Why a Universal Basic Income Would Be a Calamity

[I Push Buttons]

What comes to mind for me is what if they waste it? If the idea of current spending is to provide them what they need to survive, and we're replacing that with this flat check, what if they spend their monthly $1000 entirely on lottery tickets like complete morons? Do we still give them the prior homeless assistance (thus costing more money than would be initially expected, as we're now paying for both) or just let them starve in their stupidity?

I often bring this up in these threads.

My opinion is keep welfare on top of the UBI, but absolutely bare bones and incredibly restrictive, nothing like it is now. If one decides to squander their UBI, then welfare will provide them a room in a communal home (something akin to college dorms, just a small room with your bed, a bathroom, and a sink), three square meals, etc... If they have kids then I would argue the state should take their kids.

[primalmatter]

The right will die out if they keep fighting worldwide progress.

Yep its why Hilary won by a record landslide.

[Theodarzna]

What comes to mind for me is what if they waste it? If the idea of current spending is to provide them what they need to survive, and we're replacing that with this flat check, what if they spend their monthly $1000 entirely on lottery tickets like complete morons? Do we still give them the prior homeless assistance (thus costing more money than would be initially expected, as we're now paying for both) or just let them starve in their stupidity?

Then they starve?

- - - Updated - - -

Yep its why Hilary won by a record landslide.

Liberals have been pontificating a future final and complete victory for all time for like ages now.

[Vash The Stampede]

UBI is not a benefit towards socialism, but towards Capitalism. In time more jobs will be lost to automation, and more people will be hating this capitalistic system we have. There's a reason why Zuckerberg, Gates, and Musk all want UBI, because without it capitalism will fall apart. Those who are the richest are the ones who will lose out the most without UBI.

That being said automation + UBI will create a new Renaissance for humanity. We don't want everyone to be constantly working, we want people to have free time. Free time is a good thing, cause it allows people to be creative. We don't want human resources to be used as a cash register, or moving boxes all day long. We want to educate people, to allow people to think of new ideas and creative solutions. We can't do that by having people work 40+ hours a week in menial jobs. We can't have them worry about paying rent and eating food.

With UBI, capitalism won't go away, but it does make it harder for employee's to obtain workers when you only pay them slightly higher than UBI. But it does offer a lot of new methods of labor. You might higher people and not pay them at all, and they'll have no problem working for free for a while. An internship where people can afford to eat and pay rent. Automation will be welcomed with open arms, as UBI incentivizes people to automate. Work environment has to be pleasant, as well as hours, cause people can quit the job and just collect UBI. That means being an asshole boss has more repercussions than your employee's talking behind your back.

- - - Updated - - -

What comes to mind for me is what if they waste it? If the idea of current spending is to provide them what they need to survive, and we're replacing that with this flat check, what if they spend their monthly $1000 entirely on lottery tickets like complete morons? Do we still give them the prior homeless assistance (thus costing more money than would be initially expected, as we're now paying for both) or just let them starve in their stupidity?

UBI needs to be accompanied with basic housing and basic food. Because if you receive $1000 more per month, the market will adjust knowing this. Rent will go up, and food will go up in price. This is just how the market works. The price of items are based on the average income of the area. So it won't do us any good if milk costs $10, and rent costs $5000 per month. To fix this, we need public housing and everyone needs to receive food assistance. Of course if you do receive these benefits, the amount you gain from UBI goes down. But we need these programs to curb knee jerk inflation.

[Antius]

The right will die out if they keep fighting worldwide progress.

Sorry. I have watched "progress" under the Democratic administration. More and more women having babies so they can receive more money. Lining up at the grocery store ready to spend their freshly loaded EBT card on full carts of absolute garbage. Becoming lazy and entitled when they're perfectly capable of working. Taking care of even more capable jobless deadbeat men. A lot going to the doctor for their "pain" so they can get their pain pills to keep them happy and sell the rest.

On the flipside I have watched hard working people have their insurance lost or nearly doubled under "lolACA". There is only 1 ACA option in Alabama now btw. Overtime became non existant for some and many had their hours cut below 40 hours because businesses can't afford the new rules. With ACA the sick and the poor STILL struggle to get what they need.

I used to be all in with democrats but I have literally watched things change for the worse since the Obama Administration came into power. Hillary was just an extension of that very same administration. I and many others saw the writing on the wall hence your new president. Not the best choice but a better choice than Hillary.

If what I'm looking at now is progress then fuck you and everything you stand for. But you're free to say and think what you feel and I'll defend your rights to do so.

[melodramocracy]

Hmm, lets debunk this nonsense:

At the heart of a functioning democratic society is a social contract built on the independence and equality of individuals. Casually accepting the mass unemployment of a large part of the country and viewing those people as burdens would undermine this social contract, as millions of Americans become dependent on the government and the taxpaying elite. It would also create a structural division of society that would destroy any pretense of equality.

Millions of Americans are already dependent on the gov't, and you already have underlying social divisions, even with relatively low unemployment rates. If there's going to be a sudden surge in unemployed people, you can thank capitalism itself for that, not any sudden change in a willingness to work.

Labor Department data show that at the end of June the U.S. had 6.2 million vacant jobs. Millions of skilled manufacturing and cybersecurity jobs will go unfilled in the coming years.

Which indicates that those jobs aren't lucrative enough, aren't paying competitive rates in comparision to the COL in said areas, or provide zero training. UBI putting jobs to the test in such a fashion would be a good thing.

This problem stems from a lack of skilled workers. While better retraining programs are necessary, too many of the unemployed, or underemployed, lack the motivation to learn new skills. Increasingly, young unemployed men are perfectly content to stay at home playing videogames.

You can't say that unemployment is currently at an all time low, and then claim that we have an increase in young, unemployed people who have no inclination to work. Which is it? And again, OTJ training will need to make a comeback sooner than later. Welcome to the changing economy and society. Throwing tens of thousands at a college degree for a questionable outcome had its day in the sun, but simply is not a good deal for the student.

UBI would also weaken American democracy. How long before the well-educated, technocratic elites come to believe the unemployed underclass should no longer have the right to vote?

That already happens indirectly. Political sway is bought with money, not with the voices of the common man.

Rapid technological advancement is already presenting American workers with unprecedented difficulties. Facing this challenge is going to require creative approaches from the government and the private economy. UBI is a noble attempt. Perhaps it could work as only a supplement to earned income. But as currently envisioned, UBI addresses the material needs of citizens while undermining their aspirations.

Here we get to the crux of the issue. The private economy constantly strives towards lowering headcount to increase profit margins, and has done so for decades. This is part of the reason why productivity is up and actual worker participation (based on population) has been on the decline. Private industry isn't going to simply hire more people because reasons without incentive to do so. That incentive will need to be carried out through forceful changes to workplaces that will probably be viewed as anti-business at the very least.

One good example would be the removal of OT exemption for salaried employees. Faced with paying workers 1.5x for anything past 40 hours, employers would be more prone to consider adding to the workforce. Another would be considering reducing the work week from 40 down to 32 hours, or something along those lines.

In the same Harvard commencement speech in which Mr. Zuckerberg called for a basic income, he also spent significant time talking about the need for purpose. 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.

"Purpose is found in work" is puritan dogma, and rather irrelevant at this point.

TL;DR - robots don't spend money. They are ultimately do not fulfill the same economic benefit that an employee does, insofar that the employee generates profit for his employer, and then spends what he earns, allowing for more employment in other industries. If there's going to be some labor intensive industry that can't be significantly automated in the coming decades, I've yet to see anyone actually define what it's going to be.

I actually look forward to significant advancements in automation, because I want to see how society deals with the associated increase in unemployment.

[Rennadrel]

The right will die out if they keep fighting worldwide progress.

There is no "progress" with a UBI system. See, the problem we have is that we have created a culture, hell our society, is entirely based around mass producing as much crap as possible in order to meet the demand of an ever growing population. Being in the manufacturing industry myself, robots are replacing the majority of our line workers because robots do everything faster and better, and are easily changed as needed. Robots are so cheap that we don't need to grow our population, we have enough employment that we could stagnate our population growth for a couple of decades before we truly see a slow down. People today don't have buying power, this is what our youth should be the most concerned with, I know it's my biggest issue because there are so many things that factor into it as a problem. Immigration reduces our wages, as most immigrants aren't on the level as far as education, and many of them are willing to work for a lot less than naturalized workers are in the west. The race to the bottom as many call it, is the only reason why anyone would want UBI in the first place. It basically entitles people to the bare minimum rather than working to earn more, growing and succeeding. What kind of person would want the absolute bare minimum to get by? Because that is what UBI will be exploited to do. Welfare is already doing that same thing.

[Aggrophobic]

Maybe not but the problem is, what do we do with the people that can't find work?
We are going to get to a point where most people simply aren't needed. There is no getting away from that. There is no way every person in say the UK is going to find a 40h per week job or even 20h per week.

So how do you fix that?

[melodramocracy]

Why UBI would fail is simply that the money has to come from somewhere. Do you think the big businesses and rich people will gladly give up all the money it would take to fund something like this? Or, would those people and businesses rebel and take their businesses and money elsewhere?

It takes money to make money, or some such thing. If you have an economy that is largely automated, you've reduced your potential customer base.

[Rennadrel]

The other proposal that usually gets talked about in a similar fashion is whats called a job guarantee. The federal government would offer a job to any man or woman willing and able (it would NOT replace the social saftey net) to work with full benefits. It has its merits. I think im more in favor of a JG because we've had the wpa before and alot of people supporting basic income on the right are supporting it to end the social safety net which i oppose.

There just needs to be mandated wages based on skilled work, both specialized (not necessarily requires a lengthy education, but is above service and retail work) and certified work (like trades). I mean, I build machines and equipment for a living and I don't have a formal education doing it, but my job title is an assembler. I am good at it, but I should get paid more than even line workers who do assembly work because my job requires additional skills that a line assembler doesn't have. Classification of work lacks a pay scale scope, trades people should get paid a lot more because they are educated and their work is specialized, but not everyone who does specialized work has an education to back it up. Service industry should always remain the bottom rung because it's the lowest skill, unless you are a head chef anyway.

[Rasulis]

Sorry. I have watched "progress" under the Democratic administration. More and more women having babies so they can receive more money. Lining up at the grocery store ready to spend their freshly loaded EBT card on full carts of absolute garbage. Becoming lazy and entitled when they're perfectly capable of working. Taking care of even more capable jobless deadbeat men. A lot going to the doctor for their "pain" so they can get their pain pills to keep them happy and sell the rest.

On the flipside I have watched hard working people have their insurance lost or nearly doubled under "lolACA". There is only 1 ACA option in Alabama now btw. Overtime became non existant for some and many had their hours cut below 40 hours because businesses can't afford the new rules. With ACA the sick and the poor STILL struggle to get what they need.

I used to be all in with democrats but I have literally watched things change for the worse since the Obama Administration came into power. Hillary was just an extension of that very same administration. I and many others saw the writing on the wall hence your new president. Not the best choice but a better choice than Hillary.

If what I'm looking at now is progress then fuck you and everything you stand for. But you're free to say and think what you feel and I'll defend your rights to do so.

Maybe you should blame your state government?

Covered California has 11 major health insurance company participating. Pacific Health Care is the only major insurance company that is not on the exchange. Between the implementation of ACA and the present, our rate has gone up roughly 30 percent (our silver package for 2 went up from around 1,100ish to 1370ish). On the other hand, my wife and I are in the most expensive age range also. My wife will qualify for Medicare next year, and I will be in about a decade.

Birth rate in CA is at an all time low. Without influx from immigrants and people from other states, CA would have had negative population growth.

[Bullettime]

There just needs to be mandated wages based on skilled work, both specialized (not necessarily requires a lengthy education, but is above service and retail work) and certified work (like trades). I mean, I build machines and equipment for a living and I don't have a formal education doing it, but my job title is an assembler. I am good at it, but I should get paid more than even line workers who do assembly work because my job requires additional skills that a line assembler doesn't have. Classification of work lacks a pay scale scope, trades people should get paid a lot more because they are educated and their work is specialized, but not everyone who does specialized work has an education to back it up. Service industry should always remain the bottom rung because it's the lowest skill, unless you are a head chef anyway.

The other option is to allow automation to kill jobs in the near future and put a ton of people out on their ass who will either get some sort of government assistance, starve to death, or turn to crime to survive.

It's also money on the bottom that keeps the economy going as those in the lower and middle class are the most likely to actually spend their money back into the economy. If the lower class sees a massive unemployment spike with no compensation, money stops moving and businesses start to close up. it would be the absolute death of American small business.

If you're against the UBI in the face of impending automation breakthroughs, then come up with a solution yourself. As it stands, UBI is being considered the best way to keep people living when trucks are driving themselves, fast food places are all kiosks, warehouses and factories maintain themselves, etc.

Also, it's not just fast food and Wal-Mart workers that will be displaced. The logistics industry is going to get assblasted even before food service.

[Themius]

So... unless people plan to halt technological advancement... this needs to happen.

[I Push Buttons]

With the exception that the right-wing has been forced to move on positions over and over.
The right of 100 years ago is over, it's dead.
And the same will happen to the current right-wing.

And?

That doesn't mean the right will go away, nor should it.

The right, however backward you may think they are, preserves stability. Progressives say "we want this to change"... Conservatives/traditionalists say "we don't want that to change"... They compromise and the government/society goes on... ANY compromise in that regard is progress in and of itself.

Rapid change causes social upheaval. It causes strife, turmoil, suffering, etc. And almost always tyrants capitalize on that strife to seize power, more often than not they instigate the upheaval in the first place through violent revolution/coups.

[Blur4stuff]

I don't understand the arguments against UBI as something we'll need in the future. It's like opponents are completely ignoring the fact that most labor jobs will be gone and even high paying jobs will be gone too like half the work lawyers and doctors currently do.

Where are these millions of jobs going to come from that don't exist now?

[Cæli]

everyone should and can contribute, creating things, letting them do what they like, UBI can work in the future at this very specific condition

but first things first; education must be remade and optimized, the young must be taught how to discover what they like in life, giving them the will to do great things and having ambition, teaching them concept and the pleasure to learn, at young age. then having a more efficient way to transmit knowledge, a more efficient way to direct them toward what they're good at.

[Noomz]

I know basic income has a lot of fans on this forum, this article points out some flaws with basic income. It uses Saudi Arabia as an example of basic income causing problems, the author says basic income has created people who are highly resistant to work. I can see that happening.

Many of America's tech leaders, Zuckerberg, Gates, etc have called for basic income recently.





http://luxlibertas.com/why-a-univers...be-a-calamity/

Leading voices in the tech industry—from Mark Zuckerberg to Sam Altman —are warning that increased automation risks leaving an unprecedented number of Americans permanently unemployed. In response, many concerned Silicon Valley luminaries have called for a universal basic income, or UBI. Guaranteed income from the government may seem like the easiest way to address long-term unemployment, but UBI fixes only the narrowest and most quantifiable problem joblessness causes: lack of a reliable income. It completely ignores, and may exacerbate, the larger complications of mass unemployment.'

Finland has been testing a basic income for 2,000 of its unemployed citizens since January, and UBI proponents say the Nordic country is providing an example for the U.S. It will be interesting to see the Finnish results, but Americans shouldn’t read too much into the outcome of a small-scale, early-stage trial. Look instead to Saudi Arabia, which for decades has attempted the wholesale replacement of work with government subsidies. Perhaps more than half of all Saudis are unemployed and not seeking work. They live off payments funded by the country’s oil wealth.

And what has Saudi Arabia’s de facto UBI created? A population deeply resistant to work. Efforts by the Saudi government to diversify the economy have been hamstrung by the difficulty of getting Saudis to trade in their free income willingly for paid labor. Regular citizens lack dignity while the royal family lives a life of luxury. The technocratic elite has embraced relatively liberal values at odds with much of the society’s conservatism. These divisions have made the country a fertile recruiting ground for extremists.

It’s true that Saudi Arabia has a host of other social problems. For one, it is ruled by a hereditary monarchy and a strictly enforced set of religious laws. Yet the widespread economic disempowerment of its population has made it that much harder for the kingdom to address its other issues. Don’t expect the U.S. to fare any better if divided into “productive” and “unproductive” classes.

At the heart of a functioning democratic society is a social contract built on the independence and equality of individuals. Casually accepting the mass unemployment of a large part of the country and viewing those people as burdens would undermine this social contract, as millions of Americans become dependent on the government and the taxpaying elite. It would also create a structural division of society that would destroy any pretense of equality.

UBI supporters would counter that their system would free people to pursue self-improvement and to take risks. America’s experience over the past couple of decades suggests that the opposite is more likely. Labor Department data show that at the end of June the U.S. had 6.2 million vacant jobs. Millions of skilled manufacturing and cybersecurity jobs will go unfilled in the coming years.

This problem stems from a lack of skilled workers. While better retraining programs are necessary, too many of the unemployed, or underemployed, lack the motivation to learn new skills. Increasingly, young unemployed men are perfectly content to stay at home playing videogames.

UBI would also weaken American democracy. How long before the well-educated, technocratic elites come to believe the unemployed underclass should no longer have the right to vote? Will the “useless class” react with gratitude for the handout and admiration for the increasingly divergent culture and values of the “productive class”? If Donald Trump’s election, and the elites’ reactions, are any indication, the opposite is likelier.

Rapid technological advancement is already presenting American workers with unprecedented difficulties. Facing this challenge is going to require creative approaches from the government and the private economy. UBI is a noble attempt. Perhaps it could work as only a supplement to earned income. But as currently envisioned, UBI addresses the material needs of citizens while undermining their aspirations.

In the same Harvard commencement speech in which Mr. Zuckerberg called for a basic income, he also spent significant time talking about the need for purpose. 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.
Silicon Valley’s leading innovators should understand this better than anybody. In an era when civic participation in all forms is falling, employment is for many the last great equalizer. It is worth preserving.

It's been stated that the test in Finland wasn't a true test of basic income at all, so to use it as an example of a failure at it is incorrect.

Saudia Arabia as an example is pretty poor, because it treats its workers little better than slaves. In fact, I'm pretty sure they have actual slaves.

If we do get a universal income though, we should encourage other kinds of engagements for people to have. We would have so much time and energy to spend in pursuing other goals and that's what should be done. Instead of working 9 to 5 in a deadend job, our nations can instead start intellectual, scientific, cultural and artistic pursuits. That should be encouraged, if not required.

[Pannonian]

So... unless people plan to halt technological advancement... this needs to happen.

We need a modern Ned Ludd!

[Torrasque]

I'm still leaning on the fact that UBI will be the best solution to rapidly growing unemployment... especially considering that we haven't even hit a mere fraction of the tip of that iceberg yet.

[Rennadrel]

The other option is to allow automation to kill jobs in the near future and put a ton of people out on their ass who will either get some sort of government assistance, starve to death, or turn to crime to survive.

It's also money on the bottom that keeps the economy going as those in the lower and middle class are the most likely to actually spend their money back into the economy. If the lower class sees a massive unemployment spike with no compensation, money stops moving and businesses start to close up. it would be the absolute death of American small business.

If you're against the UBI in the face of impending automation breakthroughs, then come up with a solution yourself. As it stands, UBI is being considered the best way to keep people living when trucks are driving themselves, fast food places are all kiosks, warehouses and factories maintain themselves, etc.

Also, it's not just fast food and Wal-Mart workers that will be displaced. The logistics industry is going to get assblasted even before food service.

Ironically, most of the work I do ultimately winds up replacing people with robots. And for my industry, it's actually the optimal route for a lot of tasks. Robots and machines can more accurately assemble components, and don't need benefits for moving things around all day because there is no wear and tear like there is on the human body. There are very few places that will ever truly run lights out with no human interaction, there will always be a need. I can tell you that in manufacturing, the majority of grunt work is being done by economic migrants in Canada because companies can't hire people to do those jobs for the wages they are paying. $14 an hour to work continental rotating 12 hour shifts is bullshit and no honest Canadian would accept that for a basic labourer position, which is what most of those jobs are, especially with our cost of living so high. Unless you have some form of certification where you are a tradesman, there is no good money in the industry. But if you have a skilled trades ticket, you can do exceptionally well financially. So we bring in immigrants to fill out the jobs that we can't be bothered to pay our actual citizens fairly, and so they live in poverty despite working full time, on top of our employment remaining higher.