Right... and now there are machines to do the slaving away. That's the whole point.1. And how many people slaved away for those nobles and aristocrats? It's not like their wealth fell from the sky. They essentially had an easy life on the back of a lot of people who had to provide for them.
1.) Are you honestly asking what's the motivation to earn say 50k a year instead of 12k a year? What motivates you to work your job instead of working at McDonalds just to make sure your basic needs are met? This is a really, really, really stupid question.I really fail to understand how universal basic income is in any way desirable. It begs three questions:
1. What's the motivation left, if you truly have your ends meet? Saying "people will then just magically do what they enjoy doing" is ridiculous and blind utopic thinking. There is literally nothing that even gives this hypothesis any sort of credibility.
2. Who pays for it? Essentially it forces people who are more successful to pay for all the rest. First of all, how is that fair? Secondly, why would they stay in a system that punishes their success to this extent? Once again, it's blind utopic thinking.
3. Will the market react to the increase buying power by increasing it's pricing and effectively nullifying the effect of UBI?
To me it seems people just want to have some easy solution of god government taking care of them without any self-responsibility. There are legit issues mentioned by the pro-UBI crowd, but in no way is UBI the solution to those issues.
Aka essentially you want to have a top-down wealth mechanism despite the upper percentages already paying way more taxes than the rest. US studies have found that the top 20% pay for more than 80% of the income tax already. What makes you think if you create an even bigger disbalance - these same people will stay and want to remain their business in a country who does?Right... and now there are machines to do the slaving away. That's the whole point.
On inflation, the counterargument is that UBI would merely undo the concentration of wealth in the hands of the few that has happened over the past few decades. The idea of the general public having disposable incomes is not completely unprecedented, in fact they already have it, they just have to load up on unsustainable debt.
Yes, we can start think about it now. But I asked you why you would want to implement it any time soon, if we don't live in this world, yet?@Atze-Peng We need to start thinking about it now because shit can hit the fan way earlier. Jobs are already being lost faster than you can create them. Advancement in technology grows almost at exponential rates. I say 100 years, but maybe its sooner.
For example, the millions of people who already lost their jobs and rebound into stuff like Uber or delivering goods. All those jobs will be certainly gone in the next 15 years, sooner probably, as automated cars have already drove millions and millions of miles in public roads.
As for the other points, they are certainly situations we gonna have to deal with. But in the end, it's only 2 choices. We share the wealth created by machines, or not. Both are certainly realistic options.
I chose to believe somehow we gonna make the right choices as humanity (whether its us humans or some AI doing the choice for us). "We are one" after all, and the more into future, the more we are.
1. So why aren't more people doing that right now? Exactly. Because not everyone is capable of. Either they lack the skill or the drive. What makes you think this will change the moment they don't have the need to actually work anymore? If anything, it will do the exact opposite like in the finnish experiment where the people may said they are happier, but they certainly didn't get more productive. And as you may not have grown up in a former socialist country. I have. And the main issue was that people didn't give a single shit about their work-quality. They were paid anyway, so why even try to make your work more valuable?1.) Are you honestly asking what's the motivation to earn say 50k a year instead of 12k a year? What motivates you to work your job instead of working at McDonalds just to make sure your basic needs are met? This is a really, really, really stupid question.
2.) Research into the proposals and you will see how it's paid for.
3.) Possibly, and possibly not there are various arguments for this, but this question doesn't mean a concept should be scrapped, only discussed further.
Trump appreciates him, no?he’s also in the Alex Jones thread defending the alt right interests via proxy opinions, what a surprise he also hates the idea of UBI and any form of wealth redistribution and is chomping at the bit to defend capitalism by all means necessary.
I'm definitely interested in UBI but I don't think it should come in at the expense of certain benefits. For example, it obviously wouldn't be fair for everybody to receive the same UBI and no benefits. For some people that would be free money to do whatever with, for others a huge portion of it would be spent on medical or social care. People have different needs, and that would have to be reflected in what they're given. I don't see why UBI couldn't exist alongside certain benefitsAlso I would like to see the budget for benefits and how much of that sits, going un-claimed? Scrap benefits as it is and introduce tax free UBI to ALL no matter their income.
would that mean a disabled person with a couple of kids would be given the same as me... I mean Im a cold capitalist bastard but even I have my doubts about that being fair (ill still take the money and put ot towards more luxury watches though if its on offer)I am for it.
Scrap benefits as it is and introduce tax free UBI to ALL no matter their income.
I don't think that UBI means there aren't going to be a few other payments available but it will aim to replace unemployment benefits, standard medical pensions, aged pensions and some student grants.would that mean a disabled person with a couple of kids would be given the same as me... I mean Im a cold capitalist bastard but even I have my doubts about that being fair (ill still take the money and put ot towards more luxury watches though if its on offer)
An UBI is ideal only if it supplements benefits, not replaces them. Replacing benefits is an idea which has limited to no traction even for most economists.I don't think that UBI means there aren't going to be a few other payments available but it will aim to replace unemployment benefits, standard medical pensions, aged pensions and some student grants.
Thought so not long ago, starting to have doubts about it. I think we are still quite far from the automation of most jobs, though progress is not always linear.It’s going to have to happen at some point. Following the arguments made on here through to their logical conclusion, eventually all jobs, or enough of them as near dammit, will be performed by machines. Robots won’t be buying the stuff they make, so communism will become the default position. UBI is a good stepping stone to this ultimate end.
I think that's partly the point, ensuring that those that fall through the cracks don't fall so far. People can have their ability to earn affected by such a huge and diverse list of health, lifestyle and historical issues that it's impossible to write a welfare system complex enough to recognise them all, so the fair way might be not to judge people's need for a particular worthiness, but to accept their need as a right.You wont need it if you have a proper welfare system that does not allow people to fall through the cracks.
It doesn’t necessarily have to be in any of our lifetimes, but I’d struggle to think of a job that couldn’t be done by a robot with developments in robotics and AI.Thought so not long ago, starting to have doubts about it. I think we are still quite far from the automation of most jobs, though progress is not always linear.
It's the most high-profile plan (Yang has talked about transitioning people away from welfare), and from wht I understand, Milton Freidman et al, who were anti-welfare, proposed a negative income tax (a type of UBI). In other words, a UBI which is a replacement rather than a supplement is the most popular plan including among economists.An UBI is ideal only if it supplements benefits, not replaces them. Replacing benefits is an idea which has limited to no traction even for most economists.
If it doesn’t happen within our lifetimes, then it isn’t something we need to worry about. Sure, some jobs might get automized, some new jobs might be born, and eventually more jobs might get automized than new jobs are being born, but as of know there are more new jobs created than old ones automized.It doesn’t necessarily have to be in any of our lifetimes, but I’d struggle to think of a job that couldn’t be done by a robot with developments in robotics and AI.
It's what happens when you distill an generic idea into a practical concept.It's the most high-profile plan (Yang has talked about transitioning people away from welfare), and from wht I understand, Milton Freidman et al, who were anti-welfare, proposed a negative income tax (a type of UBI). In other words, a UBI which is a replacement rather than a supplement is the most popular plan including among economists.
Indeed, amongst most economists, support for a UBI program funded wholly by eliminating social welfare programs is unpopular. An IGM Global Experts Panel surveyed over 40 economists with the following question: “Granting every American citizen over 21-years old a universal basic income of $13,000 a year — financed by eliminating all transfer programs (including Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, housing subsidies, household welfare payments, and farm and corporate subsidies) — would be a better policy than the status quo.” The responses were overwhelmingly negative, with only about 2% of economists surveyed agreeing with the prompt.
It’s important to note that the survey may not reflect economists’ sentiments towards the general concept of a basic income, but rather the means of funding suggested in the survey. Eric Laskin, one of the economists surveyed who disagreed with the prompt comments: “A minimum income makes sense, but not at the cost of eliminating Social Security and Medicare.”
It could replace almost all benefits and the vast majority of the current cost of administration but there are bound to be cases where a more traditional.social net are required in addition.An UBI is ideal only if it supplements benefits, not replaces them. Replacing benefits is an idea which has limited to no traction even for most economists.
We will definitely still need it. To play the game of life, you need money (or credits) to spend. Welfare covers only the basics, but there is so much more to life than just to be able to survive.You wont need it if you have a proper welfare system that does not allow people to fall through the cracks.
If people reduce their hours surely that means you have money to employ more people on reduced hours?Logistically I just do not understand how it can work. It would surely place so much uncertainty on markets/financial systems.
Imagine they roll it out nationwide starting tomorrow, overnight the country's work force drastically changes as people cut their hours or quit their low earning jobs.
Robots/automation are supposed to take these jobs but would be ridiculously expensive, I'm sure McDonald's can afford burger flipping robots but what about the small businesses. I work in a family run timber yard that would never be able to afford automation, there's about 8 members of staff that would all want to cut their hours down immediately. The business would likely have to reduce its opening hours/possibly making less money, this happens up and down the country and the economy is in trouble.
I think this mass of uncertainty is what scares economists and that's why it won't happen for many decades, if ever.
From the people I have spoken and myself included.. I wouldn't and they wouldn't be cutting hours, I would be using the extra income to just live a comfier life for me and my children.Logistically I just do not understand how it can work. It would surely place so much uncertainty on markets/financial systems.
Imagine they roll it out nationwide starting tomorrow, overnight the country's work force drastically changes as people cut their hours or quit their low earning jobs.
Robots/automation are supposed to take these jobs but would be ridiculously expensive, I'm sure McDonald's can afford burger flipping robots but what about the small businesses. I work in a family run timber yard that would never be able to afford automation, there's about 8 members of staff that would all want to cut their hours down immediately. The business would likely have to reduce its opening hours/possibly making less money, this happens up and down the country and the economy is in trouble.
I think this mass of uncertainty is what scares economists and that's why it won't happen for many decades, if ever.
That is surprising, I definitely need to look into this more then as I am assuming that everyone would follow my example and simply work a little less and enjoy more free time. I'm only 32 and have ambitions to have children and buy a house within my thirties, so Im not some lazy sod looking for an easy life, I am quite driven. I assumed that would be the path most would take.From the people I have spoken and myself included.. I wouldn't and they wouldn't be cutting hours, I would be using the extra income to just live a comfier life for me and my children.
My partner would be able to further her career through college/university thanks to this etc.
No doubt, I'm certain all the little details would balance out over time but that period of uncertainty is what scares economists.If people reduce their hours surely that means you have money to employ more people on reduced hours?
I expect a fair few would look to cut hours but my assumption is that would be the older ones whereas people like yourself and myself would look to invest the monies in ways to help us further our careers which in turn leads to better pensions etc for our older days.That is surprising, I definitely need to look into this more then as I am assuming that everyone would follow my example and simply work a little less and enjoy more free time. I'm only 32 and have ambitions to have children and buy a house within my thirties, so Im not some lazy sod looking for an easy life, I am quite driven. I assumed that would be the path most would take.
I get what you are saying. But how does it work in the Scandinavian countries?We will definitely still need it. To play the game of life, you need money (or credits) to spend. Welfare covers only the basics, but there is so much more to life than just to be able to survive.
By the year 2050, unemployment in the US will be around 25%.
Imagine having that many people without money (or credits) to spend on anything, not being able to go on holidays or buying some random stuff. Would be chaos.
For sure, today a strong welfare state is enough in certain well ran countries. But it won't be for long.I get what you are saying. But how does it work in the Scandinavian countries?
They are not just surviving.
There are programs to help people get to the next stage if they get unemployed and if they are old to retire with dignity.
Wut? Where does this come from?By the year 2050, unemployment in the US will be around 25%.
