How to fix Universal Basic Income: Make it be Universal Basic Life Standard #UBLS

Published in

Sapioit

7 min readMay 15, 2018

Some people think that Universal Basic Income is flawed. Let’s take a look at the point of view of someone who is against it.

Some of it’s many presumed flaws are shared by consumerism: Inflation, Planned Obsolescence, Monopolies and Lack Of Transparency. Add to that the unhealthy amount of trust in the process, that’s needed for people to even start taking it into consideration, and we’ve got a recipe for disaster.

How to make it work?

Well, the main problem, as I see it, is the lack of privately-owned cities. If one can choose to use quality materials instead of cheap materials, one would not have to replace the asphalt every 4 years and cover the potholes every year. If one can invest without waiting for N councils to approve it (instead, just getting a building permit and conforming to safety regulations), one can get things going much faster.

Schooling there would also be private, with an emphasis on educating people that could be so “enlightened” that they would have a clearer view of the world, and also be able to talk in detail about the things they did in their fields of choice (not one, but 3 or more), in the kind of detail that would convince a knowledgeable yet skeptical person that you have a very firm grasp of the field as a whole and it’s most important particularities.

Adding to that slight changes in social norms, like using a small space more efficiently (somewhat like Japan), and raising the happiness by encouraging social interaction, in addition to shifting the focus from the wasteful consumerist approach, in favor of high-quality products that last long, some built by the city’s own factories, mainly for internal use, would also lower the cost of living, by generating savings more efficiently. This, in turn, would allow a greater flow of funds and currency towards the things that matter the most, while also increasing the freedom of what can be done.

Such education, widespread into the city using radio, TV, and internet, would turn the inhabitants into more efficient people, efficiency that can be seen through their earnings after their living expenses are deducted. And as Jordan B. Peterson says, “you have no idea how efficient efficient people get. 10 times more efficient, 20 times more efficient, 100 times more efficient. They’re completely off the charts!”

Also, the efficiency increase will be feeding on itself, causing itself to become more and more efficient. People underestimate the power of incremental improvements. Changes stack up, they don’t merely add up, but also multiply. A 1% increase, done 100 times, causes one to become 1.7 times better. If one becomes 1% better every work-day, then in 250 workdays a year (random average), one would become 12 times more efficient than the previous year, at any one task. And it only grows faster!

What can be achieved?

For example, the city could have a tourism district, by building a small pyramid, or terraced housing with the roof acting as the floor of the next level, and said houses be used by shops. And the pyramid can also be the platform for the terracing of houses used by shops, with vegetation, as well as many resting places and bike&trike lanes (for deliveries), and night-lights that would help make it a greater tourist attraction. Documenting the entire process of building that would also allow for the whole project to become more popular online, which, in turn, would make it more popular to visit once it’s finished. And the building process shouldn’t take more than a few years, beginning-to-end, possibly even less than a year.

What about the housing?

Well, this could be fixed by making smaller “apartments”, with one one room + toilet&shower could fit inside a 2.5x4.5 meters of floor, a sink above the toilet, having the shower, toilet+shower room, a tall (but with half-a-meter of storage depth) fridge+freezer, bed and windows being in line, with space for clothes storage (above and below a one-person bed), a small camping stove with place for 2 pots, with space below for the propane/butane tank, the stove placed on a metal support above a microwave oven and electric oven (the size of the microwave) placed near the window, with a small cooker hood with a 2-speeds fan (connecting the stove to the outside, through the insulated walls), and next to the cooking-zone a long but half-a-meter wide table, with a few retractable extensions to double it’s width (for cooking, and for a keyboard and other laptop/desktop accessories), and a cheap second-hand laptop with a laptop cooler.

Is it expensive?

At the first glance, it might seem like a high price, but the initial investment is far smaller than a normal-sized one-room studio, with the long-term investment also not being higher than that of normal houses. It works on the principle “buy it once, use it for a decade” (or more). And because it’s rented, the owners would have good reasons to invest into the quality, since people can always go to a different housing complex, if they’re unhappy with the conditions provided.

Also, a 3x7 meters floor-space room could be used by 2 people (couples, for example), heating provided by the owner, and a small park on top of the building, to lower the carbon foot-print and provide leisure space for activities that are not physically demanding (like growing a garden, having a barbecue, having the kids play in the sand, relaxing, meeting new people, etc.).

What about having kids?

Of course, the option for bigger rooms would still exist, at an increased price. Double the space, double the price. This would not be aimed at families, but at singles and young couples who are not yet financially-established-enough to be able to own a house.

And with the increase in automation and remote jobs, or even decentralized offices (like 6 offices in 6 parts of the city, for different divisions or teams) would enable the population to not need to commute to work for nearly as long a time, partially solve the housing problem, and give the young adults more options to become independent individuals capable of more-easily integrating into the society.

And with the roof tops being leisure parks, the air quality would rise, the buildings would have a more welcoming touch, people would have a place to smoke, relax, and play, and the young adults would have places to meet others.

Add to that the usage of (covered) trikes (powered by Liquid Petroleum Gas, Benzine, biofuels, electricity and humans pedaling) being somewhat relieved from tax, and the land owners being required to provide storage for 60% or more of the inhabitants’ trikes, and you can also reduce the traffic, encourage the emergence of communities, help people get fit, lower the carbon footprint (actively combating pollution), provide higher living standards, improve the citizens’ health and the city’s image. A few bridges here and there, to connect the rooftops with other rooftops and with taller buildings, and effectively have a green city worthy to be proud of.