UBInteractive

Ur Brief Introduction to Universal Basic Income

Universal Basic Income (UBI) is a form of social security that guarantees a certain amount of money to an individual, and conceptually is defined by five features:

What it is What it isn't
1 It is a cash payment. It is not vouchers or in-kind services or goods.
2

It is unconditional.

It is not based on employment status or willingness to work.
3 It is periodic. It is not as a one-off grant.
4 It is distributed to individuals. It is not to households.
5 It is distributed to everyone. It is not based on existing, independent means or assets.

Pilot UBI Projects

Despite the name, UBI is not universal. UBI schemes can have different payment intervals, amounts, and designs as determined by the discrete governments implementing them. A number of pilot studies have been launched around the world, with the intent of researching different strategies for viability. Click on the map below to learn more:

The opinions among pilot project participants vary:

"I can tell you, this village has changed. People's lives have changed. We don't have conflict anymore. There is peace in this village because people look at themselves as if they are equal."

Peres Riako Onywero Obambo, 75 - Kenya

“It’s very hard. What little money you have (from extra income due to UBI), you have to give away (in rent increases). You can’t save.”

Nesha Khan, 48 - Canada

“This experiment really has an indirect impact, also, on the stress levels [of people] and the mental health and so on.”

Anonymous - Finland

Public Debate

A massive amount of public support is required for UBI schemes to work outside of pilot projects, however fierce economic and philosophical debates hinder its acceptance. Click the tabs below for more detail:

Pros

The advent and improvement of big data analytics, artificial intelligence, and machine learning technology over the last half-century has vehicularized the use of automated technologies in business context. Companies are moving en masse to adopt automated technologies as they seek to sharpen their competitive edge, with 57% of organizations polled in a 2018 McKinsey survey stating that their organizations are already in the process of at least piloting automated technologies in one or more business units or activities. This strategy is predicted to increase entrepreneurial spending in automated technologies from $12.4 billion USD in 2018 to $232 billion USD in 2024.

This entrepreneurial movement towards automated technologies will have an impact on human labor forces. While the scale of this impact varies among experts, the most conservative estimates predict a 9% drop in employment which numerically equates to between 400 million and 800 million people.

In the wake of this advancement, it is becoming more clear there is simply no need for everyone to work in order to survive. Humanity as a species has conceived ways to provide sustenance cheaply and abundantly. The majority of the work conducted today is, as American Anthropologist David Graeber states, bullshit: menial at best, and propagating corruption, wealth inequality, or climate change at worst.

Therefore, workers who are replaced by automated technologies may be free cover their basic needs and pursue important personal endeavours, perhaps cognitive, familial, social, artistic, or developmental in nature. The risk of the public not accepting UBI schemes is further stigmatizing unemployment, increasing the divide between the haves and have-nots, and oppressing humanity to only value work rather than liberating them to explore and foster the very things that make them human.

Cons

Work provides incentives that, arguably, ultimately benefit the greater society. And without work, not everyone is intrinsically motivated to engage in ways that society sees as valuable. Thus begs the question, why should a system exist which finances people to potentially do nothing all day?

Not only is there the question of how UBI relates to social value, there is also the question of how UBI relates to personal time fulfillment: with work accounting for nearly a third of the time spent per day five days per week, it may be of little surprise that 64% of people surveyed worry about how they would occupy themselves in the absence of a job. This may be because jobs, besides income, bring daily structure, regular social interactions, motivation to perform and improve, and even a sense of identity to the worker. There is no singular replacement for all these things that a good job offers.

Moreover, unemployment presents a real mental health challenge, as demonstrated by the fact that 18% of unemployed American adults have been treated for depression after being unemployed for 27 weeks or longer. It is perhaps because of this that 2017 survey participants favor a national service program that would compensate humans to perform jobs even if machines could outperform them (58%), almost as equally as they favor having a guaranteed income (60%).

Also important to note is that many experts predict that automated technologies will not replace entire occupations, but rather the rote and dangerous tasks. This in effect raises human labor capital, in that these workers can elevate to higher-level tasks such as leadership, emotional-social awareness, and creative thinking. Moreover, historically, automation has created new jobs, with experts predicting that roughly 7% of jobs in 2030 will be jobs that do not exist today.

Pros

Just because someone receives UBI doesn’t mean that they are disincentivized to work. UBI is given unconditionally at a fixed amount, which means that people can bring in additional income through jobs. And those UBI recipients that do have a job have more power to negotiate salary, benefits, and work conditions that they perhaps otherwise wouldn't, because they have the security of an unconditional income if the employer refuses their requests.

And even among those who don't have jobs, there is still theoretically enough money provided to people by UBIs for them to continue supporting the economy. Under normal circumstances, economies suffer when there's a downturn, which results in employers firing workers, who themselves then lose buying power, which in turn reduces demand on products, in response to which businesses are forced to lay off even more people, and so goes the vicious cycle. A UBI underpins spending, so economies don’t flounder as badly in a recession.

In any case, there are plenty of people who are on welfare who cannot work. And because such means-tested programs have a tendency to overlook different demographics, there is an inflated amount of welfare programs. Despite this saturation, vulnerable people still go unsupported. A UBI would make it so that it is cheaper to administer critical support than a welfare system, in that it simply involves a uniform and regular deposit to every single person, which would consequently significantly reduce overhead costs.

Cons

It’s easy to take advantage of something that is free. Even if UBI amounts were fixed at a low rate, it may still be easier to live modestly than to hold down a job that may provide additional income, and doing so may slow consumerism and therefore the overall economy.

Regardless of the fixed rate, UBI is just another name for a welfare state. Providing all citizens with a basic income would considerably increase the share of people receiving benefits and as a result inflict massive costs. Experts at the Roosevelt Institute conclude that funding for the program is acheivable through increasing federal deficits - a counterintuitive measure, some would say, in which supporting the populous means plunging them further into debt.

Moreover, there is no plan in place to transition people out of welfare systems and into UBIs. Many people have become reliant on welfare and see more money coming to them through those systems than would UBI alone. Targeted aid helps people with specific challenges in a way that UBI cannot. Furthermore, to suggest a UBI replacement for social security systems is political suicide, especially because older populations receiveing benefits are among the most mobilized constituents. It is likely that UBI will be implemented in addition to welfare programs, and that this in turn empowers the state to have more control of citizen welfare, and not the citizens themselves.

Your Opinion!

The debate over whether to implement UBI systems in society is riddled with ethical and practical quandaries. So where do you stand on the issue? Post your thoughts in the comment section below!