fightoffyour Posted March 6, 2018 VT Supporter Share Posted March 6, 2018 1 hour ago, LondonLax said: This one is pretty good as well from a couple of years back. The guy with the hockey stick is playing a dangerous game! He will be first against the wall when Skynet gains self-awareness. I predict this will occur by the end of the 20th century. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VILLAMARV Posted March 6, 2018 Share Posted March 6, 2018 31 minutes ago, fightoffyour said: He will be first against the wall when Skynet gains self-awareness. I predict this will occur by the end of the 20th century. Yeah I think he's used up his 20 seconds of compliance! And he's still at it. What a ****! soon as that dog learns how to hold that stick he's toast! 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VILLAMARV Posted March 6, 2018 Share Posted March 6, 2018 1 hour ago, fightoffyour said: He will be first against the wall when Skynet gains self-awareness. I predict this will occur by the end of the 20th century. well, it was either that or 1999 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xela Posted March 9, 2018 Share Posted March 9, 2018 On 3/5/2018 at 20:56, sidcow said: I used to work at McDonalds and had my 5 stars. I can tell you if flippy worked at that speed in Birmingham Union Street on a Saturday afternoon he would be kicked to kingdom come. However its yet another case of what I keep seeing and worrying about. This is just a novelty at the moment. It's just an example of what's to come, day 1 of the future. It will get better and better and faster and faster and less and less prone to mistakes until it is quicker and better than a human. At the same time costs will come down. This is the first report I have seen though that specifically states "no one seems to know what the other jobs are though" If a team of people in 99% of workplaces became totally unnecessary the company are not going to look around to see what else they can train them up to do, they are going to get rid of them. Flippy has been fired! http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-43343956 Quote Flippy the burger-flipping robot that started work this week in a California restaurant has been forced to take a break because it was too slow. The robot was installed at a Cali Burger outlet in Pasadena and replaced human cooks. But after just one day at work the robot has been taken offline, so it can be upgraded to cook more quickly. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fightoffyour Posted March 9, 2018 VT Supporter Share Posted March 9, 2018 58 minutes ago, Xela said: Flippy has been fired! http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-43343956 You might say that Flippy was a total Floppy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheAuthority Posted March 9, 2018 Author VT Supporter Share Posted March 9, 2018 On 3/5/2018 at 18:17, VILLAMARV said: GOALLLL!!! Joe Hart is looking a lot better than the last time I saw him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheAuthority Posted March 9, 2018 Author VT Supporter Share Posted March 9, 2018 On 3/6/2018 at 06:22, VILLAMARV said: I suppose the thing that's a shame is we're effectively discussing military hardware here 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A'Villan Posted January 31, 2019 Share Posted January 31, 2019 It's all a bit beyond my comprehension and the ins and outs go over my head. In Australia the payment granted to the unemployed has not risen in 25 years. Recipients live 30% below the poverty line and are required to work 5 days a week in order to be eligible for this payment in a scheme that makes them 'job ready'. This work that they engage in does not gain the individual any formal qualification or prepare them for a skilled role outside of being at a certain place at a designated time. A tax rate of between 30-45% on incomes ranging from $40,000-$200,0000+ applies. Yet multi-billion dollar corporations are taxed at a rate of less than 1%. Based on this I don't foresee a system where the power balance resides with the people or for the people. But I don't pretend to know anything on the matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted September 29, 2020 Moderator Share Posted September 29, 2020 *This is a post I wrote 4 months ago, but didn't leave in a thread because it was off topic for that thread On 18/05/2020 at 15:47, tonyh29 said: Hard to tell from a screen shot of a tweet but a UBI for all households that will give money to 1 million doesn’t seem to be “ for all “ and thus not universal ? Few years back we had a thread on UBI I seem to recall ? , as one of the Scandie countries was trialing it It was Finland. But they were not trialling UBI and get quite miffed when people say they were. Quote “It’s not really what people are portraying it as,” said Markus Kanerva, an applied social and behavioural sciences specialist working in the prime minister’s office in Helsinki. “A full-scale universal income trial would need to study different target groups, not just the unemployed. It would have to test different basic income levels, look at local factors. This is really about seeing how a basic unconditional income affects the employment of unemployed people.” So, their trial (it wasn't of UBI) finished a year and a half ago, but the results have now been analysed and the conclusions were interesting. https://julkaisut.valtioneuvosto.fi/handle/10024/162219 The permanent address of the publication ishttp://urn.fi/URN:ISBN:978-952-00-9890-2 Quote The Finnish basic income experiment was carried out in 2017–2018. The primary objective of the experiment was to provide information on the effects of basic income on employment, income and social security use of the target population. In addition, the well-being of basic income recipients was assessed. The pilot group of the basic income experiment was randomly selected from 2,000 people aged 25–58 who received labor market support or basic daily allowance from Kela in November 2016. Others who received unemployment benefits at the same time formed the control group of the experiment. The basic income was a gratuitous benefit which did not have to be claimed and for which there were no special conditions. The basic income was paid to the experimental group for two years free of charge, and the income from employment or entrepreneurship did not reduce the benefit. The report includes the results of the various subprojects of the pilot evaluation study. According to the analysis of the registry data, the employment of the subjects increased on average by 6 days more during the one-year assessment period than in the comparison group. The analysis, based on questionnaires, looked at the health, mental and economic well-being, trust and bureaucratic experiences of basic income recipients and controls. In terms of different indicators, the well-being of basic income recipients was better than comparisons. Qualitative interview research shows, on the one hand, the very different meanings of basic income for one's own employment opportunities and, on the other hand, large differences in the starting points and life situations of basic income recipients. Better opportunities for social participation and increased autonomy were highlighted regardless of changes in one’s own employment. The media analysis found that that the basic income experiment was covered in domestic and international media, above all from an economic and employment perspective. In the population survey measuring basic income support, 46 per cent of respondents agreed or partially agreed that basic income should be introduced in Finland. The evaluation of the basic income experiment has been carried out by Kela, which has carried it out together with VATT, the University of Turku, the University of Helsinki, the Wage Earners' Research Institute, the Finnish Mental Health Association and the idea incubator Tänk. So, the scheme was not strictly speaking a universal basic income trial because the recipients came from a restricted (unemployed people only, and age limited) group of unemployed benefit receivers (people who received labour market support or basic daily allowance) only, and the payments were not enough to live on. No payments to people outside 25-58 and no payments to employed people to see how it impacted those people [other than unemployed who went on to become employed and so didn't lose their basic income trial payments]. It's true that the recipients of the payments were generally more satisfied with their lives and experienced less mental strain, depression, sadness and loneliness than the control group who didn't receive the payments and had to apply for "normal" benefits. The trial also noted a mild positive effect on getting employment, particularly for people with children and these people said they felt they had better well-being, financial security, independence and confidence for the future. Others said their basic income had zero effect on their productivity, because there were still no jobs available in the area they were qualified for, and for others, they said they would be prepared to take low-paid jobs they would otherwise have avoided, because they had the income to allow that. So it helped some unemployed people, and that's good. It didn't help others, and that's not so good. It wasn't universal, and it wasn't enough to live on. The research leader said that the results of the study could support arguments both for and against basic income and said that there is certainly a discussion to be had that it could be part of the solution in times of economic hardship. I don't think anyone would argue that giving poor, unemployed people money is unlikely to help a large percentage of them in multiple ways, or that it would solve all their problems. That's what "normal" benefits are for/should do. My argument at the moment isn't against helping people, or improving benefits. It's about the practicalities as to how most effectively and efficiently to do that. It's also about how taking a trial of a non universal system, that had mixed results which the study team itself say could support arguments both for and against basic income and claiming that (as has been done on twitter) as some kind of miracle cure is helpful to those who favour the idea of UBI. ---------- Now we've got 6 months worth of corollafungus and are going to be hit with a wave of people unfortunately seeing their jobs disappear as a consequence of Government action (and inaction) people are again touting UBI as some kind of potential remedy. I'd love to hear or see a reasoned, worked, case as to how and why, from a proponent - for someone to fill in the gaps in my understanding of things. What sort of level would it be pitched at? How universal would it be? Who would be excluded from it? Who would practically benefit from it in a way that improves their lives (not Jacob Rees Mogg, or Millionaire footballers, so who?). How and why would UBI be superior to targetted benefit payments to those who need help? and so on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisp65 Posted September 30, 2020 Share Posted September 30, 2020 Another trial for UBI Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chindie Posted September 30, 2020 VT Supporter Share Posted September 30, 2020 That last hashtag will be more prescient than they expected. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maqroll Posted March 17, 2021 Share Posted March 17, 2021 Yea or Nay Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisp65 Posted March 17, 2021 Share Posted March 17, 2021 Yea Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chindie Posted March 17, 2021 VT Supporter Share Posted March 17, 2021 Depends. UBI has many faces. People hear it and think they're basically going to be given a living wage and nothing else changes - Great! A basic income to keep you going, NHS as it is, free basic education, etc etc. And that would be great. A basic level of life guaranteed and nothing to worry about The problem is the other view of UBI. A basic income, sure, but it replaces everything else. You pay for your healthcare... You pay for your children's school... Not so great. I suspect the latter is what the figures behind UBI fancy. It'll be sold as the former, but it won't be. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisp65 Posted March 17, 2021 Share Posted March 17, 2021 Put it another way. When AI and ‘bots do 97% of the jobs, who’s gonna buy shit, if we don’t get given a UBI? Unless they can persuade the robots and drones to sit at home and shop on Amazon, they need us to have access to money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xela Posted March 17, 2021 Share Posted March 17, 2021 I'd be interested to see a proper plan for it. What level of UBI would it be? £7k a year? £12k a year? £18k a year? I'd still work (unless a robot replaced me) so it would be a bonus for me. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Follyfoot Posted March 17, 2021 VT Supporter Share Posted March 17, 2021 51 minutes ago, chrisp65 said: Put it another way. When AI and ‘bots do 97% of the jobs, who’s gonna buy shit, if we don’t get given a UBI? Unless they can persuade the robots and drones to sit at home and shop on Amazon, they need us to have access to money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HanoiVillan Posted March 17, 2021 Share Posted March 17, 2021 1 hour ago, Chindie said: Depends. UBI has many faces. People hear it and think they're basically going to be given a living wage and nothing else changes - Great! A basic income to keep you going, NHS as it is, free basic education, etc etc. And that would be great. A basic level of life guaranteed and nothing to worry about The problem is the other view of UBI. A basic income, sure, but it replaces everything else. You pay for your healthcare... You pay for your children's school... Not so great. I suspect the latter is what the figures behind UBI fancy. It'll be sold as the former, but it won't be. Exactly this. A basic income is a tool, the positive or negative valence to it comes from the conditions. It is not, in itself, either positive or negative, progressive or reactionary. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Follyfoot Posted March 17, 2021 VT Supporter Share Posted March 17, 2021 (edited) 5 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said: Exactly this. A basic income is a tool, the positive or negative valence to it comes from the conditions. It is not, in itself, either positive or negative, progressive or reactionary. Basic income should be set on the amount of money it costs for 12 pints of Stella a couple of grams of gear and a brass for the night regionally Edited March 17, 2021 by Follyfoot 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted March 17, 2021 Moderator Share Posted March 17, 2021 2 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said: Exactly this. A basic income is a tool, the positive or negative valence to it comes from the conditions. It is not, in itself, either positive or negative, progressive or reactionary. Yeah. Currently it’s set at £0, but is genuinely universal. Everyone gets the same amount, of nothing, and it is cost neutral in terms of admin costs v tax take etc. It’s how you tweak that universality at what age does it kick in? How much are you going to set the value at, what else are you going to bring in alongside it, or remove from current social payments - state pensions? Unemployment benefits? Income support...cus if they stay, it’s adding complexity overall, while helping who, exactly? If you’re wanting to help people, why not help just those who need it and not those who are fine? Lots of questions, but a trial may reveal a few things we are yet to appreciate or understand. TL:DR - trial yes, case proven very definitely no (nor do I think it will be). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts