Once upon a time, people lived self-sufficient lives. When they were hungry, they would gather berries and hunt, and when they were thirsty, they would find a river to fetch water. They lived by following the resources available to them. Although there were differences in resource abundance among different tribes, survival was not impossible. With the advent of the 18th-century Industrial Revolution, capitalism became mainstream, and the wealth gap accumulated from generation to generation. Some people's incomes couldn't keep up with the skyrocketing cost of living, and even getting enough to eat became a problem. It was at this time that some voices emerged, suggesting the implementation of a Universal Basic Income (UBI). UBI is a monetary system in which there are no conditions, qualifications, or eligibility restrictions, and every citizen or member is entitled to receive a certain amount of money regularly. However, some people consider this policy to be utterly absurd, while others believe it is a measure that governments should take to protect human rights.

Supporters of UBI have three main arguments. Firstly, many dropouts from education are not because the individuals themselves do not wish to continue their education, but due to economic pressures. Young individuals may need to start working at a young age to help support their families. Similarly, some adults may aspire to acquire additional skills through further education but are burdened by overwhelming economic pressures that force them to work long hours. They come home exhausted and have no opportunity for self-improvement. With UBI, everything changes. Students can receive a complete education, and it offers determined adults the opportunity to pursue further education, ultimately improving graduation rates and employment rates.Secondly, this policy is superior to existing welfare assistance programs. For instance, disadvantaged individuals may lack sufficient information and may not even be aware of the assistance programs' procedures or eve their existence. Furthermore, applying for and proving eligibility for such subsidies can damage self-esteem and expose recipients to stigmatization from society.Lastly, UBI empowers non-working parents and caregivers who silently contribute to society. These individuals make significant contributions to the normal functioning of the world but often do not receive fair compensation. They may find themselves in disadvantaged positions within their households. And this policy can give them confidence, making power relationships within families more equal.

Opponents of UBI also have three main points of view. Firstly, they argue that unconditional cash payments may lead people to become lazy and lose their motivation to work. People may think, "Why should I bother working when the government provides assistance even if I do nothing?" This could result in a society burdened by individuals who refuse to work and rely on handouts, potentially undermining the nation's economy. Critics believe that such individuals could gradually erode the economic stability of the entire country.
Secondly, opponents argue that the funding for UBI comes from taxation, with every citizen contributing. This means that even the impoverished are contributors, and the policy effectively takes money from the poor and redistributes it to everyone. Critics contend that this does not effectively help the truly impoverished, and it can result in wealthy and financially struggling individuals receiving the same amount of money, which they believe is unfair.
Lastly, opponents emphasize the high cost of UBI. Maintaining a basic income for the entire nation is a significant financial burden, and it is evident that such a program would require substantial funding. This funding would likely come from increased taxation, which could place a heavier burden on the population, potentially pushing those who were previously able to make ends meet into financial hardship. Alternatively, cutting expenses in other government programs is suggested as a way to fund UBI, but critics argue that this could negatively impact public services and the well-being of the people who rely on those services.

Not only theoretical debates, but now many countries have conducted UBI experiments, such as Canada, the United States, Finland, Germany, and others. I believe that these real-world examples are more persuasive and authentic than purely theoretical discussions. Here are examples from the United States and Finland.

The Stockton Economic Empowerment Demonstration (SEED) is a basic income experiment conducted in the United States for impoverished households. It provided a continuous $500 per month for two years and compared the outcomes to the previous conditions. The results are as follows:

1. Beneficiaries receiving $500 experienced lower income fluctuations, about one-third less than those without guaranteed income.
2. Initially, only 52% of beneficiaries were actively paying off debts. One year later, 62% of beneficiaries were actively paying off debts.
3. At the start, only 28% of beneficiaries were in full-time employment. One year later, 40% of beneficiaries were in full-time employment.
4. Initially, only 25% of beneficiaries would use cash or cash equivalents to cover unexpected expenses. One year later, 52% of the intervention group would use cash or cash equivalents to cover unexpected expenses.
5. Using the Kessler 10 to measure anxiety and depression among beneficiaries, there was a significant reduction compared to previous levels.
While we have observed a significant improvement in the quality of life from the SEED experiment, it's important to note that this experiment exclusively focused on impoverished households and did not test on typical or affluent households. Additionally, can the results of a small-scale test perfectly predict the outcomes of a large-scale implementation? At this point, it's not easy to make a definitive judgment.

In 2017-2018, Finland also conducted a UBI experiment, selecting 2,000 unemployed individuals to receive €560 per month. The results of the experiment showed that while the psychological well-being of the participants improved, with reduced anxiety, there was no significant change in employment participation rates. However, after the experiment concluded, the Finnish government decided not to extend it. The primary reason for this decision was the difficulty in implementation.
Assuming that the Finnish government implemented a similar UBI program, distributing the same amount of money to citizens each month, the expenditure would account for 5% of Finland's GDP. A substantial injection of money into the market through universal basic income would naturally lead to inflationary pressures and potentially discourage people from working, as they may rely on UBI for their livelihood. This could create a vicious cycle.

From the current perspective, universal basic income (UBI) is a well-intentioned concept and one that can protect human rights, but it does raise several questions. Where would the funding for UBI come from? Will it genuinely improve people's quality of life? Will it discourage people from working in the future? Should we consider implementing wealth caps? Does "universal" include billionaire business owners? These are just a few of the many complex and interconnected issues surrounding UBI. However, I believe that if humanity can truly address these intricate challenges, a world where everyone has enough financial means to live will eventually become a reality.