"Basic Income" is a terrible idea

[melodramocracy]

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.

Being a "productive citizen" isn't a current requirement for any of the questions you pose. Large scale automation means that the perceived requirement for financially viable productivity is no longer going to be needed or sustainable.

Posts like this are an excellent example of how society is going to struggle mightily with the idea of many people simply not having to work. Centuries of stagnant 'ethic' beliefs are not going to go away quietly.

Want a good example? Propose the idea of dropping the standard work week to 35 hours. Watch the shrieking commence.

[Tyrianth]

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.

If it's anything like my first apartment that appeared cozy on the outside then the inside is anything but.

[Azadina]

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).

You go first then.

[Halicia]

1. You people vastly over estimate when automation will take over manufacturing.

I think the industrial revolution is over. The machines won. That being said, whether things are 100% automated or not isnt the point. even 10% automation is a huge loss of employable work to the world... and if history has shown anything, "freeing up employees to have more leisure time" doesn't happen. Instead the people at the top of the economic pyramid rake in more profits, and those underneath struggle to eat while being blamed for "being lazy" if they decline a job that requires them to breathe in asbestos every day in order to pay for half a meal a week.

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.

agreed. Idiocracy is as scary as 1984 in certain respects. The total submission to *any* media presented, regardless of total lack of quality in favor of mindless propoganda being part of it.

[Bullettime]

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 - - -

Keep in mind that it doesn't necessarily have to totally take over all jobs. Even just taking out a significant amount of entry level work such as basic factory work, cashiering, or food preparation does have a negative impact by eliminating employment for many already at the lower end of the spectrum and also killing the easy entry work experience positions that jobs often ask for.

It puts us in a position of "well how do we support this now disenfranchised segment of the population?" You either have to increase welfare spending or just let them suffer in poverty which drastically increases crime rates.

Machines are slowly going to overtake a non trivial amount of employment opportunities. It's a matter of figuring out how we'll handle it and get ahead of the curve in making provisions for the people affected or allow people and communities to suffer after the fact until legislation takes its sweet time to try to correct it.

[Grummgug]

So what?

Seriously; why is this somehow a problem?



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.

If the elites have robots, the masses will lose. History is littered with genocide. The only reason genocide stopped was when the elites realized they needed the lower classes to run the economy and provide an army. Give elites robots and the reason to not commit genocide is gone.

Maybe you want to argue that the human race has somehow evolved from its murderous impulses (which still seem to kick-in in places like Africa). But I don't see the evidence.

- - - Updated - - -

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

Thats an assertion and it could be valid but I don't see how it prevents the elites from thoroughly testing it to the extreme.

[Deleted]

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.

Each and everytime they tried it they were testing their crowd control measures.
Next time it might not be so rosy because we have heartless machines capable of killing you from distance.

[Chrysia]

Thats an assertion and it could be valid but I don't see how it prevents the elites from thoroughly testing it to the extreme.

What you're describing is what's already happening. Wages have stagnated in real dollars, and it's straining the hell out of the economy as fewer and fewer people can afford goods and services.

[Karnak]

Right, now in the real-world this is how the system "paid for itself", either taxes went up to offset this new expense, or other programs were cut in order to cover this new expense.

Something doesn't "pay for itself" when you take money from taxes and pay for it. So let's use a real-world example of things "paying for themselves":

1.) LED bulbs. There's an up-front investment, but EVENTUALLY they "pay for themselves" in the savings.
2.) Solar panels. Same as above.

So, and perhaps I'm now beginning to see it, EVENTUALLY this would "pay for itself" because they would be able to cut all other welfare programs since people were originally getting those already?

Here is how it works, coming from a business owner who understands where his money comes from (that would be me):
The more money my customers have to spend the more I make. The more I make the more taxes I pay. I still come out better than had I not made the extra money that cause me to pay more taxes, but I do pay more taxes.

With the basic income system more people have money to spend, thus I, and other business owners, make more money and pay more taxes, taxes which are then used to pay out the basic income to people without jobs. Because people without jobs have a basic income paying enough for a basic lifestyle with a bit of luxuries they become participants in the economy. The more money being spent, the more demand, the more the owners and workers make. It is a virtuous circle.

The reason the US economy is struggling is because the consumers are not being paid enough to perform their role in the economy as consumers. As automation increases this problem is only going to get worse.

I would like my customers to have money to spend so that I can make money.

I would also not like to be hauled to the guillotines along with the likes of Jaylock when the starving masses rise up to take the horded wealth in a horrific revolution against those who hoarded wealth beyond reason while their fellow citizens starved.

[Theodarzna]

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 - - -

And you care what they do with their lives why?

[Deletedaccount1]

Basic income is an evil idea, not just a terrible one.

[Karnak]

Basic income is an evil idea, not just a terrible one.

A collapsed economy and starving people pushed into violent rebellion is good then?

You have a crazy definition of "good".

[Deletedaccount1]

A collapsed economy and starving people pushed into violent rebellion is good then?

You have a crazy definition of "good".

Yes because giving people free money is the only way to prevent the anarchic apocalypse.

[Karnak]

Yes because giving people free money is the only way to prevent the anarchic apocalypse.

What would you suggest?

Unless you have some marvelous idea for the masses to find productive labor as automation increases you're just pissing into the wind and pretending it is raining on you.

You have no idea the levels of automation that are in the pipeline.

[Azadina]

Basic income is an evil idea, not just a terrible one.

Volunteer to starve yourself first, then advocate it for others if you still think it feels good.

[Deletedaccount1]

What would you suggest?

Unless you have some marvelous idea for the masses to find productive labor as automation increases you're just pissing into the wind and pretending it is raining on you.

You have no idea the levels of automation that are in the pipeline.

And neither do you. It is far more likely that you are the one who is overestimating the problem than I am the one underestimating it. Japan's unemployment rate is under 5% and we are the automated country on Earth, by far.

Here are some reasons why it's a bad idea:

Decrease motivation to work or receive an education for necessary jobs that cannot be automated. Or it could cause such a flood into these careers that people fight over too few jobs while the rest do nothing.
Just a few reasons why it is a bad idea:

It requires a complete restructuring of taxation, social insurance, social security and pensions.

It will cause a huge flood in immigration.

It causes the rise of a shadow economy.

It will cause inequality by vastly raising price.

It cannot be realistically financed.

- - - Updated - - -

Volunteer to starve yourself first, then advocate it for others if you still think it feels good.

Your posts are always so wonderfully devoid of substance.

[Azadina]

Your posts are always so wonderfully devoid of substance.

Then it sounds like the proper response to your posts.

[Deletedaccount1]

Then it sounds like the proper response to your posts.

Oh snap. But no, I gave my reasons above. Feel free to actually make an argument which you probably won't because you never do.

[Bullettime]

Here is how it works, coming from a business owner who understands where his money comes from (that would be me):
The more money my customers have to spend the more I make. The more I make the more taxes I pay. I still come out better than had I not made the extra money that cause me to pay more taxes, but I do pay more taxes.

With the basic income system more people have money to spend, thus I, and other business owners, make more money and pay more taxes, taxes which are then used to pay out the basic income to people without jobs. Because people without jobs have a basic income paying enough for a basic lifestyle with a bit of luxuries they become participants in the economy. The more money being spent, the more demand, the more the owners and workers make. It is a virtuous circle.

The reason the US economy is struggling is because the consumers are not being paid enough to perform their role in the economy as consumers. As automation increases this problem is only going to get worse.

I would like my customers to have money to spend so that I can make money.

I would also not like to be hauled to the guillotines along with the likes of Jaylock when the starving masses rise up to take the horded wealth in a horrific revolution against those who hoarded wealth beyond reason while their fellow citizens starved.

It's also the small businesses that are the first to gain when the consumers have more money to spend. Mom and pop restaurants, dry cleaners, cleaning services, etc.

The only companies that really benefit from the current state are companies like Wal-Mart where the welfare awards get funneled into.

[Masark]

And neither do you. It is far more likely that you are the one who is overestimating the problem than I am the one underestimating it. Japan's unemployment rate is under 5% and we are the automated country on Earth, by far.

Here are some reasons why it's a bad idea:

Decrease motivation to work or receive an education for necessary jobs that cannot be automated. Or it could cause such a flood into these careers that people fight over too few jobs while the rest do nothing.
Just a few reasons why it is a bad idea:

It requires a complete restructuring of taxation, social insurance, social security and pensions.

It will cause a huge flood in immigration.

It causes the rise of a shadow economy.

It will cause inequality by vastly raising price.

It cannot be realistically financed.

- - - Updated - - -



Your posts are always so wonderfully devoid of substance.

1. Only due to the fact that you're looking at a massive population crisis. And it's still likely to catch up with you just a little later.

2. That flood is what you'll get WITHOUT a basic income.

3. OH NO! Things will have to CHANGE!

4. Basic income limited to citizens.

5. On what basis do you presume this?

6. How? It won't be changing the amount of money, merely spreading it in a more equitable manner.

7. It can be financed fine given 3 and with conservatives and their excuse for fiscal policy run out of town on a rail (or hyperloop or whatever means of swiftly transporting them is available)