I have a couple of issues with the concept of UBI in a heavily automated world where we see high levels of chronic unemployment (I.e. 20-30%).

The concept of UBI is one of BASIC income, but that assumes we will accept a world where a very large contingent of the population will forever live barely above survival/poverty wage if they are chronically unemployed.

I can't see that type of society as a healthy one. Realistically, what is the likelihood that a UBI implemented at the national level (pretty sure we are faaaaaaar away from any international agreement of UBI) would be much higher than welfare?

But that's also the catch with companies and seeking profits. It's one thing to be the only innovative company on the block which allows you to cut your personnel requirements and increase profit margins. But when it's all the companies that reach that level of automation, creating a macro environment of unemployment, you are effectively fucking up the purchasing power of the very population you depend on to buy your products.

A UBI will most certainly not match the median income. Meaning companies might see profit margins increase in the short term, but there's obviously going to be an inflection point where the level of unemployment will have a negative effect on buying power.

UBI is often touted as this magic pill 💊 but I can't see a healthy world where it is the solution as long as that income isn't covering all basic needs++.

And all of this is ignoring international dynamics. If a UBI was implemented equally today... it would be extremely low. The gdp per capita for the whole planet is something like $12k. AI would need to become incredibly productive to either create enough deflation and basically erase scarcity to allow a UBI to give good enough living conditions.

That might happen in the long term, but what about the transition period? Will we have to endure decades of extreme poverty and civil unrest because even an UBI would create massive inequalities?