Is a Universal Basic Income(UBI) coming?

a reply to: lakenheath24

Once ya freed upthe funds of all the corruption extortion bribery and shem sham a 25 dollar minimum wage is easy keeping cost of everything right where it is Finally folks will really like to go to work and do good work. Stand out of Trumps way or the ones that have been ruling the last 5000 years will have to take up residency on a barren moon.

a reply to: Lysergic

Possibly because even people on basic income contribute to the system allowing in to somewhat self perpetuate itself onward into indefinite continuation.

Or maybe we are breading stock, spare parts, future soldier colonists or generally a requirement to further there agenda?

It's interesting to ponder all the same.

originally posted by: lakenheath24
a reply to: andy06shake

Life after mankind has many scenarios where nuclear reactors are the last man made things to fail. It almost seems like we are charicatures of what we are creating....like we are gods ourselves. Yet we act like children. We are at once good and evil. It will be interesting to see if we allow ourselves to succumb to what the Bible says we should be...Jeezus like. I doubt it.

What if we were created in Gods image, and God is really just as much of a f up as all of us, so we see those flaws?

a reply to: Lysergic

I think it is a good idea, but like everything else it will be bastardized into something that is used to control people. BUT, I also thing people will find a way to abuse it, and ruin it.

a reply to: andy06shake

I didnt mean to go all Jesus. I am not very religious, but I try to subscribe to his notions. A couple good old Belgium Trappist beers seem to do that to me!

That was an excellent post, we teach our kids to play nice with others, then we grow up into the very things that we try to teach our kids not to be! Maybe it's a survival thing who knows, but we just can't seem to get away from this same pattern of peoples rising up, then getting destroyed. I think eventually we will go the way of our ancients and just go all stone age again.

a reply to: Aazadan

I've thought about that a lot. We share an awful lot of the same DNA as animals after all. The thing is, there seems to be about 10% of us who have a hate/war gene that keeps dragging us down. Then again, war seems to spawn some of our greatest advances! I dont get humans at all.

a reply to: lakenheath24

Its a stupid thing(what we do).

We seem doomed to repeat our historical mistakes, from one generation to the next, even when those past transgressions are recorded and etched in blood in to the very fabric of our history.

Organised religious practice in one form or another is directly responsible for more pain suffering and mass genocide than just about any other ailment that's afflicted humanity.

End of the day buddy its a nice concept at heart but has been perverted by Man, with all his fear and fallibility at play for the purposes of control.

That being said, stick to what you believe, whatever fills your cup or floats your boat because at the end of the day who knows what comes next?

Fact is we are simply not designed, posses the intellect, or even have the tools at our disposal to attempt to address what reality really constitutes never mind how it relates to our our consciousness.

Apparently everything moves in cycles/epochs so we may very well find ourselves back in the stone age, especially if we continue down the path in which we seem to be headed.

a reply to: andy06shake

Beer makes me happy. My local pub makes me happy. Watching England beat Italy in my pub while drinking real ale makes me reeeeeal happy!

Some interesting info from China:

Interview: China’s basic income movement

...What is different between Universal Basic Income and China’s Minimum Livelihood Guarantee (Dibao)？

Dibao is China’s Minimum Livelihood Guarantee program. Anyone with an income below the minimum can receive a supplementary income up to the standard. In this way, Dibao is unconditional: no one can take away someone’s right to the Dibao income. The Dibao only provides a grant to those that are below the Dibao income standard. Thus, the government must conduct strict evaluations of recipients’ economic situations, which creates a lot of implementation problems and issues of abuse. By contrast, Universal Basic Income provides the grant to every person, regardless of income. Moreover, China’s Dibao benefit has a large discrepancy across different regions, consistent with the regional economic inequality that China already faces. Here is more information for reference: China’s MCA.

China’s minimum income guarantee you’ve never heard of

...Back in the 1990s, China started experimenting with a minimum income guarantee that topped off incomes to a minimum level set by local governments. China called the program dibao, meaning minimum livelihood guarantee, expanding the program nationwide in 2007.

...A report by the World Bank found that for every 10 RMB spent on the dibao, only 1 to 2.4 RMB reached individuals in poverty (cited by the Economist). The World Bank also found the dibao program only lowered the poverty gap by 6.5 percent.

Corruption and inability to determine households’ poverty status have plagued the program. According to Lu Yang in the Indian Journal of Labour Economics, based on 2010 survey data only 21 percent of poor households were able to receive the dibao, while more than half of dibao recipients were above the poverty line.

I think one of the worst things we could possibly do is just give everyone currency.

There are other options, but our conversations in these arenas tends to focus on giving more money, or taking money away from, the established systems.

I think they key to success of something like a UBI is to provide the tools and resources to survive and thrive, rather than just the means to "but into" society.

Instead of food stamps, we would deliver an aquaponics system (for example). The initial cost may be higher, but the costs over time are significantly lower. The strength of a society that is independent and self-sufficient right down to the individual is immense.

Whether or not we have "money" is a lot more critical when we rely on such a middle man to survive. I think setting people up where they can meet their basic needs themselves creates a much different situation.

Of course, I'm a strong proponent of decentralization, so I'm more than a little biased.

a reply to: soficrow

That is interesting. It is sort of what happens to charity giving like Band Aid or Haiti. Most of the money gets skimmed off and those that really need it never see it. I wonder if that factored into their 6.5% gap in the poverty level?

If it cant work in a communist system, or a socialist system(Finland), then I just don't see how it could work in a capitalist one!

originally posted by: lakenheath24
a reply to: soficrow

That is interesting. It is sort of what happens to charity giving like Band Aid or Haiti. Most of the money gets skimmed off and those that really need it never see it. I wonder if that factored into their 6.5% gap in the poverty level?

If it cant work in a communist system, or a socialist system(Finland), then I just don't see how it could work in a capitalist one!

That's the point. China’s Minimum Livelihood Guarantee (Dibao) did not work because of all the bureaucratic involvement. In contrast, Universal Basic Income (UBI) cuts out all the interference and potential for corruption.

Interview: China’s basic income movement

...What is different between Universal Basic Income and China’s Minimum Livelihood Guarantee (Dibao)？

Dibao is China’s Minimum Livelihood Guarantee program. Anyone with an income below the minimum can receive a supplementary income up to the standard. In this way, Dibao is unconditional: no one can take away someone’s right to the Dibao income. The Dibao only provides a grant to those that are below the Dibao income standard. Thus, the government must conduct strict evaluations of recipients’ economic situations, which creates a lot of implementation problems and issues of abuse. By contrast, Universal Basic Income provides the grant to every person, regardless of income. Moreover, China’s Dibao benefit has a large discrepancy across different regions, consistent with the regional economic inequality that China already faces. Here is more information for reference: China’s MCA.

a reply to: Serdgiam

I see what you mean about money....it's really just a trickle up effect, which benefits WalMart specifically. The problem is that without job creation, and thus increasing the tax base, then you will eventually run out of money and just run up more deficits.

I personally agree with you on decentralization. The federal governments job is mainly protecting the borders and general oversight to correct problems. Giving everything back to the states and letting individual counties control their own budgets, including Social Security, retirements, etc, would be far more efficient than the feds. The problem there, is that poorer or rural counties would suffer. Also, firing all those feds would put half the country out of work!

a reply to: soficrow

Yes I see, but why should everyone get the UBI? There should be a cutoff. I could use it, but certainly don't need it. Also, Would it be taxed or just a grant? Will other programs be axed in order to afford it? Maybe that is what will happen when SSAN goes bankrupt.

a reply to: lakenheath24

I see money/currency as a middle man for items that have real value. Beyond being a good firestarter, it doesn't have any inherent worth. It is a useful representative tool, but it becomes easy to lose sight of "what's important."

In that, I think that terms like UBI or welfare should address the items of real value directly instead of through the proxy of currency. And beyond that, what is provided should ideally enable folks to continue meeting these needs on their own terms instead of a persistent, endless program.

I think the focus and approach to "jobs" might eventually become a relic, either intentionally or (more likely) the result of advancing technology. I strongly believe that preparing for this eventuality is more realistic than trying to stop or steer the unruly beast of the progression of our tools.

a reply to: Serdgiam

Currency is great. You just need controls on the currency and a per capita distribution system and simply living creates value.

Here's an article I wrote on the subject from a couple years ago
www.abovetopsecret.com...

It's a free market approach which functions on the idea that simply creating a demand for products is a commodity that can be monetized. Existence itself is a product that can provide enough revenue for food and shelter.

Here's another market based approach I came up with a few months ago
www.abovetopsecret.com...

This one is similar to your idea. Rather than provide people with welfare money, you provide them with assets that produce value. I took it one step further though. Why give someone a hydroponics farming system? That takes them out of the work force because it makes them into subsistence farmers. Instead, you make people shareholders in corporations that produce products. The dividends from those shares then provide income. In my example I used the machines that replace jobs. I think it would only be fair if the machines that put people out of work, are ultimately owned by the people. Turning us all into private contractors.

This idea has a couple holes in it that I haven't been able to answer though. Namely, if we're all private businessmen it's only natural that some of us make poor choices, get run out of business, and still end up needing help.

a reply to: Aazadan

Yup, I feel currency is a fantastic tool I just feel that it becomes far too easy to start revolving the entire conversation around money as if it is the item with real world value rather than an abstraction. Roughly similar to your proposals, I see a possibility of giving everyone earning potential directly from the societal system itself. Wherein a real-time algorithm would dispense currency according to work actually performed and contributions regardless of "employment status."

I read your threads previously, but we disagree on such a fundamental level that I didn't see much need to reply. Regardless, I think at least TALKING about these things is very good.

Being an advocate of decentralization, I'm sure you can guess why I wouldn't support many of those proposals.

I suppose the core concept for my thinking is "globalism through decentralization." Where our innate drive to create layers of abstraction gives more nuance across the board, right from the start. Importantly though, I feel that reexamining and even redefining our current layers is prudent, rather than simply adding more.

I don't see subsistence farming as a negative, nor do I hold the notion that its predominant popularity in developing nations as indicative of inferiority. With technology, we can leverage it in ways that are simply not feasible otherwise. Its in that distinction that I see success. In fact, I take it to a much more extreme level that doesn't just explore decentralizing food production, but production in general. Wherein, the "job market" is largely eschewed in favor of a focus on advancement. Simply put, I do not see it as optimal to force things to stay the same in order to maintain a sense of continuity. So, I do not see removing systems that meet basic needs from the job market as something to be avoided, but a simple eventuality that we already are marching towards.

On a core level though, I see the need for the face of the conversation to change pretty drastically. I suspect that things like "job market" will look immensely different than they do now and attempting to design anything around how it works now may be an exercise in futility. Not just futile, but it might even be detrimental if we find ourselves trapped in a hole we have dug when the landscape changes completely. I'm not sure that holding basic needs "hostage" in order to keep our definition of the job market the same is the best option.

Given my work in AI, automation, energy production, and integrated systems, I view things in a certain fashion. In this, it will take a lot more convincing before I would be willing to consider that our best option is a continuation of our current approach. I see some very real, very critical conflicts between our culture and technology that are only beginning to surface. I'm not sure it will do much good if we have a sense of ownership over a system that is metaphorically bashing our face in.

For all intents and purposes, when sentient systems are taking the jobs of sentient systems, a sense of ownership may be a level of abstraction that is more detrimental than beneficial. In our current state, it may be applicable but I see that changing whether we like it or not and sooner rather than later.

I know how these boards go, so I'm hoping you can understand I'm trying to give honest feedback. The concepts you propose probably dont appeal to me any more than mine appeal to you, but I think the discussion itself might be very important.

I'm not at all certain that my own ideas are "THE" solution. In fact, I envision a system that is so decentralized that what you describe could exist alongside my own ideas. Rather like how the states in the US were originally intentioned, but leveraged heavily with technology. Each system could then exchange and adopt ideas, trade, etc. enabled by widespread technological systems (like the internet).

The problem that I have is that I frequently conflate the goal with the process to get to that goal, in both my own words and others. I also don't expect any of what I have to say to actually make an impact. In that respect, I wouldn't be at all surprised to see ideas similar to yours come into play as a natural extension of our current system.

a reply to: Serdgiam

Interesting post...put gold has no intrinsic value either. You cant eat it or build a house with it. So what are you proposing? A bartering system maybe? UBI is just for basic subsistance and most people wish to go beyond that existance so that is the major concern really. How does one keep the masses employed, which is also to say, how does one keep billions of bodies busy doing something that others see as intrinsic value? If joe can only offer to mow the neighbors yard once a month....does that offer enough entrinsic value to sustain him and a family until the next job happens? IDK!

a reply to: Aazadan

The problem I see with your proposal is that it is nearly as unsustainable as our present system. Automation is killing jobs quickly, and there is nothing coming down the pipe to replace them. Owning a hydroponics system does nothing for a persons mental welfare when they cant raise a faily or sustain themselves.
Something radical does need to happen, an entire shift in philosophy. There will never be a new industry that requires mass amounts of manual labor again....ever. So we must figure out a way to find a new, sustainable system somehow.

Look at walstreet. its going nuts but why? The very premise of a public company is innovation to make more money. This means automation,which means firing the most expensive part of a business....human capital. Its a redundant system than cannot sustain itsself.

originally posted by: lakenheath24
a reply to: soficrow

Yes I see, but why should everyone get the UBI? There should be a cutoff. I could use it, but certainly don't need it. Also, Would it be taxed or just a grant? Will other programs be axed in order to afford it? Maybe that is what will happen when SSAN goes bankrupt.

Yes, there'd be a cutoff - so although everyone would get it, there'd be a (tax) clawback from those who don't qualify to keep it. It would replace ALL other social support programs. Simple, straight forward, no mess no fuss, no opps for corruption.