It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Why I think Universal Basic Income UBI is a great idea

page: 2
19
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 24 2017 @ 10:58 PM
link   
It will never work. All it will do is eventually cause massive inflation. Once that inflation kicks in the UBI won't be enough and then we will continue to hear the same tired arguments about wealth inequality.

You'd also have to address the stupidity component where a not so insignificant segment of the population is just down right financially retarded. They will blow the money and then still expect government (i.e. taxpayers) to take care of them.




posted on Sep, 25 2017 @ 12:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: BELIEVERpriest
a reply to: dfnj2015

How do you prevent inflation?


With current factory automation I'm not sure we could ever really have inflation anymore. The world seems to have unlimited capacity to produce stuff to buy.

I imagine inflation from the service sector would inspire more capacity eventually. I think inflation mechanisms would be about the same as they are now.

Food, clothing, shelter are boring. The real fun is in customization of products.

How does the government pay for UBI is good discussion. I guess the same way we pay for defense spending and other high priority stuff.

How do we pay for the 800+ foreign military bases we have all over the world is never questioned.
edit on 25-9-2017 by dfnj2015 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 25 2017 @ 12:02 AM
link   
Give everyone the same basic income, then give the guys who put their lives at risk or who work their tail off some extra money. There is no reason that a chemist should get more than a road construction worker who pulls blacktop or concrete all day long. Someone putting roofs on houses should make more than people sitting in an office.



posted on Sep, 25 2017 @ 12:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: VengefulGhost
Piss off .
Not about to pay for yet another damn useless social program .
Nothing in this world is free and damn tired of being the one stuck with the bill for all the useless social programs to support all the useless eaters .


Why, you're starting to sound like the 1%.



posted on Sep, 25 2017 @ 12:32 AM
link   
a reply to: rickymouse

The world is backwards and upside down. After lifetime of enslavement by the 1% I think everyone should ransack their illegal money grabs and go with that. I also think football players make way more than they ought. Roofers and construction workers deserve far more than min wage.



posted on Sep, 25 2017 @ 01:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: VictorVonDoom
a reply to: dfnj2015

Where does this Universal Basic Income come from?

From industry4.0!

That is when most of the people will lose their job because of automation, because computers, machines and robots will take their jobs. Those robots and computers don´t have to be paid. Just watch car manufacturers, ho many humans run around in these huge halls, between all those robots that craft the cars? The human workers are almost just left because somebody has to observe the computers, the robots and the machines, that produce the cars.

And if you don´t give a basic income to the millions and billions(worldwide) that all lost their jobs because of industry4.0, then have fun with the riots worldwide!

You can´t sort out the people, "employ" robots, machines and computers, to make more and more money, but don´t give a compensation the unemployed people, that are only unemployed because managers, corporations, the industry want to make more and more money!



posted on Sep, 25 2017 @ 02:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: Metallicus
I see no reason to give people something for nothing.


Ok man, that is heavy metal!

A veteran who came back from the frontier after losing both his legs on a minefield?
-Heck, he still has his hands to work with

A psychotic person in a mental facility
-Yeah let's not feed him. He is not that cool company anyway.

I am overwhelmed by this amount of compassion.

And, there is a trial of UBI going on in Finland right this very moment, for a small segment of population, but there is no point explaining it further since it has already been stated it does not work. Ok then. I will shut up now, here from the grave of Soviet union style socialism that does not work.



posted on Sep, 25 2017 @ 03:11 AM
link   
a reply to: dfnj2015

There would be no incentive for discovery,the US would be like mainline China,Communism has never worked,why would you try to revive a system that has not and has never worked



posted on Sep, 25 2017 @ 05:15 AM
link   
a reply to: dfnj2015

Fighting poverty and significantly boosting the GDP? Sounds great!





posted on Sep, 25 2017 @ 05:29 AM
link   
a reply to: dfnj2015




If people have UBI all it will mean is CEOs and shareholders will rake in more money.


Sure they will. Why? Because everything will be marked up to match the new demand.




And the money people do have will be worth more because it will buy more. The value of money does not have to be a zero-sum game. As such, this can be a "win-win" situation, where all "players" can gain something without anyone losing something.


False. The money will be worth less perhaps even worthless. Less anyone forget why business stay open, the reason is profit.



posted on Sep, 25 2017 @ 06:26 AM
link   
a reply to: JinMI

profit has been shown to not be in the best interest of humans, while good for business.

the sum of the earths resources divided equitably would only mean your money becomes worth less as more people populate the earth, as opposed to nonsense and other data, this would give actual insight into a 'human economy' and how to build infrastructure that's more uniform on a world platform while keeping it to scope with what's possible.

A lot of people think they know a lot about socialism here, and are just plain wrong. In a truly socialist society, you see almost no money, because things are free. Talking about the economics of putting banks themselves out of business is just a mind loop you put yourself through. There is no 'bank' in socialist utopia, the entire planet is owned equally, by everyone, so contrasting modern economics to that concept as some sort of bizarre martyrism for capitalism is just unnecessary. Capitalism itself is such a necessary component to the socialist utopia's uprising, sometimes I wonder if some people just see everything in duality itself as there if no way they can be interconnected. In the bigger picture, socialism is just a boat, and capitalism is the sail. You would hate a world without socialism, you just can't possibly imagine it, or falsely believe it isn't everywhere around you already.

www.thebalance.com...



Definition: Socialism is an economic system where everyone in the society equally owns the factors of production. The ownership is usually through a democratically-elected government. It could also be a cooperative or a public corporation where everyone owns shares. Socialism's mantra is, "From each according to his ability, to each according to his contribution." Everyone in society receives a share of the production based on how much they've contributed.


That motivates them to work long hours if they want to receive more.





Socialism assumes that the basic nature of people is cooperative. That nature hasn't yet emerged in full because capitalism or feudalism has forced people to be competitive. Therefore, a basic tenet of socialism is that the economic system must support this basic human nature for these qualities to emerge.




Eight Types of Socialism There are eight types of socialism. They differ on how capitalism can best be turned into socialism.





Disadvantages
The biggest disadvantage of socialism is that it relies on the cooperative nature of humans to work. Therefore, those within society who are competitive, not cooperative, will always seek to overthrow and disrupt it for their own gain.

A second related criticism is that it doesn't reward people for being entrepreneurial and competitive. Therefore, it won't be as innovative as a capitalistic society.

A third possibility is that the government set up to represent the masses may abuse its position and claim power for itself.



These are generally the largest criticisms of socialism here at the end, but they just don't apply to an actual example of Utopian socialism. In a utopia, you don't have need for greed, or rewards, the creative outlet is self driven with access of production available to you. Other than the criticism it's an attempt to take over the world, the primary disadvantages of socialism aren't in the sense of late term issues, but shorter term ones in the conversion to a socialist society in the first place. Those aren't real problems for a utopian one at the end.


imgur.com...
(Useful resource graph for ATS users as you just call/treat Fascism/Communism/Socialism like they're the same exact thing)



posted on Sep, 25 2017 @ 06:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: rickymouse
Give everyone the same basic income, then give the guys who put their lives at risk or who work their tail off some extra money. There is no reason that a chemist should get more than a road construction worker who pulls blacktop or concrete all day long. Someone putting roofs on houses should make more than people sitting in an office.


I couldn't disagree more..

I sit in an office and earn every dollar I get paid.
I guarantee I could learn how to put a roof on a house quicker than a roofer could learn to do the things I do..

Why should a roofer get paid more?

It takes all types of brains, skills, abilities to make the world go around..
edit on 25-9-2017 by opethPA because: (no reason given)

edit on 25-9-2017 by opethPA because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 25 2017 @ 07:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: opethPA

originally posted by: rickymouse
Give everyone the same basic income, then give the guys who put their lives at risk or who work their tail off some extra money. There is no reason that a chemist should get more than a road construction worker who pulls blacktop or concrete all day long. Someone putting roofs on houses should make more than people sitting in an office.


I couldn't disagree more..

I sit in an office and earn every dollar I get paid.
I guarantee I could learn how to put a roof on a house quicker than a roofer could learn to do the things I do..

Why should a roofer get paid more?

It takes all types of brains, skills, abilities to make the world go around..


A roofer does make more money than you if he is self employed.

If people really want to increase their wealth, they must think outside of the box.. work for yourself.. don't depend on the government to hand feed you.
edit on 9/25/2017 by eXia7 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 25 2017 @ 08:30 AM
link   
a reply to: dfnj2015

Too pig headed because we don't have 20 minutes to fritter away on YouTube? How about I don't click on it because anyone with econ101 under their belt knows how dumb of an idea this is.



posted on Sep, 25 2017 @ 08:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: opethPA

originally posted by: rickymouse
Give everyone the same basic income, then give the guys who put their lives at risk or who work their tail off some extra money. There is no reason that a chemist should get more than a road construction worker who pulls blacktop or concrete all day long. Someone putting roofs on houses should make more than people sitting in an office.


I couldn't disagree more..

I sit in an office and earn every dollar I get paid.
I guarantee I could learn how to put a roof on a house quicker than a roofer could learn to do the things I do..

Why should a roofer get paid more?

It takes all types of brains, skills, abilities to make the world go around..


I have a high IQ and I can learn almost anything, I am now studying the multiple chemical properties of foods and the properties of medicines and where the ideas for them originated. But I worked in many trades through my life, I get bored after a while when I learn what the trade has to teach.

Because of this I have seen that there is a lot of risk and bull work to these jobs. It taxes the body and immune system. The person working in an office does not have this risk, maybe carpel tunnel and thrombosis risk is there, but someone standing in a line in a factory has the thrombosis risk and carpel tunnel is way more of a problem in construction workers.

This is not about intelligence, it is about physical abuse of the body by hard work. A construction worker usually gets way more exercise than someone who goes to a gym for two hours a day.

How would you like to be putting shingles on a roof in eighty degree weather, it is about a hundred fifty degrees on that roof. How would you like to be working out in the hot sun all day long. How would you like to be working out in blizzards with temperatures below zero F all day long. I know lots of people doing that kind of work and I did it myself, this studying and researching is so easy compared to that. You may say you can do a roof, but could you do it every day?

The chances of getting hurt on these jobs is way more than working in an office, the labor intensity is often as high as being in a gym all day.

Both technical and labor intensive jobs are necessary, but I do not think a person pushing a pencil....oh yeah, they do not push a pencil anymore, they do not even file anything so they can sit all day. Like I was saying, your job is not as important as the jobs of people who grow our food or work on the roads so you can get to work. All the jobs are equally important so intensity of work and risk should govern pay. It used to be that way before.

Learning a job is nothing, doing that job day in and day out under extreme conditions is what should justify wage. You say that you can learn these jobs, I have worked in over forty different professions in my life, when I learned how to do them well and efficiently I moved on because I like to learn new things. I have now returned to my innitial interest....medicine. I was told I was way overqualified to become a doctor in school, they suggested physicist or mechanical engineer. But, I would have gotten bored with either of those in a few years. I am glad I quit college and learned what I did. To learn many of my professions I became a builder and hired experts and worked under them. I replaced their worker.



posted on Sep, 25 2017 @ 09:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: rickymouse
Give everyone the same basic income, then give the guys who put their lives at risk or who work their tail off some extra money. There is no reason that a chemist should get more than a road construction worker who pulls blacktop or concrete all day long. Someone putting roofs on houses should make more than people sitting in an office.


Wages and salaries are based on supply and demand, not how hard someone works physically. The intellectual horsepower required to become a chemist is far greater than that of a roofer making chemist much harder to come by. Any guy who isn't afraid of heights, can tolerate heat, and can swing a hammer can be taught roofing. You can't just teach anyone chemistry.

As such, the chemist are far more likely to earn more money than a roofer.

If you want to make a lot of money, you need an in demand skill that isn't easily replaceable.



posted on Sep, 25 2017 @ 11:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: bender151
a reply to: dfnj2015

Too pig headed because we don't have 20 minutes to fritter away on YouTube? How about I don't click on it because anyone with econ101 under their belt knows how dumb of an idea this is.


I guess using advanced analytics showing amazing insights into poverty and solving most of the World's problems is not worth you time because you just know you are smarter than everyone else.



posted on Sep, 25 2017 @ 12:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: DerBeobachter

originally posted by: VictorVonDoom
a reply to: dfnj2015

Where does this Universal Basic Income come from?

From industry4.0!

That is when most of the people will lose their job because of automation, because computers, machines and robots will take their jobs. Those robots and computers don´t have to be paid. Just watch car manufacturers, ho many humans run around in these huge halls, between all those robots that craft the cars? The human workers are almost just left because somebody has to observe the computers, the robots and the machines, that produce the cars.

And if you don´t give a basic income to the millions and billions(worldwide) that all lost their jobs because of industry4.0, then have fun with the riots worldwide!

You can´t sort out the people, "employ" robots, machines and computers, to make more and more money, but don´t give a compensation the unemployed people, that are only unemployed because managers, corporations, the industry want to make more and more money!


You explain why you want to give people money, but not where it comes from.

For instance, suppose you could totally automate a factory, say to make microwave ovens. Your costs would only be energy, raw materials, and maintenance. The cost to manufacture each unit is, say, $5. Are you proposing that the units be sold for $50 with the profits going towards a Universal Basic Income Fund? What's to stop a company from selling the units for $10 and contributing less to the UBI Fund? If the company has to donate their profits to the UBI fund, why set up the manufacturing plant at all?

Is the government going to donate the money? Where will they get it? We're already 20 trillion in debt.

Somebody still needs to build and maintain all the machines and computers for these automated factories. Why should I do that when I can just kick back at home with my guaranteed income? I'd be perfectly happy just doing home maintenance, lawn care, gardening, etc. If your choices are be a garbage man or just stay home, what would you choose? Why would anyone want to work a hazardous job if they can just stay home and mow the lawn? Join the Army and go to some God-forsaken desert to die, or settle back on the couch and watch TV?



posted on Sep, 25 2017 @ 12:09 PM
link   
a reply to: dfnj2015

I think the challenge you are facing in getting people to understand is that you are presenting the solution to a problem without explaining what the problem is.

The inevitable problem we all face in first-world nations is automation. It's a problem because the only big leap we have in recent memory of this happening was the industrial revolution where we handled it terribly. People were excited because they assumed it meant that automation would trickle down and people would either be paid more for their labor or they would be able to work less hours. Instead, the means of production was all consolidated into the hands of a few rich elites who continued exploiting the workers.

But what happens nationwide if nearly every job is automated? The GDP stays the same or (probably) increases yet people will not have work. Then what? Without consumers to buy the products, even the rich will collapse. So the only solution to that is to create a hybrid-nationalization of the things that are necessary for humans to get by on (housing, health care, agriculture, etc) and then provide a basic income for people to attain those things.

We will be faced with UBI as the only solution withing decades. Our economy simply can't hold up a 90% unemployment rate while private industries make everything with nearly zero overhead. If that automation was used to augment the UBI, it would pay for itself. It could even be graduated steps, based on the level of automation contributing to the GDP.

It's not about entitlements or welfare or any other hippy stuff conservatives will throw at this idea; it's about national economic survival and it will be inevitable. There's no avoiding this.



posted on Sep, 25 2017 @ 01:21 PM
link   
We are rapidly (in a generational timescale) approaching a complete paradigm shift on account of AI and automation, so much so that it is likely the overwhelming majority of people will be without jobs simply because anything they could do robots could do better.

Is it so crazy to think that whats being suggested here is one of the likely eventual outcomes? It would seem most other alternatives are distopic in some way.

Couldn't inflation be controlled with some sort of 'money-sink'?
edit on 39pm17fpmMon, 25 Sep 2017 13:21:53 -0500America/ChicagoMon, 25 Sep 2017 13:21:53 -0500 by Wayfarer because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
19
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join