|
|
 Originally Posted by wufwugy
Universal Basic Income might have some viability even if it resulted in millions of additional unemployed. The Pareto principle is a real phenomenon in everything. As long as the economy is sufficiently privately owned, high achievers will probably still achieve highly even if doing so harder and even if low achievers achieve lower and low-middle achievers achieve less. UBI could also create positive social/economic disruption, resulting in new types of goods and services. It would make the most common kinds of labor and human capital skills less viable, but it could possibly create some new areas too.
There's a strange injustice intuition that kicks in when UBI is talked about. People instinctively feel there's something wrong with people getting something for nothing. But as you said, it seems likely high achievers will still achieve, mid achievers might be a little less productive, and low achievers will play video games-- and the jobs that tended to be filled by low achievers will be automated. If a mid achiever and high achiever's life is essentially the same and overall productivity is essentially the same or increased, what's the issue?
random thought: UBI combined with a 100% inheritance tax (and closing all the loopholes) could be an interesting setup. If you know that your child will never truly want for any necessities, then what is the purpose of leaving them an inheritance aside from vanity? In 1000 years people may well look back at generational wealth the way we look at hereditary monarchies.
|
Reply With Quote