Is a Universal Basic Income(UBI) coming?

a reply to: soficrow

I could be persuaded for such a plan. It would have to be alongside a VAT tax though, and eliminate SSAn tax.

a reply to: Serdgiam

We seem to agree in principal. The idea is that we can make welfare actually sustianable if we give some sort of goods that actually produce and create recurring value rather than consumable goods that only vanish into nothingness. How to do that differs a bit between us such as what types of goods and the distribution mechanism but on the base idea we agree. That tends to make me think there's something to it if both of us, who have very different world views still see the same basic concept as the answer.

a reply to: lakenheath24
It depends on what you consider manual labor. We're not going to need a bunch of people to lift heavy things, but I spend all day already drawing on whiteboards, inventing algorithms, and trying to make sense of systems. It's not the sort of thing that can be automated away but it's still definitely labor and it tires both the body and mind.

Wall Street is an interesting system. The engineer side of my mind looks at it and says there's a pattern behind it that can be derived and that's reinforced by the fact that I see a professional investor class who is able to profit from day trading. The more practical side of me looks into the success rates of being a day trader and sees rampant failure. Then I look to small scale algorithmic trading and again see massive failure. It works on a large scale with access to better information such as HFT's, but the ordinary person doesn't have that access. From what I've seen, the best way to beat the Wall Street casino is to play the averages. The best fund managers in the world can only beat the market average in a good year. But any ordinary person can beat the average with a mostly unmanaged fund with enough diversification. Put in money as diversified as it can get, and just let it sit there and appreciate year after year. Don't get involved with fees to manage the money, and don't manage it yourself. Spread it out and let it do it's thing. This is almost guaranteed to get you average returns year after year.

originally posted by: lakenheath24
I could be persuaded for such a plan. It would have to be alongside a VAT tax though, and eliminate SSAn tax.

The usual implementations for such a plan are that it replaces all other welfare based taxes.

a reply to: Aazadan

Well my OP says that 50% of jobs will be automated in 10 years and there is no way in hell that the world is planning for that.
In fact, I think that is the ugly elephant in the room. Not Trump, not russia, not terrorism....its unemployment. Humans are becoming a burden to humans.
There is nothing coming down the pipe to re-employ all the manual workers being replaced every day. In fact the fast food peeps are doing it already.
uk.businessinsider.com...

Remember when a fast food job was for high schoolers? Now it supports a family. I have seen this in the military with ranks. SSgt's do Airmans jobs. Tsgt's do SSgt Jobs and so on. Bachelor degree's are the equivalent of H.S diplomas. Everything and everyone is becoming diluted. It's a serious problem.

originally posted by: lakenheath24
a reply to: Aazadan

Well my OP says that 50% of jobs will be automated in 10 years and there is no way in hell that the world is planning for that.
In fact, I think that is the ugly elephant in the room. Not Trump, not russia, not terrorism....its unemployment. Humans are becoming a burden to humans.
There is nothing coming down the pipe to re-employ all the manual workers being replaced every day. In fact the fast food peeps are doing it already.
uk.businessinsider.com...

Remember when a fast food job was for high schoolers? Now it supports a family. I have seen this in the military with ranks. SSgt's do Airmans jobs. Tsgt's do SSgt Jobs and so on. Bachelor degree's are the equivalent of H.S diplomas. Everything and everyone is becoming diluted. It's a serious problem.

Nail on the head stuff.




PS. I suspect public education on this topic (and its implications) is avoided because it brings out the Luddites and polarizes discussion. Sad that. People do not seem to know how to discuss things any more. Virtually every topic is viewed as a poll. For or against. No delving, ferreting or probing. Like I said, sad.

a reply to: soficrow

I wish i could sit in on one of those so called think tanks to see if anyone really knows the deal or if it really is just smoke and mirrors. I fear its the latter. I mean can one even trust an economist after 08?

a reply to: lakenheath24

Hmm, I missed some responses here. Sorry about that

First, we will have to disagree on gold having no intrinsic value. We might be defining it differently, but gold is useful in everything from various conductors to jewelry. I am not looking at intrinsic value as whether or not someone else "likes" something.

I think a barter system can coincide with any economy that doesn't explicitly forbid it, as such, there is no need to establish it "officially" but it should probably be kept in mind all the same.

A possibility that I see is to meet basic needs directly, where "basic need" is defined as "those items and services whose cost for their mass dissemination is negated by the net benefit of their inclusion."

So, that would go much further than just food and shelter. I have pretty distinct reasons for defining it this way, but there is little need to delve into it.

Basically, I would like whatever system that is put into place to enable people to meet their own basic needs on a persistent basis. This would also require re-examining connected topics, but I don't think that's a bad thing.

Coupled with that would be a UBI type system that leverages technology in order to change everything from earning potential to the employee/employer relationship. Technology makes many things feasible that were nearly (or completely) impossible only decades earlier. In short, it would be a basic algorithm that updates pay in real time depending on local requirements, societal impact, etc. Its a whole topic itself, and probably quite controversial at that, so no need to go into much depth.

I think fighting the advancement of technology is the definition of a losing battle, which leaves the only option to build a system from the ground up that not only has that tech in mind, but potentiates it for our benefit instead of our detriment.

Basically, I feel that regardless of what we would "like," changing our society and economy is a vastly superior, more realistic option than attempting to stop the growth of technology. Neither is "easy" though.

a reply to: Aazadan

I completely agree.

In fact, I think its going to become more and more necessary. I don't feel we have really advanced much beyond feudalism. Sure, we may dress it up a bit differently and it might manifest with a bit more diversity, but at its core its pretty much the same system. I'd go even further and claim it hasn't meaningfully changed since the agricultural revolution, but that would probably require more explanation and really, its not that important.

This "technology stuff" really changes things in ways that I don't think our current and past systems are capable of accommodating. Its a problem that will likely only get worse, but I think if we have the presence of mind to consciously design it that not only can we prevent "disaster," but we could come out on the other side in a better place than we are now.

Much like you, I have put a not so insignificant amount of time and effort into the topic. Given my areas of expertise and my life situation, I will inevitably have a certain view that attempts to solve things in a way that concerns myself and others in similar situations.

The vast majority of my effort and resources have to go towards survival. I doubt I am alone in that, even if my exact situation is unique, and in my mind that is not only detrimental to me personally, but it limits how and what I might contribute to society.

I've made extensive use of AI (of my own design) to mitigate my circumstances, and that really colors what I think would be the "best" way to take advantage of that on a national, or even global scale.

Frankly, much of it is immensely frustrating for me, and I think we can change that. I don't know if I will ever share much of it on ATS, but the applications and inventions I have designed changes my outlook greatly and instead of just working with what we have (so to speak) I feel that a from-the-ground-up redesign that works towards an ideal is the best course.

I take a good amount of inspiration from Buckminster Fuller and think he was on to something with concepts like the Dymaxion House even if I also feel most of the specifics are obsolete.

Basically, I have two major considerations; What system would enable people like me to contribute to society on a consistent, "easy" basis and are there superior alternatives to the "monetization" of basic needs to drive an economy?

I think a major factor is also looking at how we satiate greed, and if our current culture and outlook are really the best method. In short (ironic, with my average post length ), I think there are vastly superior options that are glossed over since they appear unintuitive in the current paradigm.

a reply to: Serdgiam

Personally, I would like to hear your options. I may be conservative in that I believe no able bodied person should be paid to sit on their ass, but I am also not so obtuse that I do not recognize the current situation and the obsurdity that companies "make money" by reducing costs, AKA human capital. This concept is finite....there will be a point where so few people have a capacity to consume beyond their most basic needs, that the system will implode on itself.

I must scoff, however, at the notion of an "employee/employer relationship". At least publicly owned companies. Case in point is Martha Stewart. She had her own namesake stolen FFS!

Anyway, thankfully, this thread has not attracted the name-calling crazies most others have had, so I would entertain even the so called craziest of ideas on how humans contribute to society in the not so distant future. Because unless someone invents the hyper-drive warp speed engine so we can build a space battleship fleet to go and spread our good will to the infinity of space, then we re stuck on the little blue orb with not a whole lot of sustainability to look forward to.

a reply to: lakenheath24

Apparently, it depends what you call it. Of interest...

Nearly 50% of Americans Favor a Universal Basic Income

...A UBI system could be the best, most practical way to deal with the widespread unemployment likely to follow the continued automation of jobs currently held by people.

...Further support for UBI could hinge on how it is presented. The survey found that referring to the program as “social security for all” was received more favorably than when it was called universal basic income. However it is framed, UBI must be carefully considered as a realistic way to deal with the massive unemployment on the horizon due to the rise of automation.

It will come to pass with automation, as it already is. But the government isn't going to send everybody a check for $3,000 a month.

Free housing. Think housing projects.
Free food in the form of credit cards. Think food stamps.
Free medical. Think Medicaid.
Free clothes. Think voucher to Walmart.
Free utilities. Already checks for supplementing those.
Free education. Think vouchers and stipends.
Free cell phones. Already got them.
State credit cards for gas in the card, with limits.

Maybe a check for a couple of hundred dollars on top of that for pocket change. Change the name to Basic Income, remove the stigma, and voila. There's your UBI. The wealthy need not apply.

a reply to: soficrow

That is very interesting! Here is a further quote "Once respondents were given some specifics on the policy, support eroded. The aspects that were least favorable included not having the money tied to work, full autonomy with regard to how the money is to be spent, and that the funds for the program would come from tax revenue".

A lot of people are going to have a hard time with giving their taxes to some "lazy" person, myself included. I have to be honest, that would grate on me. HOWEVER, if it was tied to corporate profits somehow...as in make the robots pay income tax, then I think that would be palatable.

I would like to see the payments being tied to a specific amount of hours given to some charity type service though. It has to be dressed up so as not to be seen as charity. It is interesting to know that this is being discussed at the presidential level. I wish I could see the specifics of that survey as well....especially their fiscal leanings.

originally posted by: lakenheath24
a reply to: soficrow

That is very interesting! Here is a further quote "Once respondents were given some specifics on the policy, support eroded. The aspects that were least favorable included not having the money tied to work, full autonomy with regard to how the money is to be spent, and that the funds for the program would come from tax revenue".

Mmmm hmmm. And still got almost 50% support with a big chunk 'uncertain.'

A lot of people are going to have a hard time with giving their taxes to some "lazy" person, myself included. I have to be honest, that would grate on me. HOWEVER, if it was tied to corporate profits somehow...

I don't think it can or should be gleaned from personal income taxes. Corporate is the only way to go - no more free rides.

I would like to see the payments being tied to a specific amount of hours given to some charity type service though. It has to be dressed up so as not to be seen as charity.

I have more faith in humankind -and the research- than you do. People do not have to be forced to be useful - they seek it. But I'd stipulate that you count education.

a reply to: angeldoll

We are all going to have to re-think our most basic thoughts about the economy and how we view others I think, in order for this thing to work on a global scale. I would like to see the numbers if we changed our SSAN system to a UBI system, BUT, anyone making over $500K a year would be ineligible to draw it, ever.

Also, who is going to get it? College kids? I would say only families below the poverty line, possibly. This is going to be soooooooo complicated. I wonder if any government people are working on it?

a reply to: lakenheath24

Well, I don't want to hijack the thread with some comprehensive "lecture." One of the issues is that just throwing a UBI at things, without considering the whole topic, may be more harmful than helpful. To me, that means its such a big topic that it quickly becomes unwieldy and may very well be one of the biggest stumbling blocks when it comes to getting somewhere on the topic.

In regards of UBI though, I think a solution is twofold; Address truly basic needs like food/shelter and provide an income option on top of that.

The first allows us to no longer "need" a UBI for survival, which allows us to do some creative things with the pay side of things that can benefit everyone.

My own answer to this was to design a house, roughly 1400 sqft. that is low cost. Overall cost is projected at $20k, but I think that could be reduced dramatically with mass production.

The trick was to make it a nice place to live. I made use of my own designs and devices to accomplish that. Nearly everything is automated, everything from the HVAC system to aquaponics and each of those systems are of my own design.

The HVAC, for example, makes use of connected modules rather than a typical central system. The central "brain" monitors each area, and individual modules supply hot or cold air as needed per area and it learns how best to do that as time goes on (so, it doesn't need different software for different climates or preferences) . An advantage here is that the modules can also just move air, so if one area is hotter it will balance that out THEN examine whether further heating/cooling is needed. This also connects to the windows, to take advantage of that. It will automatically open specific windows to make use of wind direction and house location.

There is even a home theater with a 120" projector screen (lol), which I was able to accomplish by designing speakers, etc. myself.

Obviously leaving a lot out there, but hopefully that builds a bit of an image of what I'm talking about. I'm trying to walk the line of giving enough info to be meaningful, but not so much as to inundate the thread. A balance that I'm just not very good at

Now, the UBI takes on a bit different position, but I think it still has a place. We no longer need to consider it in terms of the needs of individuals, which IMO, opens up some pretty cool options.

The best I've come up with is making use of technology and communication systems to have a real-time system that distributes pay as work is performed, rather than in set chunks of hours, days, or weeks.

Instead of being a specific pay per unit of time put in, the pay received would be dictated by an algorithm that can be adjusted according to everything from local need to societal impact.

So, if say, a pothole on a major road has become highly problematic, that part of the algorithm can be adjusted to expedite it. Anyone who can do the job, and do it well, is acceptable all they have to do is go do it. One day, someone may decide to fill potholes and then the next, work on helping people with their aquaponics systems and both would generate income without having to change employers or anything like that.

Importantly, there would be a modifier for impact in the "social chain." So, if an individual comes up with a device that becomes widely adopted (like a computer), everyone who contributed to that process would receive varying levels of income for as long as it is relevant. If you helped someone eat when they couldn't, and they went on to do great things because of it, that would be reflected in your "pay."

I'm leaving a lot out, but there are some serious issues with this system as well. One would be that out of necessity, everyone in a given society would be connected to technology in pretty invasive ways. I hold the opinion that all of our tools (from the humble hammer to the internet) can be used in ways that span the spectrum from great to horrible. While a system like I describe would be on the "good" side, the system itself could be used to deeply nefarious ends. That stands true for things even as they are now, but I feel that it introduces a type of individual and group responsibility that we usually don't really consider.

For that very reason, I think changing how we look at satiating greed is almost a requirement for anything we do from here. Personally, I don't see greed as inherently "bad," but the way we approach it leads to some problems (to say the least).

Trying to stay away from batsh!t crazy length here.. but to summarize my thoughts: instead of satisfying that thirst by proxy (money or even power), we should look at it in terms of actual improvements to quality of life. This is the end goal of "money and power" anyway (the ability to improve ones quality of life at will), but taking out the middle man injects some reality into the situation. For one, holding back technology in order to maximize profit in currency begins to look as absurd as it really is. That increased currency is to gain the ability to increase niceties, ease of life, quality of life, etc. but in approaching it in the way we do, we end up greatly limiting the end result.

In essence, we end up shooting ourselves in the foot and directly making life more difficult for every class in existence, all in order to generate a higher "score." It'd be like if we were dealing with a carnival where we spent ALL of our resources on making tickets, but there are no prizes to actually get with those tickets because we put everything into the currency (tickets).

We may feel great about our vast amount of paper stubs, but we have created a situation where its not nearly as meaningful .

Ill stop there, might not appear this way, but this is all the short version But, like Aazadan and I were talking about, I think this is all an important conversation to have and we have the opportunity to really change "the game." Since we are faced with a situation where its changing whether we like it or not, why not at least examine other possibilities?

a reply to: soficrow

That is true, but it's imperative to know how the survey was conducted, was the 47% approval rating taken before or after the details were given? What are the demographics of the participants? What were the questions? It makes a big difference to how people answer a question truthfully or not. Also, 500 people is a pretty small sample.

I am glad you have faith in people....I feel bad that I do not. I tried, but, who knows, maybe its this info age where you get whacked with bad news 24/7. I can't remember the last time when I saw any good news!!!!!!!!!

a reply to: Serdgiam

This thread was created in the hopes of some genuine input for solutions...so thank you. Those houses you describe are like the post WW 2 Levitt houses....the ones that started the suburb phenomenon.
www.nytimes.com...
These could be built with 3D tech for pretty cheap. With that said, even if you gave them away, there is still utilities, taxes and insurance to pay, so one would assume that a normal family of 4 would cost $1500 per month. If one adds $250 a week for discretionary spending, then that is a $2500 a month cost to taxpayers, per family. My question then becomes, what meaningful work could the occupant do to recoup that money to those providing the service. aka the taxpayer. If the money is not recouped, it just becomes deficit spending. I hate to paint it that way, but we are just digits really.

Lets face it, UBI is a tool to sedate certain portions of the populace with just enough money to provide some sense of security. But, without meaningful employment, there is no fulfillment. People want to contribute to society, but automation is not going to allow that, so what happens when the population far exceeds the availability of jobs? Hydroponics and gardening and the like will not allow people to prosper, nor will it provide the satisfaction. If anything it will create a caste system.


The post WW2 GI bill provided a boom in educational directions like this country had never seen, we need another program like that, but I am not certain todays circumstances would provide the same catalyst as that original GI Bill had.

a reply to: lakenheath24

Like I said, the issue is that this is an extremely expansive topic. So, a comprehensive change is almost a necessity if we are looking at changing even a single part too dramatically. Because of that, I'm not sure its the best approach to judge ideas based on how they would fit into the current paradigm. In fact, I think that is a major issue. At least as it concerns my own ideas, everything is carefully hinged on everything else. I feel that is exactly how it exists now too, its just the structure they are supporting is changing beyond the original specs.

Rather, I think its more appropriate to figure out how to make good ideas work, even if it requires changes to tangential aspects. In the past, these things all tended to be worked out along the way, but I think we are in a unique position to avoid some of the growing pains that approach incurs. I doubt we actually will, mind you, but we are in a position to avoid it all the same.

The houses were definitely inspired by Buckminster Fuller, but not so much Levitt. I think (hope?) I mentioned that, as I feel there is a lot to be examined there. Especially because it tends to get lost in history, so to speak. Crucially though, while it is inspired by some of the concepts, everything from the execution to the specifics are completely different.

When I talk about mass production, I am not referring to production of the house as a unit in factories. Its also contradictory to the idea of decentralization, so I am distinctly avoiding it! Rather, it would be taking advantage of mass production by buying in bulk, in a way that is easy to keep up with demand using the typical business approaches.

The houses are designed to be self-sufficient in literally every way. Much like Fuller though, chances for implementation dwindle when our economy is based on the very forces that preclude true advancement and innovation. That's why I have stressed the need to move away from that in general so adamantly. Monetization of everything from mortgages to basic needs are fundamental to stability. However, given the inevitable changes coming down the line, I feel its critically important to prop everything up with items that will not be crumbling under the weight of the massive changes in the near future. Given that we have always waited until those things are failing, I look at these things more like fiction than a plan of action. Even if I do have most of it realized and operational, I have absolutely no intentions of sharing much of it (much less starting a business) unless I actually see demand alongside the changes which will enable success. That might be one of the most important aspects in understanding where I'm coming from. I can explain further, but I'm not sure its particularly relevant.

As for the universal income specifically.. if you are interested, I would encourage you to reread my previous post as I dedicated several paragraphs to how I would personally implement a UBI to coincide with the other systems. It was a long post, so probably easy to miss. But.. uh.. it was actually the majority of the post!

No I read it all! Basically, the more one contributes to society, the more one gets "paid". It sounds terribly generic, like on the Pink Floyd movie The Wall, where everybody is nameless and faceless, marching toward the meat grinder.

I see you are trying to take care of peoples basic needs, so that anything they make through some kind of labor, becomes like disposable income, but it feels like my Granddads stories of working coal mines and being a slave to the company store.

I will have to think about that concept some more.

The one thing I am not sure of in your post is decentralizing. Do you mean breaking thing down into communities instead of this global connection? You mentioned mass production is all and that if anything is centralized.
Thanks!

Lets say this really takes place and robots take over 75% of all jobs.

Those who haven't a job, will be forced to reinvent themselves and create products the 'robotic industry' can't. Personalized products, things you can't buy from a store will become the new Vogue thing to do.

If people invest the money they're given, wisely, they'll come up with something. People are inventive, they will always come up with an idea no one's heard of or if changed enough will appear new. People in the future may even rebel against the Industry and bring it to it's knees.

a reply to: lakenheath24

I suppose that's one way to look at it In that light, I suppose its not at all different from how it is now.

In practice, I'm not sure "income" can be much different. Either we just give it to everyone, since the system can't support them otherwise, or focus on a merit-based system that is leveraged in a few ways.

The way I see it, we are "bricks in a wall." By sheer numbers alone, a level of abstraction needs to be introduced in our perspectives and that inevitably leads to depersonalization. But, I don't think that means the system can't be equitable. I think its about accepting certain realities and working to balance the individual with the group. This all ties in with my thoughts about the decentralization too.

Basically, I strongly feel that dependence on a system which will always be depersonalizing, innately, is a bad thing. We cant really change the nature of numbers and our perceptive limits, but there are areas that can be changed. I'd also like to see a society that has the greatest amount of stability even if the system "officially" collapses.

In regards to the decentralization, most will automatically look at it as some groups beginning to live in isolation. However, with technology, we are able to decentralize while increasing connectivity. A decentralized system is much, much more stable than a centralized one. When specific areas are hit by hard times, others are in a position to negate that loss. With food production, for instance, a repeat of the dustbowl, or worse, would be devastating. Not just to the US, but to the world. This centralized system is not capable of the same output when a major node is taken down. This creates great susceptibility in everything from natural disasters to terrorism. In many ways, we have had good luck, but that wont last forever.

I feel its an unnecessary weakness, and a very, very serious one at that. Though, it wasn't particularly feasible to change it until recently (last few decades).

Instead of increasing isolation, this is about dispersing "nodes" in the same system. As a concept, it can be expanded even further to things like innovation. Instead of centralizing innovations into a select few organizations (willingly or not..), access is given on the basis that progress is significantly more efficient when it is its own end goal rather than as a fulcrum for a societal proxy (currency).

The disadvantages of centralization have been overlooked out of necessity. A decentralized paradigm just wasn't reasonable, but my argument is that that is no longer the case.

I think when it comes down to it, the wisest approach is to devise a foundation for further growth rather than trying to come up with an idealized, "perfect" system. As a species, we have a tendency to do the latter and we end up mired in inaction and never actually working towards that ideal. Its self-defeating on a lot of levels, and that I think can be changed regardless of what systems we do (or don't) adopt.