My fear is that UBI will be used to help usher in huge layoffs due to job automation and this will lead to a"dual economy" where some people will be part of the formal economy and others will be relegated to the informal economy. Just as the "gig economy" is not actually beneficial to most workers, the UBI, as you mentioned, will not actually support a desirable life. People will lose their homes and UBI will just prevent people from starving, not prevent grinding poverty. I don't see a miserly UBI preventing people from demanding decent jobs from their governments. A basic safety net, at minimum, should provide for a safe, permanent home - even fully employed people in many countries struggle to access that basic need.
I think your fear is justified, Karen. Implementing a UBI within the status quo could be problematic. The key here is that, regardless of having a UBI or not, the risk is still very high that job automation will take away huge swaths of the jobs out there. Most people discuss a basic income as a safety net for the AI profit revolution, but, as you say, it might almost make things easier for the rentiers to simply wipe out the formal economy.
Fortunately, we are talking corporations here, and they are all subject to regulation and legislation IF the will is there. For example, if corporations are going to reap obscene profits by firing all of their workers, and destroying our environment to provide energy for their AI labour replacements, then it is up to the governments to de-incentivize such objectionable behaviour. That's where labour laws and taxes come into play.
There are many other aspects to what you observed. For example, you speak of an income that can provide a safe, permanent home. To me, the problem has little to do with the income level, and everything to do with the housing cost. The government has to STOP giving developers the green light to build larger and larger and larger homes, AND crack down on the whole AirBnB, and non-primary residence ownership.
There is a mathematical truism to the value crisis: the rich get richer, faster. That only happens if you let the math run amok. It takes an independent government, working for the citizens, to put the brakes on that. This gets into all sorts of other areas like Land Value Taxes, etc.
Suffice to say that, as I mentioned in the essay, a UBI will NOT work if it is the only change to our economic paradigm. It is a FIRST STEP perhaps (note the image I selected for the essay ;-), but the idea is that other shifts should quickly follow.
Universal Basic Income needs to be "proven" in another state before it would be considered seriously in North America. It would not come from enlightened planning based on what I can see in the world. It would take extraordinary chaos before it will be tried on a grand scale. Could it be adopted at the local level or provincial level? In other words, where's the most like place for this be tried?
Good observation and question. Yes, a grand scale UBI may require several smaller ones, OR some catastrophic hit to the status quo system first. Interestingly enough, COVID-19 provided an example of just such a scenario. Unfortunately the bailouts were not quite a UBI, but the idea was reawakened for many because of the solution used.
Several countries (including Canada and the United States) have had successful basic income pilot projects, which offered evidence of positive outcomes, and compelling refutations to the usual concerns raised. (Google: "Stockton", "Mincome", etc.) Again, the U.S. came within just a few Senate votes of implementing what was essentially a basic income scheme in the Nixon Presidency.
Canadians might be interested to know that the province of Prince Edward Island voted across all party lines to adopt a basic income scheme for the province. Unfortunately, being a fairly small province, they required federal government backing to get the thing rolling, and that was not forthcoming at the time. But the initiative is not dead yet.
In other news, for at least the five years that I have been writing about basic incomes, there have continuously been Private Member Bills before either the House of Commons or the Senate, calling for Basic Income studies and trials. They have not yet been given the mandate needed, but the efforts continue. Also, a significant number of municipal governments have passed legislation declaring full support for basic income, even though they are not in the position to actually implement anything at the municipal level.
My fear is that UBI will be used to help usher in huge layoffs due to job automation and this will lead to a"dual economy" where some people will be part of the formal economy and others will be relegated to the informal economy. Just as the "gig economy" is not actually beneficial to most workers, the UBI, as you mentioned, will not actually support a desirable life. People will lose their homes and UBI will just prevent people from starving, not prevent grinding poverty. I don't see a miserly UBI preventing people from demanding decent jobs from their governments. A basic safety net, at minimum, should provide for a safe, permanent home - even fully employed people in many countries struggle to access that basic need.
I think your fear is justified, Karen. Implementing a UBI within the status quo could be problematic. The key here is that, regardless of having a UBI or not, the risk is still very high that job automation will take away huge swaths of the jobs out there. Most people discuss a basic income as a safety net for the AI profit revolution, but, as you say, it might almost make things easier for the rentiers to simply wipe out the formal economy.
Fortunately, we are talking corporations here, and they are all subject to regulation and legislation IF the will is there. For example, if corporations are going to reap obscene profits by firing all of their workers, and destroying our environment to provide energy for their AI labour replacements, then it is up to the governments to de-incentivize such objectionable behaviour. That's where labour laws and taxes come into play.
There are many other aspects to what you observed. For example, you speak of an income that can provide a safe, permanent home. To me, the problem has little to do with the income level, and everything to do with the housing cost. The government has to STOP giving developers the green light to build larger and larger and larger homes, AND crack down on the whole AirBnB, and non-primary residence ownership.
There is a mathematical truism to the value crisis: the rich get richer, faster. That only happens if you let the math run amok. It takes an independent government, working for the citizens, to put the brakes on that. This gets into all sorts of other areas like Land Value Taxes, etc.
Suffice to say that, as I mentioned in the essay, a UBI will NOT work if it is the only change to our economic paradigm. It is a FIRST STEP perhaps (note the image I selected for the essay ;-), but the idea is that other shifts should quickly follow.
Universal Basic Income needs to be "proven" in another state before it would be considered seriously in North America. It would not come from enlightened planning based on what I can see in the world. It would take extraordinary chaos before it will be tried on a grand scale. Could it be adopted at the local level or provincial level? In other words, where's the most like place for this be tried?
Good observation and question. Yes, a grand scale UBI may require several smaller ones, OR some catastrophic hit to the status quo system first. Interestingly enough, COVID-19 provided an example of just such a scenario. Unfortunately the bailouts were not quite a UBI, but the idea was reawakened for many because of the solution used.
Several countries (including Canada and the United States) have had successful basic income pilot projects, which offered evidence of positive outcomes, and compelling refutations to the usual concerns raised. (Google: "Stockton", "Mincome", etc.) Again, the U.S. came within just a few Senate votes of implementing what was essentially a basic income scheme in the Nixon Presidency.
Canadians might be interested to know that the province of Prince Edward Island voted across all party lines to adopt a basic income scheme for the province. Unfortunately, being a fairly small province, they required federal government backing to get the thing rolling, and that was not forthcoming at the time. But the initiative is not dead yet.
In other news, for at least the five years that I have been writing about basic incomes, there have continuously been Private Member Bills before either the House of Commons or the Senate, calling for Basic Income studies and trials. They have not yet been given the mandate needed, but the efforts continue. Also, a significant number of municipal governments have passed legislation declaring full support for basic income, even though they are not in the position to actually implement anything at the municipal level.