If by new world order you mean economic disaster then, yes.
UBI, for starters would be used to replace all welfare programs. Later it can be financed by a special Robotics tax to replace the governments lost revenue streams from individual taxes.
Elon Musk: Robots will take your jobs, government will have to pay your wage
Computers, intelligent machines, and robots seem like the workforce of the future. And as more and more jobs are replaced by technology, people will have less work to do and ultimately will be sustained by payments from the government, predicts
Elon Musk, the iconic Silicon Valley futurist who is the founder and CEO of
SolarCity,
Tesla, and SpaceX.
According to Musk, there really won't be any other options.
"There is a pretty good chance we end up with a universal basic income, or something like that, due to automation," says Musk to CNBC. "Yeah, I am not sure what else one would do. I think that is what would happen."
Preparing for a world without work means grappling with the roles work plays in society, and finding potential substitutes. First and foremost, we rely on work to distribute purchasing power: to give us the dough to buy our bread. Eventually, in our distant Star Trek future, we might get rid of money and prices altogether, as soaring productivity allows society to provide people with all they need at near-zero cost.
For a good while longer, wages will continue to be the main way people come by money, and prices will be needed to ration access to scarce goods and services. But in the absence of any broader social change, pushing people out of work will simply redirect the flow of income from workers to firm-owners: the rich will get richer. Freeing people from work without social collapse will therefore require society to find ways other than pay for labour to channel money to those not on the job. People might come to receive more of their income in the form of state-led redistribution: through the payment of a basic income, for instance, or direct public provision of services such as education, healthcare and housing. Or, perhaps, everyone could be given a capital allotment at birth.
https://www.ssc.wisc.edu/~wright/Redesigning Distribution v1.pdf
In this spirit, this volume in the Real Utopias Project examines two provocative proposals for radical redesigns of distributive institutions: Universal Basic Income, as elaborated by Philippe van Parijs, and Stakeholder Grants, as elaborated by Bruce Ackerman and Anne Alstott. While both of these proposals contain a range of complex details, as ideals they are both based on very simple principles:
Basic Income. All citizens are given a monthly stipend sufficiently high to provide them with a standard of living above the poverty line. This monthly income is universal rather than meanstested – it is given automatically to all citizens regardless of their individual economic circumstances. And it is unconditional – receiving the basic income does not depend upon performing any labor services or satisfying other conditions. In this way basic income is like publicly-financed universal health insurance: in a universal health care system, medical care is provided both to citizens who exercise and eat healthy diets and to those who do not. It is not a condition of getting medical care that one be “responsible” with respect to one’s health. Unconditional, universal basic income takes the same stance about basic needs: as a matter of basic rights, no one should live in poverty in an affluent society.
Stakeholder Grants. All citizens, upon reaching the age of early adulthood – say 21 – receive a substantial one-time lump-sum grant sufficiently large so that all young adults would be significant wealth holders. Ackerman and Alstott propose that this grant be in the vicinity of $80,000 and would be financed by an annual wealth tax of roughly 2%. In the absence of such grants, children of wealthy parents are able to get lump-sum stakes for education, housing, business start-ups, investments, and so on, whereas children of non-wealthy parents are not. This situation fundamentally violates values of equal opportunity. A system of stakeholder grants, they argue “expresses a fundamental responsibility: every American has an obligation to contribute to a fair starting point for all.”
Bill Gross: What to Do After the Robots Take Our Jobs
The usual prescriptions for fixing this problem aren’t likely to work, he says, since they’re almost uniformly based upon that concept that doesn’t work anymore. “Four years of college for everyone might better prepare them to be a contestant on Jeopardy, but I doubt it’ll create more growth,” he writes. What will be needed is more spending on the “collapsing” infrastructure, health care for aging generations – and a radical idea that is gaining some attention lately: “Universal Basic Income.”
It’s a proposal in which every citizen gets some basic level of a stipend from the government, say $10,000 or so. He points out that it already exists in other forms, food stamps and the earned-income tax credit. “If more and more workers are going to be displaced by robots, then they will need money to live on, will they not? And if that strikes you as a form of socialism, I would suggest we get used to it.”
The question isn’t whether or not this is going to happen. “It is,” he says. The question is how to pay for it, and the answer is two words: “helicopter money.” This is the concept of central banks essentially printing money, and while it sounds like an unsound idea, it is essentially what’s been happening since the Panic of 2008 anyhow.
http://www.modernmoneynetwork.org/s...basic_income.pdf?fref=gc&dti=1498223320389140
