[Exclusive] Ruling Party Think Tank: "The Basic Income Premise Is Wrong... Jobs May Actually Increase"

Kim Ki-sik, Policy Chairman of 'The Mirae Research Institute' Report

On the 26th, at the Seoul Global Center in Jongno-gu, Seoul, Kim Ki-sik, Policy Chairman of The Future Institute, exchanged greetings with participants at the special committee continuous discussion on income-led growth titled "For the Virtuous Cycle of Fair Economy and Income-Led Growth." Photo by Kim Hyun-min kimhyun81@

[Asia Economy Reporter Park Cheol-eung] The think tank of 'The Better Future,' the largest group within the Democratic Party of Korea, has released a report suggesting that the Fourth Industrial Revolution could actually increase jobs. It argues that the premise of introducing basic income, as advocated by Gyeonggi Province Governor Lee Jae-myung and others, is fundamentally flawed.

Kim Ki-sik, Policy Chairman of 'The Future Research Institute,' recently analyzed in a report titled "Does the Fourth Industrial Revolution Really Have a Negative Impact on Employment?" that "While it cannot be ruled out that the Fourth Industrial Revolution may reduce employment in existing industries, it also cannot be excluded that it could create more jobs through the expansion of existing industries or the creation of new industrial ecosystems and increased consumer demand, as seen in the smartphone industry."

The institute was established by 'The Better Future,' which includes over 50 lawmakers such as Woo Sang-ho, Woo Won-shik, Do Jong-hwan, and Baek Hye-ryun. Kim previously served as Policy Chairman of the People's Solidarity for Participatory Democracy, a member of the 19th National Assembly, and Chairman of the Financial Supervisory Service. 'The Better Future' has been active as a major opinion group within the party, holding press conferences last month urging the passage of the Serious Accidents Punishment Act and the Economic 3 Laws.

Kim stated, "Technological innovation through the Fourth Industrial Revolution can lead to large-scale job creation by significantly growing existing industries through productivity increases, enabling the creation of new added value through business diversification in existing industries, or by allowing the emergence and growth of entirely new industries." Regarding the creation of new business areas, he pointed out, "Job creation in distribution companies like Amazon or Coupang is a representative example of this."

Regarding claims that job quality will deteriorate, he argued, "While there is a possibility that non-regular employment may expand, this is a result of complex factors such as industrial structural changes and globalization interacting, and cannot be solely attributed to technological innovation."

This ambiguous reasoning is being used as a major basis for basic income discussions, which has drawn critical views. He also referenced Governor Lee Jae-myung's statement that "mass unemployment due to automation is an inevitable social phenomenon requiring policy intervention."

In response, Kim criticized, "The negative effects of the Fourth Industrial Revolution on employment are being set too a priori and definitively," adding, "Above all, this kind of thinking, while seemingly radical, paradoxically leads to a conservative outcome that effectively tolerates the monopolistic profits of capital in the market and the resulting deepening inequality."

He has criticized the introduction of basic income as unrealistic. Kim said, "The basic income idea, which relies solely on state intervention after the fact to solve market inequality, has problems in terms of practical feasibility," noting, "It fundamentally depends on taxes derived from market income. In that sense, if the basic income discussion attempts to solve problems by relying only on state redistribution without improving distribution issues in the market, it inevitably faces fundamental limitations."

He pointed out that tax increases face strong resistance. Emphasizing market distribution, he cited Sweden's example. Kim said, "The reason a high tax burden is possible in Sweden is because a certain level of income security is ensured through a high level of market distribution," stressing, "Without the majority of citizens securing a certain income through market distribution, it is impossible to raise funds for universal welfare."

He also proposed a data compensation corporate model. Kim explained, "Within capitalism, there have been two main ways companies distribute profits: the shareholder capitalism model, which distributes profits to shareholders who participate in financing, and the stakeholder capitalism model, which centers on workers. There is a need to establish a third corporate model that appropriately distributes profits to network participants who contribute to profit creation through data provision."

He cited YouTube as a representative example. Uploading content on social networking services (SNS) could also become a target for profit distribution in the future. Kim said, "The profit distribution method has increased network participation and activated content production by providing economic incentives for individuals' content creation activities," adding, "This has led to platform growth and increased corporate profits."

Kim concluded, "It is necessary to prepare new complementary policy alternatives that can respond to changes brought by the Fourth Industrial Revolution while inheriting the historical achievements of progress through strengthening market distribution mechanisms, expanding employment insurance and unemployment assistance, and establishing distribution mechanisms for network participants."

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.