"Basic Income" is a terrible idea

[Irian]

You would be surprised how much benefit it would likely have for people to be able to pursue the work they want to instead of feeling the urgency to settle on whoever will take them. That is the exact mentality that currently drives people to get college degrees in something they hate solely so they can go work as a bank teller. The rent prices in the US are so high at this rate that it would be virtually impossible to manage.

Honestly, it really makes me scratch my head when people don't understand or desire this. Why are you so eager to want to push down the people who are less able than you? Do you not realize that some people have issues that genuinely make it difficult to hold a minimum-wage job, especially when finding one is such an ordeal these days as it is? The idea of Basic Income as well as basic housing for everyone is something any country should strive for, not belittle and look down on. I'm in a fairly comfortable living condition at my stage in life but I still want people not in my position to have the basics they need to be able to build a life, because I know how absolutely difficult it is to try to build a life from nothing.

Am I saying that I think it's achievable in the US right now? Nah, and not within the next decade either unless something magical happens within the next few years. But I think it's a genuine goal that should be pursued. People tend to stereotype the people who would need something like this as "lazy, unmotivated, slackers" but it's easy to say shit like that when you're born into a life that paves an easy path for you. I've been there, and if it weren't for the help of others I would still be there. Physical and mental issues are not always covered by things such as disability, and therapy can be a slow process.

[Grummgug]

The core problem with just relying on basic income is that you are no longer a productive citizen. The inevitable questions that some people will raise are:

1. Why should you be allowed to vote?
2. Why should you have rights under the law?
3. Why should you be allowed to live?

In the past, there was a CLEAR answer to these questions in the form of the "National Strike", where large amounts of workers go on strike to paralyze the economy and force change. But.....if you cannot strike....if robots operate the economy...you can no longer do that. If you riot, they can just wipe you out and not hurt the economy.

[Fencers]

Nah. It's a pretty good idea, OP.

[Shadowmelded]

The core problem with just relying on basic income is that you are no longer a productive citizen. The inevitable questions that some people will raise are:

1. Why should you be allowed to vote?
2. Why should you have rights under the law?
3. Why should you be allowed to live?

In the past, there was a CLEAR answer to these questions in the form of the "National Strike", where large amounts of workers go on strike to paralyze the economy and force change. But.....if you cannot strike....if robots operate the economy...you can no longer do that. If you riot, they can just wipe you out and not hurt the economy.

Fascinating insight into the value you place on human life.

[Endus]

The core problem with just relying on basic income is that you are no longer a productive citizen. The inevitable questions that some people will raise are:

1. Why should you be allowed to vote?
2. Why should you have rights under the law?
3. Why should you be allowed to live?

In the past, there was a CLEAR answer to these questions in the form of the "National Strike", where large amounts of workers go on strike to paralyze the economy and force change. But.....if you cannot strike....if robots operate the economy...you can no longer do that. If you riot, they can just wipe you out and not hurt the economy.

1> Because you're a citizen. Why are retirees allowed to vote? Same freaking difference.
2> Because you're a human being.
3> See #2.

In short; because we live in a free, democratic society, which respects the rights of the individual. Sorry that we don't live in a fascist dictatorship, I guess?

[Glorious Leader]

Fascinating.

Its a very old line of thinking. It goes back to people like nasau Sr and Ricardo who where trying to prove with mathematical certainty that nobody had a right to live. Of course the people decided in they didn't have a right to live then the rulers didn't have a right to rule...

- - - Updated - - -

1> Because you're a citizen. Why are retirees allowed to vote? Same freaking difference.
2> Because you're a human being.
3> See #2.

In short; because we live in a free, democratic society, which respects the rights of the individual. Sorry that we don't live in a fascist dictatorship, I guess?

Slightly off topic but one of my favorite books is by a guy named Norman spinrad it's called the iron dream. It's a book within a book. Basically instead of being a dictator hitler becomes a Sci if author and writes a book which is pretty fascist and emulates the rise to power of facism. Alot of people read it, thought it was SF and dint get the real world analogy. Great read.

[Deleted]

ITT : People who have never experienced wellfare.

We already have a Wellfare system in Sweden, it's more than enough to sustain you, as it is a calculation of Existencial Minimum - You can get away with quite a lot on it.

I really don't see how people WANT to work. Defending the idea of Slave labour and being screwed over, you must be some kind of scared.

The entire world is not made of Sweeden.
All jobs in this world are not slave labour.
Not everyone views working as slave labour.

[Deleted]

Which is okay, you might even be happy living off of basic income. Which is totally fine. In a world with far fewer jobs if the people who want to live a basic life don't have to enter the job market it frees up a spot for someone who wants to live in that second picture and will work to obtain it.

Well honestly, I do well enough in my profession (skill-wise and in terms of income), it's just that I kinda prefer the 'cozy' feeling of the first house. Second one seems kinda snobbish and unfun to me.

[Deleted]

You would be surprised how much benefit it would likely have for people to be able to pursue the work they want to instead of feeling the urgency to settle on whoever will take them.

You'd think people would get that freeing up people to do what they are good at rather than what they need to do to survive would have obvious economic advantages. The guy who should have cured cancer is probably working in a shop somewhere.
By contrast we have many people who clearly don't deserve to be there in positions of real authority. Look at politics. It is obvious most of those people bought their position.

[Saiona]

1. You people vastly over estimate when automation will take over manufacturing.
2. You people vastly over estimate humans in thinking that not working while being paid a living wage will make them aspire to do great things with their life. I bet my limbs that 50% of the population would be sat in front of a TV screen all day long with a Monsanto feed bag attached to their mouth. Hell the slobs might consider watching TV "Work" as it's time spent watching ADs.

- - - Updated - - -

[Masark]

2. You people vastly over estimate humans in thinking that not working while being paid a living wage will make them aspire to do great things with their life. I bet my limbs that 50% of the population would be sat in front of a TV screen all day long with a Monsanto feed bag attached to their mouth. Hell the slobs might consider watching TV "Work" as it's time spent watching ADs.

So instead they should waste time doing some mindless busywork?

What we'll need is a shift in education. Move from teaching "job ready" skills to the skills someone needs to find and do things they enjoy doing.

Or even if that fails, even if your view is correct, the the other half will still do interesting things. They do such things today as hobbies. It's not at all implausible that they would want to expand those hobbies to full time.

[Chrysia]

The core problem with just relying on basic income is that you are no longer a productive citizen. The inevitable questions that some people will raise are:

1. Why should you be allowed to vote?
2. Why should you have rights under the law?
3. Why should you be allowed to live?

In the past, there was a CLEAR answer to these questions in the form of the "National Strike", where large amounts of workers go on strike to paralyze the economy and force change. But.....if you cannot strike....if robots operate the economy...you can no longer do that. If you riot, they can just wipe you out and not hurt the economy.

Except, you know, such an economy would still be based on consumerism, so wiping out your consumers would be a bad idea.

[Deleted]

There is not a finite number of jobs in the world, other than the basic population figures. You act as if no person will want to hire these people because, well, every job on the planet is already filled. You lack even a basic understanding of the economy. Your teachers should be fired.

I was wrong about the number of cashiers. That kind of amazes me, in this day and age, that there are so many. But, it matters little since there are unlimited jobs in the world.

But there very much is a finite amount of jobs. Pretty much every job you can possibly think of will be automated before not to long. From the simple things as flipping burgers to things as doctors and everything in between. Its not just one part of the workforce that will be replaced, it will be pretty much all of it. Of course it will create some new jobs, but it will never be the number of jobs that where needed in the first place.

Just look at how driving is being automated right now. What do you think truckdrivers will do when they are all automated? How many new jobs will it create when things as loading and unloading the trucks is already being automated as well? You might get a few jobs servicing them, but that wont amount to much when the bulk of the servicing work will be automated too.

These are things that are already happening, and we do not even have machines like c3po just yet. But imagine that you can build a machine to do whatever, who needs to work then? And when you can just build a robot to do a job, why would you need faulty humans to do work that a machine can do faster with less flaws and cheaper as a human ever can? Apart from governing and making legislation (because we don't want machines to do this, for obvious reasons) there isn't a job out there that can't be automated.

Now, when pretty much all jobs are gone and humans are not needed anymore, what are we going to do with all these humans? They can't consume anything because they do not earn any money through work, as all work is done by machines. So we write of the humans and let the machines make their own civilization? "We have had a good run, time for the machines to rule" /s
I think we can agree that this isn't an option, so then all that is left to us is changing the way we feel about things as "work", "the economy" and "entitlement to live". I do not believe that people just don't want to work, sure, everyone can use a vacation by now, but this is mostly because a good portion of us is well over worked. But people like to be active, they like to do new things, experiment and are generally very curious. There will be people just rotting away doing nothing, its a shame, but that is not typical behavior.

[Saiona]

I believe automation should just be restricted from growing any further worldwide. No society is currently compatible with it and in order to become compatible would probably require mass extermination through world war or mass casualties through revolution. I feel like most of the remaining population would just feel unfulfilled in life and waste away popping their SSRIS that ROBOdoc keeps upping the dosage on.

[Deleted]

I'm glad you got rid of that rat avatar it was creeping me out.

Not the same person/account.

B.I. should be a given, anything else is unacceptable in a civilized world.

[Grummgug]

Except, you know, such an economy would still be based on consumerism, so wiping out your consumers would be a bad idea.

BUT the consumers will be the elites. They will consume things the robots make. They don't need to lower classes to partake (or even exist).

[Anastacy]

Don't be hatin' on me when I strut mah stuff down the street in my Dolce and Gabana clothes, Prada shoes, designer perfumes, and MK handbags and ease myself into my Lamborghini I bought wit' mah gub'ment check.

...

I don't know what kind of world view people possess to think that large swaths of humanity would give up convenience and excess to live lives of meagerness instead should be called. Is it one based in reality?

[tankbug]

BUT the consumers will be the elites. They will consume things the robots make. They don't need to lower classes to partake (or even exist).

Hmm, maybe I'm misunderstanding here, but are you saying that lower class people aren't consumers? I think that's wrong. They certainly need to buy a lot of things, just maybe not very expensive luxury items.

[Endus]

2. You people vastly over estimate humans in thinking that not working while being paid a living wage will make them aspire to do great things with their life. I bet my limbs that 50% of the population would be sat in front of a TV screen all day long with a Monsanto feed bag attached to their mouth. Hell the slobs might consider watching TV "Work" as it's time spent watching ADs.

So what?

Seriously; why is this somehow a problem?

BUT the consumers will be the elites. They will consume things the robots make. They don't need to lower classes to partake (or even exist).

That isn't how a consumer economy works. What you're talking about here is wildly irrational and pretty explicitly evil. This is literally the plot of Elysium.

Whenever the "elite" tries to pull off a gag like that, the masses rise up and remind them why they don't get to make those kinds of decisions.

[Chrysia]

BUT the consumers will be the elites. They will consume things the robots make. They don't need to lower classes to partake (or even exist).

There's a cap on consumption by a given population. You need more than just the rich for a viable economy.