I agree with you that it can't replace all welfare. But UBI replacing unemployment welfare is not another welfare system in addition to the existing one. It would simplify the existing welfare system by replacing a complex part (unemployment welfare) with a simpler one (UBI).

I think it worth considering UBI in this light. I'm not a proponent of eliminating all other welfare.

However, most UBI theories rely on taking all welfare funds and redistributing them evenly. If you take unemployment welfare only, you're looking into massive tax increases or UBI that won't provide even very basic living.