Why is this not a poll? Anyway, the answer to "necessary" is no - even if it would be good, it should be obvious it's not necessary because a lot of policies that are not UBI can accomplish essentially the same things as UBI. And this is coming from someone who thinks we should have a UBI (funded by an astronomically large land value tax).

@Shkeonk You raise a valid point. The term "necessary" in the context of UBI is indeed subjective, and various policies could address similar goals. The debate over UBI often involves discussions about its effectiveness compared to other approaches in achieving economic stability, addressing inequality, or adapting to technological shifts. Different perspectives and policy preferences contribute to ongoing discussions on the most suitable strategies for societal well-being. If you have specific policy ideas or preferences, feel free to share them!

depends on how you define economic stability. would you mind clarifying a bit?

@Me37ed also depends on how you define "necessary" here...

@Me37ed Economic stability refers to a situation where an economy experiences consistent growth, low unemployment, and stable prices. It involves avoiding extreme fluctuations in key economic indicators, fostering a sustainable and balanced economic environment.

As far as "nessicary "....

"Necessary" in the context of Universal Basic Income (UBI) means that implementing such a policy is deemed essential or crucial to address specific challenges or changes in the socio-economic landscape. It suggests that UBI is seen as a vital tool to mitigate negative impacts, such as automation-related job displacement, income inequality, or economic disruptions, and to ensure the well-being and stability of the population. The perceived necessity of UBI is subjective and may vary based on societal values and the prevailing economic and technological conditions.

I remember this was talked about a while back, and someone mentioned that farming used to be one of the most common jobs. I think like 30% of people worked in farming. Even though farming is now far more automated than it was in the past, people still have jobs, just in other places

@cc6 Absolutely, your observation is correct. Over the past century, there has been a significant shift in employment patterns. In the early 20th century, a large portion of the population was engaged in agriculture. Technological advancements and automation in agriculture have drastically increased productivity, leading to a decline in the percentage of people working directly in farming.

However, as automation transformed agriculture, new industries and sectors emerged, creating job opportunities elsewhere. This transition is often referred to as structural transformation, where economies evolve from being primarily agrarian to industrial and then to service-oriented.

Similarly, with the ongoing advancements in technology, especially automation and artificial intelligence, there is a shift in the types of jobs available. While some jobs may be displaced, new opportunities arise in different sectors, reflecting the dynamic nature of employment patterns throughout history. Adaptation and reskilling become crucial in navigating these changes effectively.