The employer only needs one person desperate enough to take the job. You can change all the money flows, but in the end people will end up similarly desperate as they are now. Basic supply and demand.
Current bureaucracy serves a purpose of getting every welfare recipient close to what they need, depending on personal circumstances. Someone who's disabled may need a modified home and car for extra cost. Two people living together in the same house need less. If you have children, you need more. If the children go to college, you need even more. If the children can work, you need less. If you live in an expensive neighborhood, you need more.
Getting rid of all the bureaucracy means reduced efficiency in allocating funds, which means you'll need to hand out more money to make sure everybody's getting enough.
The question is, however, define "work". Would you labor for someone else? Probably not. But you likely wouldn't sit on your butt all day doing nothing either.
Even assuming you are right, if the work you choose to do is valuable, someone would be willing to pay for it. If you only do stuff that others aren't interested in, it's not adding much to the economy.
The advantages include removal of the huge amount of bureaucracy, management costs, corruption, and fraud.
Which also means that with UBI, a lot more money will be spend on people that don't really need it, and didn't qualify for subsidies or welfare programs in the old system.
Others might make somewhat lesser contributions, but probably not zero
I see a lot of people on welfare making negative contributions. They break things out of boredom, or they ruin their health by smoking, eating, and drinking, and require fixing up with expensive medical treatments.
the one thing is though that you get guaranteed tax revenue as well. Since those people are buying necessary goods and services with the money.
That doesn't compute. If you give someone $1000, and they use that to buy $1000 of goods, with a 20% tax, you only get $200 back in taxes. The remaining $800 could go straight across the border.
First of all, there's more cost than just their left turns. Secondly, their rates vary a lot with the size of the customer. If you only send a few packages, and you don't ask for a discount, you'll pay the sucker price. Big name customers, like Amazon, get the best rates, and they will be carefully calculated based on cost. You don't want to have a big customer walk away while you still had room to lower the price and make a profit.
A rocket is a piece of technology, with a fairly high failure rate, and you can get insurance for that too. For the insurance company it's a simple calculation: if the premium covers the expected pay out, they'll cover it. The only thing they really hate is systemic errors, but these can be reduced by thorough testing, and by quick feedback from accident analysis. Because every detail can be logged, technical errors can be fixed and those fixes distributed to the rest of the fleet before they occur in large numbers.
I honestly have no idea how UPS's rates compare to other courier services, or how they've changed over time. You probably don't know either, but are just pulling the numbers out of your ass trying to make a point.
But it's pretty obvious that a lower cost also lowers the optimal price point of your product, and I'm fairly sure that UPS has people that are pretty good at calculating that.
As I recall it, Liu says that the instrument package for a fully autonomous self-driving car—in the not too-distant past—costs around $100,000 and requires 3000 W
"I think there is a world market for maybe five computers."
-- Thomas Watson, president of IBM, 1943
Why ? Currently they don't sue a driver for not seeing the bicycle either. Insurance companies don't care about individual cases, they deal with statistics. If self-driving cars cause fewer accidents per year, they'll make more money in insuring them.
Why does my browser open up 6 TCP connections to try to download six images at once when I'm on a slow satellite connection? That just guarantees that all six images will time out!
The problem is not opening 6 connections, or failure to retry, but a timeout that's too short.
Slashdot Mirror
So, you're suggesting UBI will be similar to welfare programs we already have. No need to chance anything then.
The employer only needs one person desperate enough to take the job. You can change all the money flows, but in the end people will end up similarly desperate as they are now. Basic supply and demand.
Most jobs will stay, simply because people can do the work cheaper than robots.
How to find the money is trivial.
Well, before we decide to implement UBI, let's get that money! Everybody would love some trivially easy source of money.
Current bureaucracy serves a purpose of getting every welfare recipient close to what they need, depending on personal circumstances. Someone who's disabled may need a modified home and car for extra cost. Two people living together in the same house need less. If you have children, you need more. If the children go to college, you need even more. If the children can work, you need less. If you live in an expensive neighborhood, you need more. Getting rid of all the bureaucracy means reduced efficiency in allocating funds, which means you'll need to hand out more money to make sure everybody's getting enough.
With a UBI, suddenly the same job would be paying 11x as much for your time, and I suspect that would make you more likely to say "yes".
With UBI, the employer would offer you $100/mo for the job, because apparently that's the current market value.
The question is, however, define "work". Would you labor for someone else? Probably not. But you likely wouldn't sit on your butt all day doing nothing either.
Even assuming you are right, if the work you choose to do is valuable, someone would be willing to pay for it. If you only do stuff that others aren't interested in, it's not adding much to the economy.
The advantages include removal of the huge amount of bureaucracy, management costs, corruption, and fraud.
Which also means that with UBI, a lot more money will be spend on people that don't really need it, and didn't qualify for subsidies or welfare programs in the old system.
Others might make somewhat lesser contributions, but probably not zero
I see a lot of people on welfare making negative contributions. They break things out of boredom, or they ruin their health by smoking, eating, and drinking, and require fixing up with expensive medical treatments.
Business folk must love UBI, because they can now get people for much lower wages, realizing that the part of the income is government subsidized.
the one thing is though that you get guaranteed tax revenue as well. Since those people are buying necessary goods and services with the money.
That doesn't compute. If you give someone $1000, and they use that to buy $1000 of goods, with a 20% tax, you only get $200 back in taxes. The remaining $800 could go straight across the border.
First of all, there's more cost than just their left turns. Secondly, their rates vary a lot with the size of the customer. If you only send a few packages, and you don't ask for a discount, you'll pay the sucker price. Big name customers, like Amazon, get the best rates, and they will be carefully calculated based on cost. You don't want to have a big customer walk away while you still had room to lower the price and make a profit.
A rocket is a piece of technology, with a fairly high failure rate, and you can get insurance for that too. For the insurance company it's a simple calculation: if the premium covers the expected pay out, they'll cover it. The only thing they really hate is systemic errors, but these can be reduced by thorough testing, and by quick feedback from accident analysis. Because every detail can be logged, technical errors can be fixed and those fixes distributed to the rest of the fleet before they occur in large numbers.
I honestly have no idea how UPS's rates compare to other courier services, or how they've changed over time. You probably don't know either, but are just pulling the numbers out of your ass trying to make a point. But it's pretty obvious that a lower cost also lowers the optimal price point of your product, and I'm fairly sure that UPS has people that are pretty good at calculating that.
As I recall it, Liu says that the instrument package for a fully autonomous self-driving car—in the not too-distant past—costs around $100,000 and requires 3000 W
"I think there is a world market for maybe five computers." -- Thomas Watson, president of IBM, 1943
Why ? Currently they don't sue a driver for not seeing the bicycle either. Insurance companies don't care about individual cases, they deal with statistics. If self-driving cars cause fewer accidents per year, they'll make more money in insuring them.
They arrive close to the same price because their costs are similar.
And why wouldn't that be true ?
Omitting the driver is a way for them to make more profit, not to charge you less.
You're forgetting the concept of competition.
$1 billion in 5 years isn't all that much, though.
Ford is late to the game, but still expects others to license their tech.
Although dying in a few seconds may quickly lead to a pile of dead bodies blocking the hallway.
You assume that the images you actually need will be the first to be downloaded.
Why does my browser open up 6 TCP connections to try to download six images at once when I'm on a slow satellite connection? That just guarantees that all six images will time out!
The problem is not opening 6 connections, or failure to retry, but a timeout that's too short.
If robots do all the work, everything will still cost money. Robots still require energy, space, and materials, at least.