But the whole argument is a bit confusing and I think they’re talking past each other a bit. I don’t like Piper’s appeal to political will, given that the US is much richer than the Nordic countries yet in her conception can’t seem to spare a little bit of extra money to directly give to labour force non-participants.
It does seem like Kelsey is actually defending the idea that the US should prioritise welfare state programmes instead of cash transfers, not just talking about UBI. I think Matt Bruenig makes some good points about how income supplements are important and work in rich countries for people who can’t or don’t participate in the labour force (which seems tangential to UBI, which would be supplementing for those that do).
But the whole argument is a bit confusing and I think they’re talking past each other a bit. I don’t like Piper’s appeal to political will, given that the US is much richer than the Nordic countries yet in her conception can’t seem to spare a little bit of extra money to directly give to labour force non-participants.