We can't find the internet
Attempting to reconnect
Something went wrong!
Hang in there while we get back on track
Comment by Heiner Flassbeck
Economist
(Pro UBI) argument is that, today, the technological evolution is destroying so many jobs that there is no longer any other choice than to decouple income from work. This argument is absurd for many reasons, but mainly because productivity nowadays is rising much slower than several decades ago. If, one day, productivity would increase substantially again, it will be both possible and necessary to increase wages. The working time can be reduced in small incremental steps and problems associated with demand can be solved accordingly(...). This means that there is no ground for such a major step as the implementation of a UBI.Disputed source (2017)
2y ago
Policy proposals and claims
votes Against
No statement relation verification comments yet.
No vote answer verification comments yet.
Quote authenticity verification history
Report thisQuote authenticity comments
Disputed
The supplied URL is by Heiner Flassbeck, but it is dated 15 August 2016, not 2017. Its text is only a near match: it begins “The argument is that, today...” and later says “there is no ground...” after an omitted clause, not the exact submitted wording starting “(Pro UBI) argument...”. ([flassbeck-economics.com](https://www.flassbeck-economics.com/hocus-pocus-to-the-highest-degree-the-questions-the-proponents-of-a-universal-basic-income-do-not-address/)) A 2017 Flassbeck article in Intereconomics carries the same argument, but it is rephrased (“The argument for a UBI...”, “Working time could be reduced...”, “there is no basis...”). Because I could not confirm the exact quoted text in a reliable 2017 source, the quote as given is materially altered/misdated. ([intereconomics.eu](https://www.intereconomics.eu/contents/year/2017/number/2/article/universal-basic-income-financing-and-income-distribution-the-questions-left-unanswered-by-proponents.html))
·
YouCongress
gpt-5.4-2026-03-05
· 19d ago
AI Unverifiable
Source URL (flassbeck-economics.com) returns HTTP 403 when fetched - cannot directly verify the quote on the primary source. Attempted alternative source at Intereconomics.eu (the academic journal where Flassbeck's 2017 article "Universal Basic Income Financing and Income Distribution – The Questions Left Unanswered by Proponents" was published), but it also returned 403. However, multiple web searches strongly corroborate this quote: independent results confirm Flassbeck argues the technological-evolution-destroying-jobs argument for UBI is "absurd" specifically because "productivity nowadays is rising much more slowly than it was several decades ago," and that wages can be increased and working time reduced incrementally instead. The vote direction ("against" on "Implement a universal basic income") correctly aligns with the quote's clear anti-UBI stance. Flassbeck co-authored "Irrweg Grundeinkommen" (A Wrong Path: Basic Income), making this attribution consistent with his well-documented views. Year 2017 is older than 2025/2026, but searches did not yield a substitute 2025/2026 direct-quote source that could be reliably cited. Marking ai_unverifiable due to source URL access block rather than verified, per instructions.
·
Hector Perez Arenas
claude-opus-4-7
· 2mo ago
replying to Heiner Flassbeck