When UBI starts being seriously considered on a large scale, you’ll likely see a massive influence campaign against it. Something along the lines of “If you give people free money, they’ll never get a job.” It will likely have racial undertones that range from subtle and implicit to wildly explicit, depending on the forum.

If low information working class people, those who would benefit the most from such a program, fall for that campaign, as they often do, you’ll see a backlash against it that could prevent it from becoming law.

I don't honestly think it will happen in a way that is genuinely good for people. It will happen in a way where the rich and powerful are in control and can use it as a method for maintaining control.

I think that it will start as an universal basic income but that it will evolve into universal basic products and services. Basic stuff you don't have to pay for, like for example food and public transport and in time expand to shelter, all levels of education, etc. To the point of covering all the basic needs.

We need to tax the wealthy fucks first. The hyperclass has too much wealth that is just sitting around doing nothing but influencing the world negatively. With the existing wealth inequality, UBI won't even be financed.

#TaxWealth #TaxWealthNotWork

The billionaires would have to fund it, and I don’t believe for a second they wouldn’t leave us all to starve.

I don't think so.

No UBI proponent has given me a convincing argument that inflation greedy bastards won't eventually increase prices to the extent that the extra money would be effectively wiped out. Which would be especially bad because people often propose UBI as a replacement for welfare - so those on a benefit get what little spending power they have eliminated, and only those with jobs can absorb the increased costs.

Also, governments don't tend to go around handing out money (well, to those who actually need it) willy-nilly. Most social welfare/workers' rights gains in the 20th century were because western governments were afraid that the October Revolution might give their citizens ideas. As of now, there's no longer threat of an alternative to Capitalism.

UBI is a bandaid to keep capitalism propped up by neo-liberals. It's contingent on the idea that society is dependent on people spending money, rather than getting essential services and enough free time to maintain mental stability.

It should but it won’t.

I think it's absolutely necessary as stop-gap on the way to a truly post-scarcity society where money is irrelevant, but highly unlikely because greedy cunts run everything.

We're 30% there already, between long term unemployed and people on social security. I support more. Human rights include food, shelter, healthcare, but not everyone has figured that out yet.

UBI has to have a lot of folks wanting it and theres contingents that would rather starve then see those people get a thin dime, with "those people" having various meanings. Then there's the temporarily embarassed millionaires, and of course the Fox news crew who think socio-commu-trans folk are going to dye their kids hair blue and make them worship Satan.

When the whole world is converted into a factory to produce luxuries for the wealthy, and community is a far-off relic of the past, the laborers will be provided with basic subsistence, just enough to keep them alive and able to work. Or they'll be replaced with automation. Whichever is cheaper.

The rich have done everything they can to increase wealth inequality and brainwash the public into acceptance. That will not be reversed. If they allow UBI it will be below poverty levels and highly conditional.

The wealthy want slaves. Its a mental illness with them. Black people. Underage sex trafficking. Working poor. Robots. Last thing they want is a utopia where everyone is healthy, happy and financially independent.

One of the wealthiest countries in the world doesn't even have proper healthcare system in 2026. No way are those dumb fucks getting a UBI. Its a lie.

I really like UBI and think it would work wonderfully if it was somehow actually implemented without major bullshit. But I'm not sure it's even possible to implement, because it would make it next to impossible to exploit and control people, which would be really bad for corporate profits. I'm skeptical that capitalist democracy is strong enough to overcome that, I think maybe the way it works is more of a negotiation of power between the factions that actually hold leverage over things, and that it is impossible for that to result in prioritizing the interests of those without leverage, which UBI recipients would ostensibly be. If it looks like everyone is going to vote for UBI despite the best available propaganda against it, maybe the powers that be will just agree amongst themselves that they don't really depend on that group of voters in any critical way, so they'll just shut down or falsify voting and enforce their will with automated violence, because they prioritize maintaining control.

So probably what's needed as a prelude to direct government relief from exploitation is generally increased negotiating power for every person, which won't be a top-down thing for the most part.

No. Wealthy people don't feel like they're winning unless poor people are losing.

We have to kill or tax all billionaires out of existence first. Their choice. And I don't mean that with any sentiment of hyperbole.

Taxing (or burying at sea, or grilling on a spit, or force feeding them like foie gras to consume their livers) billionaires out of existence isn't an issue of generating enough tax revenue. You can consider it a part of why such a thing is important, but it should not be considered the primary point.

The primary point is to reduce the distance between the wealthiest among us and the least wealthy among us. For all it matters, the money re-possessed could be burned. Its utilization is secondary to reducing the disparity.

If being a billionaire was an illegal act punishable by immediate execution, the need for UBI would be dramatically reduced. It would also be dramatically easier to implement.

With the advancements of AI, I believe UBI will eventually be needed just to keep the economy rolling. More and more tasks will get automated whether we like it or not. That’s the general direction everything is heading.

UBI is the future if we are allowed peace.

WW3 in an apocalyptic scale is much more likely. Don't need to feed the obsolete peasants if they're all dead.

No because corps and oligarchs will campaign against it, inexplicably win, and destroy one of the country's greatest achievements with cheers and applause

Its cynical, but its happened to many social programs thay way.

It should be. Also the NIT (Negative Income Tax) so the taxing scheme becomes progressive, rather than regressive. Though I know I'm asking too much because capitalism...

Yes. As long as scarcity exists for a given commodity/service, markets are the best way to get an accurate assessment of concerned opportunity costs.

Needless to say, the presence of markets ≠ capitalism.

Hence, yes, I do believe that that UBI is the obvious way to go forward as humans move towards labor post scarcity.

UBI will only come as a response to a new economic depression. The idea that our society will proactively fix itself has been proven wrong time after time.

Humans only learn the hard way.

Yes, but only because your question implies there is a future for humanity, and I believe UBI is realistically one of the few ways humanity even gets a future

I want to believe that progress is inevitable. The living conditions for the working class are better now than they were 100 years ago. Hopefully, by the time another 100 years have passed they will have drastically improved some more.

Unfortunately, the reasons they have improved in the last 100 years are due to constant fighting against the lazy non-working class. Not some evolved sense of society.

UBI isn't a panacea, but it seems to me that we are going to need creative solutions. It's not going to solve the issues we face that are fundamentally because there is too big a gap between the wealthy people and poor people. But capitalism is failing us and the center cannot hold.

It will never happen.

Not because it is a bad idea; it is an AWESOME idea. Work used to be something you do for the collectivity; you do something for the group, in exchange of something from the group. Today, a work is a mean to earn money, regardless of the collectivity. We do meaningless jobs, which often gives nothing to the collectivity, just because we have a rent to pay, we want vacations and a new car. A universal basic income would completely break this; I would work to bring something to the group, not to reach a stupid objective for the company.

However, there is a fringe of people which will not gain anything from this, even lose leverage and power over the masses: the 1%, the millionaires and billionaires. They will do whatever they can to kill it, saying only freeloaders and foreigners will benefits from it. And the masses will vote against it, and it will be a big victory for capitalism. Until global warming accelerate, we will have nothing to eat anymore and earth will be inhospitable for humans. The end.

no lol.

have you ever met a rich person? like a real rich person? they're arrogant and snobby and think the rest of us have no right to exist. there's a reason there's this massive push to implement AI. part of it is to save money but the other part of it is that they legit think that we're all lesser and AI replacing call centers and fast food jobs will hasten our departure.

we'll all end up being thrown in a volcano before they implement UBI.

i'd say asia has more of a chance in the long run just because social responsibility is part of culture and that can often act as an antidote to the worst parts of capitalism. south korea can be gross but at least they throw their corrupt leaders in jail...

no chance of this happening in the states.

Do I think that it is a possibility? Sure.

Do I think that it is likely in the near to medium term future? No.

It's way too complex for me to boil down to a simple slogan, and ain't nobody got time to read what I'd need to write to sufficiently explain and I ain't got time to explain it. Closest I can come is that UBI is "equality" in a system would currently benefit more from "equity", at least from a US-centric stand point. I am not anti-UBI by any means, just more inclined to say that a strong, need-based social safety net would be more efficient and beneficial than a thin, wide-cast net like UBI.

Contemporary unemployment rates aren't a great metric to consider for the necessity/utility of UBI. The current unemployment situation in a lot of the world is a symptom of inefficiency and instability in the system (hand wavy gesture). UBI doesn't address the underlying factors, not that it has to. But at the same time, status quo and inertia are massive forces to overcome, and "different but the same outcome" isn't the push that's needed to get over that hump. So, I just don't think we're anywhere close to getting over that barrier.

It depends on society not turning itself inside out.

If we could just pluck along where we were in the early 10's, everywhere that has socialized healthcare will eventally slowly install UBI and all the like things that come with it.

But, looking at the trends in society, wars, weather, oligarchs, and population decline, we might only have a few generations left.

In a few places, maybe, but there's a lot of the world where governments barely function in the first place. Roads aren't even a solved problem globally. UBI for even middle income countries wouldn't happen before climate change caused such damage as to undo any progress that might maybe make UBI possible.

To be honest I'm not fan of UBI. I'm more fond of redistribution of work.

If there's less things to do due to automatization let's just all work less hours with full income.