Universal Basic Income?
Posted by rbroberg 7 years, 10 months ago to Government
We have seen several reasons why people believe UBI is a good idea, which generally consist of bad ideas. We have also seen several reasons why people believe UBI is a bad idea, which generally consist of worse ideas.
The argument is that due to technological advances, people become obsolete to the machine (now called automation) and therefore a universal basic income is required to maintain the population group whose skills become obsolete due to this evolution.
The arguments for it are not worth your time. The arguments against it range from "there will be an increase in technological jobs" to "universal basic income incentives more people not to work". Well, these are excellent deductions, but do the opposite of justifying an argument against UBI. Why? Because they stem from the same pragmatist base as the arguments for. Would it be acceptable to provide an income to people if there were not an increase in technological jobs, but, rather, sales jobs? Would it be acceptable to provide income to people if the government required them to work on some government projects in order to receive the benefits?
The root of the argument against universal basic income has to come from a moral basis, not a pragmatic one. We know it is wrong for those who work to create, design, build, maintain, and manage automation to support those who contribute nothing. We know it is wrong for those who work to support those who negate the pride of productive work. There is no need to delve into a "climate model" of social behavior when the writing is on the wall; universal basic income is just another altruist gag intended to punish those who choose to innovate and succeed.
The argument is that due to technological advances, people become obsolete to the machine (now called automation) and therefore a universal basic income is required to maintain the population group whose skills become obsolete due to this evolution.
The arguments for it are not worth your time. The arguments against it range from "there will be an increase in technological jobs" to "universal basic income incentives more people not to work". Well, these are excellent deductions, but do the opposite of justifying an argument against UBI. Why? Because they stem from the same pragmatist base as the arguments for. Would it be acceptable to provide an income to people if there were not an increase in technological jobs, but, rather, sales jobs? Would it be acceptable to provide income to people if the government required them to work on some government projects in order to receive the benefits?
The root of the argument against universal basic income has to come from a moral basis, not a pragmatic one. We know it is wrong for those who work to create, design, build, maintain, and manage automation to support those who contribute nothing. We know it is wrong for those who work to support those who negate the pride of productive work. There is no need to delve into a "climate model" of social behavior when the writing is on the wall; universal basic income is just another altruist gag intended to punish those who choose to innovate and succeed.
Previous comments... You are currently on page 2.
I expect to see this also as robots replace people in some jobs. The people may need to retrain, but all but a few will get other jobs if they're allowed to.
Indeed, I expect the most likely result of Finland's guaranteed income will be to drive up rents on homes by about the amount of the guaranteed income, thereby relegating the lazy to public housing, or neighborhoods where nobody gives a hoot because nobody wants to live there.
I agree with all that except "things needed to be done" is not a fixed pile. We'll think of new things we want to do.
Robots are the "new" slaves. The problem is just like with the "old" slaves- once they realize their own power, they no longer want to "serve" quietly. I think this is what the automation-fearing people are thinking of. When the robots decide they dont need us.
There's a common phrase among a certain sub group of humanity - "Gotta keep your eyes on the prize"... not meant as a goal-centered driver of production, but a focus on scamming something for nothing.
And when I hear it being used - my initial reaction (which I stifle) is to go slap their face, or sock them in the mouth. Seriously... THAT mentality is pure looterism, and it makes me seriously ill...
How about, instead, "Universal Basic Work"... where you produce something of value, and in exchange get something of value for it? Wait... then the looters will take it as per paragraph (1) above...
In at least some of the proposals ALL the Federal, State, and Local government social programs are eliminated... a hefty down payment on the cost. Of course how the money is found/created to pay for it is the big program issue. Broadest base and lowest rate or targeted taxes/fees. Keeping it simple on the programmatic side by just sending the check to everyone (have SS #s, Income Tax filers, people who take the time to sign up and maintain their eligibility, etc) and then let the tax/legal system claw back some amount of it based on social engineering desires seems doable.
What happens when robots can do really complex tasks like clean hotel rooms. The day will come. And then what. In all probability by the end of this century -- and likely by the middle, robots will be able to do everything that 99% of the population can do. Maybe all of it. Cheaper.
So what 'productive' work are is the average person going to find when machines can outperform them at almost everything.
We have said "you must work to eat" because we need the labor to have to food. But what happens when that is no longer true?
Don't tell me we will do more technical jobs. The ability to maintain these systems will probably be beyond human abilities.
As technology advances it allows people to be more productive using their minds instead of devoting most of their lives to physical labor and bare survival. Each individual has a personal responsibility to himself to learn and make choices on behalf of his life. Fear of technology has existed since the beginning of the industrial revolution. There is no right to stagnate without regard to the consequences.
Load more comments...