Abstract
Positive and normative claims that artificial intelligence (AI) will or should lead to adoption of a universal basic income policy (UBI) remain insufficiently empirically grounded to merit serious consideration. Long-term trends in individual/familial income portfolio adjustment (IPA) to business, economic, and technological change (BETC) point to continued incremental changes in the ways that individuals/families achieve life goals, not a fundamental structural break necessitating radical policy changes that may not be desirable in any event. Moreover, if AI proves a more rapid disruptor than anticipated, UBI-like payments can be made quickly, as recent bailouts and fiscal stimuli demonstrate.
Highlights
Business, economic, and technological change (BETC) occurs continuously but at variable speed (Lauterbach, 1977; Bakker et al, 2019)
The major costs and benefits of the major types of unilateral transfers are summarized in the table below: Even if artificial intelligence (AI) or other BETC eventually destroy jobs faster than people can engage in income portfolio adjustment (IPA), and policymakers and recipients believe that government cash grants are the best type of unilateral transfer to implement in response, initiating universal basic income policy (UBI) now is not indicated because, as the section explains, it can be implemented quickly if ever needed
As shown in CostBenefit Analysis of IPA and Cost-Benefit Analysis of UBI and Other Unilateral Transfer Policies, individuals and families have long engaged in IPA and nothing inherent in AI changes their ability to do so
Summary
Economic, and technological change (BETC) occurs continuously but at variable speed (Lauterbach, 1977; Bakker et al, 2019). Cost-Benefit Analysis of IPA describes how individuals (and families) try to meet their life goals by splitting their work time into subsistence activities, proprietorship, investment in financial assets, employment, and the receipt of unilateral transfers based on the relative costs and benefits of each income source. Society may remain filled with people who are non-poor in absolute terms but still at the bottom of the income distribution and unsatisfied with their lives and structurally prevented from improving their lot, or their income ranking (Boyce et al, 2010) None of this is to argue, that unilateral transfers have no place in IPA, just that other types of unilateral transfers, especially more targeted ones that provide greater benefits to the poorest individuals/families (Goolsbee, 2018), may be preferable to policymakers, donors, and recipients. The major costs and benefits of the major types of unilateral transfers are summarized in the table below: Even if AI or other BETC eventually destroy jobs faster than people can engage in IPA, and policymakers and recipients believe that government cash grants are the best type of unilateral transfer to implement in response, initiating UBI now is not indicated because, as the section explains, it can be implemented quickly if ever needed
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
