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.
一个越来越受到关注的新模式是“全体基本收入”模型。该模型指出，政府对掌控算法和机器人的亿万富翁和公司征税，然后用这笔钱为每人提供一笔可观的生活津贴，用于支付生活必需品。这样能够减轻贫困人口因失业和经济混乱造成的困境，同时保护富人免受民粹主义的攻击。一个相关的观点认为，我们应该扩大“工作”的定义范围。当前，有无数的父母照顾自己的孩子，邻居之间相互关照，公民组织社区，这些有价值的活动都不被视为工作。也许我们需要转换观念，意识到照顾孩子可能是世界上最重要、最具挑战性的工作。果真如此的话，即使计算机和机器人取代了所有司机、银行家和律师，也不会出现岗位短缺现象。当然，问题是，谁去评估并支付这些新工作呢？假设六个月大的婴儿不会向母亲支付薪水，那么政府可能不得不替他们支付。同样假设，我们想要让这笔薪水能够支付整个家庭的生活必需品，最终结果可能与提供全体基本收入没有多大区别。
有一种新模式越来越受到关注，即全民基本收入( universal basicincome，UBI)。全民基本收入认为，政府应该对控制算法和机器人的亿万富翁和企业征税，再用这笔税金为每个人提供足以满足其基本需求的慷慨津贴。这样一来，既能解决因失业和经济混乱而产生的贫穷问题，也能保护富人不受平民主义的怒火洗礼。一个相关的建议是要扩大“工作”的定义。目前有几十亿个父母照顾着孩子，邻居照顾着彼此，民众组织着种种社群，这些活动都有其价值，但都不被认可为“工作”。或许我们应该改变一下观念，意识到照顾孩子可以说是世界上最重要、最具挑战的工作。这样转念之后，就算计算机和机器人取代所有司机、银行经理和律师的工作，也不会出现工作短缺的状况。当然，接下来的问题就是该由谁来考核这些新认定的“工作”，并为其付费。6个月大的婴儿大概还没办法付给妈妈工资，这时就需要政府承担起这个责任。另外，如果我们希望此类薪水足以负担家庭的基本开销，那么最终这和全民基本收入也就没有太大差异了。【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.
另一种方法是，政府可以补贴全体基本服务进行，而不是全体基本收入。政府与其给人们钱财，让他们随意花，不如进行补助，提供免费教育、医疗、交通等。这实际上是共产主义乌托邦。尽管共产主义实行工人阶级革命的做法可能显得过时，但是我们仍然可以通过其他途径来实现共产主义目标。
还有一种做法，政府可以提供全民基本服务，而非全民基本收入。换言之，政府不是直接给钱让人乱花，而是提供免费的教育、医疗保健、交通等服务。事实上，这就是共产主义描绘的愿景。【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.
为人们提供全体基本收入（资本主义乐土）或者全体基本服务（共产主义乐土），到底哪种方法更好，是有争议的。两种方法各有利弊。但是不管选择哪一种，真正的问题是如何定义“全体”和“基本”。
目前我们还不知道，究竟是该为民众提供全民基本收入（资本主义的天堂）还是全民基本服务（共产主义的天堂）。两个选项各有优缺点。但无论你选择哪个天堂，真正的问题还是在于“全民”与“基本”的定义。【林俊宏】
网友评论