Universal Basic Income

[NuclearID]

It's pretty simple when you boil it down. We are heading at lighting speed of a workforce turning completely automated in the next few decades.

When that occurs the vast majority of people will be without a job. Somthing has to be done and stopping the automation transition in the workforce will not work. Only solution is UBI

As @OReid said here it raises questions when humans won't be needed to make things or do things make some suspicious that they'll start killing everybody off.

Well that would not fit the business model of automation. If they start killing everyone off on universal basic income then all these corporations and businesses won't have anything to make and they will lose their wealth. Just because no one is working doesn't mean we don't have value. We will still have value even if we do not work.

Even in a fully automated world where no one works and is on UBI, consumerism will still be very much alive. Killing off your customers is a bad business model (unless your big Tobacco...) The money spent on stuff from UBI will go back into the business that got taxed for it. Will still be a consumer based economy & not to much would change in that sence.

 

[Friendly Engineer]

What would be some ways that a customer could be insulated from taxes levied on a corporation?

Perhaps some form of tax on shareholder dividends.
Taxes on performance bonuses.
Companies should be encouraged to invest in the local community, so perhaps there could be a choice for companies, pay X% tax on profits, or invest (X-5)% in the local community, so customers would directly benefit from local investment.

Who decides what "greed" is?

The government executive.

What constitutes corporate greed? When does a profit-motivated company seeking to maximize shareholder value (through operating a business well and in good faith, so I explicitly mean to leave Enron type fraud situations out of this discussion) move from "acceptable" to greedy?

Price gouging, a large percentage increase in profit margin compared to previous years

Why do windfall taxes have to be taxed at a higher rate?

Well, because the whole point of a windfall tax is to reap more of the profits in tax revenue.

Technically, an increase in corporate income tax rates impacts company owners (shareholders). But, the board of directors sets financial targets to maximize shareholder value. So if the market supports a price increase (perhaps in the cases of monopolistic competition, oligopoly, or monopoly), profit maximizing businesses may increase price to maximize profits to meet financial target commitments to shareholders.

Well laws should be passed to force businesses to not increase prices for the sole reason of increasing dividends to shareholders, at least not by too large a margin. Say, RPI +3%
In the case of a monopoly, they should definitely be split up into smaller companies to promote competition.

I am by no means an expert in this. I hope this doesn't come back to bite me in 20 years.

 

[Peter Griffin]

When that occurs the vast majority of people will be without a job. Somthing has to be done and stopping the automation transition in the workforce will not work. Only solution is universal basic income.
[/I][/B]

I'm a supporter of UBI. I just don't think it is a long term solution to this issue, and I don't think the solution is apparent at the moment. UBI will help with the effects of AI but not solve them in the slightest

 

[NuclearID]

I'm a supporter of UBI. I just don't think it is a long term solution to this issue, and I don't think the solution is apparent at the moment. UBI will help with the effects of AI but not solve them in the slightest

I personally don't see any problem with most people not working if automation fully takes over & they get universal basic income.

It would free up a lot of people to better themselves and the world. Maybe the cure for cancer is some guy or gal working at McDonald's but can't help research the cure because he or she has to work to survive.

Or the answer to usable or reasonable fusion power could be in some guy or gals brain working in a warehouse, but didn't become a nuclear physicist because he had to work to survive.

The world will progress faster then we could ever imagine if people didn't need to work to survive and could focus on bettering their lives and others.

 

[teekay99]

It's pretty simple when you boil it down. We are heading at lighting speed of a workforce turning completely automated in the next few decades.

I am not convinced that AI will be able to replace the human workforce at the moment for many professions. AI, while exciting and promising, still has many limitations. Generative AI requires VAST amounts of data, and the predictive models require "training" from that data. And data can be bad. Or misinterpreted. An AI model that works like our brains does not really exist. Not only that, AI does not have hands or feet, so there are some things it physically won't be able to do. Really, like @Friendly Engineer stated previously, I think AI will augment the workforce, not replace it. And new opportunities will be found as a result.

Other than that, I don't really know what else will happen from AI. But I do not expect the optimistic outlook expressed in Donald Fagen's song IGY "... A just machine to make big decisions, Programmed by fellows with compassion and vision, We'll be clean when their work is done, We'll be eternally free yes and eternally young. What a beautiful world this will be What a glorious time to be free... "

 

[Peter Griffin]

I personally don't see any problem with most people not working if automation fully takes over & they get universal basic income.

It would free up a lot of people to better themselves and the world. Maybe the cure for cancer is some guy or gal working at McDonald's but can't help research the cure because he or she has to work to survive.

The world will progress faster then we could ever imagine if people didn't need to work to survive and could focus on bettering their lives and others.

Frankly, the cure for cancer is going to be a result of AI sequencing every DNA strand of the human body. And while bettering yourself does that give your life purpose? It's easy to envision a utopian society when the the mass amount of people living in said society have seen struggles, and come to see the importance of determining ones self worth and self aspiration in life. But what happens to the generations henceforth that experience absolute instant gratification, and no longer have to rely on their own minds and bodies to achieve sustainment much less purpose on this planet? I think it leaves a lot to be argued in the philisophical extent of where we as a species want to go.

 

[teekay99]

The government executive.

Do you want President Trump making that decision?

 

[NuclearID]

I am not convinced that AI will be able to replace the human workforce at the moment for many professions. AI, while exciting and promising, still has many limitations.

Automation in the workforce is not just AI, but cold hard machines too. It's just that these machines are getting hyper Advanced to the point of being able to do almost any Workforce Job. Hell they even have a fully autonomous McDonald's now and it is pretty successful from what I've heard. No cook, no floor workers, nothing. That's not AI.

 

[teekay99]

Automation in the workforce is not just ai, but machines too. It's just that these machines are getting hyper Advanced to the point of being able to do almost any Workforce Job. Hell they even have a fully autonomous McDonald's now and it is pretty successful from what I've heard. No cook, no floor workers, nothing. That's not AI.

Good points. You are right, it would need to be AI plus robotics.

But without the AI, the automation can't expand its capability much. Humans still have to come in to perform reprogramming or retooling. And even if AI were controlling the machines, humans may still need to augment the robots to provide an extra burger-flipper, or add another flame-broiler (or microwave).

 

[NuclearID]

Good points. You are right, it would need to be AI plus robotics.

Yes. That is my point. Robotics is getting cheaper and cheaper to make. A machine to flip burgers and cook burgers 10 years ago may have cost 50 million, but now can cost a company only a couple hundred thousand dollars which would pay for itself in just a few years or less by replacing human Cooks.

Same can be said for almost any other job in the workforce. Eventually, like soon in our lifetime, it will become so cheap it will not make sence to hire people anymore.

 

[Friendly Engineer]

Do you want President Trump making that decision?

I was thinking in the UK, so not Trump, but there's no reason why an independent commission couldn't decide it.

 

[NuclearID]

Frankly, the cure for cancer is going to be a result of AI sequencing every DNA strand of the human body. And while bettering yourself does that give your life purpose? It's easy to envision a utopian society when the the mass amount of people living in said society have seen struggles, and come to see the importance of determining ones self worth and self aspiration in life. But what happens to the generations henceforth that experience absolute instant gratification, and no longer have to rely on their own minds and bodies to achieve sustainment much less purpose on this planet? I think it leaves a lot to be argued in the philisophical extent of where we as a species want to go.

There is some truth to this. But the field of research and development will always require humans too. Sure like 80% of the work would be done by AI/Lab Machines. But in the end it is a Human who needs to tell the AI what to work on, how to manage the resources available for the AI, put the AI work together, find flaws in AI work, and test the AIs work. That area of the workforce will always need humans.

 

[teekay99]

I was thinking in the UK, so not Trump, but there's no reason why an independent commission couldn't decide it.

Understood. I did think about asking if you wanted PM Sunak making that decision...

I was just flippantly making a point. We say we want someone making certain decisions. But what happens when we do (or don't) like the person making the decision? Does that change our mind on whether the decision should be made by the government or private parties?

 

[Friendly Engineer]

Understood. I did think about asking if you wanted PM Sunak making that decision...

I was just flippantly making a point. We say we want someone making certain decisions. But what happens when we do (or don't) like the person making the decision? Does that change our mind on whether the decision should be made by the government or private parties?

When we don't like a government decision, we can vote them out.
An example of this will be the UK general election on 4th July. Watch as the British electorate turns the ruling party of 14 years into an insignificant opposition party.

 

[Peter Griffin]

There is some truth to this. But the field of research and development will always require humans too. Sure like 80% of the work would be done by AI/Lab Machines. But in the end it is a Human who needs to tell the AI what to work on, how to manage the resources available for the AI, put the AI work together, find flaws in AI work, and test the AIs work. That area of the workforce will always need humans.

Hopefully, or we are fucked

 

[NuclearID]

I think the main point to get across to everyone is to realize UBI would not disappear the free market, in fact the free market or the consumer-based market would become stronger than ever.

Life would not change that much in that aspect. The money taxed from the businesses to fund UBI would get the money back from people buying stuff with the UBI income.

It would also eliminate the welfare system.

 

[Publius]

It's pretty simple when you boil it down. We are heading at lighting speed of a workforce turning completely automated in the next few decades.

When that occurs the vast majority of people will be without a job. Somthing has to be done and stopping the automation transition in the workforce will not work. Only solution is UBI

As @OReid said here it raises questions when humans won't be needed to make things or do things make some suspicious that they'll start killing everybody off.

Well that would not fit the business model of automation. If they start killing everyone off on universal basic income then all these corporations and businesses won't have anything to make and they will lose their wealth. Just because no one is working doesn't mean we don't have value. We will still have value even if we do not work.

Even in a fully automated world where no one works and is on UBI, consumerism will still be very much alive. Killing off your customers is a bad business model (unless your big Tobacco...) The money spent on stuff from UBI will go back into the business that got taxed for it. Will still be a consumer based economy & not to much would change in that sence.

You assume the last point to be correct you do not know it.
And assuming the business model analogy. Then that new automated business model will adjust its consumer market to maximize profits.
Did the pure business model provide a UBI for the coal industry. They feigned interest in it but basically ignored them.

I’m not saying the culture at large might not have to do something.
But this notion of creating some kind of UBI that will protect the population at large is naive. Someone has to always pay for it in the end. And even if initially with good intentions and moderate results it will produce negative consequences in society. These mistakes will have our grandchildren asking, “what the hell were they thinking?”
There will never be a permanent UBI, the system that creates it will either go bankrupt. Or it will phase it out of the budget.
Argue for it fine, don’t try and sell it as some permanent economic system.

 

[teekay99]

But this notion of creating some kind of UBI that will protect the population at large is naive. Someone has to always pay for it in the end.

Quoting Margaret Thatcher again - "The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money...."

A problem with UBI is that it incentivizes not working. And the more able-bodied people that are convinced not to work, the fewer taxpayers there are to fund the UBI. It is an extension of the welfare state, and I do not support it. I believe there must be a disincentive for able-bodied people not working, and that disincentive in my mind is that they will be broke and homeless.

Ultimately, someone must pay for UBI. We can say "well government can pay for it". But government gets its money from taxpayers or borrowing it from China whilst putting the taxpayers on the hook for more liabilities. Government does not produce anything (but headaches, red tape, and sometimes empty promises). There is a limit to what it can take from taxpayers before it over-extends itself. Former Marxist states (ex: USSR, DDR) are perfect examples of overextended governments. Even some people of the DDR recognized the extent of their subsidies to all economic activity was unsustainable (source: That Was the GDR: A History of the Other Germany).

 

[Peter Griffin]

Quoting Margaret Thatcher again - "The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money...."

A problem with UBI is that it incentivizes not working. And the more able-bodied people that are convinced not to work, the fewer taxpayers there are to fund the UBI. It is an extension of the welfare state, and I do not support it. I believe there must be a disincentive for able-bodied people not working, and that disincentive in my mind is that they will be broke and homeless.

Ultimately, someone must pay for UBI. We can say "well government can pay for it". But government gets its money from taxpayers or borrowing it from China whilst putting the taxpayers on the hook for more liabilities. Government does not produce anything (but headaches, red tape, and sometimes empty promises). There is a limit to what it can take from taxpayers before it over-extends itself. Former Marxist states (ex: USSR, DDR) are perfect examples of overextended governments. Even some people of the DDR recognized the extent of their subsidies to all economic activity was unsustainable (source: That Was the GDR: A History of the Other Germany).

All of this is generalizing UBI in far too broad of terms. I don't think anyone sane is offering the idea of full unemployed UBI. We're talking about people that have hypothetically lost their jobs due to AI. Specifically in regards to a low-middle income person, with sequential filing of necessity to sustain basic human function, and categorized accordingly. It wouldn't be 1000 bucks a month like Yang puts it and it shouldn't. It should be a circumstantial means of protecting people from falling below the poverty line to the point where it is beyond fixing and becomes another welfare statistic. It can be used as a tool, the same way companies get tax breaks due to unforeseen economic conditions, normal people require will require relief tools like this to continue an upward flow of GDP/c growth in the USA

 

[NuclearID]

You assume the last point to be correct you do not know it.
And assuming the business model analogy. Then that new automated business model will adjust its consumer market to maximize profits.
Did the pure business model provide a UBI for the coal industry. They feigned interest in it but basically ignored them.

I’m not saying the culture at large might not have to do something.
But this notion of creating some kind of UBI that will protect the population at large is naive. Someone has to always pay for it in the end. And even if initially with good intentions and moderate results it will produce negative consequences in society. These mistakes will have our grandchildren asking, “what the hell were they thinking?”
There will never be a permanent UBI, the system that creates it will either go bankrupt. Or it will phase it out of the budget.
Argue for it fine, don’t try and sell it as some permanent economic system.

Once material costs come down to almost nothing UBI will be a permanent sysyem and eventually money will be useless.

Once it becomes cheap to bring resources from outer space to Earth it will plummet the price of materials to almost nothing paired with full automated work force there will be no need for money or work.

UBI won't end up being a system giving people money, because by that time money won't mean anything when materials are virtually free & limitless, paired with a laborforce entirly automated. UBI will be ensuring our survival needs like a roof over your head & food.

Big picture people. We are moving tworda a limitless resource society where materials will cost nothing, paired with a entirly automated workforce. No other options once we achieve those two things, which we are well on our way to brining materials from space to Earth and full atomization of workforce.