UBI
Yet another 3 letter acronym that seems to have
found renewed relevance within the context of this "new normal"
world. It stands for the idea of giving money to people without any exchange of
labour or any other condition aside from being alive.
It is not a new idea, it dates as far as the 18th
century with proponents such as Condorcet as a measure to fight inequality. The
proponents of today are people like Elon Musk or David Yang and their core
motivator for UBI is automation and it will force many industries to adapt from
the use of human labour into a robotic framework.
Whether it is for inequality or automation that is
not the focus of this article. There are also political ideologies that can be
tied to this idea but that too will be left out. Instead, it is better to
explore the feasibility of UBI.
Among the reasons that have been put forward
against it is the loss of purpose since most people who go to their jobs every
day would be left without a reason to wake up in the morning. However, the
great majority of people who would benefit from UBI are stuck in jobs with no
career prospect and their sole purpose is to be able to pay bills and feed
themselves, so the argument doesn't stand.
Others argue that people would just spend it all at
once and would go broke right after the first check. That may be true,
although most bills would still be there and one still needs to eat. There
isn't any mention that with the UBI suddenly everything else is free of charge
so people would have to consider that before going out on a binge and spend
crazy.
The real feasibility factor is the volatility of
the standard of living. It is a concept that changes from culture to culture
and in the case of western culture, it is deeply rooted in archetypes that are
not aligned with the UBI. In essence, people are prone to want more. There is a
debate to be made as to why and how, whether it is a consequence of capitalism
and advertising or post-war society models, the fact is that there and it needs
to be taken into account.
People want more and better and different and they
want to feel better with the new and bright as a source of joy, accomplishment,
status, superiority, and or recognition. As much as we can discuss as to how
our human condition levels the natural Plainfield, the social/financial
conditions and geographies change all that.
As such either the incomes would have to reflect
the particularities of a country, since the value of goods and services aren't
the same everywhere, or it risks being a naive approach to solving inequality
and automation.
Put simply, the UBI can only work if it is an integral
part of a system that allows it to exist. A system that knows where to get the
money without risking further debt and can calculate just how much is enough.
This last part is tricky. and what does it even mean is yet another conundrum.
On the one hand, people are not inclined to care enough for others and either
decrease their expectations as to the meaning of success and abundance, and on
the other whenever they have been forced to the result is usually a disaster
and bears closeness to negative ill efficient models.
For the universal basic income to have a real
chance to work, the overall purpose of life has to be repurposed, the standard
of living needs a refresh and the model of society needs to change. Therefore,
for the time being, it is a nice idea, one that could even benefit the people
in the poverty line but ultimately on a massive scale, it won't work. The world
isn't ready for it.