Universal Basic Income

[Dezerte]

UBI is promising in many ways; more personal freedom, less red tape and a market that gives workers a better and more fair bargaining power - but there's a few potential issues as the video mentions. Still, I think UBI is the better way until we enter a automated society (which will require something else).

[Hiricine]

Where?

Salaried positions are a workaround so companies can insist that you work more than 40/week and not get the benefit of 1.5x pay from it. If there are people actually putting less than 40 / week in total, and still having a comfortable living, they make up a very small portion of the population.

Productivity has gone up, but hours worked have not, because average income, for the most part, also has not (once you factor in inflation). Even lowering the standard work week to 32 hours would be viewed as the end of all life as we know it by capitalists.

Well historically we can come to an agreement over the last century the amount of work done has dropped incredibly, especially if you account for the drop in workforce participation, there are far more retired people not working, and basically no children working in first world countries, which is sometimes a drop from over a full time work week to 0.

On top of that, we have people that are completely unemployed on benefits that are living a higher standard of living than the average person had 50 years ago working full time.

To your last points, I'm not sure if you're trying to prove my point entirely, but if you work less hours for the same amount of income, even adjusted for inflation then people are working less for the same amount of money. If I work 4000 hours in a year and make $100,000, I'm making money at a worse rate than someone working 2000 hours who makes $98,000. Though I agree with you that there are many who see the diminishing work week as a catastrophe, but its mostly in the context of a political argument when it comes to persons not working full time or more complaining about a low standard of living.

[Soeroah]

The idea behind UBI is to support people who can't find a job by providing a liveable wage - not a high wage - and encourage seeking work by having what they earn on top of that. The ultimate idea is to tax corporations higher than they currently are being taxed, because they will eventually replace most workers with automation, meaning the are paying less wages, meaning they are making more money, meaning they can be taxed at a higher rate without risking the firing of employees.

UBI would provide enough of a safety net to let people pursue goals and careers they might otherwise not. Someone who wants to try writing but needs to work at a deli or a desk job to put food on the table will instead be able to focus on their writing, and perhaps they'll find success and get more on top of their allowance; maybe not, but at least they won't be under threat of losing their home due to taking the risk. It'll encourage more creative/cultural jobs and pursuits as grunt labour becomes increasingly automated, which will probably become the most common type of job in the future; you cannot (currently) automate the writing of a story or the production of art, so that's where the job market will be.

UBI also gives the lower end of the economic scale more money to use on a discretionary basis, so they can survive. This is good, because overall the poor do the most to help the economy in terms of their spending; if you're poor you spend most of your income, which keeps money flowing through the economy. Most rich people save their money and don't spend it, which means that money is taken out of the economy, which means it's harder to make money at the low end and jobs suffer. If poorer people are given $1000 a week, they can spend $1000 a week in their local area, which enables local businesses to make profit and hire more people, and so on.

Pure capitalism is like a fountain; a fountain won't work for very long if you're taking 10% of the water out of the system every time it gets to the top. It'll work for a while, but eventually you're left with a shallow pool of water that can't sustain the pump, and a barrel of water outside the fountain not serving anyone. Put that water back in the bottom, though, and the pump can start working again, the water flows and things work fine.

Communism might not be the answer, but a UBI is a mix of capitalism and socialism which seems to be the only logical solution to the future's problems.

[therealstegblob]

just make laws that say machines need overseers/cars need drivers.

The issue with this is that at a certain level of automation (and one we're already reaching), machines will oversee and drive themselves vastly superior to human control. The best one could do is try and push a law that says an automated truck still needs a human in it making sure everything is going okay, but in America you can bet your ass that shipping companies will spend millions making sure no laws exist that require them to keep humans on the payroll.

[Kokolums]

If you set two nations side by side & one of them has a universal basic income along with high tax rates to support it while the other nation has no UBI and lower taxes, the aggressive and industrious people will all move to where there are lower taxes to try to get rich. The lazy people will stay where there is UBI. Youll have a talent drain. Long term, there will be a growing disparity in wealth and power between the 2 nations. The nation with lower taxes might even wind up invading the UBI nation because it will be filled with aggressive people.

[Daelak]

Well, i'll use my brother in law as a isolated example of what I'd expect to see with a UBI.

So, lets take food stamps, he has 6 kids and makes a whopping 12 an hour, so he gets something along the lines of 800 a month in food stamps. It's pre loaded on a card, so they get some food, but more often than not they sell those food stamp benefits at a 2/1 ratio. They then spend the money on gaudy clothing and various other non necessary commodities.

Every cent they get goes into everything *but* bills. My wifes mother died this past july, she was a very poor woman and had nothing in the way of a life insurance policy or any other money that could be used to pay for her final expenses. Now of my wifes 3 siblings we were the only ones with any kind of money, so we paid for the cremation. Over the next 3 months 2 siblings paid their share, the other brother, despite getting a insurance company settlement for a car accident in excess of 10k, spent the money on new guns. When confronted about the cremation costs he had excuses on why he shouldn't have to pay.

Anyway, point of the story, is that he doesn't prioritize anything, they buy dumb shit instead of paying rent, or even buying enough food for his kids, the only saving grace they have is that some of their benefits are only able to be used on paying for some necessities.

Now if they got a UBI instead of dedicated benefits, I have no doubt that they would be used to pay for everything but what they need. Once they run out of money, they would be at the benefits center complaining that they have nothing.

I imagine with a UBI, there would be massive abuse on a much larger scale. Many poor people are poor not only because of bad circumstance, but also horrible decision making.

Who cares if your brother-in-law in a deadbeat, don't you realize what he would be doing if he and his family didn't have access to the welfare? It's vastly more advantageous for society to give a modicum of support and means to people just for the economic benefit alone, rather than wax poetic how one is so much of a hard worker and everyone should be like you the hard worker because you work so hard, you deserve to be put on a pedestal. No one cares, let them participate in the consumer economy, your lauded rich and wealthy people will have higher returns in their stocks, bonds, and real estate appreciation, and the derided poors who are just so beneath you can "game" tens of dollars a month on consumer goods, while you can go on nagging to your wife how much better of a person you are than her brother, I am sure she's already used to it.

- - - Updated - - -

If you set two nations side by side & one of them has a universal basic income along with high tax rates to support it while the other nation has no UBI and lower taxes, the aggressive and industrious people will all move to where there are lower taxes to try to get rich. The lazy people will stay where there is UBI. Youll have a talent drain. Long term, there will be a growing disparity in wealth and power between the 2 nations. The nation with lower taxes might even wind up invading the UBI nation because it will be filled with aggressive people.

Weird analogy that doesn't make sense in the real world application of welfare states already. If this were true, today, in reality, the low tax havens of Sub-Saharan Africa would be full of western millionaire and billionaire entrepreneurs throwing their cash and buying up land, equipment, buildings at a tear, while the Europe, US, etc. would be desolate hell holes with no growth and a declining quality of life.

[Vash The Stampede]

The reason why there's so much less crime & violence today is because of the welfare system. If UBI eliminates poverty, could you imagine how much less crime and violence there would be? By the mid to late 90's the economy was so good that many people praised Bill Clinton for it, despite not actually having any reason for it. But also by then so many people had money and therefore crime began to slump.

[cuafpr]

at the current tech level in society no. In a world of tech like Star Trek yes. virtually all production and manually intensive jobs have to be automated before UBI can really factor in. If UBI was 30k/year (still low) who would pick up trash? work in fast food? etc.. You may get some for extra money, but that would drive up costs of some products people on just UBI would want. Its more likely that by the time we get to the tech level UBI would work, money wont even be needed similar to star trek.

[Daelak]

at the current tech level in society no. In a world of tech like Star Trek yes. virtually all production and manually intensive jobs have to be automated before UBI can really factor in. If UBI was 30k/year (still low) who would pick up trash? work in fast food? etc.. You may get some for extra money, but that would drive up costs of some products people on just UBI would want. Its more likely that by the time we get to the tech level UBI would work, money wont even be needed similar to star trek.

We are living in a world where in less than 10 years the majority of work available to humans will be completely automated by computers. This increase in jobs that are being done by computers will rise even faster due to the exponential force of machine learning and the ingestion and analysis of trillions of data points by the computers.

It's sooner than you realize.

[cuafpr]

We are living in a world where in less than 10 years the majority of work available to humans will be completely automated by computers. This increase in jobs that are being done by computers will rise even faster due to the exponential force of machine learning and the ingestion and analysis of trillions of data points by the computers.

It's sooner than you realize.

so you think in 10 years, trash pick up, sewer cleaning, janitorial jobs, etc will be automated? Repeatable jobs sure these other types like i stated not a chance less some huge leap in tech happens.

[Daelak]

so you think in 10 years, trash pick up, sewer cleaning, janitorial jobs, etc will be automated? Repeatable jobs sure these other types like i stated not a chance less some huge leap in tech happens.

What huge leap? Yes, those jobs will become automated. No occupation is isolated from change, because all occupations, no matter how complex, are just a series of repetitive tasks.

[Zmaniac17]

Why on earth do you think people would work for free?

I think a lot of people misunderstand this part. The idea is that in a future where there are no low level jobs that haven't been automated and consequently no work available for most of the population, then a basic income would be required.

Because of automation plenty of goods and services would be available for people. A basic income is taking steps towards avoid the resource curse. Which is this.

"The resource curse, also known as the paradox of plenty, refers to the paradox that countries with an abundance of natural resources (like fossil fuels and certain minerals), tend to have less economic growth, less democracy, and worse development outcomes than countries with fewer natural resources."

There are many reasons for this, but the basic idea is very few people are involved in the extraction and business of exploiting the resources so the profit is not spread to the population. Unlike an advanced economy which requires a well educated/fed population to build advanced technologies.

Automation is another way to fall into the resource trap. With everything automated there are very few people involved in the production of the goods and services societies need even in advanced economies. This leads to less growth, democracy, and less development because a large part of society is unable to thrive.








It is my opinion that many countries may already be at the point where they are providing enough goods and services to support their population and the excess is going into a push for extreme economic growth. It would be helpful to question our incentives for economic growth to far beyond what is needed to support the world population. There may not be many incentives and it may be detrimental to our survival as a species. We may not need to squeeze out every ounce of labor and every ounce of resources for profit in order for most people to live a happy life on Earth.

[cubby]

Well, at the risk of getting into a very long conversation while im at work, I'll say that it's a lofty idea, but one I don't think would work very well in reality.

And I agree - very lofty idea, and would have almost no chance of working in today's reality. But when we bring mass automation into play, there will start to be a path towards UBI.

[Kokolums]

Weird analogy that doesn't make sense in the real world application of welfare states already. If this were true, today, in reality, the low tax havens of Sub-Saharan Africa would be full of western millionaire and billionaire entrepreneurs throwing their cash and buying up land, equipment, buildings at a tear, while the Europe, US, etc. would be desolate hell holes with no growth and a declining quality of life.

Its from the real world. The USSR had massive programs to help the poor but limited achievement at the top. USSR suffered from a talent drain as industrious people defected to other nations. The tech level of the ussr stagnated. Everyday life was more or less frozen in the 1920s all the way into the 1980s. They werent invaded in the end but collapsed tho.

[Daelak]

Its from the real world. The USSR had massive programs to help the poor but limited achievement at the top. USSR suffered from a talent drain as industrious people defected to other nations. The tech level of the ussr stagnated. Everyday life was more or less frozen in the 1920s all the way into the 1980s. They werent invaded in the end but collapsed tho.

This doesn't make sense either, because the largest welfare states in the world are the number one beneficiary of brain drain from other countries such as China, India, etc.

[schwarzkopf]

Society has to make a choice - either

1. People have the right to live ---> Universal Basic Income
2. People have the right to die ---> legalised Euthanasia

Society can no longer force people to live in shit conditions with no escape because that just leads to - well violence.

[Theinquisition]

And I agree - very lofty idea, and would have almost no chance of working in today's reality. But when we bring mass automation into play, there will start to be a path towards UBI.

Cubby, I'm so glad we were able to have such a civil discussion, thanks.

[cubby]

Cubby, I'm so glad we were able to have such a civil discussion, thanks.

Ditto - that's two in a row now. Something is definitely in the water . . . .

- - - Updated - - -

Society has to make a choice - either

1. People have the right to live ---> Universal Basic Income
2. People have the right to die ---> legalised Euthanasia

Society can no longer force people to live in shit conditions with no escape because that just leads to - well violence.

I would like to think that there is at least a third option, if not a fourth. For instance, let's just remove the shit conditions. Which, I think is your point.

[judgementofantonidas]

Yes, in the current system where doing something punishes them.

-----

In the current system, you get welfare, let's say its $2,000 a month for example (for food stamps, section 8 housing, actual 'welfare', medicaid coverage). You have a home, you have food, you have spending money to buy some things, you have medical insurance.

You get that so long as you apply for jobs and make a faux effort at trying to better yourself. One day you get a job, the pay is $12/hour, and you get 36 hours per week so your employer doesn't have to provide you full time benefits.

In getting that job, you also lose ALL of your welfare because that income puts you above our laughably low poverty guideline. After taxes, you now have less money than you did before AND work 36 hours per week AND probably no longer have health insurance.

Why would someone want to do that? Do you see the problem? The current system encourages you to be a leech... If you do anything to improve your life you are made worse off.

----

Under an ideal UBI system, you get a UBI, let's say its $2,000 a month for example... You can spend that on whatever you want, one would hope you spend it on necessities first.

You get that no matter what... If that $2,000 a month is all you want in life, then sure, you can just sit around and do nothing else... But if you want more, you can go get a job and you will still get that $2,000 a month. Say you get the same $12/hour 36 hour per week job the guy above got... You now get $44,000 per year...

Getting the job is nothing but a gain for you... And since you always have the UBI to fall back on no matter what, you can shop around for jobs until you find one you enjoy...

Why would someone NOT want to improve themselves in that situation? There is no downside, you will get your UBI no matter what... Whether you go to school, whether you get a job paying you $8/hour or a job paying you $100/hour... If you want more you have the same incentive to improve as anyone today has... The only difference is you aren't punished for trying to improve yourself like people today are.

People are not "punished" for being freeloaders on society today. They are given hand outs that concienscious citizens have worked hard for and deserve to keep. Also a lot of people who write about the woas of the people who "cannot" get a job above $12/hr or who claim that the guidlines for acceptance into welfare are much too high often exhagerate the bar. I am talking from the expereince of having had a $20/hr job and still meeting the guidlines for assistance from welfare in the form of medical coverage for my children as well as some food subsidies. The problem is not the bar that is set on gaining welfare, the problem is that someone making that much cannot get by. The economy needs to be fixed not the hand out system. And instead of a guaranteed handout system those people who cannot ass themselves to learn a trade not be handed a guaranteed amount or any money at all, but that money be set up to provide basic food on a DAILY basis until that person takes the steps to support themselves. If I can support a family with multiple children and a wife who does not work so that I am not forced to have a stranger care for my children then anyone can.

- - - Updated - - -

Society has to make a choice - either

1. People have the right to live ---> Universal Basic Income
2. People have the right to die ---> legalised Euthanasia

Society can no longer force people to live in shit conditions with no escape because that just leads to - well violence.

People have the right to live does not equal ANYONE providing for them.
People have the right to die does not equal ANYONE providing that death for them.

[schwarzkopf]

I would like to think that there is at least a third option, if not a fourth.

Not really - people need money to live, and some people have no way of earning enough money to live.

- - - Updated - - -

People have the right to live does not equal ANYONE providing for them.

You are factually incorrect.

People have the right to die does not equal ANYONE providing that death for them.

And you are factually incorrect again.

0% for you.