Advocating for State Level Universal Basic Income: A More Realistic Approach?

Is advocating for a state-level Universal Basic Income (UBI) more realistic and practical than seeking its implementation at the federal level? This idea merits consideration, especially in a diverse nation like the United States, comprising 50 states with varying political and economic landscapes.

Alaska’s oil dividend provides an interesting precedent. It resembles a partial UBI, albeit insufficient for living expenses and only distributed annually. This model suggests that other states could potentially adopt similar initiatives. Looking at recent political trends, issues like gay marriage and cannabis legalization have progressed more swiftly at the state level. While same-sex marriage eventually became a federal matter through a Supreme Court decision, cannabis legalization is still evolving state by state, leading to a diverse legal landscape.

This political progression could be instructive for UBI advocates. Personally, I believe that initiating UBI at the federal level might be less effective and potentially problematic in the near term. Federal candidates like Andrew Yang and Marianne Williamson have advocated for a federal UBI, but the chances of them winning and implementing such a policy in the next decade seem slim. Furthermore, a federal act to implement UBI appears unlikely unless economic disruptions from automation and artificial intelligence occur rapidly and extensively.

However, I see a significant possibility of transitioning into a post-scarcity future of abundance driven by these technologies within the next 5 to 15 years. In this context, states taking the initiative to implement UBI seems plausible in the near term. Unlike the annual, limited distribution in Alaska, states could opt for a monthly UBI of a more substantial amount.

Different states adopting varied UBI systems could also serve as a broader experimental ground, extending beyond the scope of existing small-scale pilot studies. Such state-level trials could provide insights into the viability of UBI on a larger scale and over a longer period.

Many states possess a ballot initiative process, allowing citizens to directly influence the implementation of state-level UBI. This approach could reflect the true will of the people, bypassing potential legislative roadblocks.

In conclusion, while I support and appreciate all efforts toward advocating UBI, I believe that, at least for the time being, state-level UBI initiatives are more feasible and practical than federal ones. Whether through traditional means, cryptocurrency, or semi-privatized methods involving unions or nonprofits, the pursuit of UBI at the state level could be a more immediate and effective strategy. This approach does not diminish the value of advocating for a federal UBI, but it might offer a more pragmatic path forward in the short term.