It seems like you're saying that UBI is more efficient we don't need spend resources on targeting it. I 100% agree for the general case of wealth transfer. I think it's very weak for addressing specific job losses.
So, let's say we have 100 people and 10 of them lost their jobs to automation but we don't know which. One option is the "Yang plan" of $12 a year ($1 a month), so we have a budget of $1200[0]. That spends $1200 giving $120 of assistance to the people we want to help. This plan is 10% efficient if the point is to help those who have lost their jobs. In fact, with a budget of $1200, we can spend up to $108 per person identifying if they lost their job due to automation and have the same efficiency (10%). That is a really high ceiling on the cost of conflict.
I'm very skeptical that in any real world situation the cost of identifying worthy recipients is greater than the "loss" of giving everyone else money. Again, only if the goal is helping workers who lost their jobs. Hell, even if you're wrong 50% of the time and give 15 people $12, you would need your method of identification to cost $60 (5x the benefit) for it to be 10% efficient!
Again, I favor UBI and I favor transforming society to function differently, but that's not helping workers who lost jobs.
[0] These are ofc not the real numbers Yang is suggesting
It seems like you're saying that UBI is more efficient we don't need spend resources on targeting it. I 100% agree for the general case of wealth transfer. I think it's very weak for addressing specific job losses.
So, let's say we have 100 people and 10 of them lost their jobs to automation but we don't know which. One option is the "Yang plan" of $12 a year ($1 a month), so we have a budget of $1200[0]. That spends $1200 giving $120 of assistance to the people we want to help. This plan is 10% efficient if the point is to help those who have lost their jobs. In fact, with a budget of $1200, we can spend up to $108 per person identifying if they lost their job due to automation and have the same efficiency (10%). That is a really high ceiling on the cost of conflict.
I'm very skeptical that in any real world situation the cost of identifying worthy recipients is greater than the "loss" of giving everyone else money. Again, only if the goal is helping workers who lost their jobs. Hell, even if you're wrong 50% of the time and give 15 people $12, you would need your method of identification to cost $60 (5x the benefit) for it to be 10% efficient!
Again, I favor UBI and I favor transforming society to function differently, but that's not helping workers who lost jobs.
[0] These are ofc not the real numbers Yang is suggesting