Universal Basic Income

[Freudian_Slit]

Or national basic income.

The worry is automation will render human efforts so obsolescent that universal basic income, or some other analogous remediation, will be necessary to maintain the social fabric.

The trend towards automation afflicts more than unskilled labor. In a poll of AI experts, the first discipline believed to make human efforts completely redundant by machine intelligence is mathematics (which could happen as early as the mid 2020s). Other highly skilled services on the cusp of automation include, but are not limited to, medical diagnosis and surgery, programming, and translation.

But I wonder if the adoption of universal basic income is actually a worry - something we ought to be fearful of. There have been, and continue to be, pilot programs around the world at all levels of government. So far they have produced human success stories.

5 people from around the world share what it's like to get free 'basic income'

Basic income is having quite the moment.

Essentially a salary paid to people just for being alive, the idea has taken hold as a straightforward, non-partisan means to reduce wealth inequality, lift people from poverty, and increase life satisfaction.

Basic income experiments are underway in a number of countries, including Finland, the US, and Kenya. Many more experiments are expected to begin in 2017.

 

[trysail]

...and the whole damn thing falls apart without massive amounts of affordable, dependable and reliable energy.

(and we ain't talkin' about pinwheels and sunshine— they ain't gonna cut the mustard)

​

​

 

[Freudian_Slit]

...and the whole damn thing falls apart without massive amounts of affordable, dependable and reliable energy.

(and we ain't talkin' about pinwheels and sunshine— they ain't gonna cut the mustard)

​

​

Longer term, I'd hazard to guess we're looking at mainly solar (with heaps of storage) and fusion, with a smattering of other renewables.

 

[Que]

Or national basic income.

The worry is automation will render human efforts so obsolescent that universal basic income, or some other analogous remediation, will be necessary to maintain the social fabric.

The trend towards automation afflicts more than unskilled labor. In a poll of AI experts, the first discipline believed to make human efforts completely redundant by machine intelligence is mathematics (which could happen as early as the mid 2020s). Other highly skilled services on the cusp of automation include, but are not limited to, medical diagnosis and surgery, programming, and translation.

But I wonder if the adoption of universal basic income is actually a worry - something we ought to be fearful of. There have been, and continue to be, pilot programs around the world at all levels of government. So far they have produced human success stories.

5 people from around the world share what it's like to get free 'basic income'

Basic income is having quite the moment.

Essentially a salary paid to people just for being alive, the idea has taken hold as a straightforward, non-partisan means to reduce wealth inequality, lift people from poverty, and increase life satisfaction.

Basic income experiments are underway in a number of countries, including Finland, the US, and Kenya. Many more experiments are expected to begin in 2017.

"Non-partisan" if you outlaw non-socialist parties.

Why should the owners of these robots decide to locate those robots someplace where they can be taxed to support an indolent population?

 

[Freudian_Slit]

"Non-partisan" if you outlaw non-socialist parties.

Why should the owners of these robots decide to locate those robots someplace where they can be taxed to support an indolent population?

Follow the trends. Even the Chinese are losing jobs to automation - structural unemployment by automation is regarded by economists as a dominant long term factor. It is easy to imagine that any developed economy will require something like UBI, long term.

 

[Que]

Follow the trends. Even the Chinese are losing jobs to automation - structural unemployment by automation is regarded by economists as a dominant long term factor. It is easy to imagine that any developed economy will require something like UBI, long term.

There is no such thing as a "developed economy."

China will have absolutely no problem simply letting people starve to maintain population control.

Regardless if you have the robots it would be far cheaper to find pick a country support their military to defend you from all others and produce your widgets and pocket the profits.

Spending money on advanced weaponry in the long run is a lot cheaper than a massive, ever-growing underclass.

 

[Freudian_Slit]

There is no such thing as a "developed economy."

China will have absolutely no problem simply letting people starve to maintain population control.

Regardless if you have the robots it would be far cheaper to find pick a country support their military to defend you from all others and produce your widgets and pocket the profits.

Spending money on advanced weaponry in the long run is a lot cheaper than a massive, ever-growing underclass.

Otherwise known as a developed market.

I have a more hopeful vision of the future, in which human rights violations are stamped out (generally if not completely), and most nations of the world enjoy a high human development index. This so happens to be the long term trend.

 

[LadyFunkenstein]

That Business Insider article conflates universal basic income - controlled by and doled out by The State - with receiving
free money from private charities/ citizens. That makes it intentionally dishonest. The question is, WHY are they being dishonest in their attempt to sell us on the idea?

 

[Freudian_Slit]

That Business Insider article conflates universal basic income - controlled by and doled out by The State - with receiving
free money from private charities/ citizens. That makes it intentionally dishonest. The question is, WHY are they being dishonest in their attempt to sell us on the idea?

That might be beside the intention of the article, which appears to be to explore the human angle on the recipients, regardless of the origin of the money. Was the author's voice used to refer to government programs in the article?

 

[LadyFunkenstein]

That might be beside the intention of the article, which appears to be to explore the human angle on the recipients, regardless of the origin of the money. Was the author's voice used to refer to government programs in the article?

Then it in fact is not about universal basic income. The very point of UBI is that it is provided by the government. The "human angle" as per using private donations as an example is not relevant.

This is intentional trickery as far as I am concerned. I am sure you consider yourself a person of reasonable intelligence, yet you did not notice you posted an article based on irrelevant anecdotes showing people who are happy to receive free money from private citizens and charities.

I personally would rather be beholden to my fellow man than to The State. Business Insider tricked you. They did it intentionally and with purpose. Otherwise they would not have used those bogus anecdotes. This trickery makes me highly suspicious on the UBI scheme.

 

[Freudian_Slit]

This is intentional trickery as far as I am concerned. I am sure you consider yourself a person of reasonable intelligence, yet you did not notice you posted an article based on irrelevant anecdotes showing people who are happy to receive free money from private citizens and charities.

On the contrary, I do not regard the anecdotes as irrelevant. One of the main criticisms against UBI is that such a scheme would encourage sloth, unproductivity, and disengagement from the economy. One of the stated purposes of these pilot programs (whether privately or publicly funded) is to provide case studies of how real people respond when given "free cash."

 

[LadyFunkenstein]

On the contrary, I do not regard the anecdotes as irrelevant. One of the main criticisms against UBI is that such a scheme would encourage sloth, unproductivity, and disengagement from the economy. One of the stated purposes of these pilot programs (whether privately or publicly funded) is to provide case studies of how real people respond when given "free cash."

What you regard simply is wrong.

 

[jaF0]

I think a better approach may be providing basic provisions. A housing allowance paid directly to the provider or bank/mortgage holder. Food and drink on an EBT/SNAP card type basis - usable only for groceries, no alcohol or tobacco. Same with medical and maybe clothing. In bigger urban areas with decent transit systems, a monthly transportation credit.

Maybe a smaller monthly cash/debit allowance to take care of the wants and desires.

I'm not sure a lump sum distribution would be the best. Too many don't know which bills need to be paid first.

 

[Phelia]

Richard Nixon proposed a Universal Basic Income bill - that's how obvious and non-partisan the idea was just a few decades ago. An honest investigation of the data from numerous experiments shows virtually none of the negatives (it will make people lazy, it will increase divorce, people will spend money irresponsibly, etc.), and that giving people money directly is both more effective and economical than a bloated welfare system with arbitrary rules meant to appease the "personal responsibility" morons. It is honestly a no-brainer that this is the next step for human progress.

Rutger Bregman makes the case beautifully, optimistically, and with boatloads of supporting data. I cannot recommend his book, Utopia for Realists, enough. Watch his TED talk.

 

[Phelia]

By the way, Nixon's bill was tanked by an Ayn Rand devotee who relied on two false pieces of information:

• An erroneous finding that the pilot program in the US led to an increase in divorce (it did not)
• An incorrect interpretation of the results of an earlier experiment from England

Instead, our reality is a stunning income and wealth disparity that is only growing wider.

 

[trysail]

Longer term, I'd hazard to guess we're looking at mainly solar (with heaps of storage) and fusion, with a smattering of other renewables.

Report Card

Mathematics Grade:
F

Physics Grade:
F




​

 

[Freudian_Slit]

What you regard simply is wrong.

C'est la vie.

 

[Freudian_Slit]

Report Card

Mathematics Grade:
F

Physics Grade:
F




​

Do you have a citation?

 

[Freudian_Slit]

I think a better approach may be providing basic provisions. A housing allowance paid directly to the provider or bank/mortgage holder. Food and drink on an EBT/SNAP card type basis - usable only for groceries, no alcohol or tobacco. Same with medical and maybe clothing. In bigger urban areas with decent transit systems, a monthly transportation credit.

Maybe a smaller monthly cash/debit allowance to take care of the wants and desires.

I'm not sure a lump sum distribution would be the best. Too many don't know which bills need to be paid first.

I think it's plausible we'll see a scheme like this, even if only as an evolutionary step towards UBI (if, in fact, we end up with UBI). National income might have the feel of health care, in the sense that for each national economy having universal coverage, each nation's solution has its own peculiarities and subtleties. I'd expect the solution in USA to look something like a collage.

Rutger Bregman makes the case beautifully, optimistically, and with boatloads of supporting data. I cannot recommend his book, Utopia for Realists, enough. Watch his TED talk.

Thanks for the link; I'll be watching it later.

 

[Phelia]

Then it in fact is not about universal basic income. The very point of UBI is that it is provided by the government. The "human angle" as per using private donations as an example is not relevant.

This is intentional trickery as far as I am concerned. I am sure you consider yourself a person of reasonable intelligence, yet you did not notice you posted an article based on irrelevant anecdotes showing people who are happy to receive free money from private citizens and charities.

I personally would rather be beholden to my fellow man than to The State. Business Insider tricked you. They did it intentionally and with purpose. Otherwise they would not have used those bogus anecdotes. This trickery makes me highly suspicious on the UBI scheme.

Can you cite a single definition that supports this? Cuz I think you just tricked yourself, you psychotic witch.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Essentially a salary paid to people just for being alive, the idea has taken hold as a straightforward, non-partisan means to reduce wealth inequality, lift people from poverty, and increase life satisfaction.

Non partisan lol it just so happens to be STAUNCHLY leftist.

It is easy to imagine that any developed economy will require something like UBI, long term.

Define "developed economy" and then tell me why a UBI is needed long term for it to exist.

Can you cite a single definition that supports this? Cuz I think you just tricked yourself, you psychotic witch.

Who else is going to provide it?

Name one other entity where a national UBI will come from.

 

[LadyFunkenstein]

I think a better approach may be providing basic provisions. A housing allowance paid directly to the provider or bank/mortgage holder. Food and drink on an EBT/SNAP card type basis - usable only for groceries, no alcohol or tobacco. Same with medical and maybe clothing. In bigger urban areas with decent transit systems, a monthly transportation credit.

Maybe a smaller monthly cash/debit allowance to take care of the wants and desires.

I'm not sure a lump sum distribution would be the best. Too many don't know which bills need to be paid first.

We already have this; it is called welfare. You seek to expand it to everyone. (I am not saying that is wrong; just calling it for what it is.)

 

[Phelia]

Non partisan lol it just so happens to be STAUNCHLY leftist.



Define "developed economy" and then tell me why a UBI is needed long term for it to exist.



Who else is going to provide it?

Name one other entity where a national UBI will come from.

Hmmm, maybe any of the other institutions mentioned in the BI article that's in question, you sputtering maroon.

Again, Richard Nixon proposed UBI decades ago. In no world is he "STAUNCHLY leftist." Read a fuckin book.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

Otherwise known as a developed market.

I have a more hopeful vision of the future, in which human rights violations are stamped out (generally if not completely), and most nations of the world enjoy a high human development index. This so happens to be the long term trend.

An economy would not be either "developed" or a "market" if people were not involved in exchanging personal effort or intelligence (labor) for goods and services (product) to be sold for profit. "Money," whether one keeps it or gives it away, is merely a manner in which to "score" the efficiency of the labor-product-profit cycle.

Richard Nixon proposed a Universal Basic Income bill - that's how obvious and non-partisan the idea was just a few decades ago. An honest investigation of the data from numerous experiments shows virtually none of the negatives (it will make people lazy, it will increase divorce, people will spend money irresponsibly, etc.), and that giving people money directly is both more effective and economical than a bloated welfare system with arbitrary rules meant to appease the "personal responsibility" morons. It is honestly a no-brainer that this is the next step for human progress.

Rutger Bregman makes the case beautifully, optimistically, and with boatloads of supporting data. I cannot recommend his book, Utopia for Realists, enough. Watch his TED talk.

The real success in the Dauphin experiment as recounted by Bregman is in the fact that the guaranteed income was truly "basic" and, thus, the people "did not give up their jobs."

Wealth has to be generated by something or somebody. I suppose a fully automated future is theoretically possible wherein the only thing humans have to do is chose their favorite companies in which to invest. I don't think that's a realistic expectation for even the youngest of us alive today.

 

[Freudian_Slit]

Define "developed economy" and then tell me why a UBI is needed long term for it to exist.

Developed economy, or developed market, is defined in the link I provided earlier. I never made the assertion that UBI is needed long term for a state of developed market to exist. What I implied was, developed markets are more likely to have higher levels of automation.