Verbot selbstfahrender Autos aus sozialen Gründen?
Die Lex-Kolumne der FINANCIAL TIMES (FT) nimmt sich der Idee des bedingslosen Einkommens an und kommt zu einem interessanten Schluss: “(…) driving is one of the world’s biggest sources of employment, largely because it has been immune from automation and globalisation. Faced with unrest, governments might prefer to keep it that way.”
Das bedeutet zwar bewusst weniger Produktivitätszuwächse, aber eben auch weniger Notewendigkeit für Umverteilung. Zunächst zeigt die FT, was die Projektionen sagen:
Quelle: FT
- “Making unconditional cash payments to all citizens is trumpeted as a visionary solution to inequality, poverty and job insecurity. But away from countries with weak social safety nets and low poverty thresholds, the numbers do not add up. Either the basic income has to be unrealistically low or the tax rate to finance it is unacceptably high. Suppose the US provided its 327m inhabitants with $10,000 a year. That would be less than the 2018 official poverty threshold of $13,064. But it would cost 96 per cent of this year’s federal tax take.” – bto: eine noch deutlichere Umverteilung als bisher.
- “(There is) anxiety over the replacement of jobs by machines. (…) Gig work is no substitute for a full-time career.” – bto: was sicherlich auch stimmt …
- “The transport industry tops the tables of sectors ripe for automation. Some $80bn was invested in self-driving cars from 2014 to 2017, according to Brookings Institution. (…) Uber, which spent $457m on autonomous fleet development in 2018, warned about a potentially tricky transition to self-driving cars in its listing prospectus. Reducing the need for drivers is likely to add to their dissatisfaction. Driver protests are bad for business.” – bto: und für die Gesellschaft?
→ FT (Anmeldung erforderlich): “Universal basic income: money for nothing”, 19. Mai 2019
