Why a Universal Basic Income Would Be a Calamity

[Toogoodman]

amount of labor needed in production but it creates jobs elsewhere in other sectors

The problem with this is many.

Not everyone is smart enough to financial expert, computer engineer, software developer, Nurse, doctor...

Low skilled labor jobs like farm hand in the 1900s were sent to factories, and plants, but those same people might have an extremely hard time adjusting to a highly technical job. Even i had some troubles passing my various slew of licensing tests, my uncle who does construction would have been absolutely fucking dumbfounded by most of those questions.

[Concequence]

lmao on $1000-2500 a month? Thats a bit of a stretch, thats enough to afford a decent studio and have some food. Shit, here where i live, thats not even rent.

You could easily live on the beach in Jamaica for that. And eat well even... you'd have enough for all the beer you could drink there. For 2500 you could probably even have a cabin on the beach. nothing fancy, but it would have a shower, a bed, and place to keep your clothes, in a resort with guards.

[Toogoodman]

I think there's a misunderstanding of universal basic income.

It's not to combat automation, or supplant low income.

it's designed to offset some of the burdens of 'welfare' on an administrative level. It costs tons of money to get people welfare, when for the same amount of money being given out (relatively a small amount), billions gets saved in administrative overhead.

It's like paying your friend $15 so he can deliver $12 to another friend, who gives your roomate $10. Instead, just give your roomate $10.

Yes, it certainly helps with the other stuff too, but the main desire and outcome of UBI is to reduce and consolidate administrative welfare systems. With billions saved, they can then (in theory) redistribute that money to getting jobs available and removing people from the poverty line.

See my post above

- - - Updated - - -

You could easily live on the beach in Jamaica for that. And eat well even... you'd have enough for all the beer you could drink there. For 2500 you could probably even have a cabin on the beach. nothing fancy, but it would have a shower, a bed, and place to keep your clothes, in a resort with guards.

I highly advise you to consider putting even $50 a month into a retirement date series retirement fund, compounding interest is beautiful.

- - - Updated - - -

You could easily live on the beach in Jamaica for that. And eat well even... you'd have enough for all the beer you could drink there. For 2500 you could probably even have a cabin on the beach. nothing fancy, but it would have a shower, a bed, and place to keep your clothes, in a resort with guards.

Well, thats not in the US

[Sharein]

amount of labor needed in production but it creates jobs elsewhere in other sectors

Not really, mainly since people aren't equal when it comes to intelligence, creativity and skills.

[NineSpine]

because the vast majority of farms where family owned and run. their children off spring helped run the family farm and also farm work was much less dangerous as was factory work that is why children was excluded
now I asked you for a source saying innovation was a factor in ending child labor and 8 hour work day. I have already looked and only thing I can find was unions and laws that did
so the only conclusion I can come to you pulled that out your ass with no evidence to back it up so I'm asking again were did you get that notion from word love to be better informed

Child labor was around 18% of the labor force in 1900. It was down to around 3% by 1938. That's when it was made illegal. It wasn't made illegal until it was very rare. You are acting like the Fair Standards Labor Act came about and suddenly eradicated this massive child labor industry. It was already gone. The government was just putting the final nail in the coffin.

- - - Updated - - -

you don't really grasp how many does it take just to design and engineer automated machinery and it is a hell of a lot then 2 or 3 involved you have to have structure engineers, mechanical engineers, electrical engineers, electronic engineers, computer programmers then a team of AutoCAD to do the drawings that is just in the design then we go into prototypes and testing we are talking about dozens

If it takes 30 highly skilled people the same number of hours to product, maintain, and run the machine that replaces 10 people working those same hours, the cost of the machine would render it useless. This is basic math.

[Halicia]

But purpose can’t be manufactured, nor can it be given out alongside a government subsidy. It comes from having deep-seated responsibility—to yourself, your family and society as a whole.

If only there was a government subsidized institution that could educate people in life skills and thought processes that might help them discover and form "their purpose" and a become better contributing citizens to society...

So yeah, I really disagree with the basic premise that there is nothing you can do to cure the ills by throwing money at it.

As employment rates drop, the state must increase its support of lifelong education, and not just with the intent to make the average joe a subservient worker drone, but to actually live contented and happy lives. Happy citizens don't revolt, so it's a win/win for the state and powers that be, as well.

[Dug]

you don't really grasp how many does it take just to design and engineer automated machinery and it is a hell of a lot then 2 or 3 involved you have to have structure engineers, mechanical engineers, electrical engineers, electronic engineers, computer programmers then a team of AutoCAD to do the drawings that is just in the design then we go into prototypes and testing we are talking about dozens

Which are all high level jobs. The argument is that automation will displace the majority if not all of the lower end jobs. Even if all of those people trained to be engineers how many would a company actually need? They already automated all of their production with their team so why would they hire more? Would defeat the purpose of automation if they're just hiring them back to pay them an engineers salary.

But even if the jobs were plentiful the reason these jobs aren't excessively saturated in this day and age is because they're difficult subjects for the common person to pick up. Even harder when they're older and have been in the work force for X amount of years but now are replaced.

[Vyxn]

Child labor was around 18% of the labor force in 1900. It was down to around 3% by 1938. That's when it was made illegal. It wasn't made illegal until it was very rare. You are acting like the Fair Standards Labor Act came about and suddenly eradicated this massive child labor industry. It was already gone. The government was just putting the final nail in the coffin.

- - - Updated - - -



If it takes 30 highly skilled people the same number of hours to product, maintain, and run the machine that replaces 10 people working those same hours, the cost of the machine would render it useless. This is basic math.

didn't say the trade off was one to one on jobs but I'm wiling to bet it will be a equal or better trade off in overall wages earned there for more money into the economy which in its self creates jobs

[Dug]

didn't say the trade off was one to one on jobs but I'm wiling to bet it will be a equal or better trade off in overall wages earned there for more money into the economy which in its self creates jobs

Yes but not low end jobs

[Vyxn]

Which are all high level jobs. The argument is that automation will displace the majority if not all of the lower end jobs. Even if all of those people trained to be engineers how many would a company actually need? They already automated all of their production with their team so why would they hire more? Would defeat the purpose of automation if they're just hiring them back to pay them an engineers salary.

But even if the jobs were plentiful the reason these jobs aren't excessively saturated in this day and age is because they're difficult subjects for the common person to pick up. Even harder when they're older and have been in the work force for X amount of years but now are replaced.

what it does is create overall more wage earned
lets say in the production sector it saves the company 100k per year in labor for that machine but in another sector it creates 200k in new jobs maybe not as many but much higher paid
what you just did was add 100k worth of wages to be spent back into the economy that is always a job creator

[PC2]

How is it Luddite? It is asking one pay the cost of their actions.

His idea was to tax the use of automation. That is technology-based targeting, he never said anything about measuring the cost of an action.

[Vyxn]

Yes but not low end jobs

why not? these higher pay jobs creates more disposable income more trips out to eat to the movies going on vacations and so forth

[Dug]

what it does is create overall more wage earned
lets say in the production sector it saves the company 100k per year in labor for that machine but in another sector it creates 200k in new jobs maybe not as many but much higher paid
what you just did was add 100k worth of wages to be spent back into the economy that is always a job creator

But what kind of jobs could be created out of that? If they're still higher level jobs then the ratio is still way off and leads to mass unemployment

[Bullettime]

what it does is create overall more wage earned
lets say in the production sector it saves the company 100k per year in labor for that machine but in another sector it creates 200k in new jobs maybe not as many but much higher paid
what you just did was add 100k worth of wages to be spent back into the economy that is always a job creator

This logic has been used to defend trickle down economics for years and is proven bullocks.

The reality is that the money will get hoarded by the top and the jobs they create will be extremely minimal.

Someone with money would say franchise a McDonalds. They'll use automation to sell and make the food then hire a few technicians to maintain the business. That still cuts out 20 people that would normally work a store.

The point is, with automation, it will create some jobs but create far fewer than what we're set to lose. We'll lose 10 jobs for every 1 technician job created to maintain the new robots. The jobs created are mid to high level technician work that the displaced workers won't be doing.

[Dug]

why not? these higher pay jobs creates more disposable income more trips out to eat to the movies going on vacations and so forth

Vacations is one thing but dining out is already on a decline with millennials and with the way streaming services are going I can see movie theaters going the way of the dinosaur as well. By the time we get to the point of full automation (which may not be in our lifetimes) culture (western) will likely be different.

[Vyxn]

Vacations is one thing but dining out is already on a decline with millennials and with the way streaming services are going I can see movie theaters going the way of the dinosaur as well. By the time we get to the point of full automation (which may not be in our lifetimes) culture (western) will likely be different.

its went into decline because wages did you increase the wage poll you increase disposable income more out to eat more restaurants open more jobs for chiefs, waiters restaurant managers

See you got to think broadly changes in one sector of the job market has a ripple affect the true object isn't always to create more jobs but to create a larger wage pool people earning more.
if it was just about creating jobs all government projects would just give everyone a shovel and not use heavy equipment more people would be needed to complete the project

[Mackeyser]

The answer, for now, seems to be a denial of the fact that automation is going to reduce the need for full employment.

- - - Updated - - -

Yeah, sorta like our response to Climate Instability.

Denial until it's too late and then throw up the hands and say, "well, it's too late to make any meaningful change, so let's make no change at all."

There are not enough facepalm gifs...

[Vyxn]

This logic has been used to defend trickle down economics for years and is proven bullocks.

The reality is that the money will get hoarded by the top and the jobs they create will be extremely minimal.

Someone with money would say franchise a McDonalds. They'll use automation to sell and make the food then hire a few technicians to maintain the business. That still cuts out 20 people that would normally work a store.

The point is, with automation, it will create some jobs but create far fewer than what we're set to lose. We'll lose 10 jobs for every 1 technician job created to maintain the new robots. The jobs created are mid to high level technician work that the displaced workers won't be doing.

every economic indicator from GDP growth to job creation to median family income says your wrong only thing you can possibly point to is the meaningless wage gap. who gives a fuck as long as everyone's income increased which it did. why should I care if the millionaire made more money as long as i did also.
all the wage gap bull crap rhetoric attends to do is create envy and class warfare it is a communist tactic to gain support

[Glorious Leader]

why not? these higher pay jobs creates more disposable income more trips out to eat to the movies going on vacations and so forth

Which are all jobs covered by...AUTOMATION.

The entire purpose of automation is to reduce or eliminate the need for human labor. It makes zero sense to argue we'll have the equivelant amount in either man hours or wages. If it were going to be equal why invest in automation at all?

[Vyxn]

Which are all jobs covered by...AUTOMATION.

The entire purpose of automation is to reduce or eliminate the need for human labor. It makes zero sense to argue we'll have the equivelant amount in either man hours or wages. If it were going to be equal why invest in automation at all?

automation eliminates low skill low paying jobs and creates high skill high paying jobs elsewhere
a company looks to save money on his labor cost he doesn't give a dam if it creates more labor cost elsewhere as a matter of fact he would want it to more disposable income to buy his thing-a-ma-gigger