why does /pol/ support a universal basic income that lasts 2 years but doesn't support welfare
/pol/ does not support UBI.
>>76220864
when did /pol/ say that? I never heard him say that!
>>76220864
no
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/reuters/article-3626044/Swiss-voters-set-reject-guaranteed-basic-income-initiative--TV.html
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-06-05/landslide-vote-swiss-reject-proposal-hand-out-free-money-everyone
I dont care if there are 20 billion robots on this planet doing anything and everything for me including licking my asshole and stroking my cock while I eat the whole Dominos menu all day everyday. UBI is still the fucking dumbest idea ever, and yet another in a long line of buzzwords that are just Communism in disguise.
Communism that I have sworn to fight until my last breath.
Fuck Communism. Fuck UBI. And fuck you.
>>76222167
Alright genius, how do you propose we deal with massive systematic unemployment caused by automation?
I think the fundamental problem with basic income is it won't even be sufficient for what it is meant to provide for.
As I understand it, the idea is that all welfare is scrapped, and the money equally distributed between the adult population, thus there is no longer any problems with figuring out who needs it.
The UK budget for welfare is £232bn, and the UK has about 0.06bn adults, so if the same budget is kept, each adult receives about £4000 per year as basic income, eg: about £300 per month. How can £300 per month possibly be sufficient for someone with a serious disability that currently costs thousands per month to handle?
All that will happen is the UBI will be given, then there will be demands for even more welfare because it isn't providing for the most needy.
Not to mention that it absolutely requires closed borders, otherwise most of the world will want to come, and the impact of free money decreasing peoples' willingness to work reducing the taxes collected making this UBI unpayable very rapidly.
>>76222760
Not even an issue. Until all human wants and needs are satisfied, we need to make maximum use of all available resources, both machines and humans. If a machine can make 1,000 widgets a day, and a human can make 50, we should use BOTH, to produce the maximum number of widgets until desired widget level has been attained. If we ever reach a point where machines do 100% of the work, sure, then let everyone have free stuff. This point will not be reached for many years, if ever. We can worry about it then.
>>76222167
>Communism that I have sworn to fight until my last breath.
Everything I don't like is communism: the post
We don't. The worthless should starve to death, and only the fit or adaptable should survive. This is how evolution makes species better. Supporting the dregs of society, and letting them shit out kid after kid on our dime is how species devolve and go extinct.
>>76223453
That's pretty stupid m8. Some people are too stupid to be productive, and the smart ones should have some freedom to pursue passions of robots do all the automated work.
>>76222760
Better find some work, Commie. I suggest you either get some new training or start figuring out what arts and crafts you can make and sell. People love handmade shit. Get to work. Not my problem.
>>76223681
>everyone who doesn't like Communism is dismissed. The post.
Found the Commie.
>>76220864
No, i do not support potheads, criminals and couch potatoes.
>>76222760
>massive systematic unemployment caused by automation
They said the exact same thing during the industrial revolution. New technologies create newer industries to work in.
>>76223959
That's pretty stupid, mate. Until 100% of needs have been achieved, you must utilize all available resources to attain maximum out put. That is simple cost accounting. The fact that you even consider paying the useless to breed shows you to be a low IQ, , lazy, unemployed piece of garbage, trying to rationalize your useless and parasitic existence.
>unconditional basic income
Is this literally saying you're entitled to money even if you dont work for it?
>>76225165
Yes it is literally a NEETbux system.
>>76225165
Yes, it is. The government will guarantee everyone a certain level of income. If the UBI is $30,000 per year, and you make $15,000 per year, you get $15,000 to make up the difference. Which means, of course, that everyone making less than $30,000 will immediately stop working. A very bad idea.
>>76224403
The difference is that this time we're removing the individual altogether, not just moving them around. Machines made the majority of physical labor obsolete and paved the way for more mental work, but now we're creating artificial minds. What are we humans going to move onto once AI becomes advanced enough to threaten a large portion of the workforce? There is nothing else to move to.
>>76225449
That's not what UBI is. UBI is everyone from the richest asshole in the world to the guy in the gutter gets a set amount of money regardless of what they make.
>>76223178
You fail to understand that the only viable means of a UBI is to replace the current monetary policy of all debt as money and bank controlled currency creation with a form of social credit.
Currency is created based on the account balance between total sales and total money paid to people.
Which is to say if a company has 150 in sales but only pays wages of 75 and dividends of 25, you need to create 50 more to equal the currency demand.
UBI doesn't replace welfare it replaces monetary policy.
>>76225647
Wouldn't that be highly inflationary?
>>76225470
Then you'll have less labor in the industries that get automated and more employment in the industries that create that technology. The technology will allow more people to move out of working hard labor. There are literally people who make a living off of shitty jewtube videos. There is no historical evidence to the "technology will hurt the workers" claim.
/pol/ supports UBI for (((whites))) only.
>>76226449
>Wouldn't that be highly inflationary?
No because you don't need to pay back the created money with interest. You also don't need to borrow money at interest to buy the production.
Also this replaces the whole central bank currency creation model. Banks no longer get to loan the government money at interest and no longer get access to below market rate securities that they turn around and loan to the government.
Further if you really wanted to head off inflation you put an end to fractional reserve banking and double entry book keeping.
>>76220864
We do not support UBI.
>>76220864
>>76220864
A leaf.
>>76226449
Another point I left out, money is only created by the gap between sales and wages.
If we find employment that needs hugely more man hours that created amount shrinks. If we find employment that can be more automated that amount grows. It's regulated not by banks demands for growth and cyclic economics. But simple accounting based on the amount of value of money sold and the amount of money earned by people.
>>76227415
How does creating more currency not devalue the rest of the currency when the currency only has value relative to the total amount of currency?
>>76226628
>and more employment in the industries that create that technology.
The problem being the amount of jobs created aren't going to be anywhere near enough to fill the void created by automation. An increase in usage of robots isn't going to lead to a massive boost in tech work because most of the actual work will be done by robots themselves. You don't need a few million people to design a robot, you need a relatively small team and some robots to put it all together.
Furthermore you're ignoring the prospect that AI is going to eliminate mental labor as well, look at Watson, the computer that kicked everyones ass at Jeopardy. He wasn't designed to play Jeopardy, he was designed to take the work of doctors and lawyers, he's not at that point yet, but the day is coming when nobody will be safe from automation, even the highly educated will be out of a job.
>There are literally people who make a living off of shitty jewtube
By it's design most people aren't going to be able to make a living off of Jewtube or Patreon or other bullshit like that. Their systems ensure that only the most popular channels and projects see any kind of meaningful monetary success.
>There is no historical evidence to the "technology will hurt the workers" claim
Because we haven't created AI until now. Don't think of these as machines, think of them as mexicans. An infinite amount of illegal mexicans coming to do every job, not just the shit ones.
>>76227970
>How does creating more currency not devalue the rest of the currency when the currency only has value relative to the total amount of currency?
If we created no new currency it's value would raise. If we created not enough new currency it's value would raise but slower. If we make too much it lowers in value.
The calculation of sales - wages + dividends is the mathematical balance between too much and too little. This creates a very strong balanced pricing and wages effect.
The other main point is that once we created this currency is doesn't need to be paid back plus interest. Most of the prices rises come from not having enough money to pay back the money we currently have as those debts come due. So we borrow more money using our new larger debt to pay back our old debt.
>>76223453
Yeah but if a person can make 50 widgets a day and a machines can make 1000 widgets a minute then the price of widgets gets so low that employing him is a net loss.
L2Economics nigger.
>>76220864
When did pol ever support a UBI?
The concept of a UBI is nice but it is ultimately dangerous and unsustainable.
Look at the US black community. 10% don't work. And those that do will work up until they're in danger of making too much for welfare.
All the UBI gives them is solid cash to not work and breed more kids to make more money.
>>76229257
And you as the business owner now have more customers with more money. While your profit stays the same per unit your number of units goes up. You become wealthier.
>>76227777
checked.
I am opening a marijuana dispensary in CA.
Wages aren't the only expense a business incurs.There's rent, utilities, security, taxes, consumables (stuff like pens and trash bags that don't actually earn you money), and in my case, jars for the pot.
A business should also set aside some profit to invest in new inventory and equipment, though since improving a business, in theory, raises its value, whether this counts as "created money" is open to interpretation.
If I sell $50,000 dollars of pot a month, that pot cost me around $20,000, the rent is another thousand, I'm paying $3000 for security system and a guard, another $4,000 in taxes, another thousand for whatever I left out, I'm left with $21,000 to pay my staff, reinvest in the business and buy food and a home for myself.
I like the idea of universal basic income, as long as we eliminate the minimum wage along with it.
It would make hiring so much easier. Companies could start hiring new unemployees as volunteers and once they knew enough to be useful scale their pay to a percentage of what they bring into the company.
>>76222760
>how do you propose we deal with massive systematic unemployment caused by automation
You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about please don't post again
>>76229731
You're the one that has no idea what they're talking about.
>>76229027
How is it a loss? Since the person is already getting paid his guaranteed income, nothing additional has been spent. And you will have more widgets. The guaranteed universal payments are a sunk cost, which need to be paid whether or not anything is produced. So, the logical thing to do is to get some output for the money, since you are spending it, anyway. LOL at some punk who answers phones trying to tell ME "learn 2 economics". I wouldn't even hire a moron like you to clean our toilets.
>>76229832
Show me one example in all of history where automation has caused long term mass unemployment instead of short term work force displacements
>>76229925
UBI doesn't replace wages.
>>76229698
>It would make hiring so much easier. Companies could start hiring new unemployees as volunteers and once they knew enough to be useful scale their pay to a percentage of what they bring into the company.
u mean like an unpaid internship?
>>76229927
>>76229927
>Show me one example in all of history where automation has caused long term mass unemployment instead of short term work force displacements
how about the steady decline of people working in legal firms? in the 60's each firm had dozens and dozens of employees couriers, people copying things longhand, that were replaced by fax machines and even more so by email. the same situation happened 70 years earlier with the introduction of the type writer.
Prepare to forfeit your rights or forfeit your UBI payment.
When capital realizes it can relocate and not have to pay UBI your country becomes bumfuckistan.
UBI is tiny to compensate but always large enough to drive away capital. Countrt becomes relatively poorer and poorer
>>76225612
And those workerbees get their 30K taken from them in taxes.
>>76229927
Show me one example in all of history where we created artificial intelligence.
>>76230129
Like in their contract it states that they go without pay for, say, three months and after three months they're paid commission+bonuses. What percentage depends on seniority, experience, how much I like you.
It would also keep people from being able to bitch about the "wage gap".
>>76230253
That's still displacement. There isn't a set number of jobs and when one gets automated it gets vanished forever (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lump_of_labour_fallacy). We might as well be 1794 running scared because the cotton gin is going to vaporize jobs.
>>76230482
There's no strong AI currently and 41% of researchers say there never will be and another 41% say it will take more than 50 years to reach it (www.nickbostrom.com/papers/survey.pdf) so I don't see how it's applicable to today. Even if strong AI was here today and we were at the cusp of the singularity the whole premise of it is it's impossible to predict what will happen afterwards so there's really nothing to talk about concerning it.
>>76220864
Welfare done right.
>>76230888
I'm not talking about true sentient AI anon, I'm talking about the shit we already have. Again, look at Watson.
>>76220864
>LOL WHY WOULD I WORK? I GET FREE GOVERNMENT GIBBS XD
>>76220864
>why does /pol/ support a universal basic income that lasts 2 years
/pol/ never said that, even if /pol/ were taken to be a single person as you are suggesting it never said that
>>76229698
I'm not sure what you calculations have to do with anything.
You sell $50,000 and pay $21,000 to your staff and people. If you are the only business you have a shortfall between what money people have and what you actually sold of $29,000. All your other expenses are paid to other companies and businesses, they each have a similar calculation of income to money paid to people.
Every business that isn't going bankrupt pays out less money to people that can actually buy their product than they earn in sales.
Where does the extra money come from?
1: Loans and debt.
2: Exports (which are economically similar to creating new money, also also have a realized cost in terms of goods given away).
You want UBI without a min wage. With a UBI you couldn't pay people to work for less than well about a min wage calculated against cost of living. Wages would be higher across the board.
>>76231453
>look at Watson
I did and like every other technological advancement it's used as an amplifier for human productivity instead of a replacement.
Required reading for all ITT: http://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdfplus/10.1257/jep.29.3.3
>>76220864
/pol/ doesnt its just bern victims that think it should be done because they are a bunch of gib me dats
>>76231822
The description of UBI being the only form of welfare the average Leftist can take without feeling guilty about it seems accurate.
>>76220864
Read:
>>76233116
