What do you think of a universal basic income, Sup Forums?

What do you think of a universal basic income, Sup Forums?

Terrible idea.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=h1BQPV-iCkU
static-ssl.businessinsider.com/image/5572060decad04a73f8b4569/drc hubo.gif
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

>Terrible idea.

Its a good Idea if someone wants to fuck up a country very fast

the bread of commies

all commies need to be shot since they are the ultimate violation of the NAP

...

Starvation is an effective motivator for productive behavior.

What do you think of rapid inflation and the collapse of the dollar /pol?

its called an allowance. and its for children.

Imagine your regular NEET.... Fat, unmotivated, horrible hygiene, cringe, arrogant, now apply that to a large group of people.

Currency is just political rape.

Depends on the monetary range, but I'm for it otherwise. With an added income of about 300 euros and no other welfare benefits, why not?

I'm fairly sure some fashys around here have suggested it, even if only for their ethno homogeneous group.

>$100 for a gumball
that's what i think

If it is a very small amount and based on societal input it can work.

For instance: You can be guaranteed your monthly government allowance if you participate in local government programs (spend a few days picking up litter, doing yardwork on roadsides etc), basically take away the monetary incentive that is usually given to convicts and reduce profits from prisons, which would ease up a lot of government subsidization of the prison industrial complex and reward those who take pride in their communities.

It will eventually become necessary.

New technology/automation will continue to kill jobs, jobs will be outsourced, immigrants and large amounts of unemployed job-seekers will continue to devalue labor.

Eventually this will get so bad that we will either face mass-scale civil unrest until a societal collapse, or we implement basic income.

There simply won't be enough jobs for the amount of people who need them, even if all of them wanted to work. These tens of millions of people won't just peacefully agree to be homeless/starving.

It said people will be finally be free from mundane worries and pursue creative endeavors.
Considering the rise of NEETs in a period and in countries where survival is no longer dependent on work, I'd say that freeing people from mundane worries will mean they will fill their lives with entertainment.

youtube.com/watch?v=h1BQPV-iCkU

I think right now, it's an awful idea.

However I think, as the automation revolution occurs in the next 40 years and ~45% of the population is put out of work, it will be necessary to prevent a full-scale revolution/revolt by the underclass. There is no way the elites will survive such massive unemployment unless they somehow sate the populace

i think it's a bad idea but i want it to happen anyway bc i wanna be a neet forever

Terrible idea, work keep the population busy, idle hands and all that.
I'd rather see 18 hour work days that pays shit, slavery basically, society will be better for it.
Even if the "work" that get's done is pointless, it keeps people off the streets, self improvement is only possible if you have the ability to stimulate your own curiosity.

This guy gets it

That's what we need, more artistic liberal faggots.
I'm sure not working for a living will have no negative repurcussions down the line, it's not like the welfare state caused anything bad is it?

Fucking Luddites, man.
>nevermind every other time we said this and were wrong because this time we're right
>BOO!

This money comes from where?

>let people pay themselves to exist

I like it, as long as only citizens get it. We are already spending the money, might as well make it fair, and gut the unnecessary administration complex while were at it.

Then why implement automation at all?

How will people be able to improve upon themselves when they're kept in a state of perpetual slavery and exploitation?

It'd depend on the amount of income. And universal personal income is devised to operate without any other additional welfare benefits, so people out of work/students would actually be given a lot less by the state than if they were on welfare.

Negative income tax would achieve the same thing and has some actual economists supporting it. Way less wasteful than all our other means-tested welfare.

The money is already being spent, people arent starving, hell even families can get by on welfare.

The idea itself is fantastic.

The problem is that the implementation would need so many caveats and exceptions as to be impractical or useless.


For instance:
The main questions I never see answered from supporters is "How do you pay for it?"

The other issue is that you face the question "How much should it be?". If it's enough to live on by itself, that's great, but why would anyone go to college to get a skilled job then, when they could just do nothing? If it's not enough to live on, then there's no point in the first place - if all you're trying to do is subsidize the poor, then giving welfare to them as needed would take substantially less effort and money.

You would think they could come up with a more imaginative way to devalue the currency.

>Terrible idea

Yes, but just because this board is filled with a bunch of edgy libertarians living in their parent's basement and are completely separated from the reality itself.

Guise, each year is going to be less work because muh machines, AI, and automatization, so we have 2 options here:

1) Letting die 70-80% of the world which is basically the common worker

2) Control birthrate and making this world a non overpopulated shithole, assuring the people the basic amount of goods and asking them just give back something to society to make it better and advance (not work obviously).

Right now, is a terrible idea, but in the future it will be a necessary idea.

They will point to a few experiments (one in Canada, one in Africa, and another about to start in one of the Nordic states... can't remember which) and note that very few who were working stopped and that the experiments were successful.

What they always fail to consider is that the participants were all aware that the free money would stop at a set date in the near future. Let's see what happens with a fifty year experiment.
Nothing good, I'm sure.

>Dem machines are takin our jerbs!

Fuck off Luddite, automatization has been going on for over 200 years and no signs of mass unemployment anywhere. Just because your smelly shithole is filled with lazy unemployed people doesn't mean hard-working, Protestant countries will suffer the same fate.

2 Thessalonians 3: 10-11
>For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat. For we hear that there are some which walk among you disorderly, working not at all, but are busybodies.

Oh I just came up with a new financial innovation. Please don't patent this it's proprietary intellectual property.

I call it, "hanging bankers with rope."

Luddites are always wrong.
Don't forget that.

>would take substantially less effort and money

Im not sure if it would. Certainly the effort of just sending every citizen the same sum of money every month would be easier than carefully checking who does or doesnt qualify for which welfare programs. Just think of all the administrative positions that would be made useless!

Introducing the "Contribute" button brought you buy the Humanitarian Effort Network or (CHICKEN SHIT) for short.

You click this bad boy and it directly deposits a predetermined amount of money into any or all accounts from any or all accounts.

Anyone can click this button many times as possible or even automate the frequency and amounts using the neet little jquery calendar dialog box.

If you want to know who fucked this up for all of us look no further than the corporation named, "Thomson Reuters" who was too chicken shit to develop my priceless algorithm I left them at their Detroit branch.

Pathetic corporate monkeys fighting for job security instead of for wealth redistribution.

This is targeted to you, Santosh. Go back to your country and poo in your own loo.

Just not sustainable.

>paying people for simply existing
wew laddie boy

This.

It's a good idea if your country
>has a small to medium population
>is extremely well educated
Which countries would even fit this criteria? Iceland maybe?

Jesus. That's a really great way of explaining it. I'm stealing this for future use, user.

if every facet of our life is automated by robots or something, maybe, though that will probably lead to people fighting against using robots as slave labor or the machines rising up

Sounds good to me. Bleed the system dry, I have no shame about taking food out of a nigger's mouth.

Eventually you run out of sectors to automatize, moron.

>The main questions I never see answered from supporters is "How do you pay for it?"

The same you pay for welfare right now - your tax-dollars.

>The other issue is that you face the question "How much should it be?".

Obviously not too much. Around 334$, which is not enough to live on by itself.

>If it's not enough to live on, then there's no point in the first place - if all you're trying to do is subsidize the poor, then giving welfare to them as needed would take substantially less effort and money.

The point is not to subsidise the poor. It's to provide a fixed amount of money for everyone - the rich would not get less and the poor would not get more. The main point behind it is to provide everyone with an amount of money that enables them to lead life at the barest minimum if you're poor, or have some extra cash in the bank.

You don't understand. Back in the agricultural and industrial revolutions, machinery allowed people to become more productive, but it didn't eradicate human labor. Advanced software, robotics, and controls systems are not the same thing as the spinning jenny. There is nothing a human can do that a sufficiently advanced computer can't do better and more efficiently, and this is already happening.

Fast food clerks are being replaced by interactive order screens. Accountants are being replaced by software. Investment firms already use AI instead of human analysts. IBM's Watson can diagnose cancer with a higher success rate than a panel of human doctors.

If you don't understand the difference betewen what's happening today and the 1800s, there's not much I can tell you. Not that it matters, because whether you realize it or not, it won't change the inevitable outcome.

I was at the store yesterday and a person of some color or other (color not stated) was using food stamps to buy food. It required about five minutes to try to explain that the food stamps would buy brand X of cranberry juice but not brand Y of cranberry juice and where to find it in the store.

That day, I went home and put on a film about the American Revolution and filled out my tax forms with pride.

This.

As of right now, it's mostly a commie meme but there will be a point, likely in the near future, where it is necessary.

Listen to me you fucking Katla, maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow but it's completely OBVIOUS that in some moment, maybe in a few decades is going to be mass unemployment due to automatization, if you put robots and drones everywhere, if you let robots drive cars, boats, planes, if you just have to go to some place and push some buttons or make some clicks to have whatever the fuck you want, it is obvious where we are heading.

I'm not even a luddite, I'm not even saying that is bad itself, I'm saying that you're retarded if you think that we are going to have work for everyone forever when it's just the opposite.

So people who might actually need the income don't get it; whereas people who work to provide taxes that pay for the income minus buerocracy are essentially given back their own money.

I can't imagine a worse idea mate, better to cut out the middleman I say.

Most jobs are being replaced by automated programming, machines, and soon, even now, andriods.

Our population continues to climb while our job markets continue to shrink.

Hey finally some other human is mentioning Watson after all these years.

You pathetic meat bag. What took you so long?

>Then why implement automation at all?

>So people who might actually need the income don't get it;

They'll get enough to live. If they want to live comfortably, they'll have to get a job as well.

Now: 1000 EUR = 1000 EUR
Then: 1000 EUR = 0 EUR

>Then why implement automation at all?

It's not something one can stop. As it becomes cheaper and easier to automate, it'll naturally occur. That's like asking "why implement industrialization at all?" It's not something that can be resisted.

It would just devalue currency. Nothing else. If everyone gets 10 dollars a day (for example) those 10 dollars become worthless.

>Then why implement automation at all?

Try to stop it kek.

YOUR country might not like automation, but then China or Singapore or whatever other country does implement it, how would you ever compete with that?

>You pathetic meat bag
Hopefully AI will help us solve this issue. The ultimate end for mankind is not to merely have hyperintelligent machines, but to become them. No sense using a tool when you can skip the middleman and incorporate the tool into yourself.

ALASKAN

That's just called working for the government. Try again.

Wouldn't even work with homogeneous society. It just promotes stagnation and laziness. Only retards who think the future will be us merging with computers, becoming immortal and living our lives in some sort of vr fuck bunker want it.

>but if there are cars what will become of stablehands, and carriage makers, or saddle makers, or buggy whip manufacturers and all the people who are employed by them?

Won't someone have still have to install, maintain, and service technology?
You've cried wolf too many times already. You are always wrong.

Mkay. You can ask Watson to dial my phone number when it doesn't work and you need somebody to fix it for you, or invent the algorithm in the first place.

Good idea if the world was a perfect utopia with a low population.

Unsustainable in large countries. Smaller, more developed countries might be able to do it and succeed however.

>Won't someone have still have to install, maintain, and service technology?
You seem to be under the impression that machines cannot do these things. Why?

>automatization has been going on for over 200 years and no signs of mass unemployment anywhere.

You're retarded, just look at how employment in the manufacturing industry has shrunk over the past 70 years. As machines become cheaper, more efficient, and more intelligent, this phenomenon will spread to other industries. You can already see it occurring in food service, and retail.

How long until the Meat bags chimp out Sup Forums?

>What do you think about a slave labour force of AI robotics?

I can see how China would be able to pull it off since they don't give a shit about human rights and civil liberties, and are keen on keeping their population sedated on just the bare minimum of feed, but it'd take a lot longer than just 40-50 years for that to be able to happen in the West.

Who will scrub toilets?

That implies that there is a scenario where every single sector will be automatized, and that automatization will mean humans are replaced by machined instead of being trained to use machines. Most machinery today only increases the productivity of human workers instead of replacing them (assembly lines, computers, surveillance cameras etc.). and sectors like advertising, writing, composing, public relations, and others are impossible to replace with machines. Stop being such a Luddite and actually learn about automation.

Students already get enough to live, now you're wanting to give money to older taxpayers who have more wealth anyway. But the money was theirs in the first place!

How can you not see that handing people back less of their own money is a worse system than letting them do with it as they please and even the current system.

UBI will just breed in weakness.

And once technology/the global population reach a point where everyone doesn't need a job, we should just resort to population control instead.

The toilets will scrub themselves. They already exist, they're just expensive right now.

>sectors like advertising, writing, composing, public relations, and others are impossible to replace with machines
Top laf. There are already programs that write news articles. There are programs that create art. There are programs that create music.

You stop being a luddite and actually try to understand what machines are capable of, instead of sticking your head in the sand and pretending like humans are so superior and special.

Why are you guys so scared of automation?

You're literlly BEGGING to be a wage slave.

Why are you terrifed of manual labour going away?

All it takes is for ~40% of the population to be unemployed. If you hit that level without anything to placate them, there WILL be massive civil unrest, and potentially a revolution

Food stamps, you say? What could possibly be bad about food stamps, you fucking bigot? They're helping out the needy.

I'm not terrified of manual labour going away, I'm terrified of manual labour going away and the elites saying "fuck off we're not giving you unemployed people a dime." That's how you get a despotic, communist revolution. And mark my words, it WILL happen unless the oligarchs are forced to reign in their decadence and provide for the unemployed.

Looks nice on paper until basic economics takes over, rent/all facets of basic cost if living skyrockets in reaction and were in the same place we tried to move beyond.

Basic globalist bullshit class-fixing heroin for the masses bullshit if you ask me.

I'm hoping that by that time, planetary colonization is a thing. So if you don't have a job you can be an interplanetary indentured servant.

Let's say it even takes a hundred.

Meanwhile, China implements a massive security economic net for its unproductive citizens so they wont starve or anything, and thier companies would dominate the world markets for decades.

You can't have that, and it's probably not even that feasible in the long run since if your country doesn't like automation today, what happens in 20 years when automation is clearly proven to provide alot of benefits? new political parties would form, and there probably will be western countries that will accept it.

Also, I don't really see a major anti-technology way of looking at things in the west, imo we would probably accept it quite quickly, since the left is still strong.

if your work isn't worth something on the market, you aren't entitled to reimbursement
having families support eachother supports eachother, not replacing families with the state

>just look at how employment in the manufacturing industry has shrunk over the past 70 years
If you're taking about the world, that's not true. If you're talking about first-world countries, the manufacturing base has mostly gone to China and South Asia, where manufacturing has boomed in the last 40 years. And that's not talking about the increase in the employment in service industries that happened during the same period.
>It's happening because it's obvious
>Why is it obvious? It just is!
Stop talking out of your ass and actually make an argument.

>tax dollars are magic money sources


>The main point behind it is to provide everyone with an amount of money that enables them to lead life at the barest minimum if you're poor,

So why not just subsidize the poor? The rich don't need the money.

Terrible idea now. Not so terrible when most jobs are replaced by automation, robots and AI.

typical western propaganda hard at work in slovenia i see. the reality is the western governments have been little by little removing any trace of free speech and making excuses to remove people from society

when the time comes every one they dont need goes in the ovens.you wont be able to keep a vid of any of it up on youtube . liveleaks will be inaccessible . all references to it on facebook will be pulled

the only way you can fight back is to burn shit down. that includes fields of crops. famine can produce enough of a panic that people over throw the tyrants not knowing they are tyrants

static-ssl.businessinsider.com/image/5572060decad04a73f8b4569/drc hubo.gif

And because it has not happened before despite the same ominous predictions from your kind.

Wagecuck slaves scared of being happy and "degenerate"

>How can you not see that handing people back less of their own money is a worse system than letting them do with it as they please and even the current system.

Are you retarded? They'd get their paycheck on top of the income.

>Students already get enough to live, now you're wanting to give money to older taxpayers who have more wealth anyway.

The only people that really need it are the poor, if you want to take that route. This'd just incentivise them to go look for jobs and not make a living off of welfare - the poor that is. As for the older taxpayers, they'd have additional money, and what's wrong with that?

Maybe we could get an AI to explain how to use the food stamps so I could wait on line for a half an hour next time instead of just a few minutes.

That's a long way off though.

Not necessarily

It's happening within 30 years, friend. So no chance of planetary colonization occurring before then

Sorry. I meant the West is less obvious about its slow shedding of liberties, but is still nowhere near in being comparable to China.

if we're all on the wagon who's gonna pull it

>in the manufacturing industry

This is the key here. Luddites never see the possibility of new occupations replacing old ones. The mindset is always that if Occupation A becomes obsolete, the people who were employed in that field will never find anything else to do.

ROBITS!!!
... and magic.