Can someone who isn't a shitposter provide me the major arguments for and against UBI? The other thread about 45% of the workforce being automated in the future has got me wondering whether or not UBI will be needed.
If you shower people in money they work harder and invent everything you need.
It's that simple.
>>74252146
There's one argument. Wouldn't this lead to massive inflation as well? It seems to me like the people who propose this are thinking in terms of a "post scarcity" economy. ((((communism))))
Basic income is nothing more than welfare that white liberal faggots won't feel guilty about accepting.
Government dependence is disgusting.
>>74252259
I agree with this, but as I said, people who propose this are usually thinking in a "post scarcity" (read: communist) economy.
>>74252146
No they don't. They just laze around and blow it on stupid shit.
Source: my ass, because that's what I'd likely end up doing.
>>74251736
>The other thread about 45% of the workforce being automated in the future has got me wondering whether or not UBI will be needed.
thinking the surplus population will be tolerated and there wont be a war or something to purge them. you must day dream of unicorns that fart glitter
honestly, I'm all for it.
>no money problems until you find that new job
>don't even need to apply for welfare
>just get paid and take your time until you figured out what to do next career-wise
>no more cuckoldry based on wealth
>probably can start dating without dumb bitches caring so much about how much you earn
>if it's enough pay, you might as well save some money, quit the old job and then go traveling the world and just check out of society for a while. costs are completely taken care of in the mean time and once you come back too. pay for your rent normally whenever needed but never be at home.
>>74252340
>"post scarcity"
>communist
pick one and only one
>>74252800
and on top of that:
>the insane pacing of the dumb ass normie rat-race has been removed completely
>if you fail at life, it literally doesn't matter and you still can get your shit together whenever you want and earn more with a high-paying job if you want to.
>>74252800
>where does moneys value come from?
>>74251736
>Pic Related
This is why it will fail.
>>74252922
enough people would work either way. it's not like everybody would drop the ball like crazy.
>>74251736
>UBI shills are mostly leftist cucks
>not left or right
Kills them all.
>>74252986
That picture is so fucking stupid.
Everyone is dependent. The welfare recipient is equally as dependent upon his payout as the worker is dependent on his paycheck from his capitalist overlord.
>>74253015
But how many would work harder jobs rather than the basic ones
>>74251736
>trusting other men to house, feed, provide medical care and work for you is the future
NEET paradise huh...
I feel a genetic compulsion to provide for my children when I hear them crying. Posts like these are salt-peter for the emotionally and socially stunted/retarded.
It's really hard to predict how will future unravel, so it's very hard to be against or for UBC.
>>74253081
You don't know what dependence means you fucking idiot.
>>74251736
"Basic income" is forward into economic collapse.
It could usher in a golden age for art in which people can stay home and fulfil their passions rather than wageslave.
>>74253093
I don't know. can it even be predicted like that? probably not.
Just to make things clear, I'm not in favor of UBI because it's being pushed by left-wing cucks and environmentalists. But they might have a point when they say automation will make some people unable to get work, even if they want to.
>>74253081
>implying
You're failing to see that if the "capitalist overlord" wants to keep his workers he has to compensate them with pay for their work. The dependency with UBI is being dependent on other people to help keep ur ass afloat for doing menial labor
>>74253081
A worker is deprndant on his boss giving him money the same way a bird is dependant on fish being in the ocean, they still have to work and have the will to live to get it.
It might work in a country like Norway or Denmark where most everyone is of the same ethnicity and can carry their own weight.
It would never work in a country like America, where the top 10% (white European males) would have to carry the other 90% because they're dead weight gibmedats and people of Walmart
>>74253155
>collapse
Nope. It's Daddy giving his babies some allowance. Just enough to keep them quiet. Sanders is smart in that regard. He knows gibs want education to compete with Whites and East Asians so is giving them free associates degrees, from federally approved/controlled sources of course. Just enough to make them think they're actually getting something worthwhile.
>>74253192
I'd try doing exactly that.
would be so nice to find the time and just be.
>>74253278
Most people suggesting basic income are actually reasoning from a position not unlike the one you decribe: A society where not everbody is able to work, either because there isn't enough work or because not everbody has the skills required to perform that work.
UBI will work as long as there are people willing/motivated to do the remaining jobs. This will be a major problem tho in shitskin African or Arab countries as they are still in the monkey stage of evolution.
>>74252232
Not really. Even in today's economy, it could almost be afforded in western nations. The necessity for it will increase as automisation takes er jerbs.
>>74253273
>implying a place of employment keeps them alive
You breathe manual labor?
>>74251736
It's inefficient and nature does not like waste, it would be outcompeted regardless of your feelings.
>>74253273
>A worker is deprndant on his boss giving him money the same way a bird is dependant on fish being in the ocean
False analogy. Working for someone isn't the same as having to survive in a state of nature.
The former is a social constructed fact of modern hypertechnological economy, and the other is a physical fact of nature.
You don't *have* to work *for* someone, but you have to work.
>Automation takes over a large percentage of jobs
OK, so now you have millions of people who can't feed themselves. Do you simply let them starve?
>inb4 yes *tips fedora*
If 45% of the workforce was automated, it would be a fucking catastrophe. If half the population weren't working, who the fuck are the customers? There'd be no point in even having a "workforce" because no-one would be able to buy or sell anything. Capitalism and the price system would break at that point. But its not likely to happen and there's no evidence for it.
>>74253423
>nature does not like waste
>our economy and work market is not something entirely artificial
>let's just rebrand communism as basic income
Nice try, kike
>>74253192
>It could usher in a golden age for art
It could... But it isn't that likely. The golen age of art in this country was actually the result of people making loads of money, and spending that money on prestegious things like fancy buildings in Amsterdam and paintings to hang them in. As a result, the generation of painters known today as 'the Dutch Masters' painted loads and loads of commissioned paintings. Not because they were chasing their dream and passion, but because it was their job and people payed them to do so.. That's why Rembrandt's paintings are always of rich/important people that lived in his day. Not because they were his favorite subject, but because they commissioned him to paint them in their most fancy clothes.
>>74252259
Never thought of it this way, but I like your angle.
BI is also perfect for the lazy millennial generation. I've actually gone on unemployment and welfare for a short time, it actually does take a small amount of work (And if you're white, like me) arguing with the state that you actually deserve the benefits that you've been paying into for years. If you have a BI system where money just kinda shows up, that's perfect for both entitled millenials and proud boomers alike.
>>74253565
This.
Ask Cubans how they liked getting a dozen eggs, a bag or potatoes, some beans and some rice to feed their families, every single week...without variety or change for their entire lives.
>>74251736
In favor:
-stop poverty,malnutrition,homeless..
-no job dependency
against:
-Depedency? Then with who we got dependency now with 'free market'?
-It costs a lot of moneys.
-inflation?
>>74251736
how much will whitey pay me for fucking their daughters and spending 90% of my benefits on MLP figurines?
>>74253490
>If half the population weren't working, who the fuck are the customers?
People getting a basic income. Are you starting to see the point?
>There'd be no point in even having a "workforce" because no-one would be able to buy or sell anything.
You could enter the workforce because that will give you money on top of your basic income. Recepients of basic income will be the 'new' consumer, and those who work on top of that will be the new upper class. Those who own the capital will remain the elite... Nothing really changes in the top level, and the bottom of the market is reformed to keep the system afloat, by taking some money off the top and subsidising the bottom of the pyramid with it.
>>74253490
>There'd be no point in even having a "workforce" because no-one would be able to buy or sell anything. Capitalism and the price system would break at that point.
The idea is that they get a pittance from the government so they can afford basic shit like food and electricity. Those things are generated by whatever automated means, which costs much MUCH less than paying John Smith to do it.
>>74252146
if you would shower me with money i would end up using it on lifting and rollercoasters
>>74253211
Austrian economics sure have taken a turn for the worse
>>74251736
>Can someone who isn't a shitposter provide me the major arguments for and against UBI? The other thread about 45% of the workforce being automated in the future has got me wondering whether or not UBI will be needed.
Number one, ignore this "technological unemployment" horseshit. They KNOW this is horseshit, they will keep peddling it until the end of time however as it suits their personal political goals. It's the same shit with feminist and the "Gender Pay Gap". Do you seriously think no one has ever brought them reasons why this is not true at all? Do you think they've never had an opportunity to spend ten fucking seconds on Google and see what the opposing side thinks and what reasons and evidence they can provide? These people are not stupid, or misinformed, they are (down to their very core) dishonest pieces of shit who will make up whatever argument or reason they need to post facto in order to justify whatever their actual goal is.
Every thread these people are obliterated and yet it rolls off of them like water from a duck and they will go, unphased, to another thread and chug along with the same nonsense.
For anyone who actually wants to know why the Luddite fallacy (i.e. "technological unemployment") is a fallacy, read a fairly short work by one of history's greatest economists, Bastiat.
http://bastiat.org/en/twisatwins.html
>>74253459
Working for someone and working to survive are the exact same thing except instead of going out and hunting a deer, you do the hunter a favour so that he shares his food with you.
Wouldn't a better-regulated work system not only be fairer but more effective too? I don't want to give my self-earned money to lazy shits but I think everyone deserves a job.
It's a great idea if you don't have a problem with unconditionally granting the state the power to choose who lives and who dies.
Your bread solely dependent on an entity comprised of infallible humans that likely do not give a single fuck about you as an individual and would consider you an "acceptable loss" if the need arose.
But who cares if you're government property if you and every other idiot that thinks himself talented can express yourself through fruity loops and photoshop! What a renaissance!
In 20 years even doctors will be fired and replaced with machines and a tech guy that looks after them. Do these uppity idiots realize McDonalds will fire their ass and replace them with Jose the Robot?
I wonder about the financial sustainability of such a program. Even at a measly $7.25/hour for a standard 40-hour week, paying everyone in the U.S. who is above age 18, you would be spending over 3 trillion dollars a year just to keep the program afloat, which is double our current total spending.
>>74254061
Look at it this way. Right now, is there a job for every man and woman to support themselves? There is not.
Would you rather create jobs out of nothing that have zero value to society other than occupying some Tyrone's time, or would you rather just give him the money for nothing?
>>74252986
What do you propose in the face of automation?
>Report Suggests Nearly Half of U.S. Jobs Are Vulnerable to Computerization
https://www.technologyreview.com/s/519241/report-suggests-nearly-half-of-us-jobs-are-vulnerable-to-computerization/
Real answer please.
>>74254111
>Your bread solely dependent on an entity comprised of infallible humans that likely do not give a single fuck about you as an individual and would consider you an "acceptable loss" if the need arose.
If anything, this is a massive incentive for people to want to find/make new jobs and avoid this.
>>74253706
So you're just giiving people money even when they don't neccesarily help the actual workforce?
>what is communism
What would be the point of working into the middle class whatsoever or even taking a basic job when you can just sit on your ass
You people are too fucking stuck on the bourgeois and proletariat when there are so many varying levels in between its like u commies think money is just being stockpiled by 5 people at the tippity top
>>74254218
Learn to build roads.
>>74254218
Probably something like give them a shovel, have them dig holes, then have them fill the holes up.
Just to keep them busy and "contributing" to society. Can't have anyone getting a free pass.
>>74251736
ITT people come up with convoluted reasons as to why we should have numerous government programs that naturally cause wastage, rather than save money by guaranteeing a basic income level which will fuel private sector spending.
>>74252232
Okay lets think logical here.
Lets say Person A gets $7,00 per hour.
He has a low education, so no one would pay him $15,00 for turning patties or some stuff.
Now, we raise his loan from 7 to 15. The company has more costs, so they raise the price in proportion to their costs. Actually, that means that person A can't afford more for his money because he has to pay more for the money he gets more.
Person B gets a salary from $3k per month. He isn't affected by the basic income. But he also has to pay more for the stuff he wants, because of the higher costs person A produces with his basic income.
This stuff is also a effect that creates a Harberger triangle, look it up.
>>74252259
Eventually there will be no room for more jobs and overpopulation will destroy the world.
Honestly thats the only reason for basic income is that there will not be enough jobs.
>>74251736
Here is the most significant issue with the universal basic income: People do not understand it.
It isn't free money for everyone. Instead, it takes all of the present government benefits and rolls them into a single, taxable payment to everyone.
Thus, instead of receiving welfare, baby bonus, disability, autism bux, unemployment, whatever - everyone receives the UBI. This applies to the guy making $16k at McDonalds and to the lawyer making $160k.
The idea is that the UBI will provide an overall greater benefit to society because it will allow for the elimination of a vast amount of bureaucracy that surrounds deciding who qualifies for different benefits and paying it to them.
The UBI is simple: Who gets it? Everyone. How much? The same.
This is intended to be economically feasable because the net cost to the government (payments made less tax revenue recovered from payments) will be around the same as the cost of the previous programs (payments made plus cost of administration).
Because you are not punished for earning an income the hope is that people will still have incentive to work.
Clarity: There is no guarantee that this will provide everyone with an income that is sufficient for a happy life. Hopefully, people can subsist. It is intended to be better than current welfare benefits. But anyone looking to sit back and live off of it will have financial stress.
>>74251736
Forward... off the cliff
>>74254334
This guy gets it.
>>74254061
>I don't want to give my self-earned money to lazy shits but I think everyone deserves a job.
Creating bullshit jobs for people to earn a wage, just because you don't want to give it to them for free will cost more than just giving it to them for free. Not to mention that under basic income, you will get the exact same amount for free, together with that which you work for... Look at it like the original tax-free base we used to have in our income tax: No matter if you made €10.000,- or €1.000.000,- the first €8000,- or so were always tax free.. Basic income would work like that.
>>74254267
>>74254324
Good effort lads. Why not take it a step further and have people paid to go round setting trees and houses on fire to keep the fire service busy?
>>74251736
I'm pretty libertarian, but honestly it's inevitable. In 10-20 years robots will run everything. What will we do, have the majority of the population homeless because they literally can't get jobs? Eventually we will enter a star trek type future, like it or not.
>>74254535
The idea is to have people stop living 1 paycheck away from disaster.
It will stimulate the economy by people having more spending power.
You are absolutely right in saying that people do not understand it. It's not necessarily a living wage, it's just some extra money.
>>74254252
>So you're just giiving people money even when they don't neccesarily help the actual workforce?
Yes. That's what basic income entails.
>what is communism
Communism. Not basic income.
>Americans in charge of defining communism
>What would be the point of working into the middle class whatsoever or even taking a basic job when you can just sit on your ass
The same point improving your career or trying to get a promotion/raise has now: Nicer house, bigger car, trohpy wife, more prostitutes etc.
>You people are too fucking stuck on the bourgeois and proletariat when there are so many varying levels in between its like u commies think money is just being stockpiled by 5 people at the tippity top
It's like you don't realise it doesn't have to do with the money as such, but with the fact that there are not enough jobs around to provide every single person with a job that's actually useful and provides them with a livable wage.
How UBI threads go:
1) UBI IS LEFTISM!!!!!
No, reduced state services is not leftism. UBI encourages an individual to utilise tax funds as he sees fit.
2) UBI encourages laziness
The modern world encourages laziness, shall we go back in time?
3) UBI is impossible to fund
Is it? Where does all this money come from to fund all these useless state services?
4) UBI makes everyone into slaves because they are forever dependent on state with no skills
People downtrodden with debt to earn jobs are already in a sorry place, very close to being slaves.
>>74254218
Honestly, produce something of value.
Machines are usually only automated to mass produce things that are already designed.
But someone needs to design new things, or make improvements on old designs, or design new processes or machines to build the new versions.
If you're a taxi driver, instead of letting self-driving cars take your job, offer a social experience. Provide a cleaner car, better service, free mints for customers...
Automation increases productivity, but it cannot add value. Value adding - particularly in service roles - is something intuitive where the person providing the good or service considers the needs AND the wants of the customer and takes initiative to meet those desires.
Basically: add value, increase positive personal interaction, constantly improve your products and services.
>>74251736
Is that image supposed to be an argument?
I could make the exact same thing with the word "backwards" instead and would have completely destroyed whatever pseudo-logic you're putting on display.
>>74253067
Actually the hard (revolutionary) left oppose it as they see it as sustaing capitalism and holding off the collapse. OP is right. This is not a right left thing. Stop trying to make it so.
Fuck you socialist scum.
>>74254761
When we enter post-scarcity, sure. Before then we still need a system that locates limited resources.
>>74254948
>get creative! write poems! suck that dick real good!
Have you ever thought about the capital requirement to set up a factory? There are only a few people who are able to get creative because automation is in the hands of the few.
Where will all the people be when the cars are automated, which seems to be only a few years away?
>>74255026
You sure told them, buddy.
>>74252800
>just get paid and take your time until you figured out what to do next career-wise
>figure it out and get a job
>the government takes 70% of your income to feed worthless parasites that haven't and don't plan to
>>74253192
>people can stay home and fulfil their passions
but in reality those passions are smoking weed, crystal meth or just sinking cheap piss 24/7
If we had a stronger creative culture instead of the current "everything's fucked, let's get pissed/high" shitshow then there might be a case for it
>>74255241
>worthless parasites get money
>worthless parasites spend money on your employer's products
>you make more money
>you pay the worthless parasites
>worthless parasites make sure you have a job
That's bascically the system in a nutshell.
>>74255351
>>worthless parasites spend money on your employer's products
>>you make more money
Oh toothpaste, you crack me up.
If I'm not mistaken, the point of Basic income is to replace the safety net that exists today with a guarenteed income.
The problem is that impulsive people will blow their money away at the beginning of the month and there will still be a need to help these people.
>>74253219
>Just to make things clear, I'm not in favor of UBI because it's being pushed by left-wing cucks and environmentalists.
This is the worst reasoning I've seen in a while.
another jewish trick to get stupid people more dependent on a ever increasing government.
>>74253394
And that's the problem. Imagine that the country is a company. You might relieve some workers of their job and still pay them short term while they find something else in the company, but it makes no sense to do it forever. It is just a drag on production/the producers.
UBI would require the right culture where being a slacker is frowned upon. Restrict immigration so only those that share your culture can come and only those that produce.
If UBI is created over time because you did all of this but automation has made us not need low skilled workers, you have to ask why they are low skilled.
Could we educate them to be skilled in something we need or is it beyond them? I personally think from what I've seen is that some people just aren't capable. Now we have a problem of people who suck who will just have shit children society has to take care of.
UBI only if we sterilize NEETs and those abusing the system. Also strict immigration to only allow those that make us stronger. And foremost we need a culture shift.
>>74252146
t. government official
>>74254948
A nation of inventors, engineers, scientists and doctors? This isn't going to happen is it?
For all your talk of competition, once every taxi is a Tesla with heated leather seats and complimentary drinks, the only way to distinguish yourself is on price. So ultimately we're talking race to the bottom.
Besides, teh service sector is a total fucking con. A bubble at best. Once we stop having the edge in terms of education and experience then our financial services 'industry' is dead in the water. At this stage the service industry (80%+ the population) are simply juggling around a finite amount of cash.
>>74255502
>UBI would require the right culture where being a slacker is frowned upon. Restrict immigration so only those that share your culture can come and only those that produce.
I agree with this absolutely.
>you have to ask why they are low skilled.
This is increasingly becoming an issue. Between limited apprenticeship and university places, and training positions demanding more experience than is possible for most school leavers, the number of people left behind is on the increase. Creating joke degrees helps hide this for a while but hiding and ignoring an issue only makes it all the more painful when it bites.
>>74251736
I think a basic guaranteed income for everyone is fine, provided all welfare, public health insurance and other entitlements are shut down. I think it would come out cheaper.
>>74255201
>Where will all the people be when the cars are automated, which seems to be only a few years away?
I literally answered exactly this scenario in the case of a Taxi driver in the post you replied to.
Most automation will be in service jobs. So, value add. If you can't offer better service than a touch-screen or vending machine, then you are already disposable.
It has nothing to do with writing poems or sucking dick, despite what your faggot desires are.
Automation will happen, and when it does people should adapt and learn new skills that are valuable to an employer or to a customer (if you want to start your own business).
Using Automation as an excuse for UBI is retarded.
>this automobile will destroy my horse-shit shoveling business.
Because apparently the only thing your shovels are good for is shoveling horse shit right into these threads.
>>74254522
if there aren't enough jobs we can expect there not to be enough funds to redistribute either. The 1% is not very good at paying taxes, the BI will not allow for a middle class lifestyle, it will be food stamps or like a UNESCO program.
>>74255415
> Replace the safety net with a hammock
What could go wrong?
>>74251736
>The other thread about 45% of the workforce being automated in the future has got me wondering whether or not UBI will be needed.
>le workforce automation doom meme
you do realize that 99.9% of the 1800 workforce has been automated, right? So then why haven't we all become unemployed?
>>74255890
This sounds good on paper. FOr the UK for example, we'd need to find about 150bn a year to pay everyone a BI of £700 per month, assuming all other bennies are cut. Unfortunately there are people making silly money gaming the current system and the hard left will fight tooth and nail to protect these people. They also kinda have a point. People with severe disabilities could not live on £700 a month. But yeah in principal I agree with you.
>>74255502
>And that's the problem. Imagine that the country is a company.
Immediately there's a problem there though. Nation States are not companies. Not even close.
> You might relieve some workers of their job and still pay them short term while they find something else in the company, but it makes no sense to do it forever. It is just a drag on production/the producers.
Except, like I said, a country isn't a business. You cannot lay off citizens just because you don't need them anymore, or have no need for them at this time.. Also, you fail to take the fact that governments already spend VAST amounts of money on benefits, premiums and subsidies in the current system, especially in countries like mine with an extensive welfare state. Giving everybody a basic income would likely be less expensive than the current system of taxes and premiums we have which is hideously bloated.
>UBI would require the right culture where being a slacker is frowned upon. Restrict immigration so only those that share your culture can come and only those that produce.
We need to restrict immigration regardless. Welfare states have a higher need for this than others, regardless of basic income arrangements.
>If UBI is created over time because you did all of this but automation has made us not need low skilled workers, you have to ask why they are low skilled.
Because a portion of the work force will always be low skilled, either inherently or due to their own failings and mistakes. Fact is, they will remain. That´s the reason why there are still US states which require a gas station attendant to pump your gas. Basic income is basically the same principle, without the pretend-job charade.
(cont.)
>>74254522
>Eventually there will be no room for more jobs
false
>>74255351
thank god there are worthless parasites, what would i do if i missed 30% of my work's worth.
>>74255502
>>74256087
>Could we educate them to be skilled in something we need or is it beyond them? I personally think from what I've seen is that some people just aren't capable. Now we have a problem of people who suck who will just have shit children society has to take care of.
People don't spend their entire careers behind conveyor belts because that's what they dreamed of when they were in kindergarten, anon. And even if they did, if a production line is automated, and all the conveyor belt attendants are no longer needed, do you really think a proportionate amount of job positions somewhere in the chain beyond the conveyor belt magically opens up? Because I doubt that sincerely.. Usually it's the other way around actually: Less conveyer belt attendants means less cafeteria personel, which in turn might mean fewer deliveries... Which all requires fewer adminstrative staff to process all of these expendatures, etc etc etc.
>UBI only if we sterilize NEETs and those abusing the system. Also strict immigration to only allow those that make us stronger. And foremost we need a culture shift.
NEETs abusing the system cost heaps of money as it is, especially in welfare states. All this would mean is that less money is wasted on trying to get the NEETs to work, or expensive medical exams to justify their NEET-dom.. If a NEET wants more money or help in a basic income situation, he'd be responsible for obtaining that himself rather than trying to squeeze a bit more from some or other government jar.
>>74255890
This is basically the core idea behind basic income I believe: Cut out the inefficient wasteful government departments that concern themselves with who has the right to how many entitlements exactly, and just give everybody a single round sum. No administrative nightmares, no procedures, no qualifications and control of eligibility. Much cheaper and less bloated.
>>74252800
>"that new job"
consists of squatting around and waiting for the guverment paycheck
>>74255351
>>74256430
>toothpasteposting
wew, nice economic fallacies lad
>>74256582
I'm not even sure if I'm in savor of Basic Income. I'm just trying to explain it as best as I've understood it, in the context of European-style welfare states.
>economic fallacies
As opposed to your baseless claims?
>>74256102
>>74256004
>you do realize that 99.9% of the 1800 workforce has been automated, right? So then why haven't we all become unemployed?
Because societies have changed.. If you look at agriculture or industries like ship-building for instance, it's very clear that a great deal of jobs that existed in the 1800s no longer exist today... There has been a shift in labour, especially to non-manual types of work. But what we're seeing now is that non-manual work is increasingly getting automated as well... What is the everage excell-office worker going to switch to when he gets replaced by a script?
It's just communist wealth redistribution anon. Same shit different name. They'd tout it as being the end of welfare even though it is welfare then in the very next budget implement policies that give extra welfare to the wasters. It wouldn't solve anything, it enthrals everyone to the government elites and still means that those who produce the most get fucked to pay for parasites. Just another tumble down the leftist communist slippery slope.
How about we intoduce UBI, but add the option to opt out of it. So that those who are disgusted with the idea of getting money from the government can keep their moral integrity.
>yfw no one backs out of it
>>74256839
>It's just communist wealth redistribution anon
No. Because the means of production remain with private actors.. That alone makes a system with basic income fundamentally different from communism.
>They'd tout it as being the end of welfare even though it is welfare then in the very next budget implement policies that give extra welfare to the wasters.
...? What do you base this on?
In a Utopian, all white society, it would work.
Pay everyone JUST enough to live. Most people will want something better for themselves, and will be more able to find careers and professions they enjoy and will still contribute real value. Most people dont want to do nothing.
However, in our multicultural, failing western societies we live in currently it wouldnt work. We've suffered a century of kike ruination. The proportion of people who dont contribute would be enormous. We would sink further into degeneracy.
Aside from that, why would Mr Shekelstein free humanity now? When he is so close to enslaving the entire world in the debt dependent central banking system?
>>74256821
So how can we fight this surplus labour market without harming society even more? The easy answer is have fewer people, but that's hard to achieve, and often immoral too.
>>74253219
outsourcing and reduction of employees does the same thing. If there's a better structure of writing down inventary that isn't automation, it still kills "muh job"
>>74256821
> I'm just trying to explain it as best as I've understood it, in the context of European-style welfare states
Oh, I thought >>74255351 was you asserting the truth value of those statements.
>baseless
you could say that about literally every claim made in this thread, because none of them are cited properly. I figured that
>le fixed pie economy meme is wrong
and
>agriculture jobs have "disappeared"
would be pretty non-controversial.
>But what we're seeing now is that non-manual work is increasingly getting automated as well
that doesn't mean people are losing their jobs anon. The unemployment rate has been pretty stable since we started recording it, and it's not likely to change.
>>74257041
This kind of thinking is fucking retarded
>if I get fired from my job today, I'm out of work until the end of time!
>>74251736
>The other thread about 45% of the workforce being automated in the future has got me wondering whether or not UBI will be needed.
Well, what I can tell you is that our current system is unworkable in the very near future.
So something has to change.
A lot of people put forward a UBI as a solution, a lot of people around here think UBI is retarded, but those selfsame people refuse to come up with an alternative option and usually just dig their heads in the sand and deny there's any actual issue to begin with.
So you might as well ignore them
>>74255566
>>74253394
>A society where not everbody is able to work, either because there isn't enough work or because not everbody has the skills required to perform that work.
comrade, you blew your cover
>>74257342
I didn't imply that. If there are way more people than places on the labour market, you will end up with a shitton of people that can't earn money. And you can only keep on redistributing welfare for so long, it'll be turned into a systemic flaw of the system.
>>74257445
If you change towards UBI too early you might fuck your economy over so hard everything collapses desu
>>74251736
A UBI will do nothing to prevent poverty, it will only create dependence on government.
The costs of shelter and food will inflate to be just under/over what the UBI provides. You will still at best slowly starve on it.
It's just like the projects now. Free housing, free food, zero future, no prospects. You are just warehousing people to slowly die and incentivizing them not to cause problems else the gibs get taken away.
gdp is product created per person * people working.
wealth generation is gdp produced / num_people.
You have got to get an economy where everybody can an is incentivized to work and contribute the greater good to create a wealthy society.
paying people to not work is fail.
>>74257445
what do you think is the issue? Automation?
if so, then there is no issue. Automation in all sectors has been happening since the beginning of recorded history. Automation on the scale that you fags think will happen will not happen for a very long time because robots are still much much more expensive than humans.
>>74257540
There is no fixed set of "places" in the labor market. There is no such thing as "excess labor". If they wanted to, they could work for very cheap, and we would have no unemployment at all. However, people want to make more money than just 'enough', and will hold out for higher-paying jobs, especially recent college graduates.
Take ECON 101 ffs
>>74255415
It's a lot more than that m8
It's about moving the tax base from the average person to the corporation. You are no longer the target of taxation, but the vehicle for the allocation of resources in society. The money you get from the government is spent on goods and services, and the people providing those goods and services are taxed by the government.
It maintains the free-market approach that makes capitalist economies so successful while simultaneously allowing the average person to enjoy the fruits of the increased productivity that robotic labor has granted them.
The downside is that corporations will likely get actual voting rights and citizens may lose them. As well; with the government controlling the money faucet, there's opportunity for malicious actors within the government to deny guaranteed basic income for an assortment of reasons that amount to, "do what we say, or else".
As such I think a UBI, in the united states in particular, will require an amendment to the constitution to make it clear that it cannot be taken away for any reason. Anything less invites tyranny and abuse as you dictate what people must/should do to receive their bread.
UBI is just formalizing the idea that Government owns you
>>74256925
Who would opt out of free money when it's already taken out of your taxes, faggot.
I'm against government intervention but if I'm going to be extorted at gunpoint so all of the worthless little feminist intersectional lesbian carpetmunching majors can sit on their asses and jackoff on Reddit and /Pol/, I'm going to take my share as well.
>>74251736
I'd think libertarians would be for UBI, or at least *more* for it than the massive bureaucracy that is currently required to handle welfare and food stamps and whatnot.
Look, we're not going to let people starve in the streets. Its the humane thing to do, and for the self-centered you're better off giving bums $5 than worrying about bums breaking into your homes to steal your stereo equipment. There is going to be some form of welfare system in place so its time to decide what system we want, what makes sense in the 21st century.
Yes, there will always be people who abuse systems we put into place. The 5% abusers are not a valid argument against the 95% good, its an argument to improve the system.
Society has made choices. We don't just execute all criminals, we've agreed that prisons, while more costly, are the right thing to do even for their cost.
>>74252146
Does having car insurance or home insurance mean that you don't take care of your car or home? Again, there will always be some who try to abuse the system but the vast majority of us pay into this safety net without ever needing to use it. Its there just in case, and not having to worry that a single accident will be life-crippling lets you focus on more important things. I'm not worried about my house burning down today, I've got projects to code.
Pros:
>Not a lot of, perhaps no inflation if the underlying assumption proves true
>Vastly increases consumption
>Makes NEETs happy
Cons:
>Extreme inflation if the underlying assumption proves false
>Governments can more efficiently provide services than hand out cash
>Makes NEETs happy
RE: Inflation
Inflation occurs when the demand side of the supply/demand equation outpaces the supply side. More dollars chasing fewer goods means those dollars are worth less than they would otherwise be. Because the assumption underpinning UBI is "people who get UBI will still work," the success of such a scheme is very much contingent on whether people still work if they're getting basic income.
If they do, congrats, people are still adding to the supply side of the equation even as their demand increases, which means inflation is kept roughly in check. If they don't, congrats, you've probably tanked the national economy.
>>74251736
>paying people for simply existing
wew lad
>>74257910
>thinking a system where the government hands out money would be more efficient than a system where the government is still handing out money (welfare)
That doesn't make any sense.
>>74251736
How do you pay for it?
>>74251736
http://www.scottsantens.com/
Articles you can find here will explains it all and counters all the common objections.
>>74255005
>the hard (revolutionary) left
Is dead. And being left is more than just being a dirty pinko.
Personally, the idea of a UBI is great if it's created out of the consolidation of all other forms of welfare and becomes variable based on certain factors. There would be a base amount that allows someone to just barely live afloat such as $1200 or something like that, and that amount would go up or down depending on other forms of income, number of dependants, if they are going to school and any other important factor I have left out.
I'm for it, at least here in Canada, because it simplifies and limits the corruption potential of our terribly complex and fucked system. The cost would hang somewhere around $80 billion CND if it was implemented the way I have been theorizing, compared to our +$220 billion healthcare bill and current spending on welfare which are also in the tens of billions.
Giving everyone in the country a ton more spending money has many advantages: the government is indirectly investing in businesses, they are helping the people live better, and people will be happier and will be able to make more risks, perhaps even invest in things themselves.
The only real arguments I see are:
>It's not affordable
(That would depend on the country in question and how the system is implemented)
or
>REEEE FUCKING FREELOADERS SUCKING UP ALL THIS FREE MONEY I WORK HARD FOR MY MONEY AHHHHH WTF?!?!
A properly created system shouldn't even increase your taxes and also if you hate the idea of indirectly helping millions of others who are worse off than you then you can fuck off to the woods and be a greedy asshole in there.
The advantages of a UBI and injecting more money into the hands of the people and therefore the economy far outweigh the negatives.
>>74258050
>http://www.scottsantens.com/
Huff Poo writer with this
>Humanity Needs Universal Basic Income in Order to Stop Impeding Human Progress
Fuck off shill
>>74257910
The negative income tax is the best form of welfare formulated so far, and is vastly preferable to the UBI for the incentives it produces.
People should be allowed to starve to death in the streets, if they choose to not earn any money and not go to any churches or other charitable organizations, nor their family/friends/neighborhood. We need a more cohesive society in which communities help each other out and interact with each other more often. Government 'philanthropy' (ie redistribution and incursion of DWL) is a cancer to society.
>>74257994
this
>>74257907
Except not really at all is it? You can still work and live completely independent of the UBI. Fucking burn it every month if you have such a moral issue with it. Could even help offset some of that muh inflation.
>>74257873
>if so, then there is no issue. Automation in all sectors has been happening since the beginning of recorded history.
Just because you lie to yourself and repeat the lie over and over, doesn't mean it's true.
Here's the fundamental crux of the problem: You believe there is something completely irreplaceable and irreproducible about humans. Something that a machine cannot ever do as well as people do it.
All evidence suggests that the robots we're making today and will be making in 20 years are going to be doing jobs better, faster, and more efficiently than humans. There is absolutely nothing a human can do that a robot cannot theoretically do.
This is why we cannot even have a conversation on this. We disagree with the very start of the premise: You believe humans are special and irreplaceable, and I do not.
UBI is being forced on us to accommodate the Muslims in our midst.
>>74257994
Just think of it as paying people not to murder you because they can't get food cos no job.
>>74258217
Wouldn't be inflation from UBI
It's not printing money, it's just redistributing already existing money.
>>74258050
>go to the page
>read this
>“But even with the trillions of dollars pumped into the economy, the Fed has been perpetually unable to get inflation up to the 2 percent level it aims for, except for the occasional brief period. There is good news in that predictions by many Fed critics that Q.E. would unleash vicious hyperinflation have come nowhere close to materializing. But neither has it been enough for the Fed to reach its self-imposed goal. In an economy trying to get out from under an overhang of debt, where excessive unemployment is the leading problem, too-low inflation can be deeply problematic and hold back growth. Q.E. has not been powerful enough to generate as much inflation as the Fed says it wants.”
>So even though basic income would not be printing new money for everyone, even if it were, inflation would not be a guaranteed result.
>close the page
Sorry leaf, you linked a retard.
>>74258278
The supply of money is only one factor which causes inflation. If the supply of goods dries up, that also forces inflationary pressure onto the economy.
>>74257873
>robots are still much much more expensive than humans.
and vastly less flexible.
All you hrr durr automatin is the future fags need to go look at baxter. State of the fucking art, and yet kinda useless. Rethink robotics thought they would fly off the shelves; last I heard they had only sold maybe a thousand or two.
Places were automation is good is highly repetitive motions, like placing components on a circuit board. It's unreal fast.
The ability to get a guy for $10/hr. stand him in front of a table, say watch this and put something together, and let the dude do it is killer.
String together 10 tables and you have a production line; that's all it takes. To do the same thing with robots. Millions + a year of engineering and it would not be flexible if anything changes about the design.
You guys hating on the capacity of people need to be hating on the pieces of society that prevent people from being fully employed.
That's a hard problem.
>>74257873
Fine, the people work for half their former wages to accomodate for the bigger number of workers. Nevertheless, welfare will has decreased.
>However, people want to make more money than just 'enough', and will hold out for higher-paying jobs, especially recent college graduates.
Respectable but it's another market that's not only just about satiated but also inaccessible to the average person.
>>74252922
collective agreement
>>74252146
proof of concept: 4chan NEETs
gibsmedat
It would be a step forward for everyone. But ofcourse people will vote against their own interest.
Basic income can give a huge boost to the economy by stimulating consumerism. Everyone should be for this, major corporations included.
Banks get even more money to fuck around with. The housing market will get another impulse. This basic income shit is the future and will increase happiness all accross the board
>>74258256
>paying "protection money" to some vagrant so he doesn't try and kill me
He can try I guess. But great logic nonetheless.
>>74258017
Dumbass. In the UK atm there are about a dozen separate bennies, each with different conditions that must be assessed per applicanty, each with reviews teams to continually assess the validity of claims. Settlements teams to get back money handed out for the wrong reason, like say working 16 hours in a week instead of the 15.5 you're allowed. A UBI would be much simpler. It could be handled almost entirely by a machine. No need for job centers and the thousands of staff required for the soul-crushing work it entails. There are numerous debates about the net cost of UBI but that bureaucracy would be reduced is beyond doubt.
>>74258049
Scrap all other bennies (JSA, in work bennies, pension). This leaves shortfall of about 200bn a year that would have to be found. But remember we currently pay 50bn a year on debt INTEREST. So the numbers involved aren't that massive. UBI would also increase consumer spending, thus tax revenues.
>>74258338
Why would the supply of goods dry up?
Nothing is changing the supply
>>74257994
No, you're paying people for taking away their rights, for example to have cows in skyscapers and to go to the forest and get wood.
So it seems Finland, the absolute madman, will be doing UBI as of next year.
>Finland is about to launch a 'basic income' experiment that will give everyone 800 euros a month
http://uk.businessinsider.com/this-is-how-finlands-basic-income-experiment-could-work-2015-12
Based.
>>74258238
>There is absolutely nothing a human can do that a robot cannot theoretically do.
There is a massive difference between theory and practice.
Shit with all the money in the world Japan is having people with radiation badges work at the Fukashama ?sp? cleanup.
Then add in on top of that the actual costs of automation and it makes zero business sense to do it.
If you are bitching about no mfg jobs in the west, well you need to be bitching about the 'robot' named Mr Chinaman. Mr Chinaman works for pennies, does not care about dangerous working conditions or long working hours. He will go home and fuckabitch making his own replacement.
He is perfect. And there are a billion+ of them.
>>74258529
>Thinking the government is going to just discharge all those bureaucrats
What will happen is that the government will fold all these benefits bureaucracies under one department and it'll still be all kinds of fucked up.
>>74258559
>Nothing is changing the supply
UBI changes the supply by changing the incentives for work. Depending on whether UBI advocates are right or not, the incentives for work could change a little bit or a lot. If the incentives for work only change a bit, then there's no problem. If it changes a lot, then we've got more of a problem.
>>74256430
Eliminating all welfare and having UBI seems like an idea, but giving everyone welfare makes up for the waste in government?
My gut is that people will bitch they are getting less. People with a lot of children. Do kids get UBI? Or do parents of 8 get the same as a childless couple?
I want baby making deincentivized for low skill/intelligence workers. We need to shape our social programs according to our culture and to better our countries future.
UBI in absense of welfare seems possible, but I feel there are too many bleeding hearts that would argue for more. Plus the threat in a democratic society where a majority votes to take money from a minority. Voting rights would need to be restricted for those that put in less than they take. In the USA I think it would just create more of a separation between people, and that payment amounts would spiral out of control as people feel entitled for more to buy a house, raise a family or yadda yadda.
>>74258138
>the government is indirectly investing in businesses
They got the money from business transactions, thus creating dead weight loss, which creates a greater distortion than the MPC could ever compensate for.
>they are helping the people live better
Not necessarily. Many people may choose to quit their jobs, which for many, is their primary (sometimes only) form of social interaction and the only productive thing they do.
>people will be happier and will be able to make more risks, perhaps even invest in things themselves
Unlikely. Redistribution schemes tend only to hamper the economy.
>>74258238
>You believe there is something completely irreplaceable and irreproducible about humans
I do believe that productivity must be caused and maintained by humans, in one meta form or another. This is a critical flaw in your futurist nonsense, but I don't have to rely on this belief.
>Something that a machine cannot ever do as well as people do it.
The point at which they will be able to do this at the same price as humans and on a large scale is very far from the near future. You have no evidence to the contrary in the rest of your post, and nothing at all other than philosophical posturing. Fuck off leaf illiterate
>>74258369
>welfare will has decreased
No it hasn't (in the case of automation). Productivity increases, followed by the freeing of new labor, are good--the money goes to the most productive place.
>inaccessible to the average person
You can apply for any job you like, short of government restrictions (licensing laws are terribly destructive) and your own social disability.
It's basically the same thing as raising the minimum wage, the price of everything will eventually go up and the currency will become greatly deflated to which exports are paying you back next to nothing, imports would be far too expensive and would potentially crash your economy.
However it could also encourage people to make shit locally again if its too costly with the dollar to do it elsewhere so I'd be for it since the world is going to shit anyways.
>>74258166
So if we keep people employed at mcdonalds because people need jobs to survive instead of automating those jobs so humans are free to live life would you not call that impeding human progress?
>>74258421
wow I never thought of it this way, good point. In fact, we should just give everyone $400,000 a year!
>>74258756
After Universal Basic Income come the calls for a Living Basic Income.
>>74258649
neat, guess we'll see what actually happens.
>>74258854
Inflation occurs with minimum wage increases when the minimum wage is increased beyond productivity. For a lot of reasons it's pretty much impossible in the West these days to increase the minimum wage this much. Suffice it to say that your conclusion is incorrect.
>>74252986
This.
>>74258911
>free to live life
what the fuck does that mean?
oh right, it's been said before
>http://cnsnews.com/news/article/pelosi-obamacare-allows-you-quit-your-job-and-become-whatever
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said Thursday that Obamacare facilitates the type of “liberation” that the “Founders had in mind” because it allows you to quit your job and become a “photographer,” a “writer,” a “musician”--or “whatever.”
“As you hear from these stories, this is a liberation,” Pelosi said at a Capitol Hill news conference Thursday.
“This is what our founders had in mind--ever expanding opportunity for people.
“You want to be a photographer or a writer or a musician, whatever -- an artist, you want to be self-employed, if you want to start a business, you want to change jobs, you no longer are prohibited from doing that because you can’t have access to health care, especially because you do not want to put your family at risk,” she said.
>>74258841
>I do believe that productivity must be caused and maintained by humans, in one meta form or another.
Why?
And how is a labor force composed of robots creating goods for humans NOT "caused by humans"?
You're just spewing nonsense now.
If everyone gets UBI, how is the cost covered? Almost everyone would be receiving more money in taxes than they would be paying. Where is the difference made up?
>>74259092
>but I don't have to rely on this belief.
>The point at which they will be able to do this at the same price as humans and on a large scale is very far from the near future.
>The point at which they will be able to do this at the same price as humans and on a large scale is very far from the near future.
>The point at which they will be able to do this at the same price as humans and on a large scale is very far from the near future.
>The point at which they will be able to do this at the same price as humans and on a large scale is very far from the near future.
>>74259138
It's called "Eat the rich"
Eventually those "rich" will leave the UBI jurisdiction and tax receipts will decline to the point that UBI payments will have to be reduced.
But at least everyone will be equal in unemployment and income. Equal in misery.
Oh shit, that's Communism
Money is 'fiat'.
Money is debt
The banks create money with credit expansion.
There is two options
> make a more rational world with technology
> lets let people suffer or be exploted
>>74259138
Elimination of pre-existing welfare services
It's meant as a replacement for welfare, not an addition to welfare.
And with progressive taxes, some individuals end up paying more in taxes than they receive back from the UBI.
money is what you get for work done so you can trade your workforce for something else. what good is money when it does not relate to any work done? there is no value in money itself, you can give people free money all you want it wont change the amount of work done. it is just stealing from those who actually did work, imagine the farmer giving you his products for your free money while he earned his thing through hard labour, it is simply not fair and makes no sense.
t. a fan of adolf hitler
>>74253706
where does the basic income come from?
Have you been huffing glue Aquafresh?
>>74258529
>UBI would also increase consumer spending, thus tax revenues.
What happens when people stop going to work so income tax decreases?
>>74259322
The work isn't being done by people.
So you are 'stealing' the work done by robots.
Robots don't give a fuck about being paid for the work they do.
>>74259322
Fucking cuck
>>74259322
ohsfpbp
>>74253706
>by taking some money off the top and subsidising the bottom of the pyramid with it.
A ponzi scheme
>>74251736
just voted YES for universal income. it won't pass, but if we want a lean goverment it is the right approach. fire all those useless pricks and share the money.
>>74259444
waste of trips. Did he say anything wrong?
>>74259315
>It's meant as a replacement for welfare, not an addition to welfare.
Instantly disqualified, certain segments of the population automatically "deserve" more assistance in the public eye than others.
>UBI would also increase consumer spending, thus tax revenues.
Break more windows!
>>74259439
Oh stop shitposting, nobody takes you seriously.
>>74251736
100% for it.
Work should be voluntary.
Nobody should have to work if they don't want to.
>>74258421
Who's paying? The people I'd guess, based on how literally every social service is paid for with taxes.
You can't just invent fresh loads of money without significant economic consequences.
The way I see it, basic income will make a hypothetical $1000 the new $0, and then there's the attraction to migrants. Dear God, if the crisis wasn't bad enough then it surely would be.
A far better solution is to get rid of all that gouvernment red tape and reduce welfare so we can lower taxes and have more entrepreneurs starting businesses and building an economy.
>>74259391
You tax corporations to make up for it, most likely.
In particular as they no longer pay for employees and have massively reduced their own business costs, they can actually absorb the larger taxes
Although to be fair, this is /pol/ and /pol/ only believes in taxation of the individual, and not the corporation. I'm sure we'll have thirty posters soon, whining about how unfair it is to tax corporations a single penny.
Just think of it this way:
>taxes don't increase
>current welfare all consolidated into a UBI program
>people get an amount based on what they earn
>the poorest get the biggest chunks while richer and richer people from that point on get less and less and eventually nothing (although they are still better off than the poor)
>there are no more poor people (at least with a valid excuse... now if anyone becomes poor it's because they squandered their money and have nobody to blame but themselves)
>the rich and middle class are no more affected than they already were
There are basically no drawbacks. I don't see how you can speak out against a properly implemented UBI.
>>74259322
The money is essentially redistributed from the well off to the poorest via the tax system. Work is not coming from nowhere -- the more valuable work of the middle class and rich is finally going to be used to help the poorest peoples directly.
>>74259439
how is the work not done by people, in germany it still is. maybe in canada its different and you get your leaf syrup from robots but not here.
>>74259444
checked but shut up
>>74259552
No-one is forcing you to work.
You are not entitled to money.
>>74259552
fuck off britcuck, nobody owes you a living.
>>74259487
Work is assigned by relations not merit.
money doesn't come from 'hard work'
THIS is why we can't have nice things
>>74259602
We've not fully transitioned to automated labor yet. UBI is necessary however, because this transition is happening right now and is going to have massive effects on the economy over the next 20-30 years.
If you think UBI isn't a viable solution to mass unemployment while production actually soars thanks to automated labor, then feel free to come up with an alternative.
>>74259588
Oops, I shouldn't say there will be no more poor people. There will simply be a change of socioeconomic class where the lowest ranks are now "UBI babbies". Those who can move ranks most likely will, whereas those who basically cannot (the very sick, the retards, the crazies, homeless fucks) will stay there forever but at least will be able to invest in the economy and won't be dying everyday to shit like malnutrition.
>>74259588
>The money is essentially redistributed
as long as the """free""" money is pure redistribution its fine with me because its not free then. when the state starts to print just the money they need to give it to the poor its fucked up shit.
>>74259588
you forgott how many will loose their jobs. the savings are huge and they'll all receive UBI as well.
>>74259649
Perhaps that is the case, in Poortugal
>>74259625
People are being coerced into working.
The choice is either work or live on the streets.
That's not a choice.
>>74259632
You realise that sooner or later capitalism will cease to exist right?
>>74259703
>We've not fully transitioned to automated labor yet
and we never ever will
>>74251736
it's actually backward, it's stepping back into government dependency, back into serfdom
>>74259761
>The choice is either work or live on the streets.
Yes it is you fucking cuck. I lived on the streets for two months when my dad kicked me out in high school. It was tough, but I learned a lot, and met some good people. Of course, in Britain, I guess you don't have friends or churches.
>>74259777
Why not?
This again seems to be coming back to the "humans are special and irreplaceable" argument.
What is it about humans that you think cannot be replicated or repaced?
>>74259777
Of course we will.
Most jobs will be automated within our lifetimes.
>>74259804
Literally the only valid issue I've seen in this thread of luddites so far.
>>74259728
Hmm? Wait why would people be losing their jobs?
>>74251736
This means the percentage of the UBI of your income determines your interest in maintaining or increasing the UBI at the expense of other interests.
Relatively poor people will predominate and UBI will grow to eat all other sources of income - it's basically communism.
Dependence on the UBI is a giant risk. It could go away in a crash - then what?
I would rather live in a mud hut that I built myself and nobody can take from me.
Remove the taxes for existing (like simply owning property even after you've payed it off) and suddenly people might be able to survive without a form of income.
>>74259761
There has never been a point in human history where the choice isn't work or die.
>>74259817
the only thing that gets automated is building cars and inner factory work like filling up some bottles or packs of meat
and thats allready done
>>74259815
Nobody should have to live on the streets.
This isn't the middle ages anymore.
We've come far enough as a species that we can afford to give everyone basic accomodation and living standards so why don't we?
For the most part, it's not economically viable at the moment. We can barely afford our gibs as it is.
I'm not an autistic NAPper so that's my only real complaint.
>>74259573
Tax burdens on Corporations are simply passed on to the Consumer in higher prices.
You dumb fucking retard
>>74251736
>45% of the workforce being automated in the future
Key phrase being "In the future". When half of all jobs are automated, then we can have a discussion about this, until then, get to work you lazy sack of shit.
>>74259761
>You realise that sooner or later capitalism will cease to exist right?
What do you even mean? All forms of life will stop investing in production?
>>74251736
>>74253093
Jobs that would be automated lose value. Jobs that aren't or require human assistance will obviously be compensated in supplement to a Universal Basic Income. Like if your a doctor (non-robot assuming), instead of paying you $250k a year, i pay you $200k, simply because you'll be earning $50k a year through UBI.
I was unemployed for about 5 months after graduating college. I only found a job because my family knew a guy, now I make 70k which is okay for a twenty-three year old with a degree in basket weaving. I hope this drives the point home when I say there shouldn't be universal income. Even a stupid retard like me can see why.
Let's boil it down to something so simple even someone with a degree in basket weaving could comprehend it. You have a bunch of people on an island; some of them provide services, like selling coconuts or repairing huts. You have to earn money by working for the guys who own these means of production, which keeps everyone busy and sets the amount of money you inherently have at 0. You don't work, you don't eat. Now let's take this same society and say "you know what? Even if you don't work, you still earn ten Island Coins every day just to ensure you don't starve." The amount of money everyone has is now 10 rather than 0. You can eat even if you don't work, right?
No. The guy selling coconuts, in order to maintain a profit and keep people employed, is now charging 20 Island Coins for food. Repairing your hut, buying toilet paper and all the other stuff you need is also more expensive. You have completely inflated the price of absolutely everything because the base amount of money everyone has isn't 0, it's 10. Why does this happen? Because when a society gets wealthier things don't stay the same price, entrepreneurs and business owners increase the prices of everything because they can. There is no such thing as good faith or ethics in the capitalist process, which is why jamming in a socialist concept into it will only get the socialist fucked.
I'm willing to accept starving and being useless if it means society doesn't crumble in on itself. It means I have to work harder on earning money and is as close to Darwinism as the human species will probably get in the modern era.
>>74259903
Because it's not cheap. We've come quite far as a species, but that also means personal responsibility should be valid now more than ever. Reap the results of your choices, good or bad.
Absolving idiots of responsibility just creates more idiots.
>>74259817
On our scale, creativity is a unique human aspect.
For that reason, we must automate everything under the sun and put all our energy in inventing new technologies and enterprises so we have new stuff to automate.
>>74259925
he means that investing is a ponzi scheme that will cease to exist. you wont invest into something that will not yield you more than you invested. and this time will come (because some ressources on earth are not infite ; - ) )
>>74258217
But the redistributive UBI will eat whatever you produce.
Go ahead and farm, we'll find where you hid the grain and bring it to the cities to pacify the hungry mob and prevent a counterrevolution.
In the sticks, you can starve.
>>74259817
It will only be done if it is profitable to do so, which, for the vast majority of jobs, it is not, and the idea that a robot would cost less than $20/hour to be a waiter or daylaborer is fucking absurd.
Also, you must not be familiar with the subject if you think that people like high level computer programmers and geospatial analysts will be automated.
>>74259885
No, I'm sorry but a lot more than that is being automated now, and you are clueless.
90% of the population used to farm, now 2% do
These fucks just want free shit and don't want to work because their job skills are significantly less than their inflated self worth
Any job they can get they feel is below fhem
No. People need to die.
I'm working class, but at least I work a useful job that provides a service that has demand.
A lot of people are working jobs that are "dig a hole" jobs to create "fill in a hole" jobs, redundant ponzi scheme shit.
That, and since the world wants to be all humanitarian and egalitarian, it needs to come to terms with the fact that gooks, shitskins, and other turd worlders have a lot lower living and working standards than Westerners.
No business owner is going to pay more than they have to. They get into business to remove their chains to other people and increase their personal options. That is what capitalism is. There's no point in deluding yourself otherwise so long as people like Blankfein and other Wall Street kikes are "smart businessmen" rather than criminals.
You have to be a fucking retard to be content with "working hard" and "being considerate" when you live in a world where HFT is kosher.
>here comes some "economist" fucking retard who will argue how HFT contributes to the world
>>74260065
explain to me how im clueless what else is automated to the point where a human worker is no longer required?
>>74251736
With UBI the world reverts to middle school, where only social factors matter. Hard work, creativity, inspiration or bravery don't matter. You will get a bunch of useless eaters running around bullying and trashing everything/everybody they don't like for fun.
Which is why a UBI form of society doesn't exist and has never existed. Any group that took it on would very quickly cease to be a functional community.
I dunno, the whole thing about people inventing just because they can struck me as odd. Everything I've ever built was because I hated doing a thing, so I made it so I had to do it never or less often, starting with a box pushing machine for a warehouse job so I'd have to walk up and down the line less while tossing boxes in a truck to an easier to use graphical interface for building things in a Pokemon Mystery Dungeon knock off program because I was getting tired of telling my friends how that shit worked.
Its not even necessity that's the mother of invention, its annoyance.
>>74251736
If you give people an annual stipend of say $30,000 for housing, food, and other basic needs it might work. You would have to get rid of all other welfare programs. Those who can't manage money well will pay companies to watch their money and distribute it as needed, like auto-pay. Of course all this takes the spending power out of the government's hands so they'll never do it.
>>74253067
>that picture
>not sharing the same bottle as your bro
gaaayyy
>>74259908
It's more complicated than that and if you had half a brain you'd know that.
There are certain things that limit what sort of changes can be made. The more competitive an industry is, the less the involved corporations can pass costs to their customers.
Mcdonalds cannot increase the price of their burgers by $5 and expect to keep the customers they have. They will lose them all to their competition.
It's only in monopolistic industries where what you're talking about is a certainty, and monopolies are a problem for a lot of reasons beyond just this.
In other words, stop being such a disingenuous fuck.
>>74259876
That doesn't mean there never will be.
>>74260019
Idleness is not the same as idiocy.
Plenty of stupid people work.
>>74259846
of course, there will be many less required in the government. those partially lazy guy from social services, unemployment giveudats and the whole invalidity payment departments will be shuttered and replaced by one lean department that pays out to all citizens (refugees are excluded unless they are accepted).
>>74259876
There was never a point in history where humans could fly until we fucking put some effort into advancing ourselves beyond savages who shit in the woods and learned to build aircraft...
This argument and those like it are fallacies. Just because people have being doing things a certain way forever doesn't make it the best choice, and just because right now something is not feasible does not mean it will always be that way. Progress means taking risks and trying new things and fucking up more than occasionally. People like you who want to keep us stuck in the traditional old ways are basically saying "let's just stop right here forever and never advance". Science and technology will not advance unless society and humanity itself advance alongside it. Those great advances in science and technology affect the ways we live on a fundamental level.
>>74259903
Because people should be allowed to be poor, and social networks should take care of them. If they can't, they should stop reproducing. The extent to which you britcucks and commies want to impede natural selection (selection of the fittest, on earth) is abominable.
>>74260036
i-is this satire? Your English isn't that great so your tone is indecipherable
>>74260087
this
>>74260049
Computer programmers are already being automated
Basically what I'm getting here, is that you people simply don't understand technology and don't believe it's possible for technology to ever improve.
>>74260099
>No. People need to die.
You'll be amongst the ones dying. You aren't special; this is the typical go-to for people who don't like UBI - Kill everyone who is unemployed, that'll fix everything.
Except it won't. It'll start civil wars.
It just amazes me how fucking clueless so many people on here can be.
>>74260196
M8 you've never walked into an economics classroom and it's pretty obvious. Stop shitposting as if you're an expert in the subject, that anon was correct.
>In other words, stop being such a disingenuous fuck.
>>74260256
If you want to try something new, so be it, but you better have convincing evidence. The last time a radical new economic system was tried a pretty large number of people died.
>>74257907
Well at the end of the day, they kind of do.
I could go off into the woods with a small group of robot workers that will run off of solar power and farm the land for me to provide me with everything I need to survive, and not be dependent on anyone that way.
The problem is the government ultimately owns the land and can tell me to GTFO if they want to.
At the end of the day, you "own" as much as you can defend from someone who wants the same thing. The government will always have the bigger army and better guns, so you'll always be the government's bitch.
>>74260256
The welfare experiment of the past 5 decades has only worsened the problems it claimed it would fix.
>>74260390
>Computer programmers are already being automated
[citation needed]
>is that you people simply don't understand technology and don't believe it's possible for technology to ever improve
No, I believe that. What I don't believe is that it would ever fucking be profitable to get a robot to 'program' for you. Have you ever tried to code? Have you ever made chess? Show me the computer that can code chess.
>>74260490
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automatic_programming
ftp://ftp.kestrel.edu/pub/papers/smith/IEEE-Software-0605.pdf
>>74260010
Wow thanks for sharing the fact that you fundamentally don't understand the topic.
First of all, your first sentence had absolutely nothing to do with "driving the point home about UBIs". If anything your anecdote was an argument in favor of it, since you could see that without family connections (which not everyone has the luxury of having), you'd be a sad NEET fuck with a worthless degree your dumb ass almost lost out a ton of money for.
Moving on, your analogy is just nowhere near equivocal. Western countries are far more advanced than a bunch of people living on an island with no real government. The government and the businesses are two separate entities in our countries and the UBIs are going to be paid by the government, not the businesses. Of course as in your example if the businesses were paying for UBIs out of pocket they would simply make up for the losses elsewhere, but that is not the case. Businesses and people only stand to gain from a UBI when it is created from existing programs therefore keeping the tax rate the same.
So please learn from what I just said or keep being wrong, basketweaver. Up to you. Good day. Congratulations on your good fortune of your family "knowing a guy".
>>74258745
The bureaucracy is a result of processing applications. With UBI no processing is required once your on the system and have nominated a bank account for the money to land in. Literally a direct debit is all you would need. And if the ideal UBI system was in place, there'd be no other bennies for people to apply for so no need for processing. One simple question. Is applicant over 18 and alive? Then gibs money.
>>74260472
this
Welfare is already a complete fucking failure. But the leftist always argues that not enough money has been spent, that's why it failed.
It's no different than the Demorats that argued the Stimulus packages of the early Obama years were not enough.
It's always the same with these Communists
>>74260135
>to the point where a human worker is no longer required?
1 maintenance man can replace 20 workers, but a factory only needs 1 maintenance man, see?
Talk about muh loom workers all you want, the demand for unskilled labor is objectively going down
>>74260472
How so?
>>74251736
We should replace min wage with basic income. That way, I'll receive my fair share since I'm not a NEET!
>>74252800
>>74259903
>britcucks just getting all excited about the possibility to moral preen and SAVE DA POOR PEOPLE
Weak cunts like you ruined an empire
>>74253093
what does that matter when ubi is implemented as a solution mass automation and job shortages?
>>74260659
In the US a lot of people are born and die, processing these events is more then a few button presses. You make it seem easier then it is
>>74260490
>>Computer programmers are already being automated
In some sense they are, because frameworks allow developers to express more with less code, i.e. get an idea off the ground in less time than it would take to build the entire thing from the ground up.
Sure, someone has to design and develop the framework, and that takes time and effort. But the beauty of software is that is that unlike physical items, it's designed once but can be replicated infinity times at a negligible cost. An H&R Block rep can only be in one place at once time working on one thing. Software can be everywhere at once and operate in parallel; one piece of software can automate an untold number of man-hours.
Eventually programming frameworks will be such that the average pleb could "program" software with minimal training.
>>74258756
>My gut is that people will bitch they are getting less. People with a lot of children. Do kids get UBI? Or do parents of 8 get the same as a childless couple?
These are the key issues as yo actual implementation.
>I want baby making deincentivized for low skill/intelligence workers.
How about cash incentives for the first two/three kids only. No bennies for your forth kid. So only those who can afford it would have so many kids. If we're being honest this is the best for the gene pool too.
>UBI in absense of welfare seems possible, but I feel there are too many bleeding hearts that would argue for more.
Again I think you're spot on. To bring it in you'd need a hard-nosed bastard who can tell them to fuck off and enjoy their hunger strike, and can stand up to the torrent of abuse from the self-styled left in politics and the media.
>>74260390
>Kill everyone who is unemployed, that'll fix everything.
>
>Except it won't. It'll start civil wars.
You're too stupid to see that you're already in a work camp, which is what your countries are. Those who aren't in work camps are the Jews with billions who go wherever they please.
There's no difference between being in a "Nazi concentration camp" and being anyone who makes the average working wage in America; you work to pay for your rent and transportation and some food. You can't afford a home or children.
All of these whites are passing up on getting a home and having kids because it isn't even remotely an option. They are going to college and taking on a shitload of debt just in hopes to be able to pay rent in a fucking studio apartment.
People are too dumb to compare their standard of living to previous generations, because they know nothing but Miley Cyrus sucking off niggers and the latest LGBT faggot on youtube.
So lets say we put in basic income, and we got enough automatization not to have labor shortages, what's stopping prices to go bonkers?
If we're going to go full retarded, wouldn't it be smarter to use stuff like food stamps or bill stamps or whatever?
>>74260254
Why would we need to get rid of those jobs? Instead redistribute all of those workers into the new UBI program's system and get them to work keeping on eye on people so that they don't try to cheat the system.
A good UBI program will be something you apply for. Don't just send people a set amount of money every month... that is retarded. Take note of my own personal system. It's variable based on certain factors, and you apply for it. Some may be denied if they are criminals or what have you. Making it an application process continues to maintain some net jobs.
>>74259573
>Although to be fair, this is /pol/ and /pol/ only believes in taxation of the individual, and not the corporation. I'm sure we'll have thirty posters soon, whining about how unfair it is to tax corporations a single penny.
/pol/ =/= FMIDF. Those are a vocal minority.
>>74260661
Why do you say that welfare is a failure?
It's raised the standard of living for everyone.
>>74260782
So you don't have an argument against UBI aside from childish ad homs.
>>74260782
>caring about people is a bad thing
>rofl dude fuck empathy, social darwinism lmao
the jews really got to you eh
>>74260965
No, people know best how to allocate their money, not the government.
You end up giving a man foodstamps when what he actually needs are car parts. Give him money and he gets what he needs on his own initiative.
I also don't see how prices would go bonkers. Worst case scenario is demand increases so producers increase prices to meet it, but that's a naturally balancing system.
There will eventually come a time when the vast majority of jobs are automated and we have unemployment levels around 40% or such.
The only logical response to this is to support the people who aren't working or we end up with slums/ghettos/massive unrest and probably a massive war against technology to bring jobs back.
Basic income is a pretty great strategy to this issue. /pol/ is showing it's true colours here and not understanding that basic income doesn't mean EVERYONE will make 50k(example) a year.
Basic income means people not in work, or in work that doesn't generate enough profit to warrant an increased wage, so McDonalds, Janitor, etc.
People who are actually inventing shit will still be under a capitalist type of society where they'll make millions more than everyone else. They'll be taxed harsher, but they'll still be much richer than the average person.
People keep saying shit like "there will be new jobs fixing the robots!" and other stuff like this, but it's just not true. Look at the car industry, they hire less than half of what they previously hired and are making multitudes more cars a year than they did with double the work force.
>>74260971
Half the fucking point of UBI is getting rid of the bureaucracy involved in 'making sure people don't cheat the system' by simply giving the money to everyone so that it's impossible to 'cheat the system'.
>>74260817
This is totally unrelated. I didn't say UBI was panacea for too much bureaucracy, just that if done right it would remove almost all the bureaucracy involved with bennies. Other departments will still need to run as normal.
