Quote:
Originally Posted by Knalus
Ok, my understanding of UBI is that because of automation, jobs, income, and inequality are causing many people to be left behind, right? And UBI suggests that one solution to the problem is to give people money, no strings attached, to allow them to at least have a decent standard of living, while society straightens out the situation, correct? And that UBI is only the solution to people's livelihoods, and not a solution to the structure of wealth generation in society, right?
|
UBI is interesting for another reason too: if 30% (or more) of people are unemployed or underemployed, the ripple effects economically go beyond just helping the individuals themselves, but also toward the structural elements of an economy where 30%-plus of people are removed from the consumer pool. Put another way: that's a lot of people not able to spend and the world's economy could tank.
This is especially important in Western countries who've become the purchasers of the world's goods, and so the drivers of global capitalism with the US market obviously the juggernaut.
UDI is an incredibly complicated idea: you'll need buy-ins and targeted taxation on corporations. Rich countries will be that much more appealing, making already-difficult things like immigration and international capital ridiculously hard to figure out. The relationships between rich and poor countries will be strained like never before.
Given the difficulties, I'm just not sure it will ever happen, and I suspect that the drivers of its failure won't be the top 1%, but more like the top 10%. It might exist in some localized places (like in one or two American states or Canadian provinces), but it will be too painful to get people to accept having to support the unemployable. Also, the buy-in necessary from major corporations will likely be impossible. And without that buy-in, the government cannot fund this type of endeavor.