Evidence · Perspectives · Discussion
About
We take no predetermined position for or against UBI. We distinguish facts, estimates and opinions, present different perspectives, and test conclusions against evidence.
What this site is for
After Wage is a public space for research, perspectives and discussion about universal basic income. We examine costs, outcomes, value judgments and uncertainty together, so readers with different views can inspect the arguments.
AI, employment and income security provide important context, but whether AI causes a particular employment change requires distinguishing correlation from causation. UBI is one income-security option and should be compared with alternatives, including no policy change.
Editors currently curate research and different perspectives, supported by a fiscal sandbox, study summaries and debate analysis. Claims and assessments in articles are open to discussion and correction; readers are not asked to adopt them as the platform’s position.
What fairness means here
We do not assume UBI must be adopted or must fail. We aim to disclose assumptions, separate facts from opinions, explain limits and revise judgments when evidence changes. “After Wage” is a question, not a prediction that work will disappear.
We currently include 8 experiments, of which editors classify 2 as unfavorable to UBI, plus 8 concerns and responses. These classifications assess particular studies and arguments; they are not a final verdict on UBI.
Fairness does not mean every view is equally well supported. We discuss disagreements in proportion to the evidence and acknowledge that editorial judgments can be biased. Readers who support, oppose or remain undecided about UBI should all find material they can verify.
Editorial rules
-
Facts and figures should carry verifiable sources, dates and definitions. Data structures help record citations; they do not replace checking the original source.
-
Include supportive, critical and inconclusive research. Organize evidence by study design rather than whether it favors UBI, and explain each study’s limits.
-
Represent different perspectives accurately and in full. Distinguish research findings, authors’ opinions and editorial assessments. Avoid labels in place of arguments, and weigh claims by evidence rather than giving every claim equal weight.
-
We do not manufacture precision. You will not be told "63% of your job is automatable", because no public dataset supports that at occupation level. A band is a band, and an inference is labelled as one.
-
Our own estimates say so. Several funding ceilings in the fiscal sandbox have no third-party costing behind them, and the interface shows a red "our estimate" tag rather than quietly letting you assume authority we do not have.
-
Corrections are logged. When a number is wrong we fix it and record what changed and when.
Funding and conflicts of interest
No ads, no tracking, and no funding from any party, government or company. All content and data are released under CC BY 4.0 and can be reused freely with attribution — including to argue against us.
Found an error
Submit feedback or view the correction log →
If a number is wrong, a source is misattributed, or an objection has been stated too weakly, tell us. The last of those is the most valuable report, because it is the error this site is most prone to and least able to spot in itself.