Universal Basic Income in the Age of Automation

A massive automation unemployment crisis waits just a few years away and already a great many Americans are unable to find work or languish in low pay jobs they are overqualified for. On top of that, inequality is worse today than it was during medieval times. Universal basic income is the only long term solution to these problems and many others we will face in the years to come. It has been proven to eliminate poverty, improve productivity, social cohesion, and mental health, decrease crime, and increase entrepreneurship. This is a realistic policy whose time has come. The US almost got a universal basic income in the 1970's and Alaska already has a small one today. The fantastic technologies of automation could create either utopia or dystopia depending on the policies we pass in the years ahead. What we are fighting for is a bright future in the age of automation. Our goal is to push universal basic income into mainstream US politics by the 2020 presidential election by rallying the American precariat and inspired technologists into a powerful coalition for basic income advocacy. If you are interested in getting involved, here is an invite to our Discord server: https://discord.gg/tsbXZUv

another proposed idea is to replace work with stock ownership in robot hordes, your income would be derived from unit ownership (the number of robots that you own). The system would be similar to the current global stock market. I think that this is the more likely outcome, because most people would perceive universal basic income to be liberal hippie pipe dreams, or that would be the spin put on it. Stock ownership of machines would also maintain the current status quo of high and low income households in a capitalist system (which would be eliminated by full automization of society)

>>5719 >It has been proven to eliminate poverty, improve productivity, social cohesion, and mental health, decrease crime, and increase entrepreneurship. Do you have a source for this claim ? Not that I especially doubt its truthfulness, but it would be an interesting read. And there are plenty of people out there who need to be convinced.

UBI is a band-aid but it can't possibly solve the problems stemming from a small amount of people controlling the machines.

I think UBI is a great idea on paper, however I am not sure how well it would work in practice. I think human laziness would prevent the majority of people from working and the few that do and make more money eventually become the ruling class. Although I don't think the rich of the modern era would ever let it become a thing.

One day we will run out of meaningful jobs to invent. I think we will have one of the three things: 1)UBI with full automatization. 2)Status quo masochism where we continue to work despite the machines being better. Why? Because masochism. 3)Genocide of the 'useless'. That is 99.99% of the population.

UBI isn't bad idea, but it's costly. Especially when you're dealing with mass of people losing their jobs. Instead I'd make laws that help small businesses and give them small advantages on the marketplace. This would hopefully create competition for big corporations holding most of the automation power and at least to some degree create new jobs. Have it mind that I'm no expert on this topic, so you're welcome to prove me wrong.

>>5725 By now economists have developed techniques where money prints itself with large speculations etc. Full automation also implies that we can 3d print food for cheap, So that would solve that problem.

>>5719 I love the idea of basic income but one thing I never hear its talk about is how it will work in a globalised economy. You're giving free money to people, but these persons are only going to spend a fraction of it on local products. The rest will go to smartphones made in china and t-shirts made in Taiwan. How will the country then deal with hemorrhaging money? Just print more and get Zimbabwe-level of inflation? I can only see it end the way it ended for the USSR. Also seconding >>5721, give us your studies OP.

>>5726 That's very strong claim and honestly you'll need more to convince me it's true. While I think Star Trek like scenario will eventually become the future, it's not something you can do over few years by changing the rules. Instead I prefer to focus on making those small changes that are slowly leading us to better future one way or another.

>>5727 Who is to say that fully automated factories would not be in developed countries and outproduce China? Also the idea is that there will still be a couple of people that want to work even in developed countries, just to get some extra bucks above whatever UBI pays them.

>walk into wal-mart. >see all the self-checkout lanes on both sides ready to go >maybe one or two actual checkers on opposite side of each other. >Have to wonder why bother, but still actually wait in line because human interaction is nice.

>Marx arguments from 200 years ago >weak memes (OPs pic) >discord Face it, socialism utopia you dream of will never happen. Karl Marx got it wrong and there was AND never will be a revolution because of automation. Universal Basic Income has already been proposed in Switzerland and they didn't want it because of pure human decency ("If I didn't earn it, I don't want it"). In some other countries where degeneracy and greed is prevalant that kind of thinking might not occur, but those are countries that don't have large enough social welfare net to help everyone in transition period of this new era of automation. Sure, there will be hard times and everyone will want to say "fuarrrk it, let's go socialist" even though it might turn into communist dictatorship in the end BUT human spirit will prevail and humanity will adapt to this new era. Does that mean that vast numbers of people will become not needed to the system? Sure. Does that mean that a lot of death will occur? Sure. What will UBI do on this issue? It will slow down the chaos, sure but eventually the ruling class will just shrink the UBI little by little until you worthless users stop reproducing and numbers of general public go down and there is no real revolution. Face it, you are trying to make a deal with the proliteriat, with the aristocrats with this soykafty UBI deal. Either be socialists and desire a REAL CHANGE or shut up and stop wanting this half deal where the upper class feeds the poor just so that the poor don't revolt. You are basically asking for bread line ups. Shut the hell up please.

>Either be socialists and desire a REAL CHANGE or shut up and stop wanting this half deal where the upper class feeds the poor just so that the poor don't revolt Well said.

>Does that mean that vast numbers of people will become not needed to the system? Sure. Does that mean that a lot of death will occur? Sure. This is the very problematic part though.

>>5721 >>5727 Here is a pretty extensive list of UBI experiments which have taken place around the world and those currently underway, with details on outcomes. https://list.ly/list/1RdG-ubi-research-links-universal-basic-income-evidence

>>5731 First off UBI has nothing to do with socialism. Socialism is a system in which the workers own the means of production. UBI is simply distributing money. I agree that any kind of large scale socialist revolution is unrealistic, which is why I support UBI. This is the only thing that can save us from a dystopia in the age of automation.

>>5723 The idea that people are fundamentally lazy and do will nothing if given the opportunity to is both dangerous and false. http://rooseveltinstitute.org/no-strings-attached/

>>5724 Yeah, pretty much.

>>5735 I wonder what Marx would say about the means of productions own themselves.

Shouldn't this be in random? What does this have to do with /Ω/?

>>5739 I thought it made sense to put here because of the focus on the oncoming automation unemployment crisis. If a mod wants to move the thread that's fine.

>>5736 Empirical evidence suggests otherwise. African civilizations, residing in climates in which minimal work was required in order to survive, made almost zero progress over the span of hundreds of thousands of years. People migrated North to harsher climates, where hard work and technological advancements were paramount to survival, and suddenly the modern world is born in the blink of an eye.

>>5735 I just noticed when I used to talk with other people (IRL or online) about UBI that most people would gravitate to socialistic type of thinking where countries (groups of people based on nationality) would tax the corporations with automation more and therefore partially own the means of production with that taxes distributing them through UBI. Basically the people who were main proponents of UBI (like OP) would suggest that "robots would work for us" which I hear as nothing more than another "I, through the group identity of we (the nation) own the means of productions that work for us/me" which I see as a cop-out as laziness of usual socialist. I wouldn't say that large scale socialist revolution is unrealistic or impossible to do in these upcoming unstable times, but that socialists instead of achieving their goals by flipping the table and saying "fuarrrk you" to the man when they have the opportunity are not only reluctant but also pacify themselves and castrate themselves to such extentn that they see these half-deals as "victories". Basically when I see someone talking about UBI I see a failed socialist making half deals with people they despise. You say that UBI can save us from the dystopia in the age of automation? I say that you are dreaming. UBI will only postpone and slowly eaze in the dystopia instead of giving it bluntly and shortly. UBI will be MINIMAL, just enough to keep workless masses off the backs of rich cats and just enough to survive (with some additional crime). UBI is basically the politicians bandage for limb that is cut off. They can't stop massive unemployment, UBI isn't the solution that will work into infinity. UBI will be ever shrinking pool of money meant to act as pacifier for masses to not revolt, UBI will over time shrink and shrink making people have less and less children and only people who will survive will do a lot of crime. UBI will only elongate the time of transition between working poor and middle class into full automation. UBI only has one purpose, to keep the current power structure in place. However, if there was no UBI there would be blood on streets and politicians/CEO heads which they don't want. This is why I spit at UBI and anyone wanting to implement it. You are feeding yourself from their hand, giving them the power of breadlines and they can control you whenever. Then they can implement the chip in the hand rule. WHY THE fuarrrk NOT? They own the fuarrrking system, and everyone will just listen to them because they are too scared to revolt. UBI will be last stand of freedom.

>>5734 >click on first link (The One Minute Case for a Basic Income by Timothy Roscoe Carter) >see this lol, so many false assumptions based on some equality hope instead of based in reality of differences between people Remember kids, we are all different and not equal. Humans are not blank slates that are completely same that are only shaped by environment.

>>5747 this is a goldmine >"U CAUSED MY POVERTY CUZ U NOT ALLOW ME TO STEAL AND SHIEEET" my sides

>>5747 >if all people are considered equal, then absent any other considerations, each person should have an equal amount of property Yeah, that's true. But anyone who thinks all people are equal has a sub-80 IQ. Why don't we work with reality instead.

>>5741 Yes, because it's so much easier to live in the wilderness in Africa where various awful animals and bugs eat you, malaria spreads like wildfire, and extreme dry and wet ruin your buildings. >>5746 >I wouldn't say that large scale socialist revolution is unrealistic or impossible to do in these upcoming unstable times, but that socialists instead of achieving their goals by flipping the table and saying "fuarrrk you" to the man when they have the opportunity are not only reluctant but also pacify themselves and castrate themselves to such extentn that they see these half-deals as "victories". This is precisely the classic socialist critique of social democracy. This is not a new problem for the left.

>>5752 >Yes, because it's so much easier to live in the wilderness in Africa where various awful animals and bugs eat you, malaria spreads like wildfire, and extreme dry and wet ruin your buildings. And yet they did it for hundreds of thousands of years, without fire, without the wheel, without agriculture. Hmm, really makes you think. Now try surviving a North European winter without fire, warm clothing, or basic stone age tools.

>>5753 so, the only measure of hardship is cold? Have you ever survived outside anywhere? Also >without fire, without the wheel, without agriculture. most African cultures had all of those things

>>5741 >>5753 You sounds like you know very little about african civilizations. It's fine, I don't know much either, but do think maybe that this might lead you to false conclusions ? And that spouting false conclusions based on false premises might not be the bay way to convince anyone of anything ?

>>5719 >If you are interested in getting involved, here is an invite to our Discord server: https://discord.gg/tsbXZUv UGH, you alt right neo nazi https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uN1P6UA7pvM&t=28s

Say what you will about UBI in the long-term, it's the only solution for the coming unemployment "crisis" and it's a hell of a lot better than the way we're doing things now. If implemented correctly, it can take our species into a post-work age and allow us to flourish. No longer will people have to waste their lives at miserable jobs just to afford food and rent. People will finally be able to pursue their passions and interests fully without being constrained by a stressful 9-to-5 hell. Of course, the level of positivity will be directly correlated to the amount each person recieves per month -- and as OP mentioned, it doesn't solve many of the problems inherent in a capitalist society. But, please keep in mind that it's light-years better than what we're doing now. Ideally, it wouldn't just be a small "band-aid" that would allow people to pay for food and rent, but would also be enough to fully cover the cost of living for each individual and then some. Ideally as the first step towards fully-automated luxury gay space communism. There's no scenario where UBI isn't eventually implemented, come to think of it. It's an inevitability. It's in companies' best interest to use automation over actual workers in order to maximize profit, and even if legislation is passed to prohibit it they'll do their damnedest to strike it down. Once the mass unemployment rolls around, if UBI still isn't a thing there'll be riots and chaos. People dying in the streets. People starving to death. And, of course, at that point the only options will be either implementing UBI or a full-blown revolution. And, on the off chance said legislation isn't struck down, America will quickly fall behind other, smarter countries and become a third-world country, at which point a similar full-blown revolution/take-over would likely occur.

>>5761 And, of course, in the aftermath of whatever "revolution" might take place, those in charge would look to other countries that have implemented UBI and put a similar system into place, seeing it as the natural thing to do in an age of automation. So, yeah. It's inevitable. Think such an uprising wouldn't be possible? Wait until people are displaced from their homes/dwellings, starving to death, and hopeless. People who've known nothing but working day jobs their whole lives suddenly finding themselves in a world where jobs are obsolete, and where they have no options, and where their government stands idly by refusing to help. It'll be such an enormous shift to people, so far removed from the way they normally know how to do things, that saying "fuarrrk it" and stepping past the point of no return would only be the logical next step. It's sort of like how people like to fetishize a post-apocalypse world because it means they'd no longer be chained down by the minutae of day-to-day life in our present system. Imagine giving those people that fantasy.

those germanic savages will never amount to civilization, they are all dumb and barely human.

>>5731 (( incomprehensible rage and unsupported claims ))

>>5761 either money will be abolished in some sort of revolution, or UBI will be implemented then somewhere farther down the line money will be abolished in some sort of revolution. Really as long as our technology keeps improving, there is no way in which capitalist socio-economics can survive more than a century or two past now.

>>5777 >incomprehensible rage "Grinds my gears" isn't really rage levels. It's more like having to deal with annoying 12 year old cousins every fuarrrking day. It's like moderate to high levels of annoyance by these pseudo socialists who claim victory in upcoming disaster that is UBI. >unsupported claims Basically common sense. The higher ups of politics and corporations WANT to implement UBI simply because they see that there is no future in humans doing manual work. They WANT to pay you to do nothing simply because they don't want you go bloodthirsty because you're out of a job. Just look at the past my dude, every revolution has occured because of lack of food and resources by vast majority of population. UBI is just a way to soften the blow. Humans are becoming unnecessary everywhere. In the workplace, in the place of ideas and even in terms of genetics we are becoming less relevant compared to genetic engineering that is coming. There are 7 billion people on this planet, too much in eyes of everyone. Automation (accompanied with UBI) will be first thing that will cut that number into a third. Unsupported? Mark my words and look at the world in 50 years time when automation starts and UBI starts getting implemented.

>>5786 >there is no way in which capitalist socio-economics can survive more than a century or two past now. SEE? These pseudo socialists see UBI and inevitable automation as a capitalistic death. You are idiots. The corporate overlords will just switch sides to politicians and they will collude together to form authoritarian superstates. UBI will be shrinking because "fuarrrk unwanted people, we don't need them". Why would they pay a lot of people to just keep on reproducing? You are just waste of resources at that point. They will continue to shrink UBI until nobody can even support themselves let alone their children (if they will have any). Not to mention the police state. If you give the feeding hand to the all powerful state and the state doesn't really need you, then why would they feed you? Think about it a little you pseudo socialist. After they start paying for your existance and your existance isn't necessary to the system they will try little by little to eliminate you.

>>5787 >when automation starts automation started 100 years ago. In fact, so far increased automation is contemporary with increased population growth. Re the rest of your post: pretty much true, but the wonders of ideological brainwashing means that the elites and many of the proles are viscerally opposed to UBI even though it's the only thing that can preserve capitalism for very long. Just one of the many contradictions in the modern capitalist ideology. >>5788 >They will continue to shrink UBI until nobody can even support themselves let alone their children (if they will have any). Yup, that's the part where there's a revolution. >Not to mention the police state. No amount of police repression can stop a motivated populace from overthrowing their rulers. If you study revolutions and coups historically, they usually start after an *increase* of law enforcement activity. Ideological control is much more powerful, but that breaks down eventually when the people in charge forget to keep up appearances -- which they always do, eventually. The longer they keep up the charade, the more radical the change afterwards. >Think about it a little you pseudo socialist. After they start paying for your existance and your existance isn't necessary to the system they will try little by little to eliminate you. I'm a social anarchist. They're already trying very hard to eliminate me and my kind.

>>5798 >automation started 100 years ago. In fact, so far increased automation is contemporary with increased population growth. Jobs shifted their positions and adapted, supplementing the automation. I hoped that everyone ITT is talking about the upcoming era of automation where EVERYTHING will be automatic. From trucking to accounting and open heart surgery, let alone the McDonalds and Starbucks of the world. After that no population growth will be needed. >means that the elites and many of the proles are viscerally opposed to UBI even though it's the only thing that can preserve capitalism for very long ATM I don't see elites and proles shifting to UBI, it's in close future but not until automation pushed out all people out of manufacturing jobs at least (just look at chinese factories, they are already starting to automatize because they are slowly seeing the benefits). After manufacturing jobs it will all start crumbling down little by little and elites will give UBI ideas in mainstream culture as form of indication to others in bourgeois class that it is a way to protect themselves from upcoming revolution. Those in politics spheres opposing UBI will be dealt swiftly and general public will be applauding the idea when it comes. >Just one of the many contradictions in the modern capitalist ideology. Sadly, although we are at the point that we have to ask ourselves "What is the point of humanity? What is our group goal as species?" >Yup, that's the part where there's a revolution. What is hard to understand? Totalitarian regime that controls everyones cash flow can make people scared of regime. Not to mention that they could cut off money from people that are protesting or give money to those who actively work against the revolution (diy incognito civil police like and mainstream culture that laughs and patronizes everyone revolting and makes everyone else look like heroes). Revolutions have been thwarted before in the past, and they have been calmed down. OF COURSE, a revolution will happen if shrinking goes too fast, but if it goes over a whole generation then people will hold a grudge and shake their fist in the air but they won't do anything, let's be real, they suffer much worse things today and nobody does anything. >No amount of police repression can stop a motivated populace from overthrowing their rulers Which is why we have people today killing Rotschilds and all political elites? Oh wait, no they're not, even though a lot of crazy conspiracy theorists with guns are angry at them. Guess you're wrong, next? >they usually start after an *increase* of law enforcement activity *YAWN* You're looking at increase in temperature in room and deducing that people run from fires because of temp increase. WHY WAS THERE A FIRE IN FIRST PLACE? Or in another terms, "Why was there an increase in law enforcement activity?". Surely the elites at the time thought it was a good idea, why? Why did they increase the police state? Because of lack of funds to calm the angry people? Lawlessness? Not to say that increasing the police state works with stoping the revolution, or to say it doesn't, I am just saying that you're looking at wrong factors that affect the outcome of angry populace and revolutions. Revolutions primarily come out as a result of SHARP and VOLATILE decrease in money or resources and politicians or elite class are to blame. THEN when people are hungry, they are angry (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LaRBGBHsjU8 <-- pacifying and patronizing the feeling of anger or abstract idea of anger is one form of psychological control the elites put on us). Simple as that. >Ideological control is much more powerful Which is why all socialist revolutionaries were killed off after they helped build the system. Think about it, these politically motivated young adults fighting for better tomorrow help to build it and they they see it's wrong and bad? They will fight with every inch of their bodies to correct their mistakes. Which is why regime is the first to fight against them. >The longer they keep up the charade, the more radical the change afterwards Bread and circuses alongside some police state keeps the slow shrinking of UBI unchallenged. Those protesting or revolting will have their money deposits cut and labeled enemies of utopian socialist state, those fighting against the enemies of state will be called heroes and be given large sums of money and fame and most of population will live in misery and blind entertainment with little money they have [now less]. >They're already trying very hard to eliminate me and my kind You will give them the ability to do that after you give them the feeding hand. Now all they can do is slander your reputation on TV and try to socially outcast you (<-- indirectly targeting your money supply and with that your "feeding hand"). Think how much harder it will get for you to oppose the system when an all powerful technologically advanced government with corporations on their sides that hold all the automation (we are somewhat on half way there, except the automation and somewhat technologically advance stuff) , when that government controls whether or not you get money from them.

>>5800 >After that no population growth will be needed. "needed" and "happen" are very different things. >Totalitarian regime that controls everyones cash flow can make people scared of regime. Fear doesn't change a god damn thing. Think the Lithuanians weren't afraid of the KGB? >Revolutions primarily come out as a result of SHARP and VOLATILE decrease in money or resources and politicians or elite class are to blame. THEN when people are hungry, they are angry But that cannot be a deciding factor. One of the sharpest and most volatile decrease in money and resources happened in 1929, and there was virtually *no* effort to stop it by the elites at first, and only in Germany did it amount to any kind of revolution. Similar crashes happen all the time if you take the long view, but lasting revolutions remain relatively rare. Only when ideological dominance is lost is a revolution possible. Ideological dominance is a lot harder to lose than a strong economy. >Which is why all socialist revolutionaries were killed off after they helped build the system. "all" is a very strong word. Most of the original Russian communists were huge fans of Stalin, well after he was ousted as well. The leadership was killed off, yes, but the leadership is a very small part of the larger political body. >Bread and circuses alongside some police state keeps the slow shrinking of UBI unchallenged. Did you read what I wrote? The bread and circuses will end eventually, and then the police state becomes a stopgap just like UBI was. Generations are inconsequential; people have evoked historical precedent over 1000 years old to represent their political ideals(Italian fascists). I think you're assuming I support UBI when in fact I do not.

>>5724 What about 1 and 3? I can't see UBI working long term without eugenics.

>>5741 Empirical evidence is gathered best in controlled environments, where only one thing changes. Cities and countries that added UBI, changing nothing else, saw no significant decrease in productivity (source is linked in >>5736 ). Europe's ascendancy over Africa had a lot to it. Geography that encouraged smaller kingdoms in close proximity and natural abundance of iron are two other factors.They also had a class of scientists and philosophers who didn't really have to worry about basic survival, which is where a lot of the Enlightenment and the Renaissance came from.

>>5816 Why not?

>letting that kind of power to a government no thx just lower taxes and let me be

>>5734 >The State is the source of all money (it can never go bankrupt) and it recoups a tiny fraction of it in taxes—just enough to maintain a psychosocial need for the currency. A healthy system is one in which the government has a floating currency, has a diversified economy, and is always in debt. >There is no economic reason why we can't fund everything we want/need as a society (the only thing stopping us is inflation and that only occurs when there is too much money in circulation relative to our ability to absorb the money I did not expect this to be honest pretty legendary (At least they're honest, I guess)

>>5724 >Genocide of the 'useless' ..what about the NAP?

>>5952 NAP is a principle that only exists as an idea, if it's not implemented and substantiated by your willingness to defend yourself then we can act as if there is no idea like NAP. To think that just because everyone agrees on NAP that there are no liars or that the word of other people is to be trusted on is autistic to say the least. We enforce the NAP by giving us ability to protect ourselves, not trusting other people that they are going to attack us. This is why every socialostic country ends up in state run communism. There is no other way to enforce the idea of people owning means of production and sharing the earnings together. Also, this is why anarcho socialosts hate anarcho capitalists sort of. Ancaps can exist in a political bubble much longer without infoghting (eg. some other country overtaking ancaps) while ansocs will have to enforce their rules on everyone if they want things to function without resource hogging.

>>5955 wow... you successfully failed to understand both anarcho-capitalism and anarcho-socialism.

>>5960 "bait" out of "not an argument" Try again?

>>5955 I mean like the post I was replying to has "3 options" >Star Trek Space Communism >Status Quo Eternal Purgatory (because somehow technology has stopped improving quality of life) >[some weird fantasy about death squads] Nowhere does he even consider that perhaps everything will just settle if we leave everyone the fuarrrk be Also "willingness to defend yourself" isn't the point of the NAP The point of the NAP is a minimal definition of what the government enforces There will always be those incapable of defending themselves

>>5748 >>5747 >>5746 >>5741 >>5731 >>5788 you're obviously the same person, or at least the same two. The vocabulary used in those posts is always the same. When will you get tired of wasting lainchan? And fellow lainons please, when someone is so insulting and obviously without arguments, don't waste time replying to him, it takes time and energy from intelligent discussion

>>5955 Canada... Sweden... these are countries with "socialostic" [sic] tendencies. They also have free enterprise and are not state run communist countries.

>>5962 >when your only recourse is insults very rational(TM)

Universal basic income will do to jobless people the same what domestication did to animals. While cattle at least serve some purpose, jobless consumers do not. "Toughest enemy gives you food, to be your friend and make you soft so they can make you into what they want. Food gifts are poison to the warrior, so deadly is this way of fighting it will slay the spirit of fight in you and you will still walk, talk and eat as if you are still alive, you will not even know you have been killed."

>>6063 The idea that people can't find a purpose beyond a menial job is ridiculous. If anything, the obligation of earning a living is going to prevent people from achieving their desired purpose, if it is in an area which is not reliable from a financial point of view. How many hours are wasted writing reports rather than a book ? Filming publicity spots rather than a genuinely artistic film ? Or worst, doing any of those tasks that could have been automated long ago but were not because muh jobs.

>>5968 wow Nice observational skills Sherlock Holmes Tell me, what is next step in your master plan? >insulting and obviously without arguments niBBa did you even read my replies?

>>5977 What other recourse do you have against "durr you don't understand it"? I say "I do"? By the photo you posted I can that same thing, you obviously don't understand ANCAP.

>>5970 >"socialostic" [sic] tendencies what do you mean by this? High taxes? That's not "socialistic", that's state run life planning done by few bureaucrats. Wtf you on about rookie?

>>6067 >>5970 Btw, I could have posted sources showing you how these economies emerged as they are right now and how some of politicians from these countries denounce their socialistic denomination

>>6068 >I could have posted sources Why don't you then ? Educate your fellow lainons.

I am absolutely down with the concept of UBI, and do think it in some way inevitable, but I think people are being a bit unrealistic when it comes to a timeframe or how it will come about. As slow as it seems to be occurring, the world power balance is slowly tipping away from the west (where UBI is generally proposed). I think we are more soon likely to see a fall from our degree of prosperity in the west (largely hurting the possibility for UBI). Sure, Zimbabwe isn't about to become some economic powerhouse anytime soon, but countries such as China, India, UAE, are closing the gap. Then again, current global economic practices are still generally extractionary. It may be a long time coming, but the west will eventually fall from power. Maybe though, global warming will make everyone move north, who knows. I just don't see UBI as all that realistic in the foreseeable future.

>>6067 > what do you mean by this? You don't know how the countries named are basically organized yet you're willing to argue about it. Interesting (actually not really).

>>6066 can i see some sources for this? oh: "Generally it all comes down to income," said Matt Schulz, senior analyst at CreditCards.com. "The more money you have the more likely you are to leave a little extra tip on the table."

>>6073 Thought that was obvious though. Also I wonder what the difference is between men tipping male vs. female servers and is there an algorithm incorporating shortness of skirt and amount of cleavage exposed.

>>6074 it's obvious except i can't see what justifies the filename. people who make less income are worse human beings because rich people value a few extra dollars less?

>>6075 Oh I didn't see the filename. (I'm not the one who posted it either). What I do know from experience though is that there is a greater disparity within rich people than within poor or blue collar people when it comes to tips. Poor people consistently tip. Rich people often tip low or not at all, then there's a few that tip extravagantly. This affects the overall average.

>>6064 It won't matter if we can find personal life purpose. You really think that the robot owners are gonna feed endless masses of economically inactive "artists" for free, when they are able to cut out the middle man and just build a robot that would to do the consuming with precision we have never seen before!?

>>6078 If they won't feed the masses and just let them starve, I hope for them that they also have robot guards to repress the crowds that will come to tear down their palace. Which won't necessarily improve the situation for anyone, but humans are like that, they prefer everyone to starve than to starve in front of a feast. That said, I think indeed that it would be better for the robots to be owned by everyone rather than by a few ; but at this point I need to read some Karl Marx before speaking further, so as not to repeat what has already been written a long time ago. Capitalism surely seems to work to lift a country out of poverty, but at some point there is no more room for useful economic growth, and an increase in general happiness will come from a reduction of inequalities rather than an increase of total wealth.

What's the value of money if it's not based on work? What does it represent? What is being traded for resources?

>>6080 What's the value of money if it's not based on work? What does it represent? What is being traded for resources? Money is just tokens of debt blessed by the government and traded among citizens. It's got nothing to do with work.

>>6080 Value of money is work or resources. Also, any other currency of money can be traded for any other AND with that you transfer the value of that currency. However, currency only has value if people are willing to exchange their work and resources through that currency. Don't trust the government? Use money of different government. Don't trust any government or their inflation filled money? Buy crypto

>>6082 >Don't trust any government or their inflation filled money? Buy crypto buttcoin is one of the least stable currencies there is.

Can the universal basic income be stratified in distribution according to necessity?

>>6094 >>6094 >one of the least stable currencies there is got any stats on that?

>>5760 Ironic Nazi meme poopers aren't the only ones on the platform.

>>6137 children who like giving their private info to big corps too? OH BOI

>>6128 anything that experiences 19-30% changes is inherently unstable, the implication of that kind of change is that the buying power that people give it fluctuates greatly, just as easily as you can win that much, you can loose that much. right now people are winning, but if some of the bigger players decide to dump, then the currency could devaluate overnight to near useless. for a real work example of what happens with high interest, look at greek bonds and Cyprus banks.

>>6165 I am not trying to argue that it isn't stable, I am trying to argue "one of the least stable" part

>>6125 I guess you'd have to get everyone to agree on what's necessary for everyone else, and reassess it every time something new comes in the mix, like internet, a groundbreaking new medicine, or something. good luck with that

It's not a good idea and would not work. There are many people who would just quit their jobs and never work again(I certainly would) and it would create a culture of entitlement and laziness, people would grow up with this and never feel the need to work. Indeed this already happens with families on welfare. There is also the massive cost of the program itself, it would never be feasible and even taxing the rich would not make enough and even if it somehow did you would just create new issues. Firstly the rich would evade taxes or just simply move elsewhere and secondly it further discourages the people from trying to become rich in the first place, why study 12 years, get a massive debt, and then only make what you would on minimum wage or doing nothing when you could have done both of these in the first place?

>>6166 +40% IN 48 HOURS... but it is about to go onto the stock market, so im regrating not buying in while i could

>>6223 Why are the names around the wrong way?

>>6070 however, as China, India etc. close the gap they also become more west-like. China has a middle class and exports industry to Mongolia now. UBI is the inevitable next step for capitalism. It's either that or it tears itself apart.