Universal Basic Income Revisited: Maybe it's a NECESSITY, not a "Socialist Evil!"

A cautionary note before we begin: this post might wander around a bit! It is a reflection of several articles read and several face-to-face discussions from the past couple of months.

With that out of the way... ONWARDS!

8 1/2 years ago I stumbled upon Hive's predecessor as a result of somebody sending me a link on Facebook, to an article about Universal Basic Income (UBI).

0446-WinterSunset.JPG

The context had nothing whatsoever to do with promoting our old community here, and everything to do with a friend wanting me to read an article and let him know what I thought about the author's ideas. Here we are, all these years later I don't even remember who that author was but I find myself still here on Hive and for no specific reason I found myself thinking about UBI again recently and wanted to touch back on that subject.

UBI is often the proverbial "hot potato", particularly in an environment like this which is often heavily dominated by libertarians and anarcho capitalists.

You barely even get to say the words before a chorus arises about "not trusting government" and how it's "just a handout to lazy people who don't want to work" and are essentially representative of the worst caricatures and stereotypes of people on welfare.

Typically, the actual benefits and potential necessity for such a program is completely overshadowed by angry commentary and complaints about not trusting a government to administer something, and that it is a virtual form of socialism.

0613-Roses.jpg

For the purposes of what I'm writing here I don't really care about whether people trust government or not and I don't really care about who administers it and I don't really care about the funding of it.

What I care about is the potential necessity for it, along with the reality of what actual pilot programs have shown in the past, in terms of debunking common objections.

The problem we face — as a species — is that we're living in a world of increasing automation. The old assumption has always been that if your job is replaced by automation you just go and get some training and then you do a different job instead of the one that became obsolete. But that particular line of thinking doesn't hold true quite the way it once did.

We are rapidly moving towards a point in human development where human beings are simply not needed to do more and more tasks, and there isn't the need for them to do other tasks. As such, the whole notion of work is gradually changing, and the old slur ”learn to code” is even becoming outdated as we now have AI that can write its own code more effectively than human beings in a fraction of the time and with far fewer mistakes.

0629-StrawberryBlossom.JPG

Aside from which — at a purely practical level — we don't actually need that many coders!

You don't have to go very far to get a first hand sense of what's going on in the world. About 4-5 years ago I our local Safeway supermarket Got its first for self-checkout counters. Four years later, there are now 12 self-checkout counters, and at any given time there are only two conventional service checkout counters open... even during busy times.

Where 12 checkout lines would once have to be operated by 12 cashiers there is now a single supervisor overlooking 12 check stands. That means 11 jobs simply don't exist anymore.

So what does this have to do with UBI?

Well, we're employing all this automation to produce goods and services at a greater and greater rate, more efficiently and faster... meaning that all those goods and services are still coming off the production line with the expectation that somebody is going to buy them.

But if people don't have jobs then where are they going to get their income from... enabling them to buy the stuff?

0810-Grass.JPG

Apologists for the conventional way of looking at economics always try to assure me that "we'll never run out of jobs!" and point to various statistics about "expected job growth" over the next 20 years... which invariably is based on some very dodgy assumptions.

But back to the idea of a tangible need for some kind of "supplemental income" for people.

Even as I write these words, statistics increasingly show that more than half of US households are struggling to make ends meet on their current incomes, making me wonder what that number is going to look like as more people find that their jobs are replaced by automation? Seems to me that meager income streams are likely going to be replaced by no income streams.

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? And maybe we can't even buy the bare necessities if we don't have jobs? Surely there's a better alternative than becoming a nation of vagrants with a tiny uber-class?

0775-WhiteHellebore.JPG

Once again I'm not interested in the discussion of whether we *trust government to implement UBI, or whether it comes through private enterprise or through some form of penalty tax on automation designed to somehow at least partially replace the income the people who are displaced by that automation... I am simply asking the very basic question of how we're going to be able to live if the need for labor — which provides us with money to buy food and housing and so forth — is increasingly going away.

And let me be clear here: I'm not talking about giving people a bunch of money, either... just enough help pay for very basic housing and food. No "welfare Cadillacs!"

I fear the day where some form of basic income will become inevitable is closer than we might like to think.

Thanks for stopping by, and have a great remainder of your week!

Comments, feedback and other interaction is invited and welcomed! Because — after all — SOCIAL content is about interacting, right? Leave a comment — share your experiences — be part of the conversation! I do my best to answer comments, even if it sometimes takes a few days!

HivePanda.gif


Greetings bloggers and social content creators! This article was created via PeakD, a blogging application that's part of the Hive Social Content Experience. If you're a blogger, writer, poet, artist, vlogger, musician or other creative content wizard, come join us! Hive is a little "different" because it's not run by a "company;" it operates via the consensus of its users and your content can't be banned, censored, taken down or demonetized. And that COUNTS for something, in these uncertain times! So if you're ready for the next generation of social content where YOU retain ownership and control, come by and learn about Hive and make an account!

Proud member of the Silver Bloggers Community on Hive! Silverbloggers Logo

(As usual, all text and images by the author, unless otherwise credited. This is original content, created expressly and uniquely for this platform — NOT posted anywhere else!)
Created at 2025.06.19 01:42 PDT

1374/2638



0
0
0.000
15 comments
avatar

Manually curated by the @qurator Team. Keep up the good work!

Like what we do? Consider voting for us as a Hive witness.


Curated by ewkaw

0
0
0.000
avatar

I get the basic premise. Is there any evidence for other benefits from UBI?

0
0
0.000
avatar

The premise is that UBI will be a trade off in taxes being paid by corporations to the government. It keeps the cycle going, just like inflation, or what they claim is inflation, because some corporations have been recording record profits, the more profits made, the more taxes paid. Food is only taxed exempt at the retail sale level, not from the production level.

They never tell people how much the government makes back off what they dole out. Just like they want everyone to believe it's all the medical research and studies behind the high cost of medicine but they never tell people how they negotiate pricing and kick backs to the government for buying their products. Medicare is exempt, if I recall, from this policy, except during the pandemic for pandemic related goods, but medicaid, is different, they can negotiate pricing for medicaid, and in order to get the government procurements, they offer incentives, same goes for foreign aid, foreign aid money must be spent on products, goods and services provided/manufactured in the US. That is why, if you've ever went to a pharmacy, and they said a prescription isn't covered by medicaid but medicine A, B, C, is, they will call a doctor for you and have them rewrite the script. They are all the same medicine, under different brand names, have all been around for awhile, it's just certain one's get the nod from the government during bidding process.

0
0
0.000
avatar

There was a study done in Germany that followed a pilot program of people receiving a small sum of UBI for a period of three years... too long to go in detail here, but have a link:

https://www.pilotprojekt-grundeinkommen.de/en

Interestingly enough, one of the longest lived "types" of basic income lives right here in the USA, in the form of the annual Alaska Permanent Fund payments to all residents of the state:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska_Permanent_Fund

0
0
0.000
avatar

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.

0
0
0.000
avatar

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.

0
0
0.000
avatar

UBI is a great idea, but I don't think most governments will be interested in it unless they are very progressive because there is a conflict of interest in the control of the monetary system. On a global basis, it could be done if there were a one-to-one correspondence between a digital ID and a person. Payments to the ID could be easily made, and any withdrawal could be scrambled to the point where they are very difficult to trace unless multiple parties agree that there is a possibility that a crime has been committed.

0
0
0.000
avatar

Additionally, I think that any payments made to a UBI digital ID should be algorithmically divided between all recently used addresses that have made a withdrawal. This would help to prevent abuse, but it is difficult to think about all the possible ways such a system could be abused.

A nice bonus is that a person who has a lot of assets could easily make a payment to their own UBI address set to go out at some time after their passing.

0
0
0.000
avatar

UBI is more likely to become a reality in places other than the USA, simply because our population here has such a profound mistrust of government and "organizations." We simply don't trust anyone with the responsibility of managing something that benefits us.

Unfortunately, there's a lot of self-contradiction. We want the benefits that go with having a public identity, while we want provacy and anonymity at the same time. Sorry, you can't have both!

Interestingly enough, UBI could potentially be an actual functioning, real-world application for blockchain technology, as way to limit system fraud.

It's also possible that the system would have to be gradually implemented, initially focusing on people directly made redundant by technology, and with income below a certain threshold... a bit like the so-called Covid "stimulus payments."

0
0
0.000
avatar

As I think about it , it probably it makes sense to have any UBI type blockchain not be a storehouse of value but erase monthly account balances if payments are not withdrawn. I think the details could be worked out, but the bigger question is if such a system is needed or beneficial.

0
0
0.000
avatar

"I am simply asking the very basic question of how we're going to be able to live if the need for labor — which provides us with money to buy food and housing and so forth — is increasingly going away."

So was the population growth spun by individuals only having two kids, so, if all the jobs are going to increasingly be going away, the problem was already solved and massive immigration into the country wouldn't have been needed.

You didn't want to discuss or address the increased labor that would be needed to replace that which has declined, which is in the millions by 2035. Immigration addresses those needs as the adults come in to work, their children will age into the work force they project is going to be needed. So either someone is lying about how far advanced new technologies will reduce the work force, or the intent solely has to exist on the premise that the reduction in jobs has to also come with a reduction in wages to perform those remaining jobs, the same reason they let them come in now. I am going for the later.

0
0
0.000
avatar

Somebody is definitely lying. I have seen various government projections about jobs and the labor force, and they seem heavily biased by the idea that under no circumstances are economists going to confess to an actual need for the economy to shrink for a protracted period of time.

We have created a system in which "Growth is God" and to somehow admit that perhaps we don't actually need to grow is akin to telling the Pope that he doesn't need to be a Catholic. It's poking at the foundation of a way of doing things that is closing on 300 years old... but really started to take root as the previous system of feudalism started to come to an end.

Unless someone is actually planning to switch off automation and AI, humans will simply not be needed for possibly 50% of the tasks we call "working," today. And since the purpose of a corporation is to maximize profits, unless the governments/tax systems of the world are prepared to offer incentives to those who do NOT automate and replace their workers with AI... I fear many people are going to end up pretty much hosed. Maybe not this decade or next... maybe by 2050, or 2075...

I could be wrong, but I expect immigration works a bit like natural animal populations: People migrate where the (perceived) "food" is, and when that food is used up, they look for new places to migrate to.

0
0
0.000
avatar

UBI may well be ushered in by the new era of AI replacing the need for human in many jobs!

0
0
0.000