Universal Basic Income

Well, its all the rage nowadays. Universal Basic Income is a fixed sum of money transfered to every person, irrespective of social class or the need for it. Many countries have already experimented with it and most have had success. One of the best past and upcoming examples of this is the one in:

Finland. Its a two-year pilot scheme will provide 2,000 unemployed Finnish citizens, aged between 25 and 58, with a monthly basic income of 560 euros ($581.48) that will replace their other social benefits.

Netherlands. A two-year test period is tentatively set to begin in January, and some citizens of Utrecht and some nearby cities will receive a flat sum of €960 per month (about $1,100).

Canada. The Canadian province of Ontario is pushing forward with plans for a trial run of universal basic income, making it the first government in North America in decades to test out the policy.

India. In the first pilot, eight villages were chosen, wherein every man, woman and child was provided with a monthly payment of—initially—Rs200 for each adult and Rs100 for each child. Subsequently, these payments were raised to Rs300 and Rs150, respectively.
The second pilot was held in a tribal village, where every adult and child was paid Rs300 and Rs150, respectively, every month for 12 months. Another tribal village was used as a comparison.
The results show that people who received the unconditional cash transfers in the pilot did not use it to increase leisure and reduce work. In fact, according to Guy Standing, professor at the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, who worked on the pilot, “grants led to more labour and work”, with a shift from casual wage labour to more own-account (self-employed) farming and business activity. There was also a reduction in the migration caused by distress.

Switzerland. Swiss voters have overwhelmingly rejected a proposal to introduce a guaranteed basic income for all, a monthly 2,500 Swiss francs (£1,755; $2,555) for adults and also SFr625 for each child.

Scotland. Scotland looks set to be the first part of the UK to pilot a basic income for every citizen, as councils in Fife and Glasgow investigate trial schemes in 2017.

2017 will be a big year and if the upcoming trails are successful we can see a serious push for UBI.

The premise of UBI is the following:

> Automation will take away a lot of jobs.

> There are enough resources on our planet for around 11 billion people while the population is 7 billion

> Poverty will be eradicated.

> It will free up people to pursue higher goals.

> The total expense for social services with huge beurlcracy and expense of selecting people etc is approx. the same as giving everyone a fixed income. It reduces beurocracy and removes cost for man power

So I wanted to know the opinion of the people on this board regarding the new developments.

It is welfare.

How many times do we have to cover basic monetary function?
If you raise the income of everyone by $x a month, within a year the basic cost of living for everyone will go up by $x a month.

"Universal" income is just another way to spike up minimum wage, which gives anyone making more than minimum wage an effective pay cut- so employers get to make more money.

Does.
Not.
Work.

originally posted by: lordcomac
It is welfare.

How many times do we have to cover basic monetary function?
If you raise the income of everyone by $x a month, within a year the basic cost of living for everyone will go up by $x a month.

"Universal" income is just another way to spike up minimum wage, which gives anyone making more than minimum wage an effective pay cut- so employers get to make more money.

Does.
Not.
Work.

Yes I have thought about that. Logically your arguement works. Prices of everything will rise, appartments, food etc basically from incresed demands. But I would really.ike to see the results of these trials. If that infact really happens.

So you want to discuss the virtues of socialism/communism?!

I don't think it works BUT it sure would be nice if instead of spending a billion on an election like Hillary did or millions on a vote recount like Jill Stein did or buy a lake house like Bernie did with his leftover campaign money,,if they did something to help people with it,,,how many trees would that have bought for replanting,,or land for forests that cant be cut down. We aren't stupid though, those idiots couldnt care less about the environment.

a reply to: asen_y2k

Also keep in mind this is being done in individual villages and small countries with small populations.

I don't think this would work in a large country like Brazil, India or the US.

We'll definitely have to come up with something once all the jobs become automated but I don't think a universal income will be it. I think it should be some kind of post-currency barter system.

There will be no other choice in the future.
Because of Industry4.0.
Most of the jobs, that are done now by low wage slaves, will be done by robots in the future.
Then TPTB will have to give the people an unconditional basic income then.

If there simply are no jobs left for the most of the people, because robots do the work. Robots that work 24/7, never get ill, don´t need breaks, never go on vacations, that don´t need sleep etc. And that make the money low wage slaves have to work now for. So it is no problem to give the people an unconditional basic income with Industry4.0.

If TPTB won´t do that, you would have riots faster than Husain Bolt runs. Because if people want(need, if they won´t get the unconditional basic income) to work, but there are no more jobs left, because of the profits of the economy, the corporations, the rich, what would happen if TPTB would let the people starve?
Riots!

That´s the same reason why social welfare is paid to people. Not because TPTB are so social, but because they don´t want to live in steady fear.

It´s kind of blackmailing people. If TPTB can´t create enough jobs so everybody can work, fair paid, for his money, who´s fault is that? The people that want/need to work`s fault? Or is the fault of TPTB, because they work for the economy, the industry, the big money, but not for the people anymore?

But, one way or another, the future will get hot for TPTB(that´s why they create surveillance- and police states, as fast as possible). Bceause, if people suddenly don´t have their head full of problems anymore, because of their jobs, because of their money, because of all the problems that a low wag slave encounters in his life, if the people suddenly have time to think again, then the problems for TPTB start.

So the unconditional basic income(blackmail money) has to be high enough to make the people keep calm...

a reply to: asen_y2k

So what exactly is the incentive to work? Why should people work hard and achieve a lot just to pay for other people?

a reply to: asen_y2k

The trials will work great for those receiving the cash-
since it's only a small group of people receiving free money, it won't else the cost of living for everyone that much, just a little bit.

It simply doesn't work if you roll it out to everyone, all is inevitably stealing from the tax payer to give to the poor- welfare.

Which in America, at least, is stealing from the working class poor to give to the lazy class poor.
Doesn't work. Stop trying to make it work.

originally posted by: asen_y2k

originally posted by: lordcomac
It is welfare.

How many times do we have to cover basic monetary function?
If you raise the income of everyone by $x a month, within a year the basic cost of living for everyone will go up by $x a month.

"Universal" income is just another way to spike up minimum wage, which gives anyone making more than minimum wage an effective pay cut- so employers get to make more money.

Does.
Not.
Work.

Yes I have thought about that. Logically your arguement works. Prices of everything will rise, appartments, food etc basically from incresed demands. But I would really.ike to see the results of these trials. If that infact really happens.

Those trials are flawed from the beginning. They aren't universal; so the effects could never reflect what would happen if they open the program universally.

The only thing those trials will prove is that the lucky few to get the money will have more money to spend with no real effect on the economy. They are setting them selves up for success. They only thing that could go wrong is if these people use the money frivolously (drugs, ect) instead of better housing and food.

Better idea let them get jobs and earn a living like everyone else instead of sitting on their lazy asses bleeding those of us who actually work dry .

It is just intensive to sit on ones arse... nothing more.
By the way, who is going to be footing the bill for this?
The people that are working now will be taxed more to cover the cost of this fine program.....

Will not and has never worked...

originally posted by: DerBeobachter
There will be no other choice in the future.
Because of Industry4.0.
Most of the jobs, that are done now by low wage slaves, will be done by robots in the future.
Then TPTB will have to give the people an unconditional basic income then.

They could stop at giving the people an unconditional higher education.

Sure Doctors, lawyers, engineers, scientists and ect will then become the new low wage slave jobs; but what an utopia that would be .... am I right

The only part of this I agree with is the part where the one trial decided to completely replace the other basic benefits with the so-called UBI payout.

If we maintained the welfare threshold to receive it and then just gave a lumpsum, means-tested payout instead of all our 1,001 and program subsidies, I'd almost be in favor of that. Then, when the recipients failed to properly manage that payout and wound up on the streets begging anyhow ... that's on them, but it would let us nuke all the accompanying managing bureaucracies which would be a savings.

Although I don't think that's quite the UBI the OP had in mind since it doesn't actually change the facts of who receives and how much.

We already tried this hundreds of years ago. William Bradford and the pilgrims did it when they first came to america. Everyone got an equal share of everything and the result was nobody worked. Why would they? There was no incentive. Lots of people died that winter. So next he tried something different. A free market, and what do you know? There was an abundance and the first thanksgiving was had.

Patton wrote that after landing on Dec 21, 1620, the Pilgrims suffered horribly their first winter, with around half the colonists perishing. Aid from the now-famous native, Squanto, helped them survive with new planting techniques, but the harvests of 1621 and 1622 were still small.

The colony’s governor, William Bradford, wrote that its socialist philosophy greatly hindered its growth: Young men resented working for the benefit of other men’s wives and children without compensation; healthy men who worked thought it unjust that they received no more food than weak men who could not; wives resented doing household chores for other men, considering it a kind of slavery.

Governor Bradford wrote that to avoid famine in 1623, the Pilgrims abandoned socialism,

Patton said. “At length, after much debate of things, the Governor (with the advice of the chiefest amongst them) gave way that they should set corn every man for his own particular, and in that regard trust to themselves; in all other things to go on in the general way as before. And so assigned to every family a parcel of land,”

Bradford wrote. The colonists, each of whom now had to grow their own food, suddenly became very industrious, with women and children who earlier claimed weakness now going into the fields to plant corn. Three times the amount of corn was planted that year under the new system.

a reply to: asen_y2k

How do you equate the Finland example as a success when it's only just starting? With the possible exception of India, none of your other examples are actually active yet, and with some (such as Scotland) they aren't even confirmed.

originally posted by: DanDanDat

originally posted by: DerBeobachter
There will be no other choice in the future.
Because of Industry4.0.
Most of the jobs, that are done now by low wage slaves, will be done by robots in the future.
Then TPTB will have to give the people an unconditional basic income then.

They could stop at giving the people an unconditional higher education.

Sure Doctors, lawyers, engineers, scientists and ect will then become the new low wage slave jobs; but what an utopia that would be .... am I right

Thats another aspect. If the people wouldn´t have to spend their whole lifetime to hunt for the god money 24/7(but only get enough to live/"survive"), but could do what they want, learn what they are interested in, how many wonderful artists or brains like Einstein, Hawking would grow? It would be good for the human culture.

Universal income will not work just like others have said, because the law of supply and demand. In this case the over supply of money will lead to inflation. Especially in our current world where money itself is base on trust in the currency (where as before it was based on precious metals such as gold), when the supply of money increases drastically there is also an increase chance for hyperinflation to occur (ex Venezuela).

In the future perhaps there will be a type economy that will develop in a world without work. Let's face it "work" is going to be slowly phased out. Robots will take over most of what we now consider "work" in the future. We can see that in the near future autonomous vehicles will probably take over much of truckers, taxi/bus drivers and delivery persons' jobs. Factories will be autonomous and even its' repair, upgrade and upkeep will be done by robots. In the future traditional jobs such as teachers, physicians and lawyers will probably go the ways of the dodo birds as self learning expert systems take over. Mining and farming will be done by robots and nanobots. At that point the world will probably have to move away from money, what will replace it I do not know.

The other option is that people could create a new economy where worth is found in something else.

I'll bet everyone felt like their lives were over when every single industry related to horse and buggy died thanks to the car. And I'll bet a lot of folks felt like they were losing their livelihood when factory automation put their little hand-made workshops out of business.

You know what?

The economy shifted and somehow, new means of working and creating value were found.

The thing about robot goods is that they will be mass produced crap, very same. Artisanal stuff, then, will be the next locus of real value. People will work to create that. You may find the hand-crafted trades coming back so that people don't have to walk around wearing just robot produced crap all the time.

a reply to: DerBeobachter

Nothing more than another free hand out or ....... Blackmail .......

We will ONLY behave if you pay us......