How can we become a better world after the coronavirus pandemic?

Implementing Universal Basic Income would ensure basic economic stability for all citizens

Question: How can we become a better world after the coronavirus pandemic?
Position‹3 of 4›: Reform capitalism
Argument‹2 of 3›: Implementing Universal Basic Income would ensure basic economic stability for all citizens

Universal Basic Income (UBI) is a great solution to increasing income inequality in an unregulated capitalistic society, but also in the face of increasing worker displacement due to AI and robotics

The argument

It is increasingly evident, in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic and with future AI proliferation on the horizon, that a solution to income inequality is vital. Universal Basic Income (UBI) would provide a safety net for all people. Current economic systems such as capitalism, socialism, and communism, are all products of their time. We are in the 21st century, and new ideas have to be considered as society faces entirely new problems. UBI experiments have taken place all around the world, and while the results so far have yielded mixed results, it is still one worthy solution for increasing the overall quality of life of people. UBI would provide a basic monthly payment that would cover the basic expenses of a household. This would not cover extra expenses, which means that people would still have the incentive to work in order to pay for their personal needs and desires. UBI would also allow workers to have more free time to pursue more fulfilling endeavors or for family obligations, more leverage in their workplace, and even perhaps learn new skills or start a business.

Premises

[P1]With COVID-19 and future AI-driven job loss, income inequality demands new solutions, and a Universal Basic Income would provide a safety net covering basic household expenses for all citizens. [P2] Because UBI covers only basics, people retain the incentive to work, while gaining free time for fulfilling pursuits, family, learning new skills, or starting a business, and more workplace leverage. [C] Implementing Universal Basic Income would ensure basic economic stability for all, a way to reform capitalism for the 21st century.

Counter-arguments

Universal Basic Income would be a disaster for society, as it would de-incentivize people to work. If your basic needs are provided for, then people will be unmotivated to work and contribute to society. The small case studies of using UBI are flawed, as they only use a limited amount of people that meet certain financial criteria, hardly “universal.” The idea that the “robots will take all the jobs” is pure science fiction at this point, and people will not use UBI in order to improve themselves or their lives, but rather as a convenient welfare handout that they earned just by existing.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] The premise assumes the payment can be set at a level that covers basic household expenses while remaining universal, which is the whole difficulty: the cost of doing so at national scale is what the trials cited have never tested, and the argument concedes their results are mixed while treating the conclusion as unaffected. [Rejecting P2] The benefits listed pull against each other — a payment large enough to give workers real bargaining leverage is one large enough to change work decisions, which the premise denies it would do — and none of it is a reform of capitalism as such unless the financing is specified, since where the money comes from determines whether the scheme redistributes anything at all.