This is a genuinely contested policy question where reasonable people disagree based on values and interpretation of evidence, not something with a factual "right answer." I don't think I should tell you what to conclude, but I can lay out the strongest considerations on each side so you can weigh them yourself.
Arguments for UBI
•Poverty reduction and economic security: A guaranteed income floor could reduce poverty and give people a buffer against job loss, illness, or economic shocks, potentially reducing stress and improving health outcomes.
•Response to automation: Some worry that AI and automation will eliminate jobs faster than new ones are created, and UBI is proposed as a cushion for displaced workers.
•Simplification of welfare: Replacing complex, means-tested programs (with their bureaucracy, stigma, and "benefit cliffs" that penalize earning more) with a simple cash transfer could be more efficient and dignified.
•Freedom and autonomy: Cash, unlike in-kind benefits, lets people make their own choices—pursue education, start a business, do unpaid caregiving, or leave an abusive/exploitative work situation.
•Empirical pilots: Various cash-transfer experiments (Finland, Kenya, Stockton CA, etc.) have shown modest positive effects on wellbeing and, contrary to fears, no major drop in employment in many cases—though results are mixed and contested.
Arguments against UBI
•Cost: A UBI large enough to matter (e.g., $1,000/month to all US adults) would cost trillions annually—funding it requires either large tax increases, cutting other programs, or deficit spending.
•Inflation risk: Critics argue that giving everyone cash without increasing the supply of goods/services (housing, healthcare) could just bid up prices, eroding the benefit.
•Targeting concerns: Because UBI goes to everyone including the wealthy, some argue it's less efficient than targeted programs aimed specifically at people in need.
•Work incentives: Even if pilot studies show small effects, skeptics worry that a permanent, larger-scale UBI could reduce labor force participation in ways short-term trials can't capture.
•Political/administrative tradeoffs: UBI might replace effective existing programs (healthcare subsidies, food assistance, disability support) with cash that doesn't address the same specific needs, potentially leaving some vulnerable groups worse off.
Alternatives often proposed instead
Negative income tax, expanded EITC, child allowances, job guarantees, universal services (healthcare, childcare), or targeted guaranteed income for specific groups (e.g., disabled people, new parents) rather than truly universal cash.
If it'd help, I'm happy to dig into specific evidence—like results from particular pilot programs, cost estimates for a US-scale UBI, or how different countries have approached it—just let me know what angle interests you most.