Essay

As automation reshapes whole industries, traditional safety nets are proving too fragmented and slow. A universal basic income would offer every adult a guaranteed monthly payment, cutting bureaucracy and ensuring nobody falls below a minimum standard of living. Supporters argue that UBI would reduce stress, improve health and give people the freedom to retrain, start businesses or take caring roles that the market undervalues. Crucially, it would stabilise consumer spending during economic shocks, helping local economies. While critics fear it would discourage work, evidence from pilot schemes suggests most people continue working, but with greater flexibility.

Universal basic income is often presented as a simple solution, yet its simplicity hides major trade-offs. Funding a meaningful UBI would require higher taxes or cuts to existing services, potentially weakening targeted support for those with complex needs. The labour market effects are uncertain: even small reductions in working hours could harm productivity and tax revenues. Rather than paying everyone, policymakers could focus on measures with clearer returns, such as subsidised childcare, wage insurance for displaced workers and large-scale retraining linked to employer demand. These approaches preserve incentives while addressing the specific risks created by automation and precarious employment.