Universal basic income

  • Thread starter Villan Of The North
  • Start date
It's an interesting concept which is gaining a lot of traction in the tech world. A bit part of that is driven by the fears that AI will eliminate a lot of jobs.

Personally, I'm in favour of it. A world in which human beings are free to persue their passions rather than holding down a job they hate would be preferable.

There is still a concern over the 'shit jobs' like farm labourers and low level retail jobs. I can't imagine anyone would want to break their back picking cabbages if they didn't have to. I'm not sure how you get around that without sending prices through the roof.
 
As the thread starter I'll reserve my comments until I've read the thoughts of others. I do have very definate opinions of this but I'm more intesrested in finding out the arguments of others and guaging the understanding of what it would mean economically before I tell you all that you're wrong. lol


 
I'm a socialist at heart, and believe in looking after those less well off than others. However, I have to take issue with the statement that the lazy, drunk stereotype for poor people is untrue. I have seen it first hand, and it exists.

I do agree the welfare system has it's problems. In particularly the point that it can discourage working. I suppose if there are some that will never want to work, no matter the system, cutting out the bureaucracy cost has it's benefits. Would it lead to this group growing, though?

On taxing the wealthy, I agree in principle, but in practice these are best able to avoid tax. They are generally more sophisticated, get better advice and can more easily move their funds abroad.

The video explains the cost of living in different areas very well. I pay London prices, many here won't, so would it be fair that we get the same?

I think it is one of those high ideals, that we could aspire to, but in practice, when you take into account human nature, it could never work properly. Maybe a hybrid system, part welfare, part UBI, with a more streamlined vetting process, could work?
 
This was my reply to a friend posting that video to FB:--

I really don't know where to start, that is such a simplistic view and the bias towards UBI is extrordinary. I'll limit my comments to just make one point, this one point should be enough to destroy the entire concept: The video argues that UBI would not cause inflation as there would be no new money created, just a redistribution (sounds like communism to me but that's another argument). My most simplistic rebuttle to this argument is that, whilst no new money would be created, more money would be spent, the video itself points this out when it refers to an increase in GDP. Here's the flaw in that argument, an increase in spending without an equivalent increase in instrinsic value, that is to say, things like infrastructure or increased production, will automatically lead to inflation, it's basic demand/supply economics. There are so many other good economic arguments against this concept that I'm shocked that anyone other than a dyed in the wool socialist (not the nice type that just want to look after each other but the kind that feel that we all have a duty to the state, see my earlier communist referance) or someone that has no understanding of economics would consider it.
Click to expand...

 
Well said, Ian. I forgot to mention that bit. They gloss over it in the video, but you are correct. An increase in inflation would be certain.
 
Of course, it can work in limited scales, like on Indian reservations, where tribe members recieve a so called dividend from the casino profits, but this only works because it's a few people surrounded by others that don't get the dividend and even then it shows the "lazy" argument to be true for some. It also works in places like UAE, where maybe not all recieve an actual basic income but all citizens benefit immensely from the vast oil wealth but it only works there because they still have a lower class of imported workers from Singapore and India. It will generally work well for the top tier in a two tier system but I can't see it ever working for an entire populus.


 
Looking at the statistics, it would be totally impractical to give every man, woman and child £12k per year. It would take up (roughly) 100% of the entire national budget.

Assuming that the AI revolution proceeds as Silicon Valley expects, there will be a lot of able-bodied people not required to work. We'll need a creative solution for that.
 
BodyButter - 11/12/2017 14:38

Looking at the statistics, it would be totally impractical to give every man, woman and child £12k per year. It would take up (roughly) 100% of the entire national budget.
Click to expand...

Not necessarily, when you factor in the welfare that is already paid and the cost of adminustrating it, everything from welfare payments to food stamps to tax credits, it's an expensive system to run, a flat rate might just cost about the same - ok som there would need to be some higher taxation but taking the eiture budget is not an issue.

Assuming that the AI revolution proceeds as Silicon Valley expects, there will be a lot of able-bodied people not required to work. We'll need a creative solution for that.
Click to expand...

This discussion has raged for decades. In reality people do not become redundant because of technological innovation, they become displaced, we innovate and teh ecomnomy evolves. We have centuaries to go before people are fully replaced in the work place and even then there will always be a need for human interaction and a basic need to work at some level, unless you want to replace the pretty barmaid at your local with an AI? Besides, if history teaches us one thing it's that our predictions and assumptions about the future are usually wrong.


 
Based off the UK statistics, the welfare budget takes up over 30% of the national budget and amounts to roughly £4k for every man, woman and child. Even with the cost savings on administration, you are looking at roughly the entire national budget to provide every man, woman and child £12k per year.

I agree about the AI revolution. It's possible that we may develop robots to do all of the dirty jobs but I'm not expecting it in my lifetime.
 
Don't know if I missed it in the video but I thought the idea was that everyone and their mother got the UBI even they were working.

I like the idea and I know I personally would still work but I think it would definitely give me more flexibility and given a bit more of a safety net. I suppose I don't totally know if I would change much I mean I'd like to travel and thats gona cost money but there are a few things I'd like to pursue and while its a little difficult there are things I can at least still pursue and balance with work.
 
I think we all like the idea of free money CDX, why do you think so many play the lottery but that's not really the point. So far I've only raised one (rather strong) argument against it, I could raise more but I don't want this to be the "VOTN brings up a theme and then trashes it" thread, I'm genuinely interested to learn other people's arguments around this, maybe I've missed something that will negate the inflation problem or maybe there are benefits that outweight the inflation problem (not sure if that's possible but I'm open to suggestions).

 
You must log in or register to reply here.