No, but a massive, disproportional share of your population caring for the elderly is a real weakness. A market economy would weigh and value "caring for the elderly" in balance with other priorities, whilst UBI volunteers are free to care for the elderly too much, sacrificing limited resources that are needed to keep a society competitive in other areas.
Isn't it better to be happy than to be "the best"? Would you really rather draw meaning in life from your country's position in the global economy than from your own happiness? Do you even matter at that point as a human being or are you just a gear in the machine to crank up the economy of your country. You're disposable.
That's a rather emotional and wishful take on the matter. There are real benefits to staying competitive in the global economy. Countries with weak economies have less resources to invest in the health and happiness of their citizens. They are less resilient to crises. They are easily exploited by others and more susceptible to corruption. They lack the geopolitical strength to achieve long term goals that would benefit their citizens.
Building the #1 best economy obviously shouldn't be one's sole purpose in life. But if you really think it doesn't matter at all, why not leave the developed nation you probably live in and find happiness in the third world. Or just ask one of the many people who seek a better life in the first world every year.
There's a troubling number of people in this thread who seem think that wealth creation and strong economies is some pointless goal that we've been tricked into caring about. Let's not forget that we work to build wealth for ourselves and our children. We've already worked so hard to build wealth into our buildings and streets and health and technology and culture. Apparently that's why you can dismiss the value of a strong economy from the comfort of your laptop/desk in the first place.
Question though: would companies just move to Brazil, which doesn’t have UBI, and save all of the money from the now-even-more-expensive American workers? Maybe not immediately, if there are more skilled workers in the US than Brazil, but over time I’d worry about high value companies just leaving.
So you’d need to prevent that, but in order to prevent it you’d have to become somewhat isolationist, right? Sounds bad.
Though I’m curious if anyone has thought about how to prevent all of the expensive skilled jobs from leaving.
> Isn't it better to be happy than to be "the best"?
Have you played Civilization? If you don't strive to be "the best", eventually you're the guys with spears or even muskets being bombed by F-15s. In other words, lag behind the leaders for long enough and you can say goodbye to your freedom. That's basically how the XVI-XIX century colonization happened.
Giving everyone the ability to exercise their creativity, pursue their passions, take care of their families, while simultaneously eliminating poverty would make the US less competitive globally? I just don't see how.
You're only looking at the idealistic pros and none of the cons. Competition is about who's working the hardest. Imagine two companies, Company A in which workers are extremely hard working and Company B which workers are free to pursue their passions and only work when they want to. Which one do you think wins out in the long run? And I'm not talking about a version of Company A in which everyone is unhappy, worked to death, etc. I'm just saying more work = more productivity, which is what competition is about