Scott Santens, a writer and advocate of basic income, argues for universal basic income and reports on experiments and policy.
HN commenters use his posts as UBI explainers, but one points out he is an advocate rather than an objective observer, and another disputes a piece's assumptions.
Read the Tryanny of Kindness. It is from 1993 and is a former welfare mother and advocate who advocates for a guaranteed income.
The book goes into great length of the pathology of the welfare system and its non-profit charity profiteers. Of course that was 27 years ago.
It obviously depends on the UBI. If it covered children, it would be absolutely better for the recipients. If it does not cover children, as in Yang's plan, then it is questionable, but it still could benefit a lot because many do not get it at all:
https://medium.com/basic-income/there-is-no-policy-proposal-more-progressive-than-andrew-yangs-freedom-dividend-72d3850a6245
http://www.scottsantens.com/tanf-is-terrible
Here's a quick blog post with a link to more depth, on how UBI can be good for the economy. https://www.scottsantens.com/the-cost-of-universal-basic-income-is-the-net-transfer-amount-not-the-gross-price-tag
In computing terms, I like to think that monetary flows are how the market shares information. So having more people "in the game" will increase the fidelity of the information, opening new markets. For example, discount retail might be able to serve more specialty niches.
Krugman's point is not uncontested:
http://www.scottsantens.com/our-paradoxical-economy-courtesy-of-technology-and-the-lack-of-basic-income
Additionally, even if we're not peering around the metrics for dynamics hiding behind them, there's the question of how much of the by-Krugman's-metric still rising (if not "soaring") productivity it would take to soften the labor market. I'd like to think he knows the answer to that question, but it isn't clear.
This is a silly piece that makes a false assumption after false assumption. It's just not the case that UBI creates excess inflation. It can, but in order to do so, it has to be designed in a particular way in a particular economic environment.
This piece of mine gets into the variables to consider:
https://www.scottsantens.com/17-key-variables-that-determine-ubis-inflationary-impact/
That isn't how the term is normally used. This is a good intro: https://www.scottsantens.com/negative-income-tax-nit-and-unconditional-basic-income-ubi-what-makes-them-the-same-and-what-makes-them-different
And you can even see on wikipedia that:
> Therefore, a family with $0 income would be entitled to receive $1500 in subsidy.
^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_income_tax
This article was originally posted in 2014, the author Scott Santens pretends to take an objective look at UBI, but in reality Scott is "Writer and advocate of basic income for all" according to his website
http://www.scottsantens.com/