Educate me on Guaranteed Minimum Income (GMI)

Maybe it's just my capitalist upbringing, but I don't get GMI. I can't see how this doesn't end up resolving into ghettos, forced sterilization, and death camps over the long run.

People bring this up as the "obvious" solution for automation / machine AI outsourcing which will "permanently" put people out of work. So the logic goes.

So, I put 60% of populace on GMI, other 40% works. Not sure why the 40% bothers to show up for work, but hey, maybe it's super fulfilling. The 60% are just taking up dead space, eating, shitting, and breeding. You want all the losers together, to minimize cost, so new Ghettos in out of way places. You don't want them breeding more, so sterilization. Even then... at some point, wouldn't any rational government say "hey, these people are non-productive and a waste of resources" and just gas them all as a cost savings?

What am I missing? How does putting people into a valueless, supported position help them?

>any rational government say "hey, these people are non-productive and a waste of resources" and just gas them all as a cost savings?
Pretty much what happens every time in communism

That's exactly what I suspect would happen. You'd end up with some god-awful planned economy Soviet era mess.

Governments starts giving out vouchers rather than money b/c they don't want the 60% spending cash on drugs. Government takes over food production, b/c over half is going out for free to the 60% anyway, so there's your planned economy, with vouchers and rationed everything. 40% obviously isn't super motivated if you don't treat them better than the useless losers, so instant 2-tier society just like Soviet "communism."

>What am I missing?
Democracy. The idea is that a government could serve all of its people even if they are not economically active. That it shouldn't matter.

But yeah, those who support that are usually extremely naive. Problem is that most people become completely dependent on the government, and it becomes much easier to buy their vote.

Social control is the primary concern of the elite. It will not change with GMI. Mass surveillance and AI would probably play a big role there. Possibly drugs.

But most likely GMI will never be enough to live well. That's what will keep the workers in line. They'll have to slave away or be replaced in an instant.

Being shut out of the main economy, the disenfranchised masses will probably try to organize their own economy. That's the natural thing to do. That's how humans are socially. There will be lots of crime, prostitution and exploitation. They will oppress and keep each others down just fine, all under the watchful eye of the elite.

We're just not enlightened enough for crap like this yet.

All most people have to live off of is their labor

If we are moving toward a future where labor is not needed what happens?

Either millions of people revolt / starve or you use some of the robotic productivity gains to feed those people

That's right, destroy peoples' compulsion towards purpose. That will do wonders for the health of our degenerate, unraveling civilization.

>Democracy. The idea is that a government could serve all of its people even if they are not economically active. That it shouldn't matter.

I think that's the basic assumption. But in any relationship I can think of, there's give and take. GMI (or UBI) means that it's all "give" from government to people. You're right though... this would become its own voting block... until they were stripped of vote b/c they aren't "citizens" since they accept GMI... or maybe it's more useful to keep them as a controlled block... interesting line of thought.

But most likely GMI will never be enough to live well. That's what will keep the workers in line. They'll have to slave away or be replaced in an instant.

>Being shut out of the main economy, the disenfranchised masses will probably try to organize their own economy. That's the natural thing to do... There will be lots of crime, prostitution and exploitation. They will oppress and keep each others down just fine, all under the watchful eye of the elite.

So again, back to a 2 tiered system, with ghettos. The criminalization of an entire population block would make it that much easier to justify taking away their vote, force sterilization, and eventually eliminate them.

Elite makes it sound so Illuminati... it wouldn't be, it would just be serving the interest of what's deemed "useful." That creates its own slippery slope though... you fall out of the 40% you are fucked.

I feel like I'm just describing 1984... Rational people can't possibly believe this is a good idea...

This
The last thing we need to do is give people more incentives to lay around and smoke weed all day. We have enough leeches on our welfare system as it is, we need to discontinue welfare for all able-bodied men and women

just sterilize those who accept gmi

I think that's what bothers me most about this as a concept... it completely eliminates any agency on the part of citizenry. WTF would one bother doing anything?

Kids were watching an episode of Little House on the Prairie today, right after I'd read some post from a colleague about why GMI was inevitable and going to solve everything. While it's a random connection, there's a very clear message of working hard to make it in the series... it really bothered me to watch that, think about the entire philosophy of work for betterment of family and society, and then have to see serious discussion on how the GMI concept was going to help everyone out.

>are we ever gonna dance or you just gonna sit there eating donuts all night, you fat bitch

>If we are moving toward a future where labor is not needed what happens?

we aren't .. that's the same thing they said about the industrial revolution .. what happens when machinery replaces labor .. it didn't and instead the world economy boomed .. people became wealthier, higher standards of living, more food all around at cheaper prices, new jobs were created, etc.

don't be silly with this pseudo-economic nonsense

Reminds me of the star trek model of economy. Everyone is supplied with what they need which allows them to pursue hobbies and personal goals without the everyday grind of a job.

>I feel like I'm just describing 1984... Rational people can't possibly believe this is a good idea...
1984 probably isn't the best way to maintain control. Too much chaos and the brainwashing wouldn't work *this* well. That's what an authoritarian failed state could degenerate into but I don't think it could be stable under this form.

Brave New World was always more realistic to me. It's better than 1984 even though in the book it is distopic due to how dehumanizing it ultimately was. One with mass surveillance and AI being used to influence and control people, not punish or oppress them. People can be predicted and manipulated better than ever before with big data. Marketing has been using people's inner unconscious desires against themselves for a very long time. And the easiest people to predict and control are narcissistic, hedonistic, superficial and possibly drugged. And they objectify each others and don't form deep, meaningful personal relationships and have their own personal projects, etc. All of this would be destabilizing and be deemed anti-social.

I think this might be the long-term plan. UBI/GMI has to come with powerful means of social control or it will degenerate.

That's not really how anyone would propose a UBI could work.

The people who advocate for a UBI currently don't intend it to replace working for an income. It's supposed to be a small just liveable stipend and you're supposed to work also. Their main goal is to minimize welfare bureaucracy. I'd view this kind of implementation as short sighted and fraught with problems.

The real use of a UBI will become apparent in the coming decades as automation takes over.

Honestly a compromise I can think of is a return to communal farms. Hipsters get their low cost ecofriendly lifestyle producing the organic veggies people are willing to pay though the nose for.

Its not ideal but it could be a gradual way to phase out most of the populace and lessen the ecological impact

>It's supposed to be a small just liveable stipend and you're supposed to work also.
it won't stay that way, it will revert to normal welfare.

first everyone will get UBI, then people will start complaining about billionaires getting it, so the UBI of billionaires will be taken away and the money saved via that will be redistributed to everyone else. then the same thing will happen with people of a net worth of over 800 million, then 600 million, then 400 million, and then wow, you have the exact same problem that welfare created: people deliberately stay on it because it's more beneficial to not work than to work.

>The real use of a UBI will become apparent in the coming decades as automation takes over.
how?

That's the sort of culture communists have always dreamed of. Some tried to instill it by force and it always failed (with a lot of deaths). Some believed it could only come after a few hundreds of years of carefully planned out socialism.

In ideal communism, everyone is very educated, can do a lot of jobs (hyper-specialization isn't required) and society is pretty much libertarian but without basic material wants (those dictated by biology anyway, wants are generally infinite). With basic material wants met, the idea is that most wants are of inter-personal and intellectual nature, etc. There's no need to build up unnecessary wealth anymore (but right now, personal wealth means freedom and that's important for people to have).

I think it could come, maybe in less than a hundred years, but not by force. It should be a natural progression but culture has to change, slowly. And the freedom bit is key. You need a culture where you can trust all of these people with all that economic freedom and lack of material want to control them. Right now we're doing the opposite. We're heading towards more and more social control and less real economic freedom.

>ghettos, forced sterilization, and death camps
I fail to see the issue.

Thin veil over a slide directly into communism
If no one HAS to work,most people aren't going to. Good luck waiting 3 years for a check up becuse there's only 3 doctors in the town

It's shitlib magical thinking. It's a sly attempt at convincing idiots that central planning of an economy could work because technology.

It makes no sense and could never work.

What you are missing is that GMI will still have similar unemployment rates to today's standards. While high paying factory type jobs and even much of shipping may become automated, many professions are neither cost effective or possible. What GMI is about is offering the maid the waitress the highway litter cleaner a guaranteed income for non skilled work. Accepting GMI and Not working is paramount to fraud and can get you imprisoned. The only recipients of GMI as economists project it are the disabled and elderly. By providing a GMI to all citizens of able body you created both industry and markets far more stable than those ran on pure capitalism. Capitalism causes massive waste as fluctuations in costs and sales cause layoffs and material wastes. GMI also reduces immigrants trying being necessary for jobs like remedial farm work and janitorial services. Since a person laid off from a skilled job has assurance of economic stability by filling in seasonal work while a new position is found. This recirculation and minimal interchangability of positions further prevents market swing or catastrophic regional event from destroying economies. Even displaced workers can find work and qualify for an income to protect their assets.

It doesnt matter because it/s completely impossible.
Even a thousand bucks a month nnational GMI would be like 300 billion a month in the us, or nearly 4 trillion a year, and that is a pittance.

GMI absolutely cannot work until we have Star Trek level technology that allows us to reform matter at will and have as much energy as we'll ever need multiple times over available all the time and so cheaply it might as well be free. Robots don't mean shit.

At that point would it even still be considered GMI?
It simply sounds like a subsidy for low skilled labor

the economy with robots is going to fail the working class and instead of educating people to take on more technical or intellectual positions, they are going to keep people dumb and obsessed with manufacturing, retail and service jobs all of which will disappear in 10 years or less. right wingers ironically are creating the need for the GMI

Its a nice idea on paper, especially with the threat of automation to jobs, but I have doubts it could work in our current system unless we evolve to a point where a new one outmodes it

The fact is, everyone is getting some kind of benefit right now as it is. UBI leads to the same problems the current welfare scheme does, but with less of a deterrence to re-entering the workforce, and less government waste on bureaucracies.

GMI is just a new name for communism, as was the walfare state.

Oh my God why the fuck are you namefagging!!!!

There's that as well. Economists will point out that as we automate, costs of living goes down, so that $1000 might scale. But I don't see automation changing the basic cost of land needed to build things, or the taxes on it... so your tenancy costs would increase, esp. as "everyone" has GMI. The solution, of course, is putting everyone in low-value areas... aka Ghettos.

I think this sort of idealization of humanity is the common failure point of any designed utopia. People are many things, not all aspects are positive, and that goes for me as well as everyone around me. I want to attain more. I want better for my family. These is considered positive traits in a capitalist society. They would be anathema in a communal setting. I'm not sure people are even capable of adjusting to a truly communal lifestyle.

Comparison to 1984 was more around the idea of a 2 segment society... it's been years since I read it, and you're right that what's described is unworkable and undesirable. Still haven't finished Brave New World.

B/c I hate threads where I have to figure out who OP is, and I'm actually keeping a discussion going. Don't worry, I'm going to bed soon.

Nixon had a great idea.

Or have a government provided nutrient allotment of 2000kcal a day with all vitamins and fiber added, with the bonus birth control pill mixed in. Do away with welfare. The only point to having a job anyways is to afford luxuries. No-one is starving in 1st world countries.

In addition: government provided energy to heat a government provided living space of 10x15/person with approved insulation. Government provided water rations of 10gal/day/person.

Abolish welfare
Embrace government allotments
Sterilize handout users with hormonal BC (as soon as they find gainful employment and purchase their own food, they have removed themselves from the hormonal BC in the food)
Encourage people to work to obtain luxury

It's less intrusive than existing welfare policy in the US. Government doesn't dictate what items you can buy, no verification of income, etc. The bureaucracy to run a GMI could be much trimmer than that overseeing our existing welfare state.

There are two big issues, though: cost and effect on productivity.

In 2016, there were 125.82 million US households with an average of 2.5 persons per household. If we gave each household $20,000/year, that puts everyone right at the federal poverty line. It also costs $2.51 trillion, which is about 13% of GDP. By contrast, all other forms of welfare spending aside from Medicare and Social Security cost about $1 trillion.

So if we have the political wherewithal to totally supplant all existing welfare programs, including Social Security and Medicare, then a GMI might make fiscal sense. But that's a HUGE if.

Also, while I think many, maybe even most, people would still feel compelled to be productive in some manner, a GMI seems very likely to significantly increase the NEET population.

A few things OP.
1. GMI is not UBI. GMI is indeed a bad idea, but im going to assume you are talking about UBI instead since thats all Sup Forums ever talks about.

2. People already get supported via welfare. The welfare programs create people more dependant on the government than UBI would, since to get welfare, you need to be approved by the government, meet specific criteria, feel endangered of losing your welfare if you do a little bit better, and the various programs become a political point which would encourage you to vote for people who promise to fund them.
UBI on the other hand is just a reverse tax. Everyone gets it, its more efficient because it can just be rolled in as part of the tax system, all those welfare programs vanish. Because its something as straightforward and 'guarenteed' as taxes, its not some special government program to influince voters, but just a normal fact of live in a modern society. This eliminates the gamishness of welfare and makes one feel free to attempt to gain.

Essentially, the argument against all these 'but wont gibsmedats result in societal colapse!' is to point out that the dats are already being gibed, this is just a way to change the method which will make the hand full of people who would try to do better have an easier time of doing that. There will certainly be people who just sit there are leech, but those people are already doing that.

I believe in UBI even with out the need for it as an automation response, just as a welfare replacement. But on the subject of automation, automation is not about eliminating a fixed number of jobs, it eliminates a PERCENTAGE of jobs, and that percent will grow. If you just gas all the people with out jobs, then the number of people that exist will be less, and fewer people will now need to work. That creates a death spiral to extinction. The fact is we need some sort of system in the future where most people do not need to work, or society will collapse entirely.

>a GMI seems very likely to significantly increase the NEET population.

A UBI would change the nature of the lowest level of work. The minimum wage type jobs would become more liquid, with people working them for periods of time and then not. This would make it easier to find a job at times, as well as seem like a less daunting experience.

Imagine a NEET wanting a new computer. They might go out and do some work untill they can afford one and then go back to being a NEET. That spot they left open, however, would now be filled by someone else. The result is that people would be gaining work experience. If this became socially normal, then a certain number of people who would otherwise sit around on welfare would just realize they can earn extra money and get nice things they want and put more into doing that.

The main issue with poverty is security. Its not so much money but assurance that you will be ok. A NEET can see the world as daunting, and due to societies relative prosperity and the fact that we do have welfare systems the options seem to be either struggle just to survive, or dont struggle at all, and also survive because of welfare.

If the struggle was not for survival, but just to have a better life, it would not seem like such a hopeless situation.

UBI also means minimum wage can be lowered or abolished outright, since a job is not expected to provide all the money you need to survive anymore, survival is guaranteed, you are working for luxury. Job pricings can then be unregulated and subject to the labor market.

This will make it easier to start up a small company or just get someone to help you do a project.

A UBI would result in an increase in freelance work.

>Because its something as straightforward and 'guarenteed' as taxes
anyone espousing this needs to get shot

>Essentially, the argument against all these 'but wont gibsmedats result in societal colapse!' is to point out that the dats are already being gibed
and they shouldn't be you retard

>There will certainly be people who just sit there are leech, but those people are already doing that.
contrary to what you crypto-communists seem to believe, people will only leech if they have the opportunity to. take any man on earth and put him in a room with a button that will kill someone and give him $1,000,000 and he will hit that button at least once.

>it eliminates a PERCENTAGE of jobs, and that percent will grow.
what the fuck are you on about, unless you're talking about some star trek style society this is literally impossible. for every machine introduced to do someone's job, at least one person will have to repair it. that may not seem like very much work when you have 10 machines in a mcdonalds with 1 person servicing it daily, but when you have an entire factory line automated the personnel requirement quickly skyrockets to the hundreds, if not thousands.
this argument is literally out of reddit. you need to leave.

The major problem I see with GMI programs, is alongside the 'free money' needs to be an ironclad philosophy of self improvement, as well as wanting to give back to society and trying to help your fellow man. That doesn't happen magically over night, like people seem to think.

In Star Trek, and other fictional post-scarcity societies, there was usually a major event of some kind (alien invasion, post-apocolyptic war, etc.) which not only killed 75%+ of the planet population, but nearly ALL of the dregs of society as well. The only people who survived were the ones who were either ruthless enough to survive, or banded together with others and helped one another (as human tribes tend to do, really).

Welfare Queens, Hobos, useless eaters, NEET's, Transgenderqueerkins? All dead. Not a lot of room for that sort of thing when there's crops to be planted and society to rebuild. By the time everything was back to 'normal' in a century or so, not only is there plenty to go around for literally everyone, but you have a relatively peaceful culture that readily accepts and appreciates the ability to do more work, and look toward the future.

By the time civilization develops to a point where you end up with a critical mass of dead weight again they get shoved off to their own little edge of the universe to do as they please. Everyone quite literally can go and develop society as they see fit.

ITT: weak minds that can't fathom a post scarcity society.

>they shouldn't be
Well thats not happening mr leppo.

>crypto-communists
im the exact opposite of a communist you hypercapitalist jewpuppet

>people will only leech if they have the opportunity to
I dont think you understand the nature of how society is kept in place right now, let me tell you.

The majority of people are getting ripped off, dramatically, by the elite. The elite however, smartly realize that the average person will take it if they dont make their lives too difficult, and so essentially 'bribe' them with welfare.

The people on it indeed only leech because they are able to. If they were not able to they would earn their money by revolting against the elite and cutting their fucking heads off. That would be a job well done and money earned through good, honest, work.

>for every machine introduced to do someone's job, at least one person will have to repair it
I see your emu overlords dont teach you proper arithmetic on (((school))) down there. If it took as much work to repair a machine as it did to do the actual work, there would be no point in automation. One person can repair many, many, machines, and one day that repair person will be a robot.

Complete automation is inevitable. Complete automation is a long, long, way off - but significant automation is around the corner.

Moreover, there aremany jobs that exist today which i like to call wellfare jobs. They are jobs that society maintains which could be eliminated, but society as a collective just doesnt want to lay that may people off.

Consider, if everyone whos job is to sit in front of a computer all day (and that is a LOT of people) just worked from home, which was possible decades ago and is certainly possible today, what that would do to the economy.

Thats that many new computers that wont need buying, since now each workers home computer is their work computer as well. Thats many office buildings that wont need constructing, thats roads that wont be worn by as heavy [cont]

[cont] a commute. Thats fewer cars that need selling, fewer mechanics needed to repair the cars. Oil prices would drop as well.

Fast food and other restaurants would go out of business because suddenly they dont need to be there for people to buy their junk food at lunch. This would make people healthier so doctors would go out of buisness, so would drug companies.

All of these jobs, all these parts of the economy, would vanish.

And thats why people have to go to work to sit at a computer.

Maybe someones doing it on purpose, maybe society just knows somehow and keeps up the current system. But we could eliminate, today, so many jobs, just by restructuring society.

Dont you act like automation is implausible, we are desperately trying to make up jobs to replace whats already been lost.

In the end everyone will be replaced by a machine. Even you australia. There will be machines that shitpost.

meant to quote myself Takes too long to delete a post so im just posting this to indicate i realize i quoted the wrong post.

Tell us more, smart guy. Can't wait.

What happens when you run out of cash and millions of people on it just got told the money flow is gone?

You dont run out of cash, it just accumulates in the wrong places.

The situation you describe would be equivalent to the economy getting fucked completely and almost everyone being out of a job.

Not a communist but supports taxation of the working class to support retarded neets because they deserve to exist for some reason.

Your only argument is either you hope they work and they won't or force them to work which is just communism in action.

Once people get a certain standard of life they just stop reproducing.
Poor people get shitload of kids because its the only thing they can be proud of.
>but if people dont work where they will get pride
the same way neets do

I think its fine SO LONG as people are still allowed to produce and sell goods and services in their own time without it being nationalized and subsequently ruined the moment its proven to turn a profit.
Then you still have a free market and incentive to keep regulations low. You can still acquire land, you can still compete with fortune 500 corporations, assuming you find a niche, and you're guaranteed a market for doing so.

That being said, GMI is usually put forward as a leftist ideal and its going to force them to confront some hard truths. This is the question you need to keep in mind:

If GMI replaces all forms of social welfare today, how many black and brown infants are going to starve to death tomorrow because suddenly food stamp money can be spent on Air Jordans.

what if instead of wasting resources on people who contribute nothing, we castrate them?

>run out of cash
That's not how it works. The only way that could happen is if corporations suddenly decide not to pay their workers or expand, banks suddenly decide not to give loans, and the government suddenly decides not to print money to compensate.

Its not feasible unless a bubble representing a giant stake of a country's investment bursts and is shown not to be able to ever show a profit, like the housing market in 2008 times a gorillian, and even then, the people smart enough to sell before the crash make bank off everyone else's suffering but are now incentive to corner the market against greatly weakened competition by undercutting them, keeping prices low.

The only way you could have a serious, permanent economic collapse is if you had a catastrophe that not only destroys America's economy, but physically destroys its infrastructure so the only way to make profit off American money is to pull it out of America and take it elsewhere, and realistically speaking, the only way THAT could happen is a war that goes as badly for America as WWI did for Germany or a natural disaster on the level of Yellowstone erupting.

All welfare is anti white. It subsidizes the breeding of nonwhites at the expense of whites.

The only ones who breed while dependent on welfare are degenerate scum that should die out not be farmed for votes by the commiecrats

Anyone pushing for basic income or any other excuse not to work has no creativity. Fuck em.
>Thog make hammer, what will we do if we don't hit with rock?
>Eli made a tractor, what will we do if we can't work the fields with our horses?
>Alan made a computer, what will we do if we can't get jobs using slide rules?
>Robots took all our jobs, what will we do now that we're free from the burden of menial work?

The problem lies in education, something that politicians and liberals just love to butcher so people are kept retarded.

Rational solution to automation:
>We must advance our teachings to accommodate the new work environment are children will be working in.
>Computer knowledge should be incorporated into the curriculum as our students will most likely be depending on them in their workplace.
>While we're at it, have a program set up so if they want to work in trades like carpentry or welding, we should have classes available for those interested around high school years. Internships and the like will help them get experience and a foot in the door of the job market.
>It is clear that people learn at different paces. Instead of expecting everybody to be mathematicians or physicist, create a schedule that revolves around their career path of choice, much like how colleges/universities do so. High school would be a great place to test this; it's not like our current system is good.
>Great meeting everyone I like the direction our society is going!

Dumbfuck solution people use for an easy way out:
>SHIT NIGGA I'M MAKIN 7.50 FLIPPIN BURGERSONS AND SHIT
>SHIT ASS SCOOL MAKE ME 2 RETARDED FOR THEM CASH MONEY JOBS
>How do we fix this problem so our children won't suffer like us, then?
>EZ, $15 MIN WAGE XDDD
>LMAO FUCK ROBOTS THO MAKE THOSE THING ILLEGAL PLS

this

the point of a UBI is to eliminate the pencil lines of what welfare money actually covers so that people in need aren't slipping through the cracks and ending up homeless

instead of saying that only schizophrenic single teenage mothers are entitled to a gibsmedat income, we say that everybody gets a little bit

people in tech tend to say now that UBI is an inevitability if 50% or more of all current jobs will killed by automation in the coming years but I can't see how it would ever be agreed upon that 50% of the working population (for the most part not already welfare recipients) gets carried financially by high income earners, even if it's a crisis situation

>communism
well now that its established you dont actually have any capacity to reason i guess were done. You are just as bad as the leftists protesting trump, you repeat some stupid viewpoint and ignore all arguments and reply with buzzwords.

UBI would foster innovation. The enlightenment was driven by NEETs - aristocrats who sat around shitposting at each other about the latest trend in natural philosophy. Humanities goal should be to as quickly as possible ensure people are secure in their survival, so they are free to chase their interests. Many will sit around doing nothing, they already are. Some wont. The goal is to give everyone the opportunity not to worry instead of just the wealthy. A rich person can try something and fail, and they are ok, they can recover and try again. A poor person has to decide between gambling their future security on an idea, or taking a deadend job. It is this inequality that should be removed. UBI does it by ensuring that you will never starve to death, never be homeless. It becomes a question of gambling your comfort on an idea, not your survival. If you believe that people should have to labor to justify their existence you are backwards and beyond help. It has always been an unfortunate necessity, not a virtue, and we are approaching it no longer being a requirement. People like you will hold us back.

Seriously, people need to not be retards. A UBI might not be pure, unadulterated laissez-faire capitalism, but it damned sure isn't communism. We aren't talking about getting rid of the concept of private property or collective industrial decision-making. A UBI is a more-efficient method of structuring public welfare, which already exists and isn't realistically going away. A UBI just makes welfare more transparent and less intrusive.

Plus a UBI would effectively level the playing field between employees and employers, rendering a lot of labor regulations (e.g., the minimum wage, the Wagner Act) irrelevant. If properly structured, a UBI would be better considered "welfare capitalism" than communism.

because it will never happen.

the year is 2067

>raw materials are mined/farmed by robots
>all shipping and handling of raw materials and finished products is done by robots
>all factories are 100% robot labor
>delivery (and installation if necessary) is done by robots
>entire towns are built by robots
>more robots are built by robots
>robots repair and maintain everything, including other robots
>only 5-10% of the human population is employed, mostly in government, law, programming, and commanding armies of robots to build shit
>this 5-10% of the population that actually have jobs are very wealthy, living much more luxuriously than the other 90-95%
>90-95% of the population is unemployed and truly free to do whatever they want with their time just like NEETs have always been
>they live as well as lower-middle class Americans do today, with small comfy homes, all the delicious food they can eat, and enough electronic gadgets to keep them entertained for 100 lifetimes
>there is no need to ever leave your home, everything you need will be delivered to you by robots
>for normalfags that want to feel productive and/or feel better than everyone else, there are still plenty of hobbies like bike-riding, yoga, sports, gardening, hitting the gym, virtue signalling by protesting the unfair treatment of robots, etc.
>it is America so all citizens still have guns, preventing the government from just gassing all the unemployed people

Those things you described are exactly where we are headed. Automation will beget automation and there will be large portions of the population that cannot sustain themselves because there is nothing left for them to do.

The dumber ones will of course keep reproducing and live in permanent poverty as they do now but UBI will serve as a buffer during the transition.

Weighed against a civil war between producers automated security and masses of starving unemployed turned belligerents seems the preferable choice.

But that aside, it will stop the entire mass manufacturing industry from cannibalizing itself. No masses of consumers, no need to mass produce, no need for the automation that displaced so many workers.

It is yet another step into complete and total degeneration.

Up until a century ago, after the industrial revolution, communities all over the world started forming in order to pool resources and form insurances, these people knew each other, either from church or from their factories, and everyone was subject to judgement, if they perceived you to be a strain on their communities they would ostracize you.

Then the state came, and eventually you didn't need to interact to have minimum wage, eventually you didn't need to interact to work X hours, eventually you didn't need to interact to have a pension, eventually you didn't need to interact to have a healthcare insurance, eventually you didn't need to interact to make sure your neighborhoods were policed.

One can easily see that this interaction is what keeps people's degeneracy in check, yet the government somehow keeps acquiring more and more power to do what? Offer you ways to be degenerate and not have to suffer the consequences.

What will happen when you don't even need to go to work? I just know that if I scratched the surface, the CEO of Doritos and the CEO of giant dragon dildos would be okay with GMI.

based maltaman

Is this like Universal Basic Income (UBI)? Because if it is I can say some reasons why it doesn't work.

First off, UBI means that every citizen of the country gets the same income check from the government regardless of income. So if the richest billionaire gets $12,000 USD per year, the poorest project dweller gets the same. If not, if you add checks and balances and start saying that you can't claim above a certain income. Well, then you just have a normal welfare state again and are left with the bureaucracy that it brings...

So let's say that the UBI benefit would be $12,000 a year, well that would cost under 4 trillion, about triple what welfare costs today. We just couldn't afford it.

> gibs me hand outs cuz I don't wanna work and just wanna smoke weeeed all day mAAaAaAaAaANNN