I am okay with this...

I am okay with this. It merely means that it's not going to cost humans much money for simple things to be accomplished such as farming and agriculture. In other words machines will become our slaves and feed humans. And therefore the middle class will have free time to do things they enjoy such as golfing and sun-baking at the beach. Chasing girls. That type of thing.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=mYajHZ4QUVM
youtube.com/watch?v=sLJ0zZQb9x0
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

Why would the government give money to you instead of keeping it to themselves?

As Stephen alluded to, we just have to hope that a universal basic income will be provided to everyone.

Were the optimists ever right about the future? I don't recall a single instance of that happening.

Star Trek style communism never happens. You always end up with North Korea.

Because a 25% and rising unemployment rate is going to get really ugly, really fast.

>In before "Population control" because govt. is just unrelentingly evil at all times

You guessed right.
There will be no universal income, only population control.

Nobody owes you a living for simply existing, dumb neet.

That's the thing. They aren't needing to give you shit. The robots will be gratis therefore no one owns the fruits they produce

Unless those robots are manufacturing themselves for free and mining their own component materials for free, then no, someone still has to get paid.

holy shit people still visit Slashdot?

Universal income? More like install botnet to recieve foodstamps

This is the one sacrifice that the people who own the robots will have to make. They will have to allow the goods produced by the robots to be available to everyone for free. If this can not happen, then the lower 80% of humans are doomed to extinction.

I hear tell of a contraption which weaves cotton without the help of man.

>If this can not happen, then the lower 80% of humans are doomed to extinction.

More like the people with the robots need to pay a "protection fee" so that millions of starving people don't skull fuck them with sheer numbers and take their shit.

no consumers = no income. you think the wealthy want to see their consumer whores die away?

Automated guards will gun them down. They'll have to evolve past nigger in order to survive.

>automated gaurds teleport behind them
>slices them 3000 times with the worlds strongest katana

We are talking numbers here. Sooner or later the killbots are gonna be out of ammo.

>Automation kills most low and middle class jobs
>Government enforces universal basic income
>Intelligent, educated and wealthy people are the only ones with jobs and now have to provide for everyone
>Population of uneducated and stupid peope skews out of control because poor and stupid brown people sit around all day making babies
>billions of potential immigrants are clamoring to get into a country with universal basic income
>Resources become ridiculously precious
>Automation can't sustain mass of stupid majority while intelligent people die out
>Entire population dependent upon the government
>Government has absolute control of vast majority of population so you need a citizen tracking card to collect UBI
Communist Utopia

just give free birth control and abortions
and a univeral basic income won't increase with children. you can't feed lots of children on a basic income, idiot. if people try to do it anyway, take their kids away and lock up the parents for negligence.

>The type of government that is elected to provide UBI will encourage population control, discourage raising families on welfare and be anti-immigration
What a wonderful imagination land you must live in

There will be a slow a steady purging of the less desirables of society until only the worthy remain. These worthy will have shown their worth to society as no machine can replace what they do.

Communism is on the rise again. Comrade Stalin and Mao will be proud of us.

No, what will happen is that more people will work in other industries to support artificially induced consumerism. Our economy depends entirely on growth, sustainability doesn't really matter.

>he thinks there'll still be a middle class
People will lack a raison d'etre.

>In before "Population control" because govt. is just unrelentingly evil at all times

Well you are very naive if you think the government is not going to just massacre everyone who complains if it gets ugly. And it won't end up like egypt or tunisia with soldiers refusing to murder the population. We in the west will have robot soldiers and automatic drones.

Robots, AI, virtualization etc have been driving down costs for years, but the savings are rarely passed on to consumers

And to think economic conservatives still use unsustainability as an argument against socialism

> Implying the capitalist elite won't keep the money for themselves and eliminate anyone deemed problematic and not productive
muh communist neet utopia

The people who gets paid are the owners of the robots. With the unemployed without any money to buy/spend on stuff, the economy will collapse.

If the unemployed are given bit of cash to spend, then the economy keeps going. The unemployed are given bit of hope, and thus continue to seek jobs.

>mathematician/physicist
>implying his opinion on anything outside those fields matters
UBI isn't happening.
The US has 198,000,000~ people between the ages of 20 and 65 aka working age. If all of them were given a pittance of $15,000 per year it would cost the government just under $3 Trillion. Our total budget for 2015 was $3.9 Trillion.
This figure isn't even accounting for all the retirees on social security, and their medicade benefits.

The idea of a UBI being even remotely possible depends on all other forms of welfare being removed, and all bureaucratic overhead associated with them also being cut. If we removed social security, medicade, and all other social assistance programs we'd only save $2.4~ Trillion. We don't have the money for it. We're not going to tax businesses enough to be able to afford it and keep them in the US at the same time. Not to mention how unrealistic it is to write 70 IQ urban trash a blank check. These people would run out, spend their welfare on shoes, then beg for more money exactly like they do now. They aren't going to pursue higher education if you remove all incentive to be productive in society. UBI would only expand the degenerate welfare class.
It is an unworkable Commie fantasy.

The real savings are coming from globalization of cheap labors/factories.

The $100 monitor you got, the $100 laptop, etc are products of globalization of cheap labor. This also meant that there's no growth in wages for domestic economy.

The robots might be able to do something similar, but I doubt the wages would increase to match the productivity. If anything, monetary system might become outdated and credit based system might be implemented (for resources/time)

It's not as if that money is vanishing. Pretty much all of it is likely to go straight back into the economy, stimulating growth

>spend their welfare on shoes
So the money goes back to the business

What's the problem?

>They aren't going to pursue higher education if you remove all incentive to be productive in society
The sole factor for not pursuing education is because lack of time, need for money to feed themselves, the need for money to pay for college.

If education became free, if UBI were given, people would actually get more time to do what they want, learn, educate themselves, do hobbies, etc

All these retards arguing "muh unaffordability"

Why do you want to force people to work unnecessary jobs when the economy is perfectly capable of working with a fraction of the population employed thanks to automation.

If you disagree you're just too stupid to look at the bigger picture of what automation really means for society as a whole

Cause people don't deserve help.

They need to earn it. Just like everyone else. That's the mentality anyway.

Real issue is people need to see a way out of the work system and towards a growth system driven by automation. Utopia is something of a liberal ideal world, the republicans (as an idealogue) hate it on principle alone.

>So the money goes back to the business
>What's the problem?

The problem is you now have millions of low IQ blacks starving because they wasted their government allowance, because you decided to give them money instead of a separate food stamp allowance, because you had to get rid of the program to make way for the UBI, which is still impossible to pay for.

>The sole factor for not pursuing education is because lack of time, need for money to feed themselves, the need for money to pay for college.

You really are a sheltered leftist retard.
They don't go to college for the same reasons they don't try to get jobs. They don't want them. They have no motivation to work. They want to college welfare. They are perfectly content being leeches on society while they chill with their fellow gang members and sell drugs for extra income.
They are a cultural drain. You cannot throw money at it and make it go away. You have to change the culture, and UBI will not do that. UBI only encourages more of the same on a larger scale.

>I don't understand economics
Entry level jobs are not "unnecessary" and workforce participation increases GDP.

>implying his opinion on anything outside those fields matters

Who are you again?

what are you going to do when every truck driver and fast food worker is fired

I'm currently working in automation. Software automation to be exact.

I've also thought about the issues being discussed in this thread and so far I've come to the conclusion that in order to avoid most of the social problems that automation creates, governments and companies need to start treating robots as employees. This means imposing on the companies that they have to pay wages to the robots. The wages don't really have to be paid out, this will only serve as a basis on which the government can collect taxes (and contributions to the state budgets - such as pension funds, healthcare budgets and so on).

The robots will still be much more effective than an employee, so the companies will still get that benefit, but I really don't see another solution.

I hope you can understand my point, as English is not my native language.

I'm not going to do anything since I don't work in either field.
The market is living thing, it constantly changes and adapts. People displaced from one field will inevitably transition to another if they want to make a living.
We shouldn't foster a welfare class in any capacity. Social assistance was never intended to be anything more than a temporary helping hand, not a life style.

I cannot stand the "only hard work deserves to be rewarded" mentality. It's just reinforcing the system of indentured servitude and controlling the masses. The establishment are terrified of people being able to find enlightenment and following their dreams. When that happens, their system collapses. Some of the hardest working people in the world are getting rewarded the least for it.

Financial stability reduces crime and poverty. It provides stability to single parents who struggle to keep their child in school and the poors who struggle to meet the basic needs(shelter/food).

Although many may become dependent on the system, it would be better than spending $160k per prisoner per year (new york city).

Other cities would save more money by simply providing financial assistance to the poor than letting them rot in the jail.

Automation allows a market to run very efficiently with a small percentage of the working population employed. You aren't going to find a way to put those in menial jobs today, into imaginary high-skill jobs in 15 years. You either introduce a UBI, or a massive government make-work project forcing people to work on jobs machines could do better, which would be much more expensive. Or option 3, society collapses due to mass poverty.

Turns out the concept of money is not sustainable in a futuristic society, who would've thought? thinkingface.jpg

The more united the world becomes, and the more advanced the world becomes, the less the concept of money makes sense.

Welfare society is the one people should be aiming for, not avoiding imo.

When machines can do faster/cheaper/smarter/harder than man, then man should be relegated to pursue their own interest rather than work harder than machines to feed themselves.

Globalization caused the loss of wage growth for America. Automation will make it even worse.

There is almost no industry safe from automation. Be it technical work, menial labor, creative work, etc All things are subject to automation sooner or later. Just because its not right now, doesn't mean it will never be.

Reminder that welfare societies can work if you give out welfare for NOT reproducing.

Except if you are "refugee", apparently.

>the lower 80% of humans are doomed to extinction.

you say that like its a bad thing

>They need to earn it. Just like everyone else.

Thats an insane thought process and people who truly believe this are usually the most spiteful people in the world.

What about things like inherited wealth, nepotism, genetics and general fucking circumstance just to name a few.

No one "earns it" because there is no concrete law stating what "earning it" is. Its all fucking relative to the person.

Race is a better indicator of crime than poverty level.
The group of people who are single mothers at disproportionate rates don't care about keeping their kids in school.
Poverty isn't the issue here, the culture attached to a certain segment of the population is the problem, and it is welfare that reinforces this culture. Money is not a cure for societal ails. State dependency does not lift anyone up.

The money has to come from somewhere unless you want to run a deficit of a couple trillion dollars every single year for all of time.
If a majority of the population isn't working and generating taxable income, if the middle class isn't working, you can't justify taxation to business owners at all. If the tax burden on the top 10% increases further, with a non existent middle class, they absolutely control virtually all revenue the federal government depends on. If they start leaving the US the entire system crumbles.

It is not sustainable. This is a poorly thought out childish Commie fantasy.

my country already does that and i can tell you it doesnt work.
poor dont care and breed like rats
immigrants pour in from countries that breed like rats

Underrated post

That picture is fucking retarded

We should provide basic income but also chemically castrate everyone who is on it. Then implement a system where you have to have a license to have children.

Retard economics 101

It's the same mentality that also created a ton of phony jobs that don't actually contribute anything.

Pointless busywork because nothing is worse than not having a job.

>facts are retarded
Typical underage Commie response

>you can't justify taxation to business owners at all
Society falls apart if they do not.

Your argument is awful man, you're essentially saying we should allow the destruction of society to keep gross inequality that will be increased greater still by automation and mass unemployment

>can support a larger population with less work in the future
>let's have less children

What retarded logic is that?

Why would we want a larger population when we could have a smaller one with better quality of life?

Retard.

Nobody is arguing that it should be a lifestyle, at least not yet. Universal income is not supposed to completely replace your salary or any other types of benefits systems.

It's supposed to enable people to work less, to stop wasting government time and money on means testing for benefits, and to prevent people from falling into the poverty trap if they are unable to find or carry out work for whatever reason.

I cannot think how it benefits anyone to be punishing people for being poor. Yet that's what we are still doing.

>company has to pay for each robot
>company physically links all robots in a factory and claims it therefore only has one robot

Pray tell, good Sir, is it true that these machines rip the arms of children from their bodies?

So welfare is just wasted money that we never see again. Gotcha.

Your picture does not account for tax havens because it cannot account for tax havens, and it is therefore irrelevant.

>the money has to come from somewhere
Yes, it comes from the money saved from automating so many jobs. You can either freely give it, or you can have it taken after the revolutionaries murder you and your family, because that's what's going g to happen when huge numbers of Westerners find that they have no means to feed themselves anymore. Your choice.

>poverty isn't the issue
Its always been the issue.


>money has to come from somewhere
Money is arbitrary. The real factor is trust.

You want a lot more people than just the bare minimum necessary to maintain the status quo.
Else you're just stagnating and don't push technology even further.

>1% of the population earning 17% of all income
>implying this is fair
a bullet for every banker, a bullet for every politian

Push technology even further? We're already too far as it is.

They work 10000% harder than average people. So they earn more

Muh trickle down economics

We're not even fighting for independence from Earth with Gundams yet!
Clearly, we have a long way to go.

>no consumers = no income.

Logical fallacy -- see: brand new iPhone and can't pay baby mommas visit to the pediatrician.

People have to find work if they want to survive, just as every other point in history. You go to where the work is. You start your own business, carve a niche out for yourself.
For many that means getting into a more technical field, and acting like this is impossible is nothing less than fearmongering. Farmers turned to factory workers, and factory workers have turned into office workers. Major transitions in the majority workforce have never been detrimental.

As automation advances it takes over menial typically low paid labor. Repetitive tasks that are easiest to program a machine to do. This gradual incursion of automation itself is a driving factor for people to pursue other fields. Stop hand holding lazy people and they will find work.

Regurgitating shitlib platitudes isn't an argument.
Poor whites do not commit crime at the same rate as poor blacks. Culture is the issue, not poverty. If you want a single factor to predict what the crime rate in a city will be you look at the racial demographics.

Yet another underage Commie response.

>People have to find work if they want to survive, just as every other point in history.
stopped reading right there
That is simply not true at all, you're an idiot

>I am okay with this.

Because your opposition means anything in the grand scheme of things. This is the way things have been heading since the industrial revolution.

What most people don't understand is that they are just fodder for the machine. Blinded by the media machine that makes them think they can win whats never been won, do whats never been won.

youtube.com/watch?v=mYajHZ4QUVM

Yet another underage butthurt Commie response

>let's have more inept people dragging down technical fields
Great idea...

Finland, Canada and Scotland are all going to be piloting universal incomes soon. Then we'll see how well it works. It has proved effective in very small scale trials so far.

You simply don't understand the revolution that is occurring. Machines are capable of replacing humans in the vast majority of jobs, there is no "more technical field" for humans to get into. You're competing against a robot that can be programmed once, and build thousands of times. Humans are inferior to robots in the workforce, if you stopped obsessing over making sure humans have jobs, and instead focus on how to best utilize the resources at our disposal in the future the answer is obvious.

I like how people think that the "tech literate" will be crowned as Kings of the world, and not chained up with an electric collar forced to keep things ticking.

And it's also worth mentioning Sweden's 6-hour work day, where productivity has increased. The Nordic model should be an example to everyone of how to create a happy, productive and prosperous society while still keeping the capitalists happy.

No one said it's not

A couple of things:

1. Who will program these robots?
2. Who will maintain/debug these robots?
3. I like your over generalization for the sake of baiting responses. :thumbsup:
4. I do believe this will happen to an extent, but not full on dys/utopian nerd day dream.

>nd therefore the middle class will have free time to do things they enjoy such as golfing and sun-baking at the beach
The middle class will starve because most of the country is still deluded by capitalism and "basic income" is abhorrent to them. The country will also collapse as welfare costs increase at rates and magnitudes never seen before.

There will be armed revolts.

>automation takes over menial labor
You don't seem to understand the magnitude of automation. Its not just ready to take over menial low wage labor, its there to take over high wage fields too. Like law firms, musicians, scientists, analysts, economists, bankers, etc

The takeover of menial job is already happening or is just on the brink of happening. The high skilled labor is next on the chopping block.

Once those two are removed, there will be more "lazy people" than you can count in your lifetime.

Eventually they'll program and maintain themselves, obviously with human oversight. Machine learning is one of the fastest moving fields of technology.

"Evil AI" scaremongering is retarded.

But I could imagine all those worthless MBAs who'll end up owning all the machines treating the maintainers like slaves.

And authors and story tellers.

Now that the Library of Babel if made it's easy to have a program use it to create original stories.

"human oversight"

That will be gone in a hundred years or so too, if machines ever become aware of itself.

>"Evil AI"

what about that post implied that it's the machines chaining the workers up?

No john, you are the machines

On the contrary it is you who are in the dark here. Automation is represented by a given job market shrinking by a few percentage points per year. Tens of millions of people are not displaced over the course of a day. Machines have to be made for specific roles, they have to be cost effective enough for business owners large and small to afford, they have to be purchased and installed. It is a change that takes years, and even then it is not 100% displacement in a given field.

Warehouses all over the world still have human workers operating forklifts despite fully automated stock systems existing.
Welders all over the world still have plenty of work despite automated welding bots existing on assembly lines for decades.

Your ignorant fearmongering is awfully reminiscent of Ray Kurzweil's Singularity bullshit. Everything is right around the corner and its super dramatic! Its just going to be next year!

Have you ever seen a trading floor?
Protip: Computers running the stock market didn't make all those people homeless.

To all your questions:

significantly fewer than the amount of jobs the robots will replace

>obviously with human oversight.

Someone has never read 'There Will Come Soft Rains.'

Nothing, that's why I considered an additional scenario. You weren't explicit, so don't blame me if those scenarios aren't what you had in mind.

>Protip: Computers running the stock market didn't make all those people homeless
They should have. That segment is full people that do nothing but bullshit themselves through meetings.

Thats because its controlled by the very few/very rich. If automated stock became available to businesses/people, it would put the people out of work.

> Everything is right around the corner and its super dramatic! Its just going to be next year!
Your words not mine. Each profession is going to be replaced one by one

I'm not sure what you're arguing though, are you saying automation is not going to replace the majority of the workforce? That's a pretty weak argument

Have any of you have the slightest inkling of an idea of the MASSIVE amount of innovation that would have to go into automating unique, functional programming, let alone science and music and sheit?
As of now, even flipping burgers at McD's is a complicated task to program and isn't even worth it.

Automation is approaching, but not at such a fast pace.

Also
>well but we'll redistribute wealth and the majority of people won't have to work.
Yeah, sure, but how about:
>overpopulation
>the spite of the working few
>the controlling effect the wealthy have on politics

>they don't understand that all the poor people will be genocided and only the very rich and machines will remain
You better start believing.

youtube.com/watch?v=sLJ0zZQb9x0
These types of uppity nouveau rich are the ones who'll get to live in their communist utopia, everyone else will get derezzed.