Slashdot Asks: Which is Better, a Basic Income or a Guaranteed Job? (timharford.com)

Barack Obama said this month that AI research is accelerating, making it harder to find jobs for everybody, and concluding "we're going to have to consider new ways of thinking about these problems, like a universal income."

But a Financial Times columnist adds that "an intriguing debate has broken out over how to look after disadvantaged workers both now and in this robot future. Should everyone be given free money? Or should everyone receive the guarantee of a decently-paid job?" An anonymous reader quotes some of the highlights: Psychologists have found that we like and benefit from feeling in control. That is a mark in favour of a universal basic income: being unconditional, it is likely to enhance our feelings of control. The money would be ours, by right, to do with as we wish. A job guarantee might work the other way: it makes money conditional on punching the clock. On the other hand (again!), we like to keep busy. Harvard researchers Matthew Killingsworth and Daniel Gilbert (UK) (US) have found that "a wandering mind is an unhappy mind". And social contact is generally good for our wellbeing. Maybe guaranteed jobs would help keep us active and socially connected.

The truth is, we don't really know... It is good to see that the more thoughtful advocates of either policy -- or both policies simultaneously -- are asking for large-scale trials to learn more.
He titled the column "The secret to happiness after the robot takeover." But what say Slashdot readers?

Is it better to be given a basic income -- or a guaranteed job?

Comments

Work has to be meaningful to give meaning

[Anonymous Coward]

Doing a pointless task or showing up to do nothing in order to earn a living is soul-crushing.
In a low-job boom economy we may need to encourage people to get out and socialize, but there are many better ways to do this.

Re:Work has to be meaningful to give meaning

[Spazmania]

Basic income is better than a guaranteed job by a long shot. Working a worthless job is not only soul-crushing, it consumes the time you could have spent bettering yourself so that you can get a real job.

However, I disagree with the concept of a universal basic income. It is morally bankrupt to vote yourself ownership of other people's money. I would prefer to see an optional basic income where any adult citizen is guaranteed a fixed daily stipend, BUT no one who accepts the stipend may vote in federal elections for four years before and after receiving the money.

This would assure that only the folks funding the basic income get to choose how much they're willing to pay. It would give the basic income a fundamental fairness that a universal basic income lacks.

Incidentally, have you considered the numbers? There are somewhere around 250 million adult US citizens. Paying them each the poverty threshold income of just over $15,000 per year would cost just under 4 trillion dollars a year. It would be hugely expensive, around 20% of the GDP.

Re:Work has to be meaningful to give meaning

[GameboyRMH]

This is a perfect recipe for assisted civilizational suicide by capitalism, with an elite class of workers at the switch. The ever-shrinking working class would at some point simply opt to effectively or explicitly kill the UBI program. Historically, similarly terrible decisions to reverse societal protections that were put in place for good reasons have happened within 50~60 years.

It's far more practically hazardous to be able to vote for society's collapse for personal gain than to be able to vote yourself other people's money.

Re:Work has to be meaningful to give meaning

[ceoyoyo]

Nah, everybody loves doing pointless busywork. And we all know people who don't work for some corporation never find anything productive to do, just sit around and watch Oprah all day.

The last of the hard core believers in the protestant work ethic are having their shark jumping moment.

Re:Work has to be meaningful to give meaning

[TheRaven64]

Incidentally, have you considered the numbers?

Someone did run the numbers for the UK a few years ago. They assumed a £10K/year payment (which is enough to live on outside of London - very comfortably in some parts of the country - and might help reduce the housing pressure in London), set the tax-free allowance to the same as the UBI amount (so you didn't pay tax on the UBI, but you did on every pound earned after that) and shuffled the tax bands around to make it revenue neutral (i.e. they absorbed unemployment benefits and so on, but assumed that the changes in taxes must raise enough to pay for it). As I recall, anyone currently on £20K/year or less would be better off, anyone earning more would be worse off. I'd be paying a noticeably larger tax bill each year, but I'm okay with that in exchange for a social safety net that means that no one starves because they can't find employment.

Re:Work has to be meaningful to give meaning

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Not necessarily. There have been famous Catholic Saints with very meaningless jobs from the outside. St. Andre Bessette was "shown the door and never left" when the monks rejected him (became porter for the Monastery for the next 60 years). There have been millions of fullfilled, dignified janitors sweeping the floor, dishwashers, and the like.

I say a mixture of the two is best- guaranteed jobs for everybody AND a guaranteed wage supplement for everybody that covers just enough for food, clothing, and shelter for one person.

That way, if you want to be an entrepreneur and not a wage slave, you can without starving to death.

Re:Work has to be meaningful to give meaning

[EmperorOfCanada]

Make work jobs will be worse than the class BS jobs, they will end up being red tape jobs. Why not have a bicycle registry? Why not have a pet registry? Why not have a drone registry? Why not have a canoe registry?

I want to go for a nice kayak ride on the lake in front of my cottage. Why not have people there monitoring to make sure I have a PDF, am not drinking, smoking near my kids, swearing, going too fast, going too near the ducks, fishing without a license, paddling an un-inspected kayak, using an un-certified paddle, not wearing a fire retardant bathing suit, or not having had the latest in lake safety courses, eco courses, duck conservation courses, lake pollution courses, kayak safety course, and a sunscreen application course.

Re: Work has to be meaningful to give meaning

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem is the wrong question is being asked.

In a society ruled by money, he who has all the money makes the rules. So the solution is to remove money from the job process and instead provide it only for work done above what is minimal. So if you have a hobby in art, or open source code, or research, you can do this and not be horribly crippled with zero income if it ultimately fails.

Congrats you are 18, continue on this path and get at least a home, medical insurance, a basic phone, and food credit. If you want an Xbox, games, booze, computers, television, etc then you must at least aspire to do more.

If you have a college degree or university degree in something useful then (for free) you get better jobs and better funding.

The problem is that for-profit education and for-profit healthcare results in draining the earning potential of everyone so the best option ends up being opting out. When the cost is removed, voila at best you get educated healthy people. At worst, itâ(TM)s daycare for adult man-babies.

Re:Work has to be meaningful to give meaning

[Anonymous Coward]

Hell why is it that the basic income has to be instead of a guaranteed job? Give a UBI and everyone will find a job they want to do because they can afford to retrain if needs be to do it. And crappy jobs will have to pay enough to get people to do them.

Re:Work has to be meaningful to give meaning

[Anonymous Coward]

I find it quite distasteful that in the current situation in the UK we pay people a liveable income to sit around on their ass using public services and contributing nothing.
I'd rather in exchange for that state handout they were indeed forced to show up and do nothing.
It might encourage them to get off their arse and find a real job.
But sadly because it's free money once a week and no commitment from them, too many people are happy to live that life, even if you or I want better from ours.
Problem is we are paying for them to do tha through our taxes and to me that doesn't seem either fair or a good use of resources.

Re:Work has to be meaningful to give meaning

[Anonymous Coward]

>The last of the hard core believers in the protestant work ethic are having their shark jumping moment.

Or are exploiting the stock market or running a startup/in a hedge fund.

There are a few of us. Dozens, I say! Dozens!

Re:Work has to be meaningful to give meaning

[KingBenny]

truly, and i think the question should be "which is possible" :) a guaranteed job means creating jobs where none are needed, funding that and keeping it up , i think that's close to ancient soviet-ism and costs a LOT more in a capitalist system than sustainable u b i

From those two

[Anonymous Coward]

From those two, basic income. Guaranteed job would mean job that has no meaning. I rather invent something better for myself to do than do something meaningless.

Regarding basic income, how about:
- Free housing
- Free medical care and medicines
- Free food
- Some free stuff to spend time with, e.g. libraries, sports etc.

Then money could not be spent on alcohol and drugs but everyone would stay alive.

Re:From those two

[TFAFalcon]

But who will evaluate the housing/care/food provided?

If everyone has a guaranteed room, you can be sure that the government will be quite happy to pay 10$ a month to Hovel Towers to provide them, although a much better room could be rended for 11$.
The same will be true for medical care and food - the cheapest provider will be picked. And the people relying on these services won't have the ability to work a few hours a month to afford something better - if they want an upgrade they have to the entire expense on their own.

On the other hand, giving them money and letting them make their own choices means that the providers still need to compete on both price and performance and upgrades are not an enormous cliff, just a slope.

There will be some people that spend all the money on alcohol and drugs, but that is their choice - just stop preventing them from commiting their slow suicide with charity.

Re:From those two

[Anonymous Coward]

You are assuming that government gives worse healthcare than markets, but as USA vs. Europe comparison tells us, it is the opposite. Public healthcare is cheaper and better.

Building houses it much cheaper than buying them. Government can easily build the houses by simply hiring people to do the job. Quality is decided by politics.

And I don't really care about alcoholics, I don't care if they die. The problem is that they cause suffering to others as long as they keep drinking (e.g. drink and drive, street fights, property damage, increased healthcare costs, family violence), so I don't want to fund that with government money.

Re:From those two

[teg]

Health care works pretty well for the purpose of UBI, outside of the US. Of the developed countries, only the US lacks public health care. Given the results on a population basis, as well as the actual cost as part of GDP (the US is 50% higher than #2) the non-US approach seems to be dramatically better.

Re:From those two

[TFAFalcon]

Healthcare is not what I'm worried about.

With housing, government would be able to build a lot of it. But how would the free market landlords/builders compete with it? If the cost difference between a government provided 20m^2 apartment and a private 20.5m^2 apartment is a few hundred dollars a month, few people will choose to move. The same would be true with food.

The only solution I see is if the government is willing to provide an apartment/food OR provide the money for them - in this case a person that has a bit of extra income can use it to supplement their regular choices, rather than having to 'give up' everything that the government provides and be left entirely on their own.

Re:From those two

[tricorn]

There's a difference between "cheap government housing" and "free government housing".

Cheap government housing should still require people to pay an actual cost, it shouldn't be subsidized housing, but paid for out of each person's UBI. An argument can also be made for access to food, communication, education, libraries, health care. Some should be universal, some should be by choice to spend some of your UBI on the cheap option or spend more on a "better" option.

If someone has an addiction or mental health issue, there still might need to be some level of intervention, but I don't need you telling me what I can use my UBI for, based on your concepts of what I "should" be doing.

A UBI can be funded with a flat tax combined with a VAT, and can be gradually implemented (e.g. at 5% implementation of a 50% flat tax, 25% VAT, $2000/month UBI, you'd have a 2.5% flat income tax, pay 95% of your regular income tax, pay 1.25% VAT, receive $100/month in UBI (not taxed), receive 95% of other benefits, minimum wage reduced to 95% of original value. Raise it to 15% implementation, then 25%, then 50%, 75%, and 100% once every 2 years, tuning numbers as necessary.

Re:From those two

[Anonymous Coward]

How about we do it differently. I am going to give one option here, but it is just a template.

We build a "farming" community. Each person on benefits gets to choose to go to the farming community or other communities. We only provide a limited time of welfare if you choose to stay where you are to look for a new job.

If you choose the farming community, you get an actual farm, with a greenhouse and some of the latest tech that allows to guarantee crops. Your greenhouse is designed to output 10 times your families needs. So your family now has food, and has their own business. We will pay for electricity for the first two or three crop harvests, to help you get a nest egg to build upon. We won't charge you taxes for 3 years. The land is in your name. You will have a community of others, that you can form a coop with to help sell the bulk of your food. The seeds provided will be basics, and some high profit margin crops, all legacy line, so no having to buy seeds every year for more crops. There will be lots of them throughout the country, so you can choose to live in the state you want. We will provide accountants to the area for long enough to bootstrap, and have them teach the finer points of operating a farm. Some chickens will be provided for eggs and etc.

You can only get this once, at the time before we shut down long time plans. You agree to take a few tests, IQ, the Big 5, and we will provide some training to help cope with areas that will improve your life, such as negotiation training, conscientiousness training, etc.

The main benefit of this plan is an almost guaranteed food supply, so it should prevent people going hungry. Other plans can be centered around these communities to provide services, but welcome other ideas.

Re:From those two

[Anonymous Coward]

This is only true until you have to go the US because every other country says you are going to die. (Saw a child this happened to recently in the news.) We also fund much of the research in the medical area, so other countries are essentially mooching off of us while not providing funding for research.

The other country that are doing research is China.

Re:From those two

[Calydor]

Massive complaints outside the US vs. massive lawsuits inside the US? What's the difference?

The US is a laughing stock for the idea that as soon as you've been treated by a doctor or hospital, lawyers are asking you to turn right around and sue said doctor or hospital for any tiny mistake they might have made. "Thanks for saving my health," indeed.

Re:From those two

[Immerman]

I agree, you could even go so far as let the government provide the money to everyone, and then rent out non-profit minimalist housing operated just to cover projected lifetime capital and maintenance expenses. Same result, less bureaucratic overhead. Be really easy to auto-debit rent from your incoming dividend payment - especially if you had a government-operated non-profit bank account designed specifically to handle everyone's dividend payments with minimal overhead. If the free market can do better, GREAT! Less demand for government housing and its bureaucratic inefficiencies, but there's always a backup option to keep the free market honest.

If it costs $X for the government to build and maintain a Hovel Tower apartment at break-even expense, then a private operator can probably do at least as well, and will have no reason to charge several hundred more unless they're offering genuine added value in terms of the quality of the environment, except for pure rent-seeking profiteering - and there's no reason we as a society should encourage such usury behavior. In the worst case, if If that means the residential property market is largely abandoned as an investment vehicle - so much the better, let people go back to being able to buy their own homes - a guaranteed income should help with that, and helps spread real long-term wealth into the hands of the masses.

We could do something similar for food - let the government produce K-rations or Soylent or whatever - something inexpensive with a long shelf life that's sufficient to keep people healthy, if bored, sold at cost. If you want to save some of your social dividend for other pursuits, you've got a nice baseline to fall back on - you probably can't get complete nutrition for cheaper than this.

Heck, we could even do it with medical insurance - let everyone buy into Medicare at projected average cost - if the free market can genuinely offer a better deal, or worth-while supplementary options, wonderful - but there's a solid baseline to keep them honest. Getting the profiteering out of the medical industry is likely to be a long, involved process, but giving Medicare the ability to negotiate prices and demand minimum quality of service would probably be a step in the right direction - they would have outsized bargaining power, but also no profit motive, positioning them perfectly to strongly advocate for the interests of patients themselves - nobody wants to pay too much, but paying too little is even more expensive in the long run. "Breaking a leg in Europe costs the system $X to fix to everyone's satisfaction - over the next 10 years we'll be reducing the payout here to 2*$X, so you'd better start reorganizing to deliver at that price if you want our business - otherwise you're welcome

Re:From those two

[nine-times]

But who will evaluate the housing/care/food provided?

If everyone has a guaranteed room, you can be sure that the government will be quite happy to pay 10$ a month to Hovel Towers to provide them, although a much better room could be rended for 11$.

You'll probably have the same general problem with guaranteed income. At least in America and how we run things, you'd still have the problem of people being forced to use specific vendors/products instead of having a real choice.

The Democrats ("It's our job to guarantee everyone a perfect life free of even the slightest tinge of discomfort.") and Republicans ("Fuck poor people. If they wanted a good life, then they should have decided to be rich instead.") would need to compromise somehow on the level of income that should be guaranteed. As a result, they'd decide the guaranteed income with a calculation like this:

Figure out the lowest amount of money that someone could possibly live off of. Like if you were to live in a trailer park in the middle of nowhere and gruel, and see a veterinarian for your medical needs instead of a doctor, then you can live off of $[X] per day. So that's the starting number. But because Republicans would want to make sure people were motivated to work, and actually being able to pay your bills would make you too comfortable, they'd slice off 10%, and give everyone $[X*(9/10)*365] per year (let's call that $[Y]). Better save up for leap years, because you don't get extra money when there's an extra day.

And then they'd spend the next 40 years with Democrats arguing that we should raise it to $[Y*2], with some of outspoken figures saying it should be $[Y*20] if you're any kind of a minority in terms of ethnicity or sexual identity, or if your feelings were hurt at some point in your life. Meanwhile, Republicans would spend the next 40 years arguing that the whole thing should be abolished because it's turning everyone into a gay terrorist.

And during those 40 years, there'd be inflation. So that $[Y] per year that used to just barely almost let you pay your bills, it now doesn't come close to paying your bills. Republicans will outright refuse to increase the income level a single cent, but an alternate compromise will emerge. Instead of increasing the income, they'll lower the price of gruel, veterinarians, and trailer parks so that someone with an income of $[Y] per year can afford them. They'll do this by paying $[Z] in subsidies to gruel manufacturers, veterinary clinics, and trailer park developers, and making those companies promise to lower prices. It turns out $[Z] is trillions of dollars, and $[Z] is greater than the total cost it would take to increase the minimum guaranteed income so that people could afford the gruel, vets, and trailer parks at market prices, but forget about that. When the government gives handouts to companies in order to control prices, that's "free market capitalism". When they give money to poor people to buy their gruel, that's "Communism", and Jesus said Communism was evil.

Ok, so the end result is that you end up with one brand of gruel, one veterinary clinic chain, and one trailer park development company that are making affordable options, and those are the only things that poor people can really buy. And there, you have the same basic problem that you mentioned before, where people have to use specific vendors and products.

But actually, it's even worse!

Because these gruel/vet/trailer subsidies go on for several years, and then those vendors get lazy and greedy. The head of the gruel manufacturer needs to $700 million bonus and their shareholders need their dividends paid. They cut back on the quality of the ingredients of the gruel. Now it's canned in outer Mongolia and it's mostly made of sawdust and asbestos. The guy running the veterinary clinics embezzled $500 million and therefore they can't afford to pay their workers anymore, so they start promoting their receptionists and janitors to act

Re:From those two

[Anonymous Coward]

not to defend the blood-sucking drug companies, health insurance companies, and for-profit health care providers..

BUT, the high health care costs in the u.s. do subsidize certain things, like prescription drug costs, in other countries, by way of the profits generated here being a primary funding source for the research and development costs of drugs that are sold globally.

in order for the u.s. to have a similar lower-cost, single payer universal health care system as most of the rest of the world.. that rest of the world will end up paying a bit more.

Re: From those two

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course you can decide to earn money and live the way you like. But if you can't, government will take care of you.

The problem with money is that some are better at using it than others. And to be fair you would need to pay thousands per month per family when with direct food and housing you can go with less than thousand per family as you can optimize spending and do bulk purchases.

It keeps people alive with minimal costs while still motivating you to work if you can.

Re:From those two

[quantaman]

But who will evaluate the housing/care/food provided?

If everyone has a guaranteed room, you can be sure that the government will be quite happy to pay 10$ a month to Hovel Towers to provide them, although a much better room could be rended for 11$.
The same will be true for medical care and food - the cheapest provider will be picked. And the people relying on these services won't have the ability to work a few hours a month to afford something better - if they want an upgrade they have to the entire expense on their own.

For food and housing government provided really is the cheapest acceptable option since the people who use it are the poorest who lack political capital to demand more.

But for most nations with public health care all but the rich use that public option, so there's quite a substantial political constituency demanding that it be of high quality.

Re:From those two

[Anonymous Coward]

The UK did that in the 1960's - Post-war Britain had a massive home-building program across the country. Every government department was consulted (Water boards, Gas boards, Emergency services like fire, police and ambulance) so that streets were well laid out and had space for cars to park and emergency vehicles could get through. Council housing back then was intended for respectable families who were working and were designed to last a lifetime. The private landlords hated it because it "distorted the property market". They couldn't charge what they liked. Once residents were allowed to buy their council homes, they could profit from any upgrades they made; double glazing, central heating, wall insulation, cladding, extensions.

Now those homes are worth more than the new builds that the private sector makes now simply because roads are narrower, street layouts are cul-de-sacs (to avoid rat-runs of motorists).

Re: From those two

[houghi]

Thete was a short story about that online. People got housed by gov. One person got send to Stralia where they did it differently.

Anybody a link?

Re:From those two

[king neckbeard]

And if you aren't a Saudi prince, you're going to die because you can't afford it.

We also fund much of the research in the medical area, so other countries are essentially mooching off of us while not providing funding for research.

That's not an argument for keeping up our current system. We should cut our healthcare costs in half, and the other countries should pay the 7% more or whatever to offset it.

Re:From those two

[king neckbeard]

Jesus, you spent a long time figuring out how to calculate the poverty line, which is something we already do, along with a much more complicated process of trying to sort out the deserving. The thing to bash conservative skulls in with is that it actually COSTS MORE to try and stop free riders than the cost of the free riders themselves.

Re:From those two

[TFAFalcon]

The residents were allowed to buy those homes - they were not told that they can get these homes for free, or get other homes for full price.

Re:From those two

[nine-times]

Jesus, you spent a long time figuring out how to calculate the poverty line, which is something we already do

We already calculate the poverty line, but part of what I'm pointing out is that it's not clear or uncontroversial. It's one of those things where, because there's an official term for it, people assume it's all figured out and set in stone, but there are arguments about how to calculate the poverty line. Republicans often complain it's too high, evidenced by the fact that people in poverty can sometimes afford such "luxuries" as TVs and refrigerators.

Basically it ties in with their argument that people are never poor because of systemic problems, but it's always a problem with their personal choices. You know, when they get on a rant about how food stamps are a scam because someone committed fraud and used them to buy lobster, or whatever? They'll sometimes throw out arguments like, "These poor people don't need any kind of government assistance. If they really don't have money, then how could they afford a refrigerator?!"

So my point is, the way these things are calculated are dumb, and there are always people trying to push the numbers around for their own agendas.

Re:From those two

[king neckbeard]

I don't think it's perfectly clear, but it's clear enough that the only people that complain about it are people who are distracting from their own widespread theft from the people by claiming that helping out the poor is a similar kind of abuse. As far as government metrics go, poverty line is on the less controversial side. There's way more gaming of unemployment metrics.

Re:From those two

[Anonymous Coward]

"cost as part of GDP" is a silly way to compare, because the U.S. is wealthier than almost all other countries and as a result spends more on everything where you can spend more to get more, including books, restaurants, fast food, education, lawn care, cars, roads, bridges, electronics, and yes, health care. The U.S. also subsidizes a lot of medical device and drug research for other countries. All you're showing is that wealthier people tend to spend more on discretionary items (like extra doctors and a private room when you don't really "need" that) than less wealthy people.

Once Medicare/medicaid and VA health spending are comparable to OECD levels of health spending (hint, they're much higher), then you can start arguing public health care would cost similar to what the government already spends.

Re:From those two

[nine-times]

As far as government metrics go, poverty line is on the less controversial side.

I'm under the impression that it's not very controversial in the sense that people don't care very much, but not in the sense that people generally agree. If all social welfare programs, including food stamps, medicare, and social security were suddenly swapped for UBI, and the basic income level was set at the poverty line, I'm sure the poverty line would become extremely controversial.

Re:From those two

[king neckbeard]

I agree that it would get more attention. However, as far as I know, there isn't a major credible dispute on that metric.

Since we are talking about political viability, it's worth mentioning that UBI has a HUGE advantage over welfare due to being nondiscriminatory. It's relatively easy to chip at welfare and other such programs when they are only used by a small portion of the population. But the very nature of UBI is that it's money everyone receives, which puts it more in line with programs like Social Security and Medicare., which are very popular, and much harder to attack without facing consequences.

Re:From those two

[Anonymous Coward]

Given that the rich consume more alcohol and drugs per capita than the poor, what are you getting at? I personally know a millionaire contractor who supplies more drugs to his family than any low-income individual could ever pay for no matter what they steal.

We've gone down the road you describe and it causes segregation that guarantees continued poverty.

It would be better if they can take the money and scatter to the cheapest homes they can find in decent, probably rural communities with good schools where nobody knows they are on UBI and raise the next generation in a fashion that doesn't leave them stunted.

Re:From those two

[teg]

"cost as part of GDP" is a silly way to compare, because the U.S. is wealthier than almost all other countries and as a result spends more on everything where you can spend more to get more, including books, restaurants, fast food, education, lawn care, cars, roads, bridges, electronics, and yes, health care. The U.S. also subsidizes a lot of medical device and drug research for other countries. All you're showing is that wealthier people tend to spend more on discretionary items (like extra doctors and a private room when you don't really "need" that) than less wealthy people.

Once Medicare/medicaid and VA health spending are comparable to OECD levels of health spending (hint, they're much higher), then you can start arguing public health care would cost similar to what the government already spends.

"Cost as part of GDP" is a pretty good way to compare. It shows how much of a country's production goes towards healthcare, helps correct for different salary and cost levels etc. FWIW, Norway is a bit better off than the US in general. We spend more than the US in absolute terms, but less when seen as a part of the GDP

Administrative costs seem to be a huge part of why - 8% of GDP in the US, 3% in most other countries.

Trick question

[Anonymous Coward]

You're not getting either one.

Re:Trick question

[Mr D from 63]

You're not getting either one.

Neither would ever be enough.

Universal Income.

[YukariHirai]

I'm definitely in Camp Universal Income. Everyone gets enough to live comfortably enough on, and if you want more income on top of that, you can work. Guaranteed jobs for everyone on the face of it doesn't sound like a bad idea, but it will wind up being the case that a lot of people are given pointless makework. As much as people do like to keep busy, no-one respects being given work that exists only for the sake of keeping them busy.

Re:Universal Income.

[martyros]

Worse yet, if you're "guaranteed" a job, can you be fired? If not, then for some people it's the equivalent of basic income, because they can just show up when they want, do what they want, and not worry about the consequences. Worse, because the people who *are* trying to work will be demoralized and understaffed. And if you can be fired, then it's not really guaranteed, is it?

Re:Universal Income.

[Mr D from 63]

Guaranteed jobs for everyone on the face of it doesn't sound like a bad idea, but it will wind up being the case that a lot of people are given pointless makework.

Yeah, and you can only have so many slashdot editors. Maybe they could work for Facebook and Twitter, deleting offensive posts.

Re:Universal Income.

[Opportunist]

I not only think this could work out, I'm positive that it would actually be more interesting for businesses too. Because now you have to pay someone a wage that's enough to at least compensate the person for his time so he can live. With universal income, any minimum wage is off the table. We would move into a gig economy more than we do today already, at least for zero/low skill jobs. You need 300 bucks extra? Go work for a few weeks at the supermarket. Yes, they will mot pay more than maybe those 300 for full time for a month, because there's people who wouldn't mind working that, because it's EXTRA money, not money they need already to fulfill their basic needs. As an employer, you could probably get people for less than 300 a month if it's really just some zero skill job with no responsibilities like restocking. You wages would probably go down (at least for no/low skill jobs), and still people would not complain because the money they now earn is on top of what they need, it's not what they need to get food and shelter covered.

High paying jobs would probably change little to not at all, because whether you pay your employee 400 less per month is kinda moot if you already pay about 10 grand a month. Here, very little would change, neither in fluctuation (which would most likely increase a lot for low skill jobs) nor cost.

Re:Universal Income.

[ColdBoot]

you guys need to study economics and business. UBI is a pie in the sky dream. National economies are systems of systems. Mess with one aspect and the others are affected. To pay for UBI, you have to raise taxes. Raising taxes raises costs. The more it costs to live the more you have to pay out in UBI. UBI is an unsustainable model.

Re:Universal Income.

[Karmashock]

The guarenteed job assumes people show up and make a token effort to do their work.

You can not be fired and not paid at the same time for all sorts of jobs.

Take jobs where you're paid by the hour... if you show up but don't work those hours... should you be paid for them? Depending on the employer you may or may not be paid excluding being fired as an option.

Various jobs pay according to some observable labor... Let us say I pay you to pick baskets of cherries... I may pay you by the basket of cherries you bring me... not by the hour. Bring me ONE basket or no baskets... or a thousand baskets. Your productivity will scale with the income.

These are just ways of dealing with stuff like that. We have thousands of years of experience managing people in manual labor. Your worries about how we'll deal with X or Y presumes that we haven't seen this before.

Take a peasant farmer from a thousand years ago. These people were generally not fired. How were they encouraged to work?

All sorts of feedback systems typically... where in more or less work would have different consequences. Whether or not you'd get food for example was often contingent on labor. If you really went out of your way to be useless such societies would typically write you off naturally. But the feedback loops are pretty good at keeping people active.

The UBI etc presumes to maintain the economy whilst destroying the feedback loops. It is a suicide pact in many ways. I wish it most seriously upon my worst enemies. I have enough cruelty in me for that. But upon those I love and care for?... I would spare them the consequences.

Re:Universal Income.

[Anonymous Coward]

But people on "UBI" (using retirement here so hang with me) already are in the not working but want/need to stay busy, and they do that just fine.
They'll find something to volunteer in, pick up trades at home, finish things around the house they've been meaning to forever, travel, etc.

Why would anyone expect someone receiving UBI wouldn't follow the same paths and instead apparently lock them selves in a room being antisocial and feeling useless?

Re:Universal Income.

[Anonymous Coward]

OK - let's go with this. Since the government is paying this money to everyone, and the money is coming from taxes from people....

Those who choose NOT to work and just live off of the basic income.

Means that everyone who pays taxes should have some say in that person's life, right? Like, if they have a child, since they can't afford to take care of it, do not get any additional government benefits (or minimal for a short period of time to give them time to find a job), right?

Commit a crime and get put in jail? You still receive your UBI, but it is given back to the government to pay towards your prison care, right?

Who defines comfortably? For some, food, water, roof over their heads, and seasonal appropriate clothing is fine....for others, they want a nice apartment, mid-grade food with some splurges, few bottles of wine a month, and low-end designer clothing is what would be "comfortable" for them...

UBI is fine - however, the government should make able-bodied people work for it if they don't work elsewhere. Plenty of trash that can be picked up on the roads, in parks, etc, plus tons of other no-skills-needed jobs.

Re:Universal Income.

[apoc.famine]

I agree completely with you and the GP.

Pointless makework doesn't help society. Pointless makework that doesn't get done or done well, and you can't fire people from (not) doing is just asinine. And then you're making makework for people to monitor and administrate this pointless program.

Just give people the money. If they waste it, they waste it. If even small percent use it to springboard their life into something better, that's a higher net value than if they had just done makework.

Re:Universal Income.

[Anonymous Coward]

Live comfortably?

Life on a universal income will resemble life in the ghetto/projects. The mythical expectation of universal income is that people will have as medical class lifestyle. There isn't enough money for that.

Re:Universal Income.

[Highdude702]

well heres where people are going to chime in basically saying "take every penny from rich people" and wanting to remove the incentive to get rich in the first place. meaning innovation goes out the window.

Re:Universal Income.

[Anonymous Coward]

Guaranteed income is not a guaranteed job. A guaranteed income means you are free to do nothing or find meaningful work. Businesses are not penalized.

Re:Universal Income.

[Anonymous Coward]

How is this even a question? One of the prime features of UBI is that it affords freedom to leave an abusive employer, or otherwise awful job. Is there anyone who wants a guarantee of terrible, meaningless, or underpaid work?

UBI might actually be a great thing for everyone, just by encouraging employers to minimize meaningless and undesirable work. Such activities would naturally become expensive to staff, and motivate automation or removal if not truly needed. How wonderful would it be if soul-crushing bureaucracies were flattened by such pressures? One can dream.

Unfortunately, that doesn't help with well-paid jobs that are even worse than meaningless, like everyone staffing the patent office, or otherwise engaged in enforcing monopolies.

Re: Universal Income.

[Anonymous Coward]

Take a peasant farmer from a thousand years ago. These people were generally not fired. How were they encouraged to work?

Starvation.

Re:Universal Income.

[Anonymous Coward]

How do you think the great pyramids were built? If that was not a make-work/busy-work project, I don't know what was. Just think what we could build with the population we have now! Immense, ginormous, ridiculously impressive structures to last the ages, beyond the life of the human race even.

Re:Universal Income.

[apoc.famine]

I concur.

I think what businesses will offer in exchange for services will need to change radically, however. You won't be able to abuse your employees if they don't need to work to survive.

As an example, one of my first jobs was in some spare space in a basement. It wasn't really well climate controlled, ventilated, or lighted. But I needed the money. Had UBI been around, I wouldn't have done that job, and most other people wouldn't have either. Now, move that upstairs to a clean, nicely-lit space, and focus on skills acquisition to help me find a better job later, and I'm likely in. It would have been pretty much the same work, but the focus would be on making me happy, rather than getting the job done and fuck how the employee feels about doing it.

I see a lot of jobs running into the same issue. You need to make the employee want to be there if they don't need to be there. You're going to need to put good ventilation in your kitchen and staff it fully. You're going to need to revise your policy of "4:30 show, 5am go". Siestas are going to become a thing in the US because people aren't going to find working in 110F heat all that appealing. Either that, or the pay is going to have to go up a lot for many jobs.

On the flip side, there's going to be some real competition for "fun" jobs. Pretty much anything that someone might enjoy they can now do without requiring that it provide them a living wage. Dog walking, child care, creating art, music, literature, cooking for small amounts of people, gardening, interior design, mechanical work, hell, maybe even programming.

The cost of employees is going to shift a lot, and I bet in a number of very unexpected directions.

Re:Universal Income.

[Anonymous Coward]

So your morally fine with simply taking money out of someone's pocket and handing it to someone else. That's the crux of your argument. There's a source for money after all and it isn't the government.

Re:Universal Income.

[Ol Olsoc]

you guys need to study economics and business. UBI is a pie in the sky dream. National economies are systems of systems. Mess with one aspect and the others are affected. To pay for UBI, you have to raise taxes. Raising taxes raises costs. The more it costs to live the more you have to pay out in UBI. UBI is an unsustainable model.

So what is your model?

So we have creeping automation that is working its way up the social-economic ladder. This is happening.

The why of that fact is that the users of that automation find it profitable to eliminate the cost of employing people.

Now it is pretty incontestable that if the trend continues - and it will - at some point, we will hit a unpleasant point where manufacturers cannot squeak more profit out of a system that has been made very lean, coupled with and overall economy in which most of the population is nothing more than a drain.

So if we use the current model, there will be a need for a massive culling of the non-employable. The method of achieving an 80 percent reduction of worldwide population has to be carefully managed.

The nuclear option is crude and injures the people who are deemed worthy of continued existence - it isn't to say we won't use it - humans can be remarkably stupid.

Natural die - off coupled with tight population control is very slow.

If we are going to use traditional thinking, we are going to have a creepy "final solution" applied to the population at large. It will be grimly amusing to watch people's racism as they choose who to eliminate.

But there will be billions lost as industries that were feeding those billions lose the source of their government income, which was providing food and shelter for the useless and now dead surplus population.. They aren't going to like that.

This is a massively complicated issue. 19th century economics will not solve it. Our lizard brain is not going to solve it.

Re:Universal Income.

[drinkypoo]

You can not be fired and not paid at the same time for all sorts of jobs.

They call that "slavery"

The UBI etc presumes to maintain the economy whilst destroying the feedback loops.

Yes, like the negative feedback loop of you have to work -> so you engage in mindless economic activity -> which hastens the destruction of the biosphere -> which increases scarcity -> so you have to work.

Re:Universal Income.

[Ol Olsoc]

well heres where people are going to chime in basically saying "take every penny from rich people" and wanting to remove the incentive to get rich in the first place. meaning innovation goes out the window.

Are you high Dude? Sorry, I couldn't resist. 8^)

Re:Universal Income.

[king neckbeard]

Actually, this is the point where it's pointed out that between the existing expenditures in social safety nets (welfare,unemployment, etc.)m the fact that most UBI systems involve tax rates that make middle class jobs essentially neutral, and the increase in the velocity of money, it likely costs more to NOT have UBI.

Furthermore, if rich people are rich because they are smart instead of just opportunistic bastards seeking power, they would probably prefer having the streets clear of dying people over having more money doing nothing in an offshore tax haven.

Re:Universal Income.

[king neckbeard]

HURR DURR HOW DO I QUACKULATE POVERTY?

The point of a UBI is to give people freedom, because trying to control people like you are advocating is actually very expensive.

UBI is fine - however, the government should make able-bodied people work for it if they don't work elsewhere. Plenty of trash that can be picked up on the roads, in parks, etc, plus tons of other no-skills-needed jobs.

Fuck off with your Calvinist bullshit.

Re: Universal Income.

[Anonymous Coward]

When everyone has money to spend, they will spend it. The only businesses that this might effect negatively would be the debt industry, and then only if enough people use the UBI (and their labor to earn more) to pay off their debts quickly AND carefully budget to no longer nedd credit cards or take on additional debts. Which is unlikely.

Everyone that is against this seems to also dislike people abusing the systems we have, so why stop businesses from dodging their fair share of the taxes and distribute the funds that currently go towards welfare and unemployment and all of the other programs and cut the country a check?

Hell, once my debts were paid off and I could live without worrying about the roof over my head, I'd probably start investing in stocks and retirement too, which can only help the economy right?

As an aside: I've heard a theoretical plan to implimend UBI via a minimum wage increase, instead of bumping the fed from $7.50/hour to $10, cut everyone a 160 hour paycheck at $2.50/hour, and phase it as we go. Doesn't effect the employers and I'm sure we can cut some of these ridiculous defense budgets and $25,000 Pentagon toilet seats to make it happen.

Re: Universal Income.

[TJHook3r]

The workforce will soon organise itself into some sort of hierarchy if none of the work 'matters'. Probably like a prison, if what I see in films is accurate!

Re:Universal Income.

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd say the last depression would say you are wrong. If you really believe that our failing infrastructure could not use practically infinite jobs, well, you are blind. Further people need purpose. Giving them none is a recipe for disaster.

Re: Universal Income.

[Anonymous Coward]

UBI sounds nice but ignores the fact that for every person who chooses not to work at all, there's someone else who has to produce enough for two people.

Re:Universal Income.

[Anonymous Coward]

UI will lead to inflation and proliferation of ponzi schemes. You can't trust people that they will spend money on necessities. They will want more, and will devise ways or give money to people who promise them more money in return.

Re:Universal Income.

[Highdude702]

I am now.

Re:Universal Income.

[Anonymous Coward]

A universal income that will let you do what you want to do (or nothing and so what) or millions of McJobs.
I think what we have here is a rhetorical question.

Re:Universal Income.

[w3woody]

As originally conceived by Milton Friedman, UBI (or rather, a "negative tax") would replace all other programs--welfare programs, middle class tax deductions, Social Security, etc., etc., etc.

And the point was not to add a new, generous welfare payment. The point was to replace the existing welfare system with a new universal system which requires almost no administrative overhead. The program would be paid in part from the existing welfare system (which is scrapped), from increased tax receipts (from middle-class and upper-class tax deductions which are eliminated), and from the salary of the old welfare program (whose salaries you no longer have to pay).

Ultimately a UBI may not necessarily pay a "living wage", depending on where you live. (But then, already in San Francisco, making less than $100k/year is considered the poverty line for subsidized housing. So "living wage" isn't a constant anyway.) In fact, for the poorest, the idea was that UBI--as originally conceived--would pay out about as much as welfare does.

But it does make welfare "more fair" in the sense that you get to keep your UBI even if you are an upper-middle class individual. (Of course at that point the UBI replaces that mortgage tax deduction, the deduction for your kids, and other middle-class tax deductions. So for someone in the middle-class with a mortgage and a couple of kids, UBI should be a wash.)

And that implies that if you do go out and get a 'gig' job, you get to keep your UBI. Which--oddly enough--incentivizes the poor to work as it eliminates the extremely high implicit marginal tax rate the poor suffer from which cause the poor to be "taxed" at a 140% marginal tax rate in some cases. (My wife used to work for a dialysis center that treated the poor--and she knew several folks on welfare who could not afford to work, because the only jobs they could get would put them into that 140% implicit marginal tax rate--meaning for every dollar they could make, they'd lose about a buck-fourty in benefits.)

Re:Universal Income.

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually as sole monopoly issuer of USD currency, in fact the government HAS TO BE the only source the newly created USD. Taxes do not create money for the US government to spend, they recoup it, get it back, Taxes are at the end of life cycle for a dollar not the beginning. If you don't believe me ask the IRS what they do with taxes paid in hard currency...the answer is they destroy them. USD is worthless to the US government, we should only be concerned with what can be bought with it.

Re:Universal Income.

[Paul Carver]

Everyone gets enough to live comfortably enough on

Who sets this level? Elected representatives? If not elected then it will inevitably be an entrenched, connected elite. If elected then we have a big problem and here's what it is:

Suppose you live solely on UBI and aren't comfortable "enough", what's your best, easiest way to get more money? Simply vote for whoever promises the biggest UBI increase in every election. Even if you work a little for some money in addition to UBI, how likely are you to vote for someone who will reduce, or even hold steady the current UBI? Would any candidate even dare to express the idea of not boosting the UBI?

Once more than 50% of the voters are receiving UBI we have a runaway system, an engine without a governer. There aren't enough economists and mathematicians in the population to counterbalance the people who vote in favor of every "increase my UBI payout" at every opportunity. Without a feedback loop, "Everyone gets enough to live comfortably enough on" isn't a fixed amount calculated by sound economic priciples, it's "bread and circuses" that grows without bound until it exceeds the available production capacity and the system collapses.

Meanwhile there's no incentive to do any of the "dirty jobs" that are hard, messy, smelly and dangerous and nowhere near being automated. Lots of unpleasant work ceases to be economically viable and stops getting done once people have the option of just voting themselves more money.

Without a "benevolent dictator" to ensure that the idle can't vote themselves too big a share of the total and to ensure that enough people are forced into doing the unpleasant jobs that can't be or haven't been automated, the whole system collapses eventually.

Even if the voters can see that collapse eventually, they'll never vote as a block to prevent it. Enough of them will always vote in their short term self interest that no candidate will be able to win on a platform of near term austerity to avoid a long term collapse. There's no way to right the ship once it's taken on the critical percentage of UBI voters.

Re:Universal Income.

[drinkypoo]

Furthermore, if rich people are rich because they are smart instead of just opportunistic bastards seeking power, they would probably prefer having the streets clear of dying people over having more money doing nothing in an offshore tax haven.

Even the smart ones (who do exist) tend to get corrupted by money to the point that they lose sight of the fact that they can never spend all the money they've made, and they get an immense sense of entitlement. If rich people ordinarily came to that realization, they would have done so already, and the world would look very different. Instead, they really think that they can create a situation where the undesirables will die off, somehow without affecting them. Nobody is in more denial.

Re:Universal Income.

[jlowery]

If some want to slide through life on a meager income, then most developed countries can support the drag. What adds wind to the sails, though, is the freedom for ambitious people to take risks, knowing they're not going to fall all the way to a deep pit should they fail.

Re: Universal Income.

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, the whole point of the debate is that UBI is required because automation will allow one person to produce what would require many, beforehand. So some people will be jobless.

Are you even paying attenrion???

Re:Universal Income.

[Anonymous Coward]

In this tread people who did not take economics and do not understand what a 'base' does to prices.

If everyone has (lets make up a number) 1 billion dollars. How much will a loaf of bread cost? Basic econ 150 stuff here. If you say everyone is willing to spend large amounts on one item the people who produce that item will charge that much. Not only will they charge that much they will have to. As their input costs will rise as well as their suppliers will be doing the same thing and having the same problems. They will be able to raise their prices to meet demand. An artificially created demand. You would see glory days for about 3-6 months while the market adjusts. Then a recession you have never seen the likes of.

You say 'oh it will not be THAT big just a number big enough for people help themselves'. Yet what is that number? Who will decide it? Will it be the same people who have picked the last oh lets say 10 recessions (of which there are none)? Will it be the same people that left the interest rate at 0% for nearly 10 years because they did not want a sitting president to 'look bad'?

A UBI is an inflationary thing that will cause prices to rise and productivity to fall. Wah? Fall I say? Yes fall. As you have a UBI you are not as incentivized to work. So producers will need to give out even more money to you to incentivize you to work. Raising their input costs (who they pass onto the customer).

While we talk about a UBI. Who will pay for it? The 'rich' you say with a tax. Fair enough. They can just raise their prices to cover the cost. Oh wait you didnt want them to do that did you? Well that is how a business handles costs. They do not pay for them. They skim the margin. Of which you have actually made MUCH larger. MR=MC you can not beat the 'invisible hand'. It is a tendency for the market to reach max equilibrium in the absence of shenanigans.

Money is an illusion. Our actual wealth is in productivity and ownership. The only thing money helps you do is measure that thing and transfer those things around. Handing out fake ownership and productivity is hyper inflationary.

These are but a *SMALL* handful of the things that will happen. You can not say they will not happen as they happen already every day with min wage. Heck yesterday I saw a article about a taco stand that had to close because the guy would not raise his prices to attract labor. He entire business is based on the fact he was getting under min wage labor from mexico.

Oh I have no doubt someone could make it 'work' eventually but at a damaging cost that will make Venezuela look like a fun happy place to live. After much suffering we will end up about where we started but slightly worse off.

Re:Universal Income.

[Solandri]

I'm definitely in Camp Universal Income. Everyone gets enough to live comfortably enough on

It doesn't work like that. The value of money isn't fixed. It fluctuates based on the ratio of productivity to pay. When you screw with it, the value of the currency rises or falls. In other word, productivity is what's conserved (everything that's consumed must be produced), not money. So if you set an arbitrary consumption level (UBI) which doesn't match the amount of productivity the country is generating, there's a mismatch between the number of things available to buy vs the number of things people have money to buy. When that happens, more things for people to buy do not magically appear out of thin air. Instead, the value of the currency changes to reflect the new ratio. So if you set the UBI at $50k/yr per person, but people are only producing $25k/yr of goods, the economy corrects this mismatch by devaluing money by 50% (everything becomes twice as expensive in dollars). So your "$50k" UBI now only buys the equivalent of $25k of goods and services, guaranteeing that productivity and consumption are equal. But breaking your condition that the UBI be "enough to live comfortably on."

If you try to fix the value of the currency to thwart this, you end up in the situation that Greece was in and Venezuela are in. Greece overpaid its workers. If they had still been on the Drachma, all that would've happened was the value of the Drachma would've fallen compared to other currencies. But because they were on the Euro, the value of their currency was fixed. As a result, their economy responded by generating tremendous amounts of debt. Until they finally the other countries on the Euro eventually forced them to accept austerity measures (reduced pay, increased productivity). Venezuela tried to halt changes in the bolivar's value by fixing prices. As a result people stopped selling goods (on average, you're not going to sell something for less value than what it cost you to buy/produce it). And as a result people started selling and buying stuff on the black market - bartering or using other currencies like the US dollar.

In other words, you don't set the UBI. The economy does automatically. Without a UBI, the average income (standard of living) is simply the average worker's productivity. With a UBI, it becomes (the average worker's productivity) / (pay given to workers + pay given to UBI recipients). The larger the ratio of money received as UBI vs money received for productive work, the more your currency devalues and the less the UBI is able to buy. If your economy is only producing enough to sustain a $25k UBI, and you set it at $50k, the economy will simply devalue your currency so it's able to buy half as much (prices will double) so your $50k UBI becomes equivalent to a $25k UBI. (It's actually worse than this, as the amount workers are paid will also inflate. So the economy will respond to a UBI by attempting to correct the value of the currency so the amount of income people are receiving correctly reflects the productivity they are contributing. That is, it tries to converge on the UBI's value towards zero. So after enough time your UBI will be $50k but the average burger flipper will be making $10 million/yr, and burgers will cost $1000, and your UBI is no longer enough to live on.)

So you can't just declare "we will set the UBI at a level which allows everyone to comfortably live on." Everyone first has to produce enough for everyone to comfortably live on, before they can consume enough to comfortably live on. So a UBI by itself won't work. It needs to be coupled with some way to coerce or guarantee people meet the desired productivity target.

To get this to work, the UBI needs to be decoupled from the currency. Instead of giving people money, give them the produced items directly. e.g. The government gives everyone a free bag of staple foods once a week. New clothes once a year. A UBI apartmen

Re:Universal Income.

[Anonymous Coward]

Fuck off with your demanding that everybody pay for your lazy incompetence.

Re:Universal Income.

[roman_mir]

if rich people are rich because they are smart instead of just opportunistic bastards seeking power, they would probably prefer having the streets clear of dying people over having more money doing nothing in an offshore tax haven.

- I am making money by providing my clients (logistics, trucking, retail companies) with the products and services they are interested in. I prefer not to subsidise anyone by the rule of the oppressive collective system. My preference is the free market, free from government rules and regulations, free from income and from wealth (property) taxes. I am against all forms of coercive socialism, collectivism, welfare state, any form of coercive collective oppression. All actions must be voluntary, nobody should be forced into anything collective.

Re:Universal Income.

[Anonymous Coward]

A guaranteed job has been done in the past and it was criminal to be unemployed. It was also difficult to fire someone; you would try to help them find a new job instead to pass the problem along.

Guarantee jobs are bad; just reference USSR history.

You pretend to pay us, we pretend to work.

Re:Universal Income.

[squiggleslash]

Suppose you live solely on UBI and aren't comfortable "enough", what's your best, easiest way to get more money? Simply vote for whoever promises the biggest UBI increase in every election. Even if you work a little for some money in addition to UBI, how likely are you to vote for someone who will reduce, or even hold steady the current UBI? Would any candidate even dare to express the idea of not boosting the UBI?

Sure they would. In fact, I have the opposite problem to yours, I don't think UBI will ever be enough.

What you'd actually see is a situation where most people are working. Once that happens, most people would gladly trade lower taxes for a lower UBI, because they end up making more money than that. Even many people in the gig economy, which UBI would encourage (which by itself is a strong argument against) would consider arguments for lowering UBI attractive. If nothing else, the notion that there's a handful of people being lazy and living off your hard work would make people vote against their own interests.

So all of a sudden, this universal benefit which is supposed to cover the cost of living comfortably for everyone doesn't do that any more. People who today entirely legitimately get unemployment or disability would find they now have to get a job they can't get, or face eviction from their homes and possible starvation.

My scenario is much more likely than yours, for the simple reason that if you use UBI as a proxy for services from governments that benefit everyone, then that's what's been going on since Thatcher/Reagan anyway. Tax cuts in exchange for terrible basic services.

Thankfully it's completely unnecessary, but...

Re:Universal Income.

[Anonymous Coward]

This in essence is the problem with self-centered, ignorant aholes like yourself.

Do you think that, living in a modern society, YOU don't have benefits that were derived from "taking money out of someone's pocket and handing it to" you?

If you can't think of any, then you deserve whatever screwing Trump/wingnuts have in planned for you (hint: they think like you and dont think lesser people like you should get any benefits)

Re:Universal Income.

[roman_mir]

Can all politicians and 99.999% of all government be fired if this is implemented? If yes, then I will agree to your plan. After a short period of time all of the prices will set themselves where they must to reflect this unearned excess of income slushing around, the system will balance itself and without most of the government the society and the economy will find itself healthier than ever.

Re:Universal Income.

[Anonymous Coward]

You're not even considering the long-term alternatives such as widespread social unrest, a large number of people or even a majority in the country that is too poor to consume anything but basic food, widespread social envy, etc., and you also do not take into account the ideas of UBI proponents that the costs of UBI is in the same ballpark as the cost of existing social welfare systems and the ideas of UBI proponents that UBI will incentivize people to get better jobs more than existing welfare systems. You might disagree with these ideas and have various good or bad economic counter-arguments about the arguments of UBI proponents, and that's fine, then at least you enter the debate. With your one-sided "basic economics" rant you haven't even entered the debate yet. You have to bear in mind that UBI is frequently discussed and calculated by economists, too.

Re:Universal Income.

[Anonymous Coward]

Why does any policy the USA makes have to look like something the USSR made? Can't we make policies that have better intentions AND better outcomes than the USSR? Policies of the USSR from Stalin forward were anything but in the best interests of its people. The US is becoming more like Stalin's USSR not from becoming more socialist but from our leaders and their policies serving the best interests of a powerful few rather than the best interests of the broader citizenry.

Socialism nor communism are bad or good, only people and how they use them in society are. Monarchy is only a bad form of government to the people living under it's rule when the monarch is a bad leader or dies.

Re:Universal Income.

[Anonymous Coward]

> And if you can be fired, then it's not really guaranteed, is it?

There are many ways you can void a warranty. So if all you do is show up at your "guaranteed job" and do nothing, I don't see why you couldn't be fired.

So, the way I read the headline is that it means you're guaranteed a job, but it's up to you to act so you get to keep it. In that sense, then yeah, absolutely, if I had to choose between the two, I'd say a guaranteed job is better than basic income (if the question is, "which are you more in favor of").

But even then the question reeks of being posed by someone with a sense of entitlement.

Re:Universal Income.

[Opportunist]

Right now the social security model costs a fortune and a half. Actually, the bureaucracy alone in my country would pay about 500 per person in a work-capable age. Now factor in that all other social payments and social based tax reductions would cease to exist because they get replaced by UBI and you will notice that suddenly it is very sustainable.

Will there be drawbacks for certain people? Certainly. All the government bureaucrats would suddenly have to find a real job...

Re:Universal Income.

[Anonymous Coward]

My ex-wife took all my savings when we were married. I gave up my job opportunities for her. When we divorced she took what little we had left and left me 10k in debt. that's a lot of money for someone with no job options. We had 3 kids. So she got more of my money through that too. I have an ok paying job but no safety net, no chance of ever leaving. I leave every day in fear that the next thing will go wrong and I'll be out of options. I know I cant leave because of the kids and no jobs here. No retirement. I'm just hoping I make it another 6 years until my last is out of high-school. I know if I lose job before that then I lose house and then I'll lose my kids.I grew up middle middle class and now my kids are growing up poverty. I make enough money that when obama care came through my coworkers jumped with joy for their new health insurance and I could no longer go to the doctor because the copays were bigger, but i still spent twice on insurance anyway.

I don't think we talk about it, because I think others are ashamed like I am, to give their kids less than what we had. I am relatively smart, I work hard. I just made bad choices and had some bad luck. People like me are trapped. Tired of holding on by our finger tips and afraid of letting go. UBI would give me a safety net. I could take a chance trying to work my way up. I can't start over again at 40, but I could if I had UBI. I can't take a risk and move into a less safe job hoping to prove myself. In my mind, UBI isn't going to make people lazy, it's going to make them motivated. And people aren't going to feel the need to stretch a 20 hour a week job into a 40 hour a week job. UBI frees up the semi-professional upper lower class to be more productive.

Re:Universal Income.

[LoyalOpposition]

So what is your model?

I get my choice? I think I'll pick...Charlize Theron.

So we have creeping automation that is working its way up the social-economic ladder. This is happening.

Absent the loaded adjective...I can accept that. So stipulated. Let it show in the record.

The why of that fact is that the users of that automation find it profitable to eliminate the cost of employing people.

Yeah, you're focusing on one part of what has to be at least -- at least -- a four-part system. Automation and employing people both have costs. Those costs can be initial, repetitive, and exiting. Whenever the cost of one type of interchangeable economic input is more attractive to a producer than another then it benefits him to use the more attractive choice. That removes that choice, those resources, from other users, but releases the other choice for other producers or consumers.

Now it is pretty incontestable that if the trend continues - and it will - at some point, we will hit a unpleasant point where manufacturers cannot squeak more profit out of a system that has been made very lean, coupled with and overall economy in which most of the population is nothing more than a drain.

Yeah...no. It's not as incontestable as you're letting on. You're neglecting, among a myriad of other things, the fact that there are advancements in productivity, and the fact that preferences change. As an example of the former I offer the cyanide process for gold extraction, and as an example of the latter I offer the buggy whip.

So if we use the current model, there will be a need for a massive culling...[massive deletion]

Given that your premise is false, none of your conclusions follow.

This is a massively complicated issue. 19th century economics will not solve it. Our lizard brain is not going to solve it.

Well...you're not going to solve it.

~Loyal

Re:Universal Income.

[fahrbot-bot]

In addition, if the guaranteed work isn't really productive, then UBI makes more sense as people would then have the time they would otherwise be spending at their pointless jobs to possibly do other, perhaps productive, things that may also benefit themselves and/or society - either for additional pay or gratis.

Re:Universal Income.

[Anonymous Coward]

So you're an individual anarchist? That model relies too much on human insight to work, and, to be honest, individual anarchists like Max Stirner sound silly.

Re:Universal Income.

[Anonymous Coward]

you guys need to study economics and business. UBI is a pie in the sky dream. National economies are systems of systems. Mess with one aspect and the others are affected. To pay for UBI, you have to raise taxes. Raising taxes raises costs. The more it costs to live the more you have to pay out in UBI. UBI is an unsustainable model.

The founding fathers said the same thing about a standing army. Yet, here we are with the best funded army the world has ever known.

Re:Universal Income.

[swillden]

The UBI etc presumes to maintain the economy whilst destroying the feedback loops.

Most economists disagree, particularly the libertarian ones you'd expect to be really opposed to such universal forced redistribution programs. This is because they believe UBI would do far less to distort incentives than minimum wages (which say that some people's labor is worth too little to allow them to work and some jobs have too little value to pay for them to be done) or needs-based welfare systems (which are often structured to degrade as much as assist, and to actually disincent work).

We really need some large-scale, long-term tests of these ideas to find out for sure.

Re:Universal Income.

[Ol Olsoc]

Well...you're not going to solve it.

~Loyal

I see. It is good to know that you have the answer.

So anyhow, share that solution with us - I'm on pins and needles here.

Re:Universal Income.

[king neckbeard]

Okay. Enjoy getting stabbed by a vagrant because you value staunch opposition to any collectivism over effective usage of resources that give us all effectie freedom.

Re:Universal Income.

[roman_mir]

I do not expect and do not ask for any help dealing with any situations in my life, how is that different?

Re:Universal Income.

[sjames]

So many do that now, a few more won't matter. And worse, many who do it now could just retire and call it a day, but they prefer to keep collecting their usury.

I guess you're morally fine with forcing someone to do an entirely meaningless job, and further throwing good money after bad hiring people to make sure that person faithfully performs useless work all to protect your delicate sensibilities.

Re:Universal Income.

[sjames]

You flunked Calculus, didn't you?

Re:Universal Income.

[Anonymous Coward]

Strange, I often agree with you, roman_mir, but not this time.

Be interesting to see if you change your tune next time your house catches fire, or you have a heart attack, or you....

It's fairly generally accepted that no man is an island.. you already pay a form of UBI in terms of the taxes that your business pays that are then used in current welfare payments.. why would rationalising these payments down to the simplest form possible not appeal to you? Wouldn't that be minimising the 'coercive socialism, collectivism, welfare state, any form of coercive collective oppression' to its lowest sensible level whilst still being a viable population?

Otherwise, you might find the 'have nots' starting to get really rather grumpy with your isolationist attitude and taking certain steps to redress the balance...

Captcha: mourns

Re:Universal Income.

[Anonymous Coward]

Ur obviously not a rich smart person then.
Also smart does not equal empathy.

Re:Universal Income.

[Karmashock]

Its slavery to not pay people when they don't work but also not fire them?

Let us say you didn't come into work on Tuesday. And I say "well, I'm not paying you for that day because you didn't show up but I'm not firing you"... Is THAT slavery? I kind of think you're reaching for a hyperbolic moral argument that is sadly making you seem silly.

That or you simply misunderstood. I was very clear in my original post but if people are inclined to cherry pick sentences and take them out of context... what can I do? :)

As to mindless economic activity, it is only mindless in that YOU don't want to do it. It is not mindless in that it serves no purpose. Many menial jobs must be done. That you don't want to do it doesn't mean it doesn't have to be done by someone.

Listen, comrade, come your silly revolution... which I am cruel enough to wish upon you... you're going to be worked like a dog by the oh so politically correct commissars of your great moral society.

You have utopian dreams of unicorns and fairies? Super. Enjoy eating dreams and being warmed by rainbows.

Re: Universal Income.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes. If I had no job and I would have secure living, I would most likely try to find a cure to some decease. Currently I need to feed my family so I do grunt work.

Re:Universal Income.

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd go the other way on that. Pay everybody the UBI. Then, whatever the employer pays is above that. Some may be willing to work for just a few dollars an hour to get a little extra on top of their UBI.

Increase the taxes on all employers so that the increase across all industries equals the UBI paid to workers and continuously adjusts to remain equal. This is OK, because the minimum wage is removed and they only need to pay what it takes to attract someone on UBI to earn a little extra. People may very well work for a couple of dollars an hour to get a bit more than their UBI.

It sounds like a wash, but the reason I'd go this way is because it gets rid of the current system where others are paying for the welfare of the company's employees in low wage industries. Every company has to pay every employee at least the cost of a basic living plus a little bit more as should be happening now. The hardest working among us should not continue to get the short end of the stick.

Re:Universal Income.

[Anonymous Coward]

People that complain about how "other people" will be lazy are usually projecting. Same way the super anti-gay politician is the one banging a male page and claiming he just has a "wide stance" in the men's bathroom.

Giving people (read: citizens) enough cash per month to get a tiny studio or split a 2 bedroom with a roommate, basic food and 1950's era medical care costs a hell of a lot less than doing the same while paying a wannabe cop to guard him in a prison. If they want to get premium cable, the latest game lootbox, weed or whatever, they can mow a yard, shovel some snow, much out a stable or septic tank or whatever a few hours per week to get it.

Get those people and their corporate equivalents out of the office and I can have a bigger office, less traffic, less make work, less cleanup of other people's half arsed schlop and higher job satisfaction. Because I want the Ryzen 2700x even if I have the 1700x, I want the Hayabusa, not the Ninja 250.

And I want to use those tools to make cooler stuff, have more fun and get more out of life than the guy who is content to just blaze up on the weekend and hang with his buds.

What do I get out of it? I get billions of consumers clamoring for 100 hours a week of TV, and I get to read the funnier bloggers (video dunkey, used to be angry joe, hishe/eww/ega/etc) talking about their favorite movies and shows, and I get to watch the top 1% of the vastly expanded universe of consumer content when I just wanna chill.

Thanks to OTHER people, I get to see shows like Deadwood, Rome, Game of Thrones. George Harrison personally financed Monty Python's Life of Brian, because, and I quote him by way of John Cleese, "I wanted to see it".

Idiocracy fears can all be addressed by giving people $5k on their 18th birthdays in exchange for getting a vasectomy/IUD. But the magic sky fairy people complain about that, so I'm guessing a nice killbot/plague will thin the herd instead. And we're all part of the same herd, whether or not we want to accept it.

Re:Universal Income.

[jpaine619]

Giving people (read: citizens) enough cash per month to get a tiny studio or split a 2 bedroom with a roommate, basic food and 1950's era medical care

LIAR

That's what you want to give them today. But for you commies, it's never enough. In 20 years it'll be a modest studio. 20 years after that it'll be a LARGE studio, because by then it will be a human right to not be slightly cramped when you have 30 kids you can't pay for.

You won't be happy until everyone is equally miserable. You despise the fact that given the same starting point, some people have more drive, more talent, and more desire to exceed expectations. You refuse to acknowledge that two humans, of the same intelligence and physical ability, are not the same. One is going to be just a tad bit more driven, or with a just slightly better intuition, or whatever. You HATE that. You want to destroy, or punish, those who succeed. You constantly try to take credit for their success by declaring that "No! It's not you.. It's society that has given you all that you needed". Meanwhile, some lazy cunt of the exact same IQ is doing nothing. Of course you'll lie through your teeth and declare that he was "disadvantaged" and "oppressed".

Re: Universal Income.

[Anonymous Coward]

The lazy fuck can clear a sewer main once a week for weed and beer money and stay drunk the other six days for all i care. I'll be doing productive shut and getting paid and living in a nicer place, happy that i don't have to hear him whine about other people. Enact my policy and tax me at fifty percent instead of less than 8% (bc i don't pay income tax, just cap gains, deferred and deducted out the wazoo thanks to bullshit loopholes i qualify for.) I'm rich (enough) and would rather have less traffic if i want to drive the twisties at speed.

I'm fine with disparity between classes. I just prefer it be kept to a factor of a hundred to one instead of a million to one.

Project much?

Re: Universal Income.

[Highdude702]

Yes. If I had no job and I would have secure living, I would most likely try to find a cure to some decease. Currently I need to feed my family so I do grunt work.

If you're not smart enough to *NOT* have to do grunt work to feed your family. Chances are youre *NOT* smart enough to find a cure to some disease, unless that disease happens to be thinking.

Re:Universal Income.

[Highdude702]

If you talk of replacing *ALL* Welfare programs with UBI and not increasing taxation to do it, I think you may have a bunch of people behind this idea. The problem is that still doesnt leave enough money to have *REAL* UBI(the livable wage you all claim) so then you will want more tax money because "Its not enough to live" not to mention when people get money for nothing it fucks with the economy(or so everyone claims that donald trumps tax cuts will, why not this free money?) causing mass inflation. Now not only do we no longer have welfare for the people that need it. the people that just barely had their head above water, are now drowning.

Re:Universal Income.

[sjames]

First and foremost, EVIDENCE?

Second, are you really claiming that someone born to a family that qualifies for food stamps and welfare is at the same starting point as someone born in a mansion where the parents retired at 40? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

That's a knee slapper!

Re:Universal Income.

[sabbede]

Define "comfortably". If that's $40k/y, UBI in the US would cost 14,400,000,000,000 a year. Not feasible.

Re:Universal Income.

[Anonymous Coward]

So that's how Trump is getting his US/Mexico wall built? CCC labor camps, like those of the 1930s?

Re:Universal Income.

[Anonymous Coward]

>But it does make welfare "more fair" in the sense that you get to keep your UBI even if you are an upper-middle class individual. (Of course at that point the UBI replaces that mortgage tax deduction, the deduction for your kids, and other middle-class tax deductions. So for someone in the middle-class with a mortgage and a couple of kids, UBI should be a wash.)

It would not be a wash, nowhere near that. It would essentially pay people the poverty line wage, or at least 60% of it, which, assuming you kept minimum wage laws exactly the same, would provide, on average, that as a direct bonus to people.

But this is where the 'welfare benefits' being cut matters a great deal. If you cut medicare/medicaid, you drop 30% of gov't spending, but then because of the lack of competition (assuming you don't change the laws to make chargemasters be public), medical costs would rise. I want medical spending to be the same as buying food from the grocery store - prices displayed fucking everywhere, ratings, reviews, free samples, etc. But until the market gets revealed (which would require trillion dollar lawsuits/supreme court/congressional laws), that won't happen. You know this.

Then there's social security, which many UBI proponents, probably including yourself and definitely including myself, want gone in favor of this. Social security already is a wealth transfer system, although it's more 10% loss than Swedish tax system for people making over $125k. The political ramifications of changing this system would be gigantic. Americans can't agree whether Trump is a traitor or global warming is real, or that the Earth is flat or 6000 years old, but even those crackpots fucking LOVE their social security checks. It reduces the elderly (65+) poverty rate from 40% to 9%, and those people fucking vote. That will basically require a constitutional amendment, because not even the 2050 congressional liberals will want to get rid of that.

It would literally be politically easier to change the entire UBI system to be a modification of Social Security (and make your proposed changes) than to get rid of it. The voters are that retarded.

Then there's the other rich tax advantages - shell corps, income declaration, mortgage interest deduction (80% of the dollar value benefit goes to houses worth over $250k), tariffs, gov't contracts, tax rates (UBI would suggest a flat income tax by person, not corporation, as we want corporations to get bigger, and all income to be taxed the same $/% amount, the economists are somewhat mixed on whether percentage or flat bill is better, or rather I am), TARIFFS, government backed loans (mortgages and student loans come to mind, both are artificially inflating prices, as are increasing access, but both disproportionately help middle and upper class people more than poor people, etc.

I personally want a public tax record system, along with the gov't to send me my tax bill instead of the other way around, while we're wishing upon a star.

Re:Universal Income.

[Opportunist]

Well, you'll instantly get rid of all the government warm bodies that now play musical chairs with social applications. No more applications, no red tape. It's like an inverted per-capita tax. Simple, easy, no bureaucracy. I doubt we'll cut 99.999% of government, but I would expect a very large fraction. All of those that now deal with all the different social programs (that would simply cease to exist instantly) would be superfluous.

I doubt, though, that there will be any slushing. That money is pretty much enough to be fed and sheltered. It means you survive. It might even be enough for gas, water and power for basic needs like cooking and washing. You want more than survival? Go find a job!

You'd probably only get about 200 bucks working for a month in a zero-skill job, because there isn't really any reason to pay more. But that would actually be 200 bucks you have on top of food, shelter and bare minimum needs. I don't think it would be that different to now, people would still work because they want more than survival. Maybe for some that's enough, and it would certainly mean that employers can't use some exploiting techniques that are now common because the ultimate pressure of HAVING to work if you don't want to be out on the street is no longer forcing people to take even a job that kills them slowly, but I think the change would be minimal.

Aside of a LOT less government bureaucracy.

Re:Universal Income.

[Opportunist]

I'd go the other way on that. Pay everybody the UBI. Then, whatever the employer pays is above that. Some may be willing to work for just a few dollars an hour to get a little extra on top of their UBI.

I thought that's what I said, but thanks for clarification if that wasn't clear in my posting.

Re:Universal Income.

[jpaine619]

Evidence? The ever expanding social programs and the ever expanding tax load on those who work. We started at 1%.. We're over 50% in some cases now.

No doubt you'll dismiss this.. Libs hate them facts.

By the way, if you tax anyone at 50.00001% or more, you have made them a slave. If you take more than they keep, that's slavery. Once you total up Federal, State, County, and Local taxes PLUS sales tax, it's not that hard to peek over 50%.

Here's the relevant rates (top)

Federal - 39.6% ($240K+ / year)

California - 13.3% (we've now passed 50%) if you live in CA and top out under the Feds.

Add County and Locality rates and you could be well over 50% and I wouldn't call someone earning $250K/year _rich_. They are well off, but that's not "I was born rich", that's "I chose the correct career".

No, I'm not claiming that someone in a mansion vs apt is the same starting point. Nice straw man. Need I repeat it very slow for you?

I said that given the EXACT SAME STARTING POINT, two humans will turn out differently and achieve differently because we are DIFFERENT.

You libs hate that. You'll invent any excuse for why it happens. It's always someone else's fault.. Doesn't matter that one person decided to be a surgeon and the other studied basket-weaving. You hate that some people achieve more and you think they should be punished for that..

Once again, go fuck yourself commie.

Re:Universal Income.

[jpaine619]

What meaningless jobs? If someone is paying you to do a "meaningless job", it is apparently valid enough that they are willing to pay you to do it. The only place that would/could create useless jobs is the government.. What private enterprise would do that?

Re: Universal Income.

[jpaine619]

And if he doesn't want to clean the sewer main? How long until liberals decide that everyone should be guaranteed a nice job? That's my issue with this... It never ends.

Of course, as soon as we make robots to clean the sewers, we'll hear how automation is stealing jobs...

Never mind that automation has been doing this for 2000 years.. I can't imagine a group of people whining that the horse stole the plow jobs...

Re:Universal Income.

[Anonymous Coward]

I said that given the EXACT SAME STARTING POINT, two humans will turn out differently and achieve differently because we are DIFFERENT.
You hate that some people achieve more and you think they should be punished for that..

No one* that isn't part of your fear induced strawman fallacy is OK with different outcomes. Repubs/Dems/Conservatives/Liberals and every other major group agree, as proven by the free market/ratings/etc that it's better to see athletic, mostly black men play basketball than a bunch of low skill white guys. Jews do better in finance and medicine. You can blame genetics, racism, culture or whatever, but those are the outcomes our system has. No one is suggesting that half of all NBA pros MUST be women. I won't demand a black lesbian heart surgeon for example, though if there is one I'd assume she had to put up with a lot more shit than a white guy and not be opposed to having her.

So take your strawman and shove it. On to reality. I'm a white male, born in the USA. That basically puts me at the top of the social pyramid on this planet. The fact that I was ALSO given access to good, and effectively free to me public schools and had a home life that encouraged reading and math solidified it. Despite those advantages, I was never going to be a starting forward in the NBA. Not just because I don't want to be, but because I'm not quite as tall, don't have hte genetic advantages in oxygen processing, etc that permit one to compete at that level. Watch the Jimmy Kimmel/Ted Cruz charity basketball match if you want to see what that trainwreck would look like.

No one* is pushing for absolute equality in outcome. What we disagree on is what level of equality of opportunity should be there. Try calming down and get a new dealer. Your meds are off.

*meaning no one besides a few deranged minor groups, such as flat earthers, flat taxers, and young earth creationist level nutters.

Re:Universal Income.

[sjames]

No, sucking money for nothing out of the economy.

People Need Work

[NicknameUnavailable]

That isn't to say people need jobs, but even with basic income (or especially with, depending how you look at it) you need something to do. DIY/hobby/maker culture more or less has people most suitable for basic income, but a lot of people simply aren't thinking in those terms. Chances are basic income would be great for some segment of the population while the other segment would spiral into opiate and alcohol fueled depressions while trying to find some meaning to fill their spare time. Personally, I'd say go with basic income because the people who can fill their time are inherently worth more as people and shouldn't suffer due to the needs of those soulless automatons meant for fast food service. Given enough time even helping people who can't think find things to do will likely become a hobby in itself.

Re:People Need Work

[Opportunist]

You left the portion out where you explain why this is bad.

Is it REALLY better for someone to be subjected to a meaningless, dead-end, demeaning and utterly dissatisfying back breaking job than to die from drug abuse? I fail to see that. If those were my only choices, I'd prefer the quick and relatively comfortable death.

Re:People Need Work

[NicknameUnavailable]

In the NAZI death camps they would make people carry sacks from one side of the camp to the other. When they were done, to deprive them of the sense of gratification they would derive from knowing they had at least achieved something, they would then have to carry them back to where they started. Even a fast food worker can derive some vague sense of satisfaction from having done something, that's more than someone who gets dumped into an even more directionless life. I don't believe their potential suffering outweighs those of people who would make good use of basic income simply on the grounds that people who create are inherently worth more as people than those who don't, but you can't just gloss over the issue that you're potentially taking a lot from them, even if they're too dim to realize that. Once you make that choice you step into clear psychopath/sociopath territory: it's OK to scam people because they were dumb enough to be scammed - if you aren't dumb enough to never have seen the issue you don't get to gloss over it and retain your moral integrity when making that choice.

Re:People Need Work

[Opportunist]

Have you ever considered that some people actually don't actually want to achieve anything? I couldn't imagine it myself until I met such people. They are happy with sitting on the couch all day and watching soap after soap. It's a meaningless, wasted life and at first I felt kinda angry, but then ... it's not my life they're wasting away. It's theirs. And I don't feel like I have any say how they should live it. If that's what makes them happy, if that's what they want to do with their life, I guess that's how it is.

And yes, I'm still convinced that it beats spending 9 hours getting yelled at by customers for their own, the customer's, stupidity. It is a meaningless life. But at least it's not a totally miserable one.

Re:People Need Work

[drewsup]

they want to waste their life sitting on a couch, Fine!, But don't use my tax money I gave to subsidize their choice!
Existing off government handouts is wealth redistribution, pure and simple.

Re:People Need Work

[NicknameUnavailable]

It's not government handouts, it's the product of automation. You don't get to own the world just because you were one of the guys who owned the machines. Capitalism is a system, it's a good system but it's far from perfect and we have plenty of billionaires to make that abundantly clear. Someone isn't worth more because they found market inefficiencies (since you likely don't know the actual definition: an inefficiency is basically "profit" - that's an actual failure of capitalism within the capitalist free market paradigm) to exploit. Market inefficiencies == improperly utilized resources and capitalism == a system by which we distribute resources.

Re:People Need Work

[DethLok]

I'd much rather have people wasting their life sitting on a couch than robbing me so that they can buy food.

Of my taxes, just $416 goes to unemployment benefit, while over $600 goes to pay the interest bill of the growing government debt.

And a few thousand dollars goes towards age and disability pensions.

And yes, I do live in a democratic socialist country with a welfare safety net, with a progressive tax system explicitly designed for wealth redistribution. It works pretty well.

It's just a shame that our (currently) neocon government seems hellbent on destroying that welfare net & progressive tax system with their idiotic* decisions!

* it's not idiotic if you are, like the politicians making the decisions, already very wealthy, but it is immoral, unjust and wrong.

Re:People Need Work

[Anonymous Coward]

At least the couch potatoes are still contributing to the surveys...

Re:People Need Work

[Anonymous Coward]

Maslow's hierarchy of needs. That is all that is needed for solving the issue.

Re:People Need Work

[admin7087]

Most UBI proponents would claim that the number of "hard cases" would stay roughly the same, and this seems overall credible to me. Surely there will always be a number of people who want to do nothing, a number of people who live on the streets or otherwise "fall off society's radar" (often due to mental illness), a number of psychopaths and murderers, a number of people who become alcoholics, and so forth, but it seems far -fetched to claim that these numbers would increase with UBI, or at least I'd like to see a general argument for making this assumption.

The idea is that those people who have the potential to do something more with their live have more opportunity to fulfill this potential with UBI, whereas the number of those who don't have the potential stays the same as before.

Re:People Need Work

[Opportunist]

Ok, if you prefer them to point a gun at your head and blast away your brains for the 50 bucks in your wallet ... I prefer our way.

Re:People Need Work

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm one of those people. It's not just lazyness. It's accepting your limitations - knowing that you are never going to be a world-class sportsman, a great artist, or a scientist who will cure cancer. That you are perfectly, unremarkably average. Once you realise that, what is there to do with your life? Just enjoy it, make the world better in what little ways you can, and don't strive for the impossible.

"A wandering mind is an unhappy mind" - good

[Anonymous Coward]

Wandering minds are potential for new ideas. Putting people in a job only designed to keep them busy is wasting that potential without return. You might as well just kill them: that's a lot more environment-friendly.

Re:"A wandering mind is an unhappy mind" - good

[Opportunist]

And also less cruel to the people. I can really see a lot of jobs that violate the eighth amendment, and the people subjected to it didn't even break a law to deserve it.

Re: Third option

[Anonymous Coward]

I think post like this should be careful not to present a false dichotomy.

Which is better millions dead or millions dead?

[Anonymous Coward]

The principle behind both options is marxism.
Marxism means death, hunger and mass violations of personal freedoms.

Re:Which is better millions dead or millions dead?

[Opportunist]

That's as true as the marxist boogieman of the capitalims that exploits many people for the benefit of a money-aristocracy elite few.

Let's start at the basics: Show that the underlying principle is marxism. Because so far, all I can see is that the die hard anti-marxist are as stupid as the die hard christians. Both never read the book they allegedly draw their conclusions from.

Re:Which is better millions dead or millions dead?

[Karmashock]

From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.

*swish*

Re:Which is better millions dead or millions dead?

[Anonymous Coward]

Because so far, all I can see is that the die hard anti-marxist are as stupid as the die hard christians. Both never read the book they allegedly draw their conclusions from.

Marxists are into Marxism (and anti-Marxists are against them) while Christians are into Christianity. Marxism and Christianity employ Marx and Christ as a catalyst, enabling reactions that would be hard to achieve otherwise but don't actually use any of the catalyst, merely using it to unlock dormant potential.

Reading the book would be required for actually getting driven by Marx or Christ, an exercise as futile as trying to generate energy by burning platinum.

Re:Which is better millions dead or millions dead?

[nine-times]

That's a little like saying, "I know what Shakespeare is all about. 'To be or not to be', right?"

Re:Which is better millions dead or millions dead?

[Anonymous Coward]

Marx has been violated almost as much as Nietzsche is. Hegelians would probably say that these are just growing pains as we struggle to rid ourselves from the clutches of religion and Christian values.

Re:Which is better millions dead or millions dead?

[Anonymous Coward]

So then is the story of Cain & Abel a good summary of all Abrahamic religion? And does one need to know of anything other than the great recession to understand everything that is wrong with capitalism?

Re:Which is better millions dead or millions dead?

[Karmashock]

What animates marxism is morality... its own moral paradigm. It doesn't say X or Y is more economically productive... it doesn't justify itself logistically but morally. It says "X is good" and "Y is evil".

As a result, when you identity marxism, you should first identify if the moral paradigm is in evidence.

It is very typical in these discussions for people to require that everyone read the collective works of Engles before determining something is or isn't in this wheel house. However, we don't require people to read the bible or the Quran before identifying something as Christian or Islamic.

We rely rather on flags, symbols, vocabulary that is typical of those systems... What is more, what is "capitalism"... ask different people and you get different answers.

If I were to apply a strict definition... an orthadox definition, then most of the great evils laid at the feet of capitalism especially by communists would have to be rejected to avoid hypocrisy.

Much of those evils involves government corruption for example... where in money is slipped to a politician and then the politician uses government power to secure the interests of the business. That isn't capitalism... in fact, capitalism doesn't even proscribe a political model. You can have a monarchy, a dictatorship, a democracy... and they can all be capitalistic.

Point is... why is the UBI considered "good"... not logistically... but "morally" good? Where do you draw your moral paradigm from? Why is the UBI good and contrary systems evil... or bad? Morally.

Re:Which is better millions dead or millions dead?

[nine-times]

However, we don't require people to read the bible or the Quran before identifying something as Christian or Islamic.

I'd say that you could complain about the behavior of a Christian group just by observing their behavior, but you can't condemn Christianity itself without having read the Bible. If you're going to enter into a debate about whether a belief is in keeping with Christian thought without having read the Bible, I don't think you should make your statements with a lot of confidence and authority.

It's been a while since I read Marx, and but I don't think you're quite right that "It doesn't justify itself logistically but morally." By my recollection, some of his complaints about Capitalism amounted to, "it's morally wrong", but an awful lot of his criticisms were more about, "It's unsustainable and will eventually collapse." Not that I'm trying to support Marxism. It just seems that a lot of so-called "conservatives" will immediately rail against Marxism and talk about the wonders of Capitalism while having such a poor understanding of either theory.

And on a related note, a lot of the arguments in favor of UBI aren't about it being morally good, but about it being logistically efficient. The general idea seems to be that poverty actually ends up being a drag on the economy, and you pay for it one way or another. If you create a bunch of complex systems (e.g. social security, medicare, minimum wage, employer-based healthcare) then you have to spend a lot of money managing them. Plus, being more complex, there's more room for chicanery, fraud, and waste. If you just guarantee a basic level of income, you can cut all that waste-- or so the argument goes.

The point is, it's not true that proponents of UBI argue, "Oh, sure, it's logistically inferior, but we should do it anyway because it's morally good!" You can disagree with the argument that they put forward, but instead you're just mischaracterizing it.

Re:Which is better millions dead or millions dead?

[Karmashock]

Okay, then what are you criticizing in the existing system? How would you identify it?

Appreciate, that I'm merely going to show the impossibility of the standard by applying it outside of your desired context.

I mean, if the UBI is "X"... or hasn't been proven to be "X"... and I can't associate it with "X" without going through that process... then what is it arguing against that can be identified more clearly by the same standard?

As to logistical efficiency, that isn't supportable unless you kill all the other welfare programs and then restrict the UBI to costing no more than those programs. Since neither option is being promised... that entire concept can't be taken seriously.

As to proponents using one line of rhetoric or another to persuade people to agree with them, that isn't really the issue. The issue is what do they want to do and why do they consider it to be a good idea.

There are many superior logistical positions that are not considered by these people. Logistically, we should be favoring things that increase production. UBI doesn't do that. So its not logistically useful unless it more efficiently does something we're already paying for at the moment. Thus... to be more logistically efficient you'd have to operate it on a zero sum basis. That is... it can have any money it can take from the existing welfare system. And if it does that it won't even be able to claim to be more efficient unless it takes LESS than what the welfare system was taking. At that moment, it will be more efficient.

Again, this was the Richard Nixon gambit. Given that the concept is not being pushed by hard eyed political pragmatists like Nixon but instead by people that tend to be very ideologically idealistic and ascribe to utopian economic systems... I don't think this is about logistics.

I think it is about some shining city on a hill shit. Which would be fine if it had a snowball's chance in hell of working. But if I had to bet, I'd sooner bet on the snowball.

I say this because you're not going to be able to do as much with this as I think you think you will.

Total US welfare spending is about 1 trillion dollars which includes the bureaucratic overhead. That is about "3076 dollars"... assuming 325 million people. Now if we limit this to 30 percent of the current US population which receives some kind of welfare benefit... I can increase that to 9000ish dollars per person understanding that the other 60ish percent of the population will get nothing.

Now that runs into problems because many people use well in excess of 9000 dollars. You have people that have children... you have disabled people with very expensive medical needs. You have all sorts of other things which will increase their demands.

Some people consume well over a 100,000 dollars per year in benefits. That is unusual but it happens.

Point is that right off the bat we created two tiers... those who get benefits and those that don't. That gave us 9000 vs zero. But we're actually going to have to subdivide this benefiting group many times leaving a group that gets a lot and lots of groups that get very little.

This is unavoidable given the amount of money you have to work with... this is just math.

And it gets worse because now we need a bureaucracy to determine which group people fit into. So the efficiency of firing the bureaucracy is gone.

Keep in mind, I would like to reign in the welfare state if that is your bias. If that is your position, I agree. However, the UBI won't do it.

At BEST the UBI will be in ADDITION to the existing welfare spending which will mean it increases the welfare which means it cannot claim to be logistically more efficient since it is not improving the economy, increasing production, or leading to any logistical improvement.

Now, you can give up the pretense of it being about logistics and admit it is a moral argument. But... whatever you do... this is pretty transparent.

Re:Which is better millions dead or millions dead?

[nine-times]

I'm not going to respond to most of this because you're being a bit vague and rambling and it's not clear what you're talking about. So I'll just pick this one first thing, which seems to at least be a kind of response to my post.

As to logistical efficiency, that isn't supportable unless you kill all the other welfare programs and then restrict the UBI to costing no more than those programs

So the idea of UBI is to kill all the other welfare programs, and that if you take the cost of the actual benefits disbursed along with all the various costs of administrating those programs, then UBI ends up being cheaper than the various welfare programs that are needed to accomplish the same things.

So if you actually knew something about the topic we're talking about, you might see things differently. You still might not like the idea of UBI, and you still might not believe that it ends up being cheaper, but we'd be having a very different, and perhaps more productive discussion. And just to tie it back to where we started, if you understood Marxism, we'd probably be able to have a better discussion about it. I'd bet you'd still disagree with Marx, but you'd be able to have real objections to the real theory.

Re:Which is better millions dead or millions dead?

[Karmashock]

I already addressed this very clearly here:
""
Total US welfare spending is about 1 trillion dollars which includes the bureaucratic overhead. That is about "3076 dollars"... assuming 325 million people. Now if we limit this to 30 percent of the current US population which receives some kind of welfare benefit... I can increase that to 9000ish dollars per person understanding that the other 60ish percent of the population will get nothing.

Now that runs into problems because many people use well in excess of 9000 dollars. You have people that have children... you have disabled people with very expensive medical needs. You have all sorts of other things which will increase their demands.

Some people consume well over a 100,000 dollars per year in benefits. That is unusual but it happens.

Point is that right off the bat we created two tiers... those who get benefits and those that don't. That gave us 9000 vs zero. But we're actually going to have to subdivide this benefiting group many times leaving a group that gets a lot and lots of groups that get very little.

This is unavoidable given the amount of money you have to work with... this is just math.
""

Re:Which is better millions dead or millions dead?

[nine-times]

Yeah, I saw that. It still doesn't seem like you're terribly informed or that you've thought it through.

For example, what are you actually including in that $1 trillion? It seems low. Are you talking about all medical, welfare, unemployment, food stamps, and veterans benefits? What about subsidies meant to keep prices low? State and local spending? How are you taking the minimum wage into account? What about tax breaks and tax credits?

Also, are 30% of people living below the poverty line? I thought the number was somewhere closer to 10-15%. You also assume that the disbursement would be per-person, but it could easily be per-household.

I'm not a proponent of UBI and don't know all of the ins-and-outs of the argument. And if they really want to stretch their numbers, they could try to include things like the productivity lost by having the poor people navigate the bureaucracy, or law enforcement and court costs for people who try to cheat the system. There's a lot of room for speculating how a change that big could change an economy, which means there's a lot of potential for wiggle room.

But I'm not even trying to argue that the UBI actually would be more efficient, but just that the proponents argue that it is. You start with the assumption that it's supposed to be a bleeding heart moralistic giveaway, and you never bothered to find out anything about it.

Re:Which is better millions dead or millions dead?

[Anonymous Coward]

Total US welfare spending is about 1 trillion dollars which includes the bureaucratic overhead.

Not sure where that number came from, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt here and start from it.

If we were to assume that overhead on the government is similar to overhead elsewhere, then the overhead itself is at least 20% of the cost, so at most 800 billion is actually being disbursed to recipients.

However you followed that by making the assumption that it is mostly going to people, which is not correct. A lot of welfare actually goes to companies. You also made a claim that it only goes to 30% of the population, which is not very accurate - though likely not for the reasons you might expect if you were to think it through.

It has been documented many times over that a large amount of welfare goes to people making over $100k / year; indeed a larger portion of the top 1% of earners pay zero (or even less than zero) income tax than do those who make under $20k / year. There are many multi-billion dollar corporations in our country who also pay net negative income tax.

Re:Which is better millions dead or millions dead?

[Karmashock]

You can triple the number and it still won't change anything.

Take 9 grand and triple it. 27 thousand. Some people need more than that and currently get more than that.

You're going to have a bureaucracy. People that currently get more or need more are going to cry fowl and say they're getting killed/murdered by the UBI.

The politics are intractable. And your efficiencies won't happen because Washington will still hire a million people to administer it.

As to poverty lines, I was looking at people that got welfare benefits. The numbers are between 30 and 50 percent depending on how you want to define things.

The problem is a lot worse than I think the UBI argument appreciates. Perhaps when Nixon proposed it, it might have been possible then. Now... the cancer is so much more advanced. It is non-viable.

I'm telling you... nothing short of a nasty war is going to deal with this... lots of blood and screaming.

Re:Which is better millions dead or millions dead?

[Karmashock]

Total US budget is about 4 trillion.

If you think you can get rid of the existing welfare system, fire most of the government employees, and control graft and corruption all in one sweep...

And I'm not even addressing whether your idea will work... I'm just saying for the sake of argument even if it would... it still wouldn't happen.

Then you must be a literal god. Turn some water into wine with the snap of your hands.

It won't happen. These ideas are idealistic. They're not practical. I can say nice things about them if I want but we do our nation no service by being childish and naive about things. It won't happen. This is idle silly stuff.

Re:Which is better millions dead or millions dead?

[nine-times]

So you've learned nothing? You still just are going to dismiss the idea out of hand, without even hearing whatever the argument is, even though you basically know nothing about it?

Well I give up. I can deal with stupidity and foolishness, but not willful ignorance.

Re:Which is better millions dead or millions dead?

[Karmashock]

you didn't address the argument... I did. I broke down the numbers... you didn't.

Your default surrender is accepted.

Re:Which is better millions dead or millions dead?

[Anonymous Coward]

Did you intend to reply to a different comment? I didn't see anything in the above AC reply that said anything about ending the current welfare system in any way, shape, or form. The comment seemed to be concerned with addressing some of the mathematical and statistical shortcomings with the comment you posted to before (which the AC comment was replying to). The AC did not suggest any kind of solution in their comment that I can see.

Re:Which is better millions dead or millions dead?

[nine-times]

You didn't listen. You don't learn. You throw out numbers based on nothing.

There's no point in arguing with you, any more than there's a point in arguing with a wall.

Re:Which is better millions dead or millions dead?

[Karmashock]

Numbers based on US tax revenue, welfare spending, population numbers... based on nothing apparently.

You clearly were caught out of your depth and are throwing out insults to cover for your incompetence. So deep is this incompetence that you don't realize how transparent it is... pitiful.

We are done. Good day, sir.

WTF is a guaranteed job?

[Anonymous Coward]

This is the thing I don't understand. Socialists (and especially americans who believe us northern europeans countries are socialist) talk about guaranteed jobs, but what the fuck is a guaranteed job?
Guaranteed to do what?
Is the government supposed to just create jobs out of nothing?
If one person is too productive they tell him to stop working, because he is making others look bad?
Never understood this bullshit.
Maybe they all just get government jobs sitting around playing cards all day like they do back in my home country.
I've got to warn you libs, it doesn't work and just bankrupts the country.

Re:WTF is a guaranteed job?

[Opportunist]

Slavery. Slavery is a guaranteed job. As long as I don't have to pay for it, any work you do is making me richer, so I will employ you. And that's also the only way you can guarantee a job, because as soon as I have to pay you for it, it has to be something I can sell for more than I pay you.

Re:WTF is a guaranteed job?

[Highdude702]

why do you get to sell it for more than you p aid me?!?! RRREEEE!!

sorry i had to

Re: WTF is a guaranteed job?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why do the folks with the most resources get to decide how the output is distributed? Money is power and power corrupts.

Re:WTF is a guaranteed job?

[Anonymous Coward]

No, slavery is a compulsory job. You ha ve no right to quit.

Universal Basic Income sounds like welfare, it would be very low indeed.

The first problem is to reduce the income inquelitiy. Minimum wages help here. Then giving everybody the oipportunity work and earn a living. The income comes with the job. Everybody can do useful work without excesses.

Re:WTF is a guaranteed job?

[Opportunist]

It's a given that I have to sell the work you do for me for at least the amount of money I pay you, or I would be better off without you.

Re:WTF is a guaranteed job?

[Opportunist]

Does the average wage-slave have a choice? Oh yeah, he does. He could starve to death instead without money. It's a similar choice the slave has. He can let his slave master whip himself to death. So, you see, everyone has a choice.

If you HAVE to do a job because the alternative is death, you do not really have an alternative, do you?

UBI is different from wellfare in such a way that you get it regardless of whether you do work or not. If you do work, you get it on top of what you're paid if you work. Yes, that means that the top manager with a 5 million annually also get it. That's what "universal" means.

Salaries will most likely be less than you get paid now, because with UBI there is no real reason for a minimum wage anymore. If you find someone who does what you want done for 100 a month, that's entirely between the two of you. Because without the pressure of having to work, both sides can freely decide how much the time really is worth for either of them.

Universal income is better

[aepervius]

Guaranteed job mean more or less many people will have to dig hole to fill back them again. With automation there won't be many job left in a few decades that people without high level education can do without being easily replaceable. that leave "keep busy" guaranteed job. And you know what's worst ? Having a job you know is USELESS but given to you to a pittance to keep you busy. That is why UBI is better. Then it is your choice of what you do. Many people would simply wallow in their sweat before a tube box (being old tv or youtube). But many (and I do belong to that group) would rather do something creative and productive on their own rather than get a "keep busy" occupation.

Re:Universal income is better

[Anonymous Coward]

There was once a device built onto a street as an experiment. Push a button, get a penny. There were no limits; push the button as many times as you wanted, get free money. Few people sat there and pushed the button for more than five minutes.

Now, I don't know about you, but I'm a poor button pusher. I doubt I could push that button more than 30 times a minute, long term. Still, that's 1800 pennies an hour, which is better than many jobs pay. And if you're good at pushing buttons, you could be making 40 bucks an hour just by standing there and pushing a button a little faster than once a second! Still, most people passed up this free money, preferring to get on with their lives rather than be paid up to 40 bucks an hour for pressing a button.

This experiment shows the worth of a guaranteed job.

Re:Universal income is better

[Anonymous Coward]

Same here. One of my first job as a teenager was working for a florist. I would love to do that again if my family will be taken care of financially.

Stupid question

[Anonymous Coward]

A guaranteed job will either be completely meaningless busywork, which is just cruel and demeaning to subject people to, or subsidized competition to "real" jobs and as such create more unemployment.

Better make sure people have enough to get through and enable them to be productive or improve themselves in ways which there is no - at least obvious or immediate - business case for. How knows, long term it might pay off. Short term busywork have no prospect of creating anything of value.

Neither.

[Chas]

Both are "shit sandwich" choices.

Paying people not to work destroys the ability to achieve.

Putting people into do-nothing jobs destroys the desire to work.

Both damage the economy.

One by raising cost of living to compensate for unearned payouts.
The other by depressing wages.

So, which shit sandwich will YOU take a bite of?

Re:Neither.

[Opportunist]

Paying people not to work destroys the ability to achieve.

How does eliminating a demeaning "you want fries with that" job and leaving the person to pursue something they consider worthwhile "destroy the ability to achieve"?

Re: Neither.

[Anonymous Coward]

Thatâ(TM)s a first job not a career.

Re:Neither.

[Anonymous Coward]

Universal income pays people without requiring them to job. They still might work, but it won't necessarily be a job.

Fun fact, for most of human history, there was no such thing as a job. It's a relatively modern construct and an artificial one.

Paying people to not job doesn't destroy the ability to achieve, it destroys the demand for meaningless and unfulfilling work. People will still desire to achieve, and will be freed of the need to job in order to do so.

Re: Neither.

[Anonymous Coward]

Paying people not to work destroys the ability to achieve.

That would be the various ways working takes away welfare, so guess what? Your confusion is that we aren't already in the sandwich.

Re:Neither.

[Anonymous Coward]

Because it is a disease to believe a job serving fries is demeaning.

Re:Neither.

[Hognoxious]

Paying people not to work destroys the ability to achieve.

In Victorian times there was an occupation called "gentleman". It was a person who had so much wealth - usually inherited - that he could just live on the investment income.

Plenty of them were absolute tossers but some actually did achieve things.

Re:Neither.

[tippen]

Fun fact, for most of human history, there was no such thing as a job. It's a relatively modern construct and an artificial one.

They still had to work, so still the same fundamental notion as a "job". If they didn't work to survive, they starved to death, froze to death, etc.

Re:Neither.

[king neckbeard]

But UBI is just paying people. They can work or not work, and the whole point is the choice.

Re:Neither.

[king neckbeard]

And yet, the amount of days not working was far greater for serfs and hunter-gatherers.

Re:Neither.

[nine-times]

Don't we need someone to do those "you want fries with that" jobs?

Maybe McDonalds will completely automate those specific jobs at some point, but there will always be some low-prestige jobs that need doing. We all can't be rockstars.

Re: Neither.

[GameboyRMH]

This is one of the silliest and most widespread self-delusions of capitalism apologists. That low-paying menial jobs are meant to be first jobs for teenagers, so it's OK that they suck. This helps them to whistle and look the other way from all the skilled thirtysomethings stuck in them.

Re:Neither.

[GameboyRMH]

They're still around, we call them trust fund babies now.

Re:Neither.

[Anonymous Coward]

You think that is something that vanished in Victorian times? The modern term is "trust fund babies", often part of family dynasties going back a generation or more.

Re:Neither.

[squiggleslash]

Paying people not to work destroys the ability to achieve.

I have many problems with the premise of the article, principally the fact it's begging the question, but characterizing a universal income as "Paying people not to work" is completely off base. The entire point of UBI is that it's issued regardless of whether you work. It's not like Welfare/Unemployment/Income Support.

Again, the article's central assumption is dumb, it was written by someone with the same mentality that those who smashed looms in the 1700s had. AI is just more automation, that's it. If automation has created jobs since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution there's absolutely no reason to assume it'll stop now. But your characterization of UBI is off base, and the idea, however simplistic and dumb and Muskesque, deserves to be ridiculed for what it is, not what it isn't.

Re:Neither.

[Ksevio]

Neither proposal pays people not to work.

Guaranteed job pays people that are working

Minimum income pays people regardless if they work or not (so there's the same monetary incentive to work as now)

Re:Neither.

[Chas]

Because YOU have an agreement with your employer to do the demeaing "fries" job. Only IDIOTS stay in that job and don't progress.
Hell, the major franchises have PROGRAMS to help you advance your career beyond "Want fries?"

Shit jobs like that teach you, as a kid, one thing.
Those types of no-skill jobs SUCK. And if you don't wanna be stuck doing that forever, YOU IMPROVE YOURSELF.

As for paying people not to work.
It's not sustainable. It just isn't.

Re: Neither.

[Chas]

It's not that they suck. It's just no-skill manual labor has only marginal value in the job market.

Jobs like that are "starters" to encourage people to improve themselves, and teach them the major lesson of "Yes. It sucks. But you continue to show up ANYHOW!" Translation: Responsibility and Work Ethic.

Re:Neither.

[Chas]

Fun fact. People used to die at 35 too.
They used to die of all sorts of things that simply don't exist anymore, or are so well beaten back that cases are rare in First World countries.

Universal income is like college loans. It's a sum that sets a floor value for cost of living. Yet prices will artificially inflate to accommodate this sum after a while.

Re:Neither.

[Chas]

Bullshit.

It was all day, every day.

You either worked to bring in your sustenance, or you brought in enough all at once to last you for a while.

Re: Neither.

[Opportunist]

Yes. It isn't. Please discuss it with the 50 year old working at McD because he can't get any other job anymore, and please let me be there.

No guarantees for your safety or life, though.

Re: Neither.

[Chas]

And exactly where did I say I didn't have a problem with the welfare state?

Re: Neither.

[Opportunist]

No. Translation "I need the money".

How do you explain the people aged 50something working there? Are they "starting"? Or are they just not able to get any other jobs anymore in this fucked up economy?

Re:Neither.

[Chas]

Yes. The "idle" rich. They weren't being paid by the government not to work...

Elon Musk, Tim Sweeny, various Trump-kin. They're all modern analogues.

Re:Neither.

[Opportunist]

The disease is the managers treating their employees like that. Let alone the customers.

Re:Neither.

[Opportunist]

Well, then please tell us about those jobs that are no-skill that will still be available once automation took over. Economy and workplace researchers all over the world are eagerly listening.

Re:Neither.

[Opportunist]

You might have noticed that there are people with limited mental abilities. And not all of them can become politicians. What now?

Re:Neither.

[Chas]

Yeah. And where does the money come from?

UBI works on the economy like school loans. Prices simply inflate to encompass the available money.

And I'm sorry, I'm opposed to any program that basically pays people not to work.

Re:Neither.

[Chas]

"UBI is issued whether or not you work."

Yep. And where's the money come from?

Also, at that point it works o the economy like school loans.

College degrees didn't get THAT much more expensive. They amounts demanded inflated simply because there was a known amount available.

UBI will do the same thing to basic cost of living.

Re:Neither.

[Chas]

Sorry but UBI inflates basic cost of living the way college loans inflate the cost of college education.

And yes, UBI is essentially paying people to not work. There will always be a segment of the population that will try to get by without working.
You see it already in the present welfare state. This just exacerbates the problem.

And where does the money for UBI come from?

Whose pocket is the money being swiped from?

THINK about it.

Both guaranteed jobs and UBI are ugly redistributionist hacks that only damage the economy in the long run.

Re:Neither.

[Anonymous Coward]

It is indeed a false choice. Let's say that you require everyone to work. But there some people that are simply not employee. They don't want to work. They can't work. Whatever. What do you do with those people? Since are now this caring concerned society, we can't let them live in the streets. So now we provide UBI. Other workers get wind of this and decide to take the same choice. So you wind up providing some UBI in all cases. So you might as well start with UBI. However, there's no reason that UBI should provide a "comfortable" living. You shouldn't be able to buy a single family home with UBI -- that's not a "basic" level of living. If you want more, you need to work on top of your UBI.

Re:Neither.

[Anonymous Coward]

Those jobs are gone soon anyway. And there will be no more mcdonalds without that lower income customer. So they lose nothing by giving ubi

Re:Neither.

[ChatHuant]

Paying people not to work destroys the ability to achieve.

Fortunately that's absolutely not what we're talking about. People get UBI whether they work or not; with the UBI as a safety net, they can be more choosy about their jobs, or they can try this new idea they thought about but couldn't risk before because their kids would starve if it failed. Look at J. K. Rowling; she wrote the first Harry Potter book while on unemployment, but being on the dole didn't destroy her ability to achieve.

Surely, if UBI were implemented there will be some that would just sit on the couch all day watching TV. But, once you take basic survival out of the equation, people do like to work, if the job is interesting or meaningful to them. Comparatively few people retire after they make their first million(s), even though they could spend the rest of their lives comfortably on their couches. But instead they keep working, putting in crazy hours, trying new ideas, starting new companies.

For an example of this, see Elon Musk: after selling his share of PayPal he could have lived the rest of his life in extreme comfort, on the best couch money can buy. Instead, he started trying any number of new things, and has changed the world. Obviously, not all salarymen are potential Elon Musks, but I think UBI will free quite a bit of human potential.

Re:Neither.

[Anonymous Coward]

It's worth noting that virtually everything we value from that time period was achieved by them--because they had the free time and resources to pursue innovation and discovery.

Very, very few things of long-term value were created by wage workers before 1900.

Re:Neither.

[Anonymous Coward]

That "you want fries with that" job is a way for teens to make money and to get a sense of what it's like to work in a job so that they can advance and get to something better elsewhere later on. If you're trying to stay at that job, then that's as much as you're going to achieve, so what's the problem there?

Re:Neither.

[Anonymous Coward]

And forcing people to work that don't want to work is slavery.

Re:Neither.

[king neckbeard]

It comes from the same taxes that the welfare system does, and gets more done for less money.

And again, it isn't paying people not to work. it's just paying people, whether they work or not. Not giving a single fuck whether you work or not is how it's cheaper than welfare, because there's no means testing or anything like that to determine whether or not you 'deserve' the money.

Re:Neither.

[Anonymous Coward]

My solution would be to provide free housing, food, medication, education etc. basic needs. Possibly even free mass transit and some limited amount of culture (e.g. free museum on fridays etc.) for everyone.

Housing and food would be basic. Nothing fancy, but you can live with it.

If you want some extra, you have to earn money for it. As you no longer are required to have a good job to maintain your basic needs, you could easily do small gigs to earn some pocket money to get you a new computer. Or you could aim higher and become a doctor and buy yourself a better house and better food. Most people would probably want to work, but everyone would still be taken care of if they don't get a job. This would also make it possible to have micro companies that earn e.g. hundred dollars a month, as even with that amount, you could get a lot of stuff.

Re:Neither.

[king neckbeard]

No. Serfs had a fuckton of holidays. It tended to make them a lot less likely to turn their pitchforks on their owners. Granted, the work was more arduous, but the number of days worked was far less.

Re:Neither.

[Chas]

There are already programs for people with actual mental disabilities.

I'm not talking about those.

Re: Neither.

[Chas]

You don't want the honest answer.

Because, to you, an honest answer is "offensive".

Re:Neither.

[Chas]

No. Serfs had a fuckton of holidays. It tended to make them a lot less likely to turn their pitchforks on their owners. Granted, the work was more arduous, but the number of days worked was far less.

Says somebody who was never a serf.
Someone who is living at a level of comfort unrivaled outside of first world countries and greater than any common citizen, serf or slave in all of history.

Please stop trying to barf up your sanitized history of how WONDERFUL things were when people were chattel.

Re:Neither.

[Chas]

It comes from the same taxes that the welfare system does, and gets more done for less money.

BULLSHIT!

Right now there are over 110 million people in the welfare system, drawing various levels of benefits.

You're basically going TRIPLE the amount of people in such a system with UBI, And even with a modest monthly payment, you're going to explode the budget from what it already is.

Which means more taxes. And who's going to bear the brunt of that? Those who actually work for a living, to support a bunch of people who're gaming the system and remaining idle.

And again, it isn't paying people not to work. it's just paying people, whether they work or not. Not giving a single fuck whether you work or not is how it's cheaper than welfare, because there's no means testing or anything like that to determine whether or not you 'deserve' the money.

When you give people an option to obtain money through their own labor, or just take a stipend and not work, you're going to have a percentage of the population who are just going to opt for the stipend and not work. We ALREADY have this with welfare. AND IT IS UNACCEPTABLE.

You can continue lying about it being "cheaper than welfare". But it helps nothing.

Re:Neither.

[nine-times]

Most likely, people will still need to scrub toilets.

Re:Neither.

[Opportunist]

I'm not talking about people who need "protected workspaces". I am talking about people who simply cannot move on from burger flipping jobs simply because anything beyond this is also beyond their capabilities.

Re:Neither.

[Opportunist]

Nope.

This is of course only the after-use cleaning, the full cleaning cycle takes longer and is more complicated.

Re: Neither.

[Opportunist]

Try me. What could possibly be offensive about explaining why people in their 50s have to take burger flipping jobs 'cause they can't get hired for anything else?

Re:Neither.

[Anonymous Coward]

Because most of those who are more than a few years out of college and still have a "you want fries with that" job have zero ability to achieve as it is, or they wouldn't still be stuck in that job. They are the types that likely blow all of their min wage money on some vice they cannot afford rather than make that money make a difference in their situation. If they were on a UBI with no job, they would likely just be spending more money on whatever their vice of choice is since they have more free time on their hands. There are alot of people that a UBI will not help at all. Due to other underlying "mental" issues.

Re: Neither.

[Anonymous Coward]

Nobody said it was wonderful. The disagreement was with the description of the work days.

Re:Neither.

[sjames]

But they wouldn't be paid to NOT work. That is, working wouldn't cause them to not receive the UBI.

Consider this. When you read the history of science, it's filled with Gentlemen. No, not guys who hold the door for a lady, guys who didn't have to punch a clock for their next meal. That's because they weren't busy wasting their minds while they toiled away to scratch a living together.

People achieve because it feels good to achieve. Some achievements bring money, some do not. If anything, having to work a day job stands in the way of achievement.

Re:Neither.

[king neckbeard]

Says somebody who was never a serf.

Fortunately, we have these things called 'records' that allow us to have data on lives that we haven't lived.

Please stop trying to barf up your sanitized history of how WONDERFUL things were when people were chattel.

I didn't say being a serf was good. Quite the opposite. You see, unlike your dimwitted ass, I have the mental capacity to judge different times by MULTIPLE criteria. We also have more AIDS than serfs did, but we beat them overall at hygiene. Specifically on the subject of days worked, I'm saying that despite all of our advances, we have less free time than those chattel.

Also, compared to hunter-gatherers, those serfs were working their asses off (and hunter gatherers had plenty of problems as well). But you and your warped perceptions of what a reasonable amount of work is came from the industrial revolution, not from human history in general.

Re:Neither.

[king neckbeard]

Which means more taxes. And who's going to bear the brunt of that? Those who actually work for a living, to support a bunch of people who're gaming the system and remaining idle.

People who actually work for a living will pay about as much as they get out. In fact, the people that work the hardest will probably see MORE income, beceause the most arduous jobs often have low pay. The people who might lose money are largely the people who are already overpaid leeches, although they'll likely see net gains due to the fact that the money in the economy is being distributed in a useful way.

When you give people an option to obtain money through their own labor, or just take a stipend and not work, you're going to have a percentage of the population who are just going to opt for the stipend and not work. We ALREADY have this with welfare. AND IT IS UNACCEPTABLE.

Why is that unacceptable? Work is an ends to a means, and is not valuable in and of itself. Pull your head out John Calvin's ass and actually provide a substantive argument.

You can continue lying about it being "cheaper than welfare". But it helps nothing.

I'm not lying. It has less overhead, which is why the very right-wing, free market advocate Milton Friedman was a fan of it. You can't be sane and be to the right of him, and he was an advocate of it because it was a 'small government' solution to poverty.

Re:Neither.

[nine-times]

That seems to just clean the toilet seat. It may be possible to completely automate all cleaning, maintenance, and service jobs. However, we're not remotely close to that point yet.

Re:Neither.

[Hognoxious]

Your original premise didn't mention the government.

It merely stated that people who get paid for doing nothing don't achieve anything. It's wrong, as my counterexample shows.

Re:Neither.

[Chas]

Sorry that you believe that you "deserve" to sit around, do nothing, and get paid for it.

I don't. If you want money, the ability to survive in society, and you don't have a condition that contraindicates work, YOU FUCKING WORK.

I don't believe in a redistributionist, freeloader society.

Re: Neither.

[GameboyRMH]

I'll take a guess, it's something along the lines of "all of those people are borderline-unemployable undesirables and/or lazy fuckers with no ambition who deserve their lot in life. The system works!"

Re:Neither.

[Anonymous Coward]

Have you considered that for most people the demeaning "you want fries with that" is the ONLY job they will ever be good for. We used to say that we can't be all scientists and artists, we need bricklayers and garbagemen too. Well, it turns out we won't need them anymore. Good riddance if you ask me.

Re:Neither.

[squiggleslash]

UBI will do the same thing to basic cost of living.

I agree. Plus in practice you'll see a situation where, if you have high unemployment, UBI will be reduced as an incentive to get people to find work (and because the money isn't coming in), and it'll also face the downward pressures imposed by people complaining that they are working hard and paying high taxes while other people just laze around all day, encouraging politicians to reduce it.

And so you'll see it drop to below the cost of living. And at that point, someone will say "But look, the disabled and the temporarily jobless are being made homeless and are starving, how can we treat people like this!" and so new benefits, we'll call them "Disability" and "Unemployment", will be introduced, together with, perhaps, something for single parents who can't afford to work and look after their kids.

And then we'll end up with both UBI and all these benefits that UBI was supposed to make obsolete. And the question will be asked "What was the point of UBI again?"

Re:Neither.

[Anonymous Coward]

"People used to die at 35 too" is misleading to the point of being incorrect. The average age of death was around 35, but that was because most people died almost immediately after they were born, or at some point in childhood (frequently due to diseases). Once they reached adulthood, people lived well into their sixties or seventies. Modern medicine has upped the average life expectancy mostly by saving premature or ill babies and vaccinating children.

Re:Neither.

[CrimsonAvenger]

You're basically going TRIPLE the amount of people in such a system with UBI, And even with a modest monthly payment, you're going to explode the budget from what it already is.

Current Federal "entitlements" amount to ~$2.8T per annum.

Add another $500G per annum for State-level programs.

Ditch the bureaucrats required to administer those various programs, and split the $3.3T evenly to every citizen....

Looks like $10K per person per year. Not enough for one person to live very well alone. But not impossible for a family of four ($40k per annum)...

And that's without ANY new taxes, and no more deficit than we currently have.

Re:Neither.

[king neckbeard]

Sorry that you believe that you "deserve" to sit around, do nothing, and get paid for it.

I didn't say that I deserve that. I'm saying that it effectively solves many societal problems. if a hypothetical scenario were available where I could ensure that society has a UBI, but I were not personally eligible for it, I would still support it, because I don't want sick peasants in the streets.

I don't. If you want money, the ability to survive in society, and you don't have a condition that contraindicates work, YOU FUCKING WORK

Okay, so you're saying Paris Hilton is going into the salt mines, eh, comrade? Or is it only the poor that have to work?

I don't believe in a redistributionist, freeloader society.

Okay, so you don't believe in every single society that has ever existed? Because feeding peasants is the first thing just about any form of government has done, including organized crime and religion.

Re:Neither.

[Ksevio]

What's your alternative to growing automation and inequality then?

Experiments in the past have shown that people typically stop working to raise children or continue education but will continue working since who doesn't want more money?

Re:Neither.

[Anonymous Coward]

As for paying people not to work.
It's not sustainable. It just isn't.

That is quite a confident claim you're making up, out of what, intuition?

Re:Neither.

[JesseMcDonald]

So right now we have a system which is paying an average of 30k/year to 110M welfare recipients. People who, on average and for various reasons, can be expected to have above-average cost of living. Some of them are likely to require significantly more than 30k to cover special needs and/or ongoing medical costs. And you're proposing to replace all of this with a flat payment of $10k/year/person? Surely even you wouldn't expect someone currently receiving $30k/year to cover necessary living expenses to make do with a measly $10k, but where is the rest supposed to come from when all the welfare infrastructure has been replaced with a "simple" UBI?

If you plan to replace the existing welfare system with something "simpler" you can't just take the current totals and redistribute them evenly among three times as many recipients. You need to ensure that even those with the highest cost of living among existing welfare recipients—especially them, since they likely have the greatest need—do not see a significant cut in their benefits. Doing so while dismantling the apparatus responsible for determining how much each individual actually needs, and instead attempting to pay everyone the same amount, will require far more resources than the existing system. Not only would you have three times as many people receiving benefits, but the average payout would also need to increase since you're no longer matching benefits to individual needs.

The cost of a welfare system expanded to cover everyone without reducing average benefits would be about $10T. Adjusted to pay everyone an equal amount which would ensure that, say, the 80% percentile of current recipients see no reduction in benefits (assuming the 80/20 rule—that 80% of the cost goes toward 20% of recipients) could easily quadruple that figure while still reducing benefits for over 20 million people.

Re: Neither.

[Opportunist]

Then I guess that means whoever says that is not a 50something trying desperately to find a job, any job, but being replaced by 20somethings who are cheaper and less prone to having a family or even medical conditions, or a family with medical conditions.

Motivation usually isn't really the problem for them.

Re:Neither.

[Opportunist]

Yes, this is just the seat. Unfortunately I couldn't find a video of the main cleaning routine. In the end, you need one person every couple days to check whether everything is in working order and to refill the cleaning substances. That's one job for one guy supervising thousands of toilets, with 90% of his work time actually being traveling between toilets, not cleaning them.

Yes, automation of toilet cleaning has become a reality.

Re: Neither.

[GameboyRMH]

Indeed, it's virtually always wealthy people, usually on the older side. But they're sticking to this theory, and believe that if you disagree, the truth is just 2edgy4u bro.

Re:Neither.

[nine-times]

Unless it's automated to the point where the whole bathroom gets hosed down with soapy water, rinsed, and dried automatically, you still need someone to clean the toilet and surrounding area. And as you recognized, even at that point, you need someone to check on the automated systems.

However, even if and when we reach that point, how many places will invest in them? Do you think every house, apartment, business, and industrial bathroom will be converted to a self-cleaning version? Because if not, then yeah, there will still be people scrubbing toilets.

Re: Neither.

[Anonymous Coward]

A better option would be to create the conditions under which people are paid for the use of their data - not as a resource that they sell, but as an asset that they build and lease. That is not a form of welfare by anyone's definition. For many purposes, the data generated by the most marginalized is the most valuable. Establishing mechanisms for dynamic consent would ensure that people remain in control to the extent they desire and encourage people to be engaged in the research enterprise. And data is where value lies in the current economy.

Re:Neither.

[Opportunist]

You need one person to supervise a battery of robot toilets. Yes, you still need workers, but you need very, very few. Instead of 30 people scrubbing, you have one person looking.

And yes, I won't have a robot toilet. But I also don't hire anyone to scrub mine. And neither does anyone else, except maybe the proverbial 1% who can't be assed to clean their own toilet. But then we're back at the problem of having one job for one person, not 30.

Re:Neither.

[nine-times]

Yes, you still need workers, but you need very, very few. Instead of 30 people scrubbing, you have one person looking.

What about the side of the toilet? The area around the toilet? The wall next to the toilet?

And yes, I won't have a robot toilet. But I also don't hire anyone to scrub mine. And neither does anyone else, except maybe the proverbial 1% who can't be assed to clean their own toilet.

I suppose you've never been in an office building or a restaurant, where there are shared/public toilets? You've never even been in a school? Oh... I guess you've never been in a school. That makes sense of how poorly thought out your argument is.

Re:Neither.

[Opportunist]

The main argument remains, and I'll make it the only one this time so you're not overtaxed with thinking about too many things at once, that yes, you still need workers, but you need one instead of 30. What do you plan to do with the 29 that now do not have a job anymore?

Re:Neither.

[nine-times]

So let's accept your numbers for the sake of argument, even though I think they're completely unrealistic. But now let's flip your question around: What do you plan to do about the 3% of toilet-cleaning work that still needs to be done?

Because that's what the conversation started from. The question, "Don't we need someone to do those 'you want fries with that' jobs?" Whether it's working at McDonalds or cleaning toilets, or changing diapers for old senile people, there will be dirty jobs that someone needs to do. The idea of a social welfare program that simply frees everyone from any compulsion to take that job raises a problem: Some of those jobs will still be needed. Someone will still need to do some of those jobs. So who's going to do them, and why?

Re:Neither.

[Opportunist]

Then I guess those jobs must be really well paid. You'd be surprised what people are willing to do if the money is right.

Re:Neither.

[nine-times]

Ok, so part of the idea of UBI is to have significant salary inflation? If so, that seems like it's worth understanding.

Re:Neither.

[Opportunist]

Not necessarily, you'll not only pay fewer people but also probably less than you pay today, because paying someone 800 bucks now is (to him) equal to paying him 200, when 600 come from UBI.

Automation means you pay fewer people. UBI means you pay them less. For some jobs the latter will not be true and you'll probably still have to pay what you pay now, but you'll still pay fewer people.

Re:Neither.

[nine-times]

because paying someone 800 bucks now is (to him) equal to paying him 200, when 600 come from UBI.

Except he'll get $600 either way, so he's still only seeing a $200 increase in pay for all of his hard work.

Believe me, I'm all in favor of automation. And I think one of the strengths of the argument for UBI is, assuming automation will put a lot of people out of work, you'll need some way of dealing with the coming wave of unemployment. However, I think we have to recognize that we're unlikely to completely do away with manual/menial labor anytime soon. Even if we imagine an eventual world where robots can do all of those jobs, there will be several decades (at least) of transition, from the time when massive numbers of jobs start to get wiped out, until robots can just do all the things that need to be done.

So in that meantime, during that time, you're going to need some kind of workforce doing those crappy jobs. If you get to the point where 50% of the menial jobs go away, and all those people are then given a livable wage for nothing, it's not clear that the other 50% still doing menial jobs will be happy to continue doing them, for a similar wage to what they'd get if they did nothing.

And you could say, well we'd pay them enough that they'd be motivated to do that work, but then that might just lead to inflation.

Incidentally, I'm not saying I know what the answer is. Maybe it's better to figure out how to get a lot of people to work part time at menial jobs for a livable wage, instead of some people getting stuck working full time while others can do nothing. But then maybe we're straying into the "guaranteed work" camp. Also, it raises some questions about division of labor, experience, and expertise-- will 4 janitors each scrubbing toilets 10 hours a week do the job the same as 1 janitor working 40 hours. Maybe they won't do as much as well, because they don't really get into a groove and learn as much about doing the job? Maybe they'll do better, because they can come to the job with more rest and less stress and frustration?

(Keep in mind that "janitors" and "scrubbing toilets" is just a stand in for all the various kinds of work that we tend to think of as "menial". Some of those jobs require quite a bit of training and expertise, and require people to care about doing a good job.)

Re:Neither.

[Opportunist]

Manual labor will still exist. But you will need a LOT fewer people to do it. In my country, the unemployment rate for unlearned and unskilled labor is close to 50%, and that with a total of less than 5%. Automation is already here. Granted, the amount of people who have absolutely zero education is very low around these places so those 50% look horrible while we're actually talking about only a few ten-thousands people altogether, but these people have no job and also have no chance to get one. This will only get worse with automation.

But even these people will at some point in time need to replace something that broke down. Washing machines, dishwashers, they need replacement. And you can't get that on UBI done because UBI covers your current cost of living. There is no room for replacements or even trading up.

So you will have ample supply of people who can do these jobs. The fluctuation will be very high, because they'll have that job for those weeks or at the most months they have to work to accumulate the money they need to get the items they need to replace. But then again, the learning curve for those jobs is very close to zero, so fluctuation isn't really the problem.

Re:Neither.

[nine-times]

Ok, so your version of UBI specifically doesn't actually pay enough for people to live off of, thereby guaranteeing that people will need to work. That's an interesting idea, but I don't think that's what most proponents of UBI have in mind, considering that it's supposed to cover people who can't work.

Re:Neither.

[Opportunist]

It needs fine tuning, that's a given. But the general idea is that you can survive on UBI, anything you want extra, go find work.

Re:Neither.

[Hognoxious]

Well then the solution is simple: if we wish to have colonies on Mars by next week, we must return to levels of inequality and social stratification similar to those in the middle of the 19th century!

Distopian future..

[thesupraman]

Yes, a 'guaranteed job' pretty much means 'YOU better find a job you like, or we will find one you DONT'
Its just renamed 'work for your unemployment benefit', which it most definitely a stick, not a carrot.

Of course the powers that be LIKE people to be at their behest, and LIKE to have to control, so why am I not surprised they will try and sell that as a solution.

A real UBI system (and nearly every time we see those in power talking one it is NOT, it is just another benefit for people who 'need' it) is very different from that.
It is a reward for being part of a system, that is not dependent on your position in the system.
And, almost as importantly, it REPLACES most of the other parts.
It replaces benefit for unemployment, sickness (but not necessarily medical), old age, education, and many many more, thus removing the HUGE beuraucracy that is wrapped around operating and policing those.
Why do those in power hate it? because it reduces their control, and their ability to sell themselves as 'helping us' by endlessly making slight changes for how they give our own money back to us when they decide we need it.

But no, they must sell UBI as being a form of benefit for people who failed, because they think that will help keep it from ever happening, because they are sure the silent majority hate such things. That is why pretty much every proposed UBI 'trial' is not UNIVERSAL.

It will take a big change in the political systems before we ever see anything like UBI (and no, i don't mean to some kind of socialist nirvana, such people generally hate anything equal and universal with a great passion).

Re:Distopian future..

[Opportunist]

Yes, a 'guaranteed job' pretty much means 'YOU better find a job you like, or we will find one you DONT'

This is staggeringly a lot like it was in the former Soviet Union. Find a job, or we find one for you. Somewhere in some godforsaken backwater town in the middle of Sibiria, there is always a shortage of ... everything. So no matter what you can do, they need you there.

Re:Distopian future..

[Joce640k]

I thought Trump was sending them down the coal mines.

Re:Distopian future..

[Anne Thwacks]

I thought Trump was sending them down the coal mines.

Just wait till he finds out about salt mines from Vlad!

Re: Distopian future..

[phantomfive]

You shouldn't be rewarded for being part of the system. That's retarded. You should be rewarded for *contributing* to the system. (And yes I am aware that there are a great many rich people who are a net drain on the system. If we can figure out how to get them separated from their weather I highly favor it)

Re: Distopian future..

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree people should be rewarded for contributing (as defined by the person who is rewarding them), and having been rewarded, should be able to do with those rewards as they see fit. Including giving it to the next person in exchange for whatever value that next person provides. It's not the collective's place to "separate them from their wealth" and give that wealth to someone who, by definition, has not earned it.

In all the talk about income inequality, I see no discussion of output inequality.

Re:Distopian future..

[teg]

And, almost as importantly, it REPLACES most of the other parts. It replaces benefit for unemployment, sickness (but not necessarily medical), old age, education, and many many more, thus removing the HUGE beuraucracy that is wrapped around operating and policing those.

This is the part many don't like. Today, many of these benefits are dependent on your income and thus how much you pay into the system. If I'm sick, my wife is on maternity leave etc, these benefits replace the paychecks so that you don't lose money. If these are replaced with UBI, suddenly getting a child will lose you a lot of money - all of your pay check . Getting sick? Same thing - no pay, but you have UBI at the bottom.

For people actively contributing, today's system works much better than UBI.

Re: Distopian future..

[peragrin]

Forget political it will take a huge hange in economnics to make UBI a reality.

When we get just in time manufacturing, in stead of just in time shipping that we have now then we can talk about UBI. Until that point the exonony won't be able to sustain it.

Just in time manufacturing means product is only produce as it is sold with minimal stock. For reference that is ,walk into Best buy pick out a TV. They may have 2-3 in stock, but your TV they build for you and you pick it up the next day.

Re: Distopian future..

[CaffeinatedBacon]

That's not just in time. That's just missed out. If it was there in time I'd be taking it home with me now.

Re:Distopian future..

[Anonymous Coward]

And the opposite is currently FAR worse.

Basic income doesn't mean you get a lot of money. Basic subsistance - basic medical, basic food, basic apartment (only a bit better than the flophouse), basic education, basic transportation (public transportation, no car), minimal communication (basic phone).

Want something in a better area, more comfortable? More toys?
get a job.

Re: Distopian future..

[datavirtue]

And for the people who contribute, unemployment pay is not an option nor would living on UBI be. Not seeing your point.

Re: Distopian future..

[Anonymous Coward]

You shouldn't be rewarded for being part of the system. That's retarded. You should be rewarded for *contributing* to the system. (And yes I am aware that there are a great many rich people who are a net drain on the system. If we can figure out how to get them separated from their weather I highly favor it)

There was a star trek TNG episode where the old where basically put down cause they might start being a negative contribution to society. In that particular episode the old guy in question was doing critical work to save their planet so it was a somewhat unrealistic scenario.

But what if rather than a credit score we could look up some score based on your net contribution to society? If it is greater than or equal to 1 you are at least breaking even. If it is less than 1 you are a burden, which is going to happen from time to time because people do get hurt, or are born with medical conditions/etc etc. Even so, a lot of the time it is possible to find a way to contribute, particularly if the rest of us help.

Obviously the rich who consume many more resources disproportionately, including having a greater negative impact on the environment would be at risk of being less than 1, but also some that don't have much, that just show up to the emergency room when they are sick, that know they aren't going to pay all the rent from the start, etc, etc, also could be less than 1.

A goal for every citizen should be to be a net benefit to society so society advances. That doesn't mean living the life of a monk.

I just think at some point you need to reduce the problem not to basic income or not, but how do we make sure that everyone, on average, is doing their part in the social contract? Once you figure that out you can adjust taxes and all the rest _correctly_ since you will have figured out what "their fair share" really means.

Re:Distopian future..

[johannesg]

Yes, a 'guaranteed job' pretty much means 'YOU better find a job you like, or we will find one you DONT'
Its just renamed 'work for your unemployment benefit', which it most definitely a stick, not a carrot.

That sounds lovely, until you realize that all the free money was actually taken from other people. Your noble request for people to get money without contributing some of their time, also means others _must_ work and have their money taken without any kind of compensation or benefit.

And, almost as importantly, it REPLACES most of the other parts.
It replaces benefit for unemployment, sickness (but not necessarily medical), old age, education, and many many more, thus removing the HUGE beuraucracy that is wrapped around operating and policing those.

There is no "huge" bureaucracy. The amount of money that goes into all those benefits outweighs the salary cost of the few civil servants involved by such a wide margin that they might as well not exist.

I also disagree that it is a more fair system. Someone who is sick and unable to work has much greater need than someone who has a good job. Why would they receive the same sum?

Why do those in power hate it?

Presumably because they are able to do basic arithmetic, and thus know it cannot possibly work.

Since someone is bound to disagree, let me ask some questions of my own:

- How much money is needed to live?
- How many people are there?
- What do you get when you multiply those numbers?
- How does that number compare to the GDP of your country?
- How do you expect to pay for it, given that it is much larger than your current GDP, and given that your GDP also covers costs that will still be there in a UBI world?

Re: Distopian future..

[phantomfive]

how do we make sure that everyone, on average, is doing their part in the social contract? Once you figure that out you can adjust taxes and all the rest _correctly_ since you will have figured out what "their fair share" really means.

I don't have an answer for that. My guess is it's impossible.

Re: Distopian future..

[Anonymous Coward]

"There was a star trek..."

Opinion discarded.

Re:Distopian future..

[fluffernutter]

others _must_ work and have their money taken without any kind of compensation or benefit.

That's an unpreventable cost of maintaining a civilization. Either pay these people not to go out and commit crimes, or pay police to clean up after. I much prefer the former myself, because it results in the least deaths and violence and is probably cheaper.

Re: Distopian future..

[Anonymous Coward]

And heck, why would you get anything at all? Too many people think the world just owes them a living, literally.

Re: Distopian future..

[Anonymous Coward]

We currently import underpaid (illegal) agricultural labor from Mexico, which is not even self-sufficient in agriculture, although it has the resources to be self-sufficient if it got its act together: we import agricultural labor from them and export food to them. What if we sealed off the border and filled our need for cheap agricultural labor with the idle urban poor and the homeless who plague our cities? Clean out the ghettoes and skid row, end welfare, and satisfy our agricultural needs all in one, easy step. Of course, this would mean forced relocation of the new agricultural labor force and likely compelled labor (who, after all, woukd willingly give up a life of idle decadence for fieldwork?), but sometimes sacrifices have to be made for the greater good.

Re: Distopian future..

[Anonymous Coward]

Your red MAGA hat is on too tight and is cutting off the circulation to your brain.

Re: Distopian future..

[Applehu Akbar]

I would rather see UBI than make-work, because so long as the salaries for real jobs are significantly higher than UBI, people will be motivated to take them. Just characterize UBI as 'unemployment comp for life."

Re: Distopian future..

[sweepkick]

Land of the free, eh?

Re: Distopian future..

[west]

You shouldn't be rewarded for being part of the system.

Why not?

I'll happily declare that my fellow Canadians deserve many rewards simply for being Canadian - free education, health-care, various welfare systems if they are in need, free roads and other infrastructure, free defense at the expense of the lives of my fellow citizen, and a myriad of other services. None of those are dependent on their contribution to the system.

And yes, as a Canadian who's doing reasonably well, I pay a fairly substantial tax for the privilege of sustaining those services that benefit me and every other Canadian.

And this is not selflessness. The benefits that I gain from having these services available to my fellow Canadians far exceeds my contribution.to the tax pool. (If I was selfless, I'd be trying to extend those benefits to the world. I'm not as the benefits aren't great enough.)

Anyway, I'll just say that a society that doesn't place a strong inherent positive value on its members is one that's falling apart.

Re:Distopian future..

[evenmoreconfused]

I also disagree that it is a more fair system. Someone who is sick and unable to work has much greater need than someone who has a good job. Why would they receive the same sum?

Because it is both fairer and bureaucratically cheaper to pay them both and tax it back from the one who is doing well enough to contribute.

If you simply give everyone a basic amount, there is no niggling, maneuvering, or fraud about eligibility for fifty-three different entitlements. And if you (actually) tax everyone based on their real income -- including said basic amount -- then you eliminate much of the niggling, maneuvering and fraud about seventy-one different tax loopholes and exemptions.

It might even wind up being approximately the same result as we have now, just with 80% fewer bureaucrats and 50% less fraud.

Re:Distopian future..

[w3woody]

The funny of it is, if you add up how much we pay administering the current welfare system--the thousands and thousands of bureaucrats who administer things like Electronic Benefit Transfer cards, who determine what items you are allowed to buy, who determine if you qualify, who police the system--we could provide a reasonably generous UBI to everyone with nearly no administrative overhead.

Remember: a proper UBI replaces EVERYTHING, including tax deductions normally enjoyed by higher-income individuals, such as tax deductions for children (as children also receive a UBI), mortgage tax deductions, tax deductions for retirement savings, tax credits for paying for college. The idea is to eliminate the unfairness that is intrinsically tied into all of these separate programs, each which have their own target audiences, administrative bureaucracies and qualifications.

The UBI would also replace Social Security--both the OSADI and SSI disability funds.

Imagine how much smaller the administrative state becomes when your tax return is essentially four lines: A: gross income, B: tax (from tax tables), C: UBI D: Tax owed (or refund due).

This is why I don't think we will ever have a proper UBI. Because there are just too many people--both working for the government, and private companies (like Intuit, who constantly lobby against simplifying the tax code) whose jobs rely on the massive administration of hundreds of government programs which would all be wiped off the map by a properly designed UBI.

Tthat's part of the problem: we pay nearly as much in administrative overhead administering the current welfare state and the current tax code as we do paying out benefits. If you consider those bureaucrats as beneficiaries of the welfare state, that's a lot of jobs which would be wiped off the map. And they make a very powerful lobbying group--which is why in government corners, "UBI" is always reframed as yet another program for them to administer, rather than a new program that would cost them their job.

Re: Distopian future..

[phantomfive]

The crucial question really is, how many people can go onto UBI without society collapsing? That is, how many people can choose to be supported only by UBI without the system being overloaded?

Obviously if everyone decided to only be supported by UBI, it wouldn't work. The question is, how many people can be, what percentage? If you can't answer that question with some level of accuracy, you have no business implementing a UBI.

Re: Distopian future..

[Anonymous Coward]

There was a star trek TNG episode where the old where basically put down cause they might start being a negative contribution to society. In that particular episode the old guy in question was doing critical work to save their planet so it was a somewhat unrealistic scenario.

There are other episodes of Star Trek that might be better examples like the Computers of War episode where people walked into suicide booths, the overpopulated planet that wanted Kirk to spread disease and kill off people, the Nicotine episode (where one planet got prosperous off another needing a phony cure) or others from DS9 and Voyages that I don't recall.

Re: Distopian future..

[Anonymous Coward]

The chinese already have such "social credit score". You would not like it.

Re: Distopian future..

[Anonymous Coward]

Maga? This is a major Democrat platform.

What do you think they mean when they say guaranteed jobs? You think you're going to work at Google?

Re: Distopian future..

[Anonymous Coward]

On no, it's not impossible. You can see how exactly to do it from several recent examples in the last 100 years.

You start with a pile of 5,000 skulls on a farm field in Cambodia and go from there.

Re: Distopian future..

[Anonymous Coward]

So you have been playing Bioshock again...

Be careful, someone might smack you with a golf club.

Re: Distopian future..

[Joce640k]

And heck, why would you get anything at all? Too many people think the world just owes them a living, literally.

Also ... that if the world isn't going to hand it to them on a plate they're going to go out and take it anyway.

Re: Distopian future..

[Anonymous Coward]

Wouldn't the hand of the market adjust wages until they motivate enough people to work?

Re: Distopian future..

[phantomfive]

If everyone gets benefits, but no one contributes, the system will fall apart. Saying you deserve it merely for being Canadian implies that everyone can get it, even if no one contributes. If you're merely talking about an ideal, then of course, we all should get everything.

Re: Distopian future..

[Anonymous Coward]

The fuck?

How about they don't fucking commit crimes? How about teaching them that crime is wrong?

"B-bu-but they have to survive," you sniveled.

My father grew up in a house with a dirt floor and no plumbing, and never robbed or hurt anyone. Fuck you for your bigotry of low expectations.

Re:Distopian future..

[Kjella]

This is the part many don't like. Today, many of these benefits are dependent on your income and thus how much you pay into the system. (...) Same thing - no pay, but you have UBI at the bottom.

Well, the theory is that almost everybody is sustained through some sort of program, so UBI is simpler and cheaper because you'd kill off everything else. In that case, you should have money to put into a nest egg or additional insurance to restore your past coverage. It's probably not bad for people who need those programs a few years out of many decades of adulthood. The real losers would be those with severe physical or mental handicaps that can't just be motivated to get a job and will be stuck on UBI most of their life.

Re: Distopian future..

[phantomfive]

Wouldn't the hand of the market adjust wages until they motivate enough people to work?

In theory it would, if you let the amount given each month as part of UBI were somehow allowed to change in response to market conditions. Otherwise it's not a free market.

Either way, it doesn't answer the question of how many people, what percentage, can be supported by UBI. You ought to understand the parameters of the system you are creating before committing to it fully.

Re: Distopian future..

[Anonymous Coward]

Can you save so much money by cutting out the bureaucracy, that the level of UBI you get is high enough to cover for all this?
I'd like to see a calculation regarding the savings.

Re:Distopian future..

[Anonymous Coward]

"For people actively contributing, today's system works much better than UB"

It should be pointed out that these benefits are for a *small percent* of people actively contributing, not everyone who is contributing. Tthose with "good" jobs get more than token benefits. Maternity leave is not "you get paid" it is "you don't get fired" and sick days are around 14 days a year, then just leave without pay. Long term illness is still "leave without pay, but at least you don't get outright fired."

Re: Distopian future..

[fluffernutter]

We DO expect them not to commit crimes. The whole legal system is set up to discourage people from committing crimes. You can set up as many teen drop-in centers and neighborhood police picnics and basketball games as you want, people will commit crimes. The best thing you can do is keep as many people as possible from getting desperate enough to convert to a criminal.

Re: Distopian future..

[Anonymous Coward]

But Americans don't wait an average 2 weeks for care. Those who can afford it wait 2 weeks, the rest just die

Re:Distopian future..

[Anonymous Coward]

And what of the vast bureaucracy that will be put in place to manage those billions in payments every week? And, big or small bureaucracy, what happens if they threaten to go on strike unless they all get a 1000% pay rise? And do it again once you give them that pay rise? What happens if your political opponents are in power and decide to use the threat of a strike to take control of the bureaucracy and use it as a political weapon?

Re: Distopian future..

[Anonymous Coward]

You are missing the part where ai and robots will be doing all the work. If the productivity gains are distributed more equally, everyone can have a UBI that provides the necessities.

Re: Distopian future..

[Anonymous Coward]

I wouldnt worry too much about that. Republicans apparently never asked the question, "How much can taxes be cut without society collapsing?" because they never saw a tax cut they didnt like.

For all their talk about fiscal responsibility in the Obama years, now we have $1T deficits.

I think there is leeway here to give UBI to a whole heck of a lot of people without asking nasty questions likes affordability.

Re: Distopian future..

[west]

Of course if no one contributes, the system will fall apart.

But why would no-one contribute? After all, the contributions benefit the contributor as well as every one else. And having every one else benefit is an additional benefit to me.

Now if contributions were optional, as is the Libertarian utopia, you might have a tragedy of the commons problem. Bu that's not the case.

Re: Distopian future..

[Anonymous Coward]

No. If I can get by doing nothing, I would never do anything.

Citation: American welfare system

Generations of hundreds of thousands black families haven't worked in decades, see no reason to work, and no amount of prosperity or opportunity can change their minds.

Re: Distopian future..

[Anonymous Coward]

Wat?

The Republicans almost never cut taxes. Their latest tax bill restored it to what it was a few decades ago. (Which worked just fine). Obviously nothing is collapsing, and nothing was harmed.

You are literally making shit up.

Re: Distopian future..

[Anonymous Coward]

The crucial question really is, how many people can go onto UBI without society collapsing? That is, how many people can choose to be supported only by UBI without the system being overloaded?

Obviously if everyone decided to only be supported by UBI, it wouldn't work. The question is, how many people can be, what percentage? If you can't answer that question with some level of accuracy, you have no business implementing a UBI.

Why not make it a share of a fixed pool of money dependent on tax collection?
The fewer people working the smaller the piece of money (down to some limit like 1/2 the poverty level)

Re: Distopian future..

[phantomfive]

You are missing the part where ai and robots will be doing all the work.

That's fantasy. Sounds good to me, though.

Re: Distopian future..

[Anonymous Coward]

You're being rewarded for not burning the system down. You say you're aware of the great many rich people, but they're all of them and they're the source of a the lion's share of the people who don't and won't have jobs.

At the present the non-wealthy are the source of all the wealth. We're also the source of all the funds being used to develop the technology to render our jobs redundant.

The money from the UBI is mostly about ensuring that the poor folks make enough money that they don't riot in the streets and tear the entire system down. It's also a reality that as more and more things get automated that it's going to be harder and harder to justify the system where some people don't have to work and get paid huge sums of money and other people don't get to work and starve to death.

Re: Distopian future..

[Anonymous Coward]

Incorrect. Even Americans living in poverty receive faster and better care than the average Canadian now, as of studies published last week. Their socialist healthcare system, like the UK, is collapsing.

Re: Distopian future..

[Anonymous Coward]

The answer is a lot. Just look at how much money is going to a small percentage of Americans right now. A lot of that wealth is effectively burned when businesses are loaded with debt and deliberately run out of business so the debt gets discharged in bankruptcy court or the money goes into stocks that are less than good investments and disappears the next market correction. You'd have to create a UBI that's staggeringly high in order to run any sort of risk of society falling apart.

A UBI high enough to guarantee a modest apartment, food, medical care and a small allowance for recreation is well within the ability of the US to provide its citizens right now. And at that rate there would still be an incentive for many people to seek out employment or put their talents to use on endeavors that don't pay, but could greatly benefit the world.

The only reason we're not doing it is that it would drive up the wages for pointless bullshit do nothing minimum wage jobs that corporations depend upon in order to allow the shareholders to get ridiculously wealthy.

Re:Distopian future..

[Anonymous Coward]

It's also dehumanizing. I once walked off a job because the employer wasn't paying me for the time I was putting in, but that wasn't considered to be a valid reason to quit, so I didn't get unemployment. The adjudicator that I dealt with was very much in the pocket of the company and held me to a much higher standard in terms of providing evidence over the employer who could just claim things without providing any evidence or even having direct knowledge of what did or didn't happen with the paychecks.

The point that a lot of people don't realize is that a UBI is unlikely to ever be high enough to really replace a job, at least not until things get so automated that nobody needs to work, but it would likely usher in a new era of arts and innovation the likes of which the world has never seen.

Re: Distopian future..

[Anonymous Coward]

The MAGA was obviously strong with this one when he wrote "seal off the border" and also suggested that urban homeless people live a life of "idle decadence."

Re:Distopian future..

[DCFusor]

I always think of the vast bureaucracy managing things as they are as a jobs program for people who'd be more trouble otherwise. It gives them a sense of purpose and mostly keeps them out of the hair of the real contributors.
?

You're joking that a UBI replaces everything, right? Who keeps track of everyone to make sure people get theirs, and only theirs? You think fraud goes away like magic? You think we can just cut those admin costs...and now all those guys need money too for doing nothing. (Checks for free? I'll be here all week.) Man, I want some of what you smoke.
.

At least I can spell dystopian.

Re:Distopian future..

[DCFusor]

Anytime there is some perceived gain from fraud, there will be fraud. There have been zero exceptions to that. Argument fail. If your wish comes true, who feeds the 80% less bureaucrats and entertains them to keep them out of trouble? Note, I'm not on their side, I think they are held down by the system they worship and kept out of my hair thereby. I don't want them sharing my pool.

Re: Distopian future..

[that this is not und]

They mean you'll ride along on the back of the recycling truck listening to reggae, obviously.

Re:Distopian future..

[that this is not und]

About your tagline:

The ASR33 was upper-case only.

Your slashdot tagline shouldn't reveal your ignorance about nerd tech.

Re: Distopian future..

[Anonymous Coward]

You're clearly ignorant about what socialism means.

Re: Distopian future..

[that this is not und]

What is a 'contribution to society'? That sounds like something arbitrary, and relative to the interests of whomever comes up with the scale. Frankly, it doesn't sound like something possible to measure.

Re:Distopian future..

[w3woody]

The number of bureaucrats you need to administer a system is in proportion to the complexity of that system, not the size. The idea of UBI (as it was originally conceived) was to reduce or eliminate nearly all the decision making (and thus, complexity) inherent in the original welfare system by replacing it with something much simpler--and inherently much more fair, as simplicity strips arbitrariness from a system.

Re:Distopian future..

[ryanmc1]

Don't just blame companies and the government for the future failure of UBI. The individual collecting it will also be a major contributor to it eventual collapse.

1. UBI recipients will demand more. They will want to live in high cost areas of the country and they will want enough to pay for those costs.

2. UBI recipients will inevitably mismanage their funds and safety nets will have to be reestablished to cover medical and other needs. The bleeding hearts will not stand by and allow UBI recipients to suffer just because they cannot manager their funds.

Re: Distopian future..

[w3woody]

We're already there today; it's just the debate spans across multiple different programs and ranges from a debate on "welfare reform" to "tax reform" to "child support" to debate on a "living wage," with all sides making a pitch for their own favorite program.

The one nice thing, I guess, about concentrating all of this into a single simple system is that it would crystalize the debate over wealth redistribution into a debate over the two aspects of the UBI system: the marginal rates of the tax tables and the size of the UBI payout itself.

Re: Distopian future..

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah yes those pesky unreferenced studies.

Re: Distopian future..

[phantomfive]

Now if contributions were optional, as is the Libertarian utopia, you might have a tragedy of the commons problem.

Really? Why wouldn't people contribute if it were optional? After all, the contributions benefit the contributor, as you pointed out.

Re: Distopian future..

[Anonymous Coward]

Racist white priviliged boy, nice try sick-o.

Re:Distopian future..

[w3woody]

You're joking that a UBI replaces everything, right?

I'm not. That was the original idea, floated by the likes of Milton Friedman and others. And his reasoning was not about redistribution or about "fairness" or about providing a better welfare program to the poor. It was about eliminating the arbitrariness of the existing federally- and state-administered programs by replacing the existing complex welfare and tax deduction systems with a simple payment scheme.

You think fraud goes away like magic?

Of course not. There will be plenty of people who try to continue to collect a deceased loved-one's UBI, for example.

But the fewer rules and the fewer decisions that have to be administered, the fewer decision makers and administrators are required to police the system. And when the only rule for collecting a UBI is "are you alive?", it makes administration and policing far easier than, for example, the current system which may require an investigator to determine your salary, if you were paid under the table, if the child you declared as a dependent actually lives with you at least 181 days out of the year, etc., etc., etc., etc., etc.

Re: Distopian future..

[Anonymous Coward]

This whole fake article is just a giant troll by FakeEditorDavid.

Re: Distopian future..

[radarskiy]

"so long as the salaries for real jobs are significantly higher than UBI"

By definition this is true. Those working get their wage plus UBI and those not working get just UBI, so those working always get more money. No roll-off of benefits, no weird discontinuities where if you earn more you wind up with less.

Re: Distopian future..

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't actually know what "citation" means, do you?

Re:Distopian future..

[Toth]

I think there can be a conservative case for UBI
One advantage to employers with this plan is that folks who don't know how to work will be out of our way.
It is much better than make work.
One day I left for work and some vehicles pulled up loaded with workers (about 8) who started cleaning the trash out of the roads and gutters accompanied by two white-hatted guys (supervisors) who sat in their town provided SUV.
When I came home for lunch, they were still at it along with the idle supervisors.

I know I could have sent two of my guys to do the same job, they wouldn't need supervision and would be done in two hours.

If we can get rid of all the government workers who check to see if there aren't any men's shoes under the bed and provide grants to companies that locate in areas that they wouldn't choose without the subsidies and all other "make work" bureaucrats we could probably cover the costs.

Also a group of folks who came up with an idea for a business could live off the UBI while they built their company.
It should go to everyone. Poor people and millionaires should get the direct deposit and it would be taxed back starting at 30k or so.

Re: Distopian future..

[TheRealMindChild]

But what if rather than a credit score we could look up some score based on your net contribution to society?

Not everybody can contribute something positive to society. That is just how it is. Also life isn't fair.

Re: Distopian future..

[Anonymous Coward]

if everyone decided to only be supported by UBI, prices of everything will skyrocket fast enough for people to run back to their job

Re:Distopian future..

[Anonymous Coward]

UBI replaces a LOT of pay for low paying work. That is the ONLY reason anyone in the US is even talking about it. So your shopkeeper who is bagging high 6 figures and paying min wage will have to compensate even LESS under the UBI arrangements discussed in the US. Oh yeah. Every exploitive ass just LOVES the idea of a direct subsidy to them. And the magic is that the general populace(90%) gets NOTHING except a higher tax burden. The idea for less red tape? Not for 90%. The system will make damn sure they dance the way bureaucracy deems fit. In fact many who had some freedom from the local gum chewing nightmare government worker would be forced to deal with it under UBI.

UBI is like the US healthcare system. LOTS of total BS. LOTS of bending people over for abuse by the most foul bastards we have in our world. US healthcare actually mandates people do business with companies that took money to pay for healthcare in the future then knowingly assessed the likelihood of people dying if treatment was withheld and then withholding treatment in order to have the cash. Truly vile bastards. Same for UBI. It is just a way to shift payment of wages from the employer to the government. The filthy despicable scum who benefit the most in the US system will then complain about taxes even as they shift the burden of taxation to the working people. WELCOME TO THE US. THE LAND OF THE SUPER PARASITE.

People from decent parts of the world are already reducing their visits to the US. We just don't have much that is appealing here and it is only getting worse. UBI is the absolute worst. Really, with the lowest unemployment rates in a very long time Obama is blathering about UBI? REALLY? FOR FUCKING REAL? Does anyone think that maybe he is pandering for cash? UBI seems a non needed solution right now. Isn't the past argument that tech increases the opportunity for employment? Where did this argument go? It appears to be true right now.

Re:Distopian future..

[quantaman]

The funny of it is, if you add up how much we pay administering the current welfare system--the thousands and thousands of bureaucrats who administer things like Electronic Benefit Transfer cards, who determine what items you are allowed to buy, who determine if you qualify, who police the system--we could provide a reasonably generous UBI to everyone with nearly no administrative overhead.

Remember: a proper UBI replaces EVERYTHING, including tax deductions normally enjoyed by higher-income individuals, such as tax deductions for children (as children also receive a UBI), mortgage tax deductions, tax deductions for retirement savings, tax credits for paying for college. The idea is to eliminate the unfairness that is intrinsically tied into all of these separate programs, each which have their own target audiences, administrative bureaucracies and qualifications.

I don't think it will be that easy.

To me the big unsolved problem with UBI is still going to be people at the margins. There's always going to be a portion of people who are really bad at managing their money, only 39% of Americans can handle a $1k hit right now, presumably most of the remaining 61% are employed, meaning that even with a UBI they'd still be $1k away from financial trouble.

Think about what will actually happen with a UBI. Some people will spend it on a big mortgage, or they'll find a way to borrow against it by building up credit card debt, or they'll have a substance abuse problem and spend everything on feeding their habit. Or they'll just have zero savings like most people do now and a major expense will come up and cause ruin.

So even with a UBI we still have homelessness, we still have kids going hungry, we still have families with their heat and power shut off, and we're still going to need programs to deal with those people.

Re:Distopian future..

[Anonymous Coward]

For people actively contributing, today's system works much better than UBI.

Until you are stabbed by someone needing the money.

Re:Distopian future..

[w3woody]

UBI recipients will demand more.

As I noted elsewhere, we're already there today; it's just the debate spans across multiple different programs and ranges from a debate on "welfare reform" to "tax reform" to "child support" to debate on a "living wage," with all sides making a pitch for their own favorite program.

UBI recipients will inevitably mismanage their funds and safety nets will have to be reestablished to cover medical and other needs.

Certainly UBI cannot replace medical aid (Medicaid), since the cost of health care for someone on dialysis (for example) far exceeds what any but the wealthiest individuals could pay out of pocket. (As I recall, the cost of dialysis out of pocket is in the low six figures annually.)

But this hits on a core philosophical difference about the poor and about people in general: are people too God-damned stupid to manage their own affairs, and thus must have their affairs managed for them?

It's not to deny the fact that there are demonstrably people out there who lack the logical or social skills necessary to function in our current society. And certainly we need to have social workers out there who can help them.

But when you make the de-facto assumption that all poor people are stupid and require their lives to be managed by those of us who are "better" than them--you walk right into an aesthetic argument. (At what point does your inferiority require us to treat you as a ward of the state? Does being poor mean you must be a de-facto ward of the state? What's the threshold? Is it abject poverty? Is it just being lower-middle class? Do we by default assume you're making poor decisions because you're barely scratching out a living? Do we pass judgement because in our opinion you drink too much for your socio-economic class? Drink too many empty calories in the form of fast food soft drinks? Eat too often at McDonalds? Should you become a "de-facto" ward of the state because you live in the wrong area? And I'm not being snarky; I've heard each of these given as a reason why those "less than us" need to make "better decisions", or who should have their rights limited.)

Worse, you walk head-first into an authoritarian argument: if "those people" can't "make the right decisions" that are made by "their betters"--how far away are you from simply taking away all of their decisions?

As a Native American I've seen these arguments play out over history on the reservations.

They never end well.

So your statement "UBI recipients will inevitably mismanage their funds and safety nets" strikes me as overly authoritarian. And distasteful.

Me, I'd rather just hire a bunch of social workers (and we may not need to hire any more since we have a lot of them already), and task them with the job of helping people who seek help, or who are referred to them by police officers, with making better decisions. Kinda like what we do today, but without the "nanny state" authoritarian bullshit.

Remember: from where you stand, unless you're Warren Buffet, there are people at a higher socio-economic level than you looking down at you as part of the hoi-polloi--part of the unwashed masses, an uncouth individual who can't seem to manage your life to the level they can.

Re: Distopian future..

[prisoner-of-enigma]

An even more crucial question is how unpleasant must UBI be to motivate people to seek other work? If UBI is too good it will turn into a lifetime subsidy for do-nothings. However, if it's unpleasant people will bitch and moan and vote for politicians who will make it less unpleasant, thus decreasing the incentive to get off UBI.

If you don't think this is how it will go, just look at other similar social programs. Social security, Medicaid, unemployment, minimum wage...when was the last time you saw benefits decreased? Almost never. Increased? Almost always. The end result will inevitably bankrupt whatever social system is in place. This isn't cruelty or greed talking; it's basic reality. People love to get "free money." Who wouldn't? But that money must come from somewhere, and that somewhere is productive citizens. If they're marginalized as a voting bloc they will be increasingly taxed to support UBI and at some point there won't be enough of them to support UBI. What then?

Re:Distopian future..

[w3woody]

Your argument essentially is an argument for taking away individual freedom.

I mean, consider the statistic that only 39% of Americans can handle a $1k hit right now. By your implication, this suggests that 61% of all Americans lack the sufficient wherewithal to be making their own financial decisions.

And if they can't make their own decisions for themselves, who make it for them? The State?

Ultimately I find arguments like your an aesthetic one, because often, when you explore the boundaries you find arguments like "he shouldn't eat at McDonalds because those are empty calories" or "she shouldn't spend her time out partying because she isn't spending enough time making home-cooked meals."

And down that rabbit hole is authoritarianism--one where only 39% of Americans are trusted with their own money.

Re: Distopian future..

[Anonymous Coward]

It isn't UBI if not everyone gets it.

Re:Distopian future..

[TheRaven64]

You think fraud goes away like magic?

Do you think it's easier to spot fraud in a system with thousands of rules and exceptions to the rules that decides who gets paid what and how much, or in a system where everyone receives exactly the same amount?

Re:Distopian future..

[Anonymous Coward]

Some rich person in the valley funded an experiment for UBI in Stockton I think it was. The overhead was exactly 10%. So for every 90c they gave out 10 went to administer it. I think medicare runs at like 97%. Dunno what SS is, but I'll bet it is low too. Never underestimate how much free can cost.

Re: Distopian future..

[ceoyoyo]

The reason UBI is being proposed is because automation looks like it's going to come for an unprecedented number of jobs. It's not really much of a stretch to see how one day it might be virtually all of them. Every person who loses a job to automation is one who can be supported by society without working.

Automation is *more efficient* than having people doing the job. Otherwise you'd use the people.

Re:Distopian future..

[Anonymous Coward]

yup i would be out of a job if we went pure UBI, but i'd still support it, I can find another job, or I can go into self- employment doing woodworking, cabinetry, millwork, etc.

Re: Distopian future..

[ceoyoyo]

Extending those benefits to the world benefits each of us a great deal. Domestically, making sure people's basic needs are taken care of decreases crime and increases productivity, public safety, public health and scientific, technical and cultural development. Internationally, it also does that, which means you can decrease or eliminate defence spending, most refugee relief, and reap the rewards of a much larger population produce science, technology and culture to share.

Re: Distopian future..

[Wycliffe]

I would rather see UBI than make-work, because so long as the salaries for real jobs are significantly higher than UBI, people will be motivated to take them. Just characterize UBI as 'unemployment comp for life."

True UBI is not unemployment. It is given to everyone, even those who currently have a job. With a true UBI, salaries for real jobs will always be higher than UBI because you still get to keep your UBI even if you have a job. If say UBI was $300/week then someone could double their income if they found a job also paying $300/week.

Re: Distopian future..

[AlanMJones]

You're missing the point of UBI. You get UBI while you have a job also! That's "Universal". So the salary for the job you take can be lower than UBI, because you get it in addition to UBI.

Re: Distopian future..

[Anonymous Coward]

With current technology you need about 1 percent of the population (including kids and elders) for producing food. About 3 percent for constructions, 10% for healthcare and education. Government 2,5%, manufacturing 5%. Transportation depends heavily on how things are organized. If government just needs to deliver food for everyone, it is a lot less than it would be if we need to support individual coffee shops. So we need about 30% of people working, so that we get the goods required for normal living.

Note that this is estimated optimum with current efficiency, so we can't produce movies and soap operas, and the efficiency is assumed to remain the same. Obviously current systems could be much more efficient if we had omnipotent dictator that tells what everyone needs to do and everyone obeys. So actual optial percentage could be lower (if we improve efficiency) or higher (if we need more movies or other stuff that is not required for living).

But that is with current technology. This will change in the future, but by how much, that depends which development we will use. Education for example is an area where we can reduce a lot of people with computer aided education. Same in health care as AI will give better diagnosis.

Re:Distopian future..

[Anonymous Coward]

Agree. The admin racket and the tax racket are too valuable to too many people for them ever to be cleaned up. With regard to UBI in general, in addition to the aforementioned racketeering there is also the health insurance racket, the higher education racket (way too many useless degrees, plus students never completing), the prison racket and many more. There are already a ton of people pretending to work but actually doing nothing at all or doing nothing useful. Why don't we just drop the pretense and just say fine, here's your $20K for doing nothing. As for the hugely over-rated danger of everybody just lying around - if people want to laze around, let them! Anybody with any get up and go isn't going to sit on a poverty level income; and anybody who does is not the kind of person who is ever going to add value anyway, so they won't be missed.

Re: Distopian future..

[ChatHuant]

If UBI is too good it will turn into a lifetime subsidy for do-nothings.

This statement pretty clearly shows your philosophy. You define a person's worth by the work they do, and look down on people who don't satisfy your criteria. This puritanical mind set is slowly becoming incompatible with the modern world.

First, as productivity advances, more and more wealth is being created with less and less human effort. We're at the cusp of producing enough to provide basic living support to everybody with almost 0 human effort.

Second, as technology advances and things change more and more rapidly, the requirements for jobs are starting to grow beyond the average human's capabilities. New jobs need a lot of adaptability, enough intellectual capacity and a lot of study. There are quite a few people that simply won't be able to find meaningful jobs. What then? Would you have us revive the workhouses for the poor?

when was the last time you saw benefits decreased? Almost never. Increased? Almost always.

And this is exactly the way things should be. Not, as you seem to imply, because the "do nothings" are clawing more and more from the worthies (whichever way you define them), but because global productivity has been growing continuously, because more and more wealth is being created, and it makes perfect sense to use this extra wealth to increase programs that benefit the most people.

Re:Distopian future..

[quantaman]

Your argument essentially is an argument for taking away individual freedom.

Actually my argument was that even with a UBI we'd still have a lot of people in distress and would probably need to deal with that. I suspect that continuing government programs would be the overwhelmingly likely solution.

Taking away their individual freedom would be restricting what people could do with their UBI so they couldn't get into financial dires.

I mean, consider the statistic that only 39% of Americans can handle a $1k hit right now. By your implication, this suggests that 61% of all Americans lack the sufficient wherewithal to be making their own financial decisions.

Many of them, though there's a lot who are legitimately poor because of employment options, and a few others who were financially responsible but answered the survey in a different way (the "I'll cut back on other spending options").

But however you want to deal with it the fact remains, a huge proportion of people don't save money well enough to handle a big expense, and a UBI isn't going to change that.

And if they can't make their own decisions for themselves, who make it for them? The State?

Ultimately I find arguments like your an aesthetic one, because often, when you explore the boundaries you find arguments like "he shouldn't eat at McDonalds because those are empty calories" or "she shouldn't spend her time out partying because she isn't spending enough time making home-cooked meals."

And down that rabbit hole is authoritarianism--one where only 39% of Americans are trusted with their own money.

Uhhhh, I suggested we'd still need government assistance, like we have now. You're the one who started the walk towards not letting them eat at McDonalds.

If you don't want the authoritarian solution to the problem then don't use the authoritarian solution to the problem! But don't offer up an authoritarian solution and act like it's the only solution because you're in denial of the fact we'll still need a social safety net even with a UBI.

You still haven't addressed what's going to happen to those people who are still in distress under UBI.

Re:Distopian future..

[liquid_schwartz]

A real UBI system (and nearly every time we see those in power talking one it is NOT, it is just another benefit for people who 'need' it) is very different from that. It is a reward for being part of a system, that is not dependent on your position in the system. And, almost as importantly, it REPLACES most of the other parts. It replaces benefit for unemployment, sickness (but not necessarily medical), old age, education, and many many more, thus removing the HUGE beuraucracy that is wrapped around operating and policing those.

UBI is completely incompatible with mass immigration. The people generally prefer to take care of their own but business wants cheap labor and Democrats need more voters so we end up with mass immigration. Thus UBI will never happen shy of a major reshuffling of priorities.

Why do those in power hate it?

See above. With regards to the original question, I'd favor a guaranteed job over UBI. I've seen people who get money for free and it rots their brain and saps their initiative. At least social security has to be earned, UBI is paying people to breathe.

Re: Distopian future..

[Anonymous Coward]

Meanwhile, in America

Re:Distopian future..

[Anonymous Coward]

Your post has a lot of misunderstandings in it, but I'm going to cut to it and answer your questions.

The UK government believe that a single person can live on around £8,000 per year. [1]
We have 65 million people [2]
65m * 8k = 520B [2]
GDP of UK = 2619 B [3]
That is about 20% of GDP and 69% of current total tax revenues. [3]
Well, your question is broken, because it's way, way less than our GDP, but if we wanted to fund UBI clearly we'd have to raise taxes a bit. We're removing all other benefits, but to make up the difference we'd need to find an extra £4000 per person on average. But good news! Everyone is now earning more money, so we can drop tax credits and personal allowances by £8000 per year, so that cuts that £4000 per year per person to an average of £700 per year per person, of £45b total. So where can we find £45b lying around in the budget, and what about inflation? Well, we could dial back on the "asset purchase" scheme that's seen us give interest free loans to businesses whilst the government is paying £45b per year [3] in interest. After all, we're putting the same amount of money into the economy this way, we're just doing it through lots of individual citizens rather than basically paying the interest on loans a few massive (and already profitable) corporations out of the public purse.

So there you go. Basic income, no net tax increase for the average person, no runaway inflation, and the total eradication of poverty.

Now I know what you're thinking: there's no way anyone can live of that little. But here's the thing: lots and lots of people do. It's not super comfortable, but it's very doable. It helps that it doesn't include healthcare costs, of course, because we have a functioning national health system that covers everyone for less than the cost per population of medicare/medicaid. And if you don't want to scrape by on that little? Get a job. If you can't get a job, you can afford to retrain, or to move to where the work is, or to risk starting your own business. Because for the rest of your life, you never have to worry about having four walls and a roof, and food on the table.

[1] see: basic state pension, maximum loan to university students living away from home, universal benefit maximums
[2] google
[3] Office of National Statistics

Re:Distopian future..

[liquid_schwartz]

others _must_ work and have their money taken without any kind of compensation or benefit.

That's an unpreventable cost of maintaining a civilization. Either pay these people not to go out and commit crimes, or pay police to clean up after. I much prefer the former myself, because it results in the least deaths and violence and is probably cheaper.

You seem bright enough to know though that mass immigration takes math that is already iffy and makes it impossible. We have >10% of our population that is illegal and a great many more anchor babies to boot. If you really want to make this work step 1 is getting serious about policing who is here.

Re:Distopian future..

[Anonymous Coward]

UBI could *not* replace social security in the US without risking an armed revolt from senior citizens. A middle class person who works 40 years can currently expect $2000-$3000/month in SSI benefits. All of the UBI proposals are for much less. You may disagree, but I am sure that anyone close to retirement would feel that he had been robbed.

Re: Distopian future..

[sjames]

I suspect very few will choose to live solely on UBI. Think about it, on UBI you can afford a basic apartment, clothes, an OK car, and decent food. But if you do some work, you can afford a nicer apartment, better food, a nice car, designer clothes and/or a nice vacation.

Under UBI, you will see more artisans and more freelancers. You will still see some 'day jobs', but the bosses/managers will tend to be polite to employees and reasonably accomodating out of necessity.

Even under our current system, it's not that unusual for someone on unemployment or welfare to do some work "off the books" for a little spare cash even when they can't get a proper job that would actually remove the need for their benefit. They might do more and do it openly but they can't afford to lose the benefit unless the work would be steady enough and pay adequately..

Especially at first, there will likely be people who will just sit on the couch and veg. However, like retirees who can't or won't find something better to do upon retirement, they will tend die off fast from natural causes.

Re: Distopian future..

[sjames]

Canada shown no signs of falling apart.

Re: Distopian future..

[Anonymous Coward]

You racist piece of shit: https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_5a7880cde4b0d3df1d13f60b

Re: Distopian future..

[roman_mir]

If on nothing else you should trust me on this: you really do not want to be seen as somebody whose only useful quality is not to pillage and not to murders long as you are getting money for not doing it . Eventually you will be eliminated just because you are nothing at all but a threat.

Re:Distopian future..

[Anonymous Coward]

But why should we have to pay for your decision to make your wife a breeder?

Re: Distopian future..

[greenwow]

We've heard that claim before. When, for example, a cotton gin could replace a year of work every single hour it runs, people panicked. Instead of that being a problem, it freed-up people to do more productive jobs.

Re: Distopian future..

[Anonymous Coward]

Bernie Sanders, Hillary Clinton, and Barack Obama all voted for "sealing the border" and/or ran on increased immigration controls. It's only in the last two years that "No Borders, No Walls, No America At All" has become the rallying cry of the Democrats.

Maybe your "I'm With Her" button is pinned to your forehead, obstructing your view?

Re: Distopian future..

[Anonymous Coward]

Ohhh shit a huffpo article! Well fuck me, I've been set straight by the objective bastion of Truth! They've never lied, manipulated facts, or omitted details to support a false agenda!

You are a fucking imbecile.

Re:Distopian future..

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, a 'guaranteed job' pretty much means 'YOU better find a job you like, or we will find one you DONT'
Its just renamed 'work for your unemployment benefit', which it most definitely a stick, not a carrot.

It's slavery. You're gauranteed a job, and if you don't take it, you die.

That's the DEFINITION of slavery.

Re:Distopian future..

[Anonymous Coward]

"That's an unpreventable cost of maintaining a civilization. Either pay these people not to go out and commit crimes, or pay police to clean up after. I much prefer the former myself, because it results in the least deaths and violence and is probably cheaper."

You can either buy mouse-traps and poison or leave enough food out to feed the mice so they don't take from yours.

Having said that, I'm intrigued by UBI.

--XYZZY--

Re: Distopian future..

[djinn6]

To answer your question, for a country like the US, 90% or more can be on UBI. The country is only 2% farmers, yet produces more than enough food for it to be a major export. Of the remaining needs, water, clothing and electricity production are almost completely automated. The only need not automated yet is shelter, but that's not a consumable like the others.

Now that's not to say it would be a nice place to live with 90% of the people on UBI, but in reality that won't happen. Most people don't want to merely survive, they want to live in luxury.

Re: Distopian future..

[Anonymous Coward]

And the mask comes off. "Forced contributions."

"Do as we say, work only for us, we will take what we want, give you only what we think you need, and you will die in the gulags if you disagree."

You are absolutely and totally fucking evil, and worse, belive yourself to be altruistic.

Re: Distopian future..

[Anonymous Coward]

This infringes petulantly upon the sovereignty of people.

Re:Distopian future..

[Darinbob]

Guaranteed income means income even when you don't have a job. Guaranteed work only lasts so long and then you are too ill to continue, or you have to work a few decades past normal retirement, etc. Guaranteed work is find if the person is able bodied and there are jobs - the snag comes when there aren't the jobs out there for people without skills. You can't easily just create jobs out of nothing. There are the occasional work programs, conservation corps, etc, but those have never been tried on a large scale.

Basic income means not a lot of money. It helps fill in the gaps even when someone who is working can't afford things like child care. It's small enough that the recipient still has a large incentive to get a job, and a better job over time. A guaranteed income should be the same way. Like the pitifully small social security allowance, not large enough to retire on but is a smalls supplement to help fill in the gaps.

Re: Distopian future..

[Darinbob]

A guaranteed job would still pay significantly less that most real jobs I would think. There would be incentive to find something better to do.

Re: Distopian future..

[javaman235]

You're missing the point. This whole conversation is about the fact that the super CEO money makers might ultimately not be humans but machines. Same for every profession. That puts everyone in the place really mentally disabled adults are in today, where they are unable to contribute in a competitive way, it's better bang for buck if they don't try.

Work is a kind of narcotic, ergo workaholics. It makes you forget the larger problems. What psychologists see as mental degredation when people don't work is people no longer numbed to serious problems in our world, depressed. This is something we need to work through, I support UBI over busy work.

Re: Distopian future..

[Darinbob]

UBI when tried (on a small scale) doesn't pay enough to be the only means of support. It's supplemental income. For instance, if you're working two full time minimum wage jobs you still aren't making enough to keep the family fed in many places, you can't afford to get a car that works so you can commute to a better job, you can't afford to get daycare so that both spouses can work, etc. So the UBI supplements that.

In the past, you could sometimes provide for a family with just one low paying job. That's not true today. Cost of living goes up much faster than minimum wage does.

Re: Distopian future..

[Anonymous Coward]

I am already in a position wherein I have abandoned the seeking of money. UBI would fund my creative projects. I am working at a farm to do so instead.

My main creative initiative right now: Restore and revitalize a healthy organically-cultivated grain supply for my local community. In ten or so days, I will be buying a small electric stone grain mill. I sell bread at the town co-op already.

If people didn't have to keep up with all these ridiculously unfair taxes and mandated expenses (like insurances), we could all be productive however we might choose, however we might like.

Instead, the economy keeps us in need.

It is human nature to be creative. Creativity equals productivity.

We could all find something to do. We don't need micro-government to give us options.

No need for a senator to show up at the farm and tell us how to grow our food.

Think about it.

Re: Distopian future..

[Anonymous Coward]

If I pay for a factory and I buy robots and I make things, and you've done nothing to help, why do you deserve a portion of my income?

Re:Distopian future..

[w3woody]

You still haven't addressed what's going to happen to those people who are still in distress under UBI.

I did elsewhere by noting we cannot do away with social workers and we certainly need more PSAs revolving around the proper management of money.

You're the one who started the walk towards not letting them eat at McDonalds.

That argument is not mine. In point of fact, that argument was Obama's.

Re: Distopian future..

[Anonymous Coward]

THIS

Re:Distopian future..

[Trailer Trash]

I've mentioned this before. "Welfare" recipients include not only those who get EBT cards or whatever - it also includes a lot of government workers who are paid to administrate the program. Don't think those people will give up their jobs without a major fight.

The other issue with UBI is that the current system has plenty of room for "vote for me and it'll pay for you". UBI gets rid of that. Again, don't expect it to go away without a fight.

Re: Distopian future..

[Anonymous Coward]

Whilst in many ways I agree that people should be rewarded for contributing to the system, none of us get to ask to be born or not, and you can't easily decide to go and be part of someone else's system and contribute to it instead, as immigration rules don't tend to work that way. So there's some philosophical support for the premise that being part of the system is not entirely voluntary (apart from the ultimate sanction), that being supported by the system is not unreasonable. But I think there is definitely a moral imperative to contribute

Re: Distopian future..

[BlueStrat]

We currently import underpaid (illegal) agricultural labor from Mexico, which is not even self-sufficient in agriculture, although it has the resources to be self-sufficient if it got its act together: we import agricultural labor from them and export food to them. What if we sealed off the border and filled our need for cheap agricultural labor with the idle urban poor and the homeless who plague our cities? Clean out the ghettoes and skid row, end welfare, and satisfy our agricultural needs all in one, easy step. Of course, this would mean forced relocation of the new agricultural labor force and likely compelled labor (who, after all, woukd willingly give up a life of idle decadence for fieldwork?), but sometimes sacrifices have to be made for the greater good.

First off, "sealing off the border" is stupid and counterproductive. What is needed is an improved system that can process a large number of legal and legitimate immigration/refugee/asylum requests in a prompt and efficient manner *without*, however, sacrificing security by just throwing the doors wide. That's stupid and suicidal.

As for the "homeless/ghetto person converted into fruit-picker" concept (note that there would be a need for many other types of ancillary and logistics-related labor required as well, from machinery repair to transportation/delivery/warehousing/storage related occupations, etc, etc), that actually does have some merit and *does not* require any sort of forced relocation or other drastic authoritarian actions. Just simply offer the jobs with good pay, job security, health benefits, etc and set up programs to assist people with relocation and other related costs and logistics and a whole metric shit-ton of them will *happily* self-relocate and also have a sense of doing something useful which is far more important than many will acknowledge. People in general tend to need emotionally to feel useful, to have a purpose and reason to set the alarm and rise every morning outside of themselves and their personal needs.

It's conceivable that, if done right, such a plan could almost eliminate involuntary joblessness, massively increase agricultural production along with government revenues, improve the general levels of education & training, and through the massive increase in supply reduce food prices not only domestically but also on exports, allowing the US to truly be able to become the world's breadbasket and reduce starvation worldwide while working to reduce the US's international debt and trade imbalances. All without having to force anybody to do anything, take anything from anyone, or employ any other use of the threat of coercive government force domestically or internationally. If the US winds up feeding the North Korean people, that's going to stabilize things in that region quite a bit, don't you think?

Strat

Re: Distopian future..

[mpercy]

" how many people can go onto UBI without society collapsing?"

If it's Universal Basic Income, isn't *everyone* receiving it? Regardless of your other income, status, medical status, etc. you get the UBI. Rich, wealthy, poor, homeless or whatever, you get UBI. If not, then it's hardly Universal, is it? Once you begin excluding people who "don't need it", then it's just back to the plain welfare, isn't it?

Re: Distopian future..

[dskoll]

As someone who recently used the Canadian Healthcare System, I call b*******. Our Healthcare System is in good shape and cost us less than the American one costs Americans.

Re: Distopian future..

[dskoll]

Contributions must be mandatory because otherwise people would cheat. maybe you don't understand the phrase the tragedy of the commons.

Re: Distopian future..

[mpercy]

We had $1T deficits under Obama, too, you know, and the White House under Obama was projecting $1T deficits well into the 2020's.

Current tax revenues are at all time record highs, but sadly so is spending. Spending increases are accelerating faster than revenue increases.

I've notice a fairly consistent pattern of revenue vs spending. The revenue from year X is usually sufficient or nearly so to cover the spending levels of year X - 5.

E.g.:
2004 revenues $1.880T 1999 spending $1.701T
2005 revenues $2.153T 2000 spending $1.789T
2006 revenues $2.406T 2001 spending $1.862T
2007 revenues $2.568T 2002 spending $2.010T
2008 revenues $2.524T 2003 spending $2.159T
2009 revenues $2.105T 2004 spending $2.292T
2010 revenues $2.162T 2005 spending $2.472T
2011 revenues $2.303T 2006 spending $2.655T
2012 revenues $2.450T 2007 spending $2.728T
2013 revenues $2.775T 2008 spending $2.982T
2014 revenues $3.021T 2009 spending $3.517T
2015 revenues $3.249T 2010 spending $3.457T
2016 revenues $3.335T 2011 spending $3.603T

But year-over-year spending increases are almost always larger than year-over-year revenue increases.

Re: Distopian future..

[Anonymous Coward]

> This statement pretty clearly shows your philosophy. You define a person's worth by the work they do, and look down on people who don't satisfy your criteria. This puritanical mind set is slowly becoming incompatible with the modern world.

Like it or not, some people provide things that are useful to others and others do not or cannot. Without others supporting us, we all fail. Trying to clip the wings of the more successful people doesn't help society, either.

> First, as productivity advances, more and more wealth is being created with less and less human effort. We're at the cusp of producing enough to provide basic living support to everybody with almost 0 human effort.

I wish that were true. We're actually supported by a lot of Chinese near-slave labor. Oh, I realize it's moving away from China and into other countries and China is moving up and I wish them so much the better of that, I'm just saying it's not all robots yet, there are tons and tons of people doing crap work to make society get along.

> Second, as technology advances and things change more and more rapidly, the requirements for jobs are starting to grow beyond the average human's capabilities. New jobs need a lot of adaptability, enough intellectual capacity and a lot of study. There are quite a few people that simply won't be able to find meaningful jobs. What then?

That's a good question that I don't think we have good answers to. Ideally, we would find some way to support everyone, I just don't think we're there yet and I don't want to see everyone starve (again) because someone decided Communism will work *this time* even though we've tried before and got the mass-starvation I can't believe it's not Communism version several times now.

I'm happy to see wealth and benefits increase and I'm at least glad that you're paying attention to *wealth* instead of *currency* which is all that some of those who want to 'eat the 1%' as it can see.

Re: Distopian future..

[ceoyoyo]

It freed up people to do *new* jobs. And it made everyone much richer. So the idea that UBI won't be feasible if everyone's job gets replaced by a machine is ridiculous. As is the idea that people won't find useful and interesting things to do with their time.

The industrial revolution freed many people to do things they were interested in and enjoyed. The if the current wave of automation is equally revolutionary, it will complete that process.

Re:Distopian future..

[johannesg]

Your 80% fewer bureaucrats will be gainfully employed by the tax authority, who now needs to decide who gets to keep the UBI money and who has to give it back. You haven't simplified anything; you've just moved the problem from one point to another. And shuffling the money through people's personal accounts adds an additional attack vector for fraud as well.

Re:Distopian future..

[johannesg]

Let's google a bit. According to Google, the most affordable place to live in the UK is Hull. According to Google, rental prices in Hull start at around £400/month, so that's £4800/year. That leaves £3200/year, or £270/month, or around £9/day, for things like food, water, heating, and all the other necessities of life. And remember, that's for the most affordable city in the UK.

In other words, your math works because your UBI doesn't provide nearly enough income to actually live on.

Re: Distopian future..

[lgw]

What's the difference between "roll-off of benefits" and taxes? It works out to the same thing. And without a seriously high tax rate on almost all workers, there's no way to fund any sort of UBI.

I expect there would be a lot of jobs that pay next to nothing, because there's no need to pay enough to live on, and people get bored, so of course that will be exploited.

Also, UBI fails to take into account that old people just need more money to get by than young people - what you used to be able to do yourself, now you must pay others to do. So are we paying different groups of people different amounts (inevitably based on political influence), or are we keeping Social Security?

Meh, the math just doesn't work at all.

Re: Distopian future..

[prisoner-of-enigma]

This statement pretty clearly shows your philosophy.

It shows no such thing. Your response, however, displays volumes about yours and your willingness to judge people quickly with little or no relevant information to substantiate your claims.

Re: Distopian future..

[Anonymous Coward]

Bernie Sanders, Hillary Clinton, and Barack Obama all voted for "sealing the border" and/or ran on increased immigration controls. It's only in the last two years that "No Borders, No Walls, No America At All" has become the rallying cry of the Democrats.

Actually, what you are doing is falsifying the rhetoric of the Trump and even other Republican stalwarts against Democrats.

Which is good, except your Buzz Windrup hat is on backwards.

Re: Distopian future..

[Anonymous Coward]

You are objectively, demonstrably, and absolutely wrong, literally about everything, but you and I both know that never stopped you before.

Hillary and Obama practically invented the "Build the Wall" chant.

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/apr/23/mick-mulvaney/fact-check-did-top-democrats-vote-border-wall-2006/

Re:Distopian future..

[Anonymous Coward]

You are misreading motivations. It's not about "controlling" the little people - well, OK, for some it is, but that's not the main motivation. It's about growing their own departments and responsibilities. Accumulating their own staff and growing their patronage (dispensing employment). It's a disease that strikes wherever there are lots of people employed, whether public or private sector: the organisation once established takes on a life of its own, and will fight vigorously against anything that threatens to make it obsolete.

Because - wouldn't you? If someone came up with an idea that made $THING_YOU_DO_FOR_A_LIVING completely redundant, wouldn't you do your best to either undermine it or propose "alternatives" that didn't?

Re: Distopian future..

[Anonymous Coward]

Translation: "Dad, I joined a cult."

Re: Distopian future..

[Anonymous Coward]

So if you can get by doing nothing, since they can, why dont you?

Everyone always says they would, except they never are, so... i assume they are full of shit.

Insert response saying I AM TOO PROUD TO DO THAT here, which is bullshit. The truth is that that type of life is actually uncomfortable, insecure, and unpleasant, thus, the people who dont have to live it... dont.

Re: Distopian future..

[yusing]

Freed, huh? For jobs like being paid shit to dig coal, with a mandatory target to reach each day not matter how sick you are? and get thrown on a boxcar or even shot (along with your family) when you strike for a better wage? Take a look at history once.

'Productive'. Most people in the US today have no idea what 'productive' work is. And no idea what 'labor' is. Sitting in front of a stack of paper or a computer, working a phone, 'customer service'?

Didn't need a gym or jogging to keep fit. Ate real food.

Freed for *shit jobs* for *shit pay*. (Currently, at least $7.50 per hour) Keep celebrating as you lie to yourself, or try showing some feelings for people who don't have it as good as you do.

Re: Distopian future..

[phantomfive]

Yes, that's why I clarified in the second sentence. Apparently you didn't read past the first.

Re: Distopian future..

[phantomfive]

Oh. If you're talking about fantasy, you should have said so.

Re: Distopian future..

[phantomfive]

If UBI isn't enough to live on, then it's not basic income. It's supplemental income.

Re: Distopian future..

[phantomfive]

That's a start at least.

Re: Distopian future..

[phantomfive]

People in Canada contribute.

Re: Distopian future..

[phantomfive]

I think he just doesn't like to pay for people to sit around, while he goes to work.

Re:Distopian future..

[Anonymous Coward]

I prefer the latter, with a stronger emphasis on violently killing the criminals so we have less of them overall.

Re:Distopian future..

[mark-t]

Yes, a 'guaranteed job' pretty much means 'YOU better find a job you like, or we will find one you DONT'

As one who has had the misfortune of living over 50% of his adult life looking for work, I think I would actually prefer this, as long as there was enough allowance within such a system that a person could still reasonably take (unpaid) time off to find a more desirable employment opportunity as desired.

I don't mind working at a job that I loathe if it spells the difference between keeping a roof over my head and freezing to death in the streets come wintertime, as long as the option exists to leave it if something better comes along... of course, this presumes that the job actually pays enough that I am able to afford to keep said roof over my head. If not, then it's not any different than being unemployed in the first place, except that I would have has even less free time to try and improve their situation.

Re:Distopian future..

[Jhon]

"The funny of it is, if you add up how much we pay administering the current welfare system--the thousands and thousands of bureaucrats who administer things like Electronic Benefit Transfer cards, who determine what items you are allowed to buy, who determine if you qualify, who police the system--we could provide a reasonably generous UBI to everyone with nearly no administrative overhead."

Have you ever heard of an american bureaucracy that was shut down? Or were just others pasted on on TOP of what already existed?

I don't believe for a moment that there will be any net "savings" closing down -- or even down sizing the current system.

Re: Distopian future..

[sjames]

What makes you think people in the U.S. won't?

Re: Distopian future..

[Anonymous Coward]

lol
(-op ac)

Re: Distopian future..

[phantomfive]

They will if they have to. I think you are assuming I said things that I never did.

Re: Distopian future..

[Anonymous Coward]

If people fail to be rewarded for their contribution then things go badly, but that's not how UBI is designed - unlike your standard *ism, under a UBI if you choose to work you get paid (and hence pay tax) for that work, and that let's you buy a nicer house, faster car or whatever than you're neighbour who chooses to sit around and drink.

It's precisely like the system now in many ways. Suppose you start in a relatively easy low-level, low-paying job. Now a small minority of people in this situation will say basically "good enough for me" and stay put, but most will try to work their way to a higher-paying, more prestigious position because, let's face it, just getting by in a minimum-respect job... well, it kinda sucks on multiple levels.

UBI done right is like that low-level job. It won't kill you to live off it, but you won't be able to afford the cool stuff and unless you do something remarkable (aka a non-monetary contribution to society) you won't get much respect. People are pretty well evolved to want both, so most people will work - albeit I would guess more sane hours - to attain both.

Re:Distopian future..

[Anonymous Coward]

Which google are you using to get those rental prices? That might be the average rent across all property types, but ten seconds search showed if you want a shared room in a big house they go for about 150-250pcm - including all utilities.

Remember this is a basic livable wage, not a four-bed McMansion in the leafy outer suburbs of Hull... Two people sharing the room would have twice the UBI to spend... 400 a month would be a basic 2-bed place, which suggests if you house share with another couple you have basically 100 a month plus quarter-utilities each. Wouldn't be a luxurious life but you wouldn't have to worry about making next month's rent payment.

As many others have said, you want more? That's what jobs and/or side hustles are for...

Re: Distopian future..

[Anonymous Coward]

It's also a ladder ranking. It's a race to see who's a better slave for "god"...er, government.

Such a system is pure evil!

Re: Distopian future..

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't understand how mice work. You cannot possibly leave out enough food to keep mice from eating yours. Mice population will rise to meet any available food supply.

Re: Distopian future..

[Anonymous Coward]

Social security, Medicaid, unemployment, minimum wage...when was the last time you saw benefits decreased? Almost never. Increased? Almost always.

You can't be serious. By the time I retire (yeah, right), the age to collect social security will probably be 105. Republicans keep pushing it up and up. That is absolutely 100% a decrease in benefits. And the same thing with minimum wage, you've got to be shitting me. Minimum wage, adjusted for inflation, peaked around 1970.

Re: Distopian future..

[Anonymous Coward]

Seems to me that the rich people are the one making jobs... I have yet to be seeing salaried jobs by destitutes...

Re: Distopian future..

[RevDisk]

Ah. No. There is no way you could strip 90% of the jobs in the US and not have things fall apart very quickly. While yes, only a handful are needed for direct ag labor, you need a huge pyramid of people to support those ag labor. People who build the equipment, people who maintain it, the entire petrochemical industry, the entire chemical industry, infrastructure people, you name it. Even farm hands need to run to the store to pick up stuff, so you'd need supermarkets, places like Lowes or Tractor Supply, etc.

Automation is nowhere NEAR being able to replace a busted water main, fix a downed power line or fill in potholes in the road. 50% is the closer number for the next couple of decades.

Re:Distopian future..

[w3woody]

Have you ever heard of an american bureaucracy that was shut down?

Nope. It's why I have zero hope any of this will come to pass. Frankly, I have more hope that I'll win over $100 million in the lottery.

And I don't play the lottery.

Re:Distopian future..

[Luckyo]

It was actually much worse. What happened was the the companies literally had lawyers who specialized in getting useless drunkards fired. This is because when you're running a company, you don't want a useless drunkard who never shows up for work, and even when he does, he's dangerous to himself and co-workers. And who still has the right to state guaranteed job.

So what happened was that these lawyers would go through lengthy court procedures to prove that this particular person wasn't doing the work he was supposed to, that company tried anything and everything that could be reasonably expected of it, and he still didn't do the work. Then court would allow the company to fire this person, which meant that he immediately got hired by another company.

And the circle would start anew, and the only thing that changed was the payer of drunkard's salary.

Re: Distopian future..

[Anonymous Coward]

"Automation is nowhere NEAR being able to replace a busted water main, fix a downed power line or fill in potholes in the road. 50% is the closer number for the next couple of decades."

And 50% is a shit-ton of people.

Re:Distopian future..

[DCFusor]

Probably shouldn't bother feeding an obvious troll, even one with a low ID.
You think criteria of being alive helps with fraud? The dead never vote early and often? There's no medicate fraud? It's impossible or even difficult to forge more than one identity? Do you really even think that ease of enforcement, if not imaginary as this would be, is gonna help our corrupt system work?
I'm afraid you don't know a lot about humans and what they get up to. What it would take to stop that is a police state so severe the only corruption would be within the police state itself...um...oh wait.
Come up with a printing press that prints value instead of mere currency and we can talk. Till then you don't even need real shortage of anything to create crime over it, perception is plenty, and greed is always with us.
After all, why do some people not stop after a billion or few? Gimme a break, ignoring human nature won't make it go away.
Just wanting something badly doesn't make it realistic.

Re: Distopian future..

[Anonymous Coward]

First off, "sealing off the border" is stupid and counterproductive. What is needed is an improved system that can process a large number of legal and legitimate immigration/refugee/asylum requests in a prompt and efficient manner *without*, however, sacrificing security by just throwing the doors wide. That's stupid and suicidal.

So what I'm hearing is we need our border agents to be unencumbered by the surplus of illegal immigrants so they can focus on the existing and largely effective laws regarding legal entry into the nation.

As for the "homeless/ghetto person converted into fruit-picker" concept (note that there would be a need for many other types of ancillary and logistics-related labor required as well, from machinery repair to transportation/delivery/warehousing/storage related occupations, etc, etc),

Of course, if those people were qualified for the types of ancillary work you suggest they probably wouldn't be in the ghetto/homeless. I mean... it's definitely possible that there's someone in the ghetto that would strike it rich and move on up if only they could get their hands busy fixing some tractors, but I'm willing to bet that is an extremely uncommon issue to worry about.

that actually does have some merit and *does not* require any sort of forced relocation or other drastic authoritarian actions. Just simply offer the jobs with good pay, job security, health benefits, etc and set up programs to assist people with relocation and other related costs and logistics

The reason that those jobs don't pay well with benefits is because they're not worth paying well for. They're dead simple to do, and really all you need is two functioning appendages, maybe fewer. People don't want to do them because they don't pay well, and they don't pay well because they require zero skill to do.

and a whole metric shit-ton of them will *happily* self-relocate and also have a sense of doing something useful which is far more important than many will acknowledge. People in general tend to need emotionally to feel useful, to have a purpose and reason to set the alarm and rise every morning outside of themselves and their personal needs.

Despite what you may think, most people are not at all motivated by skill-less jobs. Most people like feeling useful, this is not the same thing as just doing for the sake of doing. Further, I assume you've never worked with these types of people. Let me tell you as someone with the inside scoop: a disturbing amount of these types of people feel like they're owed welfare. Not that it's to help them while they cannot help themself, no they feel not only should they be paid for doing nothing but that they should be paid more for doing nothing.

It's conceivable that, if done right

That's funny right there

, such a plan could almost eliminate involuntary joblessness, massively increase agricultural production along with government revenues, improve the general levels of education & training, and through the massive increase in supply reduce food prices not only domestically but also on exports, allowing the US to truly be able to become the world's breadbasket and reduce starvation worldwide while working to reduce the US's international debt and trade imbalances.

Absolutely all fictional, none of this would happen even if done "right". The cost of produce would increase because you've had to tease people into working skill-less jobs by paying them skilled job rates. That money doesn't just appear and the only way to subsidize it would be increasing what is charged. The government already pays farmers to not farm their land, and if they stopped paying the prices of produce would plummet as supply vastly outstripped demand and then the farmers have no incentive to farm (nobody wants to work at a loss) so the cost of food fluctuates season to season.

Re: Distopian future..

[Anonymous Coward]

Because otherwise, you will have no customers. Truthfully though, you miss the fact that the cost of robots and factories will be coming down just like everything else. Eventually the AIs and robots can decide what factories to build and build them. It will reach a point where no rich investor is required. That is what the wealthy really fear. The day when money means nothing and they are equal.

Re: Distopian future..

[complete loony]

Sure, increase taxes to offset the cost of the UBI, but just use the usual marginal rate system. At some point your tax will equal the UBI. And I'm certain there will still need to be some privilege re-leveling payments; old age, disability etc.

The problem with "roll-off of benefits" is that they often suddenly cut out when you have some rate of income. When you add together the tax rate and the loss of benefits, the effective marginal tax rate of that extra dollar of income can be greater than 100%.

Re: Distopian future..

[currently_awake]

Making American agriculteral exports cheaper will kill people. Many poor in the third world earn their living by making or selling food, and the subsidies take that away. It doesn't matter how cheap the food is, if you have no money because western countries wiped out the local economy with massive subsidies then you starve.

Re: Distopian future..

[west]

And the mask comes off. "Forced contributions."

Mask, what mask? Look, pretty much every human being alive lives in a society with "forced contributions", so I really hope there is no surprise there. (The canonical example being mutual defense - the biggest contribution possible (your life).

In fact, given the failure of any society without forced contributions to have survived long enough to be in the historical record, I think you could make a case for that to be a defining characteristic of humanity.

You are absolutely and totally fucking evil, and worse, belive (sic) yourself to be altruistic.

On the contrary, I specifically mentioned the benefits *I* get. I don't believe I'm altruistic at all. If I was altruistic, I'd be pushing much harder for all of our wealth to be shared by the people who *really* desperately need it (or at least fighting for completely open borders).

As for absolutely evil, yes, guilty as charged :-). But then again so is Jesus to Hitler, so I've got a fair bit of company right across the spectrum.

Re:Distopian future..

[Anonymous Coward]

Jeez. If you want to talk about reducing crime, talk about a UBI. The only thing that has been shown to have a major effect on crime in this country is the economy. Crime is half what it was in the early 90s now precisely because people are better off. Most who commit crime at the low end of the economic scale would not do so if they had UBI.

If you want to reduce crime even further, decriminalize all drugs that can't be used in a weapon of mass destruction. The addiction rate is higher amongst the rich and yet they don't die at the same rates or commit crimes to pay for it at the same rates. Why? Because they can pay for bad doctors to give them prescriptions and then pay the cost of the medicine without going broke. With real prescriptions, they get controlled doses and don't overdose (something that usually occurs because the current batch was much stronger than the last one, not because they took more). If you decriminalize the drugs and force low cost over-the-counter generics for everyone, the addiction rate will plummet because pushers will go out of business and, without pushers, you'll have many fewer new addicts and existing addicts will be left alone when they try to break their habits.

Stop hating. It is amazing how many people who make money their life believe that "human nature" makes the low-income people steal because they want money. It's not money they want. It is life. Give them that, and you'll be surprised how few care for more. They tend to be better adjusted than that.

Re: Distopian future..

[west]

Nobody will contribute, people will not work, will steal, will drink themselves to death.

Are you telling me that you had a UBI, you'd quit your present job, steal, and drink yourself to death?

I'll guess no.

Okay, then your family? Your friends?

Again, I'll guess no.

Usually when claims like this are made, it's because there's this huge mysterious, shadowy mass of humanity who we've never really met (but read about in blog posts or seen in movies) who apparently are lazy, shiftless, and awful (and probably have a different skin colour). The people we actually *have* met are, on the whole, reasonably hard-working, reasonably decent people.

I'll go with making pronouncements based on observed data. My measurement of all the people in my life (and that encompasses a number of different walks of life, many different colours, many different cultures) indicates that the *vast* majority are, when given the opportunity, contributors. Again, mostly to benefit themselves, but because of forced contributions, benefiting their fellow citizens as well. Some unfortunates aren't in a position to contribute due to health or other issues. Most wish they were.

I've no doubt you can cherry pick for awful people - they do exist in small numbers. But the idea of basing my society solely around the awful people? That sounds like a recipe for... well... awfulness.

Re:Distopian future..

[Anonymous Coward]

I think the reality is they can manage their affairs just fine. All of those who are displaced due to not having people to "help" can just go on UBI too. That's basically where they already are - being paid something for nothing. We will still save by not having to pay for the massive infrastructure that supports them.

In general, a huge portion of this country is already on UBI!

Our current implementation of UBI is just to add redtape and bureaucracy across every system and every industry. Politicians have been adding redtape and bureaucracy to create jobs for decades now.

We could pay the people who are currently in fake jobs less if they go on UBI because they can live on less if they don't have the massive expenses that come along with going to work everyday (I once calculated my wife was making $5k / year from her $35k / year as an LPC after subtracting all the expenses it caused for her to work). The "work" that they are doing won't be missed if we simultaneously examine every industry for the laws and regulations that force it and get rid of them. As we get rid of the need for industries to do that work, we would increase the taxes by a similar amount so that the freed money just moves to the UBI. When jobs are eliminated from government, they could be given their previous after-tax income as UBI with no impact to taxes. They'd probably be happy with a bit less because their life is simpler and cheaper.

Re: Distopian future..

[Anonymous Coward]

"You define a person's worth by the work they do,"

Worth presupposes the question "to whom and for what?"

The only reason this topic of conversation is the slightest bit controversial is because it's about the productive giving the results of their productive effort to the non-productive.

By default, I approach others with neutrality. I neither like them nor dislike them. They are neither worthy nor worthless. That can change in either direction. We can connect on a personal level - through common interests. We can enter into a voluntary transaction and we can judge each other on the fairness of that transaction. Or they can rob me.

People are judged by others according to the effects that they have on others. When it comes to tax payers being taxed, it is quite reasonable for them to ask "what I am getting back in exchange for paying those taxes?" Interesting cases have been made about the "social contract" and lowering crime and a more educated society etc. But when someone examines the hypothetical scenario of an unproductive individual living off of the productive efforts of others, I think it is quite reasonable for the productive to look unfavourably upon such a scenario.

Re: Distopian future..

[dgatwood]

As for the "homeless/ghetto person converted into fruit-picker" concept (note that there would be a need for many other types of ancillary and logistics-related labor required as well, from machinery repair to transportation/delivery/warehousing/storage related occupations, etc, etc), that actually does have some merit and *does not* require any sort of forced relocation or other drastic authoritarian actions. Just simply offer the jobs with good pay, job security, health benefits, ...

And right there, in only six words, you summed up why that will never happen.

It's conceivable that, if done right, such a plan could almost eliminate involuntary joblessness, massively increase agricultural production

Agricultural production isn't going to go way up because you have better-paid people hand-picking crops, nor because you have more people picking crops. There really isn't much spoilage caused by crops going unpicked, percentage-wise. We might get double-digit millions of dollars in additional yield. That's like a hundredth of a percent of our country's net agricultural exports. It would have such a tiny impact on the total agricultural production in this country that it would be lost in the noise.

And you can't really increase the amount of land used for fields easily, because there's not enough fresh water for irrigation, not enough fertile land, etc.

and through the massive increase in supply reduce food prices

First, you want to pay a reasonable wage, then you want to reduce food prices. That can't work. The money to pay all those workers a reasonable wage has to come from somewhere, and it can only come from the food prices. The reason crops go unpicked is not because there aren't enough workers, but rather because above a certain level of production, prices fall to the point where the wages you can offer won't attract enough workers, and you can till the plants under for less than you would lose by bringing the crops to market.

Raise the cost of workers and you'll end up with a new equilibrium point; either way, the cost of food has to go up, not down, to pay those wages. Farm owners will limit production as needed to keep the price high enough to be able to pay those wages. And because the cost of food coming from the U.S. will be so much higher than the cost of food coming from other countries, we'll end up importing more and exporting less, which means there will be fewer picker jobs at those higher wages, producing a lower total output, not more.

Re: Distopian future..

[Anonymous Coward]

Why the fuck would I care? There are plenty of people like that in the US due to the short sighted policies you advocate for.

Just about anybody can wind up a threat to order if their basic needs aren't being met and we're dangerously close to having a majority of the people with no stake of any sort in the status quo.

And it takes a surprisingly small number to incite major rioting.

Re: Distopian future..

[Aristos Mazer]

It depends how much work the robots are doing. It might be that they are producing enough that indeed all humans could be on UBI and the system would keep going. We don't know how that future will balance out.

Re: Distopian future..

[Anonymous Coward]

OK. Put it this way: how does it benefit society as a whole to divert a large portion of its productive output into people who consume, rather than contribute? Obviously it individually benefits many members of society at the lower levels of income, which forms a tiny portion of the population in developed nations. Most of which already have income and unemployment support. Even forgetting universal societal benefits from a UBI, how does it benefit everyone else, individually?

The entire idea of taxation and public services is that everyone who can, contributes. Some are less able to contribute, others need a hand to do so. Yet others have contributed their entire lives and are now eligible to claim back a bit of their lifetime of productive output.

We aren't even remotely close to a post-scarcity economy in any part of the world. Much of the unrest in the developed world is due to contracting economies, "corrections" from too much debt or follow-on effects from other parts of the global economy experiencing issues.

How do you expect any of our economies to transition cleanly from "contribution now, shared and future returns" to "chip in what you can if you have a sec" and retain any kind of functionality, let alone a standard of living, in the medium to long term?

It won't be a society of unconstrained, high-minded philosophers improving society with their debates. Those kinds of people are already gainfully employed and productive right now. It's just going to be a whole country of people arguing pointless bullshit on the Internet with their excessive free time.

Re: Distopian future..

[Aristos Mazer]

It's not just the poor. The wealthy also break the law. Frequently. fluffemutter was talking about for civilization, there will be lawbreakers, and you either pay for police or you remove the incentive for crime. It's why many countries pay their politicians extravagantly -- it discourages them from taking bribes. Same principle.

Re: Distopian future..

[Anonymous Coward]

What if someone has wealth through birth, not through earning it?

Re: Distopian future..

[Anonymous Coward]

Your figures fail to back up your assertion. For example, revenue increased faster than spending from 2006 to 2007, and several other years (I didn't check them all). In those figures, spending outstrips revenue when there is a recession, mostly.

Re: Distopian future..

[Anonymous Coward]

The reason why not is that would be pro-cyclical, making booms dangerously excessive and recessions longer. Modern societies are demand - led. Supply side has long been a myth, although advertising has a role in creating new demand, but ultimately people have to spend money to turn demand into transactions. Cutting money going to people as the number still in work would have the effect of rapidly reducing the number of transactions, putting more out of work.

An alternative is a counter cyclical method in which you run a surplus in the good times (as Keynes suggested), allowing you to potentially at least maintain UBI at the same level, taking the edge of recessions. Revenues (taxes) higher than spending tends to be unpopular, though, even if spending is being cut.

Re: Distopian future..

[Anonymous Coward]

If a border is not sealed then there is no real border.

Somehow the left has convinced the right that if they actually believe in the existance of the USA as a country with real borders, then they are a racist.

A country is defined by borders. This statement would have been soo obvious 20 years ago. Today stating the obvious will get you labeled as a NAZI.

Illegal immigration worked real well for the American Indians. I am sure it will work just as well for us today

Re: Distopian future..

[Anonymous Coward]

If people were only supported by UBI at the levels typically suggested then overall people would have less money and prices would fall for some things, and others would become unavailable due to aggregate demand for them being insufficient to provide sufficient economies of scale to offer them at a price people could buy them at.

Re:Distopian future..

[serviscope_minor]

Probably shouldn't bother feeding an obvious troll, even one with a low ID.

It's kinda pathetic that you believe someone who disagrees with you is an "obvious troll".

You think criteria of being alive helps with fraud?

That's ALSO a problem with the system you prefer. UBI doesn't remove that particular avenue for fraud but it removes an awful lot of others.

Re: Distopian future..

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know about the USA, but in the UK, benefits have fallen significantly in real terms over the last 30 years. And whilst I don't know for sure about the USA, it seems unlikely that they have increased in real terms there.

Re: Distopian future..

[Anonymous Coward]

It would be a less vast bureaucracy than currently required to administer a variety of other payments or deductions that come and go. The IRS already knows who you are, and your SSN, etc, so you'd just need to ensure you kept a bank out registered with it to receive the UBI. It might not even need a new server farm, especially if the tax code was simplified a bit at the same time.

Re: Distopian future..

[Anonymous Coward]

Indeed. Ideally the only complexities you would have left would be payments for those with particular medical-related expenses for those who can't work (and this works best in the context of universal basic medical insurance too), and for numbers of children (as I don't believe that children should be penalised just because their parents decided to bring more children into the world than they could support, not least because circumstances change, and if child four has a medical condition requiring a parent to give up work, I fail to see how children 1 to 3 are to blame).

The trickiest part is transition, which would be more complex than either system, most likely, but making people winners or losers overnight in a new system could be dislocating, plus big bang project starts are, er, liable to blow up in your face.

Re: Distopian future..

[teg]

And for the people who contribute, unemployment pay is not an option nor would living on UBI be. Not seeing your point.

In the post I replied to, UBI was described as replacing many benefits given today. And while I haven't used it so far, it is of course possible that at some point I might need some of these - sick pay, paternity/maternity leave, unemployment benefits. That is, after all, why paying into the system - it behaves a lot like insurance. Today, the benefits replace the income for a certain time. UBI would't replace the income, it would be a low baseline and instead remove all benefits. Thus, e.g. instead of the one year paid maternity/paternity leave we have today you would have a huge loss of income instead. Same if you got sick - a large part of your income would just go away.

Re: Distopian future..

[djinn6]

Given that as of today only 60% of people 16 and older work, needing 50% to sustain mere livelihood seems unreasonable.

While I agree the current agricultural model needs support from various others, I do think the remainder 8% employed is sufficient (approximately 20 million people). This is mainly due to how little support agriculture actually needs.

For example, there are 5.9 million working in "Installation, maintenance, and repair occupations", and of those, only 42,000 are "farm equipment mechanics and service technicians". Much of the remainder, such as auto mechanics, would not be necessary in a world where 90% of the people don't need to work and thus don't need cars.

Another way to look at it is that the service industry employs 125 million out of 156 million workers. No matter how you slice that, most of them will not be necessary to keep the farms going, especially given modern agriculture predates most of those jobs.

Of course, any number between 0% and 90% would be possible, depending on the amount UBI provides and human psychology. Neither of which we know right now, and the latter being impossible to know until we actually try it.

Re: Distopian future..

[Anonymous Coward]

You fell for the bait. The Bush years had higher spending, but kept it off budget as a series on one time changes for the Iraq Afghanistan wars, etc.

Gp is troll though so not like a rationed response would matter.

Re:Distopian future..

[Anonymous Coward]

You really think that accurately keeping track of the entire populace lacks complexity? That preventing fraud across the entire populace would lack complexity? That dealing with hundreds of thousands of genuine missed payment claims (let alone the fraudulent ones) every year will be easy? That handling literally billions every week would be something you could entrust to just a few people? That those billions won't attract power-hungry managers who care more about building their personal government fiefdom than running things efficiently?

Your view is startlingly naive.

Re: Distopian future..

[Anonymous Coward]

What's the difference between "roll-off of benefits" and taxes? It works out to the same thing. And without a seriously high tax rate on almost all workers, there's no way to fund any sort of UBI.

You can't finance anything by taxing what is in "costs" section of balance sheet of a business, and wages are clearly the costs. It would be just a signal to management to optimize the jobs out, and then your financing dries up. UBI must come from business success, the dividends, not from business hindrances, such as wages. So basically, UBI would be obligatory possession of certain minimal amount of SPX for every citizen, bought by taxes and granted by government, but from that point on, everyone is on their own, they can find a gig, make some money, invest into more stocks and slowly get ahead if they want, or else indulge in spending on whatever.

I expect there would be a lot of jobs that pay next to nothing, because there's no need to pay enough to live on, and people get bored, so of course that will be exploited.

So what? That's already the case, nothing new, just the scale is changed. You already expect to get enough from doing a job to at least cover your expenses, so in today's situation you nominally get more, but still spend most of it on necessities.

Also, UBI fails to take into account that old people just need more money to get by than young people - what you used to be able to do yourself, now you must pay others to do. So are we paying different groups of people different amounts (inevitably based on political influence), or are we keeping Social Security?

No, we are paying everyone the same, and that amount should be enough for even those with worst of luck. We already discussed the great availability of workforce and low wages. If you are a nice sweet old person, there will be plenty helpful adults around who may help you out out of the goodness of their
hearts (or boredom).

Meh, the math just doesn't work at all.

I've seen no math in your speculative analysis.

Re: Distopian future..

[umghhh]

We may soon find out if it works. Germany has free housing and pocket money for all that can reach German social authorities and say 'asylum'. The system is not supposed to work like this but due to huge numbers of people that were arriving it has become UIBI - the negative decision can be objected in front of the court and because courts are overloaded by hundred of thousands of cases they cannot give answer on time - in 3 years if they are not expelled people get what amounts to residence permit. There are some other nice things about it but this is is - UBI as everybody wanted. Not all Germans are happy tho so the system may yet be scrapped but majority of Germans support it so something big would be required for them to stop it.

Re: Distopian future..

[dargaud]

The crucial question really is, how many people can go onto UBI without society collapsing? That is, how many people can choose to be supported only by UBI without the system being overloaded?

I wonder why those questions cannot be answered by simulation models. I mean we use models when we build a bridge, a rocket, mechanical parts, weather forecast, supply chains, etc... But I hardly ever see them in economics, there are theoretical models, yes, but not big computer simulations that you can rerun and adjust small parameters to see the change in outcome. It's sorely needed.

Re:Distopian future..

[Anonymous Coward]

You think fraud goes away like magic?

Of course not. There will be plenty of people who try to continue to collect a deceased loved-one's UBI, for example.

But if UBI is made to be a non-deductible property, like, possession of index stocks, then why would we care? Loved-one dies, the other one inherits it, no need to fuss around (except to check if there was a reason to open up a crime investigation).

Re: Distopian future..

[phantomfive]

We may soon find out if it works. Germany has free housing and pocket money for all that can reach German social authorities and say 'asylum'.

Really? Is that true? Can I request asylum if I am coming from America? I even promise to learn German.

Re: Distopian future..

[phantomfive]

Some of the first computer work was simulations for economics, if I remember my linear algebra textbook correctly.

Re: Distopian future..

[Anonymous Coward]

The rate of technological advancements is exponential. "nowhere NEAR" may just be several decades away. It takes some time to implement a fully functional universal/basic income. We want to be proactively ready for those advancements, not reactively scrambling to figure out what to do with a huge population of unemployable people who are forced to choose between crime and survival.

Re: Distopian future..

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem isn't work that needs to be done and isn't getting done, it's that humans will have negative value relative to the "free" work from automation. You are either arguing for humans to do pointless jobs for the sake of a job or to replace cheap automation with expensive sub-par humans.

Re:Distopian future..

[Anonymous Coward]

Yep. It's just a way to assert more control over people. If Obama supports it, then I'm against it.

Re:Distopian future..

[demesthones]

If you actually think that more than 10% of our population, over 40 million people, are here illegally then you're mad.

Re:Distopian future..

[Anonymous Coward]

The welfare system currently deals with 4-5% of the population. If UBI reduces the number of decisions per recipient by an optimistic 90%, you have a tenth of the number of decisions to make for a set of recipients. But you are increasing the number of recipients from 4-5% to 100% which means 20 to 25 times more decisions. So you would need a bureaucracy 2-2.5x bigger to handle UBI.

Re:Distopian future..

[Gilgaron]

Sure, checking on one check is easier than a dozens from the different departments operating independently now. E.g., UBI vs someone on Social Security, Disability, Food Assistance.

Re: Distopian future..

[Anonymous Coward]

I disagree.
I own my own home. I work.
I live next door to someone on long term unemployment.

I pay my mortage. They get free rent.
I pay for my house repairs. They've had a new kitchen and bathroom in the last 2 years pay for by the state.
I pay for my car, repairs and taxes. They get a subsidised car and free tax because they are disabled ie: they are too fat to work. Seriously.
I go to work from 9-5 every day of the week and try to enjoy my weekend. They sit around all day watching tv and eating takeways
I try to be a good citizen. They cause all sorts of neighbour problems, with noise, litter, police turning for for domestics, etc.
I try to complain. I'm white, middle class and have a job. They are female, "disabled" and playing all the right music. I am discriminated against because I've chosen to get a job and am not a poor case. The agencies responsible make money based on the number of people they are looking after - think about that.

I pay taxes which for for their lifestyle, but needs 3 other people to contribute as well. They contibute NOTHING to society except children who require more state funding and the cyle continues.

This is where you want to go ??

Re: Distopian future..

[bluefoxlucid]

The American Citizen's Dividend (a Universal Dividend) I proposed shrinks when GNI-per-Capita shrinks. That means...

if everyone decided to only be supported by UBI

...the benefit would shrink because there would be no tax source due to no production and no (purchasing-power) income.

There are other controls.

The Dividend in 2016 would have been $6,000 per adult per year. You also have your welfare system--means-tested and all--which is necessary for support. The Dividend isn't enough to survive; the welfare system covers the gap.

This makes a lot of sense: egalitarian social insurances are inefficient; yet targeted social insurances stasis a local economy because people get jobs and get off welfare, thus removing the inflow. The first jobs in an impoverished local economy are service to the local economy, which doesn't draw economic support from outside, so the economy is dependent on continuous transfers and can't otherwise support jobs. A Dividend provides a basis onto which that barely-functional job market may settle, and continues to add consumer purchasing power to drive up the mean earnings possible among the job market.

If you can't answer that question with some level of accuracy, you have no business implementing a UBI.

You only need an answer for why the system rejects error states and converges toward optimum. It may not converge to exactly optimum, but it should move away from failure and toward success rather than decaying when internal or external factors change.

Re:Distopian future..

[Anonymous Coward]

Remember: from where you stand, unless you're Warren Buffet, there are people at a higher socio-economic level than you looking down at you as part of the hoi-polloi--part of the unwashed masses, an uncouth individual who can't seem to manage your life to the level they can.

The difference is those looking down on mean might think I'm poor, but at least they appreciate I'm paying my own way in society and not sitting on my arse leeching from everyone else.
I might not be living in a mansion, but my house is owned or mortgaged, I'm not living rent free paid for by the state.

The difference is that the people that choose not to work, not to make an effort, should not be carried by the rest of us.
If they choose not to find a job and expect a free ride they deserve to go sit in a room all day and watch the paint.

I shouldn't be forced into charity by the state for people not worth a damn. I'd rather my taxes went to help people in the 3rd world. At least they want to get off their arse, get an education and take my job. The people in my country want to sit around taking free money watching Tv and eating takeaways.

Re: Distopian future..

[Anonymous Coward]

After all, the contributions benefit the contributor as well as every one else.

Some people define success not as how much it positively affects themselves, but as how much it negatively affects others. In other words, for some, winning is not enough. Others must lose.

Re: Distopian future..

[phantomfive]

I was wondering if you would chime in :) I don't deny that your system is better thought out, and more rational, than most.

However, I still think you need to address what happens when people drop out of the system and start depending on UBI. That will give you clarity on how robust your system is (and it will show that you've put some thought into it, which honestly, was my primary point in asking the question. Although you've already thought about it quite a bit).

Re:Distopian future..

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you're being obtuse and missing the point of his post. His point was that the various systems in place today aren't solely there because of the complexity of distributing money on needs-based programs, but because they serve a function other than just money. His point is you can't be overly optimistic on the cost savings of UBI administration because it doesn't remove necessary functions of a lot of those programs.

Re: Distopian future..

[bluefoxlucid]

I still think you need to address what happens when people drop out of the system and start depending on UBI.

They look across the street at the part-time minimum-wage worker who has 3x the standard-of-living and realize life is hard and SNAP won't pay for their food forever, even if the Dividend will always come.

As I said: the Dividend isn't "we're going to somehow give you $20,000 so you can live and eat." It's a piece of productivity. If productivity falls, so does the Dividend. The tax rates don't go up. At worst, you have a labor shortage, and wages start rising to attract workers; although my Dividend is based in a 1/8 FICA (which pulls a bit less than 1/8 of the GNI) and my structural minimum wage is based in 1/4 of the per-adult GNI, so working a minimum-wage job full-time always tends to triple your income (double for a 2-adult household) versus just having the Dividend.

You can sort of replace the Dividend with prostitution or drug dealing and ask the same question. The answer is a bit different, notably in poverty-stricken areas where prostitution and drugs don't bring more jobs and allow more people to work but the Dividend does.

Re: Distopian future..

[phantomfive]

That's a cool mechanism but you still didn't answer the question.

Re:Distopian future..

[Anonymous Coward]

Oooooh, oooh, here's something else to consider - https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2018/07/11/628173553/fed-accounts-for-all

Fed accounts for all - basically, to distribute the UBI in the US, give everyone a Fed checking and savings account. Instant transfers, taxpayer funds cover the transaction costs, unlimited money sending, your savings account interest rate is now the Fed's savings rate - ~2% as of July 2018, in comparison to Chase's 0%, BOA's .05%, etc.

No loans, no financial instruments, just a bog-standard checking+savings account combo (with no minimum balance required). The machines to turn blank credit cards into real ones are $1000 ($2500 for chip cards, $10k-25k for nice credit cards), the plastic swipe cards are 25 cents each (chip cards are $5), boom, ship them out as you would tax information.

Between this and Robinhood, you could relatively easily change the US savings rate from 2.4% to 5% in 12 months. It's not that Americans don't want to save, it's just that all of the banks are colluding to make saving incredibly hard.

Re:Distopian future..

[Anonymous Coward]

>And down that rabbit hole is authoritarianism--one where only 39% of Americans are trusted with their own money.

We're already there. Civil forfeiture, banks colluding with high fees, low savings rates, credit histories riddled with holes and hacks, institutionalized poverty and for profit prisons. There are 40,000 homeless in Los Angeles, a city of 4 million. 1% of the population.

Re: Distopian future..

[umghhh]

Go and try. They give it to almost anybody. There even was a soldier of German Army that applied as a Syrian refugee and got it. You just need have some stamina and protest the negative asylum decisions as long as it takes. The majority of people that come refuse to tell the authorities where they come from and to show a pass which makes it impossible for German state to send them home.
The reason I mentioned it here is that the actual experiment is being done on quite a large scale - there have been 1.6m of these people in 2015 since then the number fell to 200k per year. Most of them are not eligible for refugee status (called Asylum in Germany) but they protest as long as it takes, they also organize protests in rare cases when they are actually being deported so the state is effectively providing for them as it is legally forced to do so although they have no legal right to stay. Here you have your limited size UBI. The actual direct costs on federal level is approx 30-40bE (federal budget is 350b a year) so it is not so massive as you may imagine. The flow is smaller than in 2015 but it does not show any signs of stopping so the cost is likely to increase. We will see how long Germany is capable of paying this much for people that do not contribute(*) directly to economy( - there is a market for social services there which was not there before and property prices go up as these people that stay have the right to housing provided by community. The experiment lasts. We will see how long it will go well.
If you want to try, then as I said, please do - come over, hide away your pass and claim asylum. I can imagine that if you say you are from Syria it can still work. As stated they accepted a soldier of German army who did not know any of the languages used in Syria and did not look like a citizen of the country so the chance is there. One more thing. It seems German administration actually works if you follow the rules, so if you come, claim asylum and follow all the rules and do not use violence during attempts at deportation the chances that you will be deported are quite high. It may even be that they send you or your family a bill for all the costs so once you commit you have to fight.

* - there are reasons for that but scholars still discuss what these are. It is irrelevant for our discussion here of which point is - whether UBI is feasible.

Re: Distopian future..

[lgw]

UBI must come from business success, the dividends, not from business hindrances, such as wages.

Total earnings of all US public corps is something like 5% of total wages. Dividends in particular are closer to 2%. Not sure what you can do with that.

So basically, UBI would be obligatory possession of certain minimal amount of SPX for every citizen, bought by taxes and granted by government

Sure, but the math doesn't work. Distribute ownership of all public corporations equally, let's say, setting aside the problems with that. Great:
* Total dividends right now are ~2.4% of GDP.
* Total wages are always about equal to GDP.

So, with a bit of obvious math, you'll see that even if we eat the rich, The average UBI benefit would be about .024 * GDP / USPop = ~$1500. Hardly going to replace existing welfare programs.

Social security is just barely subsistence right now: after the costs of Medicare and related health costs, it's pretty much "cat food retirement". That's about $24k. Your idea pays about 1/16th of that.

The math doesn't work. Same problems with all these ideas - off by an order of magnitude.

Re:Distopian future..

[liquid_schwartz]

I live in Southern California, it's most definitely >10% in some areas. In general there are 43.7 million immigrants in the US right now, >10% though not all illegal. It's tougher to get accurate numbers on anchor babies but it's estimated at ~8.4% of the adult population, and far higher among minors at ~20%. So yes, when you look at illegals and the anchor babies you do get >10%. Much higher in some areas. I'm not mad alas, our immigration system is. And until this mess is fixed you can forget UBI.

Citations:

https://www.washingtonpost.com... google answer using search: total immigrant population https://www.fairus.org/issue/s...

Re: Distopian future..

[lgw]

Sure, increase taxes to offset the cost of the UBI, but just use the usual marginal rate system

I'm not sure it's possible for the US government to collect that much. Income tax revenue has never been sustained about ~20% of GDP. Much higher marginal tax rates, even 90%, didn't get above that for long. People respond to incentives, and arrange on way or another to stop earning wages when they don't keep enough of it, either by adjusting where, when, and how they get paid, or simply by working less and retiring earlier.

20% of GDP distributed equally to all US citizens is about $12k. But you need to pay for government too, especially it's biggest expense: Medicare.

And I'm certain there will still need to be some privilege re-leveling payments; old age, disability etc.

Not sure I can translate that from progressive to English. Does UBI replace programs like unemployment and disability? Do you pay the elderly more (who, on average, are much wealthier than the overall average)? Do you pay everyone enough for the elderly to subsist on cat food? But that's about $24k, which is untenable.

Re: Distopian future..

[bluefoxlucid]

It is an answer to the question. The economic environment under the Dividend isn't fundamentally-different from the environment otherwise, and the Dividend isn't fundamentally-different from an employment income in the context of worker behavior. The outcome behaviors are bound by similar broad impacts.

You're looking for a simple answer like "how do we keep paying for it when nobody works?" and ignoring that we couldn't pay salaries or have jobs or manufacture anything if everybody quit working. The question is usually "what bounds the outcome?" The worst case is always an apocalypse--hell, the worst case is every human being on the planet wakes up tomorrow and decides to go to the kitchen and cut their own throat, but why doesn't that happen?

If you're looking for just a proportional answer--of course X% of people will drop out because many people are depressed and unmotivated--the answer is that the system withstands something around a 15% drop at least, based on some earlier bounds I used years ago. Those bounds are technically kind of pointless: the system still works with a rather large drop, but degrades as you damage the economy (high unemployment rates). As stated above: wage competition starts to show up as the labor force shrinks, which draws more interest in working (more reward for less labor).

I designed the Dividend to not collapse in recessions and significant depressions, where sudden economic damage causes a lot of people to drop out of the workforce against their will. It might survive (and correct) a repeat of the Great Depression; it's more likely to simply prevent any such thing (constant and well-targeted stimulus where the cracks form). Everything else is a sort of fuzzy social concept that we only know works because society hasn't already collapsed as people decide stealing from everyone else is simpler than working; anybody who says they have a solid, physical answer to that is lying.

Re: Distopian future..

[Anonymous Coward]

You;'re not accounting for the greedy guys hoarding the wealth away from them. They would never allow that scenario.

Re: Distopian future..

[richieb]

What do you suggest then? That they and their children should starve? Be homeless? Suffer more?

Re:Distopian future..

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, he destroyed the original post and none of these replies come close to refutation.

Let's start UBI trials in select counties. One of the biggest issues with these discussions is we keep getting the "My GAWD UBI can never work! Lazy people are lazy and don't want to do anything! There will be massive crime and poverty anyway and the UBI will have to be increased until I can't pay my taxes!" crazies that clearly misunderstand basic human psychology, and have also obviously not been paying attention to every UBI trial attempted elsewhere in the world. (Hint: They were actually very successful)

Re: Distopian future..

[Anonymous Coward]

Basically, there are NO guarantees.

Re: Distopian future..

[ChatHuant]

I live next door to someone on long term unemployment.

Well, it seems to me you're exactly the kind of person who should push for UBI; with UBI, you'll also receive those benefits - the same as your neighbor, but you'll have the extra income from your job on top!

The agencies responsible make money based on the number of people they are looking after - think about that.

That's another reason for you to support UBI. As others have pointed out, if UBI is implemented, most of those agencies will go away.

Re: Distopian future..

[Cinnamon Beige]

Now that's not to say it would be a nice place to live with 90% of the people on UBI, but in reality that won't happen. Most people don't want to merely survive, they want to live in luxury.

And how many would prefer to push for UBI to be raised as opposed to actually work to get that, and possibly more importantly, how likely is it that they will be put up with? Even if it's merely a vocal minority, it cannot be an acceptable view if you want to ensure that it will stay as basic as it would need to be in order have a chance of being sustainable.

Re: Distopian future..

[Cinnamon Beige]

Of course if no one contributes, the system will fall apart.

But why would no-one contribute? After all, the contributions benefit the contributor as well as every one else. And having every one else benefit is an additional benefit to me.

Now if contributions were optional, as is the Libertarian utopia, you might have a tragedy of the commons problem. Bu that's not the case.

You ask why no-one would contribute, but then suggest that it is necessary that contributing be required instead of optional. That doesn't follow, logically: If it's so obviously good, people will opt in...especially if that's the base requirement to also getting to benefit.

Having all parts of the system have to convince people that they will, in fact, benefit from participation--which is actually almost certain in a Libertarian utopia--has benefits in ensuring no part of the system assumes that they will be contributed to regardless of if the benefit is, in point of fact, delivered. I'd suggest not even requiring people wait for the current version of any part of the system collapse completely before they can start a new version that actually meets their needs--why wait for the schools to finish imploding, if they're providing a shit education? It takes time to set up new. Get it started before the old system's gone, and you can at least cut down on the lag time.

Re: Distopian future..

[Anonymous Coward]

All of them. Well, almost. UBI is needed when we get to the point where ALL of Amazon's warehouses are run exclusively by robots, where ALL food is harvested by robots, and all manufacturing plants are ... you guessed it, robot manufacturing plants.

When today's ENTIRE ECONOMY is run for a year by 40 man-hours of labor by a designer, a programmer, and a robot repairman, you'll need UBI or Skynet. I'd rather have UBI.

Yes, we're far from that point. OTOH, I wouldn't be surprised to see 99% of retail clerk jobs evaporate to touchscreen kiosks...that trend has been going for ~25 years, and it seems to be expanding. Same for commercial drivers once self-driving vehicles come into their own. It's not hard to imagine a future where we only have 10 million full-time-equivalent jobs available, and they all require master's degrees or higher.

Re: Distopian future..

[catprog]

A Social security, Medicaid, unemployment, minimum wage...when was the last time you saw benefits decreased? Almost never. Increased? Almost always.

Are you factoring inflation into the calculations?

Re: Distopian future..

[Anonymous Coward]

Some people are experimenting with 3D printed housing. It's not a huge stretch from there to automated highrise housing construction (lots of engineering effort for scaling, but the principle looks sound).

Re: Distopian future..

[Anonymous Coward]

High tax rate? Nah. Last year's tax revenue was $3.3 trillion. A $10k/year UBI payment to all adult citizens would cost $2.4 trillion, so it already fits within the budget.

Granted, there are two obstacles:

1. Canceling 80% of current government programs (including SS and Medicare) seems ... unlikely, given the politics in play in the US.
2. GDP (and by extension, tax revenue) needs to keep growing. UBI will change the economy, and that risks tanking tax revenues before we're running a high enough % of the economy on a chain of robots.

Re: Distopian future..

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you underestimate the laziness of people. I don't consider myself lazy but if you provide me with an apartment, clothes, transportation, and decent food, I am going to choose to do things that have little overall economic value but still raise my lifestyle above the UBI enough to afford the things I like.

Re: Distopian future..

[Anonymous Coward]

"Are you telling me that you had a UBI, you'd quit your present job, steal, and drink yourself to death?"

Yes, except for the steal part because I wouldn't have too. The drink myself to death would also take years, don't want to rush the process.

Re: Distopian future..

[Anonymous Coward]

UBI when tried (on a small scale) doesn't pay enough to be the only means of support. It's supplemental income. For instance, if you're working two full time minimum wage jobs you still aren't making enough to keep the family fed in many places, you can't afford to get a car that works so you can commute to a better job, you can't afford to get daycare so that both spouses can work, etc. So the UBI supplements that.

In the past, you could sometimes provide for a family with just one low paying job. That's not true today. Cost of living goes up much faster than minimum wage does.

Cost of living differences in US states have been shown to be 64-73 percent dependent on government policy decisions, including minimum wage. Cost of living goes up faster in places where the government makes bad decisions - or is particularly susceptible to rent-seeking behaviour.

Minimum wage is an especially bad problem, since it compounds through logistics chains (and back into them through feedback, logistics chains are graphs not trees: if the plumber has to pay more for food as a result of a minimum wage hike, everybody in the logistics chain that produces food has to pay more for the services of the plumber, which in turn affects the price of food hence the term 'feedback').

It's basically impossible to raise minimum wage without creating long term counter-acting inflation, and attempts to correct the inflation just create additional problems. The whole idea of minimum wage is a fallacy: an sensible UBI would be a very good replacement for minimum wage (but note the key word 'sensible').

California is a classic example of a place with a LOT of bad government decisions, which is why the most populous state in the union falls #35 in percentage of poor people, and #45 in percentage of elderly: people on limited incomes have been fleeing the state for a long time. They get replaced quickly by others who - on average - make more money. This dual migration (people leaving, people coming) actually helps float the California economy; for example, the newcomers pay more in taxes and spend more in the local economy, plus the elderly leaving opens up housing for newcomers.

This migration is why there is a high concentration of poor people in a number of the southern states, where the cost of living is low. Ironically, in blue propaganda, that result is characterized as coming from bad government policy on the part of the so-called 'red' states - often denigrated as 'welfare states' - instead of being a consequence of bad decisions (primarily corruption) in the source states of the demographic shift. It's an interesting fantasy.

Realistically, this situation will continue and will only get worse: the rent-seeking in places like California is really bad and there's no sign that this will improve (there's a strong refusal to face reality on the part of the people who voted for these policies, or at least allowed them to be implemented without sufficient resistance: they do not want to accept that they are at fault for the the problems California has and simply ignore facts that don't fit their preconceived view of how the world 'should' work), so the migration will continue.

But, on the plus side, this does mean less money is actually required for UBI then you might otherwise expect. When you correct average income by the cost of living for US states, you discover that the spending power of people in many places is actually a lot higher than most people realize. The average person in Mississippi has more practical spending power than the average person in California (Schlomach, The Importance of the Cost of Living and Policies to Address It, 2017). This means you can just fund UBI at levels sufficient to handle the cost of living in some states, and let the current migration patterns continue to move people to where they can afford to live (blue propaganda will doubtless characterize the outcome by claiming that states like California are paying "more than their fa

Re:Distopian future..

[Anonymous Coward]

Not the parent.

I don't think his argument devolves into taking away individual freedom. I think his argument is that individuals shouldn't have to finance other people's poor choices when they exert their freedom.

Because it usually goes the other way. Free health care: people who smoke are more expensive so we should get rid of smoking (yes, I know their is the argument that they die younger, insert different group.) Free cars: cars going over 55 pollute more and contribute to higher accident rates on the highway, so all cars should only go up to 55. So on and so forth.

Re: Distopian future..

[sjames]

If those things involve doing something in exchange for money, then necessarily others found what you were doing worthwhile. Possible exception if you just speculate on Wall Street, but we have a lot of that now.

Re: Distopian future..

[vlad30]

>Really? Why wouldn't people contribute if it were optional? After all, the contributions benefit the contributor, as you pointed out.

It doesn't take long for people to slack off when they realise the the effort they put in receives little or no additional benefit and worse their efforts are given to the lazy piece of crap next to them

Re: Distopian future..

[phantomfive]

That is fascinating.

Re: Distopian future..

[complete loony]

I'm not sure it's possible for the US government to collect that much. Income tax revenue has never been sustained about ~20% of GDP. Much higher marginal tax rates, even 90%, didn't get above that for long. People respond to incentives, and arrange on way or another to stop earning wages when they don't keep enough of it, either by adjusting where, when, and how they get paid, or simply by working less and retiring earlier.

20% of GDP distributed equally to all US citizens is about $12k. But you need to pay for government too, especially it's biggest expense: Medicare.

That's a nice economics textbook you have there;

“A network of intergenerational transfers makes the typical person a part of an extended family that goes on indefinitely. In this setting, households capitalise the entire array of expected future taxes, and thereby plan effectively with an infinite horizon”

That's absurd, people don't think like that. In fact, government deficit encourages economic growth. But that's a separate argument.

No, what I'm talking about is giving everyone 20-30k (or something), then clawing that back with a high tax rate on every dollar earned. So if you were earning (out of thin air) ~$60k after tax, you will still be taking home about the same. Except that the first $20k was given to you as the UBI, and you paid much more in taxes on your income.

For most people this is an accounting trick, since you could settle the UBI payment through the tax system for everyone paying more tax than the amount of the UBI.

A UBI would also replace the funding model of many government programs. Shifting from taxes paying for the service, to user pays. Public housing? Public school? Now you have to pay out of your UBI. In many cases, enabling competitors to provide the same service.

Does UBI replace programs like unemployment and disability? Do you pay the elderly more (who, on average, are much wealthier than the overall average)? Do you pay everyone enough for the elderly to subsist on cat food? But that's about $24k, which is untenable.

The devil is in the details, and the details would need to be carefully examined and modeled.

Re: Distopian future..

[fatwilbur]

"We're at the cusp of producing enough to provide basic living support to everybody with almost 0 human effort." - Hahahaha and a big huge HA. Anyone who thinks this needs to get out of the city for a few days and see how much work is required on farms, mines, and oilfields every day to provide you the fancy technology you use and the energy to use it. It is less people than previously, but a LOT of people are still required to do a LOT of manual work out there in the real world.

Re: Distopian future..

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually your UBI is pretty regal. Mine is enough for a married couple could pool theres for an apartment but a single person would need a roomate and public transportation/bike for getting around or a beater car or maybe better if you can share it with your roomate/s

Re: Distopian future..

[dargaud]

Yeah, but you know we have supercomputers running weather forecasts 6 times a day from always updated sensors, and increasingly finer mesh. And have, not necessarily 'forecasts', but ranges of possibilities for the deciders on top. And explanation for those crushed at the bottom. Nowadays it's more like "my economist says if we do this, that will happen" and the other politician replies the opposite. This kind of thing should be more or less settled.

Re: Distopian future..

[phantomfive]

The biggest problem with economic predictions is the difficulty of acquiring data. If you want to know the average temperature in America, all you have to do is place 5000 or even 500 sensors across the country (it's a little more complicated, but not insurmountable). Measuring the GDP is a lot harder, and takes longer. You can't get daily data. The second problem with economics predictions is the questions economists are asked to answer: everyone wants to know if the stock market will go up or down, but economics doesn't have the tools to answer that. There are many questions economics *does* have the ability to answer, but they are less exciting.

Re: Distopian future..

[lgw]

It's a bit pointless to think in terms of dollars, since we can't guess the effect UBI would have on inflation.

What you're thinking about is having the government take control of 40% of all goods and services produced in the US, and redistributing them. You can argue "it's less than 40%, because it will just be an accounting trick for most", but still, a huge chunk of the economy. There's no evidence such a thing is possible, and plenty of evidence of abuse of that sort of concentration of power.

Especially, there's no evidence it's possible for federal revenue to be sustained above 20% of GDP. The assertion "this time it's different" can thus be dismissed without evidence.

Re:Distopian future..

[DedTV]

Just giving people money by itself won't work well as it'd require things like price fixing to keep that UBI a livable wage and there'd of course be issues with finding people willing to work less desirable jobs and such.

A UBI system coupled with a good public education system (likely via a virtual education system) that focused on teaching to a student's strengths, talents, interests, passion and ambition as well as a public job placement system that offers qualified people jobs they could take voluntarily that would allow them to earn money and status above the UBI in a field they are interested in working in might be workable.

But as such a system would essentially become a corruptible meritocracy it'd have all kinds of kinks to work out and would require pretty much the whole world to adopt a similar system at the same time which by itself makes any such system extremely unlikely any time in the near future.

Plus, such a system would be much closer to the much lamented socialism than our beloved capitalist system which means there'd be a colossally huge amount of philosophical resistance towards such a system so long as there's a large enough base of people out there who don't need a UBI or the survival of 'peasant classes' to maintain their quality of life it's even more unlikely to happen anytime soon. It'd probably require every major, modern society across the world to be at the brink (or beyond) of collapse with corporate executives and investors having no choice but to capitulate and support such a system or fall with the rest of society before there's any chance of such a system ever being implemented in any of the larger industrialized nations.

The only guarantee is that society is coming a major crossroads that's more likely than not going to become a colossal shit show in the relatively near future and a lot of people are going to horribly suffer before it all gets worked out and stabilized again, if it ever does.

Re: Distopian future..

[geowar]

I donâ(TM)t think for a minute that UBI would eliminate bureaucracy⦠Would you pay someone in the heart of Silicon Valley the same UBI as someone living in rural Tennessee? Probably not⦠so who would decide how much UBI would be paid where? Thatâ(TM)s right, Bureaucrats. It would basicly merge the redundant bureaucracy for all the different welfare systems into one⦠or two (medical being separate) so in that case it would be more efficient. And we know how bureaucrats are against that! ;-)

Re: Distopian future..

[Anonymous Coward]

This is pretty much my thinking when people say UBI will just make everyone lazy and quit their jobs to live off the government forever. Have they ever seen someone on welfare? They're not exactly living it up in the penthouse, they're just barely scraping by on that government cheque. Why would most people leave their working class wage job for a just barely above poverty income? Yes you work more and work harder at an actual job but I would like to think 99% of people asked would prefer to do actual work for a decent wage to buy nice things than do nothing and only afford the most basic of needs

Re: Distopian future..

[Anonymous Coward]

It's really not about that though. It's simply about contributing in terms of working, paying taxes, not breaking the law etc. It doesn't have to be some ground breaking innovation, it's just about being a good citizen which most people are. I don't think we could ever really put in a proper system for that though Equifax seems to have lobbied hard to have the powers that be think a score based on stuff we don't understand has contributed to our credibility but regardless if it was possible or if someone came up with a reasonable way to simply measure that sort of thing it could be useful

Re: Distopian future..

[Anonymous Coward]

and that was exactly my point about paying people who don't want to work.

--XYZZY--

Re: Distopian future..

[djinn6]

That's a valid concern. However, given the numbers people are throwing around for UBI, such as $500 a month, it's going to take many decades for it to get anywhere close to luxury even if had popular support. It's much faster to simply get off your ass and work for it. Besides, the last thing people on UBI want is for the system to collapse. They depend on it for their livelihoods after all.

Re: Distopian future..

[Cinnamon Beige]

That's a valid concern. However, given the numbers people are throwing around for UBI, such as $500 a month, it's going to take many decades for it to get anywhere close to luxury even if had popular support. It's much faster to simply get off your ass and work for it. Besides, the last thing people on UBI want is for the system to collapse. They depend on it for their livelihoods after all.

It won't take many decades, all it'll take is it managing to gain a critical mass among politicians who can get themselves elected. I also don't really expect the lack of desire for the system collapsing to translate into not taking actions that are likely to cause it; have you seen the kinds of answers people give when asked about where the government will get the money for whatever expensive program is being proposed? All it'll take is there being too many people who, deep down, believe that it's all funded with money harvested from the government's hidden forest of money trees, who won't realize that money is a limited resource.

Re: Distopian future..

[werepants]

At the end of the day, that's why capitalism (and socialism, and feudalism, and all other -isms exist). One says that financial self-interest is the best way to encourage contribution, some say that community responsibility is the best way, totalitarians would say that fear of death and/or other punishment from the state is the best way.

Ultimately, capitalists contend that the size of your income and your net worth are good approximations of that net contribution to society that you speak of. There are, obviously, many problems with the idea that financial success is completely equivalent to social contributions - the concept totally fails to account for things like open source software, which are massive contributions to productivity but typically are not financially lucrative.

Still, of all the options that have been tried, capitalism with a good helping of social obligation seems to be a winning combo historically. That said, each system provides different levels and mechanisms of stability, equality, and prosperity, along with differing failure modes. Unfettered capitalism doesn't seem to have a good mechanism for reigning in excess inequality, and inequality seems to be inversely correlated with stability. Heavily socialized government bureaucracies often don't have a good mechanism for limiting government growth, or getting rid of ineffective/inefficient laws, agencies, or policies. Top-down governance (as typically implemented by communists) seems to be much less flexible and effective than bottom-up governance (associated with democracies and free market economics).

I for one would love to see some new social models - we're in a new era of productivity, and there's no reason to think that the same old resource allocation approaches will continue to be optimal. Unfortunately, that type of change has typically involved massive social upheaval, along the lines of wars and revolutions... and that's not something I look forward to.

Re:Distopian future..

[werepants]

Actually my argument was that even with a UBI we'd still have a lot of people in distress and would probably need to deal with that.

There will always be addicts, irresponsible people, the mentally ill, and other folks who end up homeless regardless of financial policy. So what? Your defense amounts to saying "things will never be perfect, so why try?".

It's unreasonable to compare a given policy's impact to perfection. Instead we should compare it to existing policies, or other proposed policies. UBI gets rid of a couple major problems: 1. People being homeless through no fault of their own. 2. Large and complicated welfare allocation rules, and large bureaucracies to ensure compliance to those rules. 3. The disincentive for people on welfare to work.

There will still be homeless people, but frugal, responsible, mentally healthy folks will have a significant safety net to prevent that from happening. A huge amount of convoluted bureaucracy will be removed. Many people who are currently "stuck" on welfare because working a job would cause them to have less money will be freed up to rejoin the workforce. So while UBI doesn't instantly create a utopian society, it's still a massive policy improvement compared to the existing system.

Re:Distopian future..

[quantaman]

Actually my argument was that even with a UBI we'd still have a lot of people in distress and would probably need to deal with that.

There will always be addicts, irresponsible people, the mentally ill, and other folks who end up homeless regardless of financial policy. So what? Your defense amounts to saying "things will never be perfect, so why try?".

It's unreasonable to compare a given policy's impact to perfection. Instead we should compare it to existing policies, or other proposed policies. UBI gets rid of a couple major problems: 1. People being homeless through no fault of their own. 2. Large and complicated welfare allocation rules, and large bureaucracies to ensure compliance to those rules. 3. The disincentive for people on welfare to work.

There will still be homeless people, but frugal, responsible, mentally healthy folks will have a significant safety net to prevent that from happening. A huge amount of convoluted bureaucracy will be removed. Many people who are currently "stuck" on welfare because working a job would cause them to have less money will be freed up to rejoin the workforce. So while UBI doesn't instantly create a utopian society, it's still a massive policy improvement compared to the existing system.

To be clear I still think UBI is a really good idea, I just worry the benefits are being oversold.

For instance, I don't think it will help with homelessness nearly as much as you think. Giving everybody $1k / month means everyone has a bit more to spend on housing, which means housing is suddenly a lot more expensive. Same with food and other goods, giving more money to bottom earners will increase inflation and the cost of living in general.

The original poster said the UBI would replace everything. But that only work if it eliminates homelessness and people who end up in a situation where they can't afford to heat their homes or feed their families. But those people will still exist, there will probably be fewer, but you'll still need programs to deal with them.

Re: Distopian future..

[west]

If it's so obviously good, people will opt in...

Come on, this is econ 101. If the benefit is accorded to all members, regardless of contribution, and contribution is voluntary, then you have a coordination problem as the rational action on an individual basis is to not contribute, leaving the considerable benefits of universal contribution on the table.

This is such a common scenario that no society beyond hunter-gatherer without forced contributions has survived.

If it pleases you better, just think of it as "Country, Inc." with terms of service that involve you being born :-). As long as we don't prevent you from leaving, you still have your perfect freedom - we're not denying you any choice at all!

Re: Distopian future..

[Cinnamon Beige]

Try reading what you are replying to, unless you consider somehow not benefiting (directly, anyway) from the system to undermine the voluntary nature of contributing to it? I was describing one where if you put in nothing, you get nothing--not one where you benefit regardless. You can even have there be a minimum contribution you have to make to 'buy in,' and it'll still be voluntary--and it might also be overall beneficial for the effectiveness and efficiency of the systems to make them have to convince people to contribute to them, specifically, for the particular benefits they're offering instead of letting them just send out thugs to threaten to cause harm to you if you fail to give them money.

Oh, might I suggest you learn a little about philosophy? :-) Objecting to coersion and the state's use of force is not limited to people who like companies. Some of us just don't really feel the state can be trusted either--that it's just not really that different.

And, well... You're Canadian, you should know about the residential schools, one of Canada's excellent examples of a benefits program whose 'beneficiaries' would really, really rather not have been forced to participate. (For those who don't know: tl;dr is Boarding schools for 'forcibly civilizing' Indigenous children, effectively cultural genocide that covered up the abuse outside of the fully-intentional psychological abuse. It was, incidentally, meant to help its victims.)

Re: Distopian future..

[Anonymous Coward]

So what I'm hearing is we need our border agents to be unencumbered by the surplus of illegal immigrants so they can focus on the existing and largely effective laws regarding legal entry into the nation.

Here's my take. Border agents should focus on the weapons smuggling. Mexico suffers greatly from the US weapons smuggled into it. I don't know what's the scale but people on the US side of the border own millions of them ; a lot are anti-personnel weapons i.e. handgun and rifles like the AR 15.

Basic income

[Opportunist]

To quote a German comedian, I need money, not an occupation. I can keep busy all right myself, no need for that.

Re:Basic income

[Anonymous Coward]

I understand he words 'German' and 'comedian', but together like that ... is that a thing?

Re:Basic income

[cascadingstylesheet]

To quote a German comedian, I need money, not an occupation. I can keep busy all right myself, no need for that.

That's actually the problem, not the solution.

We have been experimenting with giving people money and then they find stuff to do. For quite some time.

The results may make for exciting movies and rap videos, but aren't real good for society overall.

Re:Basic income

[Opportunist]

How so, please elaborate. Because so far I really fail to see the downside.

Income

[houghi]

It is a bit of a stupid qestion. At that level, people are working to live, not living to work.
So I rather have enough money given to me that I would not die than slave away 16 hours per day with the risk of losing it all, just so I do not die.The sole reason I have a job is so I can get an income. The moment I do not have an income, I am not going to work. I will be doing other things.

That said, giving people a purpose is good for their mental health. At this moment we still think that somebody standing in a factory many hours per week is a more worthwhile human that a person who does it half time and is with the kids the rest of the time. Neglecting your family is seen as a good thing by many. Loyalty to the company is see as loyalty to a king. Yet where the king provided some form of protection as much as he was able to give, the company does no such thing. These are just resources, ok human, yet still resources and managed by a human resource manager.

The people here are generally are just a bit better of than the average person/ We are just a bit more equal than the rest.

income obviously

[shaitand]

A basic income empowers people, it doesn't prevent those who are able to work from working and earning money on top of that income. A guarantee of a job is just a guarantee of minimum wage in a different form.

People aren't begging for a handout, they have built the technology that enables you to replace their jobs. Ideally they should be given stock in the companies that automate their workforce without regard to "new employment" created by importing workers on student visas and other scams.

Re:income obviously

[Anonymous Coward]

A basic income empowers people

You know that how exactly?

Re:income obviously

[shaitand]

Objective reasoning. I supplied some rational to support to my assertion immediately following that assertion but you choose not quote that part.

Also I supplied solid ration for why a basic income is not any form of charity or handout but an earned entitlement for past work.

Universal Income is a lie

[Anonymous Coward]

All the experiments with universal income consisted of using ordinary tax money, where the bulk comes from the middle class, i.e. normal working people who don't suck the government's tit. It does not come from the 1% where increasingly the bulk of the money goes to, nor shall they give it up. Thus in effect UI is very bad news for the working people. They might as well stop working. In which case UI breaks.

Re: Third option

[Anonymous Coward]

Np, that would be the right wingers who believe fraudsters and scammers while hating the honest and sincere.

Not at all constitutional

[Anonymous Coward]

UBI and/or a guaranteed job is far beyond the scope of our constitution, and Mr Obama should know this. The federal government should not be in the business of providing "human rights" type of social programs. These ideas originated in communnist Russia and there they should stay. That being said, if a state wants to enact any such social program, they have the authority to do so for the people living in their jurisdiction.

More Bullshit Jobs

[mentil]

As automation becomes cheaper and better, a greater proportion of human jobs will be 'bullshit jobs'. Technically most countries already have a system where persons can get free food and housing; it's called 'prison' and an alternative 'solution' is to put more people into that system. The question is how long people put up with that 'solution' until they have their Bastille Day.

Neither...

[Anonymous Coward]

Self-fulfillment isn't something that can be given. I know if either of these came, I would be leaving the US as soon as possible, because it's down hill for high wage earners after that. Talk about being taxed into oblivion.

Re:Third option

[Anonymous Coward]

You're ignoring the basic premise of the question, which is that AI and robotics will make it difficult if not impossible for humans to find jobs..

In light of that, your third option is actually "Try to get hired or start a business on your own, but fail and end up homeless and starving because there is no demand for human workers anymore."

Goods and services must be produced

[Karmashock]

The dream of something for nothing is not sustainable.

The guaranteed job has problems but fewer problems than a guaranteed income. The job has a potential of you doing SOMETHING of value to the system. You finding it meaningful is not the issue. Things need to be put in boxes. Inventory has to be checked. There are lots of jobs held by billions of people on this planet that are hard to cite as "meaningful".

The job concept at the very least has you doing something. It need not be dig a ditch and then fill the ditch in with the same soil.

That said, EVEN IF the job is that bad it is at least motivating you to get another job. If I give you income there is no motivation for you to do anything. You got your income. If I require that you do something annoying to get the money then you'll be interested in finding a less annoying way to get the money... perhaps getting a better job.

We can iterate on the problems these these concepts quite deeply. Entire books have been written on these issues from many angles... moral, logistical, social, political, ethical...

However, many seem to take the complexity as meaning it is arbitrary and thus "there is no wrong answer" because its complicated.

This is why I like to keep it simple.

The simple inescapable point here is that the goods and services that people want to obtain in exchange for money must be produced by someone. And if you're not producing stuff... then where is it coming from?

Someone else? Magical fairy land?

A wealthy society can afford a certain amount of wealth spent on non-productive things. But that account is FINITE... not IN-FINITE. Which means there is a limit. The amount you can blow will be relative to the wealth of the society. So you have a paradox where the richer a society is the more money you can throw at welfare but... you have to be very careful with your taxation and regularitory policies otherwise you'll make the society poorer... not richer.

Its the goose and the golden eggs. And you have to be very careful that you eat ONLY golden eggs and no geese.

This balance is inherently unsustainable. It requires wisdom and restraint to the point of personal political self sacrifice on the part of politicians to maintain this balance. There will be a short term personal benefit to exceeding the balance and eating geese for the politician. He can promise the moon and the stars... and deliver it for a year or two at the price of economic collapse after five or ten years.

Do you trust your politicians to sacrifice their political power by not over promising, slaughtering the geese that lay the golden eggs, and then leaving their nation to rot after the politician retires to a private island somewhere?

This is not cynicism... the examples of this happening are easily accessible.

All of these concepts people are coming up with to slight of hand the magical money into pockets... it... is short term thinking. And the difference between short and long term... the difference between small and big picture is the difference between good and evil.

Literally.

Good and evil is a matter of scope.

Every act of evil seems like a good idea to the man that does it. And every act of evil seen from a wider perspective is seen for what it is.

Take every act of theft, murder, battery, abuse... etc... and contract it to a moment and the man doing it... and the act will have a "rightness" to it. I'm excluding literal insanity... consider acts of theft, revenge, etc. It all can be justified if you collapse the entire world to the man doing the action.

Then expand the perspective out... to include friends, family, community, strangers on the street... expand it in time as well as space by not merely considering a moment but days, months, years, and generations. The act takes on a different character in different contexts.

Guaranteed income seems like a good idea from a limited perspective over a short period of time. If you look at it in the context of millions or

Re:Goods and services must be produced

[Anonymous Coward]

Very true. UBI is only sustainable if we reach the Star Trek level of the no want utopia.

Re: Goods and services must be produced

[phantomfive]

I feel like you have written something good if it were condensed and clarified. Remove some words, it's a bit muddy.

Re:Goods and services must be produced

[Anonymous Coward]

There are already more people in jobs than jobs need... ... TSA ... DHS ... given all of the security issues that these two fail to stop, are these nothing more than government employment programs?

Read the Skunkworks book about the SR-71/F-117. The price tag went up because the government said they needed more people checking what was being done. These extra people didn't do anything except increase the price tag for the planes. Why are so many government things expensive? Because every politician is already putting in their $0.02 worth to get money spent (and create jobs) in their state/district.

All of that pork barelling? Artificial jobs creation programs.

The inefficiency is that too much of that pork goes to the rich and isn't spent on "jobs."

Re:Goods and services must be produced

[Anonymous Coward]

guaranteed income is only sustainable if everyone who works a regular job pays for it, those same taxpayers have a say on how people getting UBI and choosing not to work can live (doesn't make sense to let them go out and start having kids while the govt pays them and they become a bigger drain), etc.

UBI = workfare - if they are ablebodied, the govt should put them to work to earn their keep - pickup trash, work in govt daycares to watch kids so other able-bodied people can work, etc.

Re: Goods and services must be produced

[Anonymous Coward]

That's a very polite way of saying TL;DR.

Re: Goods and services must be produced

[phantomfive]

I read it all.

Re:Goods and services must be produced

[Anonymous Coward]

The dream of something for nothing is not sustainable.

Exactly. Capitalists can't seem to understand this. Infinite growth on fixed resources is not sustainable. Eventually the rich fat useless fucks living on the investment income from grandpappie's money will have to get off their lazy asses and work like the rest of us.

Re:Goods and services must be produced

[Anonymous Coward]

> The dream of something for nothing is not sustainable.

You're missing the fact that there are huge costs to be eliminated.
It is cheaper to give vacant housing to homeless people than to police them, round them up, and house them in jail.
It is cheaper to give people preventive health care than to deal with them in the emergency room.
It will be cheaper to give mothers enough money to live at home with their children than it is to deal with the effects of those children growing up unsupervised because mom has to work 3 minimum wage part time jobs.

Re:Goods and services must be produced

[Anonymous Coward]

Producing what, exactly? Production is handled far more efficiently my machines in the vast majority of cases, hence humans are surplus to requirements. The pace of change may not accelerate but the endpoint is inevitable: sooner or later the only imperative to employ actual human beings and pay them a salary will be to keep as few of them in grinding poverty as is needed to prevent revolution (which, incidentally, you have ignored or glossed-over in your diatribe). Business owners will resist that as paying people to show up is not good for their bottom line, though following that through to the sense in producing stuff via machinery that few can no longer afford to buy will, of course, not enter their dear little short-termest heads.

From that, you can probably infer that I am supporter of universal basic income and am not a swivel-eyed right wing nutjob like the author of the article we're discussing; the use of the term "free money" to describe UBI is a pretty clear indication that a conclusion was reached without doing any investigation whatsoever. "Work will set you free", indeed.

FWIW, my own job - audio transcription - may well become obsolete before I reach retirement age. What I'll do then given that my physical capabilities will decline as I age is a worry, though one far enough in the future that I can at least make plans to retrain into something less prone to usurpation by machines.

Re: Goods and services must be produced

[14erCleaner]

I didn't read past the first few paragraphs. Very repetitive. He needs a (paid) editor.

Re:Goods and services must be produced

[Jeremi]

The dream of something for nothing is not sustainable.

The above is a truism, and has always been true, for the entirety of human existence, which is why so many people take it for granted.

That doesn't mean it will continue to be true in the future.

The simple inescapable point here is that the goods and services that people want to obtain in exchange for money must be produced by someone. And if you're not producing stuff... then where is it coming from? Someone else? Magical fairy land?

Correction: Someone or some thing.

The simple answer: it will be coming from the vast army of cheap and effective robots that can now convert energy plus input materials into (whatever they are ordered to make or do) at the push of a button. Once the automation is in place and working, very few people are actually necessary (or even desirable) for the work to be done, as the system essentially runs itself.

(and to answer the inevitable questions about who will repair and maintain all of those robots -- initially people, but in the long run, there will be repair robots that do that)

So that's going to happen. The only question is what does society do with the vast material profit generated by the automation of all human activity? In the existing system, the owners of the robots keep most of it, and we end up with a world full of unemployable paupers, plus a few dozen trillionaires. Is that a sustainable scenario? History would suggest not. So some other way to organize society's distribution of wealth will need to be devised, because the one we've been using since forever ("trade your skills and labor for cash to make a living") is not going to work when human skills and labor are no longer worth purchasing.

Re:Goods and services must be produced

[Anonymous Coward]

First, I agree wholeheartedly. To hopefully add some fuel to your thoughts:

It seems likely that replacing *all* government benefits/handouts with a minimum-wage job would solve a lot of societal problems. Out of work and need money? Turn up and there's a guaranteed minimum-wage job for you that day. In work but need to pay some unexpected bills? Ditto. The minimum-wage jobs should be open to any citizen.

However, one of the dangers with making guaranteed jobs is that it must not scavenge those jobs from existing organisations that are successfully contributing to society. For instance, why should someone from the local government who picks up litter for a living suddenly be out of a job? Only to find themselves getting minimum-wage to keep doing it?

The answer might well be to hold regular competitions for ideas for new job types. E.g., going into poor areas and helping the people there do things they can't afford like fix roofs, tidy the area up, etc. Or for teams of people to be offered to companies at above minimum wage (to prevent it being abused or replacing temp agencies). Or for would-be entrepreneurs to attempt to start a company provided they guarantee the workers a job if the company takes off. How about some of the jobs being live-in so that you reduce the homeless population at the same time?

Something that would have to be resolved is making sure that there is no way for the people who run the GJ scheme to turn it into some vast, expensive government bureaucracy all of its own.

The other option, UBI, just seems like a way to cause hyper-inflation with a neat little side effect of giving a pay rise to drug dealers, burglars and other criminals.

Re:Goods and services must be produced

[Anonymous Coward]

This is an interesting comment but I have to disagree. It's your opinion that one is sustainable and the other isn't based on how you're looking at it. I think there are factors that you're ignoring in this analysis.

A proponent of UBI would conjecture that we'd eliminate huge swaths of bureaucracy that no longer need to exist due to UBI. I've seen calculations that indicate that this is not enough in and of itself, but it's not trivial. Then you need to consider knock-on effects as well. Lower levels of stress, better mental health, better physical health. The effects on these aren't well-understood because we haven't tried it as conceived and there may be unintuitive interactions, but it isn't unreasonable to think that these effects would occur due to the presence of stress, sickness, etc. among the poor. If we add a floor for the poor where they know they can at least cover the basic costs of living, that will at least in theory remove a lot of stress. This would remove a lot of costs in productivity from sickness and reduce burden on our emergency services and systems. It's probable that we'd have less suicide which means that we don't need to wait as long for productivity replacement - those people can continue producing economic value. And there's another big factor in the sustainability: More people would be able to take risks. A lot of people right now are forced to work paycheck-to-paycheck and there isn't a lot they can do about it once they get into a working trap. Being able to take risks would allow more people to produce greater economic value for society.

There are a lot of dimensions to the idea where the money might not exist currently but it isn't necessarily the case that the money won't exist.

By the same token, a guaranteed job means that specialization is going to rule the roost. It's impossible that it doesn't. If you think that's sustainable, I think we have a fundamental disagreement on what the word sustainable means. Specialization means that people are doing fewer and more repetitive tasks for more time. This has some pretty negative effects on stress levels etc. It's also the case that people find less meaning in doing these types of jobs. It's also the case that once you narrow down a problem domain enough, the machines are a more attractive option. So now you have to create more specialized jobs for the ones you just covered with machines. I don't know what you think the end game of this is, but even if a basic income doesn't end up sustainable, this one is no better.

Re:Goods and services must be produced

[Kjella]

The dream of something for nothing is not sustainable.

I'll just stop your rant there. For all of time we've been taking care of non-working people like the young, old, sick and handicapped both temporarily and permanently. It's not sustainable that nobody works but it's also not necessary that everybody works all the time. And the basic necessities of life like farming are quite easily automated, keeping people fed and clothed is easier and easier. Now poor people are not getting richer because the wages are equally depressed but the burden to society to say provide food for everyone is shrinking. Even with more people on food stamps if you graph food stamps as a percent of GDP it's less and less. With automated cars and tractors, increases in self-diagnostics, self-maintenance and self-repair that trend is likely to continue.

Re:Goods and services must be produced

[Anonymous Coward]

And Progressives, bless their wicked hearts, can't seem to understand that in Capitalism if resources become scarce, price goes up followed by reduced demand. It's all self regulated and doesn't require government busywork to pick winners and loosers.

Re:Goods and services must be produced

[Anonymous Coward]

But why would you pay more to a human worker for the same goods and services that can be produced by automation for less...for ANY conceivable good or service...that's the dilemma. It's capitalism's (Randian) mantra that a man is given life, but not survival...that no one is owed survival. If no rational being would offer the job to a human that wants the job (regardless of the job, because a machine can do it for less...eventually strong AI), what becomes of the human being? It's not that the worker doesn't want to work for his survival, but that no one is willing to employ him.

If he's not given the materials to work for his own survival (land sufficient to produce his own goods and services), he's screwed because he can't produce enough goods and services at a price that will allow him to engage in trade to obtain the goods and services he needs to survive.

Re:Goods and services must be produced

[Anonymous Coward]

where is it coming from?

Haven't you been paying attention? Its going to come from robots and hobbyists.

The dream of something for nothing is not sustainable.

Why? The wealthiest people on the planet get stuff for nothing. If everyone eventually gets automatons of their own, there's no reason why everyone can't live like today's super rich.

Re:Goods and services must be produced

[Anonymous Coward]

If this is a choice of either or I'm going basic income. Because a solid social safety net gives people better leverage to bargain for work. Guaranteed jobs seems like a chance for bureaucrats to fuck with people. A survivable basic income isn't going to have everyone out of the workforce, but with automation it gives people the flexibility to find alternate work/self employment.

But yes there is the option that people will vote for unsustainable basic income.. But I think people with good unbiased information sources aren't prone to killing their golden goose.. there is the rub.. good information is really difficult for a person to find. Information is easy, but it's cherry picked, or carefully framed.

In the USA people are far more disposed to make the basic income too meager to survive on, than to make it too burdensome on corporations.

Re:Goods and services must be produced

[Anonymous Coward]

The simple inescapable point here is that the goods and services that people want to obtain in exchange for money must be produced by someone. And if you're not producing stuff... then where is it coming from?

Robots.

Quite simply, more and more things are getting automated, we will reach a point where most basic needs can be met by robots and we will run out of low-skill jobs. One real problem caused by this that is being ignored is that the extra wealth that is being generated is going in to the hands of the rich, who don't really need it, and the average person gets very little benefit aside from a few conveniences.

UBI a hundred years ago would have been a non-started, because lots of people were needed to provide goods and services, at some point, probably in the next 50 year UBI will be a necessity because the work won't be there for many people, unless it is pointless busy work created with the sole purpose of providing employment.

How we get from where we are, to a society based on UBI, won't be easy, and I'm not sure how it can be made to happen. As we all know, money is power, UBI will necessarily take money (and consequently power) from the rich many of whom will be loath to give up even a small part of it. Given a scarcity of jobs without UBI, the very rich will essentially have an army of servants from the many who are desperate for the money they need to live.

What sort of world would you prefer to live in?

Re:Goods and services must be produced

[king neckbeard]

No, it's only sustainable if it's sold as option to tell your boss to fuck off without starving, because that's the real value. Fuck off with your Calvinist work ethic bullshit.

Re:Goods and services must be produced

[squiggleslash]

The dream of something for nothing is not sustainable.

Actually you can get money for nothing, and you can even get chicks for free. Dire Straits wrote a song about that once.

Re:Goods and services must be produced

[Anonymous Coward]

It's a moot point. Overpopulation is putting such a huge pressure the earth that things are going to burst and we'll have a massive depopulation long before automation puts most people out of work.

It's not going to be a gradual decline either, it's going to be more like an algae bloom going to extinction in a pond. And humans deserve it. the idiots are wasting time and effort talking abut this UBI bullshit while ignoring the real problems that will bring down the whole species.

Re: Goods and services must be produced

[Anonymous Coward]

Its the goose and the golden eggs. And you have to be very careful that you eat ONLY golden eggs and no geese.

Your metaphor is terrible, as it fails because you don't eat golden eggs as they are gold, and because farmers have managed to eat chickens, cows, pigs, goats, turkeys and geese for centuries without economic collapse.

This is the problem with figurative language when people try to use metaphors in their analysis, yet don't realize how inapt their choice of concepts is.

I suggest you rethink your expression.

Re:Goods and services must be produced

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you somehow think that if UBI was implemented tomorrow, everyone would start from scratch? No one would have jobs, and everyone would just mill around until they figured out where they wanted to go?

'Unearned' money doesn't kill motivation. What it kills is the fear of starvation and homelessness, of having to stay in a job that's abusive, back-breaking, or shitty because without it a person can't survive. It's true, under a UBI system people may not choose to work in certain fields, but you can actually look at why they don't. Is it because the job's unnecessary? Do current expectations make the work undesirable? Is the job dangerous? Knowing those things, what can be done to make it so that people want to do those jobs? It puts incentive back on employers to attract workers, instead of the current system which relies heavily on the threat of having basic needs go unmet.

UBI also ends the concept that an individual only has value if they work in a job that's socially recognized as such. There's an amazing amount of work that goes into building and maintaining relationships (not just between family members or lovers, but between friends, colleagues, and other citizens) and society generally (physical, mental, and emotional spaces occupied by homes, commons, art, recreation, and leisure) that just isn't recognized by a society in which only 'jobs' as they're currently structured are counted.

There are also people who are disabled, who have family obligations, or who simply don't have the wherewithal to work a full-time job, no matter if it's 'guaranteed' or not. A guaranteed job does nothing for the person who can't physically 'work' more than 15 minutes in a day, or who needs to provide child or eldercare that occupies their entire day. UBI, by contrast, provides those people with the ability, again, to do what they need to without fearing that they'll lose their shelter, or their access to food. Without demanding that people conform to an arbitrary work requirement in order to survive, you also tend to see less stress-related health issues; people aren't forced to go to work when they're ill, or physically push themselves into injury or illness because they 'need to work.'

Society is nothing without the people in it; it literally doesn't exist without them. To claim that it needs to follow particular rules as if they were externally determined is utter bullshit; we can change those rules as we like. Civilization is worthless if it does nothing for the people who comprise it. All the people, not just the ones who meet some arbitrary value typically assigned by the powerful, the able-bodied, and/or the conforming. People have worth beyond what they do, and 'the economy' is a piss-poor measure of what people and society as a whole actually value. The idea that the only things that should count as valuable within a society are those that tap into monetary systems needed to die in the cradle.

The fact that you would classify a UBI system - a system that removes barriers to survival and opens up recognition of non-monetary activities as having worth - as 'evil' tells me you don't understand any of that.

Re: Goods and services must be produced

[Anonymous Coward]

He needs to read a book on ethics. What he wrote as a foundation to the rest is false. Even if what he wrote were taken as true, the opposite of his conclusion would be the cogent outcome.

Re:Goods and services must be produced

[Anonymous Coward]

And capitalists assume that everyone is as greedy, hateful and lazy as they are.

Re:Goods and services must be produced

[philmarcracken]

You are grossly over estimating how much basic income is supposed to be. People in my country right this moment have access to the dole, and could stop working in order to receive it; they don't because their current standard of living is higher.

Its called basic income for a good reason. The current situation would not change very much with its implementation other than creating a stable floor on which people can risk new enterprise.

Re: Goods and services must be produced

[Karmashock]

I've been encouraged to repeat myself by people... not you fine gentlemen, but... "people" not getting a point when said once. I include repetition for clarity.

Re:Goods and services must be produced

[Karmashock]

The cost of anything is a product of supply and demand. When you say we don't need people to do jobs, you are claiming an over abundance of supply. Were this the case, the price would be lower.

Everything you're talking about consuming... food, housing, etc must be produced. We do not have an finite quantity of it.

If more people want to consume and consume more per person to increase their standard of living then we must produce more.

Increasing production will require hiring more people to produce.

There is your new jobs.

The production doesn't come from no where. People complain about the cost of health care, education, food, housing, credit, etc etc etc.

Which means there is scarcity of those goods and services.

Which means production can address that scarcity.

Which means you're 1+1=5 wrong.

Re:Goods and services must be produced

[Karmashock]

You're demanding other people's labor and wealth for nothing and you think that those that disagree with you are pushing calvinist work ethic... and you presume to tell such people to fuck off?

Listen, thief... explain why you are entitled to another man's labor?

And yes, calling you a thief is the appropriate escalation given you decided to bring religion and morality into the matter with the Calvinist crack.

Walk back your millennial sense of entitlement and undeserved moral superiority. When push comes to shove, that nonsense goes nowhere.

Don't embarrass yourself with it.

Re:Goods and services must be produced

[Karmashock]

How is it that you people get this far and yet don't understand supply and demand's relationship to price?

The very fact that so many goods are found to be expensive or beyond the means of people to the extent that they feel they need the UBI proves that there is scarcity of resources.

Price is set by supply or scarcity AND demand or consumer interest in the product.

Items with high scarcity are going to be more expensive unless in very low demand. Items with LOW scarcity are going to be at a low price indifferent to demand so long as the abundence out paces the demand.

If you want free money... consider that an easier way to get there is to make everything cheaper. This will be done by producing more... increasing production will require increasing employment... and will result in lower prices for whatever is produced.

You can't get away from that. You can try to make any kind of sophisticated dodge on that that pleases you and it won't work because if something is in abundance then the price will come down.

And if the price is low... do you really need free money to buy? Certainly you could work a little at some job to produce the pittance required to pay for things we've made cheap.

And here's the thing... by doing this we make our society richer. Unlike the UBI which does not make us richer. There is no net production boom with UBI. With what I am talking about there is... and that production boom is wealth. Wealth is abundance.

And abundance is a product of production. You can't argue against this... its cut and dry.

Re:Goods and services must be produced

[Karmashock]

A major element is population relocation. Sometimes the issue is that there isn't work "here" but there is work 100 miles to the east or west etc.

Too many people are subsidized to live in cities they can't afford to live in. Why is welfare money paying out to help unemployed people live in New York etc? The property is too expensive to support that and the kinds of jobs that people are going to get if they're that hard up are not going to support those people in those communities. Everything is too expensive because they literally cannot afford to live there. BUT there is work elsewhere and the cost of living is lower elsewhere.

Bundle the guarenteed job with a possible requirement for people to move. Let us say EVERYONE wants to live in New York or Los Angeles... and they can't afford it... what then? You pay the housing and they still can't afford it... they become homeless walking the streets and we treat this like its the fault of the city when the city's economics can't support that problem. You need to relocate people to lower cost of living areas with industries that better meet the abilities of that labor force.

Everyone wins. Society wins. The people win. The companies win.

There are no losers.

Re:Goods and services must be produced

[sjames]

If I give you income there is no motivation for you to do anything.

Have you quit your job to live on welfare? Why not?

Re:Goods and services must be produced

[Karmashock]

UBI won't remove bureaucracy or cut existing welfare loads for obvious political reasons. If you require that to move forward then appreciate it is entirely hopeless.

The welfare state is deeply entrenched in western civic culture at this point and nothing short of a very serious war is going to remove it... civil or otherwise.

Keep in mind, the man pushing the UBI at one point in the US was Richard Nixon. But the Bernie Sanders people are attracted to it now. Think they're going to roll out your concept in a fiscally responsible manner?

You're not cynical enough. They don't see UBI as an either/or proposition but rather as an AND proposition. They want it in ADDITION to everything else.

As to specialization being unsustainable, to the contrary specialization is the most efficient and stable labor organization possible. Our economies run on it.

Doctors specialize.
Lawyers specialize.
Mechanics specialize.
Farmers specialize.

Imagine a man that was a doctor one day, a lawyer the next, a mechanic the day after that, and a farmer the day after that?

Specialization is very efficient for training and job experience reasons. It takes roughly 10 years for anyone doing anything to become a MASTER in that thing. Playing the violin... painting... doing accounting work... whatever. Roughly ten years of time invested to become a real expert in it.

That is only possible through specialization.

As to repetitious tasks that are not fulfilling and stressful... whole generations of people were born, worked, and died under those conditions.

From a logistical perspective it is clearly very sustainable and is proven to be sustainable.

So there is no valid argument that it isn't sustainable when it is objectively observed to be sustainable. You're basically holding a banana in your hand and calling it a pair of shoes.

That's nonsense.

Re:Goods and services must be produced

[Karmashock]

You're talking about 100 percent automation which won't happen. Even if you mostly automate a factory you still need techs and managers etc to maintain it.

And here you will say "but less people than before"... sure but we respond to that by producing things we didn't produce before.

We used to make food, shelter, and clothing. And when we had enough spare labor that we could produce more than that, then we did... we produced new tools, we made everything prettier because we had the time to do it, we invested all sorts of time in other things until yet again we had used up the labor.

That is what we do. If all the cars and iphones are produced using 1/100th the labor they're using now... we'll just produce all sorts of thing that we either produce in very small amounts now or entirely new things that you can't even imagine right now.

This is literally what we've done.

The introduction of industrial farming put roughly 80 percent of the human labor force out of work.

80 percent unemployment.

What happened? They got new jobs in the factories and cities.

Here you say "but we're going to lose jobs in the factories and cities"... and why would you think we can't make new jobs?

Again, even a highly automated factory etc will still need human labor. If we are 90 percent automated then we'll just produce ten times the product. Because why not? If we're going to reach into the stars then we're going to need that kind of abundance of industrial capability. Enough that we can pour the wealth of empires into space elevators and moon colonies etc.

This is the path forward, fellow human. We need vast increases in production.

Re: Goods and services must be produced

[Karmashock]

Care to make a complete argument on that one? If I made an error, please state it clearly.

Absent a complete argument, I don't even know what you're saying and cannot evaluate its accuracy.

Re:Goods and services must be produced

[king neckbeard]

Listen, thief... explain why you are entitled to another man's labor?

Because social safety nets provide one of the best ROIs for government funds, and UBI is one of the most efficient means of providing a social safety net. It's the basics of the social contract. The people that would be paying the most into this are the very wealthy, and they tend to not work as much, and be less useful in the work that they do perform (best paid CEOs have worst performance). Plus, if you are objecting to the social contract, the people with wealth would be the first to end up on the business end of a pitchfork.

And yes, calling you a thief is the appropriate escalation given you decided to bring religion and morality into the matter with the Calvinist crack.

Calvinism is largely responsible for why Americans are so fucking stupid about thinking about labor. The dumbass I was replying to was attempting to ruin the administrative advantages that a UBI has by trying to have it be controlled, because he can't think outside of the dogma of the protestant work ethic. If you are to the right of Milton Fucking Friedman, you pretty much have to chalk it up to religion.

Re:Goods and services must be produced

[Karmashock]

Is that how this is to be played. :D

Very well, then I'll stop your rant right here:
""For all of time we've been taking care of non-working people like the young, old, sick and handicapped both temporarily and permanently.""

Such people generally represented a very small proportion of the total population. Restrict your UBI concept to similarly small portions of the total population and I'll agree with you.

If you don't then you're contradicting yourself and I don't have to even argue with you... as you've argued with yourself at that point.

Re:Goods and services must be produced

[Karmashock]

Whilst I agree that something that has been true need not be true into the future, you have to provide some means by which the old would change to the new.

This has not happened. I'm very aware of the literature and I've listened to people push these ideas. When the hard questions are asked... I get hand waving and "don't worry about that" and "SMOKE BOMB ".

This has caused me take this point in particular as being a crucial answer that has be detailed clearly before I can take the argument seriously. And absent that... I see no justification for any serious person to take it seriously.

The entire concept appears childish to me... wishful thinking... wish fulfillment... its half-bakery.

Now... if you think I'm in error and it isn't half-bakery... then correct my mistake by showing how it would not be a sad failure.

As to just saying "robots"... that's not enough. Who owns the robots? Why do the robots make stuff for you for free? I mean, we make all kinds of stuff more efficiently than we have in the past and that hasn't led to us giving away stuff for free, what we do instead is sell it cheaper.

If you told me that a car for example would be cheaper in the future because of robots, I'd agree with you. But "free"? No. Why am I gifting you a car from my robot factory just because you can't be assed to get a job? Can't you see how that isn't going to happen?

There's a whole sociopolitical rant I have in me on this issue... but I don't want to waste either of our time until I have to drop that. Suffice to say, if you make yourself logistically irrelevant to the society, the society will be inclined in time to not take you seriously as someone that should have agency in that society. You should be very afraid of that situation.

Re:Goods and services must be produced

[Anonymous Coward]

A major element is population relocation. Sometimes the issue is that there isn't work "here" but there is work 100 miles to the east or west etc.

You are missing a part of the human factor. Something above 90% of people live within a few miles of where they grew up. Humans are familial, tribal and territorial creatures. You might get young men to move but most people want to live close to their family. Persuading a company to employ people in the location would probably be preferable although that has certainly been tried and with at best mixed success.

Too many people are subsidized to live in cities they can't afford to live in. Why is welfare money paying out to help unemployed people live in New York etc? The property is too expensive to support that and the kinds of jobs that people are going to get if they're that hard up are not going to support those people in those communities. Everything is too expensive because they literally cannot afford to live there. BUT there is work elsewhere and the cost of living is lower elsewhere.

Again you hit the familial, tribal and territorial problem. To reverse your question: so because people with more money than them started moving into their area, people should be forced to move away from their families and friends? To make matters worse, the idea of a Living Wage to counteract people being priced out of their own neighbourhood seems like a good idea but in practice it also drives prices up in that area (because the market can bear more cost). This is a thorny issue of the kind that keeps the few honest politicians awake at night. Let us hope that someone figures out an answer.

Bundle the guarenteed job with a possible requirement for people to move. Let us say EVERYONE wants to live in New York or Los Angeles... and they can't afford it... what then? You pay the housing and they still can't afford it... they become homeless walking the streets and we treat this like its the fault of the city when the city's economics can't support that problem. You need to relocate people to lower cost of living areas with industries that better meet the abilities of that labor force.

Equally, maybe the answer is the opposite: instead of making people move, make employers move at least in part? Get beyond a certain size and you have to open a new branch in a different location? Many companies already do this (shops, cafes, hotels, retail, builders, banks, distribution, utilities, etc.) so why not the others? To take that idea further, when the big sub-prime crash happened, it was noticeable that it was the biggest banks that caused us the most risk. So maybe there should be a limit on the size of companies? Get beyond a certain size and the company has to split? Many enterprises are headed that way anyway -- with the head office becoming more about managing services delivered by smaller, specialist providers -- so why not give it a final nudge?

A quick note. My post above missed a bit of information that is obvious to me but may not be to others. For the guaranteed job to work, it would have to be temp work; the temp workers would need to be encouraged to look for a genuine job; full-time training/apprenticeships should be available as an alternative for the unemployed at the same minimum-wage rate; and there would need to be as many job types as an area could possibly support from menial to manual to office to professional (i.e. into the hundreds of job types for a large city) so that not only would the workers contribute but they would have at least some choice about how they contributed.

Re:Goods and services must be produced

[Procrasti]

If you want to understand why you are so incredibly wrong on everything you write... study enough economics that you can explain the second fundamental welfare theorem.

UBI is well supported by economic theory.

It is not money for nothing, it is the most efficient system of redistribution of wealth to ensure social security without compromising the efficiencies and benefits of free market capitalism.

Re:Goods and services must be produced

[Anonymous Coward]

The dream of something for nothing is not sustainable.

Yet amazingly that is exactly how capitalism works - profit is a difference in an unequal exchange.
Something for nothing is sustainable, for as long as there is a wiggle room - productivity high enough to produce a surplus in total.

Re:Goods and services must be produced

[Anonymous Coward]

>if you're not producing stuff... then where is it coming from?
>Magical fairy land?

That's exactly the point - efficiency of production of mass market goods is so close to magical fairy land that human labor is eliminated.

Re:Goods and services must be produced

[Anonymous Coward]

Fuck off with your Calvinist work ethic bullshit.

Wow! Sounds like someone is still butt-hurt after being fired for being a lazy shit. How many times did it happen?

Re:Goods and services must be produced

[Anonymous Coward]

First, I'd like to address the notion that this is "my concept." I don't know whether or not UBI is the way forward, all I was doing is pointing to what an advocate would say in response and some of the reasoning behind it. These ideas are important to discuss. Next, I'd like to swat down the things that are completely irrelevant to the discussion, like how cynical I am or am not and whether your assessment is accurate as well as what kinds of people are talking about these ideas. All completely immaterial to the discussion.

That out of the way, I'd like to address the substance here.

I don't understand why you handwave replacing existing welfare systems for "obvious political reasons." It's not obvious to me why that would be, especially because the people on the many disparate welfare systems would probably be better off under a UBI. A lot of them require status checks, paperwork, etc. so unless the resources granted by the many disparate programs are significantly greater, the time-efficiency is rewarding enough to offset the switch alone. And because they don't generally get you many resources, covering the basic costs of living is probably an improvement in resource terms as well. It would also remove a lot of the perverse incentives to stay out of work or things like that. You dismiss the idea out of hand and proceed to attempt to demoralize the position without actually arguing any points here. Even if we assume that you're correct and the welfare state is deeply entrenched, you still need to go further and demonstrate that UBI conflicts with that.

I also don't care if people see it as an addition to the welfare state instead of a replacement. I would argue with them that this is stupid as well. You can't lump me in with them for no reason because that's not what I'm saying. This is what we call a strawman.

I can't help but notice that you ignored the part about machines in the bit about specialization. Wonder why that might be?

In any case, there are doubtless productivity improvements that come from specialization. I don't care at all about your strawman argument which casts all specialization as doctors that are also lawyers that are also farmers. You should know this is an absurd argument. Those are all immensely deep fields of study that can be adequately broken down into smaller subfields. We would be talking about things like flat semi-truck drivers vs van semi-truck drivers. Or maybe drivers that go from Ohio to Pennsylvania and drivers that go from Ohio to Michigan. Either arbitrary distinctions or nearly arbitrary distinctions simply to fill the job guarantee. There is some degree of specialization in everything that yields benefits but everything also has a point beyond which meaningful specialization isn't possible. There's some point - which may or may not be the same - where you divide up jobs into boring, fungible, high-turnover positions.

The relationship between specialization and job satisfaction isn't well-understood and there aren't a lot of research materials related. There is some evidence for both sides. Or in this case, it appears that both are useful but on different scales - focusing within a single day is beneficial and having variety over the

Re:Goods and services must be produced

[Karmashock]

You want to measure growth and change in a system without a time variable.

Instant fail.

Here is your equation:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

There's no time variable.

So for example if something has an effect now and a later consequence later... your equation won't capture that. Given that the history of economics has been one of investment and change leading to often explosive growth later when those investments mature... how do your equation address that?

Throwing out equations you don't understand and then refusing to debate the issue is pretty typical of internet arguments. I get this with communists with some frequency. They'll ask me to read Engles... I'll prove that I actually read from the book they're saying I need to read... and I will subsequently prove they didn't read it.

I'm not even vaguely intimidated by your citation of this fairly obscure equation.

And I know... you probably don't fully realize how completely busted you are... so I'm going to repeat... TIME. You need a time variable to measure growth and change. Change without time is presumed to be instant and instant economic changes don't really happen. A company or economy can be fairly bankrupt for example and still operate as if it isn't if that state is recent. Instant economic changes are simplifications made for a mathematical convenience. But when you take such short cuts to this extent you trend into a counterproductive amount of inaccuracy.

Again... Time variable. Remember that.

Re:Goods and services must be produced

[Procrasti]

> There's no time variable.

What's that there about equilibrium outcomes?

Time is implicit in that.

Try again. You just proved your ignorance.

Re:Goods and services must be produced

[Karmashock]

nope, you can't measure growth without time.

This is one of the primary criticisms Hayek threw at Keynesian economics. If you think you can model growth without time then you don't understand what the term "growth" means... there is a time value built into it. If you eliminate time then you are not modeling growth.

Re:Goods and services must be produced

[Karmashock]

the American population was less sedentary in previous generations. It was a trope of the culture that we moved great distances every generation.

Arguing that you can't move because human is not supportable. We have done it in the past and our ancient past had us as hunter gatherers that ranged over thousands of miles.

There's no naturalistic argument for that.

You've been informed.

Regardless, if we accept that things have to be inefficient then you're creating pressure to address the problem in other ways. And I really don't think you want to do that if you care for the welfare and health of people. Because things can take a very dark direction. It happens all the time. Don't think it can't.

Re:Goods and services must be produced

[Anonymous Coward]

our ancient past had us as hunter gatherers that ranged over thousands of miles.

How do you come up with that number? A typical sustained walking speed for a human is around 3 mph. If they walked 10 hours a day that would only cover 30 miles. Highly unlikely that they would walk in the same direction for months at a time without going back to where they started (or without diverging in a different direction which would reduce their range). If a hunter gatherer were 1,000 miles - 30 days walking - from home, the odds they would be able to bring back the results of their hunting or gathering before it spoiled would not be very high unless they are trekking across the tundra (where the sustained walking speed is even lower).

Re:Goods and services must be produced

[Karmashock]

http://www.emersonkent.com/ima...

that is the range of native american tribes pre-colonization. You can see the nomatic tribes have a range of at least a thousand miles which was a largely seasonal pattern. They'd follow a herd of animals as it migrated.

there are other examples such as the various east asian steppe tribes that would roam over much of the interior.

Indifferent to whether you like my number, it doesn't really matter. The point you're making that humans are biologically sedentary is not supportable. We are bound to land historically due to technological limitations largely involving agriculture. Historically humans moved. And in recent United States history, modern populations moved with great frequency generation on generation. It is a matter of record.

As to numbers, 3 mph seems reasonable... I'd restrict walking time to 5 hours instead of 10... ten does not sound sustainable. For reference, the Romans marched only slightly faster than that at a sustained pace... but again only did so for five hours per day. The rest of the time involved fortifications, camp making, food gathering, food preparation, sleeping, equipment maintenance, personal hygiene... etc.

Okay, so roughly 16 to 17 miles per day. A year has 365 days. Half of that to reflect the change in seasons from summer to winter is about 182 days. That times the daily sustained distance covered = 2920~3094 miles ONE WAY per year possible assuming there wouldn't be stopping anywhere. Naturally there would. Often a couple months at least would be spent at given destinations before they'd leave for the other place as the seasons changed.

That is just a recurring pattern due to seasons. You also have to take into consideration population displacements as a result of environmental issues or even hostility with other tribes. In either case this would frequently involve an exodus from one region to another which could easily involve a thousand miles or more.

An example of this evident in modern times is the Romani people:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

They live predominantly in europe to which they migrated to ages ago... and they are believed to have originated in India. To this day, they are known to wander. They often have mobile homes and squat on land for a week or a month and then move on.

To this day.

Now, to suggest that humans are sedentary... genetically... in our "nature"... it requires that you ignore our history and our nature. It is NOT supportable.

Good day, sir.

Re:Goods and services must be produced

[Anonymous Coward]

that is the range of native american tribes pre-colonization. You can see the nomatic tribes have a range of at least a thousand miles which was a largely seasonal pattern.

Except they didn't. Read the smaller text in the map and you'll see the range of a single tribe (rather than an entire nation). No single tribe on that map covers a thousand miles of range. When a single tribe of nation A encounters another tribe of nation A, they may have been friendly but that is not a given. However if the first tribe comes in and starts monopolizing the land and resources where the second tribe - even if it is of the same nation - was living then things could get tricky.

So your earlier assertion of "thousands of miles" needs some serious downward adjustment. On top of that not every type of biome on this planet is supportive of a nomadic lifestyle, which is the only way one can even reach hundreds of miles of range in a year.

Re:Goods and services must be produced

[Karmashock]

none of which supports your claim that humans are genetically sedentary creatures...

I said, GOOD DAY, SIR.

Re:Goods and services must be produced

[Procrasti]

In economics, there are only two FUNDAMENTAL THEOREMS... everyone agrees with them... and you know neither.

You don't time in your equations when talking about equilibrium outcomes... We know that anything else produces less than those outcomes... So, optimal growth is included IMPLICITLY in the facts that they are provably optimal allocations.

You need a first semester economics students understanding of economics before you argue against the SOLUTION TO POVERTY! You don't even have that.

Stop your ignorance and study something on coursera.

Or enjoy your position in the ignorati.

Re:Goods and services must be produced

[Karmashock]

You have a hilariously inflated notion of your own knowledge and intelligence.

The criticism of these arguments are well developed and all over the place.

The wiki page for this thing lays out someone else saying more or less the same thing I said above:

""
Related theorems

Because of welfare economics' close ties to social choice theory, Arrow's impossibility theorem is sometimes listed as a third fundamental theorem.[4]

The ideal conditions of the theorems, however are an abstraction. The Greenwald-Stiglitz theorem, for example, states that in the presence of either imperfect information, or incomplete markets, markets are not Pareto efficient. Thus, in real world economies, the degree of these variations from ideal conditions must factor into policy choices.[5] Further, even if these ideal conditions hold, the First Welfare Theorem fails in an overlapping generations model. ""

You WANT a knock out punch because you don't have the intelligence to have a real discussion. So you look for something that no-platforms your opposition.

Sadly you're incompetent at even finding your knock out punch so you've simply made a fool of yourself.

Your theorems require a series of assumptions which don't happen in practice and all of it is dramatically more complex than you math would indicate.

Again, a time variable is required if you want to track growth and change. How you confused yourself into thinking measuring change over time didn't require a time variable is beyond me. That's just retarded.

Try again.

Re:Goods and services must be produced

[Procrasti]

Oh shit you got me!!!

You just used the same argument everyone completely ignorant of the fundamentals of economics uses...

You argue from the critisisms sections of a wikipedia article like no economist has ever considered these things.

Before you go stating that UBI is impossible because of your great understanding of economics, perhaps you should ACTUALLY know the VERY basic FUNDAMENTALS of microeconomics.

How about that?

You think your arguments can make up for actual knowledge? This isn't flat earth debate club fuckhead... you're supposed to have actual understanding of the topic first.

Re:Goods and services must be produced

[Karmashock]

And yet the criticisms come from the experts you say are beyond me and echo what I said before I even read it.

Look, you have nothing productive to contribute to the discussion. All you're going to do with ANYONE is say "I AMZ SMARTS!" and then throw out insults without really explaining anything or conceding that there are problems with your simplistic evaluation.

Seriously, if you behave this way... you have nothing to contribute to anyone. Not just me. Anyone.

Re:Goods and services must be produced

[Procrasti]

Of course those criticisms are from experts... but that is not the mainstream or 99.9% of the problem we are looking at.

You might as well be quoting criticisms of quantum mechanics to explain why heavier than air vehicles can't fly...

You are ignorant of the VERY FUCKING BASICS of the subject you are trying to act like an expert in.

UBI is a concrete implementation of the second theorem. It means we can have all the benefits of capitalism (via the first), and from the optimal outcomes that that produces, select from the set that have no poverty in them, by the second!

Not only is this not likely to slow the economic growth, it is likely to increase it, as wealth torrents up faster than it trickles down.

If you are saying UBI is impossible or harmful to the economy, you are basically arguing against experts like Milton Friedman.

You are no Milton Friedman... you aren't even a reasonably knowledgeable lay person. Your ignorance harms everyone.

Re:Goods and services must be produced

[Anonymous Coward]

Sedentary is not the point here. The point is that your claim of "thousands of miles" is bogus, and not supported by the map that you linked to. A previous message also showed the great improbability of someone having a range of "thousands of miles", by using very simple math.

Have cultures wandered around at various times? Without a doubt. However your range is off by around a factor of 10. Once someone is 1,000 miles from home they are most likely not going back to that home; they are either nomads - though you haven't shown a single case of a nomad with that much range - or more likely they are relocating to a new place entirely. You haven't produced a single example of a culture that would move "thousands of miles" and then back again in a single year.

Re:Goods and services must be produced

[Karmashock]

I'll concede the thousands of miles comment was hyperbole if you'll concede the sedentary comment was completely wrong.

that done, we return to the original discussion where you have to remake your position and I don't.

Re:Goods and services must be produced

[Anonymous Coward]

I cannot speak to the sedentary comment or to its intentions as that comment is not mine. You initially tried to make the "thousands of miles" comment as if it were gospel, and it subsequently was shown to be terribly inaccurate. You can claim now to have been hyperbolic before but you originally stated it as fact, and tried to support that claim when countered with reality.

A better question might be...

[Anonymous Coward]

Which is better, a Universal Basic Income or people living under freeway overpasses and begging for handouts at intersections and freeway onramps?

Re:A better question might be...

[legojenn]

Nobody has mentioned one of the biggest flaws and that's inflation. Things cost what they do because that's what the market will bear. Things that poor people buy will simply get more expensive when more dollars are chasing the same goods and services and they'll still be begging at intersections. It would be worse if governments create new currency rather than borrow or tax to get those dollars to redistribute.

Re:A better question might be...

[Anonymous Coward]

Things that poor people buy will simply get more expensive when more dollars are chasing the same goods and services

Why do you think the premise will be true?

Re:A better question might be...

[Ferretman]

A false choice....I choose "neither of the above".

Ferret

Re:A better question might be...

[Tony Isaac]

UBI won't eliminate begging. Many homeless people have mental illnesses that prevent them from being successful at "normal" jobs and lives. UBI won't fix that.

Irrelevant.

[Anonymous Coward]

The question itself is irrelevant. Deeper societal changes are in order.

Industrialization and mass production is starting to deliver on its promise that we won't have to work to satisfy our basic needs. But it is landing in a sick, post-Calvinist ideological context, in which we don't have a right to life unless we "contribute" in some way through our paid work, and in which the measure for that "contribution" is income: you're as much worth as you earn.

This sick frame of mind (especially in the U.S. and Western Europe, but it's quickly infecting other places) is what we have to take care of, unless we want our post-industrial society to develop into a serious dystopia.

Whether that particular thing is called "basic income" or "guaranteed job" becomes irrelevant.

For an example: I don't care if I get some money sent from heavens to pay my (expensive) rent, or if the rent becomes so cheap that it doesn't matter. The important part is the dwelling.

Instead of agonizing over the shed's name: what about, simply, taking "human rights" seriously?

Re:Irrelevant.

[Anonymous Coward]

Instead of agonizing over the shed's name: what about, simply, taking "human rights" seriously?

Because the definition of "human rights" is not defined. Some people think having internet access is a human right. Some think having a free cell phone is a human right. Some think electricity is a human right. Some think cable TV is a human right. Some think having their car repaired is a human right. Some think having food on the table is a human right. Some think the ability to attack another's ability to make an income is a human right. Some think protecting animal rights is bigger than anothers "human's right". Some think medical care is a human right. Some think they are supposed to be given a job. Some think imposing their beliefs on others is a human right. Some think an income should be provided to them because they live. As soon as one of these "rights" is "infringed" upon the government is supposed to fix it.

What I find amazing about a lot of this is there are people who think that it is their human right to have "other humans perform tasks or provide goods/services" to the them. I thought "human rights" were along the lines of treat all humans like "equal humans". Do not take away rights/freedoms/property from other humans... or something like that...

Re:Irrelevant.

[Anonymous Coward]

> Because the definition of "human rights" is not defined. Some people think having internet access is a human right. Some think having a free cell phone is a human right. Some think electricity is a human right. Some think cable TV is a human right.

Blah, blah, blah. Lots of nice strawmen you arranged around your castle. You have something to protect?

I'd go with the classical Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which is pretty well defined, as far as international legal documents are. I'd be happy if we could (universally) reach that fifty year old dream.

It seems that people like you "but... but... they want me to pay their internet access! waaah!" will have to die out before that.

Some wise physicist said once "Science advances one funeral at a time". The same seems to hold for society in general.

Re:Irrelevant.

[Anonymous Coward]

You do not have a "right" to exist on my dime without my receiving an at least equal measure of something in return.

Soviet nostalgia?

[Anonymous Coward]

If you answered "a guaranteed job", be aware that that would mean Soviet-style state capitalism (because private capitalism needs its reserve army of unemployed/precarious people). They had job guarantees. We all know how people liked that. I'm a communist myself, but in the Marxist sense, not the distorted Soviet sense.

In communist society, where nobody has one exclusive sphere of activity but each can become accomplished in any branch they wish, society regulates the general production and thus makes it possible for me to do one thing today and another tomorrow, to hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticize after dinner, just as I have a mind, without ever becoming hunter, fisherman, shepherd or critic.

Exactly.

[demon driver]

A wide majority of people – many economists included – seems to not understand that the real value of the money that goes around depends on the amount of work that is spent in producing wares which can be sold for more money than what was invested in producing them. So the less people have work, the less monetary value will be there to be distributed as either wages or basic income (or welfare, for that matter).

If the predicted loss of jobs comes, which I'm quite sure it will, and it won't just affect unskilled labor either, we need better ideas than just job guarentees or basic incomes for keeping up a modest prosperity even in those places where we have it right now.

Re:Exactly.

[tricorn]

If there's no work, it's because efficiency has gone so high that very few people need to work in order to provide for all.

Rather than leave all the wealth (= control of resources) in the hands of the lucky few who ended up on top, a UBI ensures everyone can participate. There's still plenty of room for people to excel, and through hard work be rewarded. It's very much a free market idea, without the coercion of "you'll do this shitty job for low pay because we can make you miserable or dead if you don't", or the "congratulations, you were born rich, you can be a total zero and still have a great life" inequity that's an alternative.

Re:Exactly.

[Anonymous Coward]

Excel at what? Sweeping streets? Flipping burgers? Digging ditches? Most people have no talent, little intelligence and very little drive. Thinkers, scientists, philosophers and artists are very few. The vast majority of people can't or won't learn and has no purpose. Those who can excel are a very small minority.

Re:Exactly.

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, control of the resources stays in hands of the few in case of UBI.

UBI is not an equal share of everything for everyone, it is getting just barely enough. All the rest of total gross product is shared mostly among wealthy minority, and some on rewarding the work still not automated (mostly on making total UBI ever smaller share of new produced value).

The problem elites have with UBI is that it is unconditional, so it doesn't keep the control, not over resources, but over the behaviour of the masses, which present system intrinsically has. There will always be that fear that idle masses will get greedy and think up something like: "The rich don't work, just like we don't work, why are they entitled to keep 90% of everything (and status of most-preferred procreation mates) while we get just the scraps?"

So all criticism of UBI boils down to "If we give them a finger, they will want the whole arm (and finally, everything else)".
UBI will be introduced, maybe, if and when automation (policing and killing robots, and ubiquitous Panopticon) allows the elites to control the masses in perpetuity without relying on potentially treacherous instruments of violence (policemen, armed forces).

Vice versa, calling for UBI is an attempt to rip the masks and reveal the nature and inner working of a simulacrum system we are living in: the hierarchy of social strata and how carefully they are played against each other to keep stability of the order.

The more we discuss it, the more political and ideological it will become and less will its merits or drawbacks matter. Once it is given, it will probably be deemed an insult and tool of injustice, a whitewash.

Re:Third option

[Anne Thwacks]

No rational person would choose to be a government slave.

There are not enough rational persons to make this a worthwhile argument.

Not a new problem

[sonnejw0]

People of retirement age have been asking this same question on a personal level since time immemorial. Do I take my pension/investments and quit this mind numbing job, or do I keep working because I donâ(TM)t know what Iâ(TM)d do with myself outside of work. Some people are creative and independent, other people need a structure applied from externally. Some people make their best contributions to society outside of the structure of a paycheck, and some people have no internal motivation to accomplish anything unless forced to. Would Tesla have invented as prolifically without wealthy patronage giving him a basic income for free, outside of the structure of a paycheck? Would Jeff Bezos have created the second biggest company in the history of the known Universe had he not quit his job? ... Would Ford have created the assembly line system as an abstract thing without doing it for profit? Would Eisenhower have found leadership skills outside of the structure of the Army? Different strokes for different folks. But we shouldnâ(TM)t demonize one or the other group just because we reside in the other one. This of course sets aside the moral proposition of prioritizing spending in ways that may or may not minimize suffering.

Re:Not a new problem

[Oligonicella]

Oddly enough, none of your examples were forced situations. You know, like taxing someone else for your basic income is. So your examples argue against UBI.

Re:Not a new problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Oddly enough, taxation isn't theft. It is rent paid to the managers of the commons for its maintenance. Did you consent? You are free to move someplace where the commons is less managed. Continuing to utilize the commons is implicit consent. So, taxing for UBI would not be a forced situation.

Guaranteed job???

[Anonymous Coward]

Does it exist???

Re:Guaranteed job???

[Anonymous Coward]

The Republican Regime seems to think Welfare recipients should have to do something to "earn" what they receive, so we may soon see some examples.

I pay taxes and pay into Social Security. I hope I never need to draw Welfare, but it's good to know that's there on the off chance I need it.

I buy insurance too, for the same reason. We claim to hate communism/socialism, yet insurance is the very definition of what socialism is about. (I probably shouldn't have said that, next the Republicans will be gunning for dem ebil soshlist inshurance companies.)

Re:Guaranteed job???

[Highdude702]

Welfare should be available for a short period to help you survive until you can get your shit together and support yourself. It should not be a means of living for your entire life as it is for a lot of the people on it. Term limits on everything! Including welfare!

Re: Guaranteed job???

[Anonymous Coward]

Trump just proposed $12,000,0000,000.00 in welfare increases. Targetted at midwestern farm corporations of course. Because fuck the American southwest and Florida.

Re:Guaranteed job???

[Anonymous Coward]

Term limits on everything! Including welfare!

Best to start with term limits on SCOTUS appointments, closely followed by Congress.

Control is an illusion

[petes_PoV]

That is a mark in favour of a universal basic income: being unconditional, it is likely to enhance our feelings of control.

Nothing the government gives you is truly yours. They can withdraw your benefits, if enough people vote for that to happen. For example, to cut their taxes or to divert the money to themselves.

Whereas a job that is based on actually providing a necessary or useful service, does provide security. Since the function the employee performs truly is needed. This doesn't hold for most office jobs, for example, as most of them create no value and fulfill no function except empire-building.

The big problem is to identify job functions that really are necessary. While it could be possible to automate them away, if a society is wealthy enough (through automation) there would be little need to save the cost of eliminating manual work by installing more machines.

The other side is that if everyone is dependent on a fixed, basic, income where would the discretionary spending power come from to buy all the goods made by the robots? There would be no incentive to give them away for free, so the motivation to produce more than just "the basics" would still have to be profit-driven.

Re:Control is an illusion

[drinkypoo]

Nothing the government gives you is truly yours. [...] Whereas a job that is based on actually providing a necessary or useful service, does provide security.

You know, the protections for workers are something the government gives you, right?

The other side is that if everyone is dependent on a fixed, basic, income where would the discretionary spending power come from to buy all the goods made by the robots?

That would only be the case if we eliminated jobs. That is not what UBI is about. UBI is about eliminating the need to work to meet your basic needs. If you want more than the basics, you're going to have to work. If we had UBI and national health care, we could eliminate essentially every other social assistance program, except perhaps some special help for the disabled. In that bargain, we could eliminate the minimum wage. It actually could create entire industries of simple jobs that it's not worth it to pay someone to do now because you can't justify paying the minimum wage for the work.

One obvious solution is to give people enough money to live in flyover states, but not [for example] on the California coast. Then people who want to live in nice places will work for the privilege.

Re:Control is an illusion

[Anonymous Coward]

Nothing the government gives you is truly yours

Contract enforcement is a service provided by the government. If nothing the government gives you is truly yours, it stands to reason that nothing guaranteed to you by contract is truly yours either. It sounds like the only things that are truly yours are the clothes on your back. That's not a very common opinion on slashdot, comrade.

Re:Control is an illusion

[Anonymous Coward]

You know, the protections for workers are something the government gives you, right?

No, the only real protection you have as an employee is your ability to go find another job before you get fired/laid off or before your savings run out. That's it. So keep yourself competitive with other employees and make sure you have a plan for that day.

Guaranteed job is better, but not realistic

[FridayBob]

Obviously, it would be better if everyone could just go to school, study whatever they wanted for however long they desired and then afterwards always be able to find job waiting for them somewhere, preferably not too far away. Unfortunately, things just don't work that way in a market economy.

As the world economy continues to develop and an ever increasing number and types of jobs are automated, governments do not seem to be making any plans for what to do with the legions of unemployed that will inevitably result from this trend. The corporations are only investing in all of this automation because their primary responsibility is always to make more money, in this case by saving money. Unfortunately, these kind of investments will eventually cause consumer spending to fall and thus their profits to do the same. Like with the production of greenhouse gasses, perhaps there is a point of balance, but without some kind of global economic incentive to make them hone in on it naturally, I fear it will become another crucial point in history that will pass without any notice.

Therefore, unless we want to accept a Luddite revolution of some kind, possibly triggering a global economic collapse, I figure that taxing the corporations and introducing a universal basic income (UBI) is the only option that governments have open to them. And it should be quite a reasonable income as well: one that will only allow people to afford the barest of necessities is not going to help the corporations either.

In my view of the future, education would always be free and the UBI would afford everyone a comfortable life. For those wanting to lead more luxurious lifestyles, however, there would be no choice but to be smarter (possibly by investing wisely) and/or to study harder for longer. Those lucky enough in the job market would then have the privilege of working something like 4x6 hours a week on some really cool project, or just taking pride in doing something that's essential to everyone, but which is not (yet) possible to automate. Or they could work in a restaurant, or play in a band, or write books, or teach: whatever. Some of these people may end up earning tens of times more than anyone else, but not hundreds or thousands of times more like we often see today -- the kind of inequality that would make such a post-scarcity economy impossible.

This wandering mind is happy

[Anonymous Coward]

Where did your pop psychologists find out that "a wandering mind is an unhappy mind"? I couldn't find anything to support that in the reviews at the Amazon affiliate link. What the reviews I read say is that the book is somehow entertaining but shallow and unmemorable.

At least a job your productive

[Anonymous Coward]

I think I read guaranteed basic income had already failed a trial test in Finland. I don't think we should promise people anything in life.

Re:At least a job your productive

[Anonymous Coward]

It didn't fail. It was aborted prematurely for political reasons, so people like you could say it "failed".

Re:At least a job your productive

[Anonymous Coward]

Right, the current Finnish government isn't very insightful.

Re:At least a job your productive

[Ferretman]

Intriguing assertion...credible cite?

Ferret

That's easy: UBI

[Qbertino]

With UBI I can go look for real problems to solve rather than sitting in a job I consider pointless just because it pays.
I just was swimming in a lake. The shores definitely need some cleaning and me and my sweetheart were collecting garbage. With UBI I'dv'e stayed a little longer to collect more and perhaps repair the signs among the shore. Yeah, sure, normal people don't leave garbage at the Lakeshore in the first place, but the cleaning up need to be done, So this is a problem that needs solving.

I'd expect most people to go and look for something useful to do when they start recording UBI. If robots do most of the tedious dirty work by then, all the better.

Why not both?

[Indiana Joe]

A hybrid system might be best. The UBI provides for the base level expenses, but only just. If you want a more comfortable lifestyle, you will be able to work for it.

It's better to just find your own happiness

[guruevi]

If you want UBI, go work a job and/or invest what you earn. It's Universal, it's Basic and it's Income.

Automation/AI isn't going to change things, it hasn't in the past it won't in the future.

Re:It's better to just find your own happiness

[Anonymous Coward]

If you want UBI, go work a job and/or invest what you earn. It's Universal, it's Basic and it's Income.

You make it sound so easy.

I've worked since I was fifteen, put myself through college, have good, high paying job, and have saved for retirement.

And I still have nearly ten years to go before I can start drawing the Social Security that I've paid into my whole working life.

After 40+ years I've finally saved enough (but is it ever enough?) to where I feel like I might be able to comfortably retire sometime in the next ten years.

Ten years ago, when my own children were graduating from university, and Shrub had just crashed the world economy, telling them to get a job and invest what they earn was pretty goddamn hard. And telling a lot of 20-somethings who are just starting out now to "get a job and invest" and everything will be okay sounds pretty hollow to me.

Your guy Twitler is boasting about how great the economy is now. The economy has actually been doing pretty well for the last ten years, but even now, just as it has over the past ten years, it's still not helping people in all those "middle states."

Twitler's going to get his comeuppance when all those people in the flyover states realize he hasn't actually delivered on anything he promised. People are already starting to realize it, and he's is panicking and turning his lie machine up to 11 to try to compensate.

Re:It's better to just find your own happiness

[Anonymous Coward]

LOL

Re:It's better to just find your own happiness

[CrimsonAvenger]

Automation/AI isn't going to change things, it hasn't in the past it won't in the future.

Oh?

150 years ago, most everyone worked on a farm. If they were reasonably lucky, the farm produced enough to keep them eating.

Now, maybe 5% of the people work on farm-related jobs. Largely due to things like combine harvesters, tractors, things like that.

Once upon a time, traveling across the ocean was a multi-week affair, and you had a reasonable chance of surviving the experience. Not guaranteed, but reasonable (consider the number of people who left Spain with Columbus on the Nina, Pinta, and Santa Maria. Then consider the number of those people who got back to Spain).

Now, you can do the round trip (Spain to New World and back) in a weekend, with essentially no chance of dying. Or you can take a sailing ship. Which will still be faster than Columbus' trip, but will require a small fraction of the crew, with negligible chance of death....

So, yes, automation IS going to change things. As it has in the past, and will continue into the indefinite future....

Re: It's better to just find your own happiness

[guruevi]

I agree that the world keeps changing but it's not changing how or more accurately who should govern us.

But even though 90% of farm labor is automated we don't have 90% unemployment which was my point.

Re:It's better to just find your own happiness

[Waccoon]

In the past, machines couldn't think. They just followed a predefined set of instructions. AI is the breakthrough that allows machines to think and adapt, properties that humans have had a monopoly for millennia. You seriously think that won't change anything?

Keep in mind that most businesses don't care about quality, they care about ROI. Even if AI is a hard problem to solve and doesn't do as good a job as a real person, it only needs to be cheap enough to earn a ROI. Don't assume AI has to be Einstein quality to fully replace a workforce. There's a point where anything is "good enough" if it's cheap.

Re:It's better to just find your own happiness

[guruevi]

I think you vastly overestimate the state of AI and neuroscience. Current the best "AI" (statistical classifiers) allow a robot to be slightly more efficient in the sense that it is significantly slower but it doesn't require extensive reprogramming, just some (human or automated) feedback, eventually we'll make that process slightly faster but it still won't be as efficient as purpose-built robots.

But that was the case with the loom and the steam engine and the Ford Model T as well. You trade one form of energy for another, usually much less efficient but cheaper than before and then you have ever smarter humans figuring out how to optimize it. At no point in time did we trade net human jobs for net machine jobs and we've been pretty good at making a lot more humans since the 1800s, matter of fact, as many economies show, you end up trading low-wage, menial jobs for higher-wage, more fulfilling jobs eg in the service industry, healthcare, engineering etc.

What has happened in the past is that we basically shifted the value of workers up the scale, whereas before the job of being a scientist was reserved to a select group of priests and monks, practically paid for by what we now consider taxes (bureaucrats really) and anyone doing it outside those enclaves was not being paid to do it (todays ultra-rich hobbyists like Elon Musk), we've now made those into real jobs and we give them money to do it, as a society, we now put more value in those jobs. If 100% of the menial jobs on a world scale can be done by machines (which will take at least 50 more years), we can get 100% of people working as scientists and engineers, those are still jobs, we just shift what we value in society, a natural order with increased rewards for those that do better is engrained in nature, you can't change that, you can't reward organisms for not having expended energy without something going very wrong, very quickly.

When AI gets to the point we stop needing engineers, scientists and other humans, we as a species will have started our own extinction, if it is unnecessary for us to exist, history (which at that point nature itself would be encoded in the machines) tells us we will cease existing. We wouldn't be able to anthropologically distinguish the machines from naturally evolved humans, we'd be the Neanderthals of this world and then we would deserve to die.

Re:It's better to just find your own happiness

[guruevi]

That's how every generation feels though, even through all the bubbles and crashes, you now are a lot better off than your parents or grandparents ten years before retirement. Unemployment goes up and down in a cycle of ~10-15 years and it's now down to 1960's levels again (which was the golden age according to some).

Our kids will pull through as well, stop coddling your teenager and send them off to work or school. Your parents had the same issue getting you a job and investing, the only 'problem' we have with this generation is that they don't "want" to work for peanuts at McDonalds because it's "beneath them". Stop housing your 30-yo and they will quickly find ways to feed and house themselves.

arent u sorry

[Anonymous Coward]

you voted 4 clinton not sanders

slaves have a guaranteed job

[Anonymous Coward]

Freedom means freedom to do what you want, not freedom from adversity and risks.

Here on Slashdot

[Anonymous Coward]

Here on Slashdot, where the robots have already taken over, suicide has appeal.
But, so do bananas.

.

Incorrect assumption

[evanh]

"The dream of something for nothing is not sustainable." does not always have to be true.

Sure, while human labour is needed the premise holds true. But once machines are doing all the work then there is no-one to pay money for work ... then money ceases to have a purpose.

At some point along that road the big problem becomes what will humans do to each other when we no longer depend on one another for our comforts.

Re:Incorrect assumption

[Anonymous Coward]

At some point along that road the big problem becomes what will humans do to each other when we no longer depend on one another for our comforts.

But we always did, we do and will continue to in the future. You need others to give you emotional support and fulfilment, someone to brag to about your successes, someone to tell you that everything be all right when things are not going right, someone to love, someone to love you back, someone to tell you you are a fool, someone to thank you ... we have riches, and money and all that complicated things just to rank ourselves among others, to snatch our portion of universal respect and make it as big as possible. Machines can't do that. They can't assign worth to anything.

Re:Incorrect assumption

[Anonymous Coward]

You need others to give you emotional support and fulfilment,

Don't have that.

someone to brag to about your successes,

Don't have that.

someone to tell you that everything be all right when things are not going right,

Don't have that.

someone to love,

Don't have that.

someone to love you back,

Don't have that.

someone to tell you you are a fool,

That, I have the Internet for. And most of you assholes could be replaced with a very small shell script.

someone to thank you

Don't have that.

So far, the machines are winning. Got anything else?

When 95% of all work has been automated...

[Baki]

we cannot provide meaningful jobs to people.

We could provide stupid and sensless jobs, but that would only be cruel and have no use.

People will have to deal with the fact that they have much free time and nothing important to do, such as develop a personal philosphy to deal with life.
Find a purpose outside of work and being "useful".
It isn't easy, but there is no alternative.

I can't stand paternalistic politicians that keep telling that we need full employment, otherwise people don't know how to spend their time and start behaving destructively. It all starts with eductation, mainly before the age of 8... We have to prepare our children for a much different future, as the first generation that won't have to struggle for survival, will soon be here.

Unless climate change and other self-made disasters bring down civilization, then it is back to normal for mankind (or extinction).

Re:When 95% of all work has been automated...

[dbrueck]

When 95% of all work has been automated...we cannot provide meaningful jobs to people.

Maybe, I dunno - in a way it's already happened before, so what's to say it can't happen again and again and again? It's 95% of *existing* work that gets automated - the work that has already been invented.

Some very large percent of the people work were doing 200 years ago has been automated, and the world didn't end. New work got invented. People have trouble foreseeing what the yet-to-be-invented work will be like, but that's not surprising.

The main difference now is that the pace of change is faster, so rather than having the work force shift over the course of a generation or two, it needs to shift in a shorter time frame.

Re:When 95% of all work has been automated...

[Tony Isaac]

Kind of like how 95% of farm jobs have been automated over the past 100 years? Somehow, people still managed to find other work!

Immoral question

[SPopulisQR]

Question to select between basic income or guaranteed job is of the same realm of asking which arm do you prefer to be chopped off: right or left. Basic income and guaranteed job are based on immoral and unethical grounds thus do not need to be considered by ethical people.

Re:Immoral question

[Anonymous Coward]

Basic income and guaranteed job are based on immoral and unethical grounds thus do not need to be considered by ethical people.

Who told you that? Faux News? Steve Bannon?

Can I take it at face value that you don't buy insurance either? Because they're immoral and unethical? May I presume that you won't be drawing your Social Security either?

I hope, for your sake, you don't ever lose your job and need your Unemployment Insurance or Welfare. Or get cancer or have a horrible car accident and need hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of medical treatments and/or care.

Because I'd hate to see you have to stand on your principles and turn them down because they're immoral and unethical.

Re:Immoral question

[gweihir]

Your high horse is made from hot air. There is nothing "immoral" or "unethical" here.

Re:Immoral question

[Anonymous Coward]

Nice strawmen, dumbass.

Re:Immoral question

[Anonymous Coward]

If you actually believe that, you're devoid of ethics and morals.

Re:Immoral question

[Anonymous Coward]

Giving something requires involuntary taking from somebody. There were plenty of experiments on a mass scale and we know how they all ended. Yet, still, there are plenty of people who keep insisting full socialism.

Re:Immoral question

[Anonymous Coward]

Cognitive dissonance: "nothing immoral or unethical" in giving away something taken by coercion and force. Further, everyone has the same 24h in a day, however some people will not need to work, and some others will need to work even more to achieve a living. How is that moral and ethical? Never was, never will be.

Re:Immoral question

[gweihir]

Ever heard of "taxes"? Probably not, it is a historic idea where you apparently know how it ended.
Also, whatever makes you think an UBI is "socialism"? It is not. It is a very capitalist idea, because the main idea is to preserve the market.

Re:Immoral question

[gweihir]

You do not understand the proposal on the table. Hence you mistakenly believe you are right. Common moron at work.

Re:Immoral question

[gweihir]

Not at all. I might just, unlike you, base mine on reality and what can and cannot be done.

Neither will help anything

[DalM]

UBI is stupid. If you give everyone on the planet $1000 a month, then all of the prices for everything on the planet will just rise to match. Markets will always optimize price by themselves. Rent and food and healthcare and internet service will just rise to match. You aren't going to be fixing anything.

Re:Neither will help anything

[Anonymous Coward]

Not going to fix anything?

Doing what we're doing now (i.e. nothing) isn't fixing people living under bridges and freeway overpasses or squatter camps next to the San Tomas Expressway and elsewhere. You think we should just let that be? In the richest state, in the richest country, in one of the richest areas, people are living in tents next to the freeway. And you're okay with that? Or maybe you think we should drive a bulldozer through there on a regular basis?

I think you overestimate how many people would be receiving UBI With less than 4% unemployment (yeah yeah, you don't need to tell me how phony the unemployment numbers are; we all know "real" unemployment is much higher) I seriously doubt that'd be enough to affect prices. But that's just a guess on my part. But you're guessing too. How about we get some real facts instead of making wild ass guesses. (We already have Twitler to make shit up for us.)

Re:Neither will help anything

[gweihir]

The prices will raise, true (unless it turns out so many people were doing non-productive jobs before that prices will not actually rise), but you overlook the glaringly obvious: Prices raise per good unit, while the UBI gives you the $1000 upfront. Sure, if you buy exactly the same things, this may result in the same thing as before, but if you buy less or cheaper things, it most definitely does not.

Re:Neither will help anything

[Anonymous Coward]

Universal Basic Income, is, by definition, universal. So your estimate is incredibly low. 100% would receive it, otherwise it's welfare, not UBI.

The GP is correct, and you're still a dumbass.

Universal Theorey

[Anonymous Coward]

I think it's awesome that some are thinking ahead on this. Is it as simple as 'universal income or guaranteed job'? It might also be wise to ask something akin to WTF should human beings be doing with their own evolution on this spinning rock called earth? Sure, a larger question. Look around though, we do have some really smart people on this planet. I think that we would solidify our existence more and maybe even go to the stars (perhaps sooner) if we also think bigger at the same time.

Re:Neither...?

[Anonymous Coward]

So what is your proposed solution?

There are already more people alive than useful work that they can do. We're already paying hugely over the odds for massive make work programs (e.g. the military, farming subsidies).

The current political clusterfuck is because the average person can no longer have afford to meet their basic needs in exchange for 40 hours of their labor. They look at those of us who - through hard work, skill and chance of birth - can afford to live in relative luxury, and wonder why we deserve it and they don't. Luckily for us our current batch of politicians has them convinced that it's immigrants and the poor who have stolen the fruits of their labours, but if they should wise up, or if a different flavour of shit-stain takes office, then they're coming for us.

Sure, we can jump ship to some country where we don't have to pay business/income taxes, but where do our profits come from? What's stopping them from slapping tariffs on us? We might have a few years where we can exploit emerging economies, but they're understandably very protectionist and we don't have the same control over their leaders and laws as we do here.

I'm pretty well of, but not "private island" rich. Speaking as someone whose taxes would probably take a significant hike, UBI is actually a pretty good deal compared to the collapse of western society.

Sigh.

[Anonymous Coward]

Neither are particularly desirable, both eliminate your freedom to create a life you want yourself. With a UBI, what you get is what you get. There is no more. With a 'guaranteed job' what you get is what you get, there is no more. Millennials really need to study uncensored history and read about precisely what it was like in places such as the former Soviet Union - this is not a future you want. Additionally, Obama lied. As jobs certain jobs are marginalized, others are created, and no, they do not always require a college degree. And lastly, your parents lied too - there are plenty of jobs you can do. The fact that you don't want to do them does not make them cease to be. Like every generation before you, you are going to have to accept that you will have to work, and that at times that work may not be a dream job, just a way to make money, and no, it probably won't be six figures. This entire post is ludicrous.

"Why not both"?

[Sigma 7]

It's not like they're mutually exclusive... If you have to force a dichotomy, then it's clear the question isn't thought out in the first place. Perhaps they're both good options and should both be implemented.

Same applies if neither should be selected, in favor of something that actually fixes the problems, or if both options are actually a bad thing to implement.

Socialism never worked, works or will work

[Orne]

Why is AI and robotics expected to dominate? Because costs are reducing vs gov has made it too expensive to hire labor. Minimum wage hikes have accelerated this. The Obamacare disaster has made health insurance impossibly expensive. So, why hire a human when a kiosk is more efficient. Adding UBI or work requirements will accelerate this trend to reduce labor.

Without capital, who can buy the goods that robots create? Why bother creating things if there are no buyers? There will be a natural cap on the extent of AI, but mucking around with income levels will encourage higher rates of robots, as more goods are consumable per customer.

Basic Universal Income must come from somewhere, via wealth redistributuon (taxes) or inflation. If you get a free $1000/mo, are you bringing price controls too? Why bother cutting costs when the market has free capital to spend? A business will have to raise prices to cover the taxes to support UBI, which will balance at a new higher price for everything. When everyone has money, money is worthless.

But not everyone is going to get money, just citizens of the government. So you are incentivizing immigration. Since every new entry is added cost of UBI, legal immigration will cease, births should be taxed, and end of life exit encouraged. Illegal immigration would go insane, as people try to enter the system by any means.

So a job guarantee is the better choice, but just as bad. An individual would be guided into a career that the central gov will choose for them, based on skill and demand. Field labor, infrastructure, mining, utilities is hard work. Someone must gather materials to make new robots. Not the cushy desk jobs or art programs that everyone expects. If everyone works, then there is the same demand for entertainment not more, and there are enough unemployed artists already. So you go into a career or you are forever returning to academics for retraining to find one you like. That costs money too, so expect lock in period requirements to stick with a job, and reductions in personal freedom.

And when a job is given, how is it taken away? Exit protection in Germany today makes it near impossible to fire a bad worker, so businesses are very reluctant to add workers, which leads to extremely high entry requirements. This pushes overqualified people into easy jobs, and displaced the average citizen. So expect total control of everything, since the gov will need to allocate labor better than the individual. You will be told where to work, so donâ(TM)t expect to like it.

Historically, every time these top down practices are tried, the people eventually try to escape it for other countries with more freedoms. Or they are crushed. What is the value of a life when everything about it is an expense?

Re:Socialism never worked, works or will work

[anderstn]

I agree with what you are saying, but this is just one suggested implementation of a socialist idea. It's not like socialism as a platform is 100% flawed just because communism, which I assume you are eluding to, as an implementation of extreme socialism is fucked up. In fact plenty of socialist ideas are implemented by the US government and work just fine. NB: I'm not referring to the now defunct Affordable Care Act although it was a great boon for many US citizens despite some flaws in it's implementation.

Re:Socialism never worked, works or will work

[drinkypoo]

Why bother creating things if there are no buyers?

If you give people money, they can buy things. There will be more buyers, because there will be more people with money.

Basic Universal Income must come from somewhere, via wealth redistributuon (taxes) or inflation.

Obviously it comes from wealth redistribution. Workers get an ever-smaller share of the profits, even though technology makes them ever-more productive. The obvious solution is to tax the people who are claiming all the profits, since they apparently never learned to share.

a job guarantee is the better choice, but just as bad.

Which is it? Better, or just as bad?

And when a job is given, how is it taken away?

With UBI, in the usual way. With a job guarantee, with great difficulty.

Re:Socialism never worked, works or will work

[gweihir]

Why is AI and robotics expected to dominate?

We can already stop here, as it is quite obvious: Most people do not and cannot do jobs that require original thinking, creativity, insight, mathematics, engineering, etc. Hence their jobs can be automated, as all these things are exactly the limits machines have. And once you have a machine design that does the job, you can just copy it and eliminate all the jobs of this type. For humans, you have to train them, you have to keep them motivated, etc.

As a result, having machines do these jobs (which are maybe 80% or so of all jobs) is vastly cheaper once a good automated solution exists. As this is capitalism, the cheaper solution wins.

Both obviously.

[Anonymous Coward]

Why wouldn't you just have both. 2 teirs UBI, always get lower tier, small additional credit for guaranteed job. Then you are even more in control.

Who wants idiot slaves?

[Slugster]

I tend to think that something like a UBI (perhaps including food and housing credit) is the best solution. My reasoning is as follows:

Suppose there comes a time when there is a huge population of employable adults, but only a relatively small of highly technical, highly complicated jobs to be done (commanding robot swarms or whatever, to make enough basic supplies of everything, for everybody).
And so there is only jobs for 1% of everybody...
You don't want everybody applying for those jobs, just because most people probably are not qualified for them.
It's much more efficient to pay everyone a UBI and offer the jobs for a higher-than-UBI pay rate, and then only the people who think they might be qualified ( and interested ) will bother to apply.
A person's interest level in their job is a big factor in how well they do it; it relates to how much attention they maintain and how willing they are to try to improve their performance.
The more critical a given job is, the better off a company is hiring someone that really enjoys doing it, and doing it well. You don't want to hire someone who is just there for the money.


--Also, the UBI works better for all of the "lower achievers", since they can pursue any particular interest as they please.
For example:
Let's say a guy on the UBI decides that he wants {one certain thing} more than anything else in the world. Say, a BMW sedan, for an example.
And let's say that the highest-paying jobs pay millions of dollars a year, but the lower-paying ones only pay $25K a year.
He can take any lower-paying job to save money towards {that one thing he desires}, while being able to depend on the UBI to cover anything else.
He can't afford everything on his UBI+lower-wage working income, but he gets to work straight toward the one thing he has decided that he wants.



I think that we are still quite a few years away from any broad-based situation such as this however. At least 50 years, maybe 100+. Or more.
Also a lot of society would need time to adjust to the concept of being the "idle class". Japanese are famous for their dedication, but many other people around the world consider their job to be a measure of their self-worth. "Being a bum" would take some time to get used to...

Re:Who wants idiot slaves?

[drinkypoo]

Japanese are famous for their dedication, but many other people around the world consider their job to be a measure of their self-worth.

Japanese are famous for their suicide rate, and Japan is famous for bullshit make-work jobs that don't need to exist at all.

UBI is a great idea for Chicago

[Anonymous Coward]

I look forward to hearing their success story.

one of these has been tried before.

[Coolfish]

Guaranteed jobs have been tried before, in communist states like Czechoslovakia. Workers would show up drunk, do nothing, and get paid. Shit doesn't work.

The issue with universal basic income is of course who gets to define what "basic" is. Our political system is not up to the task of deciding this question. Shit, it can't even manage to pull off pretty easy and obvious solutions to similarly large problems (eg implementing carbon taxes to combat global warming). Our political system is controlled by a small number of very powerful people, most of which are leveraging their financial power into political power. If UBI comes about, and we have the same political systems in place, it'll be a "Let them eat cake" scenario where their definition of what constitutes "basic" does not afford much in terms of dignity or freedom.

If we're really going to address this problem, we have to fix what's fundamentally broken first. Our political decision making model is corrupt and can't scale to solve global problems. We need to fundamentally rethink how we govern ourselves, how we resolve conflict, and how we organize. But before we can do that, we have to identify *what* is the fundamental flaw in our political system, the core of which were designed when the fastest way to communicate was to tell someone something and have them run to the next town over. I believe what is limiting us from going is our information sharing/management strategy: delegation. Delegation is ultimately a bottleneck for sharing information (the messenger has very limited bandwidth). Delegation of political decision making power is also extremely shaky, and success in that regard largely seems to come down to luck. Just look at how many developing countries fall as their the political structures, built on delegation, prove themselves to be fragile and brittle. We in the west don't like to acknowledge this - we like to blame the people, rather than accept that we just got lucky. We write off instances where corruption and the concentration of power has led to horrific destruction, blaming the people rather than the system.

The problem is that getting people to accept that the strategy that has gotten us this far has its limits. Once you do that though, you can do something pretty amazing. If you're a crypto programmer, or are interested in discussing this further, shoot me a message.

Re:one of these has been tried before.

[AHuxley]

Wait until the USA enjoys the quality of production the "show up drunk, do nothing, and get paid" Communist workers do after getting placed in a guaranteed decently-paid job.
No skills. No motivation to learn. No ability to learn.
Show up at 9am. Lunch. Wait around until 5 pm.

Re: one of these has been tried before.

[Anonymous Coward]

So you agree it is better if those types of low performing people are not in the workplace.

What do you propose we do about it?
Execute the low performers?
        Inexpensive, but risks facial over reach.
Jail them for trespassing/shoplifting food/murdering people for cash to buy said food?
      Seems expensive, now we have to feed, clothe and house them, plus spend more money on guards to keep them there.

What if we could make a cheaper, nicer prison and convinced them to stay in it? Maybe a small studio in a not prime area, but with included internet for YouTube and Netflix, maybe basic cable TV and a low budget version of blueplate focused on dry pasta and rice dishes with a centrum.multi vitamin tossed in. I bet most of them would stay there.

But then I am not a degenerate, loathsome troll of a human being who would rape, kill and rob everyone if it was not illegal and thus assume others would too. I'd keep doing my thing, just at a slightly different time of day.

Re: one of these has been tried before.

[AHuxley]

AC most normal advance nations just offer people not working some means tested support https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... until they work or take up further education again.

Productive brands that need expert workers cant take on people with no skills and no ability to learn a skill.

Re:one of these has been tried before.

[Anonymous Coward]

Wait until the USA enjoys the quality of production the "show up drunk, do nothing, and get paid" Communist workers do after getting placed in a guaranteed decently-paid job.

No skills. No motivation to learn. No ability to learn.

Show up at 9am. Lunch. Wait around until 5 pm.

We already have this in the US; it's called civil service.

Career vs Job

[jellomizer]

A Job is what you do to make money. A Career is what defines who you are. Sometime a Career may contain Jobs, some that you like and some that you don't.

Most jobs doesn't have you doing pointless tasks because that are paying you money to do them, so they should have some sort of value to doing the job. However many jobs are not really utilizing your full potential which makes them boring and at the end of the day you do not feel good with yourself.

You have to find meaning in your work vs. work giving you meaning. No matter what job you do in your career it will feel meaningless.
I work in Health Care I see Brain Surgeons and Cardiologist who do a fine job, but are worn down to the world, because for them it feels like they do the same thing every day, only to have the patients leave and abuse their bodies again. They are actually saving lives every day but they just don't feel meaning, because they have stopped looking for it.

The real problem I see is the lack of Empowerment in the modern work culture. I am stuck in a meeting with 2 VP yelling at me, because both of them Got yelled at by the CIO and CFO. Which in tern call me to often have to yell at the vendor because there isn't anything I can do about what they are yelling at me to do, Because the CIO and CFO chose the vendor and the product and passed it down to me to implement, then the Vendor just points to the contract conditions, which then I express back to the VPs which get angry with me, but afraid to to express their problems with the CIO and CFO because that product is their baby. So most everyone is unhappy, because no one has power to do anything to really fix it. And the ones who do done agree on a course of action.

Re:Career vs Job

[jsepeta]

>Career is what defines who you are

Not necessarily. Some people prefer to define themselves by their charity, by raising children, but their hobbies which consume their passions outside of the day job. And your job could be "burger flipper" but if you murder a bunch of children, that's going to define you, not your job.

Re:Career vs Job

[jellomizer]

Their work in charity is their career. What they do to make a living is a job.

Re:Career vs Job

[Anonymous Coward]

A Job is what you do to make money. A Career is what defines who you are.

This is a US-centric way of thinking to say that your career defines you. In Europe, it's usually considered rude to ask people their occupation Instead, talk about hobbies, vacations, etc.

Re:Career vs Job

[Anonymous Coward]

A Job is what you do to make money. A Career is what defines who you are.

Anything you get paid for is what someone else decides you are.
What you do in your spare time defines who you are.

Re: Third option

[wellingj]

despite the fact the premise of OP put it out there as a false dichotomy. AI is the new industrial robot. The 80s called and wants its blue collar scare tactics back.

Basic jobs vs basic income

[bluegutang]

If the choice is between basic incomes and basic jobs, there are a number of massive problems with a basic jobs program which don't exist for a basic income program. Specifically:

1. Basic jobs don’t help the disabled
2. Basic jobs don’t help caretakers for sick family members, or parents of children
3. Jobs require massive personal expenses - transportation, rent in desirable areas with manageable commutes, babysitting for when you're away from home - wiping out much of the salary received
4. Basic jobs may not pay for themselves by doing useful work
5. Private industry deals with bad workers by firing them; nobody has a good plan for how basic jobs would replace this
6. Private employees deal with bad workplaces by quitting them; nobody has a good plan for how basic jobs would replace this
7. Basic income could make private jobs better to work in; basic jobs could make private jobs worse to work in
8. Basic income supports personal development; basic jobs prevent it
9. Work sucks, and basic jobs would make huge numbers of people's lives suck

Full discussion here

Re:Basic jobs vs basic income

[bluefoxlucid]

If the choice is between basic incomes and basic jobs, there are a number of massive problems with a basic jobs program which don't exist for a basic income program.

Throw out all of the human-factor arguments and stick to economics.

A sort of Universal Dividend--paying based on a percentage of all income collected as a tax (a social insurance premium) divided among all adults--doesn't attempt to provide a fixed benefit. The American Citizen's Dividend provides some excellent stability, along the lines of the stability of the American economy, and still goes up and down a bit. It trends upwards, as does the American GNI-per-Capita.

You combine this with social insurances--unemployment, food stamps, housing assistance--for efficiency. The Dividend itself isn't enough to live on ($6,000 per adult per year in 2016), and provides a foundation.

You end up with a no-deficit economic stimulus--something considered impossible by economists.

The Dividend itself pays from what is there. If you have a job, the Dividend represents a smaller portion of your income; and, indeed, if you have a job, you have tax burden. The Dividend is untaxed (we tax your $100k for general, FICA, etc., and dump the FICA backing the Dividend into someone else's hands; the productivity which earned that Dividend payment has already been taxed), but your other earnings are taxed!

For a person with lower income, the Dividend represents more of their buying power; and in a local economy experiencing localized poverty or a sudden unemployment shock, the Dividend represents a strong localized economic stimulus--just like all other forms of welfare. The Dividend, then, more-strongly stimulates the economy wherever it has weakness. It would react to a 6% drop in productivity (think 2008 Great Recession) by paying 94% as much per person; yet it would have a much greater impact suddenly on certain people and certain cities and towns where the economy just collapsed out from under them and unemployment has become rampant.

As these people get jobs, welfare withdraws. The first jobs aren't major export businesses; they're servicing the local economy. They're selling to the same poor people in the area. Everyone gets a McDonalds or a Target job, half the money goes up the supply chain and to Federal taxes, and welfare goes away. These people no longer receive unemployment checks, food stamps, and housing assistance; they can no longer replace that lost cash. Purchasing falls; jobs become unsupportable; unemployment rises.

The Dividend keeps paying anyway.

Rather than this collapse, the Dividend provides a basis to establish a new equilibrium as welfare draws back. There's more money after each pay cycle, and more spending. Eventually, some people can remodel their bathrooms, and now you need to move a few folks from $10/hr cashier jobs to $30/hr plumbing and construction jobs. The mean income starts to rise--rapidly thanks to welfare, then moderately thanks to the Dividend alone, then more-slowly as you approach middle-class and the Dividend's impact on your local economy fades.

That's the power of a no-deficit economic stimulus.

Now: what happens when you replace the Dividend with guaranteed jobs?

A similar impact, except that the government must increase its outlays as people come onto the service. The Dividend always pays; welfare and job guarantees pay when used. Rather than being ready to smoothly handle the current state, the job guarantee struggles and spends additional until people get off those jobs.

The job guarantee also pays minimum wage (otherwise people would work there instead of other, lower-paying private jobs). Anyone making over minimum wage is not a source for stimulus to enter the local economy. This doesn't raise us from poverty.

You can certainly do both. Dividend, Unemployment, and Job Guarantee. Unemployment Insurance is an optimization: it adds extra stimulus to a loc

They are not really different

[gweihir]

A guaranteed job is a job that is make-work and just burns money. The advantage of an UBI is that you can do with your time as you see fit. The disadvantage is that many people cannot do that. But economically speaking, a guaranteed job is even somewhat more expensive, as you need to provide work, a place to work and administrate the whole thing.

Personally, I favor the UBI, as I have a lot of things that interest me and that I can do. But I predict that putting a lot of people on an UBI is a recipe for disaster. They will get bored to tears, feel worthless and start doing stupid and dangerous (to themselves and others) and destructive things.

Cost Model

[Anonymous Coward]

Ok. Let's say you have a UBI in a country of 350Million people. Everyone receives $1000 per month. So a family of 4 has $4000 to work with each month. Married couple receives $2000 and single person has $1000.

The cost of this system is 350Billion per month.

Now, let's say 100M people have jobs on top of their UBI. Those are the only people who can be taxed to pay UBI for everyone else. On average you need each of these workers to cough up $3500 every month to contribute to the nation's UBI commitments.

That still does not leave money for other government functions.

Maybe you can tax the robots, but taxing the subset of people who choose to work for more than the UBI seems unworkable.

Also, if you tax robots (or the companies that operate them for profit more specifically), why wouldn't the companies merely move their robot operations somewhere that taxes cannot reach them?

Would you rather have a job, or money?

[Narcocide]

Nice try assholes. You want us to choose between a job or money? I'm not gonna fall for that trick. You think I want to be guaranteed a job without being guaranteed the money? I'll take the money instead, thanks.

Re:Neither...?

[dbrueck]

There are already more people alive than useful work that they can do.

This is true *only if* you define "useful work" as only the stuff that currently exists.

A ton (most?) of the work that is done today didn't exist 200 years ago. A ton of the work that people will be doing 200 years from now doesn't exist yet.

Automating away current jobs isn't a problem, it's an opportunity. The real problem to solve is how to quickly refocus and train people for the developing jobs - shifting them away from the jobs that are no longer needed to the new ones.

Universal downloads is better

[Anonymous Coward]

But many (and I do belong to that group) would rather do something creative and productive on their own rather than get a "keep busy" occupation.

And to show our appreciation for all your "creative and productive" effort we'll pirate everything you produce to hell and back, undermining your market, and give you the middle finger to boot by bragging about it. Add on anything corporations, and other businesses do, and "creative and productive" doesn't last long in such a toxic environment.

A Universal Income will just be the new "zero"

[Anonymous Coward]

Inflation will inflate and will devalue the universal income to the point that it will become worthless and be the new zero value.

Example: Everyone is guaranteed a universal income of $50,000 a year (pre-tax). This is more than enough for everyone. People who were unemployed for whatever reason now have $50,000. People who make $10 an hour now will have roughly $56,000 a year. They can afford to get nicer things and possibly quit that shit $10/hr job -- because why should they work at all? People who get a nice salary of $50,000 (pre-tax) will now have double that and possibly invest that money to have for retirement. But then inflation takes over and everything becomes more expensive. That free $50,000 has less and less buying power as prices for goods and services and rents go up. Soon $50,000 a year hardly pays the bills and essentially is worth little or nothing. Don't worry, everyone will now get $75,000 a year (pre-tax). Lather, rinse, repeat. Before too long TWO BILLION dollars will become the basic income before it becomes THREE BILLION. Free money isn't free. Where is this "free" money coming from? Taxes? On what? People will ask "What's the point? Why should I work hard, meet deadlines and goals with a terrible boss when I could take vacations everyday and travel the world for free?"

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

False choice

[roman_mir]

What is better than the same dictatorial sidw of a coin? The other side is better - free and prosperous market and economy is better than all of these dystopian ideas that destroy individual freedoms and undoubtedly lead to destruction of the entire civilization.

Bullshit jobs are not fulfulling

[Anonymous Coward]

We are already in a situation where many people do jobs where they are trivially replaceable and have practically no autonomy over the things they do. They are cogs in a machine, and not a grandiose machine of which anyone would proudly be a part. Those jobs do not provide purpose or meaning and not even distraction. They make you feel trapped, like your time is being wasted, and it is: You can't try something else, because you have to work to survive, but the work you do is unnecessary. That's not a way to build a society. That's how you provoke uprisings.

Re:Neither...?

[DethLok]

"Free" and relatively cheap healthcare are achievable, just look at, well, pretty much any other western nation that's not the USA. Yes, it's paid for via taxes. Just like unemployment benefits (in Australia, very easy for an employer to set up, as it's paid for via taxes, so there is nothing to set up).

Sure, there are problems, but that's the case with anything.

None of the above

[Anonymous Coward]

America is not a socialist country.

Inelastic labor.

[Anonymous Coward]

Worse, that 1% gets their money from the same source as the universal income, the middle class. They quit working UI, AND that 1% both break. Nothing to draw from, AND no one to sell to.

Jobs beat handouts

[Anonymous Coward]

Jobs at least give someone a sense of purpose and dignity. A handout, no matter how it is dressed up, really means you are under the largess of government. No thank you to the latter. I'd rather have less money and be in control of my own destiny, no matter how bleak. As President Ford opined in the 1970s, "A government big enough to give you everything is big enough to take it all away."

Jobs are good for people. It's let's them be part of something bigger than themselves, allows them to socialize, allows them to build skills, and provides some mechanism for moving up. It seems more and more the left is pushing for people to look and act different, but think exactly alike. The left doesn't want equal opportunity, they want equal outcome. The more people dependent on the left and their system mean more and more voters. This is why the left is so vocal about immigration. They don't give a toss about these people. They see them as political footballs. Full stop.

I want to be in charge of my own destiny, to sink or swim on my own accord, not be at the whims of government. Yes, you may never be rich, but this is never a guarantee. Look at the $15 hour job mess with fast food workers, for example. These restaurants are now replacing people with kiosks and frybots. FF was never meant to be a career, nor provide for a living wage. It's a job for a young person starting out or whilst in college, or temporary to bridge a gap. It's not meant to be a full time forever job. So many young people could pull themselves out of poverty via a stint in the military. Yes, yes, I know... so many here are opposed to the military, but a 4-year stint in the Air Force means no combat, no killing. You can earn a degree at night in the Air Force in 2.5 years and it cost you nothing. There are options.

Flexible work hours > universal income

[anderstn]

So while the idea of universal income sounds nice in theory I don't think we are responsible enough to handle it properly. I mean where I live the country will take care of you. A person who simply doesn't want to work won't end up on the street, but then again he or she won't have a great income or be free to live wherever they want. Don't get me wrong you won't be thrown into communal housing, but you can't rent a flat in the middle of the city centre because you want to either. For the people who hates this lack of control and/or wants something more than the basic amenities of life it's not an issue because they will strive to get out of this situation, but what about those who don't mind it? I can only imagine universal income will cause more people to become stagnant and happy with just getting by with what they have. In my experience this leads to a very unproductive for society. It's not like it will make people harmful to society it just means that they focus more on self realisation and self reward rather than things we can all benefit from. There are some Arab countries who have implemented universal income (although it's not exactly similar to what I assume Obama had in mind) and in my experience a lot of the people from these countries have some grand delusions about their own self worth compared to others. These nations are also somewhat backwards with a lot of almost segregated foreign workers who live and work in slave like conditions. I don't know what came first. The universal income or the weird sense of superiority and slave labour. Personally I would rather have more flexibility in terms of work hours. Where I live I earn more than I need to live comfortably even if I worked 80% of the time with the same hourly wage I currently have. I would much rather work 80%, even with the pay reduction, than have a society where I just receive benefits from the state. Because for me happiness is just as much the ability to pursue the things you want as the ability to buy the things you want. So if I could spend 1-2 hours each day exercising (i have a desk job btw) without this stealing time from my social life or spend a long weekend back with my parents now and then without having to work extra hours this would be far more valuable to me than money considering that I'm already getting by fine financially. I'm not sure if this is equally applicable to the US though.

Re:Neither...?

[CaffeinatedBacon]

What makes you so sure you can train people faster than an AI robot can train itself to do the same job you just invented?
It's not realistic now, but eventually it could be. That is the problem, eventually people just won't be useful enough to employ.

basic income, ya dingus

[Anonymous Coward]

Basic income, because adding more employees to the DMV who don't actually want to be there isn't going to speed things up.

Exactly-efficiency.

[Anonymous Coward]

Some pressure will be reduced by us, with more efficient living. Less stress on the web of life.

It is not an either/or question...

[rootrot]

This need not be an either/or question, rather one where all who are able are ârequiredâ(TM) to work, but are guaranteed a livable income. This could allow for a number of advantages over current state, wherein jobs that are often underfilled or unfilled could be robust (e.g. daycare/school support, elder care, after school tutoring/reading programs, etc). It could have interesting implications for boutique startups in arts and crafts (think Kelmscott, not preschool).
Whether we like it or are comfortable with it or not, we are coming to a monumental tipping point...as destructive to our post-industrial/information age as industrialization was to feudal/Medieval age. Either we approach it with care and planning or we resist and fight and...most likely...wipe out a large portion of the population as we dogmatically cling to centuries old concepts of wealth, power, ownership, and nationstate. Iâ(TM)m hoping for the former...but not holding my breath...

UK, Chech, Slovakia, USSR...

[Anonymous Coward]

The communists tried guaranteed jobs. It doesn't work.

The UK had the 'Dole'. They still have a limited version of it. It doesn't work either.

Democritus noted more than two thousand years ago: "The poor will always be with us" and he is still right.

The only saving grace is that the life expectancy of poor people is low - a natural limiting factor.

Communism at work?

[AHuxley]

So the Communist idea of the government offering education and a pathway to career success? Then some sort of guidance into the correct and needed job for decades somewhere in the USA?
Grow up in NY and the "government" gives you one approved job in Florida? The pay will be good but the location is set by the government.
Live in CA and the "government" demands skilled workers for a project in New Hampshire?
Thats what a guarantee job will be like. Say no too many times when the government asks and the "decently-paid" part stops.
The next government job is an offer to work for food and rent.
A company would then be flooded with average and mediocre staff as the government says the company has to hire and support a set number of approved "workers"
Tax problems if they don't take in a set number of people who need "work".
Who would want to start a company in the USA needing the very best workers and get told by a gov to take in a number of random people with no ability to work?

Whats the other idea?
Tax everyone working to give an extra payment to everyone who can work and is working?
Want to give a payment to people not working?
Try a means text for citizens. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Create a list of all citizens not working. Given them a set payment until they find work again and pay taxes again.
Working citizens get to enjoy their full wage.
Citizens not working get a support payment until they find work again.

Re:Communism at work?

[bluefoxlucid]

You can actually implement a Universal Dividend without raising taxes. There are a bunch of other things we can do to eventually lower taxes--notably, our healthcare and corrections systems are inefficient, and correcting these things lowers medicare expenditure by $500Bn even when providing universal healthcare coverage.

Corrections is smaller. Reducing crime and returning people to society as productive citizens saves only a little government spending. It mostly reduces the private costs of crime and increases productivity because more people can work and consume (consumption is the demand that creates jobs).

A Universal Dividend acts as a sort of tax refund, as well, paying continuously. Nearly half of all households would have a negative income tax burden in the rough 2016 model; that gets larger and extends higher as time passes due to the way I constructed the Dividend (it takes a fixed tax on all income, so grows faster than inflation so long as you don't raise or lower the FICA tax rate). Higher-income households aren't exposed to additional tax burden in that model, either; nor are businesses.

Because consumers are more-stable and localized recessions are resolved, we end up with a sort of labor shortage: this form of clean-up corrects some inefficient fiscal strategy to the tune of several hundred billion dollars, and puts a lot of spending power into the hands of the lower- and middle-class consumer. The reciprocal effect--notably the income multiplier effect, where part of income becomes further wages--would drag a 5% U3 unemployment economy down to -12% unemployment or thereabouts.

That's actually a bad thing (it causes a HUGE amount of inflation).

You combat this by cutting back working hours: people working fewer hours produce less, and have fewer labor-hours to trade for goods. Think about it: if you're working 40 hours to make a thing but then weekly labor hours are cut from 40 to 30, then in one week you earn enough to buy 3/4 of that thing. Pair this with structural wage--the minimum wage represents a yearly income of 1/4 the per-adult income--and now many things have gotten more-expensive and labor demand shifts and shrinks.

We can manipulate the economy rather than trying to be oracles and reaching our fingers into it to fiddle around like the Soviets did. We draw guidelines around it. We nudge it a bit.

We can get down to 28-hour work weeks in a few years while coming out richer than we are now, with higher productivity, and with lower taxes. I think it will take a decade or two to hit something like 25% top tax rate, 8% middle-income tax rate offset by the Dividend to be just a touch negative, universal healthcare, universal higher education and vocational training, no homeless, no hunger, robust private market. That's not an economic prediction; it's an engineering goal.

You don't get there by an economic dictatorship. You get there by shaping. A universal dividend is part of that shape. So are things like investigations into our healthcare system (it's extremely inefficient) and advisories published to healthcare providers giving them methods to reduce costs and improve outcomes (they're not so voluntary: you can not follow the advisory, and the next hospital over will cut their costs and their prices in half and put you out of business--welcome to capitalism! You're getting bought out now).

I designed the Dividend to operate with a hands-off approach for a reason. You set it, you step back, and you let it adjust. Human actions--determining the new rates, auditing, etc.--are dictated by constraints like the FICA tax rate (which doesn't change--ever), the distribution being even to the number of adults, and the amount that can float in the Trust to cover miscalculations and economic disruptions. The economy will react to it in a natural way; it provides a firm foundation for other policy.

Re:Communism at work?

[AHuxley]

Re "You combat this by cutting back working hours" People will need to work longer to pay their tax and to still have a wage above the poverty line.
The only way to cover the UBI is to tax anyone still working a lot more.
Re "manipulate the economy" Governments who do that fail.
Re "universal healthcare, universal higher education and vocational training, no homeless, no hunger, robust private market" thats going to need more extra tax collection to cover. Plus that new UBI cost too?
Re "engineering goal". Nobody wants to have their way of life set as a government backed engineering goal.

Re:Communism at work?

[bluefoxlucid]

People will need to work longer to pay their tax and to still have a wage above the poverty line

Not really. You only need to clip per-person productivity back when consumer purchasing power shoots up, meaning your end goal is to land at about the same purchasing power or slightly-more. Taxes take a percentage of that, so no change.

The only way to cover the UBI is to tax anyone still working a lot more.

Nope. Restructuring the tax system works out oddly, but it does work out. I like to do the math when I can.

Re "manipulate the economy" Governments who do that fail.

Governments which don't do that fail, too. It's like eating: if you eat too much, you get fat, develop diabetes, get heart disease, form various forms of cancer, and die. Too little and you starve. Exercise can kill you in excess, too.

Re "universal healthcare, universal higher education and vocational training, no homeless, no hunger, robust private market" thats going to need more extra tax collection to cover. Plus that new UBI cost too?

You assume our government is currently optimally-efficient and that every tax dollar provides the maximum effect. The Universal Dividend works out to a relatively-modest tax cut that can cover universal healthcare and maybe universal college. Improving the efficiency of our healthcare system cuts back the government spending portion by another half-trillion per year.

Re "engineering goal". Nobody wants to have their way of life set as a government backed engineering goal.

False. Nobody wants their way of life degraded by a government-backed engineering goal. If the government can make the population plainly wealthier, they want that. Generally, they accept being a little less wealthy for goals like security (public safety, military, economic stability, social safety nets); we can make the economic programs turn out a general increase in the per-capita wealth, which means the wealthiest don't have to end up one bit less-wealthy for everyone else to end up more-wealthy.

Stability and consumer market health mean buying more quality-of-life goods (luxuries like larger houses, cars, cell phones, better food) and less economic intervention, stabilization, and welfare spending (people in poverty can't support themselves, so a less-stable market is less-efficient). In simple terms: reducing localized poverty increases the proportion of the population able to find employment and thus work, which increases the per-capita production, thus productivity, thus total purchasing and per-person purchasing power (income).

Achieve those goals and you have less direct government intervention. Fail them and you get more direct action to prop up an unstable and pathological system--and then the socialists come out of the works claiming capitalism in all its forms is an utter failure (a huge leap of logic when capitalism in one poorly-managed form experiences localized and periodic market failure).

Is UBI possible?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm conflicted. I love the idea that I could take risks in business, knowing that there'd be soft landing, vs homelessness.

But.

UBI presumes that there are enough folks who want more, are willing to work, and there are enough people also working to pay for stuff other workers create. I just can't see it being more than hypothetical until energy becomes free and robots can design and build more robots.

Neither

[robbhar]

Neither are good economics and involve stealing from others. Socialism is evil, prove me wrong...

Re:Neither

[fluffernutter]

You call it stealing, yet you probably use roads, water, have your garbage picked up. All with the proceeds from "theft".

Basic income is most useful

[Anonymous Coward]

the poorer the population is. And most of the people in very poor countries already have jobs like been farmers. For just a few dollars a day we can achieve 10% economical growth in the poorest of nation by targeted Basic Income.

In the US I would try boosting the Minimum Wage first. We can do Basic Income when the robots start taking the jobs but not til then.

Re:Basic income is most useful

[Anonymous Coward]

>_ In the US I would try boosting the Minimum Wage first.

It's arguable that the US has poorer people than poorer countries with less unequality (considering purchasing power).

>_ We can do Basic Income when the robots start taking the jobs but not til then.

You're aware that robots having been taking jobs for some time already, arent't you?

(some just don't have physical bodies...)

The basic flaw in your premise

[Anonymous Coward]

The basic flaw in your premise is that there is a job out there for every one.

And that everyone can get any job.

The dream of something for nothing is not sustainable.

As automation continues to take more and more jobs and as the the population increases there will be even less jobs to go around.

Capital will be basically paying for it. All those machines producing things and services will be taxed one way or another to pay for it.

And everywhere there has been universal basic income, it allowed people to spend more time with their families, go back to school and enrich their lives.

What people need to realize that an economy needs to serve people and we need to get over this living to work nonsense.

And when you think about it, most jobs are completely meaningless.

Because if things keep going the way they're going, as the wealth disparity continues to increase, well; there are over 300 million guns floating around the US alone. The poor have a tendency to rise up.

The election of Trump was largely due to people being sick and tired of our current system. Unfortunately, we worship Capitalism and have been brainwashed into thinking that is the best and only viable economic system.

Re:The basic flaw in your premise

[Karmashock]

if your problem is that you don't htink you can get a job then you really should look at why that is... why is it that people found it easier to find jobs in the past and less so today?

This has been studied extensively and its all quite fixable. It does require retiring some failed social experiments but in the grand scheme of things they're doomed no matter what.

Re: The basic flaw in your premise

[Anonymous Coward]

The assumption in your premise is that the population will continue to increase. All 1st world countries already have negative population "growth". Without immigration those countries' would not grow. If the are no jobs for humans there will be significantly fewer humans.

Guaranteed job is basically communism, so UBI

[Anonymous Coward]

There's a reason communism failed.

Guaranteed job is a potential nightmare for employers, be they private sector or government. You have no control over labor costs, no control over labor quality if you can't effectively fire, so you're paying people sometimes to do nothing. You do not want to be an employer in a guaranteed job world.

UBI lets you remove all minimum wage requirements etc., such that people that actually work will generally be more motivated, at whatever you pay, than people forced to work, because they have chosen to be there.

I know certain political elements in the U.S. have this "you must work" fetish, but that isn't what the system should be optimizing on. Production and GDP are the financial metrics you want to maximize, not unemployment. I personally give zero fucks if a guy gets a free x-box, as long as he isn't rioting in the streets when I'm commuting.

What about people who don't WANT to work?

[fluffernutter]

There is no way 'guaranteed jobs' can work. There are many people that simply don't want to work. What do you do? Send the police after them and force them to be present? Then it becomes a problem for whomever is charged with making sure they are productive. The only thing you can be sure of is that people will take free money that they don't have to do anything for, UBI is the only way to go.

We are doing TOO MUCH work already.

[drinkypoo]

The basic fundamental problem with work is that it is predicated upon resource consumption, the problem with which is that much of it is unsustainable. This is what makes a job guarantee fundamentally unworkable. Even if you could solve all the other problems with it (hint: you probably can't) you would still have the problem that capitalism is burning through natural capital faster than it can be replenished. This ongoing destruction of the biosphere is going to make life unsustainable on this planet, assuming it hasn't doomed it already (through runaway effects like methane release due to warming.) We not only don't need to do so much work, we need to do less work.

A job guarantee either amounts to wasting many people's time by having them do sustainable make-work, or to destroying the planet's ability to support us by having them do unsustainable make-work.

With that said, there is a middle position — job guarantee now, UBI later. The jobs we do need to do involve ecological remediation. Either way, though, the money is going to have to go through the government, because the so-called "job creators" are unable or unwilling to create the kind of jobs that will permit humanity to continue to exist. They can only manage to make extractive ones that will kill everyone, sooner or later.

Earlier Retirements

[Anonymous Coward]

There seems to be an intermediate solution that keeps getting missed - earlier retirements, not later ones! If jobs are scarce, move people through them more quickly and then grant them UBI to pursue interests and apply skills they've developed over time, working. Move retirement ages to 20 or 30 years of labor ("Twenure?" "Thirdure?") with taxes, then UBI after that when you'll have earned it. No one wants to pay people who haven't earned anything yet (mostly because its unfair to those who have) and the major complaint seem to be in jobs not being available...so...make the jobs available while also moving those who've been in them, out. Part of that retirement would include removal or fulfillment of debts, and a debt ceiling of some sort so you can't just build towers and palaces and get them free, so a lower UBI could then work (and the graduated income tax with the 90%+ top range (like back in the 50s...) worked to curb upper-end abuse too, so bring it back (there's precedence...)). The idea of not even working in the first place is what seems to be stopping people. So, things like forgiving student loans and mortgages after 20 years of payments, etc. could all come into play instead. Wouldn't you retire if you could? If it's been 20 or 30 years, you should be able to even if your job moved, you had to buy a different house, etc..

Native Americans

[kbaud]

Worked on a Indian reservation doing IT for years. The native american peoples have a higher than average suicide rate even though they receive millions from welling meaning people outside the reservation. The money basically says that they are infants and cannot take care of themselves. We get to feel good about themselves while they feel like children. I have seen res houses that have 3 flat screens in the front room and a hole in the roof. Work gives a person a sense of agency. It reminds the mind that if they push they can take care of themselves. When we stop pushing, we die. A rolling stone collects no moss. A person relegated to the side lines of society will feel useless. Suicide rates will go up. Drug use. etc. They stop believing they can make their life better and instead sit around in a stupor waiting for someone else to do it for them.

Re:Native Americans

[drinkypoo]

The native american peoples have a higher than average suicide rate even though they receive millions from welling meaning people outside the reservation. The money basically says that they are infants and cannot take care of themselves

It's not about the money, even slightly. It's about the way they are treated by society. They are targeted by police for abuse. They are denied the right to use their lands as they see fit by their surrounding municipalities. Where natives are given opportunities, they tend to take them. Most reservations are on shit land that nobody else wanted, so they live in shitty locations. They have the choice of living in shit, or living amongst people who will treat them like shit.

Your analysis is designed for your argument, not the other way around.

Solution: BOTH

[Chocy]

There's no way either of these can work on their own. The money from universal income has to come from somewhere. The community agency that pays out that income should also be in charge of scheduling simple jobs for the community to perform. The only way for everyone to profit is for everyone to do their part. Even children and the elderly can perform some kind of simple work that will support their family or their own future. But when we're having to continually feed the US monetary system to keep the our billionaires satisfied, we naturally focus on greedy profit making over forging stronger local economies.

Wait, doesn't this sound like a "guaranteed job" scenario? Well, kind of. The capitalists would never agree to a true universal income unless they profited from it.

Both bad

[TJHook3r]

If robots are doing all the important jobs, I don't think it matters whether people get paid to dig holes or paid to sit on their arses, it's pretty much the same degree of usefulness!

Re:Both bad

[Anonymous Coward]

Guaranteed job: Slavery
Guaranteed income: Welfare (and being permanently poor)

A question

[shayd2]

If we have UBI, will those choosing to work need to pay taxes or will all funding be generated by those using robots?

False dichotomy

[TimMD909]

UBI and guaranteed employment as the only options is a bullshit false dichotomy. It's like asking, "assuming only Marxist methods can be investigated, which road to hell would you like to take?"

I don't have a solution to recommend as a third option, but I know there are many more possibilities. I'm also aware of how giving more power to the government has often caused more problems than it solves.

Redundant.

[Anonymous Coward]

TFA>_ Is it better to be given a basic income -- or a guaranteed job?

Isn't it the same?

Basic income is what you get as pay for doing an important job: living -- if possible in a fuller way than what one would receive for a low-grade job.

Most people worry about receiving a pay without a dignifying job; that's important, for sure -- but we already err in the other direction: we underpay folks in many jobs.

And we remove dignity from them by doing so. People get depressed, feel devalued and eventually either start to think they really are unworthy or move to another place, seeking a better society (which, of course, it's wiser).

It is said you get to know a man by the way it treats his inferiors; likewise, I think we can evaluate a society by the extent it devalues its lowest-ranked members.

You do know stating something definately

[rsilvergun]

doen't make it true, right? There's a massive automation push going on right now. Most economists openly admit 60% of all jobs are "at risk" to be automated in the next 20 years. "at risk" in economics generally means "sooner or later".

We're going to start running out of work to do. And make-work projects are only a short term stop-gap. Worse, if we ignore the problem we'll leave millions to starve. They won't go quietly into the good night, btw. They'll find themselves a dictator and join an army/militia and turn into a junta. Then you'll have a dictatorship and brutal oppression until a war kills off enough of them and blows up enough stuff that the economy gets started again.

Re:You do know stating something definately

[Karmashock]

90 percent of human labor went to agriculture prior to the industrial revolution... today its about 2 to 5 percent.

What happened to all those people?

They got new jobs in new industries.

Its been ongoing like that for some time.

When the factories closed there was a major relocation of labor to services, office work etc...

You can't avoid having some pain when we go through logistical paradigm shifts. However, take heart... every time we've done this we've found work for most people.

Yes, the old jobs will go away... just like the manual wheat farming went away. Do not mourn the passing of such jobs. You didn't want them anyway and we'll give you better jobs going forward. We always have.

Re:Neither...?

[Anonymous Coward]

Then it isn't truly Free.
What it is is "Free" to the person who doesn't pay taxes.
Healthcare has a cost and to claim it is "Free" is a misnomer as someone pays that cost it just may not be the person using the service.

You could do the same thing with housing and food and add a tax to pay for those so everyone could have "Free" housing and "Free" meals it still wouldn't make it free.

So who pays...

[Anonymous Coward]

Who pays for everyone to have an income enough to comfortably live on, exactly? I assume this includes the 4 children of the people most likely to not actually have a career.

Re:Third option

[Plus1Entropy]

Wake up idiot. It's the corps that already have you enslaved, not the government.

Also people don't choose slavery, by definition.

Cut your hair and get a real job

[Anonymous Coward]

"Basic income" relies on Socialist government handouts. That relies on the people being exorbitantly taxed, just to pay somebody. The hardest part about leftist governments--Socialist, Communist, Fascist, Marxist--ist that, sooner or later, the government runs out of other peoples' money.

Or you can learn a valuable skill or trade, market yourself, and then get paid what you're worth ... and maybe get raises and bonuses that you'll never see with your "basic income".

Ayn Rand once compared Socialism to Communism, saying that they have the same end in mind but where Socialism enslaves by vote, Communism enslaves by force ... it's the difference between suicide and homicide.

Key point about UBI: it's only the bare minimum

[Anonymous Coward]

needed to live. This always makes for an incentive and motivation to get an actual job, to earn at least twice as much money, typically more.

Where

[rossdee]

neither is going to happen
here in the UEA
so don't worry about it

Fucking sad

[reanjr]

People have been so strongly indoctrinated that they honestly believe work is good for them. What pathetic lives people have that can't seem to fill them with anything but labor.

Re:Fucking sad

[sysstemlord]

You work that you may keep pace with the earth and the soul of the earth.

For to be idle is to become a stranger unto the seasons, and to step out of life’s procession, that marches in majesty and proud submission towards the infinite.

When you work you are a flute through whose heart the whispering of the hours turns to music.

Which of you would be a reed, dumb and silent, when all else sings together in unison?

Always you have been told that work is a curse and labour a misfortune.

But I say to you that when you work you fulfil a part of earth’s furthest dream, assigned to you when that dream was born,

And in keeping yourself with labour you are in truth loving life,

And to love life through labor is to be intimate with life’s inmost secret

--The Prophet, Kahlil Gibran

Re: Fucking sad

[reanjr]

If you require labor to not be idle, it is only because you have lived your life with an idle mind; one which is incapable of higher thought or self-actualization.

Re: Fucking sad

[sysstemlord]

You may be thinking on a higher level that I don't understand, but still I must ask, what higher thought and self-actualization are you suggesting?
Can you explain what kind of culture, society or even humanity are you imagining, if nobody wants to contribute to labor? Are you suggesting that everybody should be meditating in the nature? or you want some people to do the jobs but the elite to sit and reflect like in ancient Greece?

Re: Fucking sad

[reanjr]

There are so many options; nearly limitless. Some people might like souping up cars, lots of people enjoy gardening or growing food, software developers will not stop what they're doing, travel, playing games, creating art, getting educated, reading books, surfing, road trips, spending time with family, learning to cook new things for yourself or friends and family, camping, survival training, carpentry, build a gazebo, volunteer to help needy kids, ...

I can go on pretty much endlessly with all the ways you can spend time doing something better than labor.

cull the herd like nature does

[Thunder_Princes]

guaranteed survival of the weakest. what could go wrong?

Well basically

[argStyopa]

...jobs are a real thing, while ubi is a complete fantasy.
People suggesting ubi are in most cases out right liars or they haven't thought through the consequences of their ideas.

For example, when trying to rationalize how ubi would be more efficient (to say nothing of trying to find the staggering amounts of money needed for such a program) they talk about it replacing other social programs.

Every.
Single.
One.

So you're saying that we hand every single person $x and then simply wish them well? If they then don't plan for medical care and then can't afford it...we let them die? If they've spent their check on new sneakers and cigarettes, and don't have any food, we let them starve?

Poor people in the West are generally poor for two reasons: they were poor when they got here and they're in that first generation, or because they've made stupid choices. They're not going to make less-stupid choices if you give them more money.

Handing people free money may buy you votes but it doesn't make people better off. Note that this is a proven fact: most lottery winners that win enough to never have to work end up POORER than before.

Re:Well basically

[drinkypoo]

For example, when trying to rationalize how ubi would be more efficient (to say nothing of trying to find the staggering amounts of money needed for such a program) they talk about it replacing other social programs.

We usually talk about a national health care system, too. You can't really do UBI without national health. Since that would decrease costs and improve outcomes, however, it seems like a win-win.

Re:Well basically

[bluefoxlucid]

For example, when trying to rationalize how ubi would be more efficient (to say nothing of trying to find the staggering amounts of money needed for such a program) they talk about it replacing other social programs.

You actually need both--a Dividend (which isn't tied to providing "enough", but to providing a portion of all income) and your targeted social insurances. It works out pretty well for complex reasons, and you can implement it without raising tax burdens or deficit spending due largely to how it's distributed (accounting the payment as a tax refund winds up restructuring $1.1 trillion into $2.0 trillion of Federal spending, of which $1.2 trillion is paying back taxpayers to cover the FICA they paid anyway, overall restructuring $1.1 trillion into around $0.8 trillion).

Mostly, you hide the cost by reducing inefficiencies in the welfare system: You structure Social Security's retirement and disability benefits on top the Dividend so recipients receive the same benefits in total, and you include the Dividend in the means test for social insurances like SNAP and HUD Housing Assistance. You replace the EITC (which pays annually) with the Dividend (which pays twice per month). You end up pushing a lot of households up above poverty guidelines by dumping $6,000 or $12,000 (2 adults, 2 Dividends, 2016) on them throughout the year, so they don't even qualify for aid anymore.

The Dividend makes local economies more-stable, and drives them up toward middle-class. That means fewer welfare claims. It also means the people claiming welfare benefits, being less-poor, get less in benefits; and those budgets spread to more people, achieving greater results and also having a bigger impact on local economies, creating jobs and drawing people out of poverty. Spend less and get more.

Aside from just using the efficiency gains brought by making our social insurances more-effective, you adjust the taxes so the upper income earners and the businesses pay about the same tax rate when counting the general income tax and the Dividend FICA. The cost to build this system from scratch is huge; the cost to build a system incorporating our current social insurances but providing better outcomes is a touch lower than the cost of our current social insurances. "We're paying less to get a better version of X" doesn't mean that better version of X isn't horrendously-expensive, but let's not look too closely.

Poor people in the West are generally poor for two reasons: they were poor when they got here and they're in that first generation, or because they've made stupid choices.

There's also the problem of not being able to reach jobs, enter jobs, or maintain jobs. Education and transit. If you have to walk 5 miles to work every day, that's not happening. If it takes 5 hours to go 3 miles by bus, that's not reliable. Minimum wage has fallen from 48% of the median income in 1950 to 25% of the median in 2016; the cost of transit often erodes the benefit of employment.

Jobs become available by consumer spending, in any case. Development follows rail because rail stops only move if you spend hundreds of billions of dollars; bus stops move with the stroke of a pen. Rail stops are places where people with money get off. They come to your business and buy stuff, and you use the income to pay wages.

As you can imagine, an area collapsed into localized poverty isn't an attractive place to open up a business. Middle-class folks generally don't drive into the slums to buy things; and the slum population doesn't have much money to buy. Further, if you're selling to the local economy only, you're sending money out the supply chain and the tax chain: part of the revenue comes back around, part goes out, and the capacity of the local economy to supply jobs falls further.

That means opening a Target or a McDonalds in t

Are the two necessarily mutually exclusive?

[circusboy]

Iâ(TM)m not sure I understand why they would be. Having a basic income is mostly to guarantee that everyone is clothed, fed, and medically cared for at a good minimum level. Being also guaranteed a job that would allow you to exceed that shouldnâ(TM)t necessarily remove that.

Good lord

[Anonymous Coward]

What is a story like this doing on Slashdot?

People trying to get ahead don't care.

The welfare cunts are always along for the ride.

Slashdot has turned into nothing but a shit stirring site.

In control on the dole?

[biggaijin]

If you survey a large sample of people living on government largesse, I am pretty sure you will find that they don't feel "in control" of their lives. Instead, they are at the mercy of the government and are often completely demoralized by this. The money from any guaranteed income scheme is never enough to provide more than a hardscrabble existence, certainly not enough for most people to feel comfortable. Of course, the government loves this. It provides a permanent underclass of people who depend entirely on the government for their existence, and who are always available to riot in the street when the government needs this. If you want to feel in control of your life, get a job. You can always quit it and get another if you don't like it. Once you are trapped on the dole, you have no control at all.

Re:In control on the dole?

[drinkypoo]

If you survey a large sample of people living on government largesse, I am pretty sure you will find that they don't feel "in control" of their lives. Instead, they are at the mercy of the government and are often completely demoralized by this.

That is specifically because if you are on government assistance, if you better yourself, they will take it away. For example, you can't have GA if you have too much money in the bank. So if you manage to save a little money so that you can better your situation, you'll lose your GA and you won't be in a better situation at all. UBI which is given to all people regardless of circumstance is not subject to this same effect.

Re:Third option

[Kjella]

No rational person would choose to be a government slave.
There are not enough rational persons to make this a worthwhile argument.

No rational person would choose a subsistence living, it's extremely harsh to provide everything on your own and pretty much any modern day man massively cheats by buying tools, medicine and other things made by advanced civilization. So you have to deal with either private companies or the public government, neither is really all that voluntary if there's no real competition. Good competition is not the default, there's a massive number of natural reasons for that like economics of scale and a host of nasty business tactics to thwart real competition. In fact without any laws to the contrary they'd all organize like cartels and fuck you over ten times worse than today. Yet despite all evidence to the contrary some people still act like unfettered capitalism would be rainbows and unicorns.

Have been there

[Vadim Makarov]

The whole post is a troll. The guaranteed job system has been tried on a large scale in Soviet Union. There every adult able to work had to work, and not being employed (after a certain short time period) was a crime. I'd say the universal basic income sounds better than that.

UBI FTW

[richardtallent]

A universal income has a few advantages:

- Reduces personal catastrophic financial risk in starting a new small business or non-profit.
- Supports people obtaining an education.
- Supports people who are not able to work (invalid, disabled, etc.)
- Provides a "floor" of survivability for people who *are* employed but at sub-living-wage.
- Encourages finding a job, because it doesn't go away when you do obtain a job. Said another way, it benefits everyone, not just those who have a job.
- Puts more power in employees' hands when it comes to bargaining for wages, health and safety, etc. The old-school way of handling this is unionizing, which can still work as well, but a UBI improves the employees' negotiating position without the need for collective contracts or mass strikes.
- Done properly, could replace *dozens* of complex, expensive government assistance programs (unemployment, welfare, social security, etc.), improving government efficiency and effectiveness.
- Would encourage legal migration, as only citizens would enjoy the benefits.
- Would support families where one partner wants to leave the workforce (fully or partially) to care for children or elderly relatives.
- A UBI *could* be scaled based on age (making it a better possible replacement for Social Security) or past income history (making it more viable as a replacement for unemployment insurance).

Yes, there *are* people who would never lift a finger again to be useful to society in any way if they could instead survive on a UBI. But I believe the vast majority would use that spare time to improve themselves (education, job skills, etc.), to improve their communities (volunteering, activism), and to hold their ground for the *right* job.

Also, while I don't think it should be means-tested (for the above reasons), a UBI could provide extra financial incentive for people who *are* showing that they are claiming other income during the same month. Or those who are in school and making good grades. Or those who can show time volunteered at a non profit. Or simply based on age.

Three other points:

- Even if someone sat on their butt and collected their UBI for the rest of their life, they would be spending their UBI, which does much more to increase economic activity then a rich guy sticking those same dollars into stock market speculation.

- A "guaranteed job" would be far too expensive to manage for whatever useful output the recipients give in labor. This isn't the 1930s, we don't need a bunch of unskilled government workers building railroads and dams by hand. So we would have them doing something fairly useless, while we would have to also provide all of the oversight to manage the workforce, enforce participation/eligibility, handle health and safety risks, provide training, etc.

- Neither form of assistance makes sense unless it is paired with universal healthcare.

Neither really

[Anonymous Coward]

If I had to choose I would say guaranteed job because even if I donâ(TM)t like the job, it implies me working and adding to society in some productive way.

A universal income implies no incentive to work or be productive, no value to society and quite frankly where will the money come from ?

It's all a scam

[amorsen]

There is a word in economics for the robot takeover. It's called "productivity growth". I.e. each worker produces more because they get robot help (or for any other reason) so fewer workers are needed to achieve the same output. Productivity growth is one of the very basic statistics that we know a lot about.

If the robot takeover was imminent, we would expect to see productivity growth of at least 10% a year, the same kind of growth that we saw in the previous great changes like the beginning of industrialization. In reality, productivity is struggling to grow at all! We are seeing a trend towards lower and lower growth.

Robot-takeover advocates keep saying that "it's just around the corner". However, it seems entirely unlikely that the downward-pointing productivity growth trend of the last decades would suddenly and drastically change.

Communism again?

[Anonymous Coward]

Stop trying to make communism happen, it never works, and ends up with everyone being poor being allocated to whatever factory the government wills them to work.

You have all of the security and choice and equality of being in prison.

Please do some basic research on 'food lines' in the USSR, and every other place this has been tried. IT. DOESN'T. WORK. INTRINSICLY.

False Dichotomy

[jsepeta]

You're presenting a false choice.

1) We're not going to have a choice. Corporations will decide that for us.
2) Why not both? You're earning your universal income and selecting your guaranteed job. Republicans will ensure that those who don't work won't receive money, and will suffer in poverty.

Nobody has answers...

[Anonymous Coward]

People championing UBI have not been able to successfully answer the following:

- If companies like McDonaldâ(TM)s and Wal-Mart already pay low wages and encourage their workers to sign up for government assistance, how would this change if a UBI was implemented?

- If companies managed to lobby for eliminating corporate taxes, then wouldnâ(TM)t a UBI shift that responsibility to tax payers? Essentially, companies would be extracting labor and profits from us, even more so than today. Like serfdom 2.0.

- Is a UBI tied to inflation? Would it get readjusted every year or, like the minimum wage, when government gets around to it? Wouldnâ(TM)t that make it useless?

- Would other welfare programs be completely eliminated? What about heroin addicts who spend all their UBI getting high? Would we still have tax funded programs to help them or would we let them die?

I never get concrete answers from UBI supporters. âoeLetâ(TM)s implement it and figure it out as we goâ is their response.

Doesn't matter

[Anonymous Coward]

Either one is socialism, and therefore corrosive to the human soul.

Free is taxes

[Anonymous Coward]

The government, local, state and federal hire people to work, but yet also pay people who dont work. Seems they should making those that dont work actually work as well. DO something Why would any city or state have a spec of junk on the ground if there are people being paid to do nothing.

You want your "free money" then you show up and pick up trash, cleanup the park, sweep the streets.

Re:Neither...?

[brian.stinar]

I don't see a problem in need of a solution - only a potential future problem predicted in much the same way that futurists, fortune tellers, divinators, politicians and con men have been predicting the future for quite some. This is not foresight attempting to come up with a pragmatic solution before a problem becomes major - it is a solution in search of a problem. In every instance I've replace a portion of a job, the capable person who's job I replaced has thanked me for creating a program to do the most mindless, boring, portions of their job. When someone was fired, it was actually for not working towards automating their own job quickly enough, freeing them to work on more interesting things. They were fired for being complacent and happy with a mindless job that a machine could do.

I don't actually believe universal basic income would come anywhere close to preventing the *possible* collapse of western society. If that is your goal, I think ecological issues should all be in the top ten. The U.S. unemployment is at 3.6% according to Google. This is SUPER low. Like, historically low. Like, so low that I think it's actually not correct, either due to some kind of crazy hot employment bubble (systemic problem), or tons of discouraged workers stopping looking for a job and/or being stuck in part time solutions (problem with measurements.)

What are we trying to solve??

[Anonymous Coward]

The real question is what are we trying to solve? Providing the basic necessities or providing some level of freedom of choice (not only including bare necessities)?

Providing a "job" for everyone seems in practice more difficult and vague than providing some kind of basic income (or coverage of basic necessities). It is more difficult to predict how will humans operate, what will they want to do as work etc.
For me it seems logical, that societies should provide some basic level of necessities and some basic levels of jobs (apart from the ones related to common good). After this point, some source of income should be given (since money is a factor of economic and not only freedom nowadays) that will assist individuals in making their own choices. The balances between the two is a matter of each society to define.

However, I think that answering this question is not enough. It is like treating the existing problems with a patch solution. When societies could radically change (revolution - not necessarily a violent one). Individuals and societies nowadays have more access to knowledge, we have technological advances available that allow humanity to apply ideas that 50 years ago were still considered to be science fiction). IMHO, it is not just a matter of guaranteeing some basic source of survival for the individual is how we want out societies to be (re)formed and under which ideas.

Get the government out of it and let free markets

[Anonymous Coward]

The only good way of having a "guaranteed job" is for the government to get out of the way and stop giving handouts. This translates into everyone getting a job to pay for their needs and wants. Basic income is ridiculous socialist pipe dream and has never worked in history.
Get the government out of it and let free markets thrive.

Socialism by any other name always fails.

[cpbright]

Point somewhere, anywhere, where a guaranteed job or income has worked. The answer is nowhere. There is always a difference between a hand out and a hand up. The Socialists want you to believe they are the same thing because it makes them feel good to do so.

NEITHER -- AND BOTH -- The happy place in between.

[Anonymous Coward]

I was talking with a walmart clerk the other day. She was really excited. Today was the day she got paid. Oh, I asked, do you have something in mind for your windfall? I'm thinking stock market index fund. She's buying food. And that kind of highlights the difference between the stratified layers in our society.

So ask yourself: If you're on the bottom of the economic pyramid, and you come into money, what do you want to buy? What's at the top of the list? Food & Shelter perhaps? Preventive Medical care ought to be there, but is frequently priced out of reach even with insurance.

Our climate, throughout most of the country, is rough. At times of the year it's very hot, or very cold, or very wet, or some combination of all 3. Living on the street is hard. Climate aside, the lack of safety, the stress, is severe!

Consider Elon Musk's Boring company: What could we do with that?

Humans have lived underground before. Today, in Coober Pedy Australia, there's a entire town where folks live underground. No need for air conditioning in the summer. No need for heat in the winter. It's a very cost effective solution.

It's also clearly necessary for off-world colonies. Solar radiation would make the lunar surface, or the martian surface, rather dangerous.

Consider an underground city: There are issues of security, how to police, how to protect, how invasive to be in that protection? Cameras in every hall? In every room? What will people accept? What will they tolerate? What do they need?

We'll need to figure out how to handle plumbing. Stand alone toilets or centralized sewage? How about air ventilation? Or how about farming? Air-roots & misting systems? Or something else?

These are problems that need to be resolved. It's cheaper to do it here on earth. It's nothing that can't be solved with time & experimentation.

Which brings us back to the start.

What if, rather than UBI, that is giving folks money to go out and buy food & shelter, we instead provided food & shelter to anyone who wanted it for free. Oh, it's going to be lousy. But it's a floor for society. Everyone has food, no one has to go hungry, even if it is only dirt-cheap rice & beans. Everyone has shelter, and safety, even if it is barely enough space to lie down in an underground room with no windows.

With the major expenses covered, any UBI provided can be much, much lower. Folks who want to eat better food, or who want an Xbox, can work for it. But they're not working to live another day. They're working to have a better life with short terms goals and frequent, almost immediate, benefits & results.

Society benefits as we discover how to build off-world cities that are safe & productive. Employers benefit from a steady supply of temporary labor. Nobody is working to eat another day. We, at all socioeconomic levels, throughout our whole society, are no longer living one bad event away from open revolt.

Just a thought...

Basic income from a millionaire's perspective?

[Paul Fernhout]

Something I wrote about a decade ago: https://pdfernhout.net/basic-i...
"One may ask, why should millionaires support a basic income as depicted in Marshall Brain's Australia Project fictional example in "Manna", but, say, right now in the USA, of US$2000 a month per person (with some deducted for universal health insurance), or $24K per year? With about 300 million residents in the USA, this would require about seven trillion US dollars a year, or half the current US GDP. Surely such a proposal would be a disaster for millionaires in terms of crushing taxes? Or would it?"

Lower retirement age + universal income after that

[ET3D]

I don't see how 'guaranteed work' can work, if one assumes that indeed people will be let go because they've been replaced by AI/robots. The more advanced AI will become, the more people will be supplanted by it. We won't be able to meaningfully assign all these people to jobs.

Reducing the retirement age could help. Older people already have it harder, both in finding a job and in doing it (in general; this doesn't apply to all jobs equally). Younger people are also easier to retrain. If we thin out the job market by removing older people (say 50+) who'd rather retire, and giving them a way to continue to live which is not dependent on previous savings, we provide more space in the work market for younger people. It could be a win-win situation for all age brackets.

Granted the issue of a job being an important part of one's life is also something to be considered at 50+, but if we can't afford to employ everyone, I think we'd rather tilt the job market in a way that would give younger people the jobs, and let the older ones rest and find more meaning in life.

I see what you're trying for...

[Anonymous Coward]

But no, forcing people to work to get their benefits is not an automatically superior solution. Yes it sounds logical to want people to contribute in life, but how can you guarantee one...that everyone can get jobs, and two that they're paid "enough"? Those were the two conditions you mentioned, right?

Contrast that with everyone receiving $X / month. Pretty simple to implement. And then people can choose what to do with their time, like go back to school or start a company they care about. Or donate their time to solving a problem they see in the world. Or work to get something above that minimum level of enjoyment that the $X - expenses can buy.

Forcing people to pick up garbage or waste their time sitting in an office 9-5 has very little value to me, and I don't want to waste anyone else's life like this unless it's truly necessary. And I disagree that people will do nothing the majority of the time. People get bored, and if given the choice, will look for ways to improve things.

the final soulution (7%)

[tibbar]

yes .. give everybody free money, then free drug of their choice ...
then find it's not profitable .. out source drug making to [third world country]

millions are overdosed/poisoned in weeks

problem solved

Neither?

[Anonymous Coward]

Given a one or the other choice maybe guaranteed job, but both centralize resource management with the government that NEVER ends well (see Russia, China under Mao, etc). Government should busy themselves in creating an environment where companies/individuals can fulfill meaningful economic niches, and prevent corporations from gaining too much power over the economy or taking advantage of the public (polluting, unfair labor practices, etc). There is a reason why, at least here in the US, we are supposed to have a significant separation of powers. If you centralize power of any kind you create an environment ripe for waste, corruption, theft and abuse.

Re:Neither?

[king neckbeard]

But UBI is the most decentralized as power can get. Instead of letting either the government or businesses have control over the masses, individuals end up having the most freedom.

Replace the tax free allowance

[Bruce66423]

In the UK you don't pay income tax on the first £11,000. Therefore setting that to zero allows the payment of £2,200 to everyone instead - or somewhat more given how much bureaucracy you can delete because everyone's income has 20% deducted at source. Squeeze out some other savings - e.g. on capital gains tax - and you can get to a level sufficient to end the need for many people to sign on for unemployment benefit, and certainly no gap whilst your application for it is being processed.

Re: Replace the tax free allowance

[Anonymous Coward]

You also don't pay national insurance on the first £8000, so take that down to £0, and you are looking at a UBI of £3000, except you pay some of that back in tax and NI, so in reality you're pretty much up to £4000, which is already up to roughly half of basic unemployment benefit or state pension.

Why not both guarenteed income and jobs?

[goombah99]

One could offer a small guaranteed income and if you want more then a guaranteed job as well. It doesn't have to be either-or.

As for meaning full work the Depression era found many meaningful jobs. Every time I visit an older park I'm so grateful for the lasting staircases and bridges that were hewn into the walls of canyons for me to walk through. We don't have that scale of free labor these days. I'm sure it was hard work but it was meaningful and lasting. Many people were employed as artists and not only made epic frescos and such that we still have today but also produced temporary art like theater for the desperately poor folks of the depression. It was morale boosting and reminded people we are a society that can come together. It had great value to defining US culture. It was also a time when a lot of new ideas got explored too.
Even mathematical functions were enumerated and tabulated (before computers) so that people could knwo the zeros of the hypergeometric series functions for my gaussian quadrature integrals needed to compute the amount of concrete needed for hoover damn or the stress on an airplane wing.

Lots of meaningful work from blue-collar to academian occured in the depression era jobs programs.

Paying one person to dig a hole and another for fill it back in is unlikely to be what people mean by gaurenteed jobs.

In fact I would argue that compulsory public service is really a good thing for citizens. I certainly volunteer lots of time to causes because I can see the impact it has on my community. That impact makes me feel good inside. But it also binds me to my community too which is a good thing.

Finally, if you study the Gini index and consider which countries have the largest economic mobility (Do you earn a different wage than your father did?) then you see that countries with good safety nets actually have more economic mobility than those without. I would guess this is because people willing to take risks can achieve more, but they won't take them if there's a chance of losing everything. Thus just knowing there's a net helps even if you never need it.

Re:Why not both guarenteed income and jobs?

[Alypius]

I think the risk of litigation is what killed the citizen-park projects. There was a case a few months ago where folks went on their own to install a wheelchair ramp at their park. The city tore it down because it hadn't gone through the proper process.

Re:Why not both guarenteed income and jobs?

[Opportunist]

It wouldn't even have to be a "guaranteed job", but what I could easily see is some kind of gig-economy for what's now low-end jobs where no to very little training is needed. People who don't work could take such jobs for expenses they have (like getting a new washing machine or TV), for a few weeks, i.e. as long as it takes to get the money together. I could well see some sort of online service come into play where employers could post their requirements, people could post their resumes and a matchmaking service bringing them together, complete with thumbs-up/down votes for good/bad employers and employees that are honest with their abilities or claim some they don't have.

Not so much like Xing or LinkedIn, it would probably be closer to uber-for-jobs. We are already essentially in a gig-economy for some jobs, why not go all the way if that's where we're heading anyway?

Re: Why not both guarenteed income and jobs?

[Anonymous Coward]

To some extent it is where things are going. In theory Universal Credit in the UK is supposed to be 'real time' such that you could take a job for a week, and then go back on benefits if you couldn't find work for the following week. (In reality it's been taking weeks to reinstate benefits). UBI would simply do away with the admin, and all work would be in addition, but it is not politically viable at present.

However, there might also be unintended or unexpected consequences. For example, if you can pick up the odd bit of work here and there to make life more tolerable, will people develop sufficient skills? Will there be so many people willing to work for pennies (assuming no minimum wage) that most human labour is worth very little, or would UBI be enough to make people be sufficiently choosy that human labour would be valuable? Will everyone spend time to pick up great skills and reduce the wages for IT jobs?

It's hard to know, as there are so many potential variables and possible behaviours.

Re:Why not both guarenteed income and jobs?

[Darinbob]

It was't free labor. It wasn't much money, but they didn't work for "free". And when there were no jobs available those work programs were an important safety net. However most of them required someone to be able bodied since it was strenuous manual labor.

Re: Why not both guarenteed income and jobs?

[Anonymous Coward]

Compulsory work for me is good because you get dopamine from working for free? Fuck you.

Re:Why not both guarenteed income and jobs?

[goombah99]

freely tapped labor market. I,e, like free memory -- not in use. Not free as in free beer. I spoke too causally.

Re: Why not both guarenteed income and jobs?

[Anonymous Coward]

You are just the selfish sort of person that needs a bit more citizenship. Creating something in your community helps one see that. Compulsory civil service is common in europe and asia and the middle east even.

Re: Why not both guarenteed income and jobs?

[Anonymous Coward]

You're so selfish! Give me more of your time and money, you selfish asshole! You so greedy! Give me MORE!

Re:Why not both guarenteed income and jobs?

[RevDisk]

I volunteer for things too, because I enjoy doing so. If it became compulsory public service, I certainly would not. Here in the US, we have an amendment that ended slavery that specifically forbids involuntary servitude. Which is what that would be.

Oddly enough, listening to a podcast (Revolutions) where that compulsory unpaid public service was a huge grievance against the French monarchy. Apparently it was common under many feudal governments, and typically ended by revolution or governments wanting to head off revolutions.

Re:Why not both guarenteed income and jobs?

[Anonymous Coward]

Lovely response! What a helpful insight!

Re:Why not both guarenteed income and jobs?

[Anonymous Coward]

I like your idea here. One thing I do not like about make work is that with UBI folks can go for the jobs they feel they are most suited for or might start a business or be inventive or do art. Maybe they have decided they saved enough to retire and then garden to volunteer or whatever they wish. The additional guarenteed job if you want one helps those of less imagination to not have to live on the bare minimum UBI gives so that they can go out and enjoy life on their time off and maybe splurge here and there. Bravo, wonderful idea.

Re:Why not both guarenteed income and jobs?

[Anonymous Coward]

This was discussed in Voyage From Yesteryear (James P Hogan, a Libertarian writer). A distant planet was colonized by frozen embryos with robotic caregivers. So they started out with everything provided by the robots (automation) and society continued with that path.

Eventually ships come from Earth to investigate how it went, and see what advantage can be garnered from it.

Automation produces pretty much everything needed for life, but folks produce artistic and other specialty goods which are shared (for free) in central exchange areas. This is incomprehensible to the Earth bureaucrats, who ask, "But what keeps people from just sitting back and doing nothing?" The reply is the crux of the story, "Why would they choose to be poor?"

Spoiler: Wealth is not seen as goods acquired, but rather as reputation earned.

Perfect

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree wholeheartedly with what you say. It has been my opinion for a long time. Frankly it seems an inescapable conclusion if one thinks about it for even a brief moment.

But, the eloquence with which you expressed it has always escaped me.

Someone has to take out the garbage. Someone has to process the human excrement. Nobody likes these jobs, but these jobs MUST be done. Who does these things when no one is willing to do them? The all too often promised - in these discussions - robots have been either abject failures or have yet to materialize and likely never will.

To this day, the man that collects the garbage and the man that sucks out the septic tank does it, not because he enjoys his work but, because he has the ability and was unable to get a better paying job.

Re: Perfect

[Anonymous Coward]

To this day, the man that collects the garbage and the man that sucks out the septic tank does it, not because he enjoys his work but, because he has the ability and was unable to get a better paying job.

Easily proven wrong by surveys of individuals employed in those industries.

They do, however resent being condemned for the valuable service they provide making them outcaste.

Yes, affordable

[Bruce66423]

Given that in the UK you don't pay income tax on the first £11,000, setting that to zero allows the payment of £2,200 to everyone instead - or somewhat more given how much bureaucracy you can delete because everyone's income has 20% deducted at source. Squeeze out some other savings - e.g. on capital gains tax - and you can get to a level sufficient to end the need for many people to sign on for unemployment benefit, and certainly no gap whilst your application for it is being processed.

However some teenagers...

[Bruce66423]

Sadly there is a substantial group who are incapable of entertaining themselves and so who spend their time destroying things. It requires a certain amount of self awareness / social skill to keep yourself entertained. Almost by definition anyone on Slashdot has these skills - but there are a lot of people who don't.

This fly on the wall documentary from Her Majesty's Prison Durham will remind you of their existence

https://www.channel4.com/progr...

Re:However some teenagers...

[Opportunist]

And you think these people can hold down jobs and would not get even MORE destructive if having to work frustrating, demeaning and utterly pointless jobs?

Job not required

[chesh1re]

Our job is to spend money, not to make it!

Nah - that's overly pessimistic

[Bruce66423]

Given that the cost of UBI will come out of tax changes or somewhere, actual demand won't increase, so these suppliers won't be faced with a shift in their demand curve.

Re:Nah - that's overly pessimistic

[DalM]

But demand will increase. That's exactly what will happen. Consider apartments as an easy example:

Say there is a nice area of town with nice apartments, a nice coffee shop down the street, easy access to transit, and good schools. Naturally lots and lots of people want to live there, many more people then there are units to rent. So naturally prices for those apartments are going to be high -supply and demand. Now you give everyone in the city an extra $1000 a month. Great, now more people can afford to live in the high end district, right? Of course not. Now that there are more people competing for the still limited available units, apartment owners are going to start raising rates. Ultimately, that extra $1000 didn't help anyone. Markets are going to optimize themselves.

Neither UBI nor Guaranteed Jobs will do good

[Anonymous Coward]

Government handouts only cause more problems and dependency. There may be a temporary relief, but just like giving sugar (poison) to children as a regular part of their diet, eventually there will be consequences. It teaches the citizenry to either be a slave (poor) or a slavemaster (rich). This is the ultimate end (and goal) of fiat currencies. Unless the citizens' concept and understanding of money is changed no type of government handout will do any ultimate good.

Unconditional things are bad

[iamacat]

Basic income allows you to trash your place, party with loud music at night, throw trash on the streets and generally be a pest to society. Job guarantee allows you to additionally do shobby work and be an asshole to your boss, coworkers and customers. People need to get their goods and services in exchange for something, even though it may not be a traditional factory job. Let people work as actors in VR games. Bad behaviour should have consequences that people are not able to ignore.

Re:Unconditional things are bad

[king neckbeard]

You are arguing for laws on crimes, not on forcing people to do work in order to get the resources robots create.

are you in need of a loan

[Anonymous Coward]

I live in USA Florida and i am a happy woman today? I told my self that any Loan lender that could change my Life and that of my family, i will refer any person that is looking for loan to Them. If you are in need of loan and you are 100% sure to pay back the loan please contact them and please tell them that Mrs Sharon Coolidge referred you to them. barrymoreloans12@gmail.com or you can text +19725345446

Tiered system to give options...

[Anonymous Coward]

I would really like to see a system that incentivizes work... but also provides a fall-back. For example, UBI is provided a baseline that ensures just enough to sustain... but no more. If you get a private industry job, then you can make more based on market demand. Also, the government could get something in return by providing a mix of jobs that pay a little more than UBI, but would enable building out public works projects... similar to the FDR era where national parks, dams, and roads were all built out with projects like these. This way people can still choose their income level based on what is their motivation / skills, and we can get some public works projects developed along the way.

An interesting side effect of this system is that private industry wouldn't have to pay as much since UBI is already guaranteed, so with the lower overhead of the cost of workers, private industry and manual labor may still have a place in a post-AI world... in fact since manual labor would suddenly become less expensive, private companies could provide competition to offset AI powered jobs.

This almost seems like a dumb question to me.

[TomGreenhaw]

A guaranteed but not compulsory part time job with a livable wage hands down beats a free hand out. But first a guaranteed free education including secondary and trade schools, healthcare and child care.

IMHO, we should rename the "Unemployment Office" to the "Employment Office". It should be run locally like school districts and there should be standardized criteria for measuring productivity. Will is be perfect? No. Will their be corruption? Probably some.

Any system we devise will have bugs because we cannot perfect human nature.

While it may not be what lazy people want, its what they need.

Macroeconomics

[smugfunt]

What would be the macroeconomic effects of UBI and JG?

UBI is inflationary: you are handing out money, and it would have to be a lot, without getting anything back.

A Job Guarantee on the other hand acts as an inflation anchor. Because it is a buffer stock of employed people it damps oscillations in the business cycle.

Note that the JG is an idea that has been developed over 20 years by economists. The UBI has a 100 year history but economists tend not to like it too much.

You can find a recent paper on the JG here which answers a lot of FAQs.

Wrong question because it started with money

[shanen]

The entire AskSlashdot topic is wrongheaded because it started from money, not time. So I have to begin by reviewing Ekronomics 101.

In highly advanced societies the essential working time is quite small. Averaged over the entire population, perhaps 2 hours/week is actually required to produce all the food, clothing, and housing required. The real question is what happens to the rest of the time. The topic is assuming that the possible answers are "no work" or "fake work". (By the way, in an extremely poor society people work ALL the time and still starve to death. Take Yemen, for example.)

Ekronomics divides the rest of the time into investment and recreational. Investment is things like education and research and new infrastructure that increase productivity and actually reduce the essential time even more. There are also meta levels of investment time that improve investment time or contribute to new forms of recreational time.

Recreational time is the bottomless pit, but it has many interesting characteristics. For example, many recreational products are not consumed in use. The same book or movie can be read or watched by many people, or even be reread or rewatched by the same people. There is also a special category for people who create new recreational goods and services. They, too, are contributing to the economy and their work is highly valued, even though it is not essential. However, to improve the future status of the society in competition with other societies, it is important to convert more of the recreational time into investment time...

From this ekronomic perspective, the question looks very different. Fake work has to be regarded as a kind of recreational time, but the least pleasant, and the only possible rationale is if you think it will force more people to increase their investment time. (This is for advanced societies where the essential time cannot be increased.)

Anyway, that's already more time than I want to give Slashdot right now, especially since this article failed to pay me back with any recreational time in the form of funny comments.

Re:Wrong question because it started with money

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey, it sounds like you might like The Theory of The Leisure Class by Thorsten Veblen.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Theory_of_the_Leisure_Class

Since it's from 1899 you can get it for free or get a cheap paperback version.

Re:Wrong question because it started with money

[Anonymous Coward]

In highly advanced societies the essential working time is quite small. Averaged over the entire population, perhaps 2 hours/week is actually required to produce all the food, clothing, and housing required

yeah... I spend almost double that just commuting to my job every day. imagine how much food, housing and clothing I could produce!

It's spelled "dystopian" except on Slashdot

[shanen]

You managed to remind me of this one titled "Couch Potatoes of the World, Unite!": http://eco-epistemology.blogsp...

Jesus christ people- this is nothing but socialism

[Anonymous Coward]

And we already have seen what happens under socialism depending on the degrees its bet left to get to in different parts of the world. It's also fear mongering about something that is likely to pass. As technology has developed we've always innovated and found new things to do with our time that have employed people in other newer jobs that have been created and generally better jobs with more pay- but the transitions take time and the politicians utilize this fear mongering to get people on board with politics that undermine our technological advancements.

Generally the more socialism we have the more prices skyrocket, efficiencies decline, and we end up with an economy that suffers. In the extreme cases even resource wealthy socialist states collapse and people starve to death. It's not like we don't already have that happening now in certain socialist-extreme countries.

What I cringe at is I see the failures in efficiencies of "democratic socialism" in Europe and the high costs of those who suffer under its fate. It gives many the impression of wealth at first glance while ensuring economic failure down the line. I know this because I operate businesses in different parts of the world and I see just how much better we're all paying in taxation and waste. My low wage employees in less socialist regions are better off! They're not dependent on government handouts to get by. Comparatively there tends to be more of a glut of unemployment in the socialist regions we operate. The wages is less socialist countries aren't being undermined to the same degree, efficiencies are greater, we're more profitable, costs of living are generally lower, and so on.

I don't fear robots. Robots are just the continuation of automation technology which has been happening for hundreds if not thousands of years. I fear those who think they know better undermining free markets and capitalism that enables us all the thrive to the best of our abilities. We don't unfortunately have a free market in so many cases because of stupid statists thinking it would be wise to implement monopolies and price controls rather than leaving the market alone. I don't agree with crony capitalism and I don't agree that anybody should be prohibited from doing anything that doesn't harm another. The existence of some risk alone should never be justification for restraints on peoples freedoms and rights (drivers licenses for example are a restriction and do little and there should be no restrictions or drivers licenses thereof). Then arguing for more costly controls to fix problems that then lead to inefficiency and frequently do nothing at all to even solve the problems long term anyway.

The libertarians and the migration of people to New Hampshire (Free State Project/Shire Society) is the only workable solution going forward to solve the problem for at least those who partake. The rest of the world is going to collapse under its own weight due to socialism. Just because it sounds good, we want it, etc. doesn't make it work. Small scale tests of limited socialism in small countries doesn't work on larger scales particularly without boarder walls keeping people out/in. If you want security for yourself you can get it. There are solutions to these problems in free markets- it's called insurance. If you want it for everybody you won't get it. What happens in the end if you let it play out at scale is total economic collapse.

BOTH ARE HORRIBLE!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Both are horrible ideas born from Communism. Paying someone to do nothing all day is just the stupidity of a child. There is ALWAYS things that need to be done in this world. Adults call this work. Roads always need repairing. New roads are needed all the time. That is just ONE of thousands of tasks that need to be performed for society to continue to live the good life that we have come to expect. Expectations among the young and dumb are that everything we have will always be there because they have always been there for them.

Giving a job is the same as not working. We call these people that have these jobs many things, but mostly union worker, government worker, and millennial. If you are guaranteed a job how much work do you think that these people will do? They can't be fired. There is no problems should they sleep all day on the job as it is guaranteed.

There is no difference between the two for the most part, and no difference than welfare without work. Millennials have to put away their participation ribbons and understand that mommy and daddy aren't going to feed and provide for them, and that they actually have to add to society rather than play time all the time.

None

[Anonymous Coward]

We simply have to address the real matter at hand: how to get rid of the redundant populace in the most humane and efficient way possible. Mankind must be and will be reduced to a sustainable level. Sorry but no amount of sophisticated humanistic drivel can solve the situation.

Sure, sure thing jleft.

[Anonymous Coward]

The jleft: robots are taking our jobs
Also the jleft: we need immigrants, we've got too many jobs
Also the jleft: fight overpopulation, don't have kids
Also the jleft: feed the 3rd world

Make socialism opt-in

[Anonymous Coward]

I want to opt-out

"Free money"?

[shabble]

Should everyone be given free money?

And where, prey tell, is this 'free money' going to come from?

Oh - from those actually gainfully employed. Via tax.

Or by increasing government debt. Upon which the gainfully employed will be paying their taxes to pay the interest for. And their children to pay the principle off.

There is no 'free money.'

Re:"Free money"?

[JustNiz]

Well said.

Negative and flat income tax.

[Ungrounded Lightning]

On a related note:

On one hand the welfare system, financially, is terribly inefficient, serving mainly as welfare for bureaucrats. Some years ago it was estimated that, for each dollar of benefits given to a recipient, over six were spent on administration. The dollar-for-dollar loss of welfare payments if the recipient has some income made working at all a net loss (of both time and the expenses of things like work-suitable clothing and transport to/from the job site), encouraging total dependence, while the presumption that a man in the home should be financing the family (and elimination of welfare payments if one was present) led to multiple generations of unwed mothers among the poor and enormous social fallout.

On the other hand, the income tax is similarly costly (beyond the tax money paid), both in the actual costs of dealing with the reporting,, computation, and money-handling requirements and the economic cost of the market distortions resulting from the complex rules and policy rewards and punishments built into the tax rates and rules. Even without the policy builtins, the graduated tax system would still require the heavy-duty accounting.

One proposal (which has been around for decades) is the "negative income flat tax". This works as follows:
1. Every citizen (or other qualifying person), regardless of income, receives a stipend corresponding roughly to full welfare benefits.
2. Every dollar of income, starting with the first, is taxed at a fixed rate.
3. The stipend and rates are set so that, for the bulk of the population, the net income transfer is about the same as the current system.
4. The entire welfare and internal revenue departments and all their programs and regulations are replaced by a :
4a. Checking that nobody signs up for more than one stipend.
4b. Checking that the flat tax is withheld and transferred to the treasury.

Some characteristics of this:
- If a wage-earner's flat tax is withheld by his employer and paid to the government, there's no need for the government to even know who he is. No filing papers with the government for each job and/or at the end of the year. Very simple reporting for the employer, too.
- Those living on stipends can spend it as they please, without constant oversight from the government. If they need a little more, and can find employment, they can just go ahead, without loss of benefits. This breaks the "welfare trap" and makes working for pay, whether intermittent, piecework, part time, or full time, a net gain.
- The simplification of the tax structure would also drastically reduce the administrative costs and barriers to going into business or hiring others. This should produce a substantial increase in productive employment and GDP.
- The bulk of the bureaucrats can be laid off, at enormous reduction of cost to the government. (They can live on their stipends or go find more productive work.) This savings should more than offset any shortfalls from the mismatch of the simple rates to the current tax and welfare cash flows.
- Similarly the bulk of the tax-related accountants and financial workers would no longer be needed by the bulk of the population, as well. (Again they COULD live on the stipend. But their skills should be largely transferable to other employment - including bookkeeping for the expected explosion of new small businesses.)

You could even keep the effect of the few, critical, major deductions under this system without breaking it back into a forest of regulations and bureaucrats:
- Mortgage interest deduction on primary residence:
- The bkorrower declares to the lender that this mortgage is on his primary residence and supplies his (social security / stipend) number.
- The lender supplies this, along with the interest charged, to the "only one stipend per person" department, which checks "only one primary residence at a time per stipend".

Re:Negative and flat income tax.

[Areyoukiddingme]

On one hand the welfare system, financially, is terribly inefficient, serving mainly as welfare for bureaucrats.

I'm not sure it's inefficient. The bureaucracy seems to be the perfect system for finding, accumulating, and retaining petty tyrants, so the rest of us don't have to deal with them very much.

Guaranteed Job

[Anonymous Coward]

Is this a trick question??

Don't buy in to this 'either/or'...

[Anonymous Coward]

The phrasing of this question implies that the only answer to the supposed problem being solved is these two options.

First every change in technology has brought significant job growth...every one. People running around claiming the 'rise of robots/AI' will be different THIS time have to prove their premise with significant evidence that it's actually happening...it certainly isn't now, even in the midst of this supposed 'revolution' we see significant job growth.

Secondly, and equally importantly, if & I say IF such a thing were to happen this just means that we need fewer humans to sustain human society, both in 'steady state' & evolution in human society. So if we need fewer humans we should be promoting (non-violent) policies to promote population reduction not unfettered growth (in fact in industrial or 'first world' countries no 'promotion' is needed as their population 'growth' is already negative & the country would not be sustainable without immigration, so the goal should be to raise the standard of living in countries where birth rates are unsustainable).

Lastly if the elitist powers that be expect to give away other people's work, time & effort they can start with their own. I have no problem with the Zuckerberg's, Musk's, Buffet's etc. of the world spending their own money on whatever social programs they want but keep your hands off of my hard earned dollars, I'll give it to who I think deserves or needs it (and I have...far more than just paying my taxes).

UBI math

[mpercy]

The poverty threshold, poverty limit or poverty line is the minimum level of income deemed adequate to cover total cost of all the essential resources that an average human adult consumes in one year. In the US, this is presented as an income level based on household size (number of dependents). For a single person household, the poverty line is $12,060 (2017).

Perhaps worth noting is that a single person household working a full-time minimum-wage job exceeds the poverty line (50 weeks time 40 hours times $7.25 is $14,500), so by definition a full-time minimum wage worker is not living in poverty. But if that same person has a child, then both are living in poverty, as the poverty line for a two-person household is $16,240. In a very real albeit statistical sense, children cause poverty.

An assumption of a UBI is that it provides sufficient income to survive on, so let's use the poverty line as the basis for the UBI. That is, a single person household would receive a UBI of $12,060; A two-person household would receive a UBI of $16,240; and so on. Note that even this basic assumption leads to perverse outcomes (e.g. two adults living separately would get $12,060 each, but if they live together they "lose" $7,880 in UBI), so at least some will avoid getting married, or even living together (or lie about living together, thereby defrauding the system) just to maximize their free money.

Using census data, there are 124.5 million households. The average household size is 2.54 people. Let's interpolate the poverty table to get an average expected UBI of about $18,497. Multiplying that out we can get the tab for providing UBI based on these assumptions, a total of about $2.303 trillion.

Coincidentally, that is almost exactly the amount of money we currently spend on all social welfare benefits programs, including Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, foodstamps, etc. A reasonable idea--indeed, this was put forward in a WSJ essay by Charles Murray--would be to eliminate all those programs in favor of the UBI. Of course, this ignores the howls that would arise from a populace deprived of their SS checks and foodstamps.

Exploring the notion of replacing the most basic welfare programs, e.g. foodstamps, section 8 housing, while not disrupting the SS and Medicare that the elderly view as an earned right. After all, the UBI based on poverty level should by definition cover those sorts of expenses. There will still be screams from people concerned about drug addicts not buying food for their kids and that sort of thing. So it seems unlikely that the overhead of those programs, let alone the programs, would be completely done away with.

So it seems almost a certainty that a UBI would be adjacent to at least SS/Medicare. Those totaled about $1.473T of the welfare expenditures, so add the $2.303 to the SS/Medicare $1.473T for a total cost of $3.776T. Perhaps the UBI reduces SS income dollar-for-dollar in an either-or situation reduces this a bit.

A worst-case cost would be adding UBI on top of all the existing programs, for a total cost of about $5T. Or perhaps the UBI in lieu of all other programs can actually be rammed through so that the cost remains a minimum of $2.303T.

Total federal revenues collected from all sources (taxes, royalties, etc.) in 2014 (last year available) was $3.27 trillion. So UBI would consume somewhere north of 70% of all federal revenues. And the math here assumes that no one receive UBI drops out of the workforce or reduces their taxable income at all--i.e., that revenues stay constant.

Neither

[p51d007]

A "guaranteed" job, typically means you don't have to prove your worth to your employer (example: politicians & some government/union employees). Same for the so called basic income. Give a man a fish, you feed him for the day, but if that man fishes for himself, he feeds himself for a lifetime, without dependency.

Personal perspective

[dht10]

  I am sort of torn between the ideas of a Guaranteed Job and Universal Income. The idea that you must work, are forced to work, when someone else eventually decides what that job must be, is demeaning. On the other hand, a society where nobody "needs" to work can lead to a society that isn't socially connected. Or possibly some needed things don't get done (garbage processing?).

  I retired at 55 (lucky me!) with a relatively good pension. My basic needs were all covered, with a bit extra for mad money. But I found it became boring. So I started up a small business, serving a need for many. Minimal investment. Soon it grew to 8 or more hours a day, as much as I did when "working full time". But I enjoy those working hours, more than I ever enjoyed the hours I spent working for someone else. I call the shots, I decide how "hard" to work, I select the priorities, and I can decide when to stop. I always have the basics covered through my pension.

  This pattern is not unusual. May people that no longer "need" to work, will find something productive to do with their time. If not a sideline business, then volunteering or other things they see as needing to be done. I have met many people like that over the years, more so since I became a part of that circle. Often enough, we end up kicking around other ideas on what else can be done, or needs to be done.

  So I suspect that even with just a UBI, enough people will "want" to do things. Society will not fall apart. Things will get done. Large scale stuff will end up being automated, while individuals will discover and implement small scale stuff (some of which may migrate to large scale). Ingenuity and creativity will become the "credentials" people strive for, much like the attitude entrepreneurs have today.

Neither. Payment for availability and community se

[Anonymous Coward]

Require civil service to be able to vote.. and also have an on call requirement ... And pay people for maintaining that commitment.

Most people should be in the national guard or peace corps.

Pay people for acquiring certifications and passing tests for technical things.. and then actually assign the people to do farm work and infrastructure repair..

Charge taxes based on consumption.
If you have over 2 kids, you get taxed more. If you use too much electricity, you get taxed more.. these rations can be reassigned so the most efficient people can do the jobs.. and incentivise working together.

Charge tarrifs on incoming products that don't meet living wage and environmental standards... Such that it would be possible to meet requirements if they had done the work in a sustainable way to begin with.

We have a lot of work we could be doing, and should be doing, but our economics encourages us to waste resources.

Work for the Dole doesn't work.

[NerdENerd]

We have tried work for the dole in Australia and it doesn't work. It cost more to run than just letting people get the dole. Forcing people to do a shit job they don't want to do is pointless.

Re:Work for the Dole doesn't work.

[JustNiz]

> Forcing people to do a shit job they don't want to do is pointless.

No it isn't. It acts as a deterrent to the worthless parasites that perceive the dole as their lifelong career.

Re:Work for the Dole doesn't work.

[NerdENerd]

The overhead of those programs don't justify the costs. Intergenerational welfare culture isn't going to change because you force them into doing a half arsed job at something they don't want to do.

um, AKA "universal inflation"

[Anonymous Coward]

In a free market, the most basic law of economics (the law of supply and demand) tells us that prices float relative to available quantities of stuff, the number of people who want the stuff, and the cash that those people have.

This is why college in the USA became so expensive after the Obama admin took over all the student loans and removed many of the limits on how much a student could borrow - with far more students each having access to far more loan money, the vendors (in this case schools) simply inflated the prices.

If everybody has a basic income of $0, then $0 becomes the "floor" in the economic system relative to which all prices float based on supply and demand. If everybody (including those who do no work) has a basic income of $500 per month, then $500 per month becomes the new "floor" and over time all prices will float up accordingly. This is called inflation and it's what happens anywhere that money is cheap and easily come by. Anybody who denies this is doing the equivalent of denying that gravity exists or that the Earth orbits the Sun.

Which is better: Noose or Guillotine?

[Anonymous Coward]

This stupid false choice brought to you by the same economic and political "experts" of the left who used to champion Hugo Chavez's economic miracle in Venezuela, Fidel Castro's superior healthcare system in Cuba, and Danny Ortega's paradise in Nicaragua....

And I cannot help noticing that none of those deceitful snakes who preach about the wonders of socialism from their college classrooms or Hollywood studios ever actually want to go live as an average citizen in Venezuela, Cuba, or Nicaragua.

Bernie Sanders would never ditch his million dollar homes for any of those hell holes he has often celebrated. Michael Moore made his dishonest propaganda piece "sicko" but did not go to Cuba for his gut troubles. Sean Penn used to hang out with Hugo, but has anybody seen him in Venezuela lately?

If robots and AI are...

[Anonymous Coward]

...doing all the work, don't they deserve the profits more than YOUR lazy ass?

so the ultimate american dream is couch potato?

[JustNiz]

Free money or a guaranteed job where you couldn;t get fired.... what then would be the motivation for anyone to ever make any effort?
All you'd get is a slowly declining society full of lazy slobs who sit infront of TVs all day, never dream, or ever do anything to improve themselves or humanity.
15 years ago I emigrated to the US from the UK to escape from exactly that sick dependent give-up mindset. I don;t want to have to move again.

Third option-indentured.

[Anonymous Coward]

Indentured slavery is a choice, and an old one at that.

Both are very bad options

[Anonymous Coward]

Giving money for doing nothing is not even an option. Guaranteed jobs like Sanders want is even less of an option since it would cost more and the job would be pointless.

We don't even have to worry about this anymore, Trump has turned this economy into a booming economy and jobs and income isn't a concern like it was under Obama. Makes a big difference when we have a president who cares about people instead of Obama who only pretended to care.

Re:Neither...?

[dbrueck]

This might sound evasive, but I think the problem with that line of thinking is that it's still looking at the problem from the perspective of what we know now and how things are now. But maybe it's fair since we're also discussing a problem that doesn't actually exist yet. :)

It seems like you could put your finger anywhere on the timeline of human history and have more or less the same situation - technological advancements will soon eliminate or reduce some burden off the shoulders of humans, freeing them up to do other stuff. Given our general inability to correctly predict what that new stuff would be (I mean, this cartoon was a great joke in its time, but now that's really a thing), I'm just really skeptical that this time it will be any different, especially since the technology that will supposedly make it different doesn't really exist yet.

UBI is Protectionist.

[Anonymous Coward]

Instead of putting substantial resources into researching new energy systems like cold fusion or liquid thorium salt reactors until we've cracked the egg, we instead invest literally trillions into oil and gas companies. Then, when oil and gas get mature and somewhat automated, we're left over with these humans who we can't put to use anywhere because we've consumed their most productive years doing oil and gas and refusing to pay them reasonably.

Same goes for the entertainment industry, agriculture, mining, high tech, and pretty much every other business that's out there. Protectionism results in a less-than-optimal employment situation because it artifically limits the economy and people's ability to save and make new businesses that might topple the old guard.

We all know what happens when drug addicts win the lottery, you can't push the economy to be too productive. On the same token, what we have today is epic stagnation on any measure. Everyone's believing whatever they want to believe.

You remove those protections and provide a safety net for people, the system'll clear out the driftwood real quick. As in 2-3 years tops. But then the power brokers don't get to feel important anymore.

When something is free, YOU are the product

[RogueWarrior65]

There is no fundamental difference between "free" money and a "guaranteed" job. Make no mistake. There is ALWAYS a price to pay and when something is free, YOU are the product being bought and sold by someone else. "Free" money or a tenured job just means that those giving it to you expect your total loyalty.

Neither.

[Anonymous Coward]

Neither one is "best". Here's the thing - nobody owes you anything. Nobody owes you work that doesn't exist or need to be done. There mathetmtically simply can't always be as many things needed to be done as there are people who want to do things. That's life. I'm not sure what you expect. Like if you need 500 things done and there are 600 people who want to do them, 100 won't have anything to do. Sorry, but... well, what the fuck do you want?

So neither one is a good answer. Paying people for fucking nothing? No. Why? Giving people gauranteed jobs that don't necessarily need to be done? No, why...?

Decently paid

[manu0601]

Should everyone be given free money? Or should everyone receive the guarantee of a decently-paid job?

"Decently" is the key word. If UBI is not enough to live and force people to accept any crappy job to meet ends, then this is just enterprise's labor costs subsided by taxpayers, and a decently paid job is definitively preferable.

Hmmm...

[Anonymous Coward]

Leech or goldbrick? Let me see...

Japs and Chinese have done this for decades

[Anonymous Coward]

Japs called it "busy work" in the 1980s. Time spent in the office is proportional to seniority, not productivity. The Chinese government know their lives depend on how many of the population are employed. The smart alecs on this issue might know economics but do not know history. Look at the never ending US shootings. People kill over social status issues. It's the bare basis of all wars.

Re:Neither...?

[CaffeinatedBacon]

This time is different is a bit of a cliche. But it could be. None of those other times did the disruption disrupt everything at the same time. And the new jobs tend to require more skill/training each time. Eventually there will come a point where enough people just can't do the training, can't learn the new skills required. Not everyone is cut out to be highly skilled. Then there is just the time required to learn a new skill. You study to become a doctor, how far have robot doctors advanced in those 4 years? Now what do you learn? Rinse repeat. Think of credential inflation now, imagine you need a phd in customer service before you can even ask people if they want fries with that.
It's still far off, maybe extremely far off and it's no problem. But eventually, what happens if someone makes a humanoid robot as dexterous and an AI as capable as an average person. What is left for people to do? Why would it even stop there, robots could be faster stronger bigger smaller, anything at all really. If we keep the current system, whoever makes the robots will own everything and everyone else will have nothing.
That's also a pretty big incentive for people to make the robots/AI.

UBI

[Anonymous Coward]

But realistically there should be both, assuming the "guaranteed job" isn't total shit

Answer: they are both crap

[Anonymous Coward]

Please spare us another round of this socialist blather. A sucker may be born every minute, but please take your proselytizing elsewhere in your search for them.

Would UBI reduce theft/crime?

[rapjr]

The cost of crime in the US huge. If UBI meant people would not need to steal to live, that might lift a large burden from society. Perhaps that could be one way to decide the amount of UBI, raise it until crime stops decreasing. I'm not sure what percentage the cost of theft by the poor is though. Some of it may be driven by the high cost of drugs (which has other solutions).

http://www.shopliftingpreventi...
"There are approximately 27 million shoplifters (or 1 in 11 people) in our nation today. More than 10 million people have been caught shoplifting in the last five years."

https://www.iii.org/fact-stati...
"in 2017, there were 16.7 million victims of identity fraud, a record high that followed a previous record the year before. Criminals are engaging in complex identity fraud schemes that are leaving record numbers of victims in their wake. The amount stolen hit $16.8 billion last year as 30 percent of U.S. consumers were notified of a data breach last year, an increase of 12 percent from 2016."

https://www.statista.com/stati...

https://www.census.gov/popcloc...
USA population is 328 million

Say that crimes caused by poverty cost $50B/year in the US. That's $152/year per person. Not enough for UBI, but it could eventually offset part of the cost of UBI.

Re:Would UBI reduce theft/crime?

[Anonymous Coward]

First you want to provide some evidence, any evidence, that having a UBI wouldn't just lead to thieves both stealing and collecting their UBI.

Do you really think the current welfare state reduces crime all that much? Better to end the war on drugs. At least there's some evidence most petty to mid-level theft is to pay for drug habits.

obBluesBrothers

[cascadingstylesheet]

"We play both kinds of music here; country, and western!"

idle hands

[cascadingstylesheet]

As the saying goes, idle hands are the devil's workshop.

We've actually conducted fairly large scale experiments in just giving people money for many decades now. The results are not, to say the least, encouraging.

The guys selling drugs on the corner, or roaming the streets causing trouble, would in fact be better off breaking rocks somewhere for eight hours a day, whether or not those rocks need to be broken. And society would be better off with them doing that too.

Maybe an "early retirement": when they get old enough to calm down, then they get the UBI ...

Re:Neither...?

[dbrueck]

Yeah, those are some good points. Hmm... I guess I get hung up on the idea that it's all from the perspective of what we know now - e.g. as AI improves, there will be few, if any, doctors as we know them, but people will just do other stuff besides being doctors - it's really hard for us at present to imagine what that will be.

My grandfather was a farmer, and if you were to tell him years ago that technology would replace nearly all the farmers, it'd be hard for him to foresee anything but a ton of people sitting around with nothing to do - there's no way he could anticipate my job as a software developer, for example.

But yeah, you might be right - maybe this time it's different because the disruption is so widespread and fast. Of course, if we do get to the point where robots are better in every meaningful way, then the problem for humans could be far beyond anything UBI or guaranteed jobs could solve.

Thanks for sharing your insights - much appreciated!

Basic income will Guarantee Jobs

[Anonymous Coward]

A basic income would guarantee jobs, as individuals would have the freedom to buy what they need from their neighbors. It would weaken the crushing power the wealthy have to coerce labor you donâ(TM)t want to do, while allowing you to do the labor you want to do that doesnâ(TM)t feel like "work."

I.e. I could cook dinner for my friends and family and they could compensate me for it. I get to enjoy cooking and their company, they get to enjoy food and company.

Re: Third option

[Anonymous Coward]

If there won't be anything for humans to do. There will be significantly fewer humans, either via natural selection or revolution, which is kind of the same thing.

In which way?

[Anonymous Coward]

The human mode is to do as little work as possible. So obviously basic income is great because you don't work at all.

But, of course, you also would be worthless to everyone and revilled. So in terms of being useful, it's a bad idea.

Work is better

[Anonymous Coward]

Someone has to pay for that basic income, you canâ(TM)t just print money which is what a basic income is. Giving free money gives the wrong incentives. The government should govern in a way that provides the best opportunities for people but people have to also take responsibility for work and not just expect hand outs. Those handouts have to come from other citizens that work.

You can't innovate doing a B.S job.

[anon mouse-cow-aard]

Basic income liberates people to do whatever they want. Doing whatever they want may lead to nothing, but it's the only thing that ever leads to anything. It also provides support for currently non-remunerated activities such as caring for others, or poetry & art.

If you guarantee people something that takes a great deal of time, they cannot use that time to improve themselves, or start innovative companies, or write the next Harry Potter.

Keeping people busy, is like daycare. The point of the robot society is that our basic needs can be met, so we don't need to base survival on labour. Everyone can live a life that in former times was of the upper class, in that they are free to pursue their interests. Having a larger group of people able to pursue their dreams has got to have a far higher upside than just keeping people busy.

Re:Third option

[w3woody]

Have you ever considered that corporations have "enslaved" people with the full cooperation of the government?

I mean, how many mandates passed by the government only work if you're a full-time employee of some corporation? What about the mandate for employers to provide health care to full-time employees? The mandates for employers to provide worker's compensation? In-kind contributions to their retirement (in the form of Social Security)? Pre-pay their taxes? Provide family and medical leave?

All things that our government has sought for corporations to provide--things that are only provided to individuals if they are employees.

Think about it--and I'm being quite serious here--how much of this sounds like the old Feudal system of Noblesse oblige, but instead of peasants being cared for by their manor lords, it's employees being cared for by their corporations at the directive of the government?

And worse, how much does all of this absolutely fucking fails if you're self-employed, a member of the "gig" economy, under-employed or unemployed? Have you priced health care insurance on the exchanges? Medicare works, medicaid works (sorta), employer-provided health care works--but God help you if you're self-employed, because private insurance does not work. (For example, my wife and I pay nearly $1,300/month for insurance off the exchange. A two-person corporation would only pay $650/month total ($325 employer contribution, $325 employee contribution, broken down into 2 payments per employee of $82 per bi-monthly paycheck) for group insurance for similar coverage.)

Does this sound like an accident to you?

Or does it sound like those in Washington D.C. govern the United States as if we are all wards of our employers--and if we are unemployed or poor, we then become wards of the State?

Why do we have to choose between two bad options?

[jwbales]

We do not have to choose between a guaranteed job or a guaranteed income. It is a false alternative based upon false expectations--the expectation that mankind will run out of opportunities for productive work.

Furthermore, both alternatives violate actual rights in order to manufacture fake rights. We have the right to work to produce the values our lives require and this right comes from no government. We have the right to keep or trade the product of our labor and no one has the right to take it from us in order to pay someone a guaranteed income or to pay them to work at a fake job.

There are too many fake jobs already, especially the "jobs" currently being done by whoever dreams up such Orwellian alternatives as "guaranteed job" or "guaranteed income."

Re:Third option

[Plus1Entropy]

No, it's the other way around. Corporations have infiltrated and corrupted the government to do their bidding.

False Dichotomy

[Jane Q. Public]

There are other options.

Real Income

[JimSadler]

Having any serious guaranteed income has meaning if inflation or tax increases or sellers being able to raise prices on a whim is allowed. Further, if businesses are to survive the people will need income that exceeds their basic needs. In other words if people only have enough to buy flour and potatoes then only businesses that fill those crude and basic needs can survive. Obviously human employment is about to vanish.

Communism or communism?

[Anonymous Coward]

No thank you.

My concern about universal basic income

[Dasher42]

I like universal basic income to start with, especially since it's clear that worker's wages are not rising with worker productivity. However, part of the problem is that major industries - payday loans, health care, landlords/rentals, banks - have made price-gouging their standard practice. They've already mastered the art of scamming desperate people via means that would be illegal in many other developed countries, and they've been buying off the lawmakers too. Fix that too - fix that first, even. I don't think an uptick in income is going to last very long without some way to enforce decency in the trade of living essentials.

How Basic?

[tbq]

Who gets to define "basic"? Enough calories to not starve to death and enough money to cover the rent of the cheapest studio apartment in town with 8 or 9 roommates?

Re:Control is an illusion - think long term

[petes_PoV]

UBI is about eliminating the need to work to meet your basic needs. If you want more than the basics, you're going to have to work.

You are thinking too short-term. Sure, for a person who got replaced by a machine - they could probably provide a useful job-function. At least until they are too old to work, or lose their skills, or find that their skills are now obsolete (taxi driver in the world of AVs, for example).

But fast-forward 20 years to the next generation. What would they have learned that made them employable? Would they even have the notion of work, reward. Jump to the next generation after (say) 50 years of UBI. They would accept the "basic" living they and their parents had ever known to be all there was, all there could ever be. Not only would those people be completely unemployable, but there is no guarantee that the state - or anyone else - would even have bothered to educate them. What would be the point?

That is the danger behind UBI. Not how people are a year or two into the prograame. But how completely dependent they would become after a generation or two.

Idle minds have time to think...

[Anonymous Coward]

... and this is dangerous eh?

I didn't look at it like that, but unconditional basic income will encourage creativity and independent thought, which is dangerous to the ruling class...

Peace and understanding!

[Anonymous Coward]

Mir i drushba! We had this awesome "guaranteed-job" strategy during period of close friendship with Soviets. I think I'll pass this time.

So you are anticapitalist, then Karmashock.

[Anonymous Coward]

Because capitalism relies on the boss taking the labour of the workers all for themselves and giving back whatever they feel they can get away with. Do you ask your boss "Hey, thief, do you think you're entitled to another man's labour!"? No? Then you're a hypocrite you fucking scum.

Woman wakes as old woman in hot dog suit...

[Adampdx]

... That's still a job.

This is a "as technoglogy advanes" issue not "AI"

[Anonymous Coward]

As technogloy advances, skilled jobs will be come more efficient. I see it where I work. Welding robots doing the work, monitored by 1 person instead of a team of welders doing the work. Paperless initiatives are there to reduce wasted time walking around (the real cost), not to save paper. Sorry, I am working on paperless initiatives and that the FACT. It has nothing to do with trees or saving money on paper.

Point is, a lot of skilled labor employees are having their jobs be made more efficient. As that happens fewer will be needed. So more unskilled or lesser skilled jobs will be filled. Thus lower pay.

I've pondered this for a while and really need to write to myself to clarify my thoughts. The point is, as more and more time passes a living wage will be needed.

As a thought experiment, assume machines (NOTE that I am not saying AI) will be as smart as people and robots be very agile. The robots will be monitored by other robots some day. Imagine a world where 1% of people need to work in a manner of supervising robots. It will be a world of leisure. Now where will we be? How will wealth work? Will it be a Star Trek future? How will people "spend" "money"?

So the above paragraph is interesting because it is thought experiment for say 200 years from now. Sounds crazy? Well, consider 100 years ago and what "work" was. Think about the farms and how tractors have displaced hard labor. We've already started! We started the day the industrial revolution started.

As a side note, I am a frim believer that idle hands are the devils helper. The 200 year scenario is scary because I see a future of new and increased mental health problems as people try to fill their time.

Neither

[sproketboy]

Just slowly reduce the 40 hour work-week to 20.

Let the pipe grow cold...

[Anonymous Coward]

Money for Nothing, Jobs doing nothing. Both end up in the same place. You'll be stoning cows to death for food just like all of the other communist utopias out there.

Communism and Fascism

[Anonymous Coward]

"Why not both guarenteed income and jobs"

Because it's a form of communism, and our country is about FREEDOM. And SOMEBODY would still have to pay for your income, and a job not liked is a job not done well.

I and thousands of others will actively obstruct any such system.

Re:Communism and Fascism

[Anonymous Coward]

You sort of blew it when you call it both communism and fascism. I think maybe you need to understand those concepts as your use of them makes no sense.

How about Liberty instead?

[sabbede]

Instead of having the bulk of your income confiscated to support an impossibly expensive UBI, or having your job determined by a government agent, let's just stick with Liberty instead. Let people make their own economic decisions.

Besides, this is all in response to what is only a potential problem whose likelihood is greatly exaggerated.

Re:How about Liberty instead?

[SuiteSisterMary]

What is 'Liberty?'

Ok, people can make their own economic decisions. Does that mean that I, as a business owner, am free to choose to enter into a price fixing scheme with the rest of my industry? Does this mean that I, as a business owner, am allowed to cut safety procedures for my workers? Does this mean that I, as a business owner, can choose to pay my workers in company scrip, redeemable only at my company store, and for company lodgings?

You'll say 'they're free to not work there.' But in a lot of cases, they aren't, realistically.

Re:How about Liberty instead?

[sabbede]

What is 'Liberty?'

According to Locke, "In political society, liberty consists of being under no other lawmaking power except that established by consent in the commonwealth." Mill would say that it is free will exercised within the constraints defined by the rights of others.

Ok, people can make their own economic decisions. Does that mean that I, as a business owner, am free to choose to enter into a price fixing scheme with the rest of my industry? Does this mean that I, as a business owner, am allowed to cut safety procedures for my workers? Does this mean that I, as a business owner, can choose to pay my workers in company scrip, redeemable only at my company store, and for company lodgings?

No, no, and no. Because a free people recognized that rules are necessary to prevent behaviors that would break the systems that ensure liberty. "Guaranteed jobs" and UBI would also break those systems.

Re:How about Liberty instead?

[SuiteSisterMary]

Ok, so 'liberty' means 'follow the rules that I agree with.'

Or is what you're saying that 'Guaranteed Jobs' and UBI would be fine, as long as 50.001 percent of the populace voted for it?

Re:How about Liberty instead?

[sabbede]

To phrase it that way is so venal as to make it false. It is the exercise of free will constrained only by the rights of others. Constraints that are formalized through the writing of laws by a just government made legitimate by the consent of the governed. Thus, rules we agree upon to protect the freedoms of each from infringement by the others.

I am free to stand in my backyard and shoot a gun. I am not at liberty to do so when facing your house.

"Guaranteed jobs", other than being impossible, requires that government make employment decisions for everyone, negating their freedom to choose their own path but without protecting the rights of anyone else as just laws require. In fact, everyone's right to freely participate in the labor market is seized as they are subjugated to an illegitimate authority.

Setting that aside, there are practical considerations to contend with. Slack in the labor market is necessary for growth and innovation. No central authority can provide economic dynamism, only deny it. It has been tried by Totalitarian governments on both sides of the spectrum, and in every case the results were stagnation, oppression, and mass murder. I hardly think guaranteed employment is worth a Stalinist dictatorship.

As for UBI, it is inherently inflationary, impossibly expensive, and wholly unnecessary.

It is always best to simply preserve the liberties of the People, letting each individual make their own choices about their own lives. No one is better positioned to know what is best for any person than that person themself.

Re:How about Liberty instead?

[SuiteSisterMary]

"Guaranteed jobs", other than being impossible, requires that government make employment decisions for everyone, negating their freedom to choose their own path but without protecting the rights of anyone else as just laws require. In fact, everyone's right to freely participate in the labor market is seized as they are subjugated to an illegitimate authority.

ALL laws require that government make decisions for everyone. The government has already decided that you're not 'at liberty' to perform certain work.

Again, though, if the electorate, in full and fair elections, decides they want guaranteed jobs or UBI, would that not exactly fit your definition of OK?

You say my rephrasing is venal, but you don't actually refute it. You just reject it because you don't like it.

Re:How about Liberty instead?

[sabbede]

ALL laws require that government make decisions for everyone.

What? No, they don't. What do you think Law is? Where does it come from and what is its purpose?

Again, though, if the electorate, in full and fair elections, decides they want guaranteed jobs or UBI, would that not exactly fit your definition of OK?

UBI would lead inevitably to fiscal ruin, but would just barely squeak by. Guaranteed jobs would devastate the market and seize the economic rights and liberties of the citizenry without protecting a single damn thing. Not one person's rights or liberties are infringed upon by reserving employment decisions for the People. Seizing that power eliminates rights, curtails freedom and leaves the people without economic liberties.

You say my rephrasing is venal, but you don't actually refute it. You just reject it because you don't like it.

I corrected it and included an explanation.

Re:How about Liberty instead?

[SuiteSisterMary]

What? No, they don't. What do you think Law is? Where does it come from and what is its purpose?

Law is a set of prohibitions against activites. The people decide, for example, 'we don't want to be killed walking to the store' so the government makes a law. Then it gets complicated, and it's why we have murder in the first degree, murder in the second degree, voluntary manslaughter, involuntary manslaughter, and vehicular manslaughter, with defenses of self defense, necessity, and so on, rather than 'thou shalt not kill.'

So, people in the state of Examplia decide 'we don't want poison in our water.' Guess what? Now government has to make all sorts of decisions that impact the liberty of all sorts of people. Turns out ChemCo Inc, a huge factory at the norther border of the state, dumps it's industrial waste into the river that flows through the rest of the state. Hey ChemCo Inc, now you don't get to dump your waste into the river. So now ChemCo has to lay people off. The government has just made a decision that affected the jobs and lives of people who didn't have anything to do it. I'll bet the people who worked at ChemCo, and were upriver of the pollution, didn't care.

Now, I happen to agree that 'guaranteed jobs' is a terrible idea, but I'm still wondering about UBI; the idea of taking all of the patchwork of social assistance and what not and rolling it into one blanket thing doesn't seem like that bad of an idea.

i'd choose

[Anonymous Coward]

a guaranteed basic income.

UK Immigration and Brexit

[Anonymous Coward]

The UK has a problem with immigation because 4 million people are given enough UBI every month to sit around doing nothing and having a comfortable enough life that we have to import people from other countries to do the jobs they refuse to do whilst claiming to be unemployed.

The story is quite simple. Those people coming here are leaving a worse situation behind.
Life on benefits is clearly too rosy when people are prepared to leave behind their family's and everything they've ever known, move thousands of miles to a country where they dont speak the language, earn minimum wage if they are lucky and still feel better off than being at home.

People choosing to play the system and chose not to work disgust me and it's long over due that the UK did something about life on benefits being a choice rather than a safety net for the needy.

Ideal Life

[LaminatorX]

I can tell you right now, If I had a proper Basic Income guarantee along with healthcare, I would work part-time to afford luxuries & travel, and split the remaining free time making music & art, doing things with my friends & family, and volunteering.

This is the kind of life people could have if the productivity gains of recent decades had been shared, rather than hoarded.

Why Not

[oh_my_080980980]

We gave the banks free money in order to bail them out. We give corporations free money. Cities are paying for Amazon's head quarters and warehouses even though Amazon can afford to pay for them.

So when you say free money, make sure you look at all the free money you had out. Seems to me if you give Amazon free money you can certainly give someone who's job's been displaced free money.

Remember, people will spend the money and that will go back into the economy. As opposed to Amazon where the money goes to investors.

Bigger back for your buck when you give it to people.

We are a consumption economy after all.

Not 'everyone' gets $1000 a month

[Bruce66423]

Any implementation of UBI will be approximately revenue neutral, or it will be unaffordable - i.e. there will be increased taxes somewhere to pay for it. Therefore total demand will be the same. Now yes, some commodities will experience a rise in demand for them, but equally others - in this case the apartments that people who want to move into these ones - will see a fall in demand.

I get your point - but the 'revenue neutral' will, overall, result in no major shifts in prices.

Re:Not 'everyone' gets $1000 a month

[DalM]

Yes, we will have to greatly tax the wealthy to pay for UBI. Sure that will cause some decline in the sale prices of the super-rich apartments, as there will be fewer super-rich people competing for those apartments because some of them will be taxed out of the market.

But most of us aren't competing for multi-million $ apartments.

So, think about what you are saying when you, correctly, point out that: "some commodities will experience a rise in demand for them, but equally others - in this case the apartments that people who want to move into these ones - will see a fall in demand."

What demand is going to be falling to see price decreases? What demand is going to be rising?

Re:Not 'everyone' gets $1000 a month

[DalM]

A better idea then UBI is just to have the government build inexpensive housing units. Everyone gets a free apartment if you want it. It's not going to be in the best area of town. It's going to have a lot of bad characters and other problems. And the commute is probably going to suck. It's the Projects. But it's a free apartment. That's what "free" buys you. If you want something better, then go shop in the private market and pay private market prices.

We should have a similar system for food and medicine. Every human should have a free apartment with utilities, free food, and free basic medical care. Free is not top-of-the-line. Free is free. If you want better, then go buy it on the private market.

Basic income

[HaDAk]

I think a basic income is more ideal than a guaranteed job.

Here's why:
If I'm guaranteed to have at least *some* income, I will be more inclined to take risks. That could be starting my own business (without fear of failing) or going back to school for another degree.

If I'm guaranteed a job, I feel as though I owe something more to someone else -- whomever I'm guaranteed the job to. I would be less inclined to improve my own situation if I'm unhappy there, because it's easier to just stay put since I know my job is guaranteed. This would lead to a quality of life decline, as I become evermore frustrated with a position I may not be fully happy with.

Yeah - meaningless jobs would be a disaster

[Bruce66423]

But we should make them something they can take pride in; for example a small but significant contribution to the community such as removing graffiti or repairing roads, or even listening to children read in primary school, they could be really helpful.

Re:Yeah - meaningless jobs would be a disaster

[Opportunist]

If you make them, they will take no pride in it. They will see it as the same demeaning chore that the burger flipping job already is. Scrubbing walls isn't more glamorous than scrubbing toilets.

What you want to give them, if I get you right, is the feeling of being useful and wanted. That would be a good thing, indeed. But they'd have to want that, too. Else you're just forcing them into doing something else they don't want to do, that's not going to accomplish anything.

Basic or Guaranteed

[Anonymous Coward]

Neither you commie bastards!

Slashdot Asks: Which is Better, Bread or Circuses?

[Anonymous Coward]

Slashdot Asks: Which is Better, Bread or Circuses?

feelings of control

[Anonymous Coward]

Psychologists have found that we like and benefit from feeling in control. That is a mark in favour of a universal basic income: being unconditional, it is likely to enhance our feelings of control.

Enhance our feelings of being controlled, more likely. You do a job for some money, you get fair compensation. You get some money for free that is yours by right? From a specific source? You are reliant on that source, and that source controls you. It is a dog's right to be fed by its owner, but it must have an owner.

Not this again

[Doc Right]

The answer is neither. There will always... ALWAYS... be jobs for people to do. Yes, many of today's jobs will disappear. There's not much of a market for a typesetter these days, but someone still runs the press. That new machine might crank out cheese burgers all day long, but someone needs to refill it with supplies every now and then, and fix it when it breaks down. The shipping industry is growing, not shrinking. Blue collar jobs are desperate for people to fill them, and they'll never go away. So, enough with the commie nonsense. Many things are better off left in human hands. You don't build a million dollar machine to change one light bulb every couple of years, but you may need to pay a human $100k to do it some day.

Bad choices

[traderoffutures]

Both options are horrible, this is like asking if it's better to beat your wife or beat your children when you come home from work. Both options will lead to depravity.

Basic Income is better

[Anonymous Coward]

My opinion is that basic income is better. A lot of jobs are meaningless and useless to the betterment of society. And in fact a lot of jobs are making life worse (creating more consumption, creating more pollution, or are just no fun for the worker--eg. factory farm workers).

Having a basic income would allow people to do things that are better for society. It would allow people to make art, for instance. Or help the elderly. Or clean plastic from beaches. Or do research on things that aren't normally funded. It encourages people to spend time on things we don't traditionally value via money but that may have a LOT of value to making life better for everyone.

Resist the Permanent Career Implant Chip

[tmjva]

You ...

... have the right to choose your own dead-end job!

Secure Employee Rights & Freedoms (SERF)

-- Futurama Poster

My vote would be for a Universal Basic Income

[Anonymous Coward]

I have many reasons for this belief. I'll try to keep them short and sweet.

1. Slackers. Ask yourself these 2 simple questions: A. Could you, personally, do nothing for the rest of your life? And, B. Could you, personally, be satisfied with just the very basics of existence - like a simple apartment, Ramen noodles, and a hot bath -- and not strive for recognition, wealth, power, fame, etc.? I tried doing nothing for 3 months, and failed miserably - I found I HAD to do something - even though I had plenty of cash in the bank. The truth is that there are very, very, very few people who could settle for the basics. This is because those basics only cover the base of Maslov's Pyramid, and not the higher, self-actualization parts. The basic income would give you a reliable foundation to try new things - until you found work you enjoyed and could excel at.
2. Crime. What would you do, if you had a family to feed, but could not find work? The answer is, steal, mug, sell drugs, wherever, however, whatever it took to feed your kids. UBI could remove the basic need to commit crimes, potentially dropping crime rates significantly. Think about it.
3. Prisoners. Most prisoners that have done their time and have paid their debt to society. Yet, upon release, they are cast out into the world, penniless, homeless, and unable to lean on relatives, or find significant support (because of various welfare rules and stipulations). So, starving and freezing to death, they go out to find employment, but can't find work because no one will hire them --- because they must list on their job applications that they committed crimes. They are weeded out in the application process - and find themselves either lying or unemployed. These people are left with no option but to start stealing again, just to cover their basic needs - which, when on probation, lands them right back to jail when caught. Which you and I pay for over and over and over through our taxes. With UBI, these people would have the ability to have house, heat, water, and food covered - giving them a foundation to start building again.
4. I would allow people to request cash through the UBI to learn how to do new things (paying teachers in the process) --- like learning how to play musical instruments, create art, learn a trade, write books and blogs, run a business, anything and everything.

~S

Re:Third option

[Anonymous Coward]

>Also people don't choose slavery, by definition.

Well, more like people choose slavery over death/torture. Kanye West just missed that last bit.

BI is intermediate step

[bitterblackale]

We will always have a need for people to do work, but we will not always have need of everybody to do work that directly contributes to endless (arguably pointless) economic growth. Left as it is, this semi-conscious living organism we call 'The Economy' will grow so fat that it will collapse under its own weight. Endless growth-for-growth's-sake can only go on so long, especially with tech innovations that lessen the need for certain jobs. Basic Income isn't a long-term sustainable model either, but I think it's an intermediate step between the current Scarcity-everybody-must-work socio-economic model and whatever comes after when there are more people than jobs and the accumulation of fiat currency becomes less important to human society. What do we do with the lazy ones who just take and don't work? I predict that laziness will one day be seen as a disability for which treatment will be made available... and in extreme cases, mandatory. There will always be some kind of poor and disadvantaged people, it's just the language that changes around them. For humanity to ever get past its barbaric past, we have to learn that it's our responsibility to see to people who just don't get it. If you're a parent of a child with genetic disorders, like Down syndrome, you just have to accept that this person will be your responsibility for the rest of your life. This is a microcosm of a stark reality - that all people are our responsibility for all of our lives. Saying you shouldn't have to pay for another person's welfare is itself a lazy/irresponsible statement. This is the attitude that has to change if we are ever to climb out of the dark pit of humanity's violent past.

Problems ahead

[nickrao]

The problem is real, unfortunately the politicians are way behind. The good news there will be jobs. The bad news very few policy makers have a clue. The start is a change in education toward a European model of free education with 2 tracks one toward university and primarily sciences and the other technical/vocational with an optional extension beyond HS. This also enables easier changes to core curriculums.

BOTH, ask for preference

[stafford3897]

We have God-given rights, Life (air, water, food and place to be) Liberty, (choose whether to work, leave or mooch) and Pursue Happiness. If we are asked how we want to pursue happiness then it would be nice to get help at least in the form of advice, education, tools, whatever is needed to have a shot at actually finding happiness. This is the job of the parents but if it's left to the Feds then Food Stamps, Education vouchers, housing coupons, bus pass and a smartphone should do the trick with maybe a bit of cash for alcohol and CBD to deaden the pain. Money helps but good relationships are better.

2 hours a week - no chance

[Bruce66423]

Consider a few vital jobs: doctor, nurse, teacher - indeed all child and elder care, public transit driver, police officer, prison officer, judge, construction. All of those jobs are very real and need more than 2 hours a week. Given they constitute a substantial part of the economy, on their own they torpedo your argument about it being 2 hours a week.

Re:2 hours a week - no chance

[shanen]

If you don't ask for clarification, but just go off half-cocked based on some weird misinterpretation of what I wrote, then what part should I clarify? Actually the evidence so far is that you are just going to believe whatever you prefer to believe.

I did NOT say that any job is not "very real".

Or maybe I should ask a basic question? Do you understand what "averaged over the entire population" means? How about a tough question? What do you think an "ontology" is?

Helpful

[Bruce66423]

Unfortunately this requires a bureaucratic machine to respond to such subtleties. Clearly for someone with a concern for the appearance of their public space, graffiti removal IS meaningful. To brats for whom it is 'art', it would be punitive; finding something they would find meaningful will be challenging!

UBI all the way

[lnovak]

Sharing our wealth is mandatory. Forced employment is slavery.

Total Welfare

[Anonymous Coward]

This was explored in the Rissa Kerguelen series (by F M Busby). United Energy and Transport bought out the governments of Earth and created a Total Welfare (Prison) state. Rissa (and others) fled the solar system and eventually returned, generations later (relativistic time dilation) to conquer U E T. They advertised their return by playing the song, "There's Only One Latrine In All Of U E T."

Re:Neither...?

[DethLok]

That's why I put "free" in quotes.

Sure, it's not free, as in beer.

But it's painless as it's already part of your taxes, in my country and in many others.

The US system, from what I've read over some decades, is .... quite the opposite.

And for those who don't pay taxes? Which is about 40% of households in Australia, so what?

We work together as a nation to bring us ALL up to an equal (ish) level so we don't have to worry about things like health, visiting a doctor and paying for medical bills.

It works, pretty much.

There are better systems, there are worse, but ... the USA seems to be a stand out in the the worse section :(

Re:Third option

[Anonymous Coward]

people don't choose slavery, by definition.

Well, actually, I think you're collapsing two things into one here. It's entirely possible to choose to abandon your freedoms and submit yourself to some other entity. In fact, true Christians believe that you are either "a slave to sin or a slave to Christ" and that the choice is yours. "You have no choice, you have to choose. . ."

If you desire to know freedom, consider the story of the Garden of Eden. There was one rule: "don't eat the fruit of that tree." Anything else was fair game. (Assume friction coefficient is 0)

True, complete, absolute freedom is a paradox. It's like Plato's "things in themselves;" it cannot exist in this world. And that's what this whole argument is really stemming from; the fundamental paradox of existence in this world.

"The love of money is the root of all evil."

So, to all of you here in this forum, the real choice you face is what God you choose. Either make an idol out of money, and any plans you make will fail, or choose a real God, and take care of those less fortunate then yourselves.
"Feed the hungry, shelter the homeless, provide for widows [the needy] . . . Whoever cares for the least of these, cares for me."
-Jesus

Re:Neither...?

[brian.stinar]

Do you think it's painless? What country do you live in? I bet your country feels the pain of the oppressive tax burdens in things like unemployment, economic growth, scientific and technical development, and taxes... The only exception to these trade-offs is Norway, when oil prices are high.

These things aren't painless for those that try and build businesses. Even more of a pain than the actual, direct, monetary, costs are complying with all of the crap legislation and bureaucracy. That is the worst for me.

Furthermore, why restrict "us" to those within a country? I think it makes zero sense, from the law of diminishing returns, to "bring ALL up" to bring "us" within industrialized countries "up." It makes more sense to work to bring basically all of Africa up, than any of Europe up, since they are lower and will come up faster/cheaper/better.

I believe the reason we do not take this approach is because Africans do not vote in "our" elections. Many of the people "we" are bringing up (40% by your quote) already don't pay taxes - but they vote.

Re:Neither...?

[DethLok]

Painless? No, but there is (or should be) no oppressive tax burden in a decent progressive tax system. It should be relatively pain free. You earn more money, you get to keep more money, but you pay a bit more tax.

I mentioned Australia, as that's where I live.

Everyone in every era complains about bureaucracy, but no-one seems to offer a better suggestion than anarchy, it seems?

I'd love for the world to be a utopia, it's arguably possible, but it, again, never seems to happen. I wonder why? (that's a rhetorical question!)

Re:Neither...?

[brian.stinar]

How have you directly complied with these laws? How? You speak about "should" be but my experiences with what "is" are somewhat different. I spent 10-16 hours getting my Colorado state employer documents in order - unemployment insurance, worker's compensation insurance, and state withholding taxes. My business is based in the state of New Mexico, and hiring an employee in a neighboring state took way more work than I would have liked. This is because the states, and the Federal government, all believe they have a role in protecting workers in the U.S.

My suggestion would be to not mandate workers compensation insurance and unemployment insurance, and instead leave those up to individuals to purchase if they want (exactly as individual retirement accounts are optional here, and have much more faith in them than our Federally managed social security "retirement" plan.) I also prefer the 1099 contractor, as opposed to w2 employee, responsibility with taxes to be on the person getting paid, and not on the person doing the paying. Every country I have researched labor law in typically has this distinction between employee and contractor.

Those are my concrete suggestions, based on running a rental property business for ten years, and a software company for six years.

Re:Neither...?

[DethLok]

No, I have not directly complied with USA laws, never having been in the hemisphere in which the USA exists.

I live in the Southern Hemisphere, the land of the free!

I'm an Aussie, from Down Under.

I've never been an employer, but I have been a worker in the Australian government area that deals with employers and employees. Some years ago...

From memory, an employer says "Yes" to "I'll employ you", to a new employee.

The new employee hands the employer a "Tax File Number Declaration".

The employer records the details in their payroll system, and then forwards the TFN dec to the government.

Bingo, job done.

Umemployment insurance (which in Australia is a federal govt thing) sorted.
Workers compensation insurance, sorted
(I think, may actually require some notification to the employers workers comp insurer, I'm not sure, but easy enough, it's via email I'm sure) and state withholding taxes? They don't exist here.

Hiring someone from a diffferent state? No difference between hiring them or someone who lives next door.

Why does your country make things so difficult?

That's for you to answer, not me.

It's pretty simple here, apart from, maybe, workers comp, and even that is national here, and if I join a uniion (which I will next pay, within a week) it's sorted, nationall.

oh, and it seems while I've been typing a reply to you, I've been killed in my tank game... thanks, Brian, thanks... tanks a lot! :)

Basically, things don't HAVE to be as difficult as they are in the USA. The USA has CHOSEN to make things difficult, because of... reasons (your constitution?

Don't Tread On me, Big Govt is bad, FREE DUMBS@!@S!!) I don't know, but most of the arguments I read about from the USA seem to be retarded, redundant or simple idiocy from my perspective (that said, as mentioned, I do not employ people, I'm an employee and it's been REAL SIMPLE for me for over 30 years).

Rant over (I admit to being... unable to legally drive at the moment, but it's almost 2pm where I am and I've nothing planned that requires leaving my house for today).