>As unemployment rises, the UBI can be raised. As it increases, some people will choose to cut back their hours, or drop out of paid work altogether, leaving room for those who want/need the extra money that paid work provides. At some point, the market will be brought back into balance<p>I couldn't make it more than a dozen sentences in before running into the illogical and unsupported claims. If unemployment is high, why would we want to drive more workers out of the labor market? How would this create "balance". Ubi would be highest with 100% unemployment.<p>I assume this comes back to the false idea that printing currency can be treated like real economic growth. You can print all the money you want, but at the end of the day someone has to grow the food and build the widgets.
Anything that proposes solving complex problems with a single, simple solution is pretty much guaranteed to have a fatal flaw.<p>In this case: If you give everybody a baseline amount of income, then prices will invariably rise to absorb it all, returning everyone to their previous positions (and problems).<p>If you actually want to tackle the problem of poverty, you need to first solve the problem of monetary inequality, which invariably involves taking it from the rich (who have lots of resources to fight against such measures).
A UBI partially offset (only because the per taxpayer limit is equal to the UBI) offset by a high, immediate new “UBI tax” (1/3 of earned income) is basically standard rapid-clawback means-tested welfare program of the type UBI is usually contrasted with.