Only minimum wage reaches all low-wage earners---includes ex-cons

There is another vulnerable subgroup of workers who may be excluded. In many states, individuals with criminal convictions are ineligible for public housing, food stamps, and cash assistance. Such exclusions are arguably unjust per se, and given the racial inequalities of the criminal justice system, they have a clear disparate impact on the basis of race. I find it very difficult to believe that the U.S. Congress will extend a UBI to formerly incarcerated individuals, for example. In the unlikely event that Congress does, I fully suspect that many states would devise ways to ensure that those individuals' pay back the UBI in some fashion. For example, they could devise special assessments to compensate the state for the costs of their incarceration. In either case, the result would again be to create a pool of easily exploitable laborers - and again, a heavily racialized one.

This is of course not what UBI advocates want. But it again suggests that the policy may have less impact on low-wage workers than many would like. If the goal is to increase take-home pay and the quality of work, minimum wage hikes, and other due process rights will likely be far more effective.

A UBI would fail to protect the working class---minimum wage increases avoid loopholes and ensure equality

Brishen Rogers 17 (Associate Professor, Temple University Beasley School of Law), 05/03/2017, Boston Review, https://www.bostonreview.net/forum/brishen-rogers-basic-income-just-society/

How would a basic income impact workers and firms in this context? It would surely protect workers against the economic harms of unemployment and underemployment by giving them unconditional resources, and it would enable them to bargain for higher wages and to refuse terrible jobs. But a basic income would do little to reduce corporate power, which is a function not just of wealth but of the ability of firms to structure work relationships however they wish when countervailing institutions—such as a powerful regulatory state—are absent or ineffective. Yes, a basic income would make it easier for workers to organize and demand reforms—Andy Stern dubbed it “the ultimate permanent strike fund”—but the threat of termination or retaliation would still prevent many workers from protesting or striking in the first place.

And of course many have argued that a basic income would make minimum wage and collective bargaining laws less necessary, since workers’ material needs would be met by the state. But cash benefits and reasonable wages are not morally equivalent. In Robert Solow’s memorable phrase, the labor market is a “social institution” governed in part by norms of reciprocity and mutual respect. Workers often demand higher wages from larger and more profitable employers. And they work less diligently when they feel disrespected. So there is a major difference between a generous wage on the one hand and a meager wage supplemented with cash from the state on the other. Generous wages help make firms’ economic responsibility roughly commensurate with their economic power. Meager wages signal disrespect, and state transfers are impersonal.

In fact, without labor market regulations in place, the impact of a basic income on very low-wage work could be disastrous. If a basic income were not extended to green card holders, guest workers, or “irregular” immigrants (those who enter or stay without authorization), such workers would be far cheaper to employ in menial jobs, at which point they would be permanently enshrined as a laboring underclass. (Currently minimum wage laws apply regardless of work authorization, on the grounds that differential treatment would undermine standards for all.) A basic income could even be designed to serve white nationalist ends. In fact, far-right European parties have often embraced the welfare state as a means of defending citizens against a purported tide of immigrants.

A standalone basic income also will not ensure equal access to quality education, health care, mental health care, housing, and transportation. Liberal markets systematically fail to provide such goods to the poor and working class, for the simple reason that they often are not profitable when provided on equitable terms. Giving cash to individuals to purchase them will not suddenly change matters.