Universal Basic Income

[Nihilist74]

Is it possible in the near future when robots and computer AI takes over every job. That all the humans could make a sustainable living on investing in stocks with the aid of computer AI systems? We could all own commodities and stocks that pay dividends. Is it mathematically possible that all of us could do that. Perhaps with the aid of a well made computer AI system.

[Shadowferal]

Stocks? What stocks? No need for most businesses if robots take over.

[I Push Buttons]

You know, despite numerous people insulting me for an Anti-Utilitarian and Technocracy stance or at least being critical of those things, not one of you has made a compelling actual counter argument. In fact I think only one person has claimed they did so awhile ago but when I asked them to reiterate it because I don't recall it, they could not.

Is your defense "Obviously its good because its good! Your a doodoo head for saying otherwise!"?

Because your argument is based on speculative what-ifs and academic arguments, while every argument against you is based on, you know, all of human history that says we are incapable of being the amoral automatons you think we will become.

[Deleted]

Is it possible in the near future when robots and computer AI takes over every job. That all the humans could make a sustainable living on investing in stocks with the aid of computer AI systems? We could all own commodities and stocks that pay dividends. Is it mathematically possible that all of us could do that. Perhaps with the aid of a well made computer AI system.

Its not like its coming within a few years. I think people underestimate how far from AGI we actually are.

[Endus]

I wasn't arguing that. I was simply pointing out then when no one works to produce anything, there is no possible way for anyone to have anything, so things must first be taken from those that work to produce them in order for everyone who doesn't work to produce anything to have them in an UBI system.

And this is a misleading and fundamentally false way to frame the issue.

First, plenty of people who "don't work to produce anything" still have stuff, in the modern world. Even outside of the poor. Children, retirees, homemakers, those living off inheritance, etc. It's a premise that isn't true of today's society, at any level, so why should we assume it to be true of society in the future?

Second, nobody's talking about "taking things from those that work to produce them". What you're describing is a concept that's better called "trade". It's the basic of most forms of economics.

Third, sort of tangential to the first, there's absolutely nothing in "working to produce something" that somehow mandates that you, and only those like you, get to have things. That's just flat-out wrong and, again, has basically never been true.

You're making up fictions that don't reflect economic realities, and your goal seems to be to bring about an oppressive and abusive society that seeks to inflict suffering on a significant fraction of its people. And moralizes, as you are here, that inflicting that suffering is a virtue.

Sorry, I find that reprehensible.

[Total Crica]

there's absolutely nothing in "working to produce something" that somehow mandates that you, and only those like you, get to have things.

I never said that someone who doesn't work to produce something doesn't "get to have it."

If someone is capable, they would be able to take something that someone else worked to produce at anytime they want or someone who works to produce something could give it/sell it to someone who didn't work to produce it, but only after someone works to produce it.

[Masark]

Its not like its coming within a few years. I think people underestimate how far from AGI we actually are.

You're underestimating just how much employment can be automated away without needing AGI.

[Theodarzna]

Because your argument is based on speculative what-ifs and academic arguments, while every argument against you is based on, you know, all of human history that says we are incapable of being the amoral automatons you think we will become.

Really? If you had such wonderful arguments you'd think one of you would have used them by now. They sound lovely, if only you would dispense with them so the masses may know of your boundless intellect and knowledge. :3

[Masark]

Without someone working to produce things, produced things don't exist for anyone to have.

This statement has no basis in reality.

Entire supply chains can and will be automated, leaving there no human interaction in the production.

If an automated mine ships ore to an automated refinery via an automated vehicle which then ships metal to an automated factory and produces a metal widget, that widget has been produced without anyone working to produce it.

[Total Crica]

supply chains can and will be automated

By someone who worked to produce it to begin with. That is all I said. I understand that maybe one day only machines will be working to produce things, and that right now some things are produced by only machines, but today there are still people who must work to produce things in order for things to be produced.

[Deianeira]

Why would you work when you get paid for doing eff all? And it's not just scraps, but a livable wage?

- - - Updated - - -



How can anyone expect this to be a positive thing in long term, If I can earn X doing nothing, or X doing hard work, why would I choose hard work? This just leads to an unsustainable system where no one pays enough tax to pay it out.

The problem people have that are against this is that they Think that a UBI is some form of superbigchunk of Money you get for doing nothing, wich ofcourse it is not. While you dont HAVE to actively search for jobs or whatever you get as much Money so you COULD live by it but if you want more then you would have to have supplemental income, nothing would stop you from working a fulltimejob if you want. Ofcourse there is going to be problems or obstacles. But that is why they are doing trials of it because as a few posters have said one way or the tother there WILL be some form of this in the future since eventually we will have most of the manufacturing and jobs where you can replace people with cumputers/robots whatever that will autmate the work. Some people tell me but "someone must build the automation/robots but guess what only the first few batches then the new robots will start pumping out new robots.

One thing people also say is "you cant give people Money for not doing anything or looking for job atleast" But the truth of the matter is the amount of Resources it cost to check who is following the rules is staggering so better to just give every adult the UBI with no strings attached. Ofcourse especially in the beginning i imagine tha How will this get paid for? And that is something to work out especially in an interimphase. In the future i imagine that the autmation will be taxed way more then it is now and you might say "why would anyone want to invest or run a factory if most of the profits go to taxes?" Well i guess that you could do it the other way if noone have a job then who will buy their Products? Better to have a small profit then none at all.

- - - Updated - - -

By someone who worked to produce it to begin with. That is all I said. I understand that maybe one day only machines will be working to produce things, and that right now some things are produced by only machines, but today there are still people who must work to produce things in order for things to be produced.

Yes SOME things need to have people work to produce things, but i hope you are not saying that even if there is things that never can be produced by Machines that EVERYONE will be able to work in that industry?

[Total Crica]

Yes SOME things need to have people work to produce things, but i hope you are not saying that even if there is things that never can be produced by Machines that EVERYONE will be able to work in that industry?

Of course not. But that doesn't make me feel entitled to what they produce, either.

[Deianeira]

No, I asked who is going to be providing X for free. X must be worked for before X exists, so who is going to work for X for free in order to provide X to everyone?

And yes the government would be providing X because guess what they would not need to provide the normal Wellfare for instance. And some (probably a big chunk atleast in the future) would come from taxing automation.

[Voidism]

Even the staunchest capitalist will want UBI in the future when most jobs are automized.

To keep the value of money intact.

[Shadowferal]

Even the staunchest capitalist will want UBI in the future when most jobs are automized.

To keep the value of money intact.

More like to keep people from rebelling against the government.

[Jetstream]

This is an untruth fundamentally.

Someone has to work in order for anyone to have money.

The money will come from those who work and be given to everyone, regardless if they work or not.

Those who continue to work will continue to have more money then those who don't work.

Those who begin working will have more money then those who don't work.

If everyone stops working, no one has any money.

Yes. Obviously the money has to come from somewhere. But the question was “why work if you get x dollars without working,” and the answer is “I want more than x dollars.”

[Total Crica]

“why work if you get x dollars without working,” and the answer is “I want more than x dollars.”

If no one works, no one gets X at all, let alone more then X. (in a world without full automation)

[Deathcries]

And this is a misleading and fundamentally false way to frame the issue.

First, plenty of people who "don't work to produce anything" still have stuff, in the modern world. Even outside of the poor. Children, retirees, homemakers, those living off inheritance, etc. It's a premise that isn't true of today's society, at any level, so why should we assume it to be true of society in the future?

Second, nobody's talking about "taking things from those that work to produce them". What you're describing is a concept that's better called "trade". It's the basic of most forms of economics.

Third, sort of tangential to the first, there's absolutely nothing in "working to produce something" that somehow mandates that you, and only those like you, get to have things. That's just flat-out wrong and, again, has basically never been true.

You're making up fictions that don't reflect economic realities, and your goal seems to be to bring about an oppressive and abusive society that seeks to inflict suffering on a significant fraction of its people. And moralizes, as you are here, that inflicting that suffering is a virtue.

Sorry, I find that reprehensible.

Have you ever read Frederic Bastiat's the law? I find you to be the Plunderer that he speaks of. I just want you to know that I find thieves who use government jackboot thuggery for thieving from the people who contribute which I and millions of other people who work, find immoral.

I find that reprehensible, and in most causing is a form of robbery. I know what you're going to say about legal plunder, so save it. I've seen you espouse it many of times on your communist beliefs on this forum. I still consider you a thief, and nothing more than a thief.

My bet is if a food crisis like Venezuela happened, you'd be one of the first ones dead.

[Nadiru]

If and when the majority of the labor force is automated, there will be a massive humanitarian crisis. UBI simply does not have the math to support its functioning. Redesigning all tax flows (not just the current payment system to recipients, all tax flows) in the US towards UBI would give people more or less $25k/yr income every year.

[Endus]

I never said that someone who doesn't work to produce something doesn't "get to have it."

That's the root premise under your "people work to earn stuff" argument. Though in glancing back to be sure I wasn't misinterpreting something, I noticed you also implicitly argued that a UBI would lead to no one working, which is just a laughably false position in the first place. It's a straw man that won't happen, and arguing that hypothetical just makes your claims look silly.

If someone is capable, they would be able to take something that someone else worked to produce at anytime they want or someone who works to produce something could give it/sell it to someone who didn't work to produce it, but only after someone works to produce it.

I get that you like this premise, but it isn't one that's true.

Automated systems can create value without human labor. If I built a grist mill that's powered by wind or water (technology that's well over 2000 years old, in one form or another), then the water or wind is providing the "labor" that grinds the grain down to flour. And that's without getting into animal labor and the like. This isn't even something that's only become true in the modern era; it's basically never been true, in human history, certainly past the ancient eras.

You have somehow gotten the economic engine entirely backwards. Labor doesn't produce value through work. Consumption produces value, by providing a demand for what was produced. This is why you can spend hundreds of man-hours of labour perfecting your invention, but if nobody will end up buying it because it's useless or because another product already serves that purpose cheaper and better, your labor has no value. It was a waste. Investing more labor won't create value, inherently, because labor is not the driver in the first place.

Productivity serves consumer demand. Not the other way around. And before you cite supply-side economics at me, that's a concept that's about overcoming temporary economic slowdowns, by pushing supply overly high, which drives prices down, in the hopes that those lower prices drive more consumption despite people's tighter purse strings, and that as the economy picks back up, you can ease off on this; it isn't a stable system nor does it contravene the base principles I'm pointing out here.

People who don't work still benefit the economy. As consumers. If production can serve the collective demands of society without additional labor, there's no justifiable argument to make more people work. You need to protect their capacity to remain consumers, because without a strong consumer base, your economy will collapse. It's more critical to the economy than production, because productivity collapsing just creates an opening for new producers to step in to serve the demand. A collapse of the consumer base means there is no demand to serve, and the economy shrinks, and cannot recover without boosting that consumer base again.