It is becoming more popular among individuals to think that universal basic income is the most efficient road to preventing the rise of poverty. I mostly agree with this statement because this subsidy helps in difficult situations though residents still need to endeavor to sustain themselves.
One the one hand, universal basic income helps residents sustain themselves in difficult situations. Nowadays, most people are suffering from unemployment or insufficient salary due to technological developments, a limited number of jobs, constant competition and inability to adapt to and adopt technological tools. As a result, these issues lead to the rise in the number of poor people. This distributed income reduces financial stress on residents, such as anxiety about finding sustenance, healthcare or paying housing expenses, and helps them to focus more on their own goals such as opening their business or getting education.
On the other hand, the universal basic income doesn’t help citizens unless they cut back on their whims and start putting effort. That’s because many people become dependent on free money and do not want to develop their earnings skills. A better solution might be to give a fishing net to person rather than a fish to help him survive, speaking metaphorically. To clarify, focusing more on creating job prospespects rather than distributing money. Moreover, even though the government supports individuals with universal income, those people’s conditions will not change until they change their spending habits.
In conclusion, I mainly agree that universal basic income is helpful in considerably complicated life situations but this solution will not be effective unless individuals overcome their laziness and change their intentions.