The chairman of President Obama’s Council of Economic Advisers, Jason Furman, made waves last week with a speech at NYU in which he rejected calls for a universal basic income (transcript). I generally think that Furman’s arguments on questions of economic policy are cogent and compelling. His arguments against a UBI, however, strike me as uniformly unpersuasive.

The case for a UBI rests on two premises: (1) low-income individuals (and not just the “deserving poor”) are entitled to some level of state support; (2) at least some of that support should come in cash rather than in kind. If you agree with those two premises, then you support a universal basic income — all the rest are details. (Some readers might ask at this point: But wouldn’t a UBI go to everyone — and not just low-income individuals? Well, yes and no. More on this point below.) One might think, then, that any case against a UBI should challenge one of these two premises (or both). Furman challenges neither.

Read more at Whatever Source Derived