If NPR is to be believed there are literally no down sides to universal basic income. Marketplace did a 5 minute commercial for this.
They found some little town in Manitoba that fit their narrative about how basic income perfect. Did not cover a single down side. Any Canadians know more details about this experiment in Dauphin, Manitoba?
Other urls found in this thread:
marketplace.org
nakedcapitalism.com
hpe.com
en.m.wikipedia.org
twitter.com
Look, a table someone bought on basic income in the 70's and they still have it. THE ECONOMIC BENEFITS
marketplace.org
Basic income is the new minimum wage.
If you make it below minimum wage, people can't survive.
If you make it above, then no one is going to work for less and prices must go above it.
By the way there is a lot of controversy about that Canadian experiment. Canadians say it failed because people knew it was only a temporary measure that expired.
Haven't heard of it and don't know any details but I can tell you already it's a failure.
Daily reminder that you're literally retarded if you don't support UBI at our current technological development, and especially a decade or two in the future.
As opposed to how many of you view it, that it's probably the most socialist idea to happen this century, it's actually the most libertarian. Think about it, the government taxes you and then hands back the money it took from you, directly, without any bullshit arbitrary statist stuff like state-controlled healthcare. It literally gives you back most of the money it took and freely allows you to do with it as you please.
>the government taxes you and then hands back the money it took from you, directly, without any bullshit arbitrary statist stuff
Why don't they just let you keep it then? Even if they give it back to you tax collecting still costs money.
>As opposed to how many of you view it, that it's probably the most socialist idea to happen this century, it's actually the most libertarian. Think about it, the government taxes you and then hands back the money it took from you, directly, without any bullshit arbitrary statist stuff like state-controlled healthcare.
No it doesn't, the government taxes the rich and gives the money to the poor. So it's only advantageous if you're poor and want other people's money.
Also UBI is a terrible idea. If the people back in the agricultural revolution would have thought like that we wouldn't even have any goods that are daily occurrences today like fridges or cars, if food is so easy to produce the government can just redistribute it no one would work, right?
But that's not how automation affects people, automation free labors. Labor that was previously needed for manufacturing will be able to go towards new economic endeavors, the need for human labor will never be over and the automation makes UBI necessary is incorrect with the prior economic revolutions.
>taxing and then redistributing money to people as a form of welfare is the most libertarian thing to happen this century.
if that is true we are on a downward spiral.
>Why don't they just let you keep it then?
Because the world doesn't function like that. It's sad, but it's the reality. We live in a world where powerful entities have the capability to project their administrative power over huge territories, and nothing can change that. The moment you go anarchist is the moment you get consumed by another such entity.
Again, as I said in my post, it isn't as much about tax redistribution as it is for you not getting unemployed and starved to death due to the 24/7 operational machine that costs a portion to upkeep of what you cost. It's the most libertarian approach to that problem - to abolish any other form of welfare, all of it, and simply hand out the money, letting people decide for themselves.
user, they don't need to prove themselves wrong. You need to do so.
Let's hear your reasons. Try to avoid 'work for the sake of work'
>Again, as I said in my post, it isn't as much about tax redistribution as it is for you not getting unemployed and starved to death due to the 24/7 operational machine that costs a portion to upkeep of what you cost.
What makes you think they won't have jobs? When the agricultural revolution happened people weren't out of jobs overnight starving to death on the street, both the agricultural and industrial revolution happened over 100 years, that was plenty enough time for people and the economy to adapt, for the people to find new jobs. But mainly one thing you UBIfags always seem to forget is that automation makes stuff extremely cheaper, so why would they be starving and destitute if the goods they now own could be owned then for 1/10th of the price?
>It's the most libertarian approach to that problem - to abolish any other form of welfare, all of it, and simply hand out the money, letting people decide for themselves.
Welfare isn't libertarian.
Fugg yeah free money
Let's give commies the benefit of the doubt and try it again
If you honestly believe currency prices are unstable now, just you wait until the current arbitrary value is removed by giving it away, literally, without even a fiat system to help regulate value.
This is even beyond Keynes retardation.
>When the agricultural revolution happened
Stop repeating the agricultural revolution bullshit. There is a difference between a tool that must be directly handled by another human being, a tool that has a certain autonomy and can be handled en-masse by just a few humans, and a straight up conscious tool that handles itself better than any other group of humans. It's more comparable to how humanity evolved and made the rest of the planet irrelevant, slaughtering most of it.
>But mainly one thing you UBIfags always seem to forget is that automation makes stuff extremely cheaper
Which makes it easier for a government to simply give it away and ensure no one starves, hence the UBI idea?
>Welfare isn't libertarian.
As opposed to the current model of state-funded services and UBI upon unemployment/old age? Propping up the inefficient state healthcare or education, for an example, leads to no competition in either sectors and obviously damages the economy's potential. I'd rather have that shit abolished and the money that was supposed to go there go to people directly, so they can spend it on the now-private services and the rest of the economy, than have it sink in the administrative hell of keeping all of that operational.
Basic Income is retarded. Hand everyone a million dollars a year and prices will shoot up to the point that you will need two million a year to be "middle class".
Learn a skill.
Work.
Make money.
Pay your own fucking way through life.
Difference is this revolution is going to take place in 15 to 20 years. Once one field is roboticized, say, Law, it will spur development of robots to do other fields, like medicine for example.
>then everyone works to maintain the robots that replaced them
You don't need 1 tech per robot. Machines don't break down often enough. Of course, there will also be a market for a self maintaining robot. And then a robot that creates programs for others
New fields will arise of course. Try imagining what a networking guy would have sounded like explaining his job to someone in 1880. But will those fields not fall to automation? Machines can already compose music and paint
thats what I would expect from a basic income house honestly.
Won't cause significant inflation, as the money isn't being printed. Just distributed differently
Total government control over every aspect of life is what is required for a UBI to work
Must be easy to parade around your plan for a UBI when you've got 32 million people in your country.
Why is there no insulation on those walls?
There are already rules as to what you can spend gibs on.
>robots taking over all jobs and cause mass starvation and unemployment.
That was the same argument that was made during the industrial revolution for preventing industrial growth. Rarely does mass unemployment every actually appears. If there is a possible post-scarcity world, we certainly aren't living in it yet.
>his walls aren't insulated with spare cash notes
Fucking poorfags kys
Why is it bullshit? I'm drawing for historical evidence about prior economic changes. And the agricultural revolution was revolutionary, it wasn't just tools to be handled by humans, now only 2% of the population is in charge of food production, similar to how you see automation will affect people. It freed massive amounts of labor. And if you're talking about AIs, well we're not there yet. And again, why do you assume human labor won't be necessary. You're like a farmer in the middle ages assuming once farming is automated there won't be be any need for human labor, but there is, there's tons of jobs today that are possible because of the technological breakthroughs from before.
So if good is cheaper why not let people buy it rather than have government tax people, buy it then redistribute it.
Also no, welfare isn't libertarian, if you say welfare system A isn't libertarian, what of we replace it with welfare system B, that still isn't libertarian.
Why do you assume the 15-20 years? And if less labor is needed, great! One person's income will be sufficient to raise a family, women can go back to motherhood and people will be able to spend more time together since they don't need as many hours for the same economic value. There's no need for UBI, either shit isn't automated and expensive, either shit is automated and cheap.
>Government taxes you up the ass.
>Wastes vast swathes of it on paying scamming middlemen and exploitative organizations and moneychangers to distribute it and assess for it, costing the government further billions in for-profit contracts with private entities to delivery not-for-profit services for public interest.
>And then spends the rest of your tax money on warfare on behalf of shadow governments who further exploit the global playing field for out of nation interests.
>You pay taxes for all of the above AND defend the government not giving you some of your taxes back in hard times, no questions asked while removing vast middlemen who have been scamming countries running these sorts of socialist programs.
Sup Forums is just one giant reverse cucking farm designed by a thinktank, isn't it? I want off this simulation.
Bonus round: Sup Forums majority sings the praises of national socialism. National (((((((((((socialism))))))))))))
There is no point in trying this in a non-ethnocentric society. Same with healthcare, education, and so forth.
Demographic usage and paying into these institutions are too out of whack to ever work successfully in the USA.
Close the borders. Go back to a 95% white society then we can talk UBI, healthcare, education.
>Once one field is roboticized, say, Law, it will spur development of robots to do other fields, like medicine for example.
Why do you pick the most ridiculous examples? In 20 years maybe every hamburger will be cooked by a robot not lawyers.
>You don't need 1 tech per robot. Machines don't break down often enough.
Have you ever worked in a factory with "automated" machines?
As long as we say you 1000$ no matter how many kids you have. Want more buying power quit having kids.
Alright, I'll bite
Describe the supposed fields and professions that would arise when a mass-produced metal with a chip somewhere in it perfects every ability of 99% of the humans, up to science, innovation and art. Then describe to me how those fields would still exist about two to three years after the above happens, when every single metal with a chip would be equal to about a million humans in processing capabilities, and about a hundred in physical?
If any fields manage to magically arise then, explain to me how they'd still manage to survive 2 years later, when a single mass-produced and cheap metal with a chip is equal to the entire humanity's processing capabilities.
Before anyone disproves your scenario, how about you prove that it will happen in the first place.
*unzips moore's law*
Burden of proof
Do you know his second law? Intel said something interesting about it recently, they're having a harder and harder time reducing the transistor size and will now focus on improving other aspects of their processors like energy consumption. Sure technology will improve but it will not change that quickly. I've worked for a telecom company they still use 32-bit computers and software from the 90's, a friend of mine worked for a bank in the US, they still use a console based program. Private businesses needs stability and backwards compatibility, all the tech that is put forward for research and consumers isn't adopted overnight by businesses.
>if you don't support UBI at our current technological development, and especially a decade or two in the future.
1. How much UBI should be in you country?
2. How many people in you country?
3. How big is your country current welfare budget?
This are three basic question every UBI thread should start from.
Intel isn't really working on improving other aspects, they're doing their "tick tock" model of focusing on X, then not focusing on X to cover Y, and so on. But what you also seem to forget is that the quantum computer is about to become commercially available within the next decade.
And if the quantum computers aren't enough, then there's stuff like this
hpe.com
>1. How much UBI should be in you country?
Enough so everyone can afford a basic, cheap house, basic food, bills and basic medical care. For everything else, work.
>2. How many people in you country?
Considering it'll be the EU in a decade or two, about 600-700mil
>3. How big is your country current welfare budget?
Average of the EU is in the 27-30% range of GDP. It's enough to provide UBI for its EU citizens (excluding immigrants of any kind)
I've seen a vein of leftists on Twitter that believe UBI is a right wing scheme to do away with state welfare institutions.
It will unironically do exactly that, which is why every libertarian should support it. I'd love to live in a zero-tax ancap utopia, but it'll never happen. A UBI system where the government tells you to go fuck yourself and stop begging as you've already received enough is probably the closest to what can resemble a libertarian government in the current century of ever-growing socialism. In fact, the UBI might be the final nail to the communism coffin, as no one would bother revolting against the "evil capitalists" that don't employ them or pay too less.
Right, so in the following decade the tech should be available, why should we implement UBI now? Also as I said private companies don't jump to the newest tech when it comes out, so even if it is available it won't be widespread quickly enough to put everyone on the street and requiring government assistance. How many companies and institutions do you think still use Windows XP? So again, you haven't proven your scenario will happen, you're presupposing they have tons of money to change all their hardware and software for newer technology. But also, you haven't said why human labor won't be necessary. I don't know what's the next big thing, what new industries will come from further automation, if I did I'd be doing that rather than shitpost on Sup Forums from work, but you don't know either but instead of letting the industrial genius make new things you want to restrict us at our current technological and economic level.
Money is distributed. People/companies keep said money. Not as money to distribute. Print more money. Distribute that. Ad infinitum.
As someone who has been to dauphin many times, I would never live there. O matter how much basic income they give.
>Enough...
Buzzwords. No number.
>Considering ...
Buzzwords. No number.
>Average ...
Buzzwords. No number.
This is all you need to know about UBI and its proponents. Buzzwords. No number.
It doesn't matter if it is described as libertarian or socialist; for various reasons, it just doesn't work.
en.m.wikipedia.org
In addition, most of the Mexican population will move here to steal benefits.
Maybe it will work in the whitest of white Scandinavian countries, but not here in the US.
>but instead of letting the industrial genius make new things you want to restrict us at our current technological and economic level.
Where the fuck does that even come from. I'm all for rapid technological progress and singularity, forcing companies to employ people instead of letting them employ robots would obviously threaten that. The best way to solve that problem is to simply pacify the average worker, give him a portion of the tax revenue and tell him to shut the fuck up about unemployment.
If you don't do that, be sure that the entire West will fall to communism, as it did here and the rest of Eastern Europe, and as it almost did in Germany and France during those times. It's not SJWism, MSM brainwashing and other hippie stuff that makes people gather and revolt against the capitalist government, it's them being almost starved to death and having no other option than to risk their lives in an armed revolt and force the government to feed them. Just imagine a pack of niggers being told that they're going to get free food if they openly revolt, murder and rape en-masse.
Mishandling the upcoming automatization crisis is probably the most significant mistake a government can make, as that would cause people to revolt against it and enforce inefficient socialism, paired with all pro-automatization capitalists being banished, which cripples the economy permanently. UBI is the solution to it.
>most of the Mexican population will move here to steal benefits.
Underrated post.
>Where the fucl does that even come from
From basic income, you're assuming people won't get jobs or there won't be any fields where people can work. So essentially also technology will stop. Again, imagine if this were implemented during the agricultural revolution. The government would hand out food and people would dick about and nothing productive. Thankfully they didn't do that because a technological progress like the agricultural revolution, the industrial or even the information economies aren't "crisis" to be handled by the government but opportunities for the free market to expand. You're also assuming it will happen quickly, the agricultural and industrial revolution happened over 100 years, the informatic era over 50-75 years, that's enough time for people to adapt to a changing economy.
But also automation will mainly free manual labor which isn't a big sector in the West so only China, India and the like would have to "worry" about it. Also your argument in favor of UBI is people will get violent without gibs so better give into their demands rather than let the free market handle it.
>the government taxes the rich and gives the money to the poor
Then why are the rich still rich and the poor still poor?
And what makes law and medicine immune to automization? High salaries are more incentive, not less to roboticize it. Do you even know what a lawyer and a doctor do? Because it's easier to program a lawbot or a docbot than to program a burgerbot
Because the rich are rich because they are smart and can manage to do well under most circumstances while the poor and poor because they aren't so smart and mishandle their finances and even if you give them a steady income they still manage to fuck it up.