Interview: Presidential campaign brings ‘new crowds’ to basic income

Interview: Presidential campaign brings ‘new crowds’ to basic income

Interview with Democratic Presidential Candidate Andrew Yang

By: Jason Burke Murphy

[Note from Jason Burke Murphy. This interview took place on June 11th, 2018. Yang took time out of one of his presidential campaign rallies and fundraisers to speak with me. I describe the rally in US Basic Income Guarantee Network’s blog. After I stopped recording, he expressed his hope that supporters of basic income would get behind his campaign early. Andrew Yang was then, and still is as of this writing, the only announced candidate for the Democratic Presidential nomination.]

 

Murphy: How did you first hear about basic income?

 

Yang: I think I heard about it first for sure from Martin Ford’s book Rise of the Robots. I heard about it before then in articles but Martin Ford’s book made an impression. Andy Stern’s book Raising the Floor cemented the idea while coming from a different angle. Martin is a technologist and Andy is a labor leader. Stern’s book clinched it for me. I found myself coming to the same conclusion. Now basic income could no longer just be about technologists over-hyping the near-term progress of automation. Stern is someone who has a firm grasp on the labor market in the US.

Promotional for Andrew Yang’s book presenting his argument for Basic Income, Medicare for All, and “human capitalism”.

Murphy: How did friends and family react to your decision to run for President?

 

Yang: Oh, my parents were initially anxious and worried about it. Friends had a range of reactions. One cried tears of joy and has been immensely helpful. Others were skeptical. I will say now that support is very strong with friends and family. When you tell someone about a decision, they might react one way but when the decision is made in public, then they have a different attitude and stance.

 

Murphy: Joseph Biden, a possible candidate, has explicitly rejected basic income. It seems like other presumptive candidates have stayed quite distant. Why do you think that is the case?

 

Yang: I think in Joe’s case—and I read his comments—he is stuck in this framing of a subsistence model in which value is tied to showing up at an hourly waged job. His explicit argument for why basic income is a bad thing is that people need work. What he doesn’t realize is that universal basic income is pro-work. It is pro doing work that people actually want to do. Joe is stuck in an era when we thought that, if someone had a certain amount of money in their pocket, they would want to do nothing at all. That is an old welfare-era framework that I think was never true. [Laughs.] In Joe’s mind, that relationship is still there. Other Democrats are going to resist making commitments in this direction because they are afraid of being painted as “socialists” or economically unsophisticated. In truth, it requires a degree of economic sophistication to understand basic income and to see how it would be great for our economy and our people.

 

“Other Democrats in my opinion are not sophisticated enough to understand the impact a basic income would have in the economy… They do not realize that we would be channeling money back into our economy through the hands and the decisions of our citizens.”

Andrew Yang

 

Murphy: Do you think as people hear about basic income, they are going to think more about economics?

 

Yang: What happens right now is that people are stuck in this scarcity mindset in which they ask how we can afford it. Won’t it cause rapid inflation? Won’t it make purchasing power go away? None of that is true! [Laughs.] So, other Democrats, in my opinion, are not sophisticated enough to understand the impact a basic income would have in the economy. They are stuck thinking that the money would be “gone” and we would need to “go get more of it.” They are not realizing that we would be channeling money back into our economy through the hands and the decisions of our citizens. The vast majority of the money would be spent in our regional economy every day. The Roosevelt Institute’s estimates that it would create four and a half million new jobs and grow the economy by two and a half trillion.

Murphy: I really liked that paper. For one thing, it is methodologically very cautious. For another, I liked basic income before I knew it would be that good.

Yang: Yeah, their projection was based on it coming from deficit spending and they posited a lower impact if it was paid for by taxes. Whereas, I am very confident that, simply by shifting money to the hands of the people most likely to spend, you would induce economic growth. One thousand dollars a month in the hands of a really wealthy person does absolutely nothing. It just becomes a line item somewhere.

 

Murphy: Money in the hands of the wealthy, if spent at all, goes into the streets that are already looking pretty good.

 

Yang: It just stays in someone’s account. When money goes to anyone in the bottom half of the US population then it will be spent on things that will manifest themselves in local businesses in the community.

 

Murphy: One of the reasons I support a basic income is that I grew up in Arkansas. A region like the Delta is invisible politically. I just know that very few other approaches are going to get anything down there.

 

Yang: That’s right. Virtually nothing else.

 

Murphy: If someone has a big plan for education and job training, I am not against those, but I doubt it will actually get to the neighborhoods I worked in there in Arkansas.

 

Yang: You are right.

 

Murphy: How are you looking to fund a basic income?

 

Yang: The main way we need to fund it is through a value-added tax. A VAT is an efficient way to raise revenue, it taxes consumption, which is what we ought to be taxing instead of something like work and labor. We are the only industrialized economy that does not use the VAT. We would be harvesting the gains of automation and new technologies much more effectively than income-based taxes.

 

Murphy: There are a few other proposals like a carbon tax or a tax on income above the one percent. What do you think of these other proposals that pop up?

 

Yang: I think some proposals try to finesse something that cannot be finessed. We try to find a way to fund a basic income without causing any pain or friction. I support taxing carbon and we will tax rich people. But we are talking about re-organizing the way that value is distributed in our society. So we can’t think that we can do that in some elegant way that leaves most people untouched.

 

[Note from Murphy: Yang’s platform also includes a financial transactions tax, which we did not discuss. There is also a call for an end to the current favorable tax treatment for capital gains and carried interest. That is not listed as funding for a BI.]

 

Murphy: Thinking of that, sometimes supporters present basic income as a reformist measure and sometimes others present it as a very radical transformation.

 

Yang: You can put me in the “radical transformation” category.

 

“Fifty-nine percent of Americans can’t afford to pay a surprise $500 charge. Our life expectancy is declining due to a surge in suicide. Seven Americans die of opiates every hour. Americans are starting businesses, getting married, and having kids at record low level or at the lowest in multiple decades. So, society is disintegrating and even very sick.”

Andrew Yang

 

Murphy: You are the first candidate [for the Democratic Presidential nomination] to announce. This is giving you access to curious people. I saw an article in which you were meeting with New Hampshire Democrats. That is a new crowd for basic income. How are these meetings working for you?

 

Yang: They are interested in what I have to say. Most of what I have to say revolves around the fact that we are going through the greatest technological and economic shift in human history. That is objective. That is data-driven. People find it very resonant. They sense that this is true. Most of our conversations are around what is happening with technology and labor and the economy and job polarization—all things that we are experiencing right now. One of the dangers of basic income right now is that it can seem like we are debating different versions of utopia. When we turn someone’s attention to the depth and breadth of our current social problems, we can talk about what can actually make a difference. The situation you saw in Arkansas is becoming more and more true for more and more Americans. May I give some of the stats that I feature in my book and in speeches?

 

Murphy: Absolutely.

 

Yang: Fifty-nine percent of Americans can’t afford to pay a surprise $500 charge. Our life expectancy is declining due to a surge in suicide. Seven Americans die of opiates every hour. Americans are starting businesses, getting married, and having kids at record low level or at the lowest in multiple decades. So, society is disintegrating and even very sick.

 

Murphy: We often use words like “self-employed” and “side hustle” for people who are…

 

Yang: Who are being exploited by a billion-dollar tech company that says “be your own boss” but pays you nickels on the dollar.

 

“We need to quit measuring everything based on GDP and profitability at the expense of human values. We should direct our energy towards thing that improve lives. The concentration of gains in the hands of a few is a toxic way to move forward.”
Andrew Yang

 

Murphy: Not long ago, we would hear people say that we need to choose between universal health care and basic income. Your platform simply has both. It seems like we are having a similar moment with a jobs guarantee. We keep hearing that we need to pick one or the other. It seems like many good people think that basic income crowds out something they are very concerned about.

 

Yang: That is an unproductive approach. We should not get lost in dueling utopias. If you are for universal health care, you should think about how much one thousand dollars a month will open up access to health care. If you care about gender equality and you want to see women avoid abusive workplaces and domestic situations—a thousand dollars a month could be vital. Let’s start with the cash because that will be the easiest thing to get done.

 

Opening page of Andrew Yang’s Presidential Campaign website.

 

Murphy: Your platform has multiple issues alongside basic income.

 

Yang: Definitely. I am all for single-payer health care and we can certainly do better with health than we are at present. That said, even after I win the Presidency, giving everyone cash will be easier to execute than universal health care. Andrew Stern points out that the government is terrible at many things but it is excellent at sending cash to many people promptly and reliably.

 

Murphy: Any ideas on how a basic income would affect foreign policy?

 

Yang: In the end, I think basic income will rationalize our spending, make us more optimistic, and smarter about our resources. Our citizens may end up less likely to want to lose a trillion dollars on military interventions worldwide.

 

Murphy: You call your worldview “Human Capitalism”. For some people “capitalism” refers to markets. For others, it refers to the domination of wealthy people.

 

Yang; First, I would agree with those who think that our current version of capitalism and corporatism is why our disintegration is happening. I am not a fan of continuing down this road. We have to reverse course as fast as possible. Reversing course, however, does not mean abandoning the things that have made capitalism effective. The problem is that our measuring sticks are all wrong. There are more effective ways to do things. Markets can help find the effective ways. We need to quit measuring everything based on GDP and profitability at the expense of human values. We should direct our energy towards the things that improve lives. The concentration of gains in the hands of a few is a toxic way to move forward. This is bad even for the so-called “winners” in society. Studies have proven that the winners in an unequal society are more anxious and depressed than the winners in a more equal society. This is enlightened self-interest. I can sympathize with anyone who thinks that “capitalism” is a dirty word. The first line in the description of human capitalism on our website is “Humans are more important than money.”

 

Murphy: Thank you for speaking with me between events. Is there any last word you want to make to readers?

 

Yang: I am hoping to get support soon from the basic income community. I have been campaigning for about four months. We are drawing from their ideas. We hope we can see them sign up because we need their support.

 

You may disagree with some item on my platform but I hope you can see that the direction and the spirit are right and that we can push a genuine conversation about basic income. We could really use their passion. We need a movement that recognizes that our community is disintegrating and that basic income is an essential answer. I hope that basic income activists can believe in this campaign.

 

Photo of Jason Burke Murphy (Left) and Andrew Yang (Right) shortly after this interview.

[Note from Murphy. Some portions of this interview were edited slightly for clarity as we moved from spoken word to written word. No content was altered. Thank you to Andrew Yang for taking time out of his campaign to speak with me. Thanks to Tyler Prochazka for proofreading.]

The Importance of the Indigenous Voice and Experience in the UBI discussion

The Importance of the Indigenous Voice and Experience in the UBI discussion

Written by: Thomas Klemm

Some indigenous nations within the United States may have answers to many of the biggest questions of basic income, due to their experience with basic income-like programs. Nations have been doing this in the form of what is commonly known as “per capita” payments. While per capita payments pre-date casino gaming, the majority of per capita payment programs came after passing The Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA), which was passed in 1988. Traditionally, casinos have been a massive source of income and revenue for the Indian community. However, the online casino market has slowly resulted in revenue dropping substantially. The simple reason for this is Casinos not on gamstop have proven to be very popular.

These per capita payments commonly come from the allocation of casino revenue. Anyone who has installed the mega888 download will be well aware of how lucrative the casino market is at the moment. If you haven’t downloaded it, or at least something similar, you are potentially missing out on some big winnings. Just remember to check a review first, before you decide on an online casino or casino app. You don’t want to deposit any money into it unless you can be sure it is a good site to use. The market in general is booming, be it with the in-person locations with the glitz and glamor, or with the online sites that allow for fast withdrawal of those shiny winnings. Moreover, it should be stated that other business ventures are used to fund these payments as well. How successful these ventures are is often dependent on how close to a large population the nation is. Being that most indigenous people were forcibly moved to some of the most isolated and rural parts of this country, it makes successful gaming a near impossibility for most tribal nations. Due to this, the size and frequency of per capita payments vary greatly among nations, with some being negligible, some being partial basic incomes, and some being full basic incomes. Some stipends are given bi-weekly, monthly, bi-annually and annually. Attitudes vary greatly as well, with each indigenous person having their own personal experience with this topic. Stereotypes about all Native Americans being casino-rich and or getting “government checks” are still pervasive and harmful. It is important to note that though some growth has occurred, Native Americans were the poorest racial demographic before IGRA and are still today the poorest.

I am certainly not the first person to make the connection that these stipends are a form of basic income. The Eastern Band of Cherokee per capita program has been researched extensively, yielding incredible results. While there is an academic angle to take in terms of researching per capita programs, more importantly, a dialogue needs to be started between the UBI community and indigenous nations. This means reaching out to indigenous nations’ leaders and citizens. Indigenous researchers should be at the front of these efforts. If one is interested in this topic and cannot think of any indigenous researchers to consult or lead these efforts, it is necessary for a closer examination of why that is the case.

While there are some indigenous people I know who think these have been positive and successful programs, there are some who feel differently. There are vastly more indigenous people I have not met with their own unique and valid perspective on this subject. While some may be open as the Eastern Band of Cherokee to this type of research, some may not be interested. It is a nation’s sovereign right to keep information about their per capita system private and any refusal to participate in research efforts by outside entities should be respected.

Nations that implement these programs are not labs, and their citizens are not research subjects. These nations are examples of a different way of doing things. The citizens are leading experts in UBI by way of experience. Community leaders know what these programs have done to their communities for better or worse. The discussion of implementing a basic income is incomplete without the indigenous voice and experience as a central component to the conversation.

About the author: Thomas Klemm is a citizen of the Pokagon Band of Potawatomi Indians. He currently lives in Ann Arbor MI, where he is a BSW candidate at Eastern Michigan University and works at Dawn Farm Inc. as a Recovery Support Specialist. Thomas has hopes of continuing his education at the graduate level.

URL’s in order of appearance:

https://mvskokemedia.com/what-are-per-capita-payments/

https://www.nigc.gov/general-counsel/indian-gaming-regulatory-act

https://www.aeaweb.org/research/has-tribal-gaming-been-a-boon-for-American-Indians.php

https://newsmaven.io/indiancountrytoday/archive/tribal-per-capitas-and-self-termination-pWhjlw0iU0SYhqUcK4dw3Q/

https://newsmaven.io/indiancountrytoday/archive/the-myth-of-indian-casino-riches-3H8eP-wHX0Wz0H4WnQjwjA/

https://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdf/10.1257/jep.29.3.185

https://www.census.gov/prod/2013pubs/acsbr11-17.pdf

https://www.wired.com/story/free-money-the-surprising-effects-of-a-basic-income-supplied-by-government/

https://indigenouseducationtools.org/assets/primaryimages/IET05_ThePromiseofIndigenousResearchIssue5_10.1.15.pdf

https://www.chronicle.com/article/Why-So-Few-American-Indians/146715

Bolivia: BONOSOL programme is 21 years old, this year

Bolivia: BONOSOL programme is 21 years old, this year

Image credit: La Razón.

 

BONOSOL is a mandatory, non-contributory, central government social security program in Bolivia. It is unconditional in nature and started in 1997, having endured to this day, having risen more than 220% from 2008 through 2016. It disburses, at the moment, 404 €/year per adult over 60 years of age who does not benefit from a State pension, and 323 €/year for those in that same population cohort who benefit from a State pension. BONOSOL is, thus, a universal but cohort restricted non-contributory pension programme.

 

Although the programme targets people older than 60 years of age, its coverage includes all people older than 21 in 1995 (at the moment 44 years of age). It has also been suspended, soon after its start in May 1997, re-introduced with a different name (BOLIVIDA) on a 51 €/year value and then re-established again as BONOSOL in 2002, with a value of 206 €/year.

 

Nowadays, around one million people in Bolivia benefit from BONOSOL (with or without a state pension), also called Renta Dignidad, or about 9% of current population. There is no monitoring or evaluation processes for this programme, although the total fund from where payments are made is subject to annual audits. The annual cost is 0.25% of Bolivia’s GDP, and has been originally set up as a way to redistribute collected funds by the State, derived from the privatization process. However, despite, its longevity and growth along recent years, “studies have shown that at current levels of benefits in payment, the fund will run out much earlier than expected”. This might indicate a need to diversify the fund’s financing streams into the future.

 

More information at:

Jesus Paco, “Diputados aprueban suba de la Renta Dignidad”, El Deber, May 5th 2017

International Labour Organization, Social Security Department – Bolivia, Bonosol

Autoridad de Fiscalización y Control de Pensiones e Seguros: Requisitos Renda Dignidad

Portugal: Unconditional Basic Income of All for All

Portugal: Unconditional Basic Income of All for All

A step to a future of solidarity and sharing

For hundreds of thousands of years, men and women lived in tribal groups, practicing mutual cooperation and solidarity. In the present we live in capitalism, competing among ourselves, driven by individual ambitions to ‘have’. This is not doing us any good. However, we can see it as a painful but necessary civilizational phase, a means of developing the capacity to produce all that’s necessary for the material life of all. The age of capitalism has only lasted 200 years. A better future could be drawn with the re-establishment of an economy of solidarity between people. We propose a process of systematic, automatic and unconditional transfers of money between people, from those who have more to those who have less. We call it Unconditional Basic Income of All for All, or ‘UBI-AA’.

 

The Past – from Ancestral Economy to Capitalism

Human societies in which all men and women have lived on Earth since people here exist, and until the formation of the first sophisticated civilizations, were tribal groups. They functioned through cooperation and solidarity between their members in tasks such as obtaining and distributing food, building shelters and family dwellings or taking care of community assets; tasks that today we would call ‘economic’. In fact, over hundreds of thousands of years of human presence on Earth the whole economy was cooperative and supportive. And it was sustainable then.

After the emergence of the first sophisticated civilizations and empires – about 6,000 years ago – things began to change, and the forms of economic organization put into practice came to vary from then. Today, however, all the economic diversity that has existed over those 6,000 years is   virtually nullified, and a unique model has once again consolidated. It is called capitalism, and it has been going on for about 200 years.

While the ancestral economic mode was based on solidarity and cooperation between people, on a harmony between them and nature and on an orientation towards the mere satisfaction of their needs, capitalism is characterized by competition among peers, by the predation of the Earth and by an orientation of its agents towards unlimited material accumulation. Both models are hegemonic, each in its own time. But that’s all they have in common; as for everything else, it is difficult to find more opposing realities.

Can, like its ancestral homologous form, also this present ‘state of the art’ in economic organization – capitalism – last for hundreds of thousands of years? It doesn’t seem possible, given the condition in which it left us humans, and the planet, after only 200 years. And yet, despite its deeply dark sides, an important merit can be attributed to capitalism: with the demand for accumulation and profit it gave us machinery, techniques and knowledge that can now allow us to have the resources for the material comfort of all. This is only a possibility and not inevitable because although these machines, techniques and knowledge give us the capacity, they alone do not guarantee that we will use it. However, capitalism cannot possibly make any sense in history unless the immense price it charged and still charges us eventually results in the actual extinction of the material scarcity from the face of the Earth. Only then will it be seen as a process of rising human civilization to a higher level, albeit with great suffering.

Thus, the great question of the present is how to accomplish the potential that capitalism offers us, to free ourselves from the ‘fatality’ of material scarcity. The simple progress of the economy, as we have it, does not seem to be the way. Reality shows us very clearly that the mere growth, without any change or innovation in the logic and processes of the present economy, will never raise the condition of all, although it may greatly improve it for some people. Neither the strengthening of the so-called welfare state, in its traditional, bureaucratic, expensive and life-controlling form, can do more than mitigate poverty. Traditional welfare will never eliminate poverty and it charges from its beneficiaries a price in dignity and in humanity that the more unnecessary it becomes, the more intolerable it gets.

No, capitalism does not inherently have a mechanism to guarantee essentials for all. Let us resurrect from our ancestral economic way its essential element: solidarity among people.

 

A Future – the UBI-AA

Solidarity among people is the essential idea of the alternative distribution model of the resources generated in society we will talk about here: the Unconditional Basic Income of All for All, or ‘UBI-AA’.

To show what it is and how it works we will turn here to an explanation given elsewhere:

The UBI-AA is a revenue redistribution process designed to operate monthly, providing automatic and unconditional transfers among citizens, from those who have higher incomes to those with low or no income at all. Built, supported and leveraged by them, the process will invite the participants to take responsibility and engage in their communities, which will reinforce them.

It works in two stages:

1) As it is acquired, each member of the community discounts to a common fund – a ‘UBI Fund’ – a proportion of their income, at a single and universal rate;

2) At the end of each month, the Fund’s accumulated total is equally and unconditionally distributed by all members of the same community.

This simple process of treating everyone equally puts those who in each moment have above-average incomes to deliver to the UBI Fund more than they receive from it, and those who have below-average incomes would receive more. Thus, the process operates a joint distribution between the participants of part of their individual incomes. In addition, to reduce inequalities between them, this solidarity between peers creates an unconditional guarantee of income for all, that is, an Unconditional Basic Income.

It follows from the action of the UBI-AA process the loss of available income by some and its gain by others. For those who lose money, it is important to limit the loss, while maximizing the gain for the rest to ensure broad acceptance of the policy.

The demand for this double result should not, however, mean a devaluation of the possibilities of mutability of all individual positions. With the passage of time and with the exercise of the options that the process itself will open to the participants, the situations of income “winners” or “losers”, in which each of them will at each moment be, should always be seen as circumstantial.

To make possible its intended effects, the implementation of the UBI-AA should be accompanied by the release of its participants from the burden of personal income tax. Such tax relief will compensate them for the contributory effort required by the UBI-AA process, although, for those above a certain level of income, such compensation may turn out to be merely partial.

Abolished the personal income tax, the moderation of loss for citizens with higher incomes and, at the same time, the material significance of the gains to those in the opposite condition, will be possible if the rate of contributions to the UBI Fund is set at an optimal level, balancing the two outcomes. [1]

A more complete description of the UBI-AA process, as well as a simulation of the financial effects it would have produced, both in individual citizen spheres and in the State budget, hypothesizing it in force in Portugal in 2012, can be seen here.

UBI-AA differs from most of the traditional redistributive processes in operation because it is unconditional; and from most of the unconditional alternative processes for being a construction of common citizens instead of the policy of a government, a central bank or any other ‘power’.

What is proposed with the UBI-AA is not directly the creation of an unconditional guarantee of income for all. The proposal is the institution of an alternative form of organization of the economy in its distributive side. This will be accomplished with the income distribution process described above; a process that will favor the rehabilitation of values such as solidarity and voluntary cooperation between people, and of which the creation of an unconditional guarantee of income for all will be a corollary.

We hope that may contribute to the flourishing of a new culture, less marked by the centrality of material goods. Who knows if making everybody’s access to essential material resources as simple as the possibility of breathing, will not end up instilling in us the same attitude towards those resources – money and things it buys – as that we have towards the air we inspire: no matter how valuable it may be to us, we do not quarrel with each other for it; we use the quantities we need. Accumulating it would no longer be necessary.

Such cultural shift would certainly be a great step forward for us, human beings, and very good news for Earth.

[1] This stretch is an English translation from Projeto de um RBI – Local – Solidário – Voluntário, [Project of an UBI – Local – Supportive – Voluntary], by Miguel Horta, 2017, available (in Portuguese) from: https://pt.scribd.com/document/341205904/Projecto-RBI-Local-V-2017.

 

Written by Miguel Horta

Scott Santens: “It’s Time for Technology to Serve all Humankind with Unconditional Basic Income”

Scott Santens: “It’s Time for Technology to Serve all Humankind with Unconditional Basic Income”

Scott Santens published on Medium the transcription of a speech he wrote for a keynote session he presented in Sweden in 2017, with the title “It’s time for technology to serve all humankind with Unconditional Basic Income.”

 

The speech revolves around the impact of automation on society, acting as a disruptor in the labour market, making many jobs obsolete without creating more and better jobs for humans. This is a trend that goes on since the ‘90s: “Yes, it already happened. It’s not in the future. It’s in the past”.

 

Technological unemployment is a reality, he says, and it’s observable from the decline in occupation of the US population since 2000, the year in wich human labour peaked. Ephemeralization made a lot of middle-skilled jobs obsolete, creating an occupational vacuum filled by low-skilled jobs, as jobs are automated “from the middle out”. This translated in income stagnation for the middle class, growth in incomes monthly variance and rising income inequality. All factors which ultimately affect the wellbeing of individuals and society as a whole, producing a costant sense of insecurity in the population. But, according to Santens, we shouldn’t fear automation:

 

“We have the opportunity to forever free humanity from drudgery and toil, but as long as people require money to live, and jobs are the primary way of obtaining money, people will fear automation.”

 

Technologic unemployment ends up hindering productivity itself, because automation of the medium skilled jobs makes workers shift toward the low skilled ones, increasing the offer of low paid work and thus making automation less convenient and postponable.The answer resides in decoupling work from income, through the introduction of an Unconditional Basic Income, a solution which would make income circulate from top to bottom. It would eliminate the necessity to work in order to survive, thus driving very many undesirable jobs out of the labour market and making automation more impellent. With a better distribution of wealth, full automation could be reached, eliminating many unnecessarry and unsatisfactory jobs, and society would be ultimately able to floursih. Scott Santens puts this clearly:

 

“…how much are we holding civilization back by allowing impoverishment to continue? How much more could we accomplish as a species, if we made the choice, that’s right, THE CHOICE, to abolish poverty and extreme inequality forever, by simply investing in humanity — in each other?”

 

More information at:

Scott Santens, “It’s Time for Technology to Serve all Humankind with Unconditional Basic Income”, Medium, April 13th 2018