When talking about ways to improve people’s lives in a time when many jobs are becoming increasingly automated, people either propose Universal Basic Income (UBI) or Universal Basic Services (UBS). The first is the idea of offering a regular monetary stipend to everyone, so they can afford to survive, while the other proposes making services needed for survival free to everyone, so they don’t have to pay at all.
Both of these approach the problem of global poverty in their own way: UBI solves it by offering people the money that would take them out of poverty, while UBS gives them access to services regardless of their income. The biggest difference, however, is that UBS takes away people’s freedom to choose what to do with their money that UBI offers them.
While those who receive UBI could choose not to pay rent, instead using the money for more nefarious purposes, UBS doesn’t even give them that possibility - but it does let them earn money that they don’t have to pay rent with, so they can still misuse it.
On the other hand, a successful business owner does not need as much money as a stay-at-home parent, so giving them the same amount doesn’t make much sense, while both of them need access to transportation and housing. This means that working out the specifics of UBI to make it more fair could take more time than simply implementing UBS, even if the latter restrains people in a way. Both of them are ways towards solving global poverty. UBI offers more freedom (and is often considered a more intuitive solution), but UBS would be easier to implement on current frameworks.
UBI and UBS can solve lots of problems
