Is a Universal Basic Income(UBI) coming?

Several studies from across the globe have estimated that nearly 50% of current jobs will be automated within 20 years. This leaves a serious conundrum. What will people do for work?
www.eng.ox.ac.uk...

Here is a calculator to see if your job is Bot Safe...www.bbc.co.uk...

We see it now really, and with things like self driving cars, and drones...there will be no need for delivery drivers. Amazon's proposed new supermarket can operate with only 3 people!
www.pcmag.com...

Several prominent businessmen are now proposing a UBI, including Elon Musk(Tesla), and one of the Facebook founders, among others.
Finland has a 2 year program going on, but their biggest union is against it.
www.cnbc.com...

I have been wondering about things like this for a while now. We are in the post-industrial age where human capital is to expensive and companies are getting away from it if they can. McDonld's is a great example as their counters are becoming automated.


So is UBI the answer? I am a conservative on the issue in that i believe one should work to eat, but I also am not heartless and believe that one should help their fellow human being. We, in the U.S anyway, indentify with Jesus like principals in theory, but not necessarily in practise. Is it possible to overcome that Anglo-Saxon work ethic?
I am completely torn on the issue. Practically, something needs to be done, but will this become a feudal economy, with 50% or more of the people enslaved by the 1%? Or is this the necessary step in our evolution?

Here is the home for the World UBI.
www.usbig.net...

originally posted by: lakenheath24
Several studies from across the globe have estimated that nearly 50% of current jobs will be automated within 20 years.

Practically, something needs to be done...

People do what they can. For now its called PUNK





Thank you for the good thread btw, my aim is was not to troll here


...Just my opinion is that on social/economical level Earth is very sick place... terminally sick.

Machines have been replacing people for 50 years now, they said the same thing back then. Im an electrician servicing automated machines, people need to put the machines together, service them, mine the minerals need to make them, design and program them. The machines are replacing minimum wage jobs, and in Australia (we are a lazy country) only migrants want to do them.

Now with UBI who pays for that? You say the rich? the government? The corporations? At the end of the day middle class and the consumer foots the bill through purchasing price and or taxes. if no ones working how can we purchase or pay taxes?

Now this is why machines will NEVER replace people.

Edit:

We are in the post-industrial age where human capital is to expensive

This is false. This is the biggest misconception, we are not expensive corporations and governments have been making trillions from us, corporations are about growth and margin and if they can save money they will, but dont let that confuse you and assume human labour is expensive.

a reply to: lakenheath24

We need to go back to homesteading and living locally within our means. Oh and lots of PUNK.

There is no liberty in this future with UBI etc...I am hoping for a calamity 1st.

It's simple. You just reduce the number of human beings to the minimum level needed to keep things running for the people at the top to enjoy.

Population control, not wage control.

a reply to: lakenheath24

It would be the prelude to either an end to the concept of cash or be implemented only in the form of food stamp type government rationing system but money itself would remain in the control of the elite.

It would only ever become a reality when the paradigm of greed equal's economics is abolished and sadly given the human barter nature that is unlikely to ever be the case.

I do suspect it would work very well though as long as it remained cash as it would serve to boost certain sectors' of the economy such as the retail and distribution, public service sector and though it would lead to price control's etc.

What to do with all those bored teenagers whom have no job prospect's though?.

a reply to: lakenheath24

Several studies from across the globe have estimated that nearly 50% of current jobs will be automated within 20 years. This leaves a serious conundrum. What will people do for work?

The other half will be dead by then of environmental pollution, war, disease, famine, etc.

You think its bad now, wait a few years, a decade, a generation. In the 70's people in the US rose up by the millions to protest the then current cycle of endless war (Vietnam), corruption in gubment (Nixon administration), and the military (Pentagon Papers). I won't go into civil rights.

I don't see that kind of 'grass roots' unity developing ever again. The gubment is become too practiced at dividing and subduing the populace.

My current job it's unlikely(24%)and future job is highly unlikely (6%). I don't agree with UBI in the US because we don't have enough tax payers to support it. I'm not paying extra so half the nation can sit around and play call of duty all day.

a reply to: lakenheath24

Is there a less murderous way to make a nation of one-class slaves than a UBI?

originally posted by: muSSang


This is false. This is the biggest misconception, we are not expensive corporations and governments have been making trillions from us, corporations are about growth and margin and if they can save money they will, but dont let that confuse you and assume human labour is expensive.

That's fine for YOU to say, but unless you're the head of some CEO board, it doesn't mean much. That's where all of this crap will be decided.

We have to accept that eventually we will have automated processes for just about everything and humans won't need to work as we have in the past.

The economics of it also make sense, you have all these social programs for people, complicated taxes that are wasteful and become bloated.

They worked it out in Switzerland I think it was, where the calculated the total cost of social care programs and the amount of people in the country and it worked out at roughly £2000 for every person per month. So get rid of the social programs and give everyone a basic income of £2000 per month.

You free up the person to pursue their creative desires and the world becomes a better place as a result.

Simplify the tax code, figure how much it takes to run the country and make a transaction tax that will cover the entire budget. Every financial transaction made in your country is taxed.
That would stop corporations offshoring their companies to avoid corporation tax, the more transactions are made through your company the more tax you pay.

originally posted by: lakenheath24
So is UBI the answer? I am a conservative on the issue in that i believe one should work to eat, but I also am not heartless and believe that one should help their fellow human being.

It really has nothing to do with having a heart, or being heartless.

Here's the problem.

Say the robots produce all the goods and services in the society.

Then, most of the jobs that people do are gone. Only the few people fixing the robots, and doing research to build better robots have paying jobs.

So, who is going to buy all the products the robots produce?

Since most people don't have jobs, they have no money, and can't pay for the products and services, so they'll have to live like the cavemen did, if such a thing is even possible today, with all land allocated to some corporation or public park etc..

That means the automated factories will have to close down, and go out of business, since they make too few sales to maintain operations.

So, the society collapses, simply because too few people can afford to buy the products that the advanced society can create.

Once factories start closing, there's a domino effect, in that the other factories that dependend on them also have to close. So, the whole manufacturing infrastructure falls apart, and soon, the society is unable to produce anything at all.

This has been happening in the USA, as factories moved to China. All the intermediate manufacturing businesses vanished from the US, since to make a TV set, you've got to make the transistors, and to make that you've got to make the silicon wafers, etc...so, once things start going south, it's not easily reversible.

Now Trump is trying to reverse some of this, which will be tough to do.

For the society to keep advancing, the nation has to "maintain momentum", it has to keep producing things, to keep its factories operational, because to "re-start" the whole chain of factories from a collapse would take decades if not centuries depending on how bad the collapse became.

To keep the manufacturing and service industries "running" we need "demand."

Automated factories can produce almost unlimited "supply", at the push of a button, but there's still a need for "demand" to motivate that production.

The only way to keep going forward is to give people the cash to buy those products, so that the factories can keep running, and the society can keep advancing.

So, there are 3 solutions to the problem:

1) Pass a law banning all automation and production of and by robots, so people always have jobs and can buy things with earned cash. We must demand that only humans can build things and serve other people. No self-serve gas stations, and no ATMs at banks, only human tellers, etc..i.e. halt all this high tech advancement we're doing right now. Stop improving.

2) Allow this high tech advancement to continue, but introduce a Universal Basic Income, so that people can continue to buy these things being produced by the robots, and the factories can continue to operate normally, so that the manufacturing infrastructure is sustained and available for these advances to continue on the path we're on.

3) Allow robots, allow the loss of jobs, don't introduce any UBI, let the chips fall where they may, and let the society implode by the imbalance between the rising available supply and falling available actionable demand, and accept the riots and unrest produced, and simply wait until the society finds a new sustainable level on its own.

a reply to: Aliensun

I don't think that would happen at all.
If I had a basic income of say £2000 per month, that would cover all my bills and still have money spare.
I could then go and get a job in the field that I've trained in and enjoy doing. Make even more money and be able to buy nicer things, bigger house, more holidays. Or I could work my ass off and then retire early, which frees up a job for someone younger.

You would eradicate homelessness because everyone would have enough money for rent. If people don't pay their rent, you could have it so the government pays the rent directly to the landlord and the tenant would get their UBI payment minus the rent payment.

originally posted by: lakenheath24
I am a conservative on the issue in that i believe one should work to eat, but I also am not heartless and believe that one should help their fellow human being.

I think the inevitable resistance to this idea is rooted in that misconception. Conservatives will face a conundrum. Do they continue to rail against the idea of a universal basic income because not "earnin' yer keep" is antithetical to what they've been taught or... do they accept the reality of economic climate shift and realize it's the only way forward?

We've done this before several times. During the industrial revolution, communism said "let the people own the means to production" and to counter that, politically right-leaning powers convinced the common folk that it was sinful to expect conditions to get better and they had to toil to keep their scrap of existence.

Look around you. So many things you enjoy are subsidized and free for you. Roads, parks, police, etc. These are things that became illogical for people to keep privately paying. Everybody can call the emergency folks, rich or poor. Because it makes sense.

And soon, UBI will be the only thing that makes sense.

originally posted by: mclarenmp4
a reply to: Aliensun

I don't think that would happen at all.
If I had a basic income of say £2000 per month, that would cover all my bills and still have money spare.
I could then go and get a job in the field that I've trained in and enjoy doing. Make even more money and be able to buy nicer things, bigger house, more holidays. Or I could work my ass off and then retire early, which frees up a job for someone younger.

You would eradicate homelessness because everyone would have enough money for rent. If people don't pay their rent, you could have it so the government pays the rent directly to the landlord and the tenant would get their UBI payment minus the rent payment.

That is actually one of the strongest argument's for it and ABYSHA I like your argument as well but we all know they would favour letting people starve to death before they ever change there unethical stance.

a reply to: LABTECH767

Americans are so opposed to socialism, it's hard for them to accept the philosophy.

I'm a believer that if you give people their basic needs, they will then pursue better things. If you don't have to worry about your basic needs, your taking a whole level of stress off of everyone, which can only be a good thing.
We are all too stressed in this world.

originally posted by: mclarenmp4
a reply to: LABTECH767

Americans are so opposed to socialism, it's hard for them to accept the philosophy.

I'm a believer that if you give people their basic needs, they will then pursue better things. If you don't have to worry about your basic needs, your taking a whole level of stress off of everyone, which can only be a good thing.
We are all too stressed in this world.

While in theory that sounds good, I dont think enough people would pursue greater things. There are ALOT of lazy people who would be happy just getting the minimum. And what about those whose idea of better things doesnt help society? Personally, I think humans are still to selfish. Humankind needs to evolve a bit more for this to work.

a reply to: coop039

The thing is you already pay for those type of people through the social programs, so why not get rid of those programs and give everyone UBI. Everyone gets the same, so there's no animosity.
If people want to live the bare minimum then so be it, they are no longer a burden on society.
A lot of people turn to crime just to make ends meet, take that burden away and some people may not feel the need to go down that route.

originally posted by: mclarenmp4
a reply to: coop039

The thing is you already pay for those type of people through the social programs, so why not get rid of those programs and give everyone UBI. Everyone gets the same, so there's no animosity.
If people want to live the bare minimum then so be it, they are no longer a burden on society.
A lot of people turn to crime just to make ends meet, take that burden away and some people may not feel the need to go down that route.

What happens when the number of people getting UBI exceeds the amount taxed on the working people? Sooner or later people will get tired of paying for others to do nothing.

originally posted by: coop039
There are ALOT of lazy people who would be happy just getting the minimum..

There's nothing wrong with that !

Right now, most of the advances made in science and technology are the result of the work of a tiny fraction of the population. Maybe just 1% of the population is taking us forward.

The remaining 99% of the population is "labor", helping to produce and service those "new things" created by the 1%.

When this "labor" is replaced by the "robots", we don't need those humans to work.

But, we still need them to "demand" the things that the robots produce to keep things going.

A society needs both "consumers" and "producers".

We need hungry people to go out and buy things. Their actions of "deciding what to buy" helps to allocate the resources to the useful things society needs.

How do we know what to produce? People tell us that, by their spending habits. Thos LAZY people give us valuable information on what things we should be producing to keep people alive, healthy, and happy.

The more statistics we can collect from this data, the better our decisions will be on what sustains humans and makes life worth living.

There will always be a small fraction, like 1%, of the people who will want to work because they love doing what they do. So, we'll still have the same 1% creating the "new products" for the automated factories to produce.

Then all the LAZY people will tell us what "new products" are worth having, by their spend decisions.

It's all good.