Discuss

Discuss.

Other urls found in this thread:

vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/5/30/15712160/basic-income-oecd-aei-replace-welfare-state
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

Ubi is more like a capitalist bribe: dont revolt against our rule in exchange for welfare you will grow dependent and powerless on.

Yeah. Basically true.

Although I will say we need a solution to an increasingly automated and outsourced workforce.

I mean. Be as capitalist as you like. When all manufacturing and industrial jobs are done by robots and the other half of jobs are outsourced we are going to have to do something.

The free shit army just wants to write poetry and sheit. What do greedy capitalists have against poetry and plays?

No, it is the only way to maintain capitalism after widespread automation takes off. Otherwise the working class masses have zero prospects and will revolt, then things go to complete shit.

We already have communism for the rich dumb ass.

It is much worse.
>good goyim get it
>bad goyim don't
>all prices are corrected up to take it into account
>goyim become even more stupid and reliant on the state
>some goyim lose all life skills after only two generations

I was in a conversation with a friend who is really into this idea. As the ideas were going back and forth in the group he mentioned this. I asked him a single question:

"Who gets to decide?"

He ignored the question. The conversation continued and he brought this idea up again. I asked the same question. He ignored it again.

That is what we are dealing with here.

It's missing the central planning part, so not really.

t. retard

people don't get to own the means of production

Bullshit. What happened when industrialization took over? Goods got cheaper, that's all.
If we ever reach a point where everything is automatic (which I doubt will ever happen), then the prices charged for such goods/services will tend towards zero.

That would be true if there were sufficient jobs for everyone with wages that everyone can afford to reasonably live on.

However, we don't have that luxury and no amount of economic expansion will ever bring it back.

The difference between UBI and communism is pretty fundamental. Communism is an ideology in which the workers own the means of production, anything on top of that is irrelevant.

Under UBI, an individual is still tasked with responsibility. If someone wishes to blow all their money on useless items, then complain about starving, they'll still starve to death.

You can also abolish all healthcare subsidies, and simply tell the people if they want health insurance, they can use their UBI to pay for it.

Ultimately, if you abolish all social safety nets in favor of UBI, you'll create demand for workers and keep slackers out of the work force. You'll also force people to be responsible with their money, or deal with the consequences.

UBI must be implemented as a constitutional amendment, with the amount tied directly to inflation, and unable to be changed without a constitutional overhaul. It can never be allowed to be played with by politicians.

In communism, everyone works. UBI is only needed as part of a society where there are not enough jobs for everyone due to automation.

Under communism, it clearly says "to each according to their need". UBI, on the other hand, gives everyone exactly the same thing.

Communism is workers ownership of the means of production so no

Who gets to decide what? That is a malformed question, of course it was ignored.

The only way that things cost nothing is if we have Star Trek replicators and effectively infinite energy. Even then that is only manufacturing costs, which is never a significant amount of what goods cost these days.

Also, industrialization is not a good analog for full automation. Industrialization augmented human labor, automation will entirely replace it. For a better example, see what happened to the horse population post-industrialization.

When the car replaced the horse, people simply went to work manufacturing cars and all the infrastructure for them.

Our current situation will bring no new job openings or possibilities. The total amount of jobs will only go down from here on out.

That's why this is a very different situation. Prices for goods won't much matter when you're competing with your neighbors for grasslands to try to grow food on because you haven't seen a dollar in 20 years.

Dont forget, with UBI you can abolish minimum wage laws, making it easy to start up a new company. You could basically hire people for 'nothing' but shares in the company, so they would be encouraged to work hard to make it successful.

But that is comunism. Bad goys used to go to the gulag.

Bump

There's really limitless good reasons to implement UBI, with nothing much in the way of downsides.

Running the numbers, even at our current population, it'd cost about the same amount of money to pay every 18+ year old $15k a year as it would to pay for all the current social safety nets.

I for one would love the chance to go into business for myself as this would be a massive risk mitigation, there'd be literally no reason not to.

The income only solves the extreme poverty issue.

Minimal wage it's even less communist as you have to be working to receive it.

When agriculture replaced hunter-gathering people started having to work fewer hours. The increased productivity lead to having to work less.

In the modern era as productivity goes up people do not have to work less, they work the same and the rich pocket the benefits.

For increased productivity and efficiency to have a similar effect today as it did back before the era of large corporations people would have to get ever shorter working hours, but receive the same pay.

Once people started being paid for 'time' rather than product we abandoned all hope of a jobs-based society being indefinitely sustainable.

Why didn't communists do it then????

How will our current situation not bring new jobs? Someone has to build/maintain the robots. Someone still has to source the materials for them, and all the infrastructure around them.

Also, assuming humanity gets impoverished by automation, who will corporations sell their goods to? There is no benefit in having a star trek replicator and still being unable to sell your finished goods to anyone.

oh yay, my PHD is useful for something besides S&P500 analysis.

economics has 2 answers:

>1. neoclassical: people won't work
>2. mmt/mct: prices will adjust for it, so its pointless

Both models show it as requiring job, so MMT guys say do it as government job guarantee, basically mandatory service or "anyone can join government fleet" (you liberal fascists will like this) .... and the intelligent neoclassical guys propose nothing, because if they proposed something within their model it would be forced labor (some idiots say it publicly). Some economists in the MCT/quantum-econ crowd have proposed UBI which government forces you to use to pay off debts. Alternative to UBI is is an-cap or bureaucracy.

>who gets to decide

who gets to decide... what exactly? what is it that critically needs to be "decided" about UBI?

did you think this was really profound and insightful at the time? your friend was probably ignoring the question to avoid acknowledging you'd embarrassed yourself so badly by saying something so stupid

he was a good friend

It will bring new jobs.
But it wont bring as many new jobs as the old jobs lost.

>who will corporations sell their goods to
This is why UBI was first proposed, to ensure consumers still have money to consume. With out it the entire modern system collapses.

It's is an idea put forth by Socialists in the upper echelon of the ideology. Scientific dictatorship if you will. Fully supported by Fabians. The tell all is that it is designed so that you cannot save it. Every period you get the pay, it resets to the limit. And you have that period to spend it, or lose it. It might as well be Comiebux. Total bullshit.

Only if you take everything people already have and use that to pay the peoples basic income. Otherwise, I see it more as a bonus for being a citizen of a successful country. If people are not taxed insanely in order to create it and the money comes from what somewhere else in the government I don't see a problem. Wouldn't you want a 30k a year bonus?

Anyone who's ever lived under actual communism will tell you that there was no gibs. You had to work or go to a labor camp where you were quickly worked to death. Losing a job was always reason enough to go inna woods immediately.

The problem with the robots will bring more jobs theory is that a very small % of the population is physically capable to learn advanced STEM. Most will struggle with very basic middle school level math.

people smarter than me have done the math, automation will create 1 job for every 5 it replaces.

>Someone has to build/maintain the robots
No, the robots can handle that easily
>Someone still has to source the materials for them
AI algorithms are the fastest advancing thing right now, logistics is probably going to be the first fully automated industry.
>who will corporations sell their goods to?
It isn't like every job will instantly go away all at once, some industries will take longer than others. The issue is that as things progress you have an ever growing population of unemployables who has been automated out of work.

And where will the money for the UBI come from in such a world? If you are required to give handouts to people so they can keep buying basic stuff (and in turn keep companies afloat), it seems to me that all tax basis will be eroded. People will have no income to be taxed, and companies will make such slim profits that their tax paid will be negligible.
It seems to me that, in a world of very high automatization, we would have to do away with a lot of notions used today such as money in itself.

There will still be venture capital, labor jobs will move to low-level bets on robot fleet time decisions.

This. Hardly anyone who likes UBI acknowledges this

Our current situation won't bring more jobs because more fields will be automated as time progresses.

The bar for entry into any job will end up being a 4+ year degree, with job experience. Job experience that will be no longer possible to obtain because there's no entry level jobs left. Keep in mind, those new jobs, even with requiring a degree, will end up paying the same mcdonalds does right now, mark my words. Employers have no reason to raise wages unless they risk losing employees to another company, which is not something that frequently happens in the current job market, and will be far less likely in the near future.

Who will buy goods in an economy where almost all entry and mid level employment is automated? Those who already have considerable wealth, or are in a high level job.

It'll eventually cause an economic collapse, because our system depends on consumers to grow our economy, and as we kill off consumers, our economy will lose the foundation it was built on.

see my post here
then wiki MMT econ.

econ advice
stop thinking in money. Think in terms of production, and money is a lubricant of production which the government can bias the flow of.

You just take all of the money currently being spent on welfare, assistance programs, pensions; take that part of the budget and distribute it evenly to every adult. You spend no additional money, and more money goes to use because you don't have to waste anything on bureaucracy.

>And where will the money for the UBI come from in such a world?
Where does fiat money come from already?

You are looking at things too simplistically. There are already numerous social programs, numerous welfare programs.

At the end of the day the money is irelevent. Everyone who is currently, today, eating, housed, clothed, should be able to continue doing so indeffinitely. It will not suddenly start costing more resources to do it than it did in the past. Any cost-related problem is 100% an issue with the financial system, not the real world resources that go into it.

Money is not wealth, resources are wealth. You have your available resource box, your needed resource box. The economy is the series of tubes between it. If it can flow unimpeded right now, today, then there is no reason it can not continue flowing regardless of the situation. Any stoppage is a result of the economic system being faulty.

One day everything will be automated, on that day everyone will get UBI and nobody will have to work at all. That day, however, is long off. Its not a switch that gets flipped though, its a progression, fewer and fewer jobs will exist as time goes on. A system capable of adapting to this successfully is important to have in place well before it becomes a civilization ending crisis.

In the short term, UBI makes the labor force more fluid. There are many jobs today (particularly government jobs) that exist for the sake of existing. They could be automated or even just streamlined so one person could handle an entire offices worth of actual output. These jobs are kept in place politically just to avoid bad PR.

Also consider things like office workers. Consider how many supporting industries would take a hit if everyone who sits on a computer all day started doing it from home? Need fewer buildings so construction takes a hit. Roads see less traffic, so they wear slower, repairing them is not required as often, so thats lost jobs [cont]

>"Who gets to decide?"
Finish the question. Decide what?

bureaucracy is actually fairly efficient. It also distributes money via the process so you don't need UBI, while it achieves the moral goals like licensing and meeting standards. The trope of this is "they'll spend it on drugs".

To kill bureaucracy though, you can separate it. UBI +/- subsidies for food, pensions, whatever... then do the rest with non-econ moral regulations or gov't run programs. How much is up to how left/right you are.

Thanks for the input guys. Gonna think about it some more.

coffee shops and fast food places are less needed to supply people with their lunches, so theres that out too.
All of these professions need tools and equipment and their own support structure. And these in turn are produced somewhere else. A domino effect. Countless jobs would be lost if people just all started working from home!

So what is the solution?
Streamline already, and put all these people on UBI. This will create interesting jobs in the short term. Imagine a world where you have a bunch of people who are living on UBI, and it meets their needs, but they really want a new car? You have a vast pool of workers to draw from, you need some temporary job done, you put out an add and suddenly there is an entire labor force ready to go. Professional 'little of this, little of that' guys will spring up all over the place, gaining diverse skills and ensuring you always have someone nearby wanting to work for a little extra.

Moreover, as already covered, the safety net UBI provides will let plenty of people try to start up their own buisness. The main advantage the rich have over the poor is that they can afford to fail. Some poor guy will take the safer route of a job or career, particularly if they have a family. His potential is wasted! He might have been a great innovator. Being able to fail is the fundamental capability that makes people gain proficiency at a task. You do something over and over and fail at it untill you succeed. Look at the current president for example! He failed untill he stopped failing and now hes the president!

Its not about money in the end, or wealth, its about security. Everyone should be secure that they have food and shelter and medical care no matter what.

Think of it as a motivator. Give people the basic model and they will want to upgrade it, video games show us this. Think of it as free starter gear, you can always get another set. Its crap but its all you need to upgrade

no, fuck you.

Some anglos call for 100 % inheritance tax to fund the welfare system. This is what communism feels like - taking away what you own.
UBI is shit because it will force every country that attempts it to turn to the shadow economy, people will officially earn little money and the rest they will get under the table in a paper bag.
This is pathetic.

It would be great not having to worry about survival, but having worked in retail i don't want those animals out there getting a fucking dime.

He either means it in the colloquial affirmative-action sense or in the quantity of UBI.

Quantity of UBI is kind of an easy answer, just do it per US state, and they'll race to the bottom to attract companies, like they do with taxes.

Not even goign to address affirmative action side of it.

In what way is employing people for an unnecessary job efficient? That's another problem with automatization that wouldn't exist with UBI - people invent jobs in a bloated public sector just so they can have a job. The "moral goals" are always shifting, today it's to harass parents who tell their toddlers that no, Timmy, you're not a girl and call it child abuse. Where do you think the SJW industry came from?

Blacks in America already have UBI.
They have welfare, ebt covers food, they can get money as "cost of living expenses", they get money just for having kids, they get money to provide for the kids on top of everything else through WIC, they have government subsidized housing, and on top of everything they can sell weed on the side.

Look how prosperous and peaceful our inner cities are.

A lot of the problem here is that if they actually got off their asses and tried working, they would loose out on the free money. UBI you get no matter what, if you want to make more nothing stops you.

And have some purchasepower.

Yeah in Europe you lose your right to welfare the minute you try and get an education, while assistance for students isn't enough to actually survive on (usually about €300 eur or so) and has to be paid back. Meanwhile you get a free apartment and a bigger allowance if you just do jackshit.

>Who gets to decide what?
if it's universal, applies to everyone, so the only other important dimension is
> how much
there are other minor questions, like if you can lose rights to it, but question is properly defined if you're not braindead

This. welfare makes you beholden to the government, UBI is just universal, like taxes. People will come to see it not as some special thing, its just a fact of civilized life, everyone gets ubi. Everyone, thats what the U means, you dont stop getting it if you manage to start a successful business.

fuck off back to rebbit.

>as it would to pay for all the current social safety nets.
but this is not what they want
they want UBI + every other social program

if UBI replaces every other gib, and I mean, every other fucking gib, and make every single service private except the most basic ones (law enforcement, infra, justice, emergency), I'm 100% for it

Oh I'm not saying government jobs are smart.

Its simply more efficient than nothing, which is the economic outcome of the UBI proposal in both major economic mathematical models. If you force rich to share they do less, and the better poor people do the less they get for free. This is the classic anti-socialist argument.

So therefore both models suggest some method of subsidizing labor, or economically killing the dollar (welfare) respective to those who don't *labor*.

Yeah, as I said and you are responding to, bureaucracies invent jobs, UBI causes invented jobs, they are one and the same in economic outcome, except for the authoritarian side, the moral side.

So that's my point. If you have cash, you can do any job, and the question is can you prevent the stupid jobs with regs, or do you have to have the bureaucracy to make the jobs?

Obviously your flag is anarchist, mine is an-cap, so we agree on neither bureaucracy in private sector nor government job guarantee as being helpful, but from the leadership perspective, subsidizing labor is a hallmark of the existence of government, I'm only describing economic aspects and prescription requirements for UBI methodology.

No, the entire concept of UBI is that you don't waste money on conditional welfare systems. You just cut the checks to all adults in the country, peg the total amount to be divide up to slightly less than what all current welfare programs cost as a percentage of the budget.

>are outsourced we are going to have to do something.
recycle yourself into a job that actually adds value to society, like advanced STEM, or perish like the leech you are
who told you'd study 2-3 years, and live an easy life the rest of it?

This. We've still got at least a few decades for robots to catch up, but eventually hiring humans simply won't be cost-effective for the majority of jobs. At that point it's either some kind of hybrid-capitalism like UBI or mass rioting.

Be nice to our friendly merchant, dr Shapiro please.

again, wonderful, but you fail to reas
but not what the proponents want
vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/5/30/15712160/basic-income-oecd-aei-replace-welfare-state
> More cautious center-left or moderate libertarian proponents — who are loath to cut those aspects of the safety net, endanger people’s retirements, and let uninsured sick people die in the streets — tend to only propose funding through eliminating means-tested programs like food stamps and the earned income tax credit, as well as tax benefits such as the health care exclusion and mortgage interest deduction

I want theoretical UBI
I don't want practical UBI, because I know where it leads to: another massively funded program, more taxes, and not replacing any of the existing ones

The entire premise of a UBI is "muh automation killing muh jobs" which Luddites have been saying since the industrial revolution.

Yes, a robot will take your job.
But a strong capitalist entrepreneur will use the extra productivity to create a whole new job for you in an industry that never existed before.

Or you'll die. Either way, the rest of us will be better off.

>being this much of a retard

No, you will end up like the horses did once they were replaced.

is it not available for whites?

> having so few arguments

I don't see any horse sellers on welfare yo

If robots take everything over, they would produce far more than we could ever hope to consume, which be a means of just abolishing money altogether and just making everyone gets their daily rations.
It would come down to a matter of natural resources which we've more or less depleted anyway. Robots would just fire us off into the next ice age or whatever.
>but muh freedom
>muh individualism
Nigger the powers that be are already doing away with these concepts with their globalist model, and you're a slave anyway, so shut the fuck up.
At the end of the day, everyone's a greedy fuck which is why they should just set up robot death squads to cull you meatbags once and for all.
That's where we're really headed.

>This time it will be different!
>This time automation will finally kill us all!
>This time communism will work!

No, it really isn't. You'll still be able to create companies and do whatever the fuck you want to earn money, this is just for low skill workers to not starve when all their jobs are removed.

Ive written multiple full posts in this thread.
That is like a basic entry level tier argument people were making two years ago and which, even if you disagree with the counter, everyone should know by heart by now.

I just cant be bothered to respond to it anymore.

Very similar to the experiment "Universe 25".
For mice created an absolute paradise: a lot of food, a lot of space, a lot of females.
However, in the end the colony died out.

sure, I understand your time is precious, that's why you're here. didn't mean to bother

I think UBI is inherently good but deemed to fail because there's way too many people that learned to be bad.

In Navarra, Spain, they implemented it: 900€ granted wether you work or not (you have to be actively looking for work or working a low wage job though). So if you are unemployed you get 900€ from the Goverment, if you work for 500€ you get 400 from the Goverment, etc.

Well, people from other parts of Spain started renting rooms for 150€ or just "the right" to live somewhere and therefore became effectively citizens of that region and therefore received the UBI, taken from Navarra's tax payers.

Therefore anything you do that encourages laziness will always be abused. I say forget about UBI and instead do something similar to the 3rd Reich's mark: Let people generate currency theirselves by exchanging it for labour or resources.
Example: A wood cutter brings wood to the Goverment and gets X marks fot the goods. A tree planter plants trees where the good cutter passed through and gets X marks for his services. And so on.

fpbp

In my opinion universal basic income is a right wing idea. Let me explain :

When you consider that in a near future the average worker will be replaced, governments will have to find a solution to keep citizens alive and well in society. So the people will be divided between the brains/well educated who are capable enough to do jobs that require a certain level of conceptual intelligence, and the "plebians". This will create even more inequalities because there will be an intellectual elite ruling over the poor mindless sheeps. (Pretty much what's already happening but *100)

Universal basic income will enable natural law in it's full effect. Not that it's wrong though

And a redistribution of workers from fields that sucks (moneymakers) to fields that truly matter (schools, they all need more adults to handle the little monkeys)

This is such pie in the sky thinking it's laughable. Your model had no basis in reality and as such will not work. Good bye reddit, shill your ubi elsewhere

>rebranded communism

No it isn't.
It's the opposite.

UBI is less "left wing" than the current welfare system since it treats people the same regardless of income.

It is an innately right wing solution to the social safety net problem.

What happens when you combine UBI with flat tax? You get a system where there in no treating people differently, no government meddling, no convuleted systems. Pretty much every conservatives dream.

I don't see how that's related to this. Mice aren't sentient. Mice don't know what's across the block, let alone the planet. Mice don't have the drive to go places for the sake of it, to do shit because no one has, to conquer.

You could argue that the population will drastically decrease, but wiped out, nah.

But is that really a problem? Why work if you don't have to? I work 38 hours a week (work only 6 on Saturday), and I would love to have that time extra to work on my woodworks and gardening. My raspberry bush died recently because I didn't have time to attend to it.

economic nationalism, ban outsourcing

>Right wingers want welfare
>Right wingers want equality

Fuck you're stupid. Almost as bad as the nazi retards who think they're right wing.

>near future the average worker will be replaced
No, that's not true.I've been hearing about fully automation for 10 years now, and things are still there
Too many things are too random for automation.
And who will serve the machine? Other machines? And who will manage them? AI? Then why do people need it at all?

UBI is literally the last stage of capitalism tho

fpbp

Technological advancement is real and we will achieve full automation if something catastrophic doesnt happen down the line

Only takes the good part of communism

Is that raspberry bush in Georgia? Cause I peed on one after a night drinking. Top stuff those raspberries though.

You have 10 seconds to name a single job that exists in the same sense as it did before the industrial revolution.

I never said right wingers wanted equality. Just that the obivious inequality and the creation of an intelligent elite will dig deeper the already existing inequalities. Truly an aussie

We do not know how to grow a salad in fully automatic mode, and you are talking about the complete automation of assembly of a car or airplane.
It's impossible without technological singularity, and given the decline in the level of intelligence and fertility in White and Asian countries, this will not be possible for the next 500 years.
t. Engineer for automation and mechanization of production processes

I mean its not like traditional welfare programs are going to disappear in the absence of UBI. If anything its absence would more likely lead to a expansion of the more cumbersome traditional welfare programs.

Shoveling cow shit

The crowd has a low level of intelligence. The crowd does not know what it wants.
You greatly overestimate people.
By the way, the West introduced a wellfare in the 60s.
During the experiment, mice had sexual deviations, the fertility level fell critically low, NEETs and so on.

Does not it look like anything?

...

>needing robots
>when you can pay workers in China or India in cents

...