Argumentative Essay Project On Universal Basic Income

Argumentative Essay Project Universal Basic Incomebackgroundalmost W

Almost without noticing, humans now find themselves on the verge of replacement by machines. Autonomous vehicles, computerized algorithms, and robots, among other technologies, will lay claim to an estimated 47% of U.S. jobs in the coming decades. From transportation, finance, medicine, education, and manufacturing, few professions are exempt from disruption by machines. As jobs disappear to automation, so will people’s benefits and income, not to mention their sense of purpose, dignity, and belonging in society. How will we support ourselves?

How can democracy survive? What will we do with our lives? The robot revolution demands answers to such questions. One possible answer, known as universal basic income (UBI), is for the government to provide everyone with a monthly payment capable of meeting their basic needs whether they have a job or not. Supporters of UBI believe it will help keep the social fabric from unraveling as machines replace humans in the workplace.

UBI opponents think that these fears of human obsolescence are overblown, that UBI costs too much, and that, if implemented, UBI would destroy people’s work ethic, plunging them into social isolation and despair. What do you think? Essay Question: Is universal basic income a good idea? Directions: Use the following readings, in addition to your own experiences and observations, to write an essay addressed to an educated audience that argues your opinion on the essay question. Remember, “An effective argument...makes a well-supported, well-considered point about an issue in an attempt to convince or persuade readers” (397).

If you are to be convincing or persuasive in this essay, you must review the facts from the readings carefully to figure out where you stand and present your conclusions in a carefully written fashion. Readings: 1. “Should We Scrap Benefits and Pay Everyone 100 a Week?” John Harris, The Guardian. 2. “A Guaranteed Income for Every American,” Charles Murray, Wall Street Journal. 3. “Why Murray’s Big Idea Won’t Work,” Atlantic. 4. “The Conservative Case for a Guaranteed Basic Income,” Noah Gordon, Atlantic. 5. “Why the Universal Basic Income Is Not the Best Public Intervention to Reduce Poverty or Income Inequality,” Vicente Navarro, Social Europe. 6. “What Happens if Robots Take the Jobs? The Impact of Emerging Technologies on Employment and Public Policy,” Darrell West, Brookings Institution. 7. “The Rise of the Useless Class,” Yuval Noah Harari, TED. 8. “The Free-Time Paradox in America,” Derek Thompson, Atlantic. 9. “The Link Between Opioids and Unemployment,” Olga Khazan, Atlantic. 10. “A World without Work,” Derek Thompson, Atlantic. 11. “The Meaning of Life in a World without Work,” Yuval Noah Harari, The Guardian.

Requirements: 1. Take a clear, thoughtful position (thesis) on the question and support it with reasons and evidence from at least five sources on the class list (properly integrate your evidence and quote strategically). 2. Address valid and widely held counterarguments in the body. 3. Include a Works Cited page.

4-5 pages, MLA format. Thesis: UBI is hardly feasible, it can't solve poverty, and it will promote laziness.

Brainstorm: Social benefits increase as mechanization continues. The machine (robot) has more sophisticated technology, 3-D technology, and creative actions. The restaurant industry is using technology. Mechanization will reduce jobs in retail, food service, and office work. Unemployment causes despair, mental health issues, addiction, and even death. Unemployment and underemployment lead to calls for UBI. UBI is a public program where the state transfers the same amount of money to everyone. Supporters argue UBI helps avoid poverty, but evidence from countries with similar programs suggests it isn't effective. UBI is also politically controversial and may not be politically feasible.

Paper For Above instruction

As technological advancements accelerate, automation and mechanization are reshaping the job market at an unprecedented pace. The advent of autonomous vehicles, intelligent algorithms, and robotics has led many to question the future of employment and economic stability. Central to this discussion is the concept of Universal Basic Income (UBI), a proposal for providing all citizens with a regular, unconditional sum of money to cover basic needs. While some regard UBI as a potential solution to the widespread economic upheaval caused by automation, others argue that it is neither feasible nor effective in reducing poverty or incentivizing work. This essay posits that UBI is hardly feasible, cannot effectively solve poverty, and risks promoting a culture of laziness, ultimately questioning its viability as a public policy measure.

Firstly, the feasibility of implementing UBI on a national scale remains highly questionable. The costs associated with providing a universal income are astronomical. According to Charles Murray (2018), maintaining a UBI system would place an unsustainable burden on government budgets, especially in countries like the United States, where the population exceeds 330 million. Funding such programs would require significant tax hikes or reallocations from essential services, which could have adverse economic consequences. Furthermore, the administrative challenges of distributing a uniform income to all citizens, regardless of existing income levels or needs, complicate the practicality of UBI. These logistical hurdles make widespread implementation unlikely without profound fiscal constraints.

Secondly, evidence from countries that have experimented with similar income guarantees suggests limited success in alleviating poverty. For instance, studies from Finland’s pilot program (Kangas et al., 2020) indicated that while recipients appreciated the financial security, there was no significant reduction in poverty levels or employment rates. Critics argue that UBI does little to address systemic inequalities rooted in education, healthcare, and housing policies. Without targeted social interventions, a flat income payment alone cannot rectify the deep-seated structural issues that cause poverty. Therefore, UBI's capacity to reduce poverty effectively is highly questionable, as it fails to address the root causes of economic disparity.

Thirdly, opponents contend that UBI could promote laziness and diminish the work ethic. The idea that guaranteed income fosters complacency is supported by concerns that individuals may choose leisure over labor, especially in a context where basic needs are met without work. Yuval Noah Harari (2018) warns that providing unconditional payments could lead to a decline in productivity and innovation, as individuals no longer feel the pressure to contribute through employment. Historical and empirical evidence suggests that shifts towards guaranteed income systems are often accompanied by decreased labor participation. This potential erosion of work ethic could have broader economic and social repercussions, weakening the societal bonds that are maintained through shared effort and purpose.

Additionally, the potential social benefits of UBI are offset by the risks it poses to social cohesion. As mechanization increases, the entire fabric of society faces upheaval, with millions of jobs at risk. While supporters argue that UBI can act as a safety net, critics emphasize that it might inadvertently foster social apathy and diminish community engagement. The risk of fostering dependency on government aid could undermine the incentives for personal development and collective responsibility, thereby destabilizing social structures that depend on active civic participation.

Counterarguments emphasize that UBI could provide essential support during times of transition, reducing poverty and promoting individual well-being. Proponents cite pilot studies showing increased mental health and well-being among recipients, asserting that financial security allows people to pursue education and entrepreneurial endeavors (West, 2019). However, these positive short-term outcomes do not necessarily translate into long-term economic or social stability. The high costs, coupled with uncertain effects on employment and productivity, challenge the viability of UBI as a comprehensive solution to societal issues.

In conclusion, despite its appealing promise of economic security, UBI is not a practical or effective solution to the complex problems associated with automation, poverty, and social cohesion. Its enormous financial costs, limited success in pilot studies, and potential to diminish the work ethic highlight significant drawbacks. Ultimately, addressing the challenges posed by technological unemployment requires targeted social policies that improve education, healthcare, and job training, rather than blanket financial guarantees whose implications remain uncertain. Therefore, UBI, as currently conceptualized, should not be considered a viable policy instrument for societal resilience or poverty alleviation.

References

• Kangas, M., Jauhiainen, S., Simanainen, M., & Ylikännö, M. (2020). The impact of basic income experiments in Finland. Basic Income Studies, 15(2), 1-20.
• Murray, C. (2018). A guaranteed income for every American. Wall Street Journal.
• Harari, Y. N. (2018). The rise of the useless class. TED.
• Harari, Y. N. (2018). The meaning of life in a world without work. The Guardian.
• West, D. (2019). What happens if robots take the jobs? The impact of emerging technologies on employment and public policy. Brookings Institution.
• Navarro, V. (2019). Why the universal basic income is not the best public intervention to reduce poverty or income inequality. Social Europe.
• Gordon, N. (2019). The conservative case for a guaranteed basic income. Atlantic.
• Khazan, O. (2019). The link between opioids and unemployment. Atlantic.
• Thompson, D. (2019). The free-time paradox in America. Atlantic.
• Thompson, D. (2019). A world without work. Atlantic.