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

      • Tell that to the shrinking Gen-Zs+ who will have to look after the growing aging/retiring population.

    • Email has all but killed regular mail. Aus Post is now a freight company, and its stores are akin to sell-all gift shops, that will start to disapear. It wasnt long ago that a newsagent was a licence to print money. Now they are cheap gift shops with a small section of print media, and wouldnt survive without selling tattslotto.
      Now imagine that half of the jobs can be eliminated in the freight area and at the newspapers etc.
      In 2000, the newspapers got together to plan for the digital age. It was clear that newsprint would die, and they started working on the transition. They were looking at 2020 as the end date, and werent far wrong. The industry had huge offices with lots of journalists, photographers, etc and print locations with printers, typesetters, inserters, dock staff, and then there were delivery drivers, newsagents, paperboys etc. The plan was to start consolidating and sharing print sites, until there was one left in each state. To share delivery trucks, reduce staff (a journalist today is also a photographer and takes videos too), consolidate back office functions, sell sites and move to smaller offices. In Vic now there is one print site, One delivery contractor, and newsagencies are nearly a thing of the past. Online news uses resources from radio and Tv news, and overall there are but a handful of the jobs that there were 20 years ago. And soon, it will be less. Once the numbers drop for print, the site will close, and there will be no more trucks needed, and no newsagents. AI will also cut into journalism jobs. You dont need 20 people around Australia in different media forms reporting on international news - you can use one, and it doesnt need to be human. The editor could be the only one needed.
      AI might create some jobs. But the disruption it will cause will be a net overall job loss that Goldman Sachs said a couple of months ago would replace 1/4 of all jobs by 2025.

  • +3

    Famed free market economist Milton Friedman was an advocate of a universal basic income (via a negative income tax) in the 70s as a means of reforming welfare.

    I think it is a very attractive approach but (as Milton found when Nixon considered the idea) it is tricky to practically implement because politicians don't like there being any losers in reforms (even if societal wealth and even societal equality as a whole will be improved).

    I think the coming technological changes will vastly increase the importance of capital over labour but that's not certain. I think a UBI is likely if that becomes the case.

  • UBI will just make inflation very high and the UBI account will be basically worthless. I see it in a different angle. Back in the days only the rich could listen to great music. Now when the technology came to replicate it, it practically became dead cheap. All the stuff which gets automated will be cheap that'll cover most of the basic needs. So we won't need to basic income to cover basic needs.

    • UBI will increase inflation, but improving productivity decreases it. So…. See you’ve just talked yourself into why UBI will eventually be achievable and indeed necessary.

      It’s only inflationary if it’s not offset by productivity gains or increased profit taxation or more likely a combination of both. Clearly you can’t just throw a massive UBI in tomorrow because it would inflate away much of its value (it’s a mistake to think it would inflate all of its value because it’s only increasing money supply by a %).

      • Let's play this game where I create a currency and distribute to everyone for free. Imagine you're a massage therapist. Would you exchange your service for something everyone gets for free? I personally wouldn't I would exchange it for something valuable, something which is backed by sweat and blood. It could be gold or crypto or something else.

        • That’s a massively stupid example, It doesn’t matter what other people get for it if it’s finite. Crypto is a perfect example of something people pay for that others got for free, and it’s not even finite.

          The value in cash is that you can pay taxes with it, it’s all good to be paid in gold, but if you’ve got to sell it for currency to pay your tax….

          No one’s talking about infinitely printing money to create a UBI. Without productivity gains that breeds inflation.

          Sweat and blood isn’t what makes currency worthwhile, it’s being able to exchange it for something else.
          Plenty of people get cash without work, by investing or even welfare currently.

          • @JumperC: That's a very stupid reasoning. Why you need a free income if all your basic needs are met?! Why would someone would work to just pay a bunch of jobless people with shelter, housing and health care needs are met. If you are taxing the hardworking you're basically giving them no reason to work. Followed by a societal collapse (USSR). A lot of peole with such stupid arguments are walking around thinking they have it figured is the greatest threat to humanity.

            • @peekabooo: Why do I work past Monday afternoon each week given that’s how long I need to pay my basic needs and nearly half the money I earn on the last few days of the week goes in taxes?

              Think about this for 5 seconds.

              People don’t stop working today because they’ve achieved the bare minimum to live. People who think that will happen across the board are saying more about themselves than reality.

              Even most self centred people don’t deliberately deny themselves extra income and luxuries because working to provide them might inadvertently help someone else not be impoverished.

              • +2

                @JumperC: Now imagine, your taxes are increased (because a lot of rich people who could have been taxed left the country) now you are in country with less professionals working your ass off when you work 5 days a week government takes 4 days of your pay. Your 1 day of pay is only slightly better than the UBI. So you think why should I work, once you stop working government will have to increase the tax again to support you as well that will force many other to stop working.

                Take your time and think about it harder people can leave the country if taxed too much and it will end up like Venezuela.

                • +1

                  @peekabooo: As a rich person who has previously left the country to work in a poorer country. They’ll be back shortly. I don’t think you realize how much value there is in a society that is more stable and equal until you’ve lived somewhere that isn’t true. Sure you don’t pay much if any tax, but then you basically need to pay your own private security. You live behind barbed wire and electric fences, a prisoner in your own home.

                  Always the problem with people using straw man arguments they didn’t think through, they’re not going to be able to tax individuals to the level where they could pay a UBI. They have to actually tax consumption, something unavoidable if you want to live here. And something that increases with the efficiency that future productivity growth will bring.

                  If there’s any jobs to do the pay is set to the amount required to motivate people to do them. 1 day of pay could be slightly better than UBI and it’s still double the cash in your pocket. People have tens of millions of dollars and still work, sometimes even for free. People get more value from work than money.

                  Seriously take your time and think about it, at all. It’s the lack of taxation, welfare and corruption that causes Venezuela. People are migrating from low tax countries to richer higher taxed countries en-masse. It’s not the taxation rate that makes the difference, it’s what you get for it.

                  • @JumperC: They're leaving a poorer country to a rich country where everyone is given the chance to succeed.

                    • @peekabooo:

                      where everyone is given the chance to succeed.

                      They're usually more successful than the average person in said rich country when they arrive, that's how immigration is skewed in general, with a bias towards those more successful than in the destination country. They're moving to a country where they're safer and have more rights. There's a reason people complain they're driving up property prices.

                      • @JumperC: When country doesn't reward hard work and innovation but rather punish it (higher taxes) but rewards sitting at home and doing nothing (UBI). The effects are obvious extremely driven, ambitious and smart people will leave the country behind looking for better pastures (this is why USA became so rich, American dream!) another effect is that those who are hardworking but not capable enough will work less and stay at home or do the bare minimum. The opportunities will be less as the people who start businesses already left the country.

                        A fraction of the idiots will still work and pay most of the earn to support the ever increasing UBI recipients. That number will decrease as it's a chain reaction.

                        It doesn't take too much intelligence to understand it. But not everyone is lucky enough. Those people will still work and wonder what happened.

                        • @peekabooo:

                          When country doesn't reward hard work and innovation but rather punish it (higher taxes) but rewards sitting at home and doing nothing (UBI).

                          I think you're confused, who said anything about higher taxes and punishment? It's not punishment to earn a higher income. I'm sitting here getting a tax cut next year that will make no difference to me on a practical level whatsoever. And yet had that been redirected to others at a national scale, the whole community would be a better place to live.

                          this is why USA became so rich

                          The USA's 'richness' is largely a matter of geography. Per capita it's not all that impressive, and the average life expectancy is pretty piss poor. It's a great counter-example. A society that doesn't work as well for most of its citizens as the top few % would have you believe.

                          another effect is that those who are hardworking but not capable enough will work less and stay at home or do the bare minimum. The opportunities will be less as the people who start businesses already left the country.

                          Right, that's your opinion. But there are multiple actual real world studies that prove the exact opposite.

                          https://www.quantumrun.com/prediction/universal-basic-income…

                          For example, a 2009 UBI pilot in a small Namibian village gave community residents an unconditional UBI for a year. The results found that poverty fell to 37 percent from 76 percent. Crime fell 42 percent. Child malnutrition and school dropout rates crashed. And **entrepreneurship (self-employment) rose 301 percent. **

                          It doesn't take too much intelligence to understand it. But not everyone is lucky enough. Those people will still work and wonder what happened.

                          It really doesn't. I for one hope you get there one day. You can start with actual studies instead of what you think will happen in your imaginary universe.

                          It's not really hard to work out that when people who spend money have it, there are more opportunities for business than when those who hoard it send it offshore.

                          • @JumperC: All your studies you showed are fundamentally flawed because the studies are not conducted in a closed system. External money is pumped in. Sorry to break your heart.

                            • @peekabooo:

                              All your studies you showed are fundamentally flawed because the studies are not conducted in a closed system. External money is pumped in. Sorry to break your heart.

                              Do you consider the Finland study a closed system?
                              https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/public-and-social-sector…

                              Or is merely the fact that the whole world didn't try it at once the minimum requirement for it to be flawed?

                              By that measure our current economy is fundamentally flawed because it's not a closed system.

                              Essentially then, you're suggesting we need to actually implement this system wholesale to get any data?

                              No need to break my heart, I don't honestly think we'll see a UBI until we have > 15% unemployment at a minimum. Then studies be damned it'll be an anti-riot method.

                              The whole point of a UBI is to pump money into the system. So in reality it's less of a flaw and more of a design decision. Yes, if you want to avoid significant inflation you ALSO have to take it out of the system, but that's kind of irrelevant to the other shown outcomes.

                              • +1

                                @JumperC: Yes. It's flawed because the money for UBI didn't come from those 2,000 randomnly picked individuals. It needs to be a closed system no external supply of wealth or money and it's currency should be different as well. Give all the people in a village some UBI in a new currency. Print as much as possible or tax the individuals in that community to cycle it. If they print money their currency will be valueless (like in Venezuela) and they won't be able to afford any goods made out of their village and we'll be air dropping food to them. If they tax the individuals to fund everyone in that closed system but if the citizens are free to roam all the top people will move out (if it's island they will swim out risking their lives like from Cuba). It will be country of losers waiting for food to air dropped and they will be blaming capitalism.

                                • @peekabooo:

                                  Yes. It's flawed because the money for UBI didn't come from those 2,000 randomnly picked individuals. It needs to be a closed system no external supply of wealth or money and it's currency should be different as well. Give all the people in a village some UBI in a new currency. Print as much as possible or tax the individuals in that community to cycle it. If they print money their currency will be valueless (like in Venezuela) and they won't be able to afford any goods made out of their village and we'll be air dropping food to them. If they tax the individuals to fund everyone in that closed system but if the citizens are free to roam all the top people will move out (if it's island they will swim out risking their lives like from Cuba). It will be country of losers waiting for food to air dropped and they will be blaming capitalism.

                                  Right, the study in Finland was nationwide control based study. The income came from the country. This is the same thing, because if you gave the UBI to everyone but taxed it back from those earning higher incomes, you'd get exactly the same result.

                                  The source of the money isn't relevant in terms of the individual outcomes for any of the studies, those are explicitly there to prove people don't 'work less' when they get the 'external money'. The trial you are talking about with a closed system is the impact on the economy as a whole, which has a different objective. Basically even the small scale study is 100% valid if what you're studying is the effect on the individuals, not the sustainability of the system on the economy as a whole.

                                  It will be country of losers waiting for food to air dropped and they will be blaming capitalism.

                                  Yes, Finland is just such a country….. cough.

                                  I think you're really missing the point of where the incomes for countries come from and go to. Cuba faced massive trade embargoes, Venezuela is the 3rd most corrupt country in the world. The both have massive black markets and little to no actual taxation revenue from individuals, and yet, the life expectancy in Cuba is higher than in the USA. The main problem in both is simply government corruption and control.

                                  You're also missing that the people used the money pumped into their economy to start businesses and bring in more money.

                                  I think you also have the common misconception of how taxation works, taxation isn't a zero sum game, when you're taxing economic activity it's not a matter of taking from person A to give to person B. If person A sells 20x something to person B, and the government taxes 10%, person A has 90% of that. if the government gave half of that money to person B. They can buy one more. Again, now person A has 99% of the money.

                                  They can now buy something from person B, and so on and so forth. Essentially you can have lower total taxes if you have more movement of money, and giving money to people that don't have as much is proven to increase the movement of money (called monetary velocity). If you instead tax someone less, and they already had plenty of money, they might not spend it, thus you might need to have a tax rate 2x as high to get the same amount of money to spend.

                                  Essentially things like a UBI may require higher taxes, but they're actually going to be a lot less on average. And if you're starting a business you now have a lot of customers to sell to that have money. So there's more, not less opportunity to rise to the top of the income charts. You can see the results of this in the current economy, the government gave more money out during the pandemic, and now we have record low unemployment, despite booming immigration, and inflation because people have more to spend. Because the government is lowering, not increasing taxes, we're going to get some of those lower taxes simply eroded in inflation.

                                  'top people will move out'

                                  You're going to have trouble moving out if your income requires you to be in the country in question. If you want to go move to a lower taxation country, you'll find quite often that means a worse market for your business, lower incomes for yourself, more crime, lower quality of life. It's not just taxation that motivates people. Sure, some people rush to places like Dubai to earn a buck, but you'd have a hard time convincing a lot of people in Australia to move there just for the zero income tax. People don't just want money, they want a quality of life. You can't take a marginal extra amount of money to the grave with you.

                              • @JumperC: I think having a purpose is more important than 'your' freebies. An example of community a struggling can be observed here in Australia by giving a certain group of people free money and no purpose for life, guess which community is that.

                                We're already at a stage where hardly any of us actually need to work to produce all the foods and amneties we need due to industrialization. A lot of the jobs we actually have are meaningless fake jobs. More than 80% of the staff in most companies are not needed. We will just have to increase it by a little bit more.

                                • @peekabooo:

                                  I think having a purpose is more important than 'your' freebies. An example of community a struggling can be observed here in Australia by giving a certain group of people free money and no purpose for life, guess which community is that.

                                  It's 100% Ozbargain. :p

                                  We're going to be in a world where this becomes increasingly normal. Try living in a country where people have no jobs AND no money. You can't put up the razor wire and hire security guards fast enough. And that's still not enough to stop you being ambushed returning home while waiting for your front gate to open. At some point when people are told their self worth is dictated by their job, people begin to believe it. We don't give anyone enough money to live with any dignity.

                                  We're already at a stage where hardly any of us actually need to work to produce all the foods and amneties we need due to industrialization. A lot of the jobs we actually have are meaningless fake jobs. More than 80% of the staff in most companies are not needed. We will just have to increase it by a little bit more.

                                  We've added 3 billion people in the last 30 years, and 1 billion jobs.

                                  I wouldn't say we're at 80% of the staff in most companies, but maybe I've just worked at more efficient companies than most. Certainly the number would be relatively high if people put in the investment to replace them, but much of that investment is as a result of consolidation. Eg, automating out 1 of 10 staff members is much harder than automating out 1000 out of 10,000.

                              • @JumperC: No, not the point just to inject money into the system, it's meant to improve life, ensure people can work a little less and take care of elderly or be parents, ensure that young people have a roof over their head, reduce stress and worry for many whose jobs are not secure. It reduces crime and poverty, and increases health, education and well-being. It doesn't make people happy living solely off it, so most people will always want to work and have their little luxuries and holidays. It's only an income to cover the very BASICS of existence. There will still be NDIS etc.
                                But you think this is a prickly view, than the one that follows is the Modern Money Theory (MMT) where people like me believe governments can eventually print money (not willy nilly of course, but planned and calculated) without regards to deficit to pay for internal expenses like education, health, roads,… even the academics all scratch and shake their heads at the revolutionary thought. But my crystal ball tells me these things will all happen eventually. Just like electricity and toilets inside homes, seatbelts in cars, electronic banking etc. The world is slow to accept change.

  • Just pretend you are already receiving a UBI now. Everyone receives $0. the effect is the same.

  • +1

    There have been many UBI trials, but they're all testing the wrong thing.

    The trials are small, the people are not randomly selected (rich and poor get it for a true UBI), the participants know the money will run stop within a year or two, etc. No UBI trial has run long enough, and been broad enough, to see how society would change. Testing it on a few hundred people in a city of a million is useless.

    Yes, people are happy to receive free money. Ground breaking stuff from the UBI researchers. Couldn't have come to that conclusion myself without spending $50M on a group of people.

    • +3

      I think the things they’ve found are that people actually get more employment, not less, are in better health etc etc. They’re not testing if people are ‘happy’.

  • So who's going to pick up the garbage bins and mop the floor?

    • +1

      The robots.

    • +1

      Young man in this household we mop out own floors when we spill our juiceboxes!

    • +1

      Mop bot and bin bot most likely. Or whoever wants to earn more than the bare minimum which is just about everyone.

    • +1

      Someone who wants a nice car or a better house? So… basically anyone?

    • +1

      You know how much those people earn? A lot more than the UBI has to offer. People won't want to live solely off UBI, it will just take the pressure off them, ensure there is food on the table when they get sick or lose a job, allow them to take a risk and start their own business, take a risk and leave a shitty job, look after the kids and work p/t… I think a UBI will greatly benefit our society and reduce not only pretty crime, but stop many young people from getting into crime in the first place. Bring it on!

  • I think your post could have been a tweet.
    Communicating concisely is a valuable skill AI is adept at but some humans can't manage.

  • What the heck!? This sounds like a whole new level of entitlement and bludging off other people.

    • +4

      If everyone receives the same payment, how is anyone bludging off other people?

    • +2

      This is the kind of thinking that right-wingers thrive on.

    • please go outside dude you're getting worse

  • Isn't this UBI communism?

    • wait… communism is bad!! oh my god they almost tricked us again!!!

    • +1

      It's a level beyond communism.

      You're not required to work at all, that would get you sent to the gulag under communism.

      • I thought Greece's economy collapsed because of this sometime ago, right? There were departments full of government workers, from top to bottom, getting full paid but only a few ladies doing real work. Everyone were happy with their UBI until they milked it for too long and the money dried up.

        • There’s a bit of a difference between pretending to work so you don’t lose your government job and being able to start a business or new job because you know you won’t starve if you fail.

          • @JumperC: Different but the same.

            Bludging with pay in different ways. Same result with collapsed economy. The difference? One is corrupted and the other is government mandated.

            • @DarkOz: I don’t think you’ve thought this through.

              • @JumperC: I think you think about this too much.

          • @JumperC: that is a ^&%^& motivation, you got to fear to fail in order to put in 110% and make sure you succeed
            otherwise when thing get tough, you just lazy out sit on UBI

            you ever heard a story of a Chinese general send out to command a rebel army against the mighty Qin dynasty
            upon arrival he saw the soldier just lazy around and not doing much on the other side of the river hoping things just eventually end.

            so he command and lead them across the river to fight, their enemy massively outnumber them, before the battle he burned all the boats, he told his soldiers there is only one way to get out of here and that is victory, you win or you die there is no retreat and they did win the battle.

            it the same reason why so many migrants are successful, they don't have many options but to succeed in a new land, failure or retreat is not an option

            • @MrMarket:

              you got to fear to fail in order to put in 110% and make sure you succeed

              If you fear failing you're not looking to excel, you're just looking to avoid failure at all costs. Doing the safe thing, being mediocre. Because you CAN'T fail, you can't take risks.

              There are lots of stories of boats being burned by generals, Spanish, Chinese, Aztec. In the modern world they just tend to end up a pile of corpses. There's plenty of 'fear of failure' in the troops Russia is sending into Ukraine, with threats of execution to those that retreat. They end up surrendering or giving intelligence to the enemy to have their commander killed.

              Yet look at the worlds largest companies, Apple, Tesla etc. Started by people who found success from the 'safe' foundation of a stable family who could provide for them should they fail.

              • @JumperC: Apple was a failed business and they have one last option to do or die by bring Steve Job back
                and Microsoft Pump money into them to keep them afloat. It was their last chance.
                they invent the ipod with that money and the rest is history

                Tesla was building on previous successful venture, Musk in early days is very poor and in a do or die state
                when he found zip2, they are so poor they don't have a home, they sleep in their offices to keep expenses down, then he sold zip2, found paypal, sold paypal and found Tesla and so on and so for.

                want more business history? how about Amazon? Bezos left a nice high paying IT job to start Amazon and it wasn't very profitable and he in a do or die state as well, his office was run on bare minimum, no chair or desk like today, he has a light bulb so when a book sale went through it ring/light up so that give him hope to keep it going. No UBI for you to fall back keep going buddy

                they are so successful in a country with no UBI, give me a country with UBI and has found successful business? dare I say non exist so your whole notion of people starting successful business on UBI is just pipe dream and wishful thinking

                • -1

                  @MrMarket:

                  Apple was a failed business

                  It got pretty big out of someone's garage. Sounds like it was both founded and saved by people able to take risks because they had plenty of financial backing.

                  Tesla was building on previous successful venture, Musk in early days is very poor and in a do or die state

                  Again, all money from people who could afford to fail. No boat burning required. Musk started his original pre-Tesla business based on his family funding his life in the US.

                  want more business history? how about Amazon? Bezos left a nice high paying IT job to start Amazon

                  Again, you've got it in one 'nice high paying IT job' - All people able to take risks because of financial backing.

                  You're just proving the point.

                  give me a country with UBI and has found successful business?

                  You're deliberately excluding the reality that UBI and parental support are effectively the same thing except an UBI is applicable to everyone, not just those based on the circumstances of their birth, but in any case, there's only been one nationwide trial

                  https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/public-and-social-sector…

                  But other smaller trials

                  https://www.quantumrun.com/prediction/universal-basic-income…

                  For example, a 2009 UBI pilot in a small Namibian village gave community residents an unconditional UBI for a year. The results found that poverty fell to 37 percent from 76 percent. Crime fell 42 percent. Child malnutrition and school dropout rates crashed. And **entrepreneurship (self-employment) rose 301 percent. **

                  In 2011-13, a similar UBI experiment was piloted in India where multiple villages were given a UBI. There, just as in Namibia, community bonds grew closer with many villages pooling their money for investments, such as repairing temples, buying community TVs, even forming credit unions. And again, researchers saw marked increases in entrepreneurialism, school attendance, nutrition, and savings, all of which were far greater than in the control villages.

                  As noted earlier, there is a psychological element to UBI as well. Studies have shown that children who grow up in income-depressed families are more likely to experience behavioral and emotional disorders. Those studies also revealed that by raising a family’s income, children are more likely to experience a boost in two key personality traits: conscientiousness and agreeableness. And once those traits are learned at an early age, they tend to carry forward into their teenage years and into adulthood.

                  Basically, not only does it improve business starts, it also lowers crime and has positive effects community wide. These are key learnings as we head into a future where people will simply be unemployable due to AI advancements.

                  • @JumperC: again, list me a country where UBI exist on some scale and people came up with world conquering business?

                    all these dripple small studies in poor countries has not proven on large scale
                    it like someone comparing us going down like Zimbabwe or some third country because of our debt and QE and inflation.

                    the fact Australia and democratic country is so successful is because of their policy to drive people to work hard and profit and build something for themselves and at the same time has the current social safety net to get them through hard time so they can get back on their feet and join the work force again.

                    • @MrMarket: We're discussing something that doesn't yet exist on a large scale and likely won't until significant increases in productivity demand it. 'Show me where this thing that doesn't exist yet has already proven itself' is spectacularly small minded. We'd be all still sitting in caves with that attitude.

                      the fact Australia and democratic country is so successful is because of their policy to drive people to work hard and profit and build something for themselves and at the same time has the current social safety net to get them through hard time so they can get back on their feet and join the work force again.

                      Australia's success is largely based off digging things out of the ground, and the democracy largely exists because the other industries require a competent workforce.

                      has the current social safety net

                      You might not have noticed, but that safety net that has existed has been heavily eroded to the point that many people falling into it no longer have the ability to climb out, no matter how much they want to. It's a risk to everything that's been built.

                      it like someone comparing us going down like Zimbabwe or some third country because of our debt and QE and inflation.

                      ? What does this sentence mean in English?

                      • @JumperC: What does this mean in English?

                        that the same analogy you use on small scale studies in some third world countries or small-scale experiment and think it can be applied here on large scale and everyone can be on chill island

                        regardless on how some country get rich, it usually the policies that motivates people to work hard, profit and employ more higher paying job not the other way around

                        Africa has a lot of natural resource and Russia has plenty too why aren't they as rich as Australia? again, it the policies that reward hard work and protect investment that creates job that drive higher income per capita that then attract more migrants that want that piece of reward for their hard work and so on and so for like Musk with zip2, paypal, tesla etc.. etc..

                        Human are creature of comfort; we take the easy way out if we are given the option, would you go and work as a cleaner for $600 a week or you rather stayed home play video game and get $600 a week?

                        but all this data and countless countries that get wealthy through hard work the UBI crew will never accept it because we are default to the human creature of comfort, we rather get pay to do nothing than work.

                        ok enough of this UBI stuff, lot of waste time on unproductive argument, I better doing something more productive like tax return ;-)

                        • @MrMarket: I think you’re missing the point. The point of the small scale studies wasn’t macroeconomics it was the affect on people’s willingness to work. They’re absolutely of the scale that is relevant.

                          Human are creature of comfort; we take the easy way out if we are given the option,

                          This says more about you than other humans which have been disproving that for millennia.

                          You also fail to understand the whole concept you are even arguing against at this point which is breathtaking ignorance.

                          would you go and work as a cleaner for $600 a week or you rather stayed home play video game and get $600 a week?

                          This is where you prove you’re ignorant. This is an impossible scenario under a UBI. The person cleaning would get the $600 UBI as well, giving them $1200 a week instead of $600. There is already proof people choose the higher amount and work already, not in small scale studies but generational reality nationwide.

    • No I think the major issue with communism as it's played out in the real world is that it drops standards for society. China is a great example (although not really communist anymore) with the way their healthcare system works. You have only very very basic cover for free, anything more and you have to pay. Also when the government controls everything, too much corruption follows. You need damn good social policy, and a free market, and appropriate regulation. Getting the mix right is bloody hard, because everyone feels like they belong to some kind of 'ism' and struggle to deviate from that, or appreciate that if you take the best ideas from multiple, even opposing corners, you're more likely to have success.

      • No I think the major issue with communism as it's played out in the real world is that it drops standards for society.

        Also the 100 million murdered by their own governments was a bit of a issue, in my view at least.

      • +1

        China’s a bad example if you want to talk about communism impoverishing people. They lifted nearly a billion people ‘out’ of poverty. It’s a great example of terrible human rights etc, but it’s a showing nothing belongs completely to one system.

        The US healthcare system is truely third world for many people living there.

        Get the right circumstances and you’ll see rationing in Australian supermarkets…. Oh wait!

        It’s important to acknowledge the challenges inherent in all systems and all countries are somewhat a mix of systems.

    • Well I'm not sure. Did Milton Friedman advocate for communism? Because he advocated for a UBI via a negative income tax.

      • Perhaps he did, inadvertently.

  • There is going to be problems several decades from now but this solution will never happen as it just wouldnt work financially.

  • Can you make sure AI wipes out all those unproductive costs especially in building unions !

    • +1

      Won't need unions, the robots will be building all the infrastructure!

    • We've had 50 years of industrial robotics, yet you still need to hire a human brick layer.

      AI won't tile your bathroom or wire up your house.

      • +2

        not yet. But while robots replaced blue collar workers, AI will first hit white collar workers.I cant see it fully replacing people, but the numbers needed will drop. You could have programmer doing the work of 10 with AI producing code. lawyers replacing clerks and researchers with AI. Hospitals having triage and examinations using AI.1 person monitoring a screen with 10 self driving buses or trucks. Ubers are already being used in California without drivers, so the days of "Johnny Cab" arent far away.
        The advances in AI in the last few months are incredible. Estimates of when we should hit various milestones have been brought forward by up to 10 years. This isnt happening slowly. It is hitting fast. Look at the screen writers in Hollywood. Studios are refusing to guarantee that they will not use AI for script writing. At present they could do this with modifications made by humans and could save a fortune. It wont be long until the human aspect could be nearly eliminated. Even artists, designers, actors etc are in danger. And many are very worried, calling for AI work to be halted until we can catch up with the changes.

        • You could have programmer doing the work of 10 with AI producing code.

          Yes but then there will be 10x the code to be produced.

          This is the part people don't seem to grasp.

          When humans increase productivity 10x we don't do all our work in half a day then sit around for the rest of the week, instead we produce 10x the output.

          That's why we have all this amazing modern technology, instead of halting all progress when we got to wooden huts and fire.

          • -1

            @trapper: There’s a finite amount of things we need to progress and a shrinking amount of people capable of doing it. If anything the amount of code needed is actually shrinking over time, not increasing, while machine learning is producing the equivalent of millions of humans. As problems get ‘solved’ in IT we’re actually in a period of consolidation of previous jobs that aren’t going to be replaced. Initially there’s an increase sure, but eventually the top competitors buy or bury the others. Once upon a time there were millions of people writing e-commerce websites, but now there are many fewer ‘as a service’ providers. AI solutions will follow the same trends, lots of competing solutions before winners emerge. Ultimately it eats its own opportunities. Not next year, maybe not for 10 or 20 years. But eventually very few can do the jobs of very many. And three jobs that are left are changing adult diapers or PhD level which few can achieve.

            We increased mechanical productivity and put people’s minds to work. When we increase mental productivity to the anticipated levels most people will have little of value left to give.

            The productivity increases eventually lead to a point where we just have surplus humans.

            • @JumperC:

              There’s a finite amount of things we need to progress and a shrinking amount of people capable of doing it.

              This is not true at all.

              If anything the amount of code needed is actually shrinking over time, not increasing

              False.

              while machine learning is producing the equivalent of millions of humans.

              Also false.

              As problems get ‘solved’ in IT we’re actually in a period of consolidation of previous jobs that aren’t going to be replaced.

              Wrong again.

              • @trapper: Sure it’s the area I’ve spent several decades studying and employed in, but keep typing ‘false’ if it helps you ‘feel’ right.

                I’m the one writing the tools to replace people, and even I’m pretty sure they’ll need less people doing my job in the coming decades, much less the jobs I’m replacing.

                • @JumperC: Sure you have mate. lol

                  • @trapper: Can’t argue the facts so resort to a typical ad hominem response. Lol.

                    • @JumperC: Proclaiming to be an authority on the subject is not 'the facts'.

                      • -1

                        @trapper: Lol. I can’t argue people who are their own sole expert they believe.

  • +1

    I will only support a UBI if it is not means tested - i hate means testing support - the high earns pay more tax they shouldn't be means tested out of that support from the system

    The current energy rebate is a joke means testing to the point where almost no one gets help is pointless

    • +1

      Yeah, I think it would work well if everyone gets it.

      It would also be more efficient just to set a base level and not have to screw around with vested interests.

      The rest of the private market can then adjust how much they are willing to pay for private labour.

    • +1

      Universal Basic Income = everyone gets the same amount.

      • +1

        Ive seen ppl float the idea but want to means test it soon as they say means testing anything you lose me

    • +1

      I like a UBI via a negative income tax. So welfare is slowly turned off in a consistent fashion and (if the rate is set correctly) without too much disincentive to work an additional amount at the margin.

  • +4

    Have people just glossed over the fact that there will likely be not much changed except the loss of inefficiencies caused by the legacy welfare system?

    Those on long term welfare will no longer have to do paperwork and can be put to more productive use.

    Everyone else gets more money, but those on welfare just get the same base amount anyway. So in effect they get less as a total proportion, but it helps to promote UBI recipients to actually go out there and do extra work because everyone else is getting that base stipend too.

    Those who were helping people actually effectively find jobs will still have work. Those involved with simply paperwork will be kicked out of the corporate welfare system and back to where they belong, e.g. on the UBI.

    Furthermore, if people look at the math, it works, but most people can't figure it out.

    TLDR: Basically those on welfare still get their base UBI just like they do now, but everyone else gets a top up. This is effectively a reduction in welfare for those at the bottom but might be suitable as a base sustenance level due to the increased efficiency, e.g. Australians can now actually do work because you are not messing around with applying for jobs that do not exist.

    • +2

      No way that will ever work dude, Sky News said so!!! /s

    • +1

      Have people just glossed over the fact that there will likely be not much changed except the loss of inefficiencies caused by the legacy welfare system?

      The legacy welfare system won't be going anywhere though. Unless you plan to substantially reduce welfare (cut to the UBI level?) to some of the most vulnerable people in our society.

  • -5

    Here’s a scenario of how this could go. UBI brought in. Those in charge (TIC) want to pay out less in a gradual, non-obvious way. TIC introduce a virus that isn’t that fatal but terrifies the gullible into taking vaccines that will cause cancer, neurological disorders or heart disease down the track. Not everyone will get the deadly vaccine, some will get placebos so the gullible don’t wake up. Once billions have been killed, TIC gradually decrease the amount of UBI thereby forcing the gullible to have to work to live. And they lived happy ever after…

    • -1

      Does it have to be a virus? Why don't you imagine TIC invent a don't-want-to-collect-UBI laser and they bounce it off the Moon on bin night to spray everyone who's outside putting the bins out?

      They could then release "i-want-to-put-the-bins-out-hydroxide" into the water supply to make sure everyone gets blasted with the laser.

    • Sir this is a Wendy's.

  • Clearly whatever OP has taken is kicking in hard.

  • The global community would be be better place if US President Nixon had succeeded in implementing a American Universal Basic Income scheme

    Nixon , Family Assistance Plan - Wikipedia
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_Assistance_Plan

    The bizarre tale of President Nixon and his basic income bill - The Correspondent

    https://thecorrespondent.com/4503/the-bizarre-tale-of-presid…

    A missed opportunity ,one democratic senators nay vote killed the proposal

    Sent from my iPadLet

  • Universal Basic Income is a terrible idea and anyone who supports it hasn't thought it through.

    • +1

      What do you reckon will happen once AI replaces most jobs?

      • Technological advancements create significantly more jobs than those lost.

        More people are employed right now than at any other time in the history of the world.

        • +1

          Because technological advancements always created new industries, but what will happen when technological advancements do not bring new industries? What do you think will happen when AI matches human intelligence and even exceeds it? What humans can do? Yes, there will be people who manage or instruct (prompt) AI, but that will be possible with 10% of the current workforce. I would love to hear your ideas what humans that rely on their cognitive abilities will do in this era of machine intelligence?

          • @Mistredo:

            but what will happen when technological advancements do not bring new industries

            It you are discussing a scenario that has never occurred in reality, and there is no indication that it will occur in the future.

            So perhaps then we can agree that there is no need for a UBI either now or in the near future?

            • +2

              @trapper:

              there is no indication that it will occur in the future.

              There is indication it will happen with AI. There will be new jobs like Prompt Engineer. Actually, they already appeared. But many jobs will be gone, and there will not be enough replacements.

              So perhaps then we can agree that there is no need for a UBI either now or in the near future?

              It depends, but I agree it is not absolutely necessary for now. Nonetheless, I feel having it would be beneficial for our society.

            • +1

              @trapper: If you don’t think it’s a possibility that it will cost more jobs than it creates in the next 15-20 years you haven’t been paying attention. It’s not going to happen tomorrow but one of the reasons people are relatively well employed here is because we haven’t had big productivity increases in the last 20 years in this country. It’s worth looking at places like China where lower skilled workers are being replaced and employment is falling pretty hard.

              We effectively had a UBI test during the pandemic when they doubled jobseeker, introduced JobKeeper, removed mutual obligations etc. So we’ve already seen a situation where the government thought it was necessary to save their skin. It’s not some nebulous far far future idea.

            • @trapper: The internet, online shopping, and video streaming had never existed in reality, but people who could think ahead were talking about it and the impacts it would have on many industries, which happened as predicted.

              An intelligence greater than humans also on this Earth has never happened in history, but it is almost certainly coming, and soon.

              • @CodeExplode: Yes it's amazing how many new industries are created by technological advancements.

                What is crazy, is to expect the opposite to suddenly happen.

                • @trapper: The AIs will likely be able to do work in the new industries better than any human.

  • +1

    We all need UBI

    Like right now

  • +2

    Exponential ai advancements are happening every week. chat gpt has pretty much plateaued and hit hardware limits(for now) and most of it is open source/community driven(even google has acknowledge community driven ai advancements will outpace chatgpt/openai at the rate at which things are advancing).

    Governments can already see the writing ton the wall have already recognised change needs to happen and there were a few major meetings that were already kicked off in the past week.
    In either case, good luck having a productive discussion about UBI with most of the couch potato skynews watching mouth breathers that a good chunk of the ozbargain community consists of. Half these people are parroting the same right wing sky news-tier insults without even knowing wtf is going on around them right now . Posts like these are only good for entertainment on here. Luckily there haven't been as many advancements in increasing human mortality and these old farts will die out soon.

  • Another thought: the wealthy often say they aren’t leaving their wealth to their children because they need a reason to get up in the morning. Yes you can still work and earn more, but there would be a significant number of people who would be happy to stay on the UBI. Then boredom could take over and crime rises. Drug use rises as people look to find happiness. Could UBI cause apathy, depression, anxiety as well? Who would want to be a cop in a UBI world?

    • +1

      Free of the shackles of traditional employment in this capitalist hellscape, most people would find time and peace of mind to do things which bring true fulfilment. I’d still work, but only as much as I desire and in areas which interest me and bring fulfilment. I’d also be spending much more time immersed in nature and exploring. We would all be better off and this is indisputable.

      • +1

        Lol, what is indisputable is how ridiculous this is. How much money would need to be give to each person each week to achieve what you just said.

      • With hardly anyone working, how crowded do you think your explorations are going to be?

Login or Join to leave a comment