Support NeoGAF

[Elektro Demon]

So, with all the ongoing automation, AI, machine learning, it's inevitable that at some point in the future there will be no jobs, at least not for the majority of people on the planet.
But how are people supposed to make money? The only solution is the universal basic income.
I personally know that this won't be a thing in my time, but for future generations it might be.
Imo, it's a great thing. My life dream, really. To sit at home, do nothing and get payed. Now that's life.
So, what is your opinion on UBI? Is it a feasible thing at some point?

Spoiler

THEY TOOK OUR JERBS!!!!!!!!!

 

[-Arcadia-]

Whatever solution is found, I don’t think it will be to let humans absolve all responsibility, and stay in a childlike state forever.

it’s not good for society. It’s not good for individuals. Anyone who’s been out of work, or dated someone in that predicament, for a long time, knows the effect it has on the mind.

 

[Greedings]

Any one who says something is inevitable is inevitably an idiot.

We have no fucking clue what the world is going to look like in 10 years. Buying into a solution that's trying to deal with a problem that doesn't even exist is dumb. UBI is purely an ideological thing, there's no problem with jobs at the moment.

Look at the unemployment stats over the past 8 years:

The trend for automation is increasing, and has been but unemployment numbers are down. Hmmm, I wonder why socialists people are pushing UBI?

 

[Elektro Demon]

Any one who says something is inevitable is inevitably an idiot.
The trend for automation is increasing, and has been but unemployment numbers are down. Hmmm, I wonder why socialists people are pushing UBI?

Laziness.
But you can argue it, it is a thing that will happen. Probably a 100 years from now but it's gonna happen bro.
Not all jobs will be extinct, but majority will. Probably physical labor. And what do you expect those people to do? Some people aren't cut out for mental/office work.

 

[DESTROYA]

And where’s all this money supposed to come from? I mean if less people work you get less tax money to spread around.

 

[Elektro Demon]

And where’s all this money supposed to come from? I mean if less people work you get less tax money to spread around.

Well, if machines are making things, plowing the fields and stuff, then our current system has no sense.
It would require a complete overhaul of the current financial system.

 

[DESTROYA]

Well, if machines are making things, plowing the fields and stuff, then our current system has no sense.
It would require a complete overhaul of the current financial system.

Your crazy if you think the government is going to tax you less as years progress, it’s the other way around.

 

[Dontero]

The trend for automation is increasing, and has been but unemployment numbers are down.

Because AI automation is yet to attack any big sector. Right now it only is in testing phase and progress is rapid.
And we are not talking here about only low wage workers. We are talking here about threat to ANY kind of job even things like art which for longest time were thought as un-replacable by machines.

Just 5 years ago if you would talk to me about replacing human voices and logical reasoning to respond someone, artist painting etc i would call you crazy.

Right now i use AI myself when it comes to upresing low res artist work for modding ( i head MHXX texture project), you can right now tell machine to pain your black and white manga and right now i can call helpdesk of telecom in Poland (orange) and AI will answer me instead of living person.

In 5 years we went from, NAH it won't be that fast to "It is already here" and holy shit it will replace even artists.

 

[Elektro Demon]

Your crazy if you think the government is going to tax you less as years progress, it’s the other way around.

You can't have 70 % of people unemployed and without money. Not even the government can calm them down. There would be mass riots and murders.

 

[Greedings]

Laziness.
But you can argue it, it is a thing that will happen. Probably a 100 years from now but it's gonna happen bro.
Not all jobs will be extinct, but majority will. Probably physical labor. And what do you expect those people to do? Some people aren't cut out for mental/office work.

This is what I'm talking about. You have no clue. No one does. Just because jobs you know of are no longer there, doesn't mean that other jobs won't exist. Creative destruction.

UBI is a socialist's wet dream. Let's wait and see how things change before prematurly eating a giant Marxist dick.

Because AI automation is yet to attack any big sector. Right now it only is in testing phase and progress is rapid.
And we are not talking here about only low wage workers. We are talking here about threat to ANY kind of job even things like art which for longest time were thought as un-replacable by machines.

Just 5 years ago if you would talk to me about replacing human voices and logical reasoning to respond someone, artist painting etc i would call you crazy.

Right now i use AI myself when it comes to upresing low res artist work for modding ( i head MHXX texture project), you can right now tell machine to pain your black and white manga and right now i can call helpdesk of telecom in Poland (orange) and AI will answer me instead of living person.

In 5 years we went from, NAH it won't be that fast to "It is already here" and holy shit it will replace even artists.

You're kinda making my point. We don't know what will happen in 5 years, let alone 10. People can only interpret things based on what we already know. We don't know what AI will do in the job market, because we still don't know the limits of AI.

My point isn't that AI isn't a thing and will never happen. My point is that it will be such a big revolution, we have no way of knowing what it will do. Saying UBI is the answer is incredibly short sighted and purely ideologically driven.
There could be other answers, and I'm sure jobs won't evaporate. Look at the UK economy, 84% of jobs in the UK are service industry. No one is making shit with their hands, nor have they been for the past 20 years. There are kiosks in McDonalds in the UK too, but still 84% of people work in the service industry.
It's likely more economies will move in that direction while AI takes over the manual stuff, and it's likely new jobs and entirely new industries will spring up with the AI revolution. What happens when AI starts taking over creative and intellectual stuff? I can't even imagine, but it's a terrifying thought, to be essentially pets kept by machines.
Do you think people thought about working in factories 50 years before the industrial revolution? They couldn't even imagine those jobs, just like we can't imagine the jobs that will be there when AI is a thing.

 

[Elektro Demon]

Well, Greedings , you're wrong. People before the industrial revolution weren't educated like people are today. We can predict what will happen.
What jobs could the AI revolution possibly create? It can only create more white collar jobs. I'm talking about blue collar people. Their jobs are likely to be extinct with this AI revolution.
And when that happens, you expect a hardworking plumber/electrician/trucker to program AI and similar stuff? Yeah, not likely.
The thing is, AI will destroy more jobs then it creates new ones. And I believe that's a fact. That's why UBI is the solution.

 

[Dontero]

My point isn't that AI isn't a thing and will never happen. My point is that it will be such a big revolution, we have no way of knowing what it will do. Saying UBI is the answer is incredibly short sighted and purely ideologically driven.

UBI is only a BANDAID. It is not a solution. It is a thing that is supposed to buy us time when we transition.
No one ever said that UBI will fix anything.

UBI idea is a thing because THERE ARE NO BETTER IDEAS right now.

UBI is a socialist's wet dream.

Except UBI is oposed by socialists and welcomed by libertarians.

UBI is direct transfer of money without almost government input which means extremely efficient into hands of people who are in rural areas. It is not production of money but wealth redistribution. It is not perfect and has its issue but like i said above it far better than any other social program there is.

If you want to have any social program UBI is best version of social program because it direclty improves lives of the poorest with maximum efficiency.

 

[DunDunDunpachi]

I prefer to go out and get all that "extra" money myself instead of the gov't dole.

If UBI is actually sustainable (it isn't, but let's pretend) it means that there's enough money floating around out there in the ether to not only distribute to everyone, but also to pay for the massive, bloated bureaucratic artifice that will be necessary to "fairly" distribute it, handle disputes, and so forth.

Meanwhile, all these stupid businesses have been struggling and suffering against much tighter margins! Dumb capitalists. Let the gov't handle the money and you'll see how much extra is left over.

For every 1000 they hand out, they'll be putting 2000 into the pockets of a bureaucrat along the chain. Not a good bargain for the taxpayer. Great bargain for the political party that leverages the idea.

 

[Greedings]

Well, Greedings , you're wrong. People before the industrial revolution weren't educated like people are today. We can predict what will happen.
What jobs could the AI revolution possibly create? It can only create more white collar jobs. I'm talking about blue collar people. Their jobs are likely to be extinct with this AI revolution.
And when that happens, you expect a hardworking plumber/electrician/trucker to program AI and similar stuff? Yeah, not likely.
The thing is, AI will destroy more jobs then it creates new ones. And I believe that's a fact. That's why UBI is the solution.

"The solution I like is the correct one, anyone who disagrees with me is wrong."

Gotta remember that one next time I'm in a discussion.

UBI is only a BANDAID. It is not a solution. It is a thing that is supposed to buy us time when we transition.
No one ever said that UBI will fix anything.

UBI idea is a thing because THERE ARE NO BETTER IDEAS right now.



Except UBI is oposed by socialists and welcomed by libertarians.

UBI is direct transfer of money without almost government input which means extremely efficient into hands of people who are in rural areas. It is not production of money but wealth redistribution. It is not perfect and has its issue but like i said above it far better than any other social program there is.

If you want to have any social program UBI is best version of social program because it direclty improves lives of the poorest with maximum efficiency.

I can buy that it's a band aid, and there are no good ideas. No disagreement from me there.

In the circles I run in (full of lefties) UBI is an absolutely modern marxist dream. I don't know anything about libertarians to comment on that though. Seems unlikely that government controlling 100% income is a libertarian ideal though. What happens when the government decides it doesn't like you, and shuts off that income? It seems almost the antithesis of the libertarian ideal.

 

[Ballthyrm]

Look at the unemployment stats over the past 8 years:

The trend for automation is increasing, and has been but unemployment numbers are down. Hmmm, I wonder why socialists people are pushing UBI?

Unemployment is a poor measure of the wellfare of your citizens.
Communist Russia didn't unemployment either.

Sure they can all be employed, doesn't help much if they are all miserable.

 

[Greedings]

Unemployment is a poor measure of the wellfare of your citizens.
Communist Russia didn't unemployment either.

Sure they can all be employed, doesn't help much if they are all miserable.

I agree. This isn't about whether people have good jobs, are healthy and well educated, it's about whether automation is guaranteed to lead to mass unemployment in the long term.

 

[Ballthyrm]

IMHO that money should be used where there is a Market failure or any kind.

For example in the US, there is a big Internet access failure (about to get resolved by Space)
There is crumbling infrastructure that nobody is paying for.

The role of the State should be to enforce fairness rules and price the overall cost of things on society. (Hence ideas like the carbon tax for example)

IF there is no referee, and no enforcement, there is no rules. (see 2008 crisis)
Libertarianism is nice and all until you start to think about contract enforcement.

The State is the necessary Evil to avoid the Tragedy of the commons.
It can take many forms and you are going to need Capital and resources to find all the pernicious way the Market evolve to make everything an Unfair playing field.

 

[Dontero]

I can buy that it's a band aid, and there are no good ideas. No disagreement from me there.

In the circles I run in (full of lefties) UBI is an absolutely modern marxist dream. I don't know anything about libertarians to comment on that though. Seems unlikely that government controlling 100% income is a libertarian ideal though. What happens when the government decides it doesn't like you, and shuts off that income? It seems almost the antithesis of the libertarian ideal.

UBI is not removal of all income outside of it. You are confusing Universal BASIC income with socialism.

UBI means that there is money you receive monthly for basic needs like paying necessary bills, food some clothes without strings attached. But that money is nowhere near to give you middle income family life. It is only money in number that covers basics of life so that you can't die out of hunger or shelter.

UBI is additive. Meaning that you get it regardless of your conditions, whatever you are poor or wealthy, sick or healthy which means that if you go to job receive 3000$ monthly you will still get your UBI.

This way:

- it means government bureaucracy is minimal.
- it is numerical not % based which means actually the poorest will benefit the most.
- it is not regressive, it is pro-work. Meaning that poor people won't have to hide their jobs in order to keep their UBI unlike other social benefits where they can get off them if they earn too much.
- it does not create conflict. Everyone gets it which means you can't argue that someone is worse because it receives it.


Why libertarians are for it. Because it gives right incentives. Poor people should be rewarded if they want to work. That let us say 1000$ sounds like a lot but when you start making 12000$ a month it becomes less and less important to you. So as you become more and more succesful its value drops down significantly compared to your success money but not in negative way.

Why socialists are against it. Because it removes a lot of government out of people lives. No social workers asking if you have x y z in your family, no certificates, no work with people, no tax men counting your money in detail to see if you can or not use social benefits, no policies to change or introduce. Every social policy outside of UBI is counted in thousands sometimes 100s of thousands workers for government.

Here is literally god of libertarians aguing FOR negative income tax aka what we know as UBI:

 

[Super Mario]

UBI is the same concept we've done over and over. Communism, socialism, welfare, etc. We know how all of those things end up. So this time, we are going to try something "new" to give the victims free money. Only a moron thinks this is a new concept.

We've also been automating since the cotton gin was invented. Job shifts will continue to happen. We're quick to point out the losses in manufacturing, but not as quick to point out the growth in areas like HR and programming, to name a few.

This is why we need to raise the voting age. Children only know the scare tactics, not the logic.

 

[DunDunDunpachi]

This is why we need to raise the voting age. Children only know the scare tactics, not the logic.

Voting for a bad candidate may be the child's first experience with suffering from the choice they freely made -- leaning on the good ol' "children are so sheltered nowadays" trope -- so it serves as a great way to welcome them into the adult world.

 

[Blade2.0]

People won't stop doing things. They'll just do more creative endeavors. If I didn't have to worry about buying shit and paying rent I could go learn more things in school. I could exercise more, I could clean up parks and beaches. People that only envision laziness aren't very creative people.

 

[DunDunDunpachi]

People won't stop doing things. They'll just do more creative endeavors. If I didn't have to worry about buying shit and paying rent I could go learn more things in school. I could exercise more, I could clean up parks and beaches. People that only envision laziness aren't very creative people.

lol that's a new one: if you don't support UBI, you must be the uncreative one!

People aren't drawing the conclusion that others will be lazy based on their own desire to be lazy, they are observing the effects of previous welfare programs pushed by the same political blocs and wondering why this outcome would be any different.

I remember this same logic being used to defend welfare doles. "If they aren't struggling for food, then they will finally have the time to clean up their streets, quit drugs, establish nuclear families, and usher us into utopia!"

 

[Super Mario]

Voting for a bad candidate may be the child's first experience with suffering from the choice they freely made -- leaning on the good ol' "children are so sheltered nowadays" trope -- so it serves as a great way to welcome them into the adult world.

This sounds like a Democratic speaking point to justify poor decisions.

 

[Blade2.0]

lol that's a new one: if you don't support UBI, you must be the uncreative one!

People aren't drawing the conclusion that others will be lazy based on their own desire to be lazy, they are observing the effects of previous welfare programs pushed by the same political blocs and wondering why this outcome would be any different.

I remember this same logic being used to defend welfare doles. "If they aren't struggling for food, then they will finally have the time to clean up their streets, quit drugs, establish nuclear families, and usher us into utopia!"

Most people on welfare today have a job. These lowpaying shit jobs even have services to help you get on welfare because they know they'll treat you like shit. Welfare recipients aren't lazy.

And yes, you are uncreative. Bigger and better social safety nets haven't made Norway and Sweden's lazy gluttons. Most of them are thinner than people in the states, work less hours and have more money. Must be something to it.

 

[RedVIper]

If automation does take away jobs, we'll just have less people, developed nations are already shrinking population wise, it makes sense to have less people with a higher quality of living than to keep around millions of people living on welfare just cause.

 

[DunDunDunpachi]

Most people on welfare today have a job. These lowpaying shit jobs even have services to help you get on welfare because they know they'll treat you like shit. Welfare recipients aren't lazy.

If you can't climb out of a shit job then you aren't spending your time well. There's also a difference between using welfare as a stopgap between jobs and using it as a foundation for your lifestyle.

I fully support welfare as a stopgap. I've resorted to using it myself in the past. It's a sharp idea: better to let the gov't temporarily give your neighbor bread when they lose a job instead of the neighbor robbing your house.

My personal utopian ideal for welfare would be religious/charity organizations covering 100% of a nation's welfare needs without the gov't stepping in, but this ideal is unattainable so I don't hold myself or anyone else to it. Are welfare cheerleaders willing to draw a specific line in the sand where their idea stops being realistic and becomes too idealistic? Haven't seen that happen yet.

I do not support welfare as a lifestyle. Whether it is a dole for disability, a dole for being a single parent, a dole for being unemployed for a long period of time, etc, I do not believe this system encourages the citizen to climb out of their situation and make improvements.

Smearing all welfare recipients as lazy is lazy. Claiming welfare recipients (none of them?) aren't lazy is equally lazy. I reject both.

We could also get into a discussion as to whether someone deserves to work at a better job compared to their current shit-job or whether that person possesses the skills and attitude to work at a better job, but that is unnecessary.

And yes, you are uncreative. Bigger and better social safety nets haven't made Norway and Sweden's lazy gluttons. Most of them are thinner than people in the states, work less hours and have more money. Must be something to it.

I'll have you know that I got very high grades in finger painting and in poetry as a child. I am very creative.

Social safety nets should be judged on the scale of generations, not just a few decades. Nothing unreasonable about remaining skeptical of social programs when there is sufficient evidence to suggest they can fail and cause worse problems than they solved.

 

[lock2k]

All this talk about automation. Machines don't make themselves. They are going to need more people to make the machines and you don't have to be an engineer to do so. Several low-skilled workers will end up making the machines.

 

[#Phonepunk#]

sounds good to me.

there isn't a need for so much labor these days. it's a reality.

if you go back to the 80s and read computer books and books about future technology, they always imagine the future where robots and computer do most of the jobs, and people don't have to work. feel like we have ended up in that universe, but uber capitalists at the top won't let people not work.

IMO it's a good idea. let people who want to work actually work, let people who want to be full time consumers just feed the system. everybody wins.

 

[Dontero]

All this talk about automation. Machines don't make themselves.

What makes you think that machine designers can't be replaced by machines ?

Why do you think that responding to someone in natural voice understanding what that person has said and responding in logical fashion is less technical than designing machine ?

 

[DunDunDunpachi]

Welfare currently allows megacorporations to pay their employees less money.

UBI would continue that trend.

Like lock2k pointed out, someone needs to build the machines. If the demand for laborers who build machines goes up, the burger-flippers can go build machines instead of flipping burgers.

The only caveat would be if we sent the machine-building jobs overseas, but that trend is also changing...

 

[Sakura]

The only solution is the universal basic income.

Why wouldn't getting rid of the robots be a solution?

 

[Azelover]

So, with all the ongoing automation, AI, machine learning, it's inevitable that at some point in the future there will be no jobs, at least not for the majority of people on the planet.
But how are people supposed to make money? The only solution is the universal basic income.
I personally know that this won't be a thing in my time, but for future generations it might be.
Imo, it's a great thing. My life dream, really. To sit at home, do nothing and get payed. Now that's life.
So, what is your opinion on UBI? Is it a feasible thing at some point?

Spoiler

THEY TOOK OUR JERBS!!!!!!!!!

I've been thinking about this for a while, and I agree with you.

Probably it would be wisest of the system, to share the increased production of the machines with the people, so that someone can actually consume the fruits of this massive new production. What fun is it to produce products nobody can buy? So for sure, some kind of solution is needed.

But... after I went a little deeper in this rabbithole. I think there is a possibility that humanity will have to physically merge with machines to keep producing. I used to think so, but now I'm not really sure that our overlods will want to give the fruits of this production to us for free. Something a lot more bizarre is going on in my opinion.

 

[Elektro Demon]

Why wouldn't getting rid of the robots be a solution?

I totally agree. We should kill the bastards while we still have the chance.

But... after I went a little deeper in this rabbithole. I think there is a possibility that humanity will have to physically merge with machines to keep producing. I used to think so, but now I'm not really sure that our overlods will want to give the fruits of this production to us for free. Something a lot more bizarre is going on in my opinion.

Interesting take.

 

[InterMusketeer]

Why wouldn't getting rid of the robots be a solution?

Why would you want to do that though? That's like saying you shouldn't use a hammer when hitting nails... Humans have been designing and building tools to make work easier for thousands of years. If we can make devices that take over virtually all work for us, allowing everyone to live comfortably, why should we try to prevent that?

I think basic income is inevitable. We probably won't live to see that day, but in the future there will be a time when robots can keep society going without much human intervention. Forcing people to work for money at that point sounds like a sadistic joke to me.

 

[Sakura]

Why would you want to do that though? That's like saying you shouldn't use a hammer when hitting nails... Humans have been designing and building tools to make work easier for thousands of years. If we can make devices that take over virtually all work for us, allowing everyone to live comfortably, why should we try to prevent that?

I think basic income is inevitable. We probably won't live to see that day, but in the future there will be a time when robots can keep society going without much human intervention. Forcing people to work for money at that point sounds like a sadistic joke to me.

A utopia sounds nice, but the whole idea behind automation, at least currently, is to replace humans to save money on labour costs. It's happening because the companies want to make more money, not because they want us all to have more free time and live comfortably.
Designing and building tools to make work easier is great. But an automated truck doesn't make a trucker's job easier, it just gets rid of it.

In any case, my comment was in regards to the idea of UBI being the only possible solution. I'm not saying whether one solution is better than the other, merely that there is more than one solution.

 

[oagboghi2]

Every UBI argument revolves into the same nonsense. People, who don’t know the future, acting as if they can perfectly predict the future and know what our economy will be like in 100 years. They take their predictions, borne 100% out of their ass, and use it to justify putting millions of people on welfare.

 

[lock2k]

What makes you think that machine designers can't be replaced by machines ?

Why do you think that responding to someone in natural voice understanding what that person has said and responding in logical fashion is less technical than designing machine ?

If those machines break, you'll need a human to fix them.

 

[Thaedolus]

UBI and Medicare for all are great ideas. Even better is population control!

Hand out the condoms baby!

 

[Mihos]

Why the fuck would you want to give me $1000 every month?

Give that shit to someone who needs it and just call it welfare like it has always been called.

 

[iceman1304]

I don't think anybody is saying UBI needs to be implemented right now... but it may need to be looked at in the future, along with some sort of automation tax on businesses that choose to replace humans with AI, if unemployment does begin to rise at previously unseen levels. Talking about it wont make you a socialist, relax.

 

[DunDunDunpachi]

I don't think anybody is saying UBI needs to be implemented right now..

Wut? A presidential candidate for the Democrat party (albeit one of their less-popular candidates) is proposing the implementation of UBI right now.

 

[iceman1304]

Wut? A presidential candidate for the Democrat party (albeit one of their less-popular candidates) is proposing the implementation of UBI right now.

I meant in this thread, mainly OP.

 

[Elektro Demon]

Wut? A presidential candidate for the Democrat party (albeit one of their less-popular candidates) is proposing the implementation of UBI right now.

Well it is something that we'll have to consider in the future. Right now, there's no need for it.

 

[DunDunDunpachi]

I meant in this thread, mainly OP.

Understood. Thank you for clarifying.

Well it is something that we'll have to consider in the future. Right now, there's no need for it.

I don't think there's a need for it in the future, either. The estimate of how many people use a computer in the USA for their work is 65 million, out of about 156 million workers (41%). This number was only a few hundred-thousand one generation ago.

The more likely outcome is that as new technologies enable new forms of wealth creation (for instance, what impact will consumer-grade 3D printers have?), new forms of employment will also appear. This has been the trend since the beginning of human history until now. Perhaps the trend won't hold, I'll admit.

The argument for UBI assumes that new technologies will enable new forms of wealth creation (automating jobs that were performed by humans before) while at the same time somehow avoiding the phenomenon of new forms of employment appearing. I just don't see that as a realistic prediction.

Other factors include assumptions about economic growth (UBI assumes we will continue growing and profits will increase) and assumptions about future demographics (how will UBI be affected by a sharp increase of citizens? What about a sharp decrease of citizens?).

 

[Paltheos]

... I'm suddenly reminded of a Kino's Journey episode that deals with this exact topic. Kino runs across a city that's mastered technology and can be governed by it completely and fairly. The people don't live by it though. Instead, they're tasked to do the same work that the machines already perform and are judged rigorously off their performance. One of the city's denizens explained they do it because when everyone stopped working they became... lazy? unfulfilled?

Ok, it's been a long time since I watched it. Point is obvious but true - People need to be active to be happy.

 

[Elektro Demon]

.Ok, it's been a long time since I watched it. Point is obvious but true - People need to be active to be happy.

Sure, I agree, but you can be active with ubi. Universal basic income doesn't automatically make people lazy.
You could pursue other activities because you like them and now with ubi, you actually have a clear shot at it and don't need to worry about money.

 

[jshackles]

I don't think there's a need for it in the future, either. The estimate of how many people use a computer in the USA for their work is 65 million, out of about 156 million workers (41%). This number was only a few hundred-thousand one generation ago.

This is an excellent point that seems to have been overlooked in this argument completely. When my parents first entered the workforce in the early 1970s, they couldn't have imagined that a world would exist in the future where their grand daughter would be able to make a living as a digital artist working 100% from home. My daughter's great-grandmother was also an artist but nearly 100 years ago that meant something completely different than what it does today. When I was born almost 40 years ago, my parents would have had no idea that I would grow up to become a computer programmer or sysadmin because those jobs literally didn't exist then (outside of some really niche employment avenues such as NASA).

I would argue that the real issue that UBI is trying to placate is wealth inequality. People are worried that new automation technologies are being employed predominantly by the ultra-wealthy as a means to become even more ultra-wealthy and thus continue to divide wealth inequality even further.

 

[zeorhymer]

Here we go a gane! You know when making clothes, shoes, etc etc were a thing? They were all replaced with automation! What happened then? All the manual labor was shifted to higher tiered labor. You either had to expand your skills or have to accept the fact that you're going to be left behind. But hey, UBI will fix everything!

 

[Blade2.0]

If you can't climb out of a shit job then you aren't spending your time well. There's also a difference between using welfare as a stopgap between jobs and using it as a foundation for your lifestyle.

I fully support welfare as a stopgap. I've resorted to using it myself in the past. It's a sharp idea: better to let the gov't temporarily give your neighbor bread when they lose a job instead of the neighbor robbing your house.

My personal utopian ideal for welfare would be religious/charity organizations covering 100% of a nation's welfare needs without the gov't stepping in, but this ideal is unattainable so I don't hold myself or anyone else to it. Are welfare cheerleaders willing to draw a specific line in the sand where their idea stops being realistic and becomes too idealistic? Haven't seen that happen yet.

I do not support welfare as a lifestyle. Whether it is a dole for disability, a dole for being a single parent, a dole for being unemployed for a long period of time, etc, I do not believe this system encourages the citizen to climb out of their situation and make improvements.

Smearing all welfare recipients as lazy is lazy. Claiming welfare recipients (none of them?) aren't lazy is equally lazy. I reject both.

We could also get into a discussion as to whether someone deserves to work at a better job compared to their current shit-job or whether that person possesses the skills and attitude to work at a better job, but that is unnecessary.


I'll have you know that I got very high grades in finger painting and in poetry as a child. I am very creative.

Social safety nets should be judged on the scale of generations, not just a few decades. Nothing unreasonable about remaining skeptical of social programs when there is sufficient evidence to suggest they can fail and cause worse problems than they solved.

When has a social safety net failed?

 

[DunDunDunpachi]

This is an excellent point that seems to have been overlooked in this argument completely. When my parents first entered the workforce in the early 1970s, they couldn't have imagined that a world would exist in the future where their grand daughter would be able to make a living as a digital artist working 100% from home. My daughter's great-grandmother was also an artist but nearly 100 years ago that meant something completely different than what it does today. When I was born almost 40 years ago, my parents would have had no idea that I would grow up to become a computer programmer or sysadmin because those jobs literally didn't exist then (outside of some really niche employment avenues such as NASA).

I would argue that the real issue that UBI is trying to placate is wealth inequality. People are worried that new automation technologies are being employed predominantly by the ultra-wealthy as a means to become even more ultra-wealthy and thus continue to divide wealth inequality even further.

I think wealth inequality is a fair concern. My only problem with using UBI to fix that is we would be taxing our current growth (just shaving a liiiiittle bit off the top) to pay for current citizens with the expectation that everything WILL continue growing in the future and that future margins WILL be able to provide UBI for future demographics. Considering the USA's financial crisis a decade ago, we should ALL be cynical of any ideas reliant on steady future growth to remain solvent, whether we sit on the Left or the Right, politically speaking.

A country chained to a UBI program would be incredibly brittle -- deathly so -- against sharp downturns and recessions, though.

The biggest reason why we have wealth inequality is because the wealthy are hanging on to their money instead of investing/distributing as much. That's all about to change because the boomers are about to retire. The relative value of capital will skyrocket while the relative value of labor (even lowly customer-service labor) also skyrockets (those old farts with money will want people waiting on them hand and food). The desire for luxury/convenience goods and services naturally goes up since the boomers aren't investing, they're spending their hard-saved money on fun stuff. Nations that bring manufacturing home will ensure this money gets dumped right back into the economy to distribute to the younger generation. Nations that buy from elsewhere and send profits abroad will be setting up their next generation for more financial misery. Nations that manufacture enough surplus to supply other nations will be rolling in cash. We are entering a new era of consumption right before the demographics collapse (in some nations) and cause a recession.

Individuals and companies that can service this new surge in demand will make bank. Imagine if Granny buys some kitschy figurine from a dude with a 3D printer in his basement, she shares it on Facebook 2.0, then suddenly this guy has 100,000 bored boomers with more money to spend than sense ordering his figuringe. This phenomenon already takes place now and it will become more common in the future when boomers retire. Those with side-hustles and home businesses will reap the greatest profits.

When has a social safety net failed?

I can name at least one without having to look too far:

National Socialist People's Welfare - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Russians in the USSR also had a social safety net of "guaranteed" food and "guaranteed" jobs. Would you consider the USSR's system a failure or no?