What's new
By:

Interesting article regarding Unversal Basic Income

I think that's the flaw in our thinking, that you ought to work 40hrs/wk or else you're lazy.

We are so much more productive today than we were 50 years ago. If we just based our work and compensation on productivity we'd all be working less than 20hrs/wk and making much more money than people were 50 years ago.

The problem is that automation is going to make it completely unnecessary and undesirable to have people providing labor for pay 40hrs per week at the employment levels we have now. We are going to need labor to provide 10-20hrs of work per week and then find other things to do with the rest of their time. If that's leasure activities, great! If that's a hobby, great! If it's writing the great American novel, great! Cooking amazing muffins, great!

This mind set we all have based upon the American work ethic will need to change. We'll need to accept the fact that there is nothing inherently noble about toiling away for the majority of your life for an hourly wage.
 
Gameface said:
I think that's the flaw in our thinking, that you ought to work 40hrs/wk or else you're lazy.

We are so much more productive today than we were 50 years ago. If we just based our work and compensation on productivity we'd all be working less than 20hrs/wk and making much more money than people were 50 years ago.

The problem is that automation is going to make it completely unnecessary and undesirable to have people providing labor for pay 40hrs per week at the employment levels we have now. We are going to need labor to provide 10-20hrs of work per week and then find other things to do with the rest of their time. If that's leasure activities, great! If that's a hobby, great! If it's writing the great American novel, great! Cooking amazing muffins, great!

This mind set we all have based upon the American work ethic will need to change. We'll need to accept the fact that there is nothing inherently noble about toiling away for the majority of your life for an hourly wage.
Click to expand...
I like this post.
 
I don't it would make people lazier. I think it would do the opposite. If people had their basic needs taken care of, and they knew it was taken care of, it would open their worlds up. More education, more small businesses, more willingness to take risks, more innovation, etc.
 
green said:
I don't it would make people lazier. I think it would do the opposite. If people had their basic needs taken care of, and they knew it was taken care of, it would open their worlds up. More education, more small businesses, more willingness to take risks, more innovation, etc.
Click to expand...

If this were true than why aren't people on welfare starting business's?
 
A gauranteed basic income is a good idea now. Somewhere around 8-900 dollars per adult US citizen would be revenue neutral if it replaced the current inefficient system. A GBI should have been implemented years ago but the modern left is comprised almost entirely of what earlier leftists would have referred to as the bourgeoisie. Professional and upper class people that overestimate their value to a ridiculous degree. Most of them are unaware that they are about to join the average Joe in a future of shared poverty. The most basic blue collar jobs will be automated first but the professional classes will actually be much easier to automate than skilled labor. The professional classes will be hit hard and fast and yet most professionals seem to think that the truck drivers are the only ones that are about to lose their status.

A GBI is inadequate going forward. I agree w/siro about what is about to happen but a GBI will not be anywhere near enough. Trying to use a GBI to solve the near future problem of economically irrelevant masses will only be ok if you are fine with having no middle class. Instead having a propertied class and a non-propertied class.

I believe that the phrase"Its not what you know, its who you know" will be even more true going forward. One of the major problems that a GBI will not address is an end to the churning of the classes. If we try to use the GBI to solve the issues of the coming era of automation class will become even more rigidly hereditary.

The future will require much more radical action. There are industries that will need to be socialized, property redistribution and collectivization, and we will need to implement a command economy to some degree. The most automated industries being the first to be socialized. What we have today that was not available in the 20th century that will make a command economy possible is the ability to gather and process vast amounts of data instantly. This will allow us to truly democratize socialized industries. Command economies never worked before because they were largely divorced from the market. We will have the ability to create a system in where not only is much of the labor automated but also critical market functions such as price.

We finally will have the ability to create a society in which class is not tied to economics and property but rather to other values(I would argue better cuz I like them more). A GBI will be an important part of that but it is only the tip of the ice burgh, it should have been done years ago, and it will not adequately address the challenges of the future.
 
Last edited:
♪alt13 said:
A gauranteed basic income is a good idea now. Somewhere around 8-900 dollars per adult US citizen would be revenue neutral if it replaced the current inefficient system. A GBI should have been implemented years ago but the modern left is comprised almost entirely of what earlier leftists would have referred to as the bourgeoisie. Professional and upper class people that overestimate their value to a ridiculous degree. Most of them are unaware that they are about to join the average Joe in a future of shared poverty. The most basic blue collar jobs will be automated first but the professional classes will actually be much easier to automate than skilled labor. The professional classes will be hit hard and fast and yet most professionals seem to think that the truck drivers are the only ones that are about to lose their status.

A GBI is inadequate going forward. I agree w/siro about what is about to happen but a GBI will not be anywhere near enough. Trying to use a GBI to solve the near future problem of economically irrelevant masses will only be ok if you are fine with having no middle class. Instead having a propertied class and a non-propertied class.

I believe that the phrase"Its not what you know, its who you know" will be even more true going forward. One of the major problems that a GBI will not address is an end to the churning of the classes. If we try to use the GBI to solve the issues of the coming era of automation class will become even more rigidly hereditary.

The future will require much more radical action. There are industries that will need to be socialized, property redistribution and collectivization, and we will need to implement a command economy to some degree. The most automated industries being the first to be socialized. What we have today that was not available in the 20th century that will make a command economy possible is the ability to gather and process vast amounts of data instantly. This will allow us to truly democratize socialized industries. Command economies never worked before because they were largely divorced from the market. We will have the ability to create a system in where not only is much of the labor automated but also critical market functions such as price.

We finally will have the ability to create a society in which class is not tied to economics and property but rather to other values(I would argue better cuz I like them more). A GBI will be an important part of that but it is only the tip of the ice burgh, it should have been done years ago, and it will not adequately address the challenges of the future.
Click to expand...

This kind of reminds me of the book The Dispossessed.

It may be the way to go once most jobs are automated. But for the time being, GBI (it gotta be a lot larger than $700) would be a very useful measure. I don't care about long-term effects like the concentration of wealth you describe. In 50 years, the world will be a very different place. Modern capitalism cannot survive the automation revolution forever. Eventually it'll be replaced by something else. We'll cross that bridge. Meanwhile, GBI is a powerful solution for the near-future.
 
Siro said:
This kind of reminds me of the book The Dispossessed.

It may be the way to go once most jobs are automated. But for the time being, GBI (it gotta be a lot larger than $700) would be a very useful measure. I don't care about long-term effects like the concentration of wealth you describe. In 50 years, the world will be a very different place. Modern capitalism cannot survive the automation revolution forever. Eventually it'll be replaced by something else. We'll cross that bridge. Meanwhile, GBI is a powerful solution for the near-future.
Click to expand...

50 years is a ridiculous time frame to put on this unless you start it at the ubiquitousness of the ATM, imo. I don't want to add future stress to people's lives but the only person on this forum that seems to have an immunity based on what I understand of what you all do is PKM(Big B should be ok longer than most but fairly soon he's going to face massive competition). The Dannon warehouse crew is ****ed. Sorry but its true. Even you Siro, I don't know exactly what you do but it doesn't sound that its that creative, it is indoors, high wage, and in a centralized place.
15 years seems like a more reasonable time frame until most people here are irrelevant economically. I know that that sounds crazy but I don't think people have yet grasped just how quick this is going to happen or how profound its going to be.
I can't remember exactly where but recently I heard that we could automate 60% of US jobs right now. The reason many people still have a job isn't because they are better than an automated version but rather because if a business invests to automate in 5 to 10 years instead of now they will have a much better system for less money. Most of us are already inferior to robotics in terms of production.
 
I've got to add something optimistic because I think the future will ultimately be better and that we will adjust well. I worked at a youth center helping teenagers. They are crazy understaffed. You don't really have the ability to offer each child the attention that they need because if you take your eyes off the other ones they are likely to seriously hurt themselves or someone else. In the future this job is going to be 1 to 1 or better rather than the 5 to 1 that is the federal minimum now. This will be a good thing. More people will be doing something more meaningful and rewarding. More of our human efforts will be spent on humanity.

What's going to happen will be good but it will also be disruptive.
 
Beantown said:
If this were true than why aren't people on welfare starting business's?
Click to expand...
I think that you think that welfare is much more generous than it really is.
 
Siro said:
I've been bitching about the eventual need for guaranteed basic income for a long time now.

Continue with the current policies that encourage growth and concentrates wealth at the top, like globalization and automation. Heavily tax the top. Cut everyone a check that covers basic living expenses. Say $1500-$2000 a month to every adult American.

Like I've been saying, this idea is not popular, but you will hear A LOT more about it in the next decade. Technology has historically created more opportunities than it eliminated. This won't be the case this time. As lower-skilled positions continue to disappear, we'll eventually have unfixable high unemployment in the US, and we'll be forced to think about such redistribution efforts.
Click to expand...


Hold up a sec. [MENTION=40]Siro[/MENTION] worries about job losses to tech but he wants to replace are current base universal income programs with a straight up cash dump? The only benefit of that is getting rid of the myriad beaurocracies that oversee all these transfer payments. So Bernie Sanders solution to lack of living wage jobs is to eliminate like 3.5 million government living wage jobs?
 
fishonjazz said:
I think that you think that welfare is much more generous than it really is.
Click to expand...

Bro welfare can be dope. Section 8 housing. Food stamps plus you need to get on WIC for that bonus. Take a few college courses for that $6000 pell grant. Work very little to get like $5,000 in earned income credit plus a couple more grand for kids. Send your kids to free school breakfast an lunch then sell your food stamps to neighbors.

All you have to earn is like $5,000 a year an take a few recreational management classes like golfing an kayak.
 
fishonjazz said:
I think that you think that welfare is much more generous than it really is.
Click to expand...

Subsidized housing, free healthcare, free food, utilities.....


It for sure goes beyond a small basic income everyone is talking about in this thread.......

Maybe you don't realize how generous it is?
 
Beantown said:
Subsidized housing, free healthcare, free food, utilities.....


It for sure goes beyond a small basic income everyone is talking about in this thread.......

Maybe you don't realize how generous it is?
Click to expand...
See you and boris come off like you think welfare is some lucrative situation to be in.

I have people in my life who I'm close to who are on welfare. Their lifestyle is far from lucrative. They are struggling.... bad. And they even have side hustles, that are not on the up and up, to try to add some income to get them by. They are barely making it. Don't have no gaming systems, fancy phones, or working vehicles. They take the bus when they need groceries, clothes so worn out and second hand. They are not happy. A lot of the reason they are in the situation they are is their own faults (convicted felons, and never getting an education are a few) but they were also dealt horrible hands in life (mom smoking Crack in front of us whenever I was at their house when I was a kid, father dead.... again, just to name a few)

Ya'll act like being poor and on welfare is a wonderful life..... like its easy street.

Head down to a slum/ghetto around you and check out the lavish lifestyle being lived by people on welfare. Hell, watch a few episodes of the TV show shameless.

Welfare aint no gravy train of money pouring in making life all cushy. At least not from what i have seen of my friends (and some of my in-law family members) lifestyles.
 
Siro said:
I've been bitching about the eventual need for guaranteed basic income for a long time now.

Continue with the current policies that encourage growth and concentrates wealth at the top, like globalization and automation. Heavily tax the top. Cut everyone a check that covers basic living expenses. Say $1500-$2000 a month to every adult American.

Like I've been saying, this idea is not popular, but you will hear A LOT more about it in the next decade. Technology has historically created more opportunities than it eliminated. This won't be the case this time. As lower-skilled positions continue to disappear, we'll eventually have unfixable high unemployment in the US, and we'll be forced to think about such redistribution efforts.
Click to expand...

Cutting a check for basic living expenses is an awful idea imo. Many if not most will blow through that money on ******** like cigarettes, alcohol, going out and other such nonsense. I'd propose that money be divided, a portion simply being deducted off of utility bills, a portion sent to spend (on whatever the person wants) and a portion to be put into some sort of retirement plan, ideally that a person can not touch until a certain age, though this isn't some hard and fast rule, and people with better investing knowledge can speak up here. I'm not saying it should be divided equally three ways but I think this is a prudent balance based on our responsibilities, desires and needs.
 
Also, 100,000,000 households x $2,000 a month is $2,400,000,000,000 a year spent on this. That's 2.4 quadrillion provided annually here. Not billion. Not trillion. Quadrillion. The math just ain't gonna work. Obviously, welfare costs, unemployment costs, and such could be cut back, but still, there is no way in hell the country is saving that much money. It doesn't seem even close to fiscally possible or responsible. Could a better "economist" here spell out the math a bit better for me in a way that works?

The 2K a month is based off a figure Siro threw out there. If it's 2K a year as mentioned in the article, that's still 200,000,000,000 or 200 trillion a year.

So help me out here. Because I just don't see it working in any way, shape or form.
 
Last edited:
Quick question - what would happen to the Education industry if high school kids know they can just graduate then live on handouts and not need to go to college and get a job? Why would they bother getting a student loan?


Kids nowadays all they want to do is sit in front of TV playing xbox, or snapchats, or hook up on facebook.


What would motivate them to go out and have a career?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top