[robotcapital]

My understanding of marginal propensity to consume is that it decreases as wealth and income increase. The wealthier you are, the less you tend to spend as a function of the next dollar. So the inverse would imply that there would be more spending overall with UBI. We sort of saw this experiment play out with the COVID relief checks.

Given that increase in demand, I'm curious how UBI would affect the supply side. My first thought is that it would negatively impact supply since there would be less efficient allocation of people to supply-related jobs. Unless I'm off here, I struggle to see how increased demand and decreased supply wouldn't impact inflation.

[bitshiftfaced]

It's not like all of the extra wealth is frozen in some account. People hold the wealth in assets and investments.

[legacynl]

> Unless I'm off here, I struggle to see how increased demand and decreased supply wouldn't impact inflation.

We're rapidly approaching the situation where 10 factory workers can be replaced by a single worker supervising some robots.

At some point the decrease in employment will not significantly impact productivity for a large sector of the market.

A properly implemented UBI scheme will be significant enough to allow a large part of the population to seriously reduce their income, either by working way less, or not working at all. Only that way can the amount of dollars in the economy stay relatively the same.

I think therefore the assumption that supply would diminish while demand increases is wrong.

[robotcapital]

Given that, would you argue that the main condition needed for UBI, or wealth transfer in general, is increased productivity?