RE: Universal Basic Income Revisited: Maybe it's a NECESSITY, not a "Socialist Evil!"
You are viewing a single comment's thread:
How is that going to intersect with the manufacturers producing all these products if we don't actually have any money to buy them? And if we don't have any money to buy anything other than the bare necessities how is that equation going to work out?
This is exactly what I am always surprised that the rich, in their quest to take more and more of the available money and punish the working class for not being richer, doesn't understand. If they keep stealing more and more of our money until we have nothing left... how is the system not going to break? That would be bad for them too.
At any rate, I think we are horses. The auto put horses out of work, and AI is going to put all of us out of work. Either we get social programs in place now to deal with this, or it is going to be a very big problem. In the Great Depression, in the US I think the worst point was 25% unemployment. As bad as that was, it will be nothing compared to what's coming. Imagine 75% unemployment!
The only sticking point I always come back to with UBI is that as soon as the government establishes a UBI, what is to stop corporation from raising prices that much? Inflation could easily render any UBI worthless. That in mind, any attempt to establish a UBI will have to be more comprehensive and involve regulations to prevent corporation from taking advantage of it.
....and since our government currently is entirely controlled by the rich, that just ain't happening. Still, it's a nice thought experiment. And it will be very very necessary and much sooner than we expect. Recently Pete Buttigieg was on Heather Cox Richardson's podcast and he brought up this very point about AI. So at least some people are thinking about the problem. Too bad he is out of government now.
We are, for sure, on a collision course with something.
The infrastructure to administer a kind of UBI is already in place, via electronic food stamps. Meaning that it's easy to control what people get to use their money for. As in, you could easily exclude certain things — be it drugs and hookers, or just alcohol and gambling — and boost payments for those who meet certain spending patterns. Limit the funds to essentials like utilities, rent and food, the idea being to minimize homelessness and destitution, and perhaps offer people a little more freedom in how they approach creating additional income through the gig economy.
As a food stamp recipient, there are plenty of things I can't use my card for... but if I buy lots of fresh produce, I get up to an extra $60 a month.
Is that an infringement on our so-called "freedom?" Here in the USA — especially — we're absolutely terrified of anyone being able to tell us to do anything specific, at all. We're all wrapped up in "freedom TO" do things... rather than "freedom FROM" certain things, like homelessnerss and poverty.
It is sad that people with real workable options are generally out of the show, like Mayor Pete, and Andrew Wang and others.