Redpill me on the basic income

Finland is experimenting with the idea of a basic income, if people have a shitty job, they keep their welfare but also get their salary. Getting a job that pays over a certain amount will mean they lose their welfare. Will this lead to people only getting shitty/parttime jobs, thus not fixing the problem? What other problems may arise from this?

Other urls found in this thread:

bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/?p=35705
youtube.com/watch?v=QzXGdy8Et30
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Münster_Rebellion
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

The claim is that Basic Income is needed as society automates
The reality is that there won't be a massive loss of jobs. What is happening is a gradual weakening of the productive force of labor relative to capital. This means wage earners will no longer be able to live off their job income alone and will receive the basic income as a supplement to their wage to maintain their primary role as a consumer.

But wouldn't giving them a basic income just push inflation? Also, this basic income needs to come off taxes i.e. other working people, essentially meaning that hard work is rewarded less, and with basic income there are even more people in need of "welfare". While they're not leeching, they are still a burden.

How do you fix this?

I don't support it. It's just a roundabout way of enslaving the underclass to the state. There is a real problem with automation and it is very important to fight Basic Income because it sounds like it will fix it and normies will eat it up.

The alternative is making sure every family owns capital and derives a second income from that.

So how would you go about telling people that the idea of a basic income is retarded? By telling them it enslaves them to the state will just make them think you're a "crazy conspiracy theorist" and they will say things like "Poor people need to be helped" without realising it just pulls them into the sewer even more.

It's a good idea in theory if all the jobs lost to automation and globalisation if it is funded by taxes levied on the companies and tech responsible for job losses.

In reality it's a way for nations to incur further debt supporting an underpaid populace so ex-politicians can land themselves nice incomes for saving the elites some money.

It's pretty evil and it's definitely coming

We are rapidly moving toward universal automation.

When that happens, anyone without a critical mass of robots to produce shit that sells will be forever cut off.

Society will become like H.G. Wells or Fractale, with a large underclass and robot barrons.

You either pacify them with a minimum income or you end up with torches, pitchforks, and the fall of civilization.

If minimum income is established with the current shitlib marriage policies, most of the underclass will die out because women won't fuck them because no money, and UN Agenda 21 will be complete.

Most people don't deserve basic income.

>thus not fixing the problem?

What problem are you talking about? It does fix the problem it is designed to fix, namely the fact that currently people on welfare have no motivation to get part-time work because it would not get them much more money per month compared to just welfare.

It's not a question of "what people deserve".

As more robots take low-skill jobs, the IQ threshold for earning a livable wage will continue to rise.

Right now anyone with about 80 or above can sustain themselves.

Once automation reaches critical mass it will be 110, at which point about 65% of the populace will be in grinding poverty.

Political science and history dictate a large, low-IQ underclass denied hope of a future will rebel violently.

The question is one of political realism:

Do you want violent revolution or not?

Everyone in Finland has basic income since they can apply for it if they don't have a job.

This will lead people to
1. be inactive
2. jobless
3. meek

All 3 good for the economy and government.

Take the redpill: neoliberal economy does not want full employment.

i'm calling it - jobs will be the next scarce resource as we hurtle towards full neo-liberal insanity

>Will be.
Looking at the absolute shit-tastic state of the overall world situation, they already are.

>the IQ threshold for earning a livable wage will continue to rise
It's a perfect way to weed stupid fucks out. Welfare nets are directly contradictory to natural selection. You should for cheering for elimination of basic income.

>It's a perfect way to weed stupid fucks out.

If it's gradual.

Unfortunately moore's law is going to fuck us, because if it's sudden it means torches, pitchforks, and la guillotine.

Basic income is more than a solution to "automation" and it's definitely not some fringe leftist idea. It solves a host of problems, and has many benefits. A wide sampling of economists, left and right, will agree that it's an excellent idea. They vary in implementations, like "negative income tax" which is effectively basic income.

There's no rational argument against basic income based in economic principles and theory, or even in some kind of theory of human behavior.

At the end of the day the reason people dislike basic income is crab mentality. They don't like the idea of others getting something for "free." To this end the greatest obstacle to a basic income is educating people such that they will be ready for it when it comes. Note, not if: when. The alternative is hundreds of millions of directionless, hungry, desperate people. Which if you know history is a recipe for pure chaos.

1. national governments are impotent in the face of international capital
2. no appetite for world government amongst citizens
3. welcome to ancap world

The biggest problem would be inflation. Money has no intrinsic value without labor. Unless the money is derived from some sort of production, it would debase the currency. Someone has to pay for the UBI and it's not robots.

>Money has no intrinsic value without labor

Implying labor is required for production.

Labor theory of value is dead dude, and its corpse is rotting ever more rapidly as automation costs plummet.

The problem i'm talking about is more people taking welfare. With their parttime job they not only take welfare, they also take the opportunity for someone else to get off welfare by getting that job fulltime.

Keep going, explain why it wouldn't debase the currency and where the money for UBI would come from.

Even if you assume the validity of labor theory of value, increasingly universal automation renders the supply of labor infinite.

What happens to the real economic value of something when its supply is infinite?

I can't hear you.....

Whether UBI is instituted or not, the wages are going to flatline for anyone who doesn't have an automated factory.

I get welfare, If I try to get a part-time job I lose my welfare and the job pays the same as my welfare.

Basic income will allow me to get a part-time job and actually make money.

yeah but is automation prepared for the demand side shock it will inevitably cause?

your products are cheaper but nobody has the money to buy them bc robots don't consume, gg technology

Millions upon millions of low IQ working class people with zero meaning, purpose or responsibility in their lives. All of them with way too much time on their hands.

What could possibly go wrong?

You should make it so that everyone gets it regardless of income. Thereby removing the disincentive of not working past the cut off.

The truth is automation will cause a massive collapse of the economy built on debt. When transport, 11% of jobs in the US is automated, all those cunts will become useless, not pay their mortgage or support their families. The debt based of them will collapse.

This is not even a new problem, Rome in Julius Caesar's day had a grain dole for working people, because the slaves did everything and the senate owned most of the land.

I say, welfare before fixing the mentality is dangerous enough. And by welfare I mean any form of wealth redistribution. You can't fix people by giving free stuffs. You fix people and then give them free stuffs as rewards. At certain point there should be a social consensus that it is OK to take their reproductive right away in return to the gibs. That's the bare minimum requirement to build a sustainable welfare state. And are many more rights to be pragmatically taken away which includes some of basic human rights. People say entitlement is a problem, but it is a serious problem with real consequences.

Governments only hope is to pacify and numb them.

Dear lord if all those people actually actualize their power and start a violent revolution sending us 50 decades back.

We've already seen what happens when that occurs.

Suppressed wages in the USA led to skyrocketing personal debt, until the capacity to carry debt gave out, resulting in the 2008 crisis.

The government stepped in to bail out the rich, said "fuck the poor", and now there's a widening gulf between the haves and have nots.

These "collapses" will continue step-wise until there are shanty-towns surrounding a few rich people.. but I suspect violent revolution will occur before that time.

Keep in mind riots have rocked the major cities in half the states in the US at this point.

Your making some absurd assumptions. Behind every factory is an owner or shareholders. What would be their motivation to invest if they too can just collect a UBI.

Actually UBI would allow them to be pacified. You could make a tiered system of reward, based on how much you obey. You could punished based of incredibly minor infringements. You could make sterilised people without children get double. UBI is a helluva carrot.

Identity politics is the greatest divide and conquer tactic of all time. The people won't be rising any time soon.

the riots point is very interesting, notice how a) often they occur compared to say the 80s and b) how many people have tried to start 'race wars' in the last 5 years, i think something like this is way closer than we think

reminder the difference between a civilised man and a savage is a few days of too hot, too cold, and not enough food

>You could make a tiered system of reward, based on how much you obey. You could punished based of incredibly minor infringements.
China already is playing around with this idea

link?

Interesting. When I wrote that, I immediately thought of the stasi, so yeah. Commies eh.

This. I'm currently on welfare because why not? In Finland we are called 'rotta' and im proud of it.
Welfare shouldn't have happened, it is causing negative flynn effect thus making people retarded.

UBI makes sense in a purely christian society where heavy automation lead to the loss of the majorit of well payed jobs. if there is mudslimes this will just lead to chaos and financial abuse of the state.

Knowing Finland this will only apply to the natives. The migrants will get welfare plus basic income

I'm not joking when I say that you are absolutely correct. I am poor myself, but when I realized how effectively, how secretly the welfare makes people meek, orderly - sort of slaves to the system it started to disgust me the way it is done in Finland.

It serves no other purpose than to keep people from demanding change.

Most of the realization came from reading Lolberatarian views on welfare which started to make more and more sense to me as time passed.

But robots aren't just gonna take low-skill jobs. Robot surgeons are likely going to be one of the first automated industries that comes about.

>There's no rational argument against basic income based in economic principles and theory, or even in some kind of theory of human behavior.
That's simply untrue. I suggest you read bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/?p=35705

I'll never works with nuggets and spunks

This. In 1980 welfare was not so good. Then in the 1990 wild Somali refugees entered Holy lands of the Finnish clay, welfare was lifted up so the children of God - Somali refugees - wouldn't feel left out.
Fast forward to 2017 and what will you learn? Only 20% of Somalis are employed. Who would have known.

>Everyone in Finland has basic income since they can apply for it if they don't have a job.
But the job center will provide to you a job and if it can't find you a job in your profession, then you'll get Unemployment benefits basic income.
for how long do they pay Unemployment benefits? here it's for a few months

ask them why they think a state could support UBI when currently it barely supports social programs for the poor.

In america at least, there has been near constant fear mongering from the state and media saying that SS will run out within the next 20+ years and that the state will not be able to cover the difference when it catches up. This is generally agreed with in society, if this is really true, how can we expect the state to take on a system that would exponentially more expensive with zero change? The only way this would be even feasible is if a majority if not all primary, secondary aid programs and social programs were removed entirely and we had a severe tax increase across the board to pay for it. Which could lead to people working and getting UBI and having a noticeable decrease in quality of life also destroying the middle class and removing any hint of social mobility in society.

>But the job center will provide to you a job
LOL NO.
I'm talking basic income not unemployment benefits. One is from social service the other from THE NATIONS RETIREMENT INSTITUTIONT

Finland can you kindly explain how you survived without welfare so long given that women could vote since 1905?

Until you die. If you are unemployed workcenter will mail you a letter once a month that says you have to apply to a job x. If you write bad apply, as i do, you will never get the job and money gets deposited to your bank account every month :D

Based country.

Because we built up a fairly good social service system after WW2.

Because we had a strong traditional family values.

Because the housing boom from the WW2 to the 70s carried the economy to the 90s.

Then came the 90s depression that fucked the entire country, upside down, from every hole and orifice and left its raped corpse to be pillaged by governments cuckolding the people.

and high taxes I guess.

Jews hand hand't reached here yet?
Who knows.

And women got right to vote in 1906.

This may be true in burgerland, but in toothpaste country people who are against rapefugees or giving more to the poor are demonised, mainly because of pic related.
There are plenty of people who think differently (proven by political parties PVV and FvD), but they generally don't speak up, and if they do, their words are tilted and they are portrayed as uneducated.

yeah finland's women ((right to vote)) where the husband told the bish what to vote or she would get fucking beaten and/or they would be kept in the house so they couldn't leave to vote.

right in the most formal way.

Hmm, you are my best European hope Finland.

Hmm, my grandmother doesn't even think women should go to college haha. Different times :/

That and I asked my gf if women should vote and she said no, so maybe there is hope.

Finland is a lost cause. I want out of this mess.

Is the whole country really that bad though? I mean in the US I can get people to agree on a white entho-state and we've had the melting pot propaganda for 100+ years.

Universal Basic Income is a new scam by old communists, who want to destroy society and be able to spend all day getting paid to agitate and protest. Pic explains.

Because Basic Income has so many problems, there's also a trillion different versions of it. The Finland version would not be "universal basic income" since people lose it if they get a job.

You have no idea how fucked up our government has been since we got accepted into EU.

This is a country that should win the award for the best secrecy, hiding and cover-up of institutional & mechanical corruption in the government and related factions.

JUST

I asked my mother if I could emigrate to Finland someday (I'm 100% Finn) when I was a kid. She said I'd need to marry a Finnish girl to do it. This was 10 years ago. Was she full of shit, or did it all go to hell that quickly?

If commies want people to agitate and protest, make regulations that starve people and take away their "Joys" that numb them after days work.

Not something that most likely pacifies them with enough necessities to think to themselves "im free and everything is okay"

Capitalism needs poor people in order to function. Poverty will never be solved as long as we have a capitalist system. Basic income stops the dirt poor becoming a problem, like turning to crime.

I have no idea how emigrating to Finland works, sorry.. I wish I could help you.

youtube.com/watch?v=QzXGdy8Et30

have some nice finnish music.

>Getting a job that pays over a certain amount will mean they lose their welfare.
That's a dumb way to do it.
Pretty much this, though I think technological unemployment will grow as an issue.

UBI is simply the best way to erode the middle class.

>Poor get free money
>Spend money in businesses
>The rich make money
>The rich get taxes hard, pushing them to a lower class
>Rich are more poor, they pay less taxes
>Middle class foots the bill
>Middle class gets poor, paying less taxes
>Everyone is now equally poor

Eroding the middle class is a really shitty plan. I've read good interpretations of Nazi Germany & nat-soc's popularity among the first eroded middle class (which later spread to middle class that wasn't eroded, and then to rich people)

It was a funny type of socialism, middle class socialism really, but my point really is that fucking with middle class is pretty dangerous, even more so than fucking with poor.

>The alternative is hundreds of millions of directionless, hungry, desperate people. Which if you know history is a recipe for pure chaos.

How about "no"? If you know history, you know that people virtually never rebel or cause chaos due to hunger or actual desperation.

What is an actual recipe for chaos is a mass of people who are fed well enough to have time to think about stuff beyond basic survival, but without any perceived hope of advancing their station in life.

Which is the what basic income will surely create, given already-observable effects of wellfare on society.

hello Ruskie
how does Russia like Donald Trump now?
Will Putin allow himself to be turned to a Russian Obama that draws red lines and does nothing - now that Trump actually did something after a redline was crossed?


how is the krokodile vodka gopnik culture nowadays?

>How about "no"? If you know history, you know that people virtually never rebel or cause chaos due to hunger.
French revolution?

Exactly, UBI is a terrible idea. Unless true automation comes about, such as farms farming themselves. Until then it's not practical.

>French revolution?

French revolution happened after a long period of relative peace and prosperity, and not, say, after the great famines of 1693-94 or 1709 (which also overlapped with a series of desperate, exhausting wars). Indeed, its driving force were groups of people in cushy, well-paid professions, most often lawyers, who had altogether too much time on their hands.

Check out the Munster Rebellion. The people's leaders completely changed ideology, starved them, and completely went against cultural norms. Still yet they didn't behead they're leaders.

>>>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Münster_Rebellion

Honestly, the Bolshevik revolution is one of a few where the country was actually in hardship and the people revolted. Although it was heavily funded by the Germans and Jews.

(Looks upthread).
The usual Balto-Finnish routine "our countries are utter shitholes, b-but we're not as bad as Russia, right, r-right?" won't alleviate the pain, you know,

I didn't speak anything about Russia being shit hole, the gopnik vodka krokodile was just a joke mate.

I was genuinely curious if you think Putin will be "The Obama" of this round, drawing lines in the sand and not acting when they're crossed now that Trump is punishing countries for crossing those lines.

>Honestly, the Bolshevik revolution is one of a few where the country was actually in hardship

The Bolshevik revolution happened because the country was rapidly disintegrating into lawless Wild East after the preceding February Revolution, and while there was indeed hardship before the February Revolution, due to world war and the country being relatively poor to start with, the situation in Russia was not remotely as bad as on the other side of the front line. German population was on the starvation ration since autumn of 1916, yet they did not revolt (until after it became clear that the war is hopelessly lost). So again role of hardships must overrated. And then note that pre-WWI average levels of consumption were reached only by 1960s, yet there were no major rebellions under communism.

Women depending on the state instead of men to be providers.
Thus, lower marriage and birth rates.
State teat sucklers voting left all day every day to secure their income.
Inflation.
Lower labour produced = lower pride = lower nationalist spirit in general.
Basically the perfect way to cuck a whole nation and make them pay for it.

>I was genuinely curious if you think Putin will be "The Obama" of this round, drawing lines in the sand and not acting when they're crossed now that Trump is punishing countries for crossing those lines.

I honestly don't know. Judging by the fact that Tillerson's reception in Moscow was arranged with as many insulting gestures as possible, the Kremlin is in confrontational mood.

But ultimately it boils down to the two questions:

(1)Is White House willing to risk a direct shootout between US and Russian forces that may be too blatant for plausible denial, or are they bluffing?

(2)Is Kremlin willing to start WWIII instead of surrendering to either a bluff or an actual threat of such shootout?

It seems China has somewhat moved away from siding with Russia, no? They objected to the Syrian governments gas attack and are working together with US to pressure NK.

Wild times in the international politics..

Got any examples of how Tillerson's reception was handled?

>Unless true automation comes about
I don't understand this argument. The people making it ignore the fact that robots are owned by companies and shareholders. Why would they bother to start a company or invest in one if they can just sit at home like everyone else and collect UBI? What would incentivize innovation if the world becomes full of neets?

>They objected to the Syrian governments gas attack
Huh? Chinks took pot shots at the US for breaching Syria's sovereignty.
>working together with US to pressure N
That's not really an anti-Russian move.
Actually, China moved closer to Russia now vetoing UNSC resolutions on Syria we don't want, instead of simply abstaining. Practically meaningless, but it's a statement.
>Got any examples of how Tillerson's reception was handled?
They are yet to meet.