Would you support Universal Basic Income?

[Blurry_Buildings]

In a rapidly evolving world where AI and increasing automation in general lead to large gains in productivity at the expense of white collar jobs, would you support a Universal Basic Income? Would your support change if this came at the partial expense of other social programs, like social security and the military?

 

[DarkRange55]

My best friend who works in the tech industry doesn't like it in principle but he sees it as an eventual inevitability — if the majority of the population no longer needs to work due to advances in technology they can either have UBI or alternatively faux-jobs to keep themselves happy with a sense of purpose and accomplishment, not matter how artificial or trite.

I did a paper in college that I've mentioned here before and I said something along the lines of, by 2100, a form of basic income has been instituted in most first-world countries as a measure to protect the economy from collapse, thus ensuring most citizens have some money to spend to keep it going. A form of basic income has been instituted in most first-world countries as a measure to protect the economy from collapse, thus ensuring most citizens have some money to spend to keep it going.
Or maybe we can get the communist space utopia economy from Star Trek lore that I love haha


Not really a direct answer to your question but that at least helps move the conversation along haha

What say you, @noname223
If you still pay for chat got try out the o3 model. It's pretty insane. It has advanced reasoning. Not good for general questions but great for things that require extensive research or analysis. Just questions with some complexity that benefit from extensive web searches etc. It's cool. Just try it out.

 

[Dejected 55]

I mean, I plan to be dead, so it won't affect me... but I've always been in favor of this. The more jobs that get phased out to automation and AI, the more the economy is going to have a problem anyway. Doesn't matter how cheaply you can make your widgets if there are no people who can afford them because you phased them out of the workplace.

If people had their basic needs met at minimum... food, shelter, education, health care... then it frees up so much stress on your brain and allows you to be creative. There are always lazy people no matter the state of things. There are lazy people with jobs doing the bare minimum at those jobs and skating by! But long before there was an organized economy and way to profit, people were inventing and discovering things because that is the nature of people... but the stress of having to run in place as hard as you can just to not go backward keeps most people from being creative and inventive and who they really could be.

Taking that stress away would be a good start. And, we already throw away more food than is needed to feed everyone... so we're paying for enough food to feed everyone anyway, we're just wasting the food. And there are so many empty houses that no one can afford... and health care doesn't need to cost as much as it does... and so on...

We could lift everyone to a good standard of living by only sacrificing a little at the top and it would pay for itself with innovation and creativity down the line.

 

[Forever Sleep]

On the one hand, sure, I'd love someone to give me money to live and buy stuff. On the other, I don't know. Would the novelty wear off? Would I bother to work at all if I didn't have to? Would my employers bother to turn up to give me work?

My job is creative. Let's say everyone now gets the chance to be creative. It might have the opposite effect of swamping the market with stuff to the extent that there's far less demand. So, my 'industry' could in fact become more competitive rather than less. Plus, will be bother if machines can do it better?

Plus, I'm cynical of human nature. I don't think those with wealth and power particularly want equality. They need people to have enough money to consume the shit they produce but I doubt they want to invite them into their golf clubs or exclusive lifestyles. I just feel certain they will continue to find a way to make everything unequal ultimately.

 

[Dejected 55]

Capitalism in its current form is simply unsustainable. People at the top having most of the wealth and still penny-pinching to maximize their profits means increasingly people in the middle and at the bottom are going to have less and less. There comes a point where the whole market collapses because you don't pay people enough to afford any of the things you are trying to maximize your profit on... and it's only getting worse with computers and automation on the rise.

The people at the top are going to eventually find themselves in a situation where having all the money in the world means they have nothing because they can't spend it when no one is working to make them things they want to buy... and when most people have little to no money, the money doesn't mean as much to them anymore either. Eventually the house of cards will collapse and the handful of rich people at the top will find themselves being the outliers and everyone else will start a new economy that cuts those people out.

OR we could all be nicer to each other and more compassionate and agree to a minimal standard of living that means everyone has a home and food and medicine and such... and people who want more, who want luxury, those people can work to earn more for those things... and lots of people will be able to create and invent and that market will become competitive because of so many more people with the "free" time to do such things.

How much more might we advance IF all the stressed out people right now suddenly had free time to relax and think and be creative? A lot of creative people are bogged down in the minutia of surviving. We could free those minds up for whatever.

If we could be just a little bit kinder and lift each other up... everyone's lives could be a lot simpler and easier and even happier. Humans, we make so many things so much harder than they have to be.

 

[prettysurethistime]

Kinda. In theory, it would be nice. Practically, we still have capitalism in its current form which would just make a UBI inflationary, as people assume everyone has at least X money. So landlords, for example, might raise their rents because they assume people are getting X as a UBI.

More would have to change about our society and a UBI would be more effective in a soviet-style communist regime. And that has it's obvious pitfalls, namely, conformity like that tends to lead to authoritarianism and that wouldn't support individualistic ideals like everyone being less stressed out and more creative individually.


I'm not against it. It's just another good idea predicated on humanity not being filled with as many arseholes and decent people. And we're all selfish and uncompromising in our own ways, I feel.

 

[Dejected 55]

We are already heading to authoritarianism, and most people seem fine with it for some reason... And conforming? You already have to do that in order to survive. Try bucking the system very much at all and you find yourself very quickly on the outside looking in...

The point of UBI would be to afford the basics, so it would have to come with a companion piece that prevented landlords, for instance, from just increasing to grab as much of that UBI as possible. It might turn out that UBI on its own wouldn't work... and that instead there would have to be some kind of government housing that you sign up for and are provided unless you choose to pay more and live elsewhere... and there would have to always be enough of that housing for anyone who needed/wanted it... and IF you sign up for the housing, you get less UBI because you're getting the benefit of the housing so you only need the UBI for other things.

And UBI would have to be for everyone, which means rich people get it too, even though they don't need it. But you can fix that. on taxes and IF you have income or wealth beyond a certain amount you would be expected to pay back some or all of your UBI each year. That would help keep the program more viable for those who actually need it.

 

[Eriktf]

im too European for this, safety nets are awesome when you need it

 

[Satori Komeiji]

I like it in concept but I just feel like in execution it would just result in more greed from the higher ups in society to sap UBI income from lower class people...We would need laws to prevent that which isn't easy. You can't make "don't be greedy" into a law, after all.

 

[SilentSadness]

I actually think not supporting universal income is just advocating for slavery, like how can having enough to eat and having shelter be human rights if you have to work 8 hours a day and spend most of your income on those things. This world is inhumane enough as it is and making it a requirement to work is just extreme torture. So to me the fact that this is even a question just shows how corrupt this world is.

 

[ElTopo]

I'd be happy enough if my country made minimum wage a law or if they raise wages according to inflation

 

[Carrot]

Nothing wrong in a theoretical.

Overly simplying the question, would you like if people wouldn't need to worry about shelter and food?

Sure.

The question is would it work, be feasible, is there will to do it by those who can introduce it.

I see so much greed and lack of empathy, I don't see why anyone would introduce such thing unless it benefits them (that's not how goverments should work, but that's a different story).

The world has so many easier problems that are unsolved, I don't see why those who could introduce it would introduce it.

If you don't care about people and treat them like slaves, you'll find something else for them to do, or make them fight over scraps distracting from actual issues.

 

[Dejected 55]

The system we currently have is overdue for a collapse. The greedy people at the top have to know that. The easiest way to keep your power is to throw peanuts to the masses "below" you to appease them. IF something isn't done soon... in a couple of generations it will all collapse or end in revolt... and revolt never goes well for the greedy people at the top. Even if the next leadership is just as bad ultimately... the current crop of greedy folk always get punished in the revolt.

 

[tercermundista]

I asked myself this question a long time ago because I think work will be replaced by AI, but I don't think it will work because it would generate infinite inflation... the only way for it to work is if money had an expiration date and private property didn't exist, but that seems to go against human nature.

 

[Terminonaris]

Yes. If I didn't have to work full time in a crippled body to barely scrape by I wouldn't want to die as much. If I could take care of my crippled body instead of working full-time for pennies I'd be happier. If I knew tbe other disabled people in my community weren't forced into abject poverty I'd be happier. Crime rates would go down. There would be so many benefits. I cant even go on disability because it pays so little I'd end up homeless. So I'm forced to physically suffer 24/7 WHILE working full time and not being able to eat due to sakd disability. Life feels like torture. I just want out

 

[Dejected 55]

I asked myself this question a long time ago because I think work will be replaced by AI, but I don't think it will work because it would generate infinite inflation... the only way for it to work is if money had an expiration date and private property didn't exist, but that seems to go against human nature.

Why would it generate "infinite inflation"? Money having any value at all is completely a social construct. IF we decided as a society that it was important for everyone to have a place to live, food to eat, water to drink, medical care when needed, etc. then that's what society would be. We could very easily decide that we want to life everyone up instead of ignoring some and stomping on others.

It is costly to society to have sick people and hungry people and homeless people too. It costs money to waste the food we already waste that could instead be used to feed people. It is very arguable that society's fight to NOT help everyone it can is actually costing us more than actually helping everyone.

 

[tercermundista]

Why would it generate "infinite inflation"? Money having any value at all is completely a social construct. IF we decided as a society that it was important for everyone to have a place to live, food to eat, water to drink, medical care when needed, etc. then that's what society would be. We could very easily decide that we want to life everyone up instead of ignoring some and stomping on others.

It is costly to society to have sick people and hungry people and homeless people too. It costs money to waste the food we already waste that could instead be used to feed people. It is very arguable that society's fight to NOT help everyone it can is actually costing us more than actually helping everyone.

It would generate inflation by increasing demand without an equivalent increase in the supply of goods and services. If supply cannot increase at the same rate, prices could rise, generating inflation.
Furthermore, funding could only be provided through taxes or deep cuts in other areas... I struggle to imagine how that would work properly.

 

[Dejected 55]

It would generate inflation by increasing demand without an equivalent increase in the supply of goods and services. If supply cannot increase at the same rate, prices could rise, generating inflation.
Furthermore, funding could only be provided through taxes or deep cuts in other areas... I struggle to imagine how that would work properly.

Food is easy. We waste more food than is needed to feed everyone. We are already paying for all the food needed to feed everyone AND we are paying on top of that to dispose of the wasted food... if we stop wasting food we save money AND feed everyone.

There are a lot of empty houses and apartments. Maybe not quite enough to house all the homeless, but a lot of them. And nobody said everyone gets a mansion. The "free" home that would be a minimum guarantee for everyone wouldn't necessarily be your dream home, but it would be a roof over your head and a way to survive and give you one less thing to worry about. There is already today technology to build affordable small homes... and like the wasted food, homeless people do cost the rest of the population something already in terms of support... but with UBI it could be funneled in a way that gives them something they need.

Prices are going up all the time, regardless of inflation. And you said "infinite inflation." A little inflation might be expected... but you said "infinite" and I don't even know what that means.

We have no problem printing money and having a government (here in the USA anyway) trillions of dollars in debt and adding more every year. And nobody ever worries how we are going to pay for increased defense spending every year. How about not spending so much money on defense that is basically wasted... and spend that on helping people survive?