Kialo requires cookies to work correctly.
Should There be a Universal Basic Income (UBI)?
A UBI better compensates people for their meaningful contributions to society, such as domestic labour, art, volunteering, engaging with politics, and pursuing higher education.
A UBI better rewards low-paid jobs. That has a positive influence on the economy, as well as on society.
Domestic labour (e.g. care of children and the eldery) is vital to the functioning of society but is largely currently
not paid for
. Instituting a UBI creates compensation and assigns value to this labour, supporting those individuals who undertake it
Many forms of creative expression, such as art or writing, are not pursued because only the most successful artists or writers can generate a self-sustaining income.
With their basic needs covered by a UBI, many people are able to afford to continue with their higher education.
With basic needs guaranteed people will be more able to engage with politics and the democratic process.
By de-stigmatizing being out of paid employment, a UBI would encourage a value shift towards putting less value on financial success and more on a person's contribution to society.
A UBI would allow people to take care of their responsibilities by providing them more time to tend to them (due to a lack of needing a job, their time is freed up for it) instead of placing the burden on society to take care of them.
If a contribution is valuable to society, then market forces will already define a fair price for such a contribution.
The state could sufficiently compensate people for meaningful contributions social contributions by paying people specifically for these contributions rather than giving everyone an unconditional income.
A person can only perform such meaningful contributions if society provides them the chance and capability to. It could be possible that when a UBI is implemented, governments might limit certain activities (due to the unique dynamics that a UBI presents).