Is a Universal Basic Income(UBI) coming?

a reply to: andy06shake

Thats my biggest worry. It will be those big companies that will have to payy as there will be no income tax. Who would have thought we would tech ourselves out of usefulness!

a reply to: lakenheath24

I'd like to see something tangible on the Muricans attitude you keep bringing up. Your personal opinion is one thing, reality another. Put something up maybe?

Oakland, California

Silicon Valley's largest startup accelerator, Y Combinator, announced in mid-2016 that it would soon begin giving monthly stipends between $1,000 and $2,000 a month to 100 families in Oakland.

In the true spirit of basic income, the families range in socioeconomic status and will receive the money even if they decide to leave the US.

If the pilot is a success, a five-year trial will follow.

San Francisco, California

On January 23, San Francisco's Office of Financial Empowerment announced a plan to launch a $5 million basic income experiment later this year.

The pilot will give families with young children a monthly payment between $1,000 and $2,000. It'll compare whether basic income works better than other forms of assistance to help parents raise happy and healthy kids.

"A focus on kids skirts a lot of the questions people usually have about basic income," such as the use of drugs or alcohol, San Francisco OFE Director Sean Kline said during the announcement forum.

9 basic income experiments to watch out for in 2017

Another good read for you guys:

Universal basic income is not a magic solution, but it could help millions

The only way to go where there is anything like guaranteed success in the future is backward.

Backward is the new forward, infinite growth is not sustainable in a finite system.

originally posted by: MyHappyDogShiner
The only way to go where there is anything like guaranteed success in the future is backward.

Too late. It already is what it is.

Backward is the new forward, infinite growth is not sustainable in a finite system.

True - infinite growth is not sustainable in a finite system. But methinks there are other solutions besides going backward.

a reply to: lakenheath24

Look at it this way should we ever devise a viable means to depart this rock and be off to greener pastures we can once again breed like bunny rabbits and there will be low tech/high risk employment available to everyone.

Might sound far fetched but one has to wonder why we are so interested in finding extra solar planets, 100, and 1000s of light years distant if we are never going to be capable of exploring and/or exploiting there resources?

So, "Human Resources" will have become unnecessary.

Soylent Green anyone?.

a reply to: MyHappyDogShiner

If you mean get rid of robots in favor of human labor, no way that happens. The big guys have exploited the last of the poor countries for cheap labor, so now they are investing heavily in automation. Who knows what happens after that.

a reply to: MyHappyDogShiner

Fresh water sources or the lack off may be more of a problem than food.

a reply to: andy06shake

Gee, you make us sound like a plague!

a reply to: MyHappyDogShiner

Ironic that DNA advances are keeping us alive loonger, only to overpopulate a planet obviously designed to hold only so many.

a reply to: andy06shake

On a planet that is 2/3's water....go figure. Who was the dummy that designed that?!

a reply to: lakenheath24

More like a virus or a weed, unchecked we multiple and consume resources until there are none and then move on to the next area.

Was not always that way, plenty of civilisations in the past at least maintained a semblance of ballence with nature.

Not any that were as technological advanced as our own all the same. Seems there is a price to be had for our science and industrial prowess.

a reply to: andy06shake

....plenty of civilisations in the past at least maintained a semblance of ballence with nature.

Not any that were as technological advanced as our own all the same. Seems there is a price to be had for our science and industrial prowess.

I don't agree that full-on environmental destruction is a necessary price for scientific advancement - although yes, it is a given for an industrial-economic system.

a reply to: soficrow

I get what you are saying, we generally don't need to destroy our environment in the pursuit of knowledge or scientific progress.

Then again look at what has come from our ability to split the atom? Fission bombs and nuclear reactors which leak/explode and/or melt down don't exactly bode well for the environment.

Suppose or technological prowess as a species can be a double edged sword really.

a reply to: andy06shake

Nuclear has done far less environmental damage in the past 50 years than coal has done.

a reply to: Aazadan

I think we should build more nuclear reactors.

Ones that shut down safely themselves should things go awry, like the liquid fluoride thorium reactors.

Might be an idea also not to build them on flood plains next to our rivers and ocean.

Tokamak Fusion reactors seem to be in our future(right around the corner) but they still need to get there magnetic confinement rather more efficient never mind the other numerous materials issues that have also to be addressed before they are ready to enter in to main stream energy production.

a reply to: andy06shake

...Suppose or technological prowess as a species can be a double edged sword really.

At least double edged. Maybe 5 or 10. Too bad responsibility and integrity are in such short supply. Kinda negates all that "prowess."

a reply to: andy06shake

Life after mankind has many scenarios where nuclear reactors are the last man made things to fail. It almost seems like we are charicatures of what we are creating....like we are gods ourselves. Yet we act like children. We are at once good and evil. It will be interesting to see if we allow ourselves to succumb to what the Bible says we should be...Jeezus like. I doubt it.

a reply to: lakenheath24

Well we were apparently created in Gods image.

Look at it this way, if God exists i imagine such concepts as good and evil are rather redundant, omnipotence and all that jazz.

Or if God does not exist im sure humanity is pretty much on the precipice of creating our own in the not to distant future.

After that through we may have pretty much served our evolutionary purpose.

Suppose we act like children because that's exactly what we are, thing is that also amounts to prepubescent nine year old's with access to nuclear arsenals and a predisposition for pulling the wings off things we don't understand.

If we make it through the next 100 years following the current paradigm history is going to be very surprised.

a reply to: lakenheath24

TBH why would they want to give a basic income?

Probably can start to kill us off now that we are no longer needed for services and protection.