if I run an ice cream collective, where 10 people make ice cream and share the results amongst themselves in a Universal Basic Ice cream scheme, but ice cream making is hard because the tubs are 30kg and hard to carry, I'm going to have a disincentive from letting frail people in to my collective since it will mean less ice cream for the rest of us. I will, however, be OK letting in strong people, or young people with promise, because I want to keep getting ice cream when I'm old.
How is a bigger market less output per capita better?
Say your countryA has 100 people each capable of producing $100 worth of stuff in a day. You introduce a UBI of $50. People have $50 left over
The neighboring countryB has a lot of uneducated people (good folks! Just as smart. Just had less opportunity to learn) who move to your own.
If five of countryB's people move to countryA they can go to school and draw on public resources and become skilled and make a future net positive contribution without too much drain on countryA in the present. You've got 20 countryA folks for every one countryB person. A few % cut in UBI or few % raise in taxes won't hurt
If fifty of them do it it becomes a much larger burden on the present - now there are only two countryA'ers to support countryB'ers. The support systems that everyone relies on will be stretched pretty thin.
I'm very much in favour of migration and am, in fact, an immigrant (left the US). But the more a government spends on its people the more it demands back from them, in the aggregate.
How is a bigger market less output per capita better?
Say your countryA has 100 people each capable of producing $100 worth of stuff in a day. You introduce a UBI of $50. People have $50 left over
The neighboring countryB has a lot of uneducated people (good folks! Just as smart. Just had less opportunity to learn) who move to your own.
If five of countryB's people move to countryA they can go to school and draw on public resources and become skilled and make a future net positive contribution without too much drain on countryA in the present. You've got 20 countryA folks for every one countryB person. A few % cut in UBI or few % raise in taxes won't hurt
If fifty of them do it it becomes a much larger burden on the present - now there are only two countryA'ers to support countryB'ers. The support systems that everyone relies on will be stretched pretty thin.
I'm very much in favour of migration and am, in fact, an immigrant (left the US). But the more a government spends on its people the more it demands back from them, in the aggregate.