I don’t see any rejection of UBI mentioned in this article. Also the article mentions it as the report was about the possible effects of AI and not about how to deal with the aftermath.
Was rejection of UBI stated in the full report?
Here’s a link to the report - they only mention UBI once, and then to say it is the wrong strategy.
Although we can’t know what the economic system will be like after the day arrives that AI & robots can do all work (even future uninvented jobs), but are always getting cheaper than us - it’s safe to make some guesses.
This is a policy document from left-leaning progressive economists, and it only mentions UBI to say it not the right strategy. Instead, they recommend the government take control of creating new jobs. Some people assume UBI will happen, but I wonder if the outlook in this report is more likely.
I’d guess the first response to this issue will be a compromise between right and left. Those on the right will want to prevent a collapse of the financial system, preserve the rich’s wealth, and maintain at least a pretense of free-market economics.
We’ll get to a point (probably a systematic financial crisis like 2008) where the right will be forced to do something to protect the wealthy. Which will they agree to first - UBI or government-created jobs?
I think it’s a strong possibility it’s the second option, and enough left-wing politicians will be happy with that so that UBI gets pushed to the background.
Can you really call a think thank related to this Labour party “left wing”?
Neoliberal isn’t left, so no
Government created jobs would get obviously dumb really fast if they’re implemented with any kind of kindness. How many times can one dig and then fill in a hole, or equivalent, before one questions why?
I’m afraid it would be a mean implementation that leaves a good chunk of the population uncovered and desperate, and makes the do-nothing government positions a prestige thing. Y’know, almost like Britain used to be, but this time the peasants actually are disposable.
