Would UBI result in catastrophic population decline?
Why have children if you can live on UBI and not have to work?
Children may receive payments as well, meaning there could be additional financial incentive to have/adopt/foster children beyond current tax credits, food stamps, and guardianship assistance.
In the United States, the issue I have with UBI is that it seems society must become healthy before becoming wealthy [1], so universal healthcare seems a higher priority.
1. https://bigthink.com/culture-religion/hans-rosling-had-a-way...
You might decide you have more time to take care of children if you don't have to work and thus have more.
> Why have children if you can live on UBI and not have to work?
Why have children if you have to work?
Ah yes, everyone knows that the solution for "I'm working too many jobs" is "have children" /s
I've read some dumbass reasons to oppose UBI, but this is a new frontier. It's like you got your "nobody wants to work anymore" and "there aren't enough white babies" moral panics tangled up.
I don't understand why the moderators allow you to keep posting questions that are clearly bait multiple times a day.
Your premise appears to be that financial security leads to a lower birth rates. The inverse would mean that financial insecurity leads to higher birth rates. I don't know what weird narrative you are telling yourself that makes these two things related at all. My intuition says that financial security would lead to a higher birth rate, but isn't there a whole field of science that studies these things? You know there are more than 300 journals devoted to economics (a field of science) and probably just as many to sociology (a field of science).
Maybe, the day after UBI is implemented, everyone quits their jobs and buys a hammock and no one procreates anymore, but I don't think we're at risk of finding out.
Opposite - more children, higher payments. If nothing else, when they turn 18, they would get UBI too and you can afford more per month together.