1

Is universal income a solution to the many social and financial problems people face?

Name

Institution

Course

Instructor

Date
 2

The possibility of the introduction of universal basic income is a topic of debate among

several people in the world today. It is considered a solution to several social and economic

problems that different individuals and groups face. Among other issues, the main problem that

the solution is believed to solve is that of ensuring that there is equitable distribution of wealth

(Fouksman & Klein, 2019). Both the proponents and opponents of the proposal agree that there

is indeed a need to address the grotesquely unfair distribution of resources in most societies

(Lacey, 2017). But the two sides agree on whether universal income is the solution. In this paper,

I use critical thinking to find out whether universal income is a solution to the current social and

economic problems. I argue that universal income is not a solution to many social and economic

problems because it supports exploitative economic systems, increases consumption without

enough production for economic growth, restricts innovation, and prevents the government from

offering other essential services.

Although universal income is seen by many as an effective way of distributing wealth, it

significantly fails in social and economic equality because it is against deep democracy and

instead supports the rule of capital in people’s lives. I believe that what the world urgently needs

is a reconstruction and reparation of the commons in a way that eliminates exploitative systems.

Currently, the working systems are exploitative in that people labor is used to create financial

resources and outputs of production without benefiting the same people who considerably

contribute to its creation (Lacey, 2017). The organization of the current forms of production is

such that too many of the benefits are enjoyed by few capitalist individuals while most of those

who put too much input into the production remains relatively poor. A guaranteed basic income

for all citizens will not help in addressing this inequality because it will only provide another

way of employing more people at a wage that does not match their input.
 3

At the same time, the solution of guaranteeing income to everyone will only increase

access to consumption through the production of more finished products and exploitation of

more natural resources without minding about tomorrow. It will mean that several workers will

be employed at the production level, implying that too much will be produced from existing

resources, and consumption will be increased (Lacey, 2017). The guaranteed income will also

mean that the distribution of wealth across the world and ownership of property will be

maintained as it is without lifting the historically oppressed social groups. Therefore, instead of

just providing a form of welfare where everyone is assured of income at the end of the month,

the best way to address the social and financial problems facing the globe is to initiate an

overhaul of the whole economic system and ensure that the wealth and ownership are accessible

to all communities and individuals. In the current system, there is a lot of consumption, yet

several communities do not satisfy their needs (Straubhaar, 2017). The other big problem is that

the high level of inequality implies that a few people have a good quality of life while the vast

majority do not meet most of their needs. Ensuring that there is a minimum wage for all will only

mean that some people will remain at the top while others will continue struggling (Straubhaar,

2017). By failing to appreciate where the social and financial problems come from, those who

push for universal basic income only seek to cure the symptoms while ignoring the causes.

The idea of guaranteeing universal incoming to solve different forms of the challenges in

the current world also fails to acknowledge the role played by technology today in the labor

market. Since the universal income can only come with more employment of human resources so

as to avoid consumption without production, the solution will push back the gains of innovation

that have been proved to be effective and efficient in increasing productivity (Fouksman &

Klein, 2019). Today, the level of automation has dramatically increased in different workplaces,
 4

which has reduced the number of human employees that are needed in various organizations

(Fouksman & Klein, 2019). Such automation, as well as artificial intelligence, is being used to

perform all forms of jobs, including rendering office services and production of goods in

services. The new trend in the labor market means that there is less demand for human capital

than before, although there are still a considerable number of tasks that require human resources.

The current nature of production and commerce implies that the government needs to look for

alternative means of helping unemployed people rather than just offering a wage (Lacey, 2017).

For example, it could be more rational to make it easier for farmers to earn from their farm

output through guaranteed minimum returns or create more room for small businesses, including

hawkers, to benefit from their work than employing more humans in the changing organizations.

Some proponents of universal income argue that the solution can still be achieved

without affecting the positive change in the labor markets by ensuring that those who will be

offered the guaranteed income do not have to be employed to do any work. Such proponents

propose that the solution will involve direct social programs that give income to families that are

unable to find a form of earning (Straubhaar, 2017). This explanation may be found to be

reasonable because it will also see to it that production in the various organization will be self-

regulating based on the market trends because there will be over-employment in the firms.

Nevertheless, a close investigation of this argument shows that the solution is not economically

sustainable. The direct remuneration of individuals who are not working means that too much

consumption without corresponding production will bring an imbalance in the growth of nations

(Lacey, 2017). A lot of money will be revolving in the country without enough products being

produced, leading to a collapse of growing economies. Also, such a suggestion will imply that
 5

the expenditure of the government will be too high that several other programs might stall,

meaning that the public will be denied some of the services they enjoy from the government.

From the above arguments, it is clear that universal income does not address the current

problems but instead escalates them. Instead of addressing economic problems, the solution

supports an exploitative system that makes a few people continue controlling the means of

production while others remain poor. The guaranteed universal income solution also implies that

there is likely to be an imbalance in the job market if the government intends to offer it through

employment. This will be done by limiting innovation and employing more people than required.

Even if the solution is offered as a social program that does not require people to be employed, it

would still bring more problems, such as denying people other essential services because of the

high cost that would be involved. Instead of the solution of universal income, this paper argues

that the whole economic structure should be overhauled to enable all people to control the means

of production and commerce through empowerment.

 6

References

Fouksman, E., & Klein, E. (2019). Radical transformation or technological intervention? Two

paths for universal basic income. World Development, 122, 492-500.

Lacey, A. (2017). Universal basic income as development solution?. Global Social Policy, 17(1),

93-97.

Straubhaar, T. (2017). On the economics of a universal basic income. Intereconomics, 52(2), 74-

80.