Slashdot Mirror
'We Could Fund a Universal Basic Income With the Data We Give Away To Facebook and Google' (thenextweb.com)
Tristan Greene reports via The Next Web:
A universal basic income (UBI), wherein government provides a monthly stipend so citizens can afford a home and basic necessities, is something experts believe would directly address the issue of unemployment and poverty, and possibly even eliminate hundreds of other welfare programs. It may also be the only real solution to the impending automation bonanza. According to AI expert Steve Fuller, the problem is, giving people money when they lose jobs won't fix the issue, it's a temporary solution and we need permanent ones. Sounds fair, and he even has some ideas on how to accomplish this end: "We could hold Google and Facebook and all those big multinationals accountable; we could make sure that people, like those who are currently 'voluntarily' contributing their data to pump up companies' profits, are given something that is adequate to support their livelihoods in exchange."
It's an interesting idea, but difficult to imagine it's implementation. If the government isn't assigning a specific stipend value, we'll have to be compensated individually by companies. One way to do this, is by emulating the old coal mining company scrip scams of early last century. Employees working for companies would be paid in currency only redeemable at the company store. This basically created a system where a company could tax its own workers for profit. Google, for example, could use a system like that and say "opt-in for $10 worth of Google Play music for free," if they wanted to. Which doesn't help pay the bills when machines replace you at work, but at least you'll be able to voice search for your favorite songs. Another idea is to charge companies an automation tax, but again there's concerns as to how this would be implemented. A solution that combines government oversight with a tax on AI companies -- a UBI funded by the dividends of our data -- may be the best option. To be blunt: we should make Google, Microsoft, Facebook and other such AI companies pay for it with a simple data tax.
It's an interesting idea, but difficult to imagine it's implementation. If the government isn't assigning a specific stipend value, we'll have to be compensated individually by companies. One way to do this, is by emulating the old coal mining company scrip scams of early last century. Employees working for companies would be paid in currency only redeemable at the company store. This basically created a system where a company could tax its own workers for profit. Google, for example, could use a system like that and say "opt-in for $10 worth of Google Play music for free," if they wanted to. Which doesn't help pay the bills when machines replace you at work, but at least you'll be able to voice search for your favorite songs. Another idea is to charge companies an automation tax, but again there's concerns as to how this would be implemented. A solution that combines government oversight with a tax on AI companies -- a UBI funded by the dividends of our data -- may be the best option. To be blunt: we should make Google, Microsoft, Facebook and other such AI companies pay for it with a simple data tax.
Send Google and Facebook the bill, NOT the taxpayers.
It just keeps everyone perpetually in poverty, debt slaves to the state, with no hope or drive to move forward. Communism doesn't work. Communism without workers would be even worse, stripping people of their meaning on top of their earnings.
The solution to automation is not to do it. "Because we can doesn't mean we should".
"Not to mention all the idiots who use words like boxen."
Anonymous Coward on Monday August 04, @06:49PM
UBI is ultimately pointless because the problem right now isn't that people don't have money. It's that the market adjusts itself to maximize profits which will always price some people out. Consider this: A person makes $100 a month and only wants to spend $10 on an apartment. But there is another person willing to spend $15 on that apartment, so that's what the market sets it's price at, which causes a lot of financial strain on the person. Good news! The government passes a UBI law, and provides everyone with a minimum $15 salary, bringing the persons monthly income to $115. The person can now easily afford the apartment, right? Well no. You see, that person gets the salary, but so does the other person competing for the same apartment. The second person is now willing to pay $20 for that apartment. So that's where the market says the price. So ultimately, all the UBI does is raise the prices on everything for everyone.
Until people realize that any kind of universal basic income scheme will never do what it's intended to do. Money isn't the endgame of what an economy does; it never has been, rather it is all about creation and allocation of resources. If you just give people money, you just give them money, and at the end of the day they'll just outbid one another for those same resources. If nobody builds anymore housing in say SF, then guess what? No amount of UBI is going to solve the shortage of available housing.
Minimum wage increases won't work either. This is such a dead simple concept that so many people seem to spectacularly fail.
Industry was going to take away all the jobs. The, the tractor was going to take away all the jobs. Mechanization was going to take away all the jobs. Automation was going to take away all the jobs. Outsourcing was going to take away all the jobs. And yet here we are after all of that we have the lowest unemployment rate this country has ever had. Something tells me that with even 3D printing and artificial intelligence Americans will figure out something to do.
When I add up income tax, Medicare/social security tax, state taxes, property, sales, hotel, gas, airport and the rest I pay, the total is at least 50% of my paycheck, and I am not by any means rich. Taxing the companies more just means that the prices will be higher - your Youtube Red subscription will be $11 and not $9, your Office subscription will be $75 a year and not $69... How about we maybe try cutting waste and abuse of the system and use that money to cut taxes so people can save more money and need less government assistance when a rainy day comes around. .
I don't think people realize how dangerous it is to build their lives ever more around government.
Because the government is distinguished by the fact that it is coercive, the more power you give government over your life, the more likely you are to come under the jackboot of that coercion. The AMERICAN way of life is a restricted government that is supposed to play as little role as possible in the lives of The People; how far the Americans have fallen from this ideal... (could this lack of American idealism come from a shifting demographic?)
Money is a representation of something that someone did for someone else that had value in the receiving person's eyes. For instance, if I go buy some wood for $100 at the store and spend some time turning it into furniture, then I might sell it for $400. That means I created $300 more value in the eyes of the market, or at least the buyer, by doing that. I then take that $300 profit and trade it for other useful things that people will do for me. On the other hand, if you give people money for doing nothing, and eventually everyone's doing nothing of value, then what is there of value left to buy? Just the stuff made by robots? So I own a robot, it makes furniture for me which I sell to people who haven't done anything useful for anyone except consume oxygen, then I take that money and do what... buy food from the robot food manufacturer? Why can't the robot food manufacturer just give me some food in exchange for some furniture I build for her? The only reason for UBI is to pay useless people enough money that they can afford enough drugs to get so stoned that the don't bother going out to commit crimes, because that's cheaper than a bigger police force.
"I have never let my schooling interfere with my education." - Mark Twain
The problem with your personal theory of economics is that there is not a shortage of resources, at least not in the USA. We throw away enough food to feed entire countries, there are millions of properties that sit vacant, and a few hundred people at the top of the food chain have as much worth as a few million at the bottom. If you think the current system provides for efficient allocation of resources, you are well and truly mistaken.
And on your planet that doesn't have a blue sky, there's no housing shortage in San Francisco and minimum wage increases don't put low-skilled workers out of work.
Oh, yeah, and Venezuela ain't broke and failing with its people suffering starvation.
Google and Facebook provide services in exchange for user information. Of course it's questionable as to whether or not this is a good idea - I'd say a very bad idea - but that's the deal. There is no compensation due.
The reality is that the data of a single user would be near worthless. A stipend for any given user would be near worthless assuming an even division of the money. How would you even calculate the value data down to an individual except in the extreme outliers?
It's a nonsense idea that reeks of socialism's sense of entitlement and lack of real world application in anything but cautionary tales. Universal basic income may have applications, but paying for it this way is a crazy person's idea.
-- Using the preview button since 2005
We throw away enough food to feed entire countries, there are millions of properties that sit vacant,
You have unused food and unused property, and yet you think adding in "free money" will solve things. Why not start by redistributing that excess food that gets thrown away?
If you think the current system provides for efficient allocation of resources, you are well and truly mistaken.
If you need to take control of the entire government in order to make your idea work, then your idea is not workable. Start on a small bit of the problem - try giving away the free food that gets thrown away.
I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
Yes, but people by and large are not starving to death in the US. Starvation isn't what the basic income claims to solve in the US. You also mention homelessness. While certainly a problem in the US, it is mostly a transient problem for most. The exceptions tend to be people with mental illness who eschew the kind of help that would get them off the street, and any claims that UBI would solve this type of homelessness should be met with skepticism.
The current system certainly does not meet any kind of efficiency benchmark, but it's important to note that the system is not a free market. We have deep government interference in ways that tend to reinforce the cycle of wealth: Limited liability (and corporate structure in general), IP laws (government-enforced monopolies on ideas), tax laws which favor the rich, an education system that shepherds poor kids into poor schools and rich kids into rich schools, a safety net that encourages people to stay in shitty areas with no jobs, etc.
I favor experiments with UBI - I've donated to charities experimenting with UBI. I hope it works out, because to me it represents a step back in government's ham-handed attempts to solve societal issues with over-complicated rules solutions. Someone's poor? Give them money. Simple. Unfortunately, I think we'll discover that it fails for all but the most impoverished societies. In, say, Kenya, almost everyone is poor and so dumping some money on them gives them a place to start. The overwhelming cause of poverty (same word, much different circumstance than in Kenya) in the US has much deeper roots and will not be solved by cutting a check, IMHO.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
Government is a monopoly.
Indeed, Government is the worst kind of monopoly; rather than arise to power through voluntary trade, government is founded on violent imposition.
That's what distinguishes an organization as "a government": It can throw you into a cage (or worse) if you refuse to buy its services.
Fundamentally, there is no difference between a warlord, a monarch, a dictator, and a representative democracy, etc.
All of US corporate profit is running around 1500 billion / year right now.
1500 billion ($) / 330 million (Citizens) is $4,545 per citizen per year.
Leaving aside the issue of what corporations would do if they could not keep their profits, which does not seem likely to be a good thing, it's pretty clear that all corporate profits in the current economy would not suffice to do anything useful.
However, the idea of UBI, or at least, the sane version, is that it would be implemented in an "economy of plenty" where automation was producing goods and services at much lower costs and much higher availability. Those conditions are hand-wavey; we can't quantify them yet, so it's problematic to try and predict the costs of living, etc. But that's why UBI or similar will be required; workers will be out and automation will be in. It's not today's landscape that defines the need.
The current economic model will almost certainly be unsustainable with pervasive automation and the number of citizens we have. That's pretty clear. We also know that although distribution of wealth right now is very uneven, there's enough of it to keep everyone eating and sheltered (which is not to say that always happens... but money in, goods and services out, the numbers work.) So given an economic sea change - a very, very painful one, I'm guessing - UBI or something along those lines should be feasible.
The problem comes when we try to see how it would work today, in the current economy. It wouldn't; it can't. Tests can work - certainly the extra income is welcome and used by recipients - but that's only because such tests are far less costly compared to the amount of money available to fund them. When you count everyone in, suddenly the available funds aren't there. But that's today. The future holds the potential for massive change. "Funds" may not even be the operative mechanism; because if survival is no longer pendant upon an exchange of value, it may not be reasonable to try to quantify and structure it that way any longer.
It's still worth talking about.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
there are millions of properties that sit vacant
If you don't own that vacant property then it's none of your business if its vacant. This is just another example of you wanting to spend someone else's money
not start by redistributing that excess food that gets thrown away?
Because apparently you don't understand how things actually work. Distributing that food efficiently and actually getting it to people would cost more than the value of the food. We don't throw the food away because we are stupid or wasteful (most of the time). It's literally cheaper to throw it away than distribute it.
But maybe you think we shouldn't care about that. Maybe you think we should spend a thousand dollars to distribute a hundred dollars worth of food. Once again, an example of you wanting to spend someone else's money.
Yes. Libertarians in a nutshell. Every country is north Korea. *rolls eyes *
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
The main problem with communism is the efficient distribution of limited resources. It's basic information theory - you have a complicated set of interdependent production units that have varying needs for resources on each other. To make steel you need water, to move water around water you need pipes pumps, to make pipes pumps you need steel... and on and on ad infinitum.
A market system works pretty well at distributing these resources. If you make steel you don't need to know anything about demand other than the price of steel.
A planned / communist economy relies on meetings to figure out what gets made. The problem is nobody has all the information needed to plan out production, especially on a large scale. This is why you have perpetual shortages of goods in countries with planned economies.
My Other Computer Is A Data General Nova III.
That's not enough to drive an economy. Let's imagine I have 900 and you, along with 9 other people, each have 10. Our whole economy has a purchasing power of 1000.
Let's say that we could all be happy with "stuff" for 100. That's basically what someone would sensibly spend, at the most. Sure, you can somehow survive at 10, be ok with 20, feel satisfied with most your needs spending 50, but if you can spend 100, pretty much all you could sensibly want is paid for. We're talking Ferrari in your garage on the mansion on the hilltop with the private air strip and the private Learjet. The point where there's simply no more spending that could fill any kind of void.
So you spend your 10, because that's all you can spend. I spend the 100, because I can afford it and there isn't really anything left to buy. Now I sit on 800 that ... well, what do I do with it? I want to invest it of course but what should I invest in? There's nothing to invest in because there is no viable business able to open, there wouldn't be anyone to sell to. I have what I want, and you have no money.
Let's spread the money differently. You and those other 9 people now each have 50, I have 500. Our total economy still has a purchasing power of 1000, but a lot more money now changes hands. You'll probably spend 20-30 of your 50, either because you want to retain some purchasing power "in case", or simply because there is no supply to match your demand anymore, because so far there was simply no demand. I still spend my 100, with 400 sitting here, ready to be invested in the businesses that now have a potential customer, i.e. you. And those other 9 people like you.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Nice straw man. The other poster said nothing of the sort.
What he said was, "Fundamentally, there is no difference between... a dictator, and a representative democracy." That's very much "of the sort."
Even if you're a well-dressed, well-fed slave in the Big House, you're still a slave.
Yes, yes, taxation is theft and we're all slaves... Why don't you move to that country that provides everything you need without charging anyone taxes and doesn't require anyone to work "for the Man." That's the only way we'll be "free" of this terrible American oppression.
He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
Beer is just an obsolete form of water purification.
Neither you nor the government get to make that call.
Two things:
1. A poster below me already mentioned that your corporate profit figures are off - increase the amount to $2T, and make it quarterly, and you have the right idea.
2. While your comment correctly asserts that the premise of the article is flawed (there isn't enough US corporate profit to realistically pay for UBI) you then make a flaw by assuming that UBI is unworkable by any means, and that's quite untrue.
You have to look at the fact that UBI would replace existing entitlement spending, to the tune of around $2T. It also isn't something that is paid in full to everyone - tax policy would have to be overhauled when UBI is implemented, with the basic idea being that you are taxed only on money above and beyond the UBI, and taxed at a rate such that people with sufficiently high income basically "break even" after the UBI - the get the UBI, but they are taxed at a higher rate, so that at $100k or something, it's a wash. This is more like the "universal pre-bate" that some people have talked about... but the point is, all that's REALLY required to fund a UBI is a rework of the tax policy no more drastic than what the GOP is doing right now, along with replacing entitlements. The only calculations that make it look unrealistic are naively simplistic ones.
The only reason for UBI is to pay useless people enough money that they can afford enough drugs to get so stoned that the don't bother going out to commit crimes, because that's cheaper than a bigger police force.
I think your attitude is pretty representative of what people think of unemployed today, if you're not working there's something wrong with you. You have physical health problems, mental health problems, alcohol problems, drug problems, attitude problems or something that keeps you from holding a job. But the reality is that in a depression you don't have to be any of those, if you don't have a stellar resume or inside connections there's a thousand people trying get the same jobs and from society's point of view it's like a giant game of musical chairs, if there's a lot fewer jobs than workers somebody's going home empty-handed. Take something like Greece with >25% unemployment and >50% youth unemployment, you think one in two are just addicts looking to get stoned?
I'm not sure the automation doomsday scenarios are correct, we have an incredible creativity in creating new services. But that's roughly what they claim, that it'll be like a global, permanent depression for workers. Burger flipper? We have a burger flipping machine for that. Taxi driver? We have a self-driving car for that. There won't be enough chairs to go around and many will be like brain surgeons and rocket scientists, jobs that'll be totally out of reach for many people. So what do you do when you've looked everywhere, tried everything but nobody wants to hire you and you can't make rent? Live in the gutter? Let your kids live in the gutter? It's no wonder that even good people turn to crime and prostitution if they get really desperate.
I don't think living on just UBI would be pretty, unless you think playing WoW all day and eating Ramen noodles is what life is all about. Maybe for total slackers but they're probably the kind of employees every employer wants to get rid of anyway, it's more like a last resort so good people don't have to hit rock bottom. Who knows, maybe it'll help the hood rat problem too but that'd just be a bonus. I have seen some documentaries where it seems seems like a shitty life peddling drugs on a street corner or doing petty crime, but they don't really have any alternatives because they got shit education and shit work history and a criminal record and probably couldn't get a job at McDonald's if they tried. If they could simply stop, maybe some more actually would.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Are you really equating feeding the hungry with tying their shoes for them? And equating being poor with being in kindergarten? You're a fucking idiot.
So, you thing the "country" should provide you with everything you need...
Yes. I "thing" that we as tax payers should ensure that every last person in America has food, shelter, and healthcare. Civilized societies shouldn't leave the weak to die.
He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
Well said, sir! No mod points today, though, sorry, as I'm already commenting and don't do the AC swaparoo to do both.
I always liked it as a sound bite "Taxes buy me civilization", much as the liberty I give up -- such as the freedom to kill my neighbor, steal his sheep, and rape his daughter if I'm stronger than he is and can get away with it -- buys me freedom from murdering, raping, sheep rustlers in turn who just happen to be stronger than I am or who have a few more friends.
It is surprising how quickly the religious principles of the rabid libertarian evaporate, though, when confronted with the plain old bad luck of life that nobody ever insures against. Having any sort of public health care system is an insult to democracy and the freedom to die a pauper if you actually get sick -- right up to the day they have a single "accident" and find out the hard way that the emergency room, surgery, and two weeks in the ICU plus two weeks on the wards of the neighborhood hospital has left them backrupt and -- if it were not for the corrupt bankruptcy laws and social support network -- would leave them living under an overpass somewhere and panhandling on corners. Then you have things like Ayn Rand, the poster child for libertarianism, using medicare/medicaid when (after a lifetime of smoking and NOT buying insurance or saving money) she gets cancer.
What it really comes down to is a mix of spite and the kind of world you want to live in. If you want to live in a world dominated by the wealthy, the strong, and the ambitious, where the poor, the weak, the sickly, and the stupid are left to struggle, starve, and die young, by all means, rant on about the evils of taxes and the virtue of selfishness. Just remember that the real Midas Mulligans of the world, when confronted with an upstart who tries to start a bank to compete, hire some unemployed layabouts and have them pitch bottles of gasoline in through your new bank's windows, kidnap your children, and leave you notes pinned to your gutted Alsatian suggesting that you might want to sell out at 10 cents on the dollar to Mr. Mulligan. Or, in the case of the energy oligarchs, lean on the government so that they send in the army to take by force the right of way of a long oil pipeline.
Taxes do indeed buy me civilization, but the real problem with our current system is that "democracy" has been completely undermined by the absurdly wealthy who own the very restaurant where the menu of "column A and column B" is presented to the voters. It doesn't matter. Vote for either side. They all belong to the rich and powerful either way, or they wouldn't be on the menu in the first place.
Even when the experts all agree, they may well be mistaken. --- Bertrand Russell.