They say money can’t buy happiness, but can it buy freedom? Andrew Yang thought so when he introduced the concept of universal basic income (UBI) during his 2020 campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination. He promised that every American—no matter their circumstances—would receive a guaranteed $1,000 each month. However, it looks like UBI will fail!
It was an idea that was bold, simple, and designed to appeal to a country increasingly anxious about automation and job displacement. But would this really lead to the entrepreneurial renaissance Yang envisioned? Or was this just a fantasy wrapped in cash? The results from actual UBI trials suggest the latter—and it’s not looking good.
Yang’s version of UBI was not just another government handout. It was universal. No means testing, no bureaucratic hurdles—just cash in your hand every month. For Yang, the appeal lay in the simplicity: by giving everyone money, you eliminate the stigma of welfare, avoid disincentivizing work, and sidestep the administrative mess that comes with traditional welfare programs. But for all its theoretical appeal, there’s one problem: real-world evidence is painting a very different picture.
Yang wasn’t the first to pitch UBI, but his reasoning was timely. As technology continues to advance, he argued, millions of low-skilled jobs could be automated out of existence, leaving workers displaced with no clear path forward. A UBI, he suggested, could act as a buffer—giving people the breathing room to figure out what’s next. And, beyond survival, Yang painted a rosy picture of what a UBI could do: spark creativity, foster entrepreneurship, allow individuals to pursue passions, start new businesses, or even go back to school. A guaranteed income could, in theory, unlock productivity and personal fulfillment in ways a traditional job never could.
At least, that’s how it was supposed to work. In reality, the rosy vision has run into some hard truths.
A recent study led by the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) put Yang’s UBI dream to the test by providing $1,000 per month to low-income individuals over three years. The results? People worked less, earned less, and generally used their newfound freedom to… relax. Recipients reduced their labor hours and unemployment periods dragged out. Despite Yang’s claims that UBI would unleash a new wave of entrepreneurship and self-betterment, the evidence didn’t back this up. There was no significant increase in people starting businesses or returning to school. And while participants expressed “entrepreneurial intentions,” those intentions rarely materialized into action.
One key finding was that UBI recipients valued their extra leisure time. With the safety net of a monthly payment, people weren’t hustling harder—they were enjoying more downtime. Now, to be clear, there’s nothing inherently wrong with relaxation. But this raises a fundamental question: if UBI simply leads people to work less and play more, is it really the economic engine of innovation Yang promised?
The numbers in this study might seem small on an individual level, but when you multiply these effects across millions of people, the picture gets darker. A society where a large portion of the population chooses leisure over labor isn’t just taking a break—it’s running into a productivity problem. Fewer working hours mean less economic output. When you scale that up, you’re talking about a serious drag on the economy, not the innovation-driven boom Yang envisioned.
Even the argument that UBI could streamline or replace welfare programs faces serious skepticism. While Yang and other UBI advocates claim it could make government smaller, no one has realistically explained how that transition would work. Will UBI replace food stamps, housing assistance, and healthcare benefits? The complexity of dismantling existing welfare programs while implementing UBI is a logistical nightmare that no one seems to have a clear roadmap for.
So where does this leave the case for UBI? At best, the evidence suggests it would allow people to work less and enjoy more leisure. But if the grand promise was to unlock creativity, entrepreneurship, and economic dynamism, the reality is falling woefully short. Instead of unleashing a nation of innovators, the data shows people more inclined to take a step back from the workforce and spend more time on personal leisure.
Does that mean UBI is a total failure? Not necessarily. There’s value in financial security and reducing poverty. But if you’re hoping for a sweeping societal transformation—the kind Yang sold—UBI may not be the silver bullet it’s made out to be.
No matter which angle you’re looking at it from – economics, chart technicals, or a combination of both – the bull case for silver is as powerful as ever. $35 will prove to be a key level, and after the bulls break through that, the $50 resistance point from 2011 will be next in line.
0 Comments