Is this a good idea, or is it simply thinly veiled communism? A lot of people seem to think that the basic income will be inevitable as technology makes most form of labor obsolete. I disagree with it on principle, but does it actually look like it'll be an inevitability?
>>71064847
Its coming whether we want it or not. Thats why they are crushing every western welfare system under the weight of 3rd world scum. The system cannot survive.
Get ready for your daily bread.
It's not bad, but you have to lower corporate taxes.
>>71064847
>Thinly veiled
The only way to make this more blatantly communist is to write it in Russian and stamp a pic of Marx, Lenin and Stalin side by side.
>>71065163
Well, it's thinly veiled in that it doesn't outright destroy economic inequality. The idea is still there though.
>>71065129
I could see myself supporting it only if all other forms of welfare were eliminated, along with a massive loosening of regulatory legislation and an abolition of the minimum wage. This is extremely unlikely though.
>>71064847
>thinly veiled communism
No. It isn`t veiled at all
>>71064847
It looks like we're heading in that direction. It's going to be a shit show if it ever is implemented though.
>>71064847
White priv
>>71065512
It will flop the same way the USSR flopped, there will be a point were working was a net loss for you, and people will stagnate just before that point.
Remember the old saying "if you subsidize something you get more of it"
Subsidize lazyness and see what happens.
I could only support such a thing if we reach a point in time were most jobs were automatized IF the population hadn't corrected by that time.
>>71066530
Thing is, you're not outright subsidizing anything in particular since it's given to everyone despite their life status. I despise the idea, but if it's a quicker and more efficient alternative to our current monstrosity of a welfare state then I think I can come to terms with it.
We're going to need basic income to keep pace with automation. Transportation industry will be the first to get demolished. I think current employment levels already reflect increasing automation, we just haven't been quantifying its impact on jobs yet.
There will be lots of software and engineering jobs in the coming years/decades, but not everyone has a mind for that stuff.
>>71064847
>FOR EVERY CITIZEN and is NOT linked to wkr.
How is this not communism?
>>71064847
>>71064847
>thinly veiled communism?
It's flat out communism, it's as blatant as flying the USSR flag from the top of your Volga while driving through red square blasting the Russian national anthem
I'm okay with basic income, but under a few conditions.
Basic income would provide enough for:
A room in a commie block style apartment building
Sustenance in the form of vitamin enriched soy paste.
Online library/educational access. Not for games or streaming entertainment
In addition, while on basic income you are required to:
Be on birth control
Weekly drug tests
No voting right
No right to bear arms
No right to privacy
No right to assemble
Be in education/training/work assist program
That is how welfare should be done.
Keep you alive and give you the means to better yourself, but make it miserable and degrading enough to encourage upward mobility.
>>71064847
its either that or mandatory unionization
the latter only shifts the problem though
>>71068783
What you are describing is welfare, not basic income, idiot.
Capitalism in its current form will not survive into the next century.
http://www.morganwarstler.com/post/44789487956/guaranteed-income-choose-your-boss-the-market
This is the only way anon. Robots replace human workers, value of work shifts toward services and otherwise very creative abstract products. This way is the future.
>>71064847
What does "basic" mean?
>>71068783
weekly drug tests are a waste of taxpayer dollars. Better to give people the benefit of the doubt, it'll save more money long term.
>>71069298
But I don't want to maintain lazy niggers with my tax money. They'll definitely not work if it's implemented.
>>71069084
I'm so sorry I interrupted your thread about a system to support people who are worthless to society by bringing up a system to support people who are worthless to society.
My bad, carry on leaf.
>>71069084
Look at his flag. There is a good chance he has no clue what basic income is. Well actually it's apparent by the use of the term, "if your on it." I bet that he is also enrolled or gone through college as well. Could be high school though.
>>71069298
If not as many workers are needed, why would we want to pay to keep them alive? Why not just kill them?
>>71069372
Weekly drug tests would provide jobs for hundreds of nurses and lab workers.
How is that more wasteful than giving the worthless fucks the money so they can spend it on drugs.
Either way it is a waste of tax dollars. So where do you want your wasted tax dollars to go, a nurse supporting a family or a cartel in Mexico?
>>71069348
Basic is interchangeable with everyone gets X amount of dollars monthly or weekly depending on the bill that passes
>>71068783
Agree with no voting or assembly rights. Drug tests agree, if drug policy amended to allow psychedelic drugs and ban heroin and limit amphetamines. Weed allowed under stringent circumstances for basic income recipients with legit medical need. Legal weed for righted working citizens.
Also this http://www.morganwarstler.com/post/44789487956/guaranteed-income-choose-your-boss- is the only basic income I support.
>>71064847
Deh took ur jubs
>>71069453
No work, no income. Read the link
>>71069466
You support them or else they'll come for you. Revolutions and whatnot.
Unfortunately genocide doesn't appeal to most people, and there enough meaningful work available.
Modern jobs are just UBI-lite with the added tasks of digging and filling up holes.
Automation would have to permeate practically every industry to the point where theres more unemployed people than employed, that scenario is quite far away.
>>71069453
They already don't work and soak up your tax dollars. Only under the current system rob for fresh jays on dey feets.
Anatoly Karlin has an interesting take on UBI. He basically says UBI will become an alt-right position. As leftists become more about supporting ethnic minorities, they'll find a way to paint UBI as racist.
http://www.unz.com/akarlin/ethnic-politics-of-ubi/
>>71069581
They can provide valuable services. The link describes a subsidized labor program that costs less than current unemployment insurance costs but covers UI, welfare, and every safety net that isn't medical in the US.
>>71069581
Because they're unlikely to vote you into power if you promise to kill them.
>>71069938
~20 years
>>71069816
Heroin is actually better on your body than amphetemines. But you know whatever. You know best.
>>71069923
Then that isn't basic income. The whole point is to give it to everyone no matter what.
We could go back to a system where people have servants, like cooks, maids, butlers, etc. That would employ lots of people.
>>71064847
As much as I hate communism and such, at some point something has got to give. There won't always be jobs, being employed could well become impossible for a vast majority of the population. In the past such a problem has always been solved by expansion, you could go out and claim new lands as your own and become productive, but now unless something drastically changes with regards to space exploration/colonization we are rapidly becoming fucked. Look at ancient Rome, the few wealthy families owned everything and slaves did all the work, what is to become of the non-slave, non-aristocratic wealthy masses? Shall they just go off and die somewhere?
Bread and circuses it is.
>>71070230
It's a floor income provided people work at almost anything. It solves the same problem ubi is designed to solve. But it's a better solution that doesn't incentive laziness.
>>71064847
It's not communism. Social programs make the proletariat happy and content enough with the system so as not to even consider revolting against it
>>71069923
Then it isn't 'universal'
>>71064847
IMO if Universal Basic Income happens, it should come with a requirement that you get long term birth control implants if you're a female or a reversible vasectomy if you're a male.
Makers can breed. Takers have to chill.
>>71070203
Amphetamines can help people with cognitive tasks. Heroin is pure pleasure with no enhancement function. I'm talking about economic incentives. Citizens can fuck with H if they want for all I care. Subsidized workers don't because they have less rights until they have skin in the game.
a negative income tax would be better than our current welfare system. however you can't have both and it's very easy to screw up a negative income tax by reducing incentive drastically
>>71070420
Test IQs. Kill everyone below 100. This gets rid of people who can only do menial work who are no longer needed, along with their kids, grandkids, etc., and IQ is 70% heritable, so it's a long-term solution. The people who are left will be good at intellectual work, which is still needed. In addition, this will greatly increase the average IQ, which could have untold benefits to society.
>>71070517
It's universally available to anyone who needs it at any point in their lives. It universally covers unemployed people.
It's the only way we will survive automation. Give it time.
>>71070545
I'm in agreement.
>>71070545
You're creating bureaucracies to fulfill your own satisfaction to your biases
In the next 20 years US needs to
1.) Strict nationalism implemented - IQ and GDP based immigration only, if at all. End hyphenated Americans
2.) National identity proliferates in US - not based on ethnicity/race but acceptance of ideals, intelligence, culture, etc
4.) End all welfare programs
3.) Basic income implemented with reduced populace
My personal favorite idea would be to just have an inheritance tax of 100% past a certain amount of wealth, and keep capitalism otherwise as is.
With decreased need for labour, and increased automation we should undergo a period of 2 children per family, to decrease the worlds population. This will also need to come with some reform to income of the individual, otherwise we will end up as a oligarchy which I don't think will end well for humanity as a species.
Its a solution, but a sub par one imo.
>>71070786
Then it's not universal
>>71064847
This may be inevitable for some countries in Europe and unfortunately my home and native land. The idea behind this is the same behind welfare or raising the minimum wage. If we give the poor money, they will spend it in the economy and therefor selling more goods, more jobs will be made because of this spending boom therefor theoretically these people on these services will enter these jobs, and solving the problem.
The problem here is this. Welfare doesn't work because the people on it stay on it because they choose not to work. These people make an occupation of finding ways to get more money out of the government by having children, getting disabled and becoming unemployable. The reason minimum wage fails because raising the bottom wages raises everyone's wages, which raise inflation and the cost of living to the point where you're not getting anything more for your money. This fails again and again but statists keep insisting it will work. Basic income will fail horribly because it is a mix of these two programs and a colossal leach on the tax system.
The way basic income is supposed to work is that if you make below lets say 1500 bi weelky, the government gives you money in the form of a reverse income tax to bring you to that level. The idea is that no matter how little money someone is being paid they will never be poor, and in that respect it's right. This would solve poverty, but at the cost of making everyone poor and slowly creating an economic collapse. To pay for this you will have to tax people higher, and without the motive of actually going broke people won't care about losing employment or seeking it. The first to be taxed higher are the rich and prosperous, and when they leave only the working are left. It will breed laziness and for every moocher that uses this program the government will have to increase taxes on the working, making them poorer and poorer as a result. This is what has happened in every socialist system in the world.
>>71070674
Can is the key word. As an ex amphetemine user I can tell you prolonged use even with breaks rest and nutrition destroys your cognitive function. Where as opiates after prolonged use make physical labor more enjoyable and easier as long as your on it. But then again your so well versed in the world of drug use and always right I must be wrong.
>>71070682
That would be great, but it will never happen. The wealthy elite want to idiotic masses to perform menial labor, they want slaves. That's what illegal immigration/h1b program/outsourcing is all about.
They buy up, own, and control everything then have their "slaves" do all the work, meanwhile berating the middle class for being lazy and entitled, despite plenty of us being perfectly willing to work hard if we only had the chance (I'm a bit bitter about this point having wasted 6 years of my life on a "useful" degree for a field I will never work in due to bad luck with timing).
Ideally we could knock the world population down to <1 billion, give nature a chance to regenerate, and I suppose it would be necessary to enforce reproductive controls in order to keep undesirable or less desirable elements from taking over again (in terms of population).
Right or left the end game is the establishment wants to cement it's role as hereditary nobility and return the rest of us to the status of serfs, and thanks to technology and such they are closer than ever before to having the ability to make it absolutely permanent.
>>71064847
The only way to make it work is if everyone keeps it when they're employed and their wage just gets added to the total.
The only way that will be affordable is if taxes are levied to offset the increased state expenditure.
This means that businesses will either need to rapidly grow so they can afford it, or that wages are lowered.
The net gain will be zero. It's useless.
>>71064847
Well, there are a few ways the future can go on the labor market
Worst case
>Let the fuckers starve. The vast majority of the current labor market cannot obtain a living, nor will the government support them. Chaos ensures and is put down by the elite.
Best case
>The market readjusts as evangelical movements, and social movements prize human craftsmanship above others. People develop trades and crafts that are seen as intrinsically valuable as being human made. The prices for these goods are high, but people pay them, communities flourish.
The most likely scenario
>A basic universal income is slowly put into effect. People without any satisfying way to devote energy into bettering the world or making income wither away, birth rates drop, and generally the population falls until it is sustainable in line with new technology
One thing to keep in mind is that demand will increase as more of the Chinese and Indian populations move into the middle class and become consumers.
>>71071281
read the fucking link faggot
>>71071490
It will work with automation.
There really isn't any reason that there should be minimum wage jobs at all. Machines and robots should be doing those things. The work or these robots will help pay for basic income ect
Politicians should be pushing investment in tech / robotics / ai and basic income for the humans they will one day replace
>>71071503
weed opiates and amphetamines under psych supervision. satisfied junkiefag?
>>71064847
is this bread and circuses? It sounds a bit like it.
>>71068783
Florida's own Gov. Scott implemented regular drug tests for welfare recipients.
It was a colossal failure, as welfare recipients didn't use drugs on the level that would create saving to the public. - In fact, good taxpayer money instead went to drug testing companies Scott owned.
>>71070682
Everything you said is simply stupid.
>Kill everyone below 100
IQ is a fucking quintile scale. If you kill everyone below 100, you would simply move 100 up as the average MUST be 100 for the scale to have any meaning.
>Menial work is not needed. Intellectual work is needed
This is simply not true. I'd argue in fact that the opposite is more true; most intellectual work can be replaced effectively, and is already starting. It's actually easier to replace a lot of intellectual work since it can exist completely behind a screen; e.g., you can make software bots to do research, trade stocks, diagnose diseases without having to give them a physical presence.
I'd argue that menial work will be the only true "valuable" work as many people will refuse to use bots for status reasons. Like doormen, prostitutes, bar tenders, entertainers, etc.
>THE IQ WILL QUICKLY INCREASE!
Well, let's say you just keep moving up the scale and killing everyone without it 100+. You would eventually be left with 1 person.
This new panel discussion from CFR predicts universal basic income will be a reality in 50 years.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mgCv7tS_GMQ
It's definitely not coming anytime soon though
>>71072076
You're missing the point of UBI and answering one criticism by creating a massive bureaucracy with far reaching state control
>>71064847
Shit idea.
Labor will just move as technology increases.
We will employ people to clean the streets if it comes down to it, theres always more work to be done.
>>71072817
Did you read the link? Subsidies are federal. Most of the controls are automated via algorithm or self-interest of participants. Eliminated programs it replaces means net reduction in bureaucracy.
>>71072817
http://www.morganwarstler.com/post/44789487956/guaranteed-income-choose-your-boss-the-market
read this link fag
