In places where UBI is implemented, it demonstrably massively increases entrepreneurship, meaning people are able to do jobs and work they enjoy and are interested in. This makes them happier, raises the standard of living, makes them more participatory in democracy, and improves the economy.
It lubricates the accelerating impact of technology by providing everyone with a growing economic buffer against impending displacement to labor via automation.
perhaps instead of a basic income there should be a basic freedom to access land and other common resources from which "income" or other wealth may be generated
We should also abolish minimum wage at the same time. That way people can pursue their passions, even for very low wages to gain expertise in what they want to do.
Can we examine the effects of monetary policy (MP) and productivity gains. Massive productivity gains have been achieved over recent years. Why has this not translated to proportional increases in compensation and reductions in length of work hours? Does MP play a part?
Universal basic income will not solve the underlying problem that causes economic inequality: lack of ability to access or take advantage of economic opportunity.
Class society is the root of economic inequality, and replacing capitalist productive relations with a socialist socioeconomic formation [1] is the most effective way to eradicate economic inequality.
sources:
[1] term used as it is in Marxist phraseology - not welfare states or high income-tax countries
Since there are no fully communist countries in the world (even the USSR set communism as a *goal*, and declared to be living in socialism), such blanket statement is unsupported.
gnudiff
It would not *eradicate* economic inequality. It would simply set a new lowest standard for living, above which any amount of inequality could still exist.
Additionally, there is a question of whether it would not lead to inflation -- if everybody can pay for X, the makers of X can raise prices.
A universal basic income already exists in the USA in the form of the current myriad of welfare programs today. Are we arguing scope/amount? Have the existng programs been successful? Aren't they administersed by an elite class of greedy beurocrats? Should we give them more power over our lives?
The first statement, "A universal basic income already exists in the USA in the form of the current myriad of welfare programs today.", is objectively false because it does not adhere to the definition of universal basic income. For example, the contemporary welfare system is means-tested, negating that it is "universal". Additionally, benefits are highly-specific (such as food stamps or electric assistance), so it is misleading to connect this with the idea of income.
alex
If developing countries got a new global wage that is subsidized by developed countries that would hyper-inflate the local economy. Prices would rise but living conditions would remain the same.
There is no reason to help the poor. Allowing a group of uneducated and unintelligent to freeload only creates a class of freeloaders. Instead, the rich should be encouraged to show empathy by rewarding those who help the poor, and in turn, creating a less cutthroat economy.
blendy
