> Just want to point out that inequality globally isn't necessarily rising.

My comment specifically referred to UBI in the context of the US, so I'm not sure what the relevance of global inequality is to whether or not an individual country does UBI.

If anything, the globalization that is driving global inequality down (a good thing), when coupled with domestic policies in the developed world that massively favor owners of financial capital, are driving domestic inequality up, which further bolsters the argument for UBI-like measures.

> so I'm not sure what the relevance of global inequality is to whether or not an individual country does UBI.

Because UBI is a misguided effort. It aims to fix inequality in any given country without addressing the root cause for increased domestic inequality: that low-skilled workers in developed nations are more expensive than low-skilled workers in developing nations in an age of cheap global logistics and telecommunications.

More sustainable solutions would arguably revolve around improving the educational system and revisiting {fiscal, educational, cultural, ...} incentives broadly across society to get the population trained to a a higher average skill level so that they may compete (and hopefully outcompete) for jobs currently performed by equivalent workers abroad.

Such an effort would presumably lead, in the long term, to a higher skilled global population who is equipped to bring about visions of the future. UBI, meanwhile, is tantamount to subsidizing low-skilled workers so they may continue to create little value (in terms of technological advancement and economic progress) and perpetuate the societal imbalances that preclude them from realizing their true potential.

It seems like an easy choice to make, at least if you buy into the assumption that we indeed want to maximize technological advancement and economic progress, and that those are bona fide proxies for improving standards of living and diminishing poverty.

> Because UBI is a misguided effort. It aims to fix inequality

No, it's a tool among many that can be used to fight inequality, not a solution in itself, despite attempts to depicted otherwise by both its supporters and detractors.

> More sustainable solutions would arguably revolve around improving the educational system and revisiting {fiscal, educational, cultural, ...} incentives

This reads like a thinly veiled recommendation to privatize schooling, reduce government supports to make people"hungrier" for success, and leave people's welfare to the conditioned charity of narrow cultural interest groups. Let the "best" rise to the top in the arena of struggle.

Dr King had the best summary of this: socialism for the rich, rugged individualism for the poor.

Incentives working ways that can drag society backwards also. Set up the system so the masses struggle to keep their heads above water, and what you'll likely end up with is a lot of destructive behavior whose cost is borne by society at large.

> This reads like a thinly veiled recommendation to privatize schooling, reduce government supports to make people"hungrier" for success, and leave people's welfare to the conditioned charity of narrow cultural interest groups. Let the "best" rise to the top in the arena of struggle.

You're putting words into my mouth and your comment just derailed completely thereafter, so I'm not even going to waste time addressing your criticism if you're not assuming good faith on my part.

I suggest you pause and reflect upon your apparent assumption that others who hold opinions different from your own do so because they are morally inferior or somehow driven by less noble motives.

My sincere apologies for assuming the motivation behind your comment. If that's not the correct interpretation of your comment - which was very vague - please do explain the concrete manifestation of it.