<story><title>India floats the idea of a universal basic income</title><url>http://www.economist.com/news/finance-and-economics/21716064-powerful-idea-unfeasible-now-india-floats-idea-universal</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>jeffdavis</author><text>I think you are ignoring some bad things that could come out of UBI.&lt;p&gt;The greatest danger is that people may be comfortable near the BI level until they are about 30, and not really work or educate themselves much (lacking motivation). Then, they want to have a family, and all of a sudden their desires for consumption skyrocket. They can&amp;#x27;t just join the workforce then, because it will be 10 years before they advance enough to get what they want.&lt;p&gt;Then you have a bunch of undereducated, inexperienced people who want a lot of stuff.&lt;p&gt;I&amp;#x27;m not saying it will happen, but we have to be careful.</text></item><item><author>whack</author><text>The reasoning you&amp;#x27;re using is very flawed. Yes, we&amp;#x27;ll never get to a state where a small number end up with 100% of the wealth. Yes, there will be an equilibrium reached between the wealthy and the middle class. But this equilibrium point can shift more and more towards the wealthy. In fact, this has already been happening in the past few decades, as illustrated in books such as Capital.&lt;p&gt;And as this equilibrium shifts in favor of the wealthy, you&amp;#x27;ll see the effects of inequality get more and more exacerbated. You might even get to a point where the inequality is so extreme, that the &amp;quot;masses&amp;quot; have much more to gain through wealth appropriation, as opposed to wealth creation. And when that point comes, democracy will collapse and give way to a communist or fascist revolution.&lt;p&gt;Basic income offers an escape valve to the corrosive effects of inequality. It distributes more fairly the fruits of globalisation and automation. It gives every citizen a share in the national prosperity. It gives us all a reason to cheer for the greater good, and not just our own advancement.</text></item><item><author>felipeccastro</author><text>I used to think a universal basic income would make sense, especially in developed countries, only for the near future scenario of machines taking ever more jobs. We know that this has always happened in history, and new jobs were always created, but that doesn&amp;#x27;t mean that the rate of job creation vs destruction will remain the same, forever. What made me change my mind about UBI was to realize that a) human desires are infinite, and there&amp;#x27;ll always be more work to be done and b) the more work is done by machines, the richer the population as a whole will be, as products and services automated tend to be cheaper. I do expect the work dynamic to change a lot, and that in the future we&amp;#x27;ll see a lot more gigs and maybe freelancing for a few hours each week will be enough to sustain a reasonable lifestyle (for whatever that means). That said, I believe our political efforts are best invested in removing all the artificial constraints that make it hard for new jobs to be created, like excessive regulations for example.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>bitJericho</author><text>Ubi should never be about owning anything. It should be about providing housing, food, healthcare, clothes, and nothing more. It should be for all citizens, including children. This way you can have a family. But if you want a tv, phone, car, you&amp;#x27;re going to have to work. Since people are living to their 70s plus, lounging around isn&amp;#x27;t a big deal. I think you&amp;#x27;ll find people become very creative too, or focus on high level education.</text></comment>
<story><title>India floats the idea of a universal basic income</title><url>http://www.economist.com/news/finance-and-economics/21716064-powerful-idea-unfeasible-now-india-floats-idea-universal</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>jeffdavis</author><text>I think you are ignoring some bad things that could come out of UBI.&lt;p&gt;The greatest danger is that people may be comfortable near the BI level until they are about 30, and not really work or educate themselves much (lacking motivation). Then, they want to have a family, and all of a sudden their desires for consumption skyrocket. They can&amp;#x27;t just join the workforce then, because it will be 10 years before they advance enough to get what they want.&lt;p&gt;Then you have a bunch of undereducated, inexperienced people who want a lot of stuff.&lt;p&gt;I&amp;#x27;m not saying it will happen, but we have to be careful.</text></item><item><author>whack</author><text>The reasoning you&amp;#x27;re using is very flawed. Yes, we&amp;#x27;ll never get to a state where a small number end up with 100% of the wealth. Yes, there will be an equilibrium reached between the wealthy and the middle class. But this equilibrium point can shift more and more towards the wealthy. In fact, this has already been happening in the past few decades, as illustrated in books such as Capital.&lt;p&gt;And as this equilibrium shifts in favor of the wealthy, you&amp;#x27;ll see the effects of inequality get more and more exacerbated. You might even get to a point where the inequality is so extreme, that the &amp;quot;masses&amp;quot; have much more to gain through wealth appropriation, as opposed to wealth creation. And when that point comes, democracy will collapse and give way to a communist or fascist revolution.&lt;p&gt;Basic income offers an escape valve to the corrosive effects of inequality. It distributes more fairly the fruits of globalisation and automation. It gives every citizen a share in the national prosperity. It gives us all a reason to cheer for the greater good, and not just our own advancement.</text></item><item><author>felipeccastro</author><text>I used to think a universal basic income would make sense, especially in developed countries, only for the near future scenario of machines taking ever more jobs. We know that this has always happened in history, and new jobs were always created, but that doesn&amp;#x27;t mean that the rate of job creation vs destruction will remain the same, forever. What made me change my mind about UBI was to realize that a) human desires are infinite, and there&amp;#x27;ll always be more work to be done and b) the more work is done by machines, the richer the population as a whole will be, as products and services automated tend to be cheaper. I do expect the work dynamic to change a lot, and that in the future we&amp;#x27;ll see a lot more gigs and maybe freelancing for a few hours each week will be enough to sustain a reasonable lifestyle (for whatever that means). That said, I believe our political efforts are best invested in removing all the artificial constraints that make it hard for new jobs to be created, like excessive regulations for example.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>xedrac</author><text>I think you hit on one of the biggest risks in my opinion.  Right now there is a strong motive to educate yourself, because it will likely result in a more comfortable future.  Having a highly educated population is hugely beneficial.  I suppose if UBI provided just enough to keep you alive, then it might not be so bad.</text></comment>