I started to notice a intense automation and Artificial Intelligence Investments from companies and that made me wonder, what would happen or what should be done with the people who can’t be trained for a new job and can’t use his current skills to to get a job.
How would he live or what would he do in life? More importantly, what should be done with him to make him useful or at least neutral rather than being a negative on the society?
The thing is, if working isn’t tied to capitalism, then it’s actually easier to find work because you don’t have to worry only about what provides enough money to survive. Someone “unemployable” may be perfectly suited to be a caregiver, artist, odd-jobber, or anything else that would not be able to financially sustain them because of low pay or a limitation on the hours they are able to work. I think UBI would lead to more societal engagement, not less, because people would be able to choose how they engage without worrying about whether it would pay the rent.
To your second point, I’m not sure I understand. If it’s a universal basic income, does that not mean that everyone has their basic needs met? Those who would like more than that and have the capacity to do so could still seek higher paying jobs in order to have the lifestyle they want above and beyond basic needs. Why would they be bitter about other people getting those same basic needs covered but not earning more money?
It depends on the job. If you want a job that requires more than a person’s basic needs, you may not be able to do it. You are also going to run into more nuisance job. Imagine how much bigger groups like Jehovah’s Witnesses or the Mormon Church can get when they don’t have to pay for their proselytizers.
Define basic needs. Can housing be denied if it is in a highly desirable area? Is clothing restricted based on material and cost? Are those without work going to complain that their basic needs of being treated as a human aren’t being met because they can’t have the quality of life of people are working, and are people who work in demanding jobs going to refuse working because they aren’t being compensated for their time?
I am still not following. If every household gets a baseline income–say based on average cost of living in an area, or even simply based on the poverty line–why would people who work more and get paid more accordingly feel they are not compensated for their time?
UBI doesn’t mean everyone gets the same amount of money no matter what they do–it means everybody gets the same amount of money as a baseline. If they are able they can hold a job just like they do now that pays a wage just like it does now. The person who is disabled, unable to find work because of lack of skills or education, or doing unpaid work gets the baseline money, but does not work a job where they earn a salary.
A version of this already exists in Alaska–not an amount that is livable on its own, but the same basic idea. https://www.sciencenews.org/article/alaska-free-money-residents-hints-how-universal-basic-income-may-work
The way that you’ve been presenting it toggles how money is distributed behind “everyone has what they need”, especially when I bring up issues like classism or access to the market.
We’ve seen it with social security, which acts as as a pseudo UBI for retired people in the USA. People dependent on UBI are generally pushed to lower cost of living areas of the USA due to cost. I expect that to skyrocket when rent control and government housing is pulled for a base salary. As I’ve mentioned before, this is going to exacerbate rich bubbles where wealth is generated or areas with natural amenities.
Some states have already started experimenting with a cash payment on the condition that they waive any rights to welfare. I can see UBI becoming a part of this; you’ve been paid to live, you just can’t afford to live here.