One new model, which is gaining increasing attention, is universal basic income. UBI proposes that governments tax the billionaires and corporations controlling the algorithms and robots, and use the money to provide every person with a generous stipend covering his or her basic needs.This will cushion the poor against job loss and economic dislocation, while protecting the rich from populist rage. A related idea proposes to widen the range of human activities that are considered to be 'jobs'. At present,billions of parents take care of children, neighbours look after one another,and citizens organise communities, without any of these valuable activities being recognised as jobs. Maybe we need to turn a switch in our minds, and realise that taking care of a child is arguably the most important and challenging job in the world. If so, there won't be a shortage of work even if computers and robots replace all the drivers, bankers and lawyers. The question is, of course, who would evaluate and pay for these newly recognised jobs? Assuming that six-month-old babies will not pay a salary to their mums, the government will probably have to take this upon itself. Assuming, too, that we will like these salaries to cover all of a family's basic needs, the end result will be something that is not very different from universal basic income.
一個(gè)越來(lái)越受到關(guān)注的新模式是“全體基本收入”模型。該模型指出尾组，政府對(duì)掌控算法和機(jī)器人的億萬(wàn)富翁和公司征稅喇肋，然后用這筆錢(qián)為每人提供一筆可觀的生活津貼，用于支付生活必需品啃沪。這樣能夠減輕貧困人口因失業(yè)和經(jīng)濟(jì)混亂造成的困境，同時(shí)保護(hù)富人免受民粹主義的攻擊窄锅。一個(gè)相關(guān)的觀點(diǎn)認(rèn)為创千，我們應(yīng)該擴(kuò)大“工作”的定義范圍。當(dāng)前入偷，有無(wú)數(shù)的父母照顧自己的孩子追驴，鄰居之間相互關(guān)照，公民組織社區(qū)疏之，這些有價(jià)值的活動(dòng)都不被視為工作殿雪。也許我們需要轉(zhuǎn)換觀念，意識(shí)到照顧孩子可能是世界上最重要锋爪、最具挑戰(zhàn)性的工作丙曙。果真如此的話，即使計(jì)算機(jī)和機(jī)器人取代了所有司機(jī)几缭、銀行家和律師河泳，也不會(huì)出現(xiàn)崗位短缺現(xiàn)象。當(dāng)然年栓，問(wèn)題是拆挥，誰(shuí)去評(píng)估并支付這些新工作呢？假設(shè)六個(gè)月大的嬰兒不會(huì)向母親支付薪水，那么政府可能不得不替他們支付纸兔。同樣假設(shè)惰瓜，我們想要讓這筆薪水能夠支付整個(gè)家庭的生活必需品，最終結(jié)果可能與提供全體基本收入沒(méi)有多大區(qū)別汉矿。
有一種新模式越來(lái)越受到關(guān)注崎坊，即全民基本收入( universal basicincome，UBI)洲拇。全民基本收入認(rèn)為奈揍，政府應(yīng)該對(duì)控制算法和機(jī)器人的億萬(wàn)富翁和企業(yè)征稅，再用這筆稅金為每個(gè)人提供足以滿足其基本需求的慷慨津貼赋续。這樣一來(lái)男翰，既能解決因失業(yè)和經(jīng)濟(jì)混亂而產(chǎn)生的貧窮問(wèn)題，也能保護(hù)富人不受平民主義的怒火洗禮纽乱。一個(gè)相關(guān)的建議是要擴(kuò)大“工作”的定義蛾绎。目前有幾十億個(gè)父母照顧著孩子，鄰居照顧著彼此鸦列，民眾組織著種種社群租冠，這些活動(dòng)都有其價(jià)值，但都不被認(rèn)可為“工作”薯嗤⊥绲或許我們應(yīng)該改變一下觀念，意識(shí)到照顧孩子可以說(shuō)是世界上最重要应民、最具挑戰(zhàn)的工作话原。這樣轉(zhuǎn)念之后，就算計(jì)算機(jī)和機(jī)器人取代所有司機(jī)诲锹、銀行經(jīng)理和律師的工作，也不會(huì)出現(xiàn)工作短缺的狀況涉馅。當(dāng)然归园，接下來(lái)的問(wèn)題就是該由誰(shuí)來(lái)考核這些新認(rèn)定的“工作”，并為其付費(fèi)稚矿。6個(gè)月大的嬰兒大概還沒(méi)辦法付給媽媽工資庸诱，這時(shí)就需要政府承擔(dān)起這個(gè)責(zé)任。另外晤揣，如果我們希望此類薪水足以負(fù)擔(dān)家庭的基本開(kāi)銷桥爽，那么最終這和全民基本收入也就沒(méi)有太大差異了∶潦叮【林俊宏】
Alternatively, governments could subsidise universal basic services rather than income. Instead of giving money to people, who then shop around for whatever they want, the government might subsidise free education, free healthcare, free transport and so forth. This is in fact the utopian vision of communism. Though the communist plan to start a working-class revolution might well become outdated, maybe we should still aim to realise the communist goal by other means.
另一種方法是钠四，政府可以補(bǔ)貼全體基本服務(wù)進(jìn)行，而不是全體基本收入。政府與其給人們錢(qián)財(cái)缀去，讓他們隨意花侣灶，不如進(jìn)行補(bǔ)助，提供免費(fèi)教育缕碎、醫(yī)療褥影、交通等。這實(shí)際上是共產(chǎn)主義烏托邦咏雌。盡管共產(chǎn)主義實(shí)行工人階級(jí)革命的做法可能顯得過(guò)時(shí)凡怎，但是我們?nèi)匀豢梢酝ㄟ^(guò)其他途徑來(lái)實(shí)現(xiàn)共產(chǎn)主義目標(biāo)。
還有一種做法赊抖，政府可以提供全民基本服務(wù)统倒，而非全民基本收入。換言之熏迹，政府不是直接給錢(qián)讓人亂花檐薯，而是提供免費(fèi)的教育、醫(yī)療保健注暗、交通等服務(wù)坛缕。事實(shí)上，這就是共產(chǎn)主義描繪的愿景捆昏∽【林俊宏】? ?
It is debatable whether it is better to provide people with universal basic income (the capitalist paradise) or universal basic services(the communist paradise). Both options have advantages and drawbacks. But no matter which paradise you choose. the real problem is in defining what'universal' and 'basic' actually mean.
為人們提供全體基本收入（資本主義樂(lè)土）或者全體基本服務(wù)（共產(chǎn)主義樂(lè)土），到底哪種方法更好骗卜，是有爭(zhēng)議的宠页。兩種方法各有利弊。但是不管選擇哪一種寇仓，真正的問(wèn)題是如何定義“全體”和“基本”举户。
目前我們還不知道，究竟是該為民眾提供全民基本收入（資本主義的天堂）還是全民基本服務(wù)（共產(chǎn)主義的天堂）遍烦。兩個(gè)選項(xiàng)各有優(yōu)缺點(diǎn)俭嘁。但無(wú)論你選擇哪個(gè)天堂，真正的問(wèn)題還是在于“全民”與“基本”的定義服猪」┨睿【林俊宏】
