Universal Basic Income

[tonyh29]

1 hour ago, blandy said:

I am very sceptical about this notion that machines and computers are going to take all our jobs away

I agree  , as if a computer is going to sit posting on VT all day long 

[mjmooney]

1 minute ago, tonyh29 said:

I agree  , as if a computer is going to sit posting on VT all day long 

How do you know that they don't? I recko,,,€¥]¢¿¥±±£©©™¡¡¶÷\ERROR 384 Unrecognised Input. 

[blandy]

1 hour ago, tonyh29 said:

I agree  , as if a computer is going to sit posting on VT all day long 

That's right, they Follow @NurembergVillan on twitter all day, instead.

[blandy]

1 hour ago, villaglint said:

You may well by right but as I said it would be crazy not to consider the alternative. I really would recommend the book btw there is whole section which takes into consideration the points you just raised and then looks at the reasons why "it might be different this time". I think it was William Gibson who said something along the lines of the future is already here it's just not evenly distributed. I think self driving vehicles and its effect on the transportation system will be an interesting first test case for how this will effect the economy/politics. 

Consider the alternative...that I could be wrong? , no impossible

Seriously, though, I agree that considering the potential for loads of jobs currently done by humans being done in the future by machines, and there also being inadequate new job types to employ all the people is a sensible thing to do.

I don't think it follows that the potential for that to happen means that we must have UBI. I don't think that would be an "antidote" or palliative (even if it wasn't as unviable as it is). I think what should perhaps take place would be consideration of whether we want to actively stop some of the change by law or other means, or whether we should perhaps act now to  innovate furiously to create new industries, new areas of scientific research, new engineering projects to address the problems we have now and which will get greater in future - climate change related etc. medicine and so on. So be pro-active, not reactive. And perhaps fewer people would also be a way to go.

I prefer the model of state or private funding of people to do stuff, than state funding of people to not do stuff, in simple terms. (accepting of course there are genuine benefits in allowing people to have the time to study, learn, paint, do charitable work and all that, which UBI could facilitate), but equally there are benefits from working in terms of self esteem, human interactions, sense of purpose, developing skills and all that which are gained through working and which also lead to an output for the money it costs.

[NurembergVillan]

17 minutes ago, blandy said:

That's right, they Follow @NurembergVillan on twitter all day, instead.

[Xela]

UBI? An extra £10k per annum for nothing. Sign me up! I'd probably spend half of mine on drugs, booze and whores. I'd waste the rest. 

Seriously though, its an interesting concept but I can't see it ever happening.

[Xann]

6 hours ago, blandy said:

...It's a ludicrous solution to a problem that doesn't and won't exist...

That's quite enough thinking please, Mr Bland.

Continue watching sports, and leave the power to make up money to the people that own the Bank of England, the Fed, all those other 'national' banks and everything else.

 

 

[dAVe80]

When I get the chance, I'll find the Kevin Bridges skit, where he says they should make the dole £1000 a week, to boost the economy. It's a joke obviously, but there's some truth in it.

[Amsterdam_Neil_D]

2 hours ago, tonyh29 said:

4 hours ago, blandy said:

I am very sceptical about this notion that machines and computers are going to take all our jobs away

I agree  , as if a computer is going to sit posting on VT all day long 

Double bluff,  you are a robot ?

[TheAuthority]

6 hours ago, blandy said:

Some of The monumental flaws with it can be seen by doing some maths and looking at known human behaviours and business practices.

For example. Let's firstly reduce the scope of UBI and assume that the "Universal" part doesn't actually mean "everyone", but only "everyone over 18". (Obviously the problem is much worse if it's everyone over 16, or absolutely everyone). 

There are around 31 million adults in the UK right now.

The basic income is supposed to be enough to survive on with no ther source of income. The state pension is just over £164 per week, so let's also assume that is enough to survive on and use that as a figure for the UBI.

31 million people each being paid/given such a UBI  = £265 Billion pounds a year.

The total tax revenue for the UK last year, from all sources was £730 billion, (more than half of which came from income tax and National Insurance - people in work paying tax and NI on their wages).

Now lets look at some known behaviours.

Some people, if given enough to live on will cease to do their crappy job that they hate. Some people will carry on working, but do fewer hours. Some people will carry on working as before.

Some employers will use the fact that their employees "already" get a load of money from the state to cut wages, or not to lift wages as they would otherwise have done. People's income will shift from (some) employers to the state.

Some (many) people will furiously resent those who can now genuinely choose not to work and to "live off the state" instead.

People who carry on working will pay more tax - a lot more tax. The hundreds of billions of pounds needed to fund UBI has to come from somewhere , right.?And because fewer people will be working and some businesses will be reducing their wage bills, either actually or relatively, tax rates will need to be raised to cover the shortfall in Gov't revenue. And then prices of goods and services rise, and then the level of the UBI needs to rise, as everything's more expensive now....

 

 

I understand your arguments if we continue to base our societies and economies in capitalism. 

But what if society was based more on a concept of shared resources. I think of UBI more as basic humans needs as opposed to everyone having more shiny coins to spend in a system similar in which we currently exist.

We all need shelter, heat (energy) and food. So, as an example, in New York City there is an underground steam system to heat all the buildings built a the time (pre-WWII.) You've probably seen the steam stacks in movies etc. - It's a city wide system which is currently managed by a private company (Con-Ed.) But as automation replaces the accountants, maintenance staff etc. the cost of the system should fall and consequently so should the price for all (if it truly is a shared resource.) 

Obviously there is currently a big battle going on in many parts of the world about water rights, ownership and distribution. But if it is seen as a shared resource rather than something to be monetized for maximum profit, the automation revolution should allow the cost per person to become minimal. (By costs I mean for water cleaning and maintaining a collection/distribution network.)

By reducing the cost of these systems life should be cheaper (as it's currently bloody expensive to be alive .) Therefore we would work less and have more time to be creative and be positive contributors to society rather than the depressed, enslaved miserable gits a lot of us seem to be!

I understand that this is not going to happen globally in any way shape or form any time soon. My hope is that pockets of society (be that a municipality, state or even small countries) begin to experiment with the concepts and have success. The Norwegian Sovereign Oil Fund (actually founded by an Iraqi - oh the irony) has ensured a fantastic standard of living and security for the Norwegian people. That natural resource is being used judiciously to help the people of Norway. Contrast that with Thatcher's approach to North Sea Oil which enriched a few shareholders giving them wealth that they, and their family for generations to come, could never spend. How different would the country of Scotland look today if it had been allowed to set up it's own wealth fund?

Edited March 2, 2018 by TheAuthority

[limpid]

1 hour ago, Xela said:

UBI? An extra £10k per annum for nothing. Sign me up! I'd probably spend half of mine on drugs, booze and whores. I'd waste the rest. 

Seriously though, its an interesting concept but I can't see it ever happening.

So how do you think we should address the very likely scenario that there will never again be enough jobs for everyone to earn a living?

Some form of UBI will happen, it's the details that need fiddling.

[blandy]

1 hour ago, TheAuthority said:

I understand your arguments if we continue to base our societies and economies in capitalism. 

But what if society was based more on a concept of shared resources. I think of UBI more as basic humans needs as opposed to everyone having more shiny coins to spend in a system similar in which we currently exist.

We all need shelter, heat (energy) and food. ...which .....

....if it is seen as a shared resource rather than something to be monetized for maximum profit, the automation revolution should allow the cost per person to become minimal. ..

I understand that this is not going to happen globally in any way shape or form any time soon. My hope is that pockets of society (be that a municipality, state or even small countries) begin to experiment with the concepts and have success. The Norwegian Sovereign Oil Fund (actually founded by an Iraqi - oh the irony) has ensured a fantastic standard of living and security for the Norwegian people. That natural resource is being used judiciously to help the people of Norway. Contrast that with Thatcher's approach to North Sea Oil which enriched a few shareholders giving them wealth that they, and their family for generations to come, could never spend. How different would the country of Scotland look today if it had been allowed to set up it's own wealth fund?

Snipped for brevity. Yes there's sense in that.

I don't think capitalism is going to go away. It's the least bad system available. If and when regulated properly, it's a good system.

I believe the basic utilities - power generation, water etc. should be ideally run/controlled by the state, not private companies, and definitely not for profit. If there's a bonanza (as with N. Sea oil) then the profits should definitely be used as Norway has done and not like the Witch did.

UBI as defined (liveable "wage" for everyone) will never happen on any large scale (so not in the UK). It doesn't matter what the system of Gov't is, it is unworkable and deeply flawed in that it would create more problems than it aims to solve. Even in your imagined unrealistic utopia, it still wouldn't work (I know you're not saying it would).

[El Zen]

We have so much money in Norway that we could almost afford it for a few years, but I’m still against it. 

I fear it would clientelize the working (or non-working, in this case) and middle classes and further cement the supremacy of the capitalist class and the current economic paradigm. For me, UBI would be the ultimate surrender in the fight for a classless society. 

I believe in the value of work, and the value of actively taking part in society. However big or small your contribution is, you should contribute as best as you can. From each according to her or his ability, etc. 

UBI could potentially, and quickly, delegitimize and replace much of the welfare state as we know it. The safety net of the modern welfare state is made up of a myriad of rights and benefits, and it is difficult to dismantle (tories and neo-libs across the industrialized world have been chipping away at it for years, and it’s still there). Replace the intricacy of the welfare state with the simplicity of UBI, and I fear we’d have a much more fragile safety net indeed. 

I totally get the appeal, but for me it’s a big step in the wrong direction. If we’re going to pretend to have the money required to make UBI work, I’d rather spend it helping people into employement and generous, decent benefits for those who for any reason are unable to work, or unable to find work. 

All of this while we’re waiting for the revolution to come, obviously  

Edited March 2, 2018 by Michelsen

[snowychap]

22 minutes ago, Michelsen said:

I fear it would clientelize the working (or non-working, in this case) and middle classes and further cement the supremacy of the capitalist class and the current economic paradigm. For me, UBI would be the ultimate surrender in the fight for a classless society. 

I believe in the value of work, and the value of actively taking part in society. However big or small your contribution is, you should contribute as best as you can. From each according to her or his ability, etc. 

Why do you believe it would do what you say in your first sentence? And what does 'I believe in the value of work' really mean?

[El Zen]

8 hours ago, snowychap said:

Why do you believe it would do what you say in your first sentence? And what does 'I believe in the value of work' really mean?

«How dare you complain about unemployment? We’re giving you money for free!»

or 

«Why do you need access to a good education? We’re already giving you money for free!» 

or

«How dare you question our fantabulous wealth? We pay for everything you have. For free!»

or 

«Why would you vote for anyone but us? We’re the ones giving you all your money!»

When I say I believe in the value of work, it means that I see intrinsic good in people coming together in productive arenas. It strengthens communities and social bonds, and it gives people a stake in our collective productivity. I think there’s something fundamentally democratic about our collective goods being the product of our collective contribution. I may be an old fashioned, semi-Marxist luddite, but I want fair work for fair wages, not pacifying blanket handouts from a capitalist de facto aristocracy.  

[LondonLax]

21 hours ago, blandy said:

Some of The monumental flaws with it can be seen by doing some maths and looking at known human behaviours and business practices.

For example. Let's firstly reduce the scope of UBI and assume that the "Universal" part doesn't actually mean "everyone", but only "everyone over 18". (Obviously the problem is much worse if it's everyone over 16, or absolutely everyone). 

There are around 31 million adults in the UK right now.

The basic income is supposed to be enough to survive on with no ther source of income. The state pension is just over £164 per week, so let's also assume that is enough to survive on and use that as a figure for the UBI.

31 million people each being paid/given such a UBI  = £265 Billion pounds a year.

The total tax revenue for the UK last year, from all sources was £730 billion, (more than half of which came from income tax and National Insurance - people in work paying tax and NI on their wages).

Now lets look at some known behaviours.

Some people, if given enough to live on will cease to do their crappy job that they hate. Some people will carry on working, but do fewer hours. Some people will carry on working as before.

Some employers will use the fact that their employees "already" get a load of money from the state to cut wages, or not to lift wages as they would otherwise have done. People's income will shift from (some) employers to the state.

Some (many) people will furiously resent those who can now genuinely choose not to work and to "live off the state" instead.

People who carry on working will pay more tax - a lot more tax. The hundreds of billions of pounds needed to fund UBI has to come from somewhere , right.?And because fewer people will be working and some businesses will be reducing their wage bills, either actually or relatively, tax rates will need to be raised to cover the shortfall in Gov't revenue. And then prices of goods and services rise, and then the level of the UBI needs to rise, as everything's more expensive now....

The government, by giving UBI to everyone will of course be giving money to millionaires and the very wealthy, who have absolutely no need of that money. The very wealthy will no doubt have been taxed much more heavily to contribute to the vast, vast cost of UBI. Offsetting that hike by 160 quid a week (or however much) is not going to stop them doing everything tax dodgy that they can to avoid (or evade) paying very large extra tax bills, which means tax revenue won't keep up with the Gov'ts need for taxes created by introducing UBI.

UBI, will also create a very appealing reason for people to come to the UK from abroad. I can imagine the Daily Mail and the Sun headlines. Creating and escalating yet another "reason" for neanderthal numpties to lamp a foreigner. It's basically a recruiting tool for racists and Nazis.

So in summary if TL:DR, it's an economically illiterate, counter-productive, bully-encouraging, dodgy employer helping, wet dream for idio...idealists.

 

 

The mistake you are making is applying it to the current dynamic. I agree, in our current society it could not be possible. 

Imagine however a society where no humans are able to find a job because anything a (limited) human can do (limitless) technology can do better. 

Such a society, run on our current capitalist dynamic, would mean all wealth and all means of production would be confined to a handful of humans who own the patent (capital) on that technology. 

The problem then is that they would asset strip the rest of the population until the only people left to buy their products are the other capitalist oligarchs. 

In such a society the will of the people would be to tax and redistribute the wealth earnt from having the patients on these technological means of production. The redistribution would form a basic income for the rest of the population to live on and hence be able to buy the products these oligarchs are selling. 

Clearly we are not there yet but this is the direction of our society and we will reach a tipping point with enough jobs lost to technology, it seems it is only a matter of when, not if. 

[blandy]

49 minutes ago, LondonLax said:

The mistake you are making is applying it to the current dynamic. I agree, in our current society it could not be possible. 

Imagine however a society where no humans are able to find a job because anything a (limited) human can do (limitless) technology can do better. 

Such a society, run on our current capitalist dynamic, would mean all wealth and all means of production would be confined to a handful of humans who own the patent (capital) on that technology.

Your imagined future is not going to happen, LL. it’s a sci-fi film scenario, only.  As this is a UBI thread, not a “what will the future be like” thread, I’ll leave out why it won’t be like your imagination version. But as you say, UBI is unworkable in the current type of society and system.

[PompeyVillan]

When you go into McDonalds now you have to pay at one of these big touch screen thingys. Those machines probably get paid more than actual staff as well. 

[LondonLax]

20 minutes ago, blandy said:

Your imagined future is not going to happen, LL. it’s a sci-fi film scenario, only.  As this is a UBI thread, not a “what will the future be like” thread, I’ll leave out why it won’t be like your imagination version. But as you say, UBI is unworkable in the current type of society and system.

Think bigger, there is no reason why it would not. Humans are limited by their physical constraints but technology has no such limits. Anything a human can do technology could replicate and then improve on. The only way humans could compete is to augment ourselves with the same technology to move past our physical limits. 

Edited March 3, 2018 by LondonLax

[Xann]

45 minutes ago, blandy said:

... unworkable in the current type of society and system.

Is broken and unworkable.