Is a Universal Basic Income(UBI) coming?

a reply to: soficrow

Do you have any insight as to what that can be? As much as the left and right hate one another, I just cant see a common ground where a brand new economic system can be implemented. Unless a disaster took place. hmmm.


I

a reply to: chr0naut

My OP has a link to Finland.

www.independent.co.uk...

originally posted by: Edumakated
The problem with UBI is that it does not fix human nature. No matter how much you give out, there is always going to be someone who pisses away their money. They will then still be begging, asking for handouts, and other "programs" to make up the short fall.

That could happen. However, there's a difference between having something and pissing it away, and never having anything at all in the first place.

UBI will be a monthly stipend. So, that people can "correct" their behavior. After begging for a few months, they'll adjust, and learn to live on what they have.

Once everyone knows that UBI exists for all, there's no reason for people to encourage the beggars. So, begging will be a really tough profession for anyone thinking they can get extra funds that way.

a reply to: lakenheath24

btw -

The wealthiest persons on the planet are corporations - and all of our and our ancestors' labor over the past few hundred years have gone into building their wealth.

Ergo, it's not the few working and employable humans who ought to fund UBI but rather, the corporate persons who continue to benefit the most.



imho

originally posted by: soficrow
a reply to: lakenheath24

btw -

The wealthiest persons on the planet are corporations - and all of our and our ancestors' labor over the past few hundred years have gone into building their wealth.

Ergo, it's not the few working and employable humans who ought to fund UBI but rather, the corporate persons who continue to benefit the most.




You need to use your noggin for something other than a hat rack. The notion that someone has to pay for UBI is senseless if You know how paper currencies work. To keep any economy that uses a paper currency flowing You will always need currency expansion. We have currency expansion in our economic model but it's the banks that benefit because they can borrow money at 0% interest and loan it out to us at 21% interest. So what would be a fairer model one where everyone is given 1k a month or one where the fed gives money to their friends and then they lend it out?

imho

Well we better come up with some sort of plan because robots are not only coming for blue collar jobs but software bots are coming for white collar jobs.

And AI's are learning how to write articles and create art and music so even those fields are not out of reach.

Unfortunately I don't think anyone is really prepared for this not even companies implementing automation to save costs will know the full effect.
The technology is moving faster then society can keep up with it.

The video Humans Need Not Apply gives a great overview of how this new wave of automation will effect the Job Market.

originally posted by: AMPTAH

originally posted by: Edumakated
The problem with UBI is that it does not fix human nature. No matter how much you give out, there is always going to be someone who pisses away their money. They will then still be begging, asking for handouts, and other "programs" to make up the short fall.

That could happen. However, there's a difference between having something and pissing it away, and never having anything at all in the first place.

UBI will be a monthly stipend. So, that people can "correct" their behavior. After begging for a few months, they'll adjust, and learn to live on what they have.

Once everyone knows that UBI exists for all, there's no reason for people to encourage the beggars. So, begging will be a really tough profession for anyone thinking they can get extra funds that way.

If that was really the case, then we wouldn't have endless programs for welfare in this country. It would just be a monthly stipend and then people would spend it for what they needed.

Why don't we do that? Probably because most people are stupidly ignorant about how to handle their money. That and most people don't realize that by the time you add up the actual dollar value of all the possible goodies people can qualify for, it's highly possible to make a good middle class living on them if you had their worth in gross dollar value.

Baxter cost only 25,000 dollars can be trained/programmed to do multiple Jobs and only demands electricity.
He may be slower but he cost less then an employee.

Baxter and the robots that come after him are only going to improve just like computers have improved and gotten smaller and faster over the decades.

No more moral dilemmas of hiring sweatshop labor Adidas can now have robots make all of their shoes.

I guess chefs could be out of a job as well

originally posted by: SolAquarius
And AI's are learning how to write articles and create art and music so even those fields are not out of reach.

And AI and Expert Systems are now doing "medical diagnostics" and robots are providing functions nurses do, so that even doctors, nurses, etc...will be out of a job.

originally posted by: ketsuko

If that was really the case, then we wouldn't have endless programs for welfare in this country. It would just be a monthly stipend and then people would spend it for what they needed.

Why don't we do that? Probably because most people are stupidly ignorant about how to handle their money. That and most people don't realize that by the time you add up the actual dollar value of all the possible goodies people can qualify for, it's highly possible to make a good middle class living on them if you had their worth in gross dollar value.

We don't have UBI, because the robots haven't taken away all the jobs yet.

We still need people to do many jobs right now.

While UBI is being "experimented with" in many places around the world, nobody is "voting" for it right now because we are all thinking the old way, and still living the old way, with the last century "paradigms" in our heads.

The UBI is the future.

That future hasn't arrived, yet.

But, in about 50 years from now, all advanced 1st world nations will have introduced UBI.

Already, Canada has UBI for everyone over 65 years of age. And the Canadian Province of Ontario is experimenting with pilot projects of UBI for people under 65.

So, there will be a gradual roll out, of the UBI program.

originally posted by: AMPTAH

originally posted by: SolAquarius
And AI's are learning how to write articles and create art and music so even those fields are not out of reach.

And AI and Expert Systems are now doing "medical diagnostics" and robots are providing functions nurses do, so that even doctors, nurses, etc...will be out of a job.

Yup in this age of advancing computing software robotics and 3d printing the Shift is about to hit the fan.
Humanity has got to adapt for what is probably going to be a revolution that will be greater then the industrial revolution was for its time.
I'm not sure the old ways of thinking will fit this new paradigm.

Just saw this - Elon Musk on UBI.

Elon Musk on UBI

Displacement due to automation isn’t just limited to transportation. Musk argues that the government must introduce a UBI program in order to compensate for this. “I don’t think we’re going to have a choice,” he said. “I think it’s going to be necessary. There will be fewer and fewer jobs that a robot cannot do better.”

Musk believes, however, that the issue goes deeper:

[The] much harder challenge is: How will people then have meaning? A lot of people derive meaning from their employment. If you’re not needed, what is the meaning? Do you feel useless? That is a much harder problem to deal with. How do we ensure the future is a future that we want, that we still like?
As the UBI discussion continues, various nations and institutions have already begun their own pilot programs to test the model. In a couple of years or less, there might be enough data from these experiments for us to consider just how effective a solution to unemployment UBI is.

An older article, also good.

The world sees automation as the key to achieving more efficiency, across different aspects of our lives. But that efficiency comes at a price—the displacement of countless employees who will soon be replaced by artificially intelligent (AI) technology.

What happens then?

The answer could be universal basic income (UBI)—a policy where all citizens of a country will receive an unconditional amount of money, on top of income they generate through other means. The funds could be provided by the government, or a public institution.

a reply to: chr0naut

Old world marmorino and wax sealed venetian plaster are extremely durable and have been uses for 2000 years.
I agree with you though and lots of prefabricated houses are already being sold.
I still think I'll be working until I retire though but I'm lucky and don't see robots doing everything I can do for 20 years at least.
From prep to mix to final coat.

I do not want to see talented tradesman disappear and I hope it's a world where people will want to build things with their hands.
Having said all tgat I fully support a basic income and won't resent anyone for not working while I choose to.

a reply to: Slickinfinity

I think you will be ok, but tradesman will be niche. Just like before Henry Ford built the assembly line, but tradesman will work for the uber rich who want bespoke this and that. The population keeps getting bigger, and more jobs are getting automated......it's just a matter of time til the consumer economy goes pop. Perhaps that will be the ultimate bubble.

You can have money expansion all you want, when people only make enough to afford the basics, then what good is a cheap TV? I also read an article that the new generation is on the same level of conservatism as the WW2 generation. That may not bode well for what is going to happen!

It's the future for sure.

originally posted by: AMPTAH

originally posted by: Edumakated
The problem with UBI is that it does not fix human nature. No matter how much you give out, there is always going to be someone who pisses away their money. They will then still be begging, asking for handouts, and other "programs" to make up the short fall.

That could happen. However, there's a difference between having something and pissing it away, and never having anything at all in the first place.

UBI will be a monthly stipend. So, that people can "correct" their behavior. After begging for a few months, they'll adjust, and learn to live on what they have.

Once everyone knows that UBI exists for all, there's no reason for people to encourage the beggars. So, begging will be a really tough profession for anyone thinking they can get extra funds that way.

We have plenty of data in our own welfare system to show that is not how people necessarily behave. Again, you are ignoring human behavior. Money does not correct faulty character traits. In many cases, it just enhances them. If you give a crackhead $30k a year, they will smoke it up in the first few months. After that, they will be right back on the street begging and crying for help.

Instead of using the money to better their lives, a lot of people will still make stupid decisions that cause financial hardships.

My position is that UBI could only work if there was absolutely no government welfare or subsidies of any kind. NONE. You get your check and if you piss it away, tough sh*t. If you need help, you will need to go to charity or family. Government cannot be involved.

a reply to: lakenheath24

I think that a UBI is inevitable. But I also think that we shouldn't strive to live on a UBI. Pretty much by definition living on a UBI is going to put you in the lowest income class which it's hard to get out of, especially if the jobs to do so are limited.

Once there are few jobs to do, how do we encourage people to learn and gain the knowledge to continue civilization, when there are now jobs for them to use that knowledge?

originally posted by: lakenheath24
a reply to: mclarenmp4

The problem is that 90% of those people are poor for a reason and will just blow it on dumb stuff. They will end up needing assistance no matter what. It will make walmart happy though.

I'm forgetting the name offhand, but there was a theory in the 1800's that circulated among industry that the ordinary worker should be paid very little, because they were too stupid to spend it responsibly. Therefore, the socially responsible thing to do, was to pay them the absolute minimum and keep as much as possible for upper management. You're sounding a lot like those people with your comment.