Universal Basic Income (UBI) Will Soon Be Needed

Automation and AI is moving at breakneck speed. Within a few years, we will see lots of jobs disapear. Already there are McDonalds being trailed with no staff. There are driverless cabs, trucks and buses in operation. Factory jobs are increasingly being replaced by robots. During Covid we saw changes to retail, education and business that are still having effects. Retailers now no longer need huge stores and staff, Universities can offer on-line education in many areas without needed huge investments in land and staff, and traditional books are replaced with online versions. Businesses can have staff work from home, or even replace them with AI, and no longer need huge inner city offices. All of these changes have flow on effects, like cafes that now have less customers, bookstores that arent needed etc. So there will be a lot less jobs, and more people out of work.

But this will be so massive, that it will affect business. If there are less people with money to spend, this will impact business, who will then need to cut back, reduce staff etc. And governments will need to spend more on welfare, while recieving less taxes from income and purchases. It could be the start of a downward spiral that could destroy economies worldwide.

So what is the answer?

A Universal Basic Income (UBI). This is a social welfare payment that is made to every working age person. It is not income tested, and applies to every person in the nation. It has to be high enough for people to live and also have money left to spend. It has been trailed in some nations, and it works.

So why everyone?

Firstly, there will be no need for Centrelink. If everyone gets a payment, then this can be closed. People can decide to keep working full time, and have more money, cut back to part time, or not work at all. It gives people back a life. Humans did not always work. We work to enable ourselves to live. If we can work less, we can have time to persue other interests, like hobbies, gardening, education spending time with families etc. These can change over a lifetime, so people can decide when to work more and when to cut back. This will free up more casual and part time jobs. And yes, some people will decide that they want to sit around all day and watch TV. Thats fine. Its a choice.
Business will keep operating and have customers. So the economy keeps working.

How will we afford it? Aside from savings by not needing Centrelink etc, we only need to revise the way we tax. At present the largest businesses pay no tax, because they send it offshore. The only tax collected is from GST, which is a value added tax. One idea might be to instead tax on turnover, which could be a very small rate on top of the GST, or replace the GST. Another option might be to put a base rate on products, for example 10% on all mining products etc, even those exported. Income tax could be removed, and businesses could reduce wages paid (without a reduction to the worker of the Nett ammount) as incentives etc. There are plenty of options and governments have already started looking at it.

The biggest obstacle will be the people themselves. There will be a group who will not want it just because it will mean that some people might decide to do nothing. This envy and jealousy will be a major reason for them to oppose it. It will bring about a better distribution of wealth, and a happier society, but some people would rather see others live in poverty. This is real, and is the reason why we still have a war on drugs. Our governmen is aware of research and trials in other nations where all drugs were legalised, as long as they were obtained through doctors. Initially drug use went up, then dropped massively. Drug deaths dropped, because people were seeing doctors, and drugs came from pharmacies so were safer. But the best part was that drug related crime disappeared, so much that prisons strted to empty. So better all round. But we wont see it here in a hurry, because if a party introduces this today, people would oppose it and would vote them out. The majority of people want others to suffer and be punished for what they dont agree with. Envy and jealousy. So this require governments to educate people over time.

Some people have estimated that we will hit a crisis point in 10 years. Others say that the recent advancements in AI might make it 5.
What do you think?

Comments

      • In theory yes. It’s not an even spread though. If you give everyone $100 it won’t inflate prices by $100 unless it’s all spent on things that were supply constrained. Though it really requires the increased productivity that will come with AI to make universal sense, as well as an ability to capture more of that spending as tax.

      • except that prices will fall due to the implementation of AI and the savings to wages

    • +3

      Worse than that.

      People who need to work to survive (the poor) will be worse off.

      Those who own tangible assets (the wealthy) will be better off.

      As money becomes worthless people's labour will become worthless. In conjunction with Ai replacing the need for labour, wealth will funnel into the hands of the few while the rest of us will be literally working for scraps. UBI in the new economy will be required just for survival in the new economy where you own nothing and everything is a subscription

      • wealth will funnel into the hands of the few while the rest of us will be literally working for scraps

        And that's different to today because…? The wealthy give us enough scraps to feel like we're getting ahead?

    • +1

      everyone gets $600 a week UBI, prices inflate to cater for the additional 30k a year in people pockets.
      no one any better off.

      Not really. To support such scheme they would have to tax people more, so medium class wouldn't have 30k more each year, because they would pay the same amount in taxes maybe even more. Only people without income would benefit as it would provide them means to survive.

      • the 30k is tax free, if tax brackets don't change everyone has an extra 30k.

        only if tax brackets change to claw back the 30k up to point of earning 200k it may work. then you get people getting pissed off working earning 70k a year who are really only earning 55k because they lost 15k in UBI and people get the shits.

        i would say a restructured set of tax brackets to cover most of it would work and the elimination of 80% of centerlink staff solve the rest

        so back to my first point if i got $600 a week to do nothing and prices didn't inflate id happy sit on that for a year or so, i've done my time working

        • +1

          Yes, tax brackets would have to change.

          so back to my first point if i got $600 a week to do nothing and prices didn't inflate id happy sit on that for a year or so, i've done my time working

          You would get something comparable to the current JobSeeker payments or pension - $700-$900 fortnightly. That's not a lot, so most people would still work unless they are willing to live frugally.

          • +1

            @Mistredo: So jobseekers and pensioners get a slight increase, and everyone else breaks even or actually loses money?

            What is the point of this lol

            Sounds like mostly disgruntled 'job seekers' who don't actually want to ever seek a job.

            • +1

              @trapper: For this to get popular support most people would have to be better off. That’s actually not that hard to achieve since a small % increase on consumption or the top 1% would raise exponentially more than a doubling of tax on the bottom 50%.

              Ultimately we’ve seen a part of this play out during the pandemic with the increased jobseeker and job keeper etc. what was missing was the tax reform needed to pay for it, and much of the increased productivity that is only slowly arriving.

  • +8

    TLDR
    Was this written by AI?

    • +23

      No, it would have way better structure.

      • +2

        And wouldn't say trailed instead of trialed (twice)

  • +4

    There are driverless cabs, trucks and buses in operation.

    How about we wait until these industries actually become automated and commonplace before we start planning replacement careers for the workers?

    Humans did not always work.

    Citation needed, unless you mean "those wandering nomads with subsistence existence were basically just cruising on a full-time holiday"

    • +17

      Why would you only start planning after it's already a problem? Seems incredibly short sighted

      • Because it's a "problem" that's moving at a glacial pace. It's naive to treat it as a more pressing concern.

        The "on a closed circuit with no other cars around we mostly get it to stay within the lines" is such a tiny step on the way to "yeah regular human city traffic is a chaotic mess that humans regularly can't safely drive through and regularly have crashes … but the AI is able to do so more efficiently".

        Don't forget, we aren't planning for "one or two" AI cars to be mixed in with everyone, it's meant to be displacing the entire transport industry. That's the 'problem' you're planning for, what will we do with hundreds of thousands of humans, now we have a safely working AI self-driving network that covers the country.

        You might as well start drafting up safety regulations for personal teleportation while you're at it.

        • You're a few years behind, there already are level 3 self driving cars on the road right now: https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelharley/2022/08/02/testin…

          Level 4 and 5 are still 5-10 years off at best, but the tech hasn't plateaued yet and shows no signs of doing so

          • +3

            @Jolakot: I like how your "on the road right now" article refers to (checks notes) 'simulated traffic' on a 'test track'.
            I mean, I guess technically speaking that's a road, but it seems dishonest for a throwaway remark..

            Also, I'm a few years behind a problem that won't even come to exist for at least another dozen, did I read that correct? How many years behind am I on the safety regulations on teleportation, while we're at it?

            You know 'the future is now' is just marketing talk, right? It's like "the paperless office" - something a lot of people wrote articles about and promised was coming soon, but somehow 'soon' never arrived.

            • @CrowReally: Fair point, I figured that a demo on a simulated road with hazards would show it off well enough, but you're right that it is just simulated not the real world

              Here's a better example of that, driven on Californian highways at rush hour: https://www.motor1.com/news/656719/mercedes-drive-pilot-leve…. Plenty of footage out there of people using Tesla's 2+ self driving in the wild too

              But regardless of whether this is in 8 years or 15 years, almost every driver currently under the age of 40 will not retire as a driver. Same goes for a bunch of industries, where do you put hundreds of thousands of redundant workers without a ton of planning?

              • @Jolakot:

                Fair point, I figured that a demo on a simulated road with hazards would show it off well enough

                Yes, you did get caught out, especially right after how I had said "getting a car to stay between the lines on a test circuit is nowhere near close enough to ready for real traffic". If you have some YouTube clips of idiots in the wild doing stupid stuff, sure, I guess that's about as valid as any other argument you've served up, cheers. Very convincing, here's your PhD.

                If you want to cling to self driving (presumably without a human being paid to sit in the driver seat just-in-case - so we'd be cutting driver jobs) as being both a realistic thing and something that's happening 'soon', go nuts for coconuts. You're wrong, but you're not wrong yet, so… eh.

                Why don't we pretend it's ten years ago and you can tell me how when self serve checkouts become a thing in supermarkets and you have have a single supervisor/employee hovering between 8-12 self-serve checkouts, how the supermarkets are going to be slashing their employee numbers?

                Looks good on paper, but go and look at the (current day) annual reports for Coles and Woolworths and, what's this?, employee numbers are still going up? I wonder why that is? Oh, they got redeployed to new roles (such as wandering the supermarket doing 'click and collect' purchases for customers using technology to not show up, or maintaining the 'dark stores' that sprang up to serve that new market).

                It seems technology not only eliminates old roles but creates new ones as well!

                Still, you did the right thing by panicking ten years ago in the past and self-righteously telling everyone they were years behind on the coming self-serve technology problem.

                You were wrong in the fictional past and you will be wrong in the yet-to-be-seen future and you're wrong now. That's 3 for 3.

                If you want to play Chicken Little crystal ball any more, pick someone else. I'm done.

          • @Jolakot: I agree that if your only skill is driving, and you have more than 20 years left in your career, you should consider reskilling.

            Individuals have always needed to consider the need to take action to remain relevant (e.g. I work in IT.) But I don't think this generation, or the next, or the one after that, will have a problem with robots taking all the jobs.

            • @SlickMick: Robots will never take all the jobs, I don't think we'll ever see fully automated luxury space communism, fortunately or unfortunately

              And that's a great sentiment, but there's already a shortage of truck drivers, we still need every single one of them right until the day they're made redundant. How do you convince 200,000 truck drivers to keep society running, while also blaming them for not jumping early?

              Most similar shifts happen gradually over decades, with jobs shrinking proportionally to people retiring or retraining. But going from 200,000 to maybe 20,000 within a few years? That's catastrophic

        • I think the mists you’re making is thinking this is only a problem with 100% of people unemployed. There’s mass social disturbance and riots etc with 15-20% unemployment.

          We already had a ‘lite’ taste of what is to come with the pandemic. And it’s no surprise jobseeker etc was doubled and obligation’s removed during much of it. We basically had a UBI introduced on almost no notice, only without the prior planning to pay for it, and in the case of JobKeeper a completely reckless implementation.

          Naive is thinking we will need a UBI tomorrow but it’s also naive thinking we won’t.

          • @JumperC:

            I think the mists you’re making is thinking this is only a problem with 100% of people unemployed. There’s mass social disturbance and riots etc with 15-20% unemployment.

            Sure, but you're also working off the assumption that these same humans will sit idly by and let those very same things happen (this is assuming the technology is flawless and fully operational and can be trusted from the get-go).

            You can develop a special AI train that doesn't need humans to operate at all, but good luck getting away with implementing it, taking windfall profits and saying to the government "looks like you guys need to start paying more unemployment money to all those sacked train drivers".

            • @CrowReally: The alternative to sitting idly by is rioting. Eventually there will be no alternative jobs, not tomorrow, but eventually.

              There’s no assumption technology is flawless required, it only needs to improve productivity 25% and you need 20% less people employed. Your mistake is thinking it needs to replace all people in a job, you just need that one person to oversee a fleet of remote vehicles and step in when required.

              This is already a thing on mining sites (and some automated taxi trials). The vehicles are automated most of the time and if something unexpected blocks them a person steps in. The $$$ means no one is waiting for it to be perfect.

              If you have a democracy people will only put up with so much. Lobbying gets companies so far, but the balance does eventually shift. This is a slower change than the technological change though.

              • @JumperC: Now run that thought experiment over the self-serve checkouts at Colesworth making things 20% more efficient, with only one or two humans overseeing a fleet of self-serve checkouts. Oh no, 20% service staff people are about to lose their jobs…!!

                Oh, wait, the 20% employees that got 'cut' ended up in the new tech jobs at the same firm (click and collect, black stores).

                Of course, my example is flawed because it's based off what's actually happening in reality, not what people are predicting will happen in some unknown distant future time.

        • https://www.bbc.com/news/av/technology-63077437

          Driverless cabs are operating and available to the public in 2 use cities. And they havent been programmed to use AI. Programmers had to program every eventuality and safeguard. AI can "learn" and adapt. Forget level 4 and 5, because the next step is literally full driving cars that can adapt and learn, just like a human driver does.

          last year, a trucking body in the US published a story about self driving trucks. Once again, this was before AI became useable in automomous driving. They expected it to progress as follows:
          According to The Fast Mode: “…autonomous trucks will become available in four separate phases, differentiated by how much autonomy the truck has.

          Phase One: will involve a technique called platooning, in which a fleet of trucks will follow a lead truck on the highway

          Phase Two: technology will have developed enough to have a human driver in only the lead truck while a convoy of autonomous trucks follows closely behind. Expected by 2025.

          Phase Three: the lead trucks are completely autonomous on the highway. However, a human driver will still likely be needed in the lead truck for navigating small roads and loading docks. Expected around 2030.

          Phase Four: completely driverless autonomous trucks are on the roads at scale. Optimistic estimates say it will come sometime in the early 2030s, while the more conservative ones say it will take until the end of that decade.”

          • @thesilverstarman: Thanks for the October 2022 article about San Francisco's Cruise self-driving taxi.

            Here's an article from last month about how they've been colliding with buses, screwing up the transport network and causing accidents: Cruise and Waymo Self-Driving Taxis Are Terrorizing Transit Operators

            It's okay though, they're rolling out software fixes so it probably won't be a problem any more (probably!). That's the great thing about technology. It's reliable.

            Here's a fun little bit from the article:

            One other recording shows a Waymo car making a left turn at an intersection where it has a stop sign while a bus approaches the same intersection, where it should be able to progress without stopping. The bus drivers slows down to accommodate the Waymo vehicle—though Waymo told Wired this slow wasn’t necessary, based on the company’s after-the-fact virtual simulation.

            "We ran some 3D software afterwards and it turns out in the simulation we weren't wrong so stop making a big deal about cars running stop signs" says company that sells self-driving cars.

            Seems legit.

            Solid stuff, silverstarman. Maybe you can jump out in front of a few of these vehicles to show us all how safe they are now.
            I promise they'll either stop in time or the engineers will write another patch (and maybe dedicate it to your memory).
            And even if that (tragic) event did occur, maybe we could make an AI that just invents fabulous unfounded predictions about all the great things AI is about to do.

            • @CrowReally: And thats the point I made about AI not being reliant on the programming for every possible scenario, because it adapts and can learn. The technology you mention is nearly rendered obsolete, and that is the point Im making. Self driving vehicles were already close, but now this is even closer. Google, who owns waymo, is already incorporating AI into its self driving platforms.
              No need to be a dick either. You may be sceptical but tech firms, business and governments are worried, not because of AI itself, but because of the rapid growth that appears to be exponential. Its one thing to be aware, but adapting is another.

              • @thesilverstarman: Yeah, if you've drank the KoolAid that AI is magic and won't make the same mistakes faulty sloppy computer code makes because AI is computer code made by computer code, there's really not much more I can do to help you.

                Send me a e-postcard from your Star Trek holodeck paradise though, yeah?

                • @CrowReally: Seriously, you cant be that stupid? Its the use of algorthms that comprise the learning part, which are restrained by things like road rules, operating proceedures etc. Just as humans learn to drive within these parameters. Its not magic, but its a massive change that is leap frogs ahead of where we were even last year. I would rather listen to experts and be prepared and adapt myself now rather than get caught out.

                  • @thesilverstarman: Speaking of stupid, in your opening sermon, you revealed (among a great many other unsupported claims):

                    Humans did not always work.

                    Can you provide some further information on this? This is a new one on me. Who didn't work?

          • @thesilverstarman:

            last year, a trucking body in the US published a story about self driving trucks. Once again, this was before AI became useable in automomous driving. They expected it to progress as follows:

            "Yay, story time! And the best part about stories is they're real!" - you, I guess?

            When these things start happening in the real world let me know, Peter Pan.

            • @CrowReally: If you bothered searching, you would see that all truck makers have been working on this for years, along with companies like Shell and tech companies. There are plenty of trucks that have been driving themselves (with a human there in case of problems) in the US, Europe and Australia. Self driving buses are being tested in Australia, and have been visiting regional areas to display the technology.
              But sure, continue being a dick. I hope that your job is one of the first to be replaced.

              • @thesilverstarman:

                But sure, continue being a dick. I hope that your job is one of the first to be replaced.

                if only I could be as useful and productive to society as you, hey?

                oh well, maybe one day I too can build a 200-word-salad mess about how "humans aren't always going to have jobs and AI will do all the things and just accept it this is all real and not a prediction" and that will somehow be a 'contribution' to something.

                I guess we can agree that I'm a dick.. as long as we also agree that you're the exact opposite.

                • @CrowReally: Im no genius, but Ive employed hundreds of people and given back to my community. Im not as productive as I would like, but I spoend a lot of my time trying to help people. I get excited by advancements, and read a lot. I am in contact with a lot of politcians as I advocate and lobby for various causes, and I consult to business and government. So yes, I think I am productive and useful.
                  I can debate with people, but I try not to be abusive or act like a dick. You on the other hand seem to attack people, disagree with every comment and are just rude. No need for it.

                  • @thesilverstarman:

                    I get excited by advancements

                    So I noticed. I reckon you would have gone through a whole box of Kleenex is this thread alone with your city of the future visions.

                    Anyway, thanks for the (clearly solicited) analysis about how I act and whether there's a need for it. Maybe I can do what you want and act the same as you and then everything will be fine? Wouldn't that be a nice little treat for me? Why, I'd be living the dream.

                    Of course, then we'd go through twice as much Kleenex every time a Star Trek ep was on.

      • Why plan for a problem that still has not occurred? Have McDonald's workers been replaced by robots yet? We've had industrial robots for around 50 years. Surely we should have planned for the mass sacking of fast food workers by now?

        • +2

          It's hard to believe they'll ever be able to build robots cheaper than paying Maccas workers

        • Why brake if you haven't hit the car in front of you yet?

          Maccas definitely has less staff then they used to, I haven't seen each register manned since they put in the self-serve kiosks and the app. But I don't think they ever will be, due to the doorman effect

          But for most jobs that aren't service based, or are behind the scenes? Absolutely at risk

  • +3

    Where was this trialled successfully?

  • +18

    I agree with you. UBI is only a matter of time.

  • +15

    I'm excited for the non-staffed McDonalds. Might have a chance of getting my order right.

    • +2

      You get to pick the special ingredient in your thickshake sir… Machine oil, or spit?

      • Then the sign comes up they are out of Machine oil…

    • +2

      my last 2 orders from mcdonalds were incorrect.

      • AI robots will be programmed to be like humans. I hope you look forward to more incorrect orders in the future.

  • +1

    Automation, AI, UBI, taxes, drugs, …

  • +7

    It hurts to read this.
    TLDR

    • We need UBI but only if people go back to school and sort out their language skills. Then we'll work on the economics and math.

    • Your attention span is too low

  • +11

    I'd argue basic education is far more important. An educated society will have the best chance at solving whatever societal, environmental and economic issues the future holds.

    • +4

      Agree with this. OP shows you how bad education is.

      • Society itself does a good job of that.

    • I would hope both would be possible!

      I would argue that the current public education system does a fantastic job at preparing kids to be exploited by capitalism.

      Don't you think a social safety net would be great for those who don't or can't keep to the unrealistic, ever growing standards of capitalists hell-bent on perpetual market growth and accumulation? At the very least so our kids don't go crazy living on the streets.

    • +1

      thing is if everyone was educated and had degree's no one is any better off.
      education is a great asset, as long as not everyone else has it too

      • +5

        I think you missed the point of education

        • from an innovation perspective its good, but Australia is a piss poor country for manufacturing, and innovation.

  • +3

    A source for a number of your stated 'facts' would be useful and perhaps add some weight to your argument.

  • +2

    And I also believe in Santa Claus

  • -3

    Socialism has failed everytime. We don't need it by any other name.

    • +5

      UBI isn't that kind of Socialism but ok go off bro you are very smart

      • +10

        Socialism is the new Communism. Nobody actually knows what it is but they just don't want it :)

        • +1

          They'd understand it if they asked ChatGPT to explain it to them like they're five years old!

    • +7

      capitalism is doing so well

      <sent from my $500 a week 1 bedroom rental unit >

      • +3

        Look at this rich guy here!

        <sent from mobile in street >

    • +3

      Socialism has failed everytime. We don't need it by any other name.

      Ism's in my opinion are not good. A person should not believe in an -ism, he should believe in himself.

      A person should also understand what each ism means before using the words

    • +7

      Socialism has failed everytime.

      You see, this is the problem when you let ideology, dogma, and semantics get in the way of critical and objective thinking.

      You just say, socialism = bad, or capitalism = bad. But these are just catchphrases. The world socio-economic systems are way more nuanced and complex than simplistic words.

      As for your specific, and completely erroneous comment: various priciples of 'socialism', of social justice, welfare, etc have been adopted by essentially every country on earth. After all, what is a society but a mutually-beneficial collection of humans? Every grouping of people is 'socialist' to some degree.

      I find it difficult to argue that the countries which are the happiest, most equitable, those with the best health care and welfare systems, where their citizens live at the highest average standard of living and personal contentment, are the countries which have adopted the more so-called 'socialist' principles.

  • +2

    I wish ai could read that wall of text for me.

    • +1

      One of these days we'll be at the (based) future where everything is just LLMs talking at each other. OP will be an LLM, every comment responding will be an LLM, and there will be LLMs arguing with each other in days-long back-and-forth threads. And nobody will notice because the only 'conscious' entities reading the comment sections by that point will also be LLMs.

      The rest of us will be having fun with loved ones and touching all the grass. It will be glorious.

    • +2

      I scanned through looking for a coupon or discount code but all I could find was spam.

    • +1

      It can summarise it into a few sentences:

      Advancements in automation and AI are causing many jobs to disappear, which could lead to a decrease in consumer spending and a negative impact on the economy. To counteract this, some suggest implementing a Universal Basic Income, which could provide people with financial security and allow them to pursue other interests while keeping the economy functioning. However, societal attitudes of envy and jealousy towards those who receive a basic income may be a major obstacle in its implementation.

  • +3

    Who pays UBI ? Government
    Who pay the Government ? People in the form of tax

    Less people working = Less the govt will collect in tax
    Less govt collect tax = No money for UBI

    New jobs should emerge or this will be doomed. Another option is for Govt. to should tax these machines/companies that operate them and give free money to people

    • +8

      The work taken after UBI (which would pay less than they do now- essentially current - UBI) would be taxed higher- you work for extra cash, but that is taxed at, say 50-60% or so to cover UBI and government services and potentially no tax refunds etc, with businesses taxed maybe slightly more, or some kind of larger luxury tax or such like- the transition would take a while and probably be a little expensive for the government initially.

      People would probably move to part time work, be in fields they were happier in more than just get-by fields. We might want to put in some kind of semi-required national service like they have in Germany. Not necessarily military, but could be charity work, social service etc (like Germany).

      There could be incentives built in for people to become doctors, teachers and similar services we need as well. Works best if as many basic services are government-run like medical, infrastructure and education and there is rent control so that the majority of rented housing is comfortably affordable on UBI. Then the extra work you do if for nicer things like owning a home, a nicer car, little luxuries because the cost of living is covered by UBI. The amount of luxury you live in becomes a factor of how much work you are willing to do and how hard you worked at your education or your aptitude rather than your SES. There may have to be rules around investments etc.

      Is it an absolutely perfect system? No, is it an ideal that would take a bit of work at a societal level to achieve? yes. Is it likely to happen soon? Probably not as long as there are people more interested in "me" than "us" or even "them". A large number of people have to be willing to do hard slog for, say, 5 years to get it established, and I don't see that happening on a large enough scale for it to happen easily any time soon (you know, much like taking action for the climate).

      • -2

        How do you solve the problem that Communism always arrives at - where a large number of people are forced into 'us' and a handful of people act with the mindset of 'me' vs 'them'.

        The media is already controlled by a handful of individuals. Wealth inequality is already greater than during the middle ages when peasants worked for food and shelter and never earned any tangible wealth.

        UBI will cement the current inequality.

      • Why would the wealthy stay and pay tax rates of 50-60% on their entire non-UBI income rather than leaving the country?
        A lot of countries already have brain drain to the US as an example - would our services really improve enough to warrant such a change?

  • +1

    OP is exactly why UBI isn't going to work.

    If it is going to work there needs to be a totally new society.

    Simply put. Are we going to pay people UBI from taxing robots so they can spend all day at home, watching TV, play computer games and watch AI generated corn? Who is going to turn up for work in that case?

    Actual will have to be some kind of social contract: to get UBI what are you going to do for society? Are you going to clean up the environment (just picking up trash around your suburb is enough). Get healthy so you are not a burden to health system.

    Who is going to pay for a robot so you can stay at home and ruin your health so we have to rush you to hospital in 5 years rather than 30 years?

    Hard to fathom for people who think they are going to benefit from UBI but true.

    • You're both oversimplifying the issue, but also not proposing an alterative that addresses OPs argument: If you were a Grecian scholar philosophizing on the economics of empathy, all the naked men at the bath house would think you were pretty dull!

      • -3

        alterative

        Read again?

      • -1

        OK sure. OP's problem is entitlement and laziness. UBI doesnt solve that. But a mirror might.

    • +3

      What do 90% of people on a pension do all day?

      • -1

        I’d say they sit down and don’t do much because they’re too old to physically do much😩

        • the one's I know hit the piss/coffee/take aways 5 days a week and are loving life.

          self funded though

        • You retire at 67 not 80, the average woman will still have another 15 years of life left, often in fair health for the majority of it thanks to modern medicine

          • +1

            @Jolakot:

            You retire at 67 not 80

            You retire whenever you want or have to.

            You are eligible for the Aged Pension around about 67 (depending on your year of birth).

      • +1

        pension

        Assumption is you paid a life of taxes and you get some government support in your old age. It isn't UBI it is actually self funded.

        If you are going to start spoon feeding someone from say 18 years of age and they haven't paid any taxes might be UBI. If they spend their whole life on UBI what does society get out of it? Why would I put a robot into service so an 18yo can sit down watch TV, play computer games etc until they die?

        • +2

          The robot will be more efficient, do it's job without complaining and won't make (many) mistakes. It will never expect a pay rise, will happily take on more work, and won't need breaks. A nice dream for the wealthy business owner…

          • @smartazz104: Bet you they thought the same thing about cars. Makes you wonder why people buy Toyotas.

            • +1

              @netjock: Those horses got better jobs though, right?

              Right?

              • @JumperC: Never mentioned horses but that is a story that seems you are better placed to tell.

              • +1

                @JumperC: Neigh, they did not.

        • It isn't self-funded at all, pensions come out of general tax revenue just like jobseeker does, there's no separate pension fund that it's paid from

          And even if you were to argue that they paid taxes their entire lives so now they're entitled to pensions, then you'd still be wrong.

          The ratio of retirees to workers was 8:1 back then, now it's 4:1, courtesy of the 'boom' in 'baby boomer'. They paid for 1/8 of a pension, yet each worker is paying them 1/4 of a pension (on top of having to pay into super).

          Effectively they only contributed enough for 50% of a pension, but feel entitled to receive 100% of a pension. The first 50% is getting back what they paid in, the second 50% is pure welfare.

Login or Join to leave a comment