That drops the U in UBI, most it’s merits, and creates a poverty gap.
UBI only makes sense when it’s universal. It makes most sense when it replaces other entitlement programs.
I don’t think UBI is necessarily doomed to an inflationary spiral, but the onus is on its proponents to prove otherwise.
Come up with a scheme that won’t become a bread and circus, and wont cause inflation, and I’m all for it!
But I’d rather just smash the machines (that’s ultimately what UBI aims to solve) and solve the automation problem by giving ppl the dignity [1] of work.
[1] my local grocer employees a few folks with Down syndrome at the cash register. They’re super slow, but otherwise good at their job. I love them. They value their job so much, and they have by far the best attitude. Their job gives them the dignity of knowing that they aren’t mere consumers, but also (in their limited way) contributors. That’s very powerful for the soul.
I don't see why inflation is necessary. UBI doesn't have to change the amount of money flowing through the economy; one option is heavy taxes. Wealth redistribution, effectively. That does beg the question of whether incentives will remain high enough to maintain the technological forward momentum we have been making, and whether that slowing down is even necessarily a bad thing.
> [1] my local grocer employees a few folks with Down syndrome at the cash register. They’re super slow, but otherwise good at their job. I love them. They value their job so much, and they have by far the best attitude. Their job gives them the dignity of knowing that they aren’t mere consumers, but also (in their limited way) contributors. That’s very powerful for the soul.
That's very different from smashing the machines to me. They really and truly are contributing something to the world; we need people to check people out and bag their groceries. If we built a machine that could check people out and bag their groceries, smashing that machine so people can get the "sense of pride and accomplishment" of having needlessly manually bagged the groceries seems a little... patronizing? I mean, at that point why don't we just keep using the machines and send everyone to school for the rest of their lives to keep them busy like we do with children?
I think people will gravitate towards work on their own, it just won't look like what you're accustomed to. With that amount of automation, we can support a lot more work that isn't strictly industrial. Arts and culture, artisanal goods, baskets woven underwater, etc. Is it going to propel us forward? Probably not, but I think it will make people a lot happier than pointlessly bagging groceries. If we accept that the value of the work is intrinsic (i.e. the value is in doing the work, not in the product of the work), we might as well let people work on what makes them happy.
UBI only makes sense when it’s universal. It makes most sense when it replaces other entitlement programs.
I don’t think UBI is necessarily doomed to an inflationary spiral, but the onus is on its proponents to prove otherwise.
Come up with a scheme that won’t become a bread and circus, and wont cause inflation, and I’m all for it!
But I’d rather just smash the machines (that’s ultimately what UBI aims to solve) and solve the automation problem by giving ppl the dignity [1] of work.
[1] my local grocer employees a few folks with Down syndrome at the cash register. They’re super slow, but otherwise good at their job. I love them. They value their job so much, and they have by far the best attitude. Their job gives them the dignity of knowing that they aren’t mere consumers, but also (in their limited way) contributors. That’s very powerful for the soul.