A UBI reduces racial inequality because it disproportionately benefits minorities and it addresses felon disenfranchisement.

Racial Injustice In Where Do We Go from Here: Chaos or Community [2010 (1967)], the last book of Martin Luther King, Jr., the guaranteed income proposal is introduced as the simplest and most effective solution to poverty. MLK welcomes what he sees as a “cultural change” from old times, when we would see poverty as a result of individual inability or immorality, to new times, when we understand it as stemming from market failures and discriminatory practices that force people into unemployment. Because of this shift, he hopes that we may come to accept radical proposals like guaranteed income as a response to the poverty endemic to our economic systems. In October 1966, the guaranteed income proposal also appeared in the Black Panther Party ten-point manifesto under the second commitment of the program. It was envisaged as a compensation for involuntary unemployment among African-Americans stemming in part from discriminatory practices by white businessmen. The proposal was radical: If it cannot ensure a decent income to its citizens, the federal government ought to return the means of production to the community to guarantee a good living standard to its members. Decades later, the Movement for Black Lives also endorses a form of UBI as part of the economic justice platform of their manifesto. If the UBI proposal was relevant for racial equality at the time of MLK and the Black Panther Party and remains relevant today, it is primarily because unemployment, underemployment, precarious employment, and bad jobs disproportionally affect the lives of people of color. This is true because of discriminatory practices, still, and also because of broader inequalities in access to education, training, and opportunities (Shelby 2012). Interestingly, both MLK and the Black Panther Party were arguing for guaranteed income or guaranteed employment. They saw the proposals as interchangeable to some extent. After all, both policies are indeed designed to restore dignity by alleviating poverty. Guaranteed income can also help keep job guarantee proposals in check. This is because, with a high enough UBI, recipients would only be willing to take on “decent” jobs that provide them with more than just an income. If caring for a relative, volunteering in their community, or starting a business seemed like better options, then they will not be compelled to accept the jobs under the guarantee plan. This comment mirrors Standing's (2013) response to guaranteed-jobs proponents who oppose UBI: The right to an income is a prerequisite of a meaningful right to work. The contemporary proposal for UBI on grounds of racial justice comes from Dorian Warren (2016) in the Movement for Black Lives' manifesto. Under most UBI proposals [excluding those that would overall reduce the benefits available to the worse off, like Charles Murray's (2016)] those most disadvantaged stand to benefit most. Since black families in the United States are disproportionately found at the bottom of the wealth and income distribution, and since unemployment is twice as high among black workers as among white workers, black families stand to gain most from the policy. Warren (2016) also argues that the proposal's commitment to universality would make it harder for governments to exclude felons and ex-felons from the safety net. Under a system designed to target the deserving and screen out the undeserving, those tied up in the criminal justice system would be more easily excluded. This is important for racial justice given the overrepresentation of people of color in prisons, and given the discrimination experienced by ex-convicts in the labor market.