| dc.description.abstract | This paper will be written to address the economic and social implications of imminent automation and operate under the assumption that automation will cause catastrophic unemployment rates. Therefore, there is a search for an economic policy that would help alleviate subsequent unemployment externalities such as higher suicide rates and a shrinking population. Two policies, the Negative Income Tax and a Universal Basic Income, have risen to prominence as ways of reducing poverty. A Negative Income Tax is a modification of the tax bracket first popularized by Milton Friedman and gives those under the poverty line a rising incentive to work more hours while providing a bit of spare income. A Universal Basic Income is a policy that ensures everyone in a set population receives a financial benefit of equal degree in a given period, a proposal that has been tossed around by scholars as far back as Sir Thomas More and his Utopia. Both are variants of the concept of a Basic Income Guarantee, a policy in which those with financial insecurity have the assurance of a living income. In this paper, I will examine both policies in reference to their effects on the unemployed and underemployed, in hopes that such results will show us what policy will perform best in an increasingly automated world. Based on data initially collected and my preemptive literature review, I expect that a Negative Income Tax will show better results in the short term, while a Universal Basic Income will be a solution for a more extreme economy. It is my hope that these findings will help prepare policymakers and scholars of political economy as the global community steps forward into a world dominated by automation. | en |
