>Guaranteed minimum income (GMI) (also called minimum income) is a system of social welfare provision that guarantees that all citizens or families have an income sufficient to live on, provided they meet certain conditions. Eligibility is typically determined by citizenship, a means test, and either availability for the labour market or a willingness to perform community services. The primary goal of a guaranteed minimum income is to reduce poverty. If citizenship is the only requirement, the system turns into a universal basic income.
Thoughts?
You're a beta male
>>76814677
>Wealthy people including billionaires are paid ≈$40,000 by the government for no reason
Yup, this will solve everything.
disgusting. they're actually test driving this filth in a town in ontario this year.
i wish we could just gas anyone who can't find a job for over a year.
>>76814677
why would anybody want to work in a universal basic income economy and what would prevent that effect from sandbaging the productivity and thereby threatening the sustainability of the system
>>76815252
i suspect most will be forced to work once the cost of living skyrockets due to every single citizen suddenly having 40,000 more dollars to spend for no reason.
Automation and the university scam.
Jobs are going to dissapear rapidly and *eventually* people will realise that modern universities are being used primarily as a tool to divert people from trying to enter the workforce, so as to make the figures look better.
The world is already overpopulated, and it's only going to become more apparent in the next few years as the job crisis worsens.
Universal basic income is one way to treat the increasing symptoms of overpopulation in the coming era.
>>76814677
That wouldn't work. It would discriminate against hispanics.
>>76815086
gas yourself for starters
>>76815558
thats what i figure too but im waiting for OP to give me some magic econ jew wisdom or something here otherwise /thread
>>76815741
How about: inflation is a monetary phenomenon so unless the government pays the extra income from printing money there shouldn't be huge price increase.
>>76815863
but how do you prevent/sustain 90% of people from trying to consume the produce of 10% of people
>>76815741
Might be tinfolish, but a happy distracted populace is better than an unhappy populous. Universal basic income, the social media proliferation, and soon virtual reality will be great distractions and satisfiers for the masses. Money and business interests have already co-opted most governments. Personally I don't find it too much of a stretch of the imagination if the 'government having to find the money somewhere' issue will not be a big one. They'll cook the books, print what they want, let the debt rise, but there won't be any consequences because the elite and the mega corporations are able to do what they want without the populace kicking up a stink.
>>76816092
not him but i seriously doubt 90% of people would just give up
>>76816191
see
>>76816092
printing money won't be the problem if most people decide that somebody else will grow the food and there is not enough to go around
I keep saying this, but people still don't listen. We'll have to adopt a hybrid socialist/capitalist system when robots are cheaper to employ than people. We already have the technology to replace 60% of the workforce in America alone, it's just cheaper to employ people. The moment these machines become more economically beneficial, over half the working population will be laid off.
There is no other way, unless you think the remaining 40% of employed people (mostly shrimpy professionals who have no experience in fighting) can somehow beat 60% of the labor force in a fight to keep their wealth. The masses need their bread and circus.
>>76816292
maybe not 90
but how much can an economy take and how do you stop that slide into slacking
>>76814677
>Means test
No, the entire point of guaranteed income is that all citizens are guaranteed that income as a basic right that cannot be altered, restricted (wage garnishments, child support, alimony), or taken away (felons).
>>76816390
dunno, that's why this only makes sense if it's a pretty small amount
>>76816311
>produce of 10% of the people
And all the brown people in Africa who live in shitter conditions.
And all the yellow people in China who live in shitter conditions.
And with our domestic produce aided by automation and technological advances, which is the biggest aspect.
Like everything with politics.
Brilliant in theory. Fails under the weight of human nature in practice.
>>76816092
>>76816292
More than 80% of the population in the Middle Ages had to produce food to sustain the rest of the population.
Farmers now make up only 2% of the American population.
10%, with the help of automatons, can support the rest of society. As machines got better, less farmhands were required to run a farm. As machines get even better, less people are required to work to run society. There'll be no need for low skilled or dumb people.
>>76816480
Sorry. To clarify. Those other countries are, and will probably continue to, to have much lower living standards than us. And we will probably just source a lot of things from them.
DESU you could probably leave them out of the argument completely. Technology has advanced incredibly quickly and continues to do so, I'm fairly confident that can pick up the slack.
>>76816390
"slacking"
>current labor participation rate of 63%
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t01.htm
I'd say we're well past that point.
>>76816715
sounds like something that should be thought about 10-20 years down the line as automation becomes much more commonplace
>>76814677
Never gonna happen.
>>76816480
>And all the brown people in Africa who live in shitter conditions.
>And all the yellow people in China who live in shitter conditions.
those people depend on food aid already they can't be expected to produce abundance for us while we sit around
>And with our domestic produce aided by automation and technological advances, which is the biggest aspect.
then you are left with the problem of to much central power in the hands of the small group that is still needed to maintain the robots
are you a worker or a consumer
a 2 class system with all the inequality of the last one coming soon
>>76816869
It is. It's an inevitable outcome of the robotic revolution. However, right now we need to stabilize our countries and funnel our borders so that we can afford to keep a welfare state running while robots do all the work. Can't have the entire population of Nigeria move in because we get infinite gibs.
I've drawn up some possible outcomes of the revolution, and I think that a hybrid economy will be the most efficient way to proceed. Let's hope that politics can keep up with science.
>>76816904
I wouldn't say never. Unless you want to stifle the robotic revolution.
