The Universal Basic Income Is The Safety Net Of The Future - General

[media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YX9T7GHs9fQ[/media] LIVE debate right now.

So, how can the US economy cope with $1.8 trillion of basic income a year at a minimum of $12,000 a year per person ? For reference that is over twice our military budget. That's roughly 10% of our GDP. We have survived and thrived with the rise of mechanized farming, which drastically reduced the need for farm labor which employed the majority of our country at the turn of the last century. The rise of technology destroyed existing jobs but it also opened doors for entire new industries that are thriving and growing. Personally, all the landlords I know would love this. They would simply be able to raise their rent knowing their low income tenants were getting an extra $12,000 a year.

[QUOTE=Ajacks;51997950]So, how can the US economy cope with $1.8 trillion of basic income a year? (at a minimum of $12,000 a year per person) That's roughly 10% of our GDP. We have survived and thrived with the rise of mechanized farming, which drastically reduced the need for farm labor which employed the majority of our country at the turn of the last century. The rise of technology destroyed existing jobs but it also opened doors for entire new industries that are thriving and growing. Personally, all the landlords I know would love this. They would simply be able to raise their rent knowing their low income tenants were getting an extra $12,000 a year.[/QUOTE] This isn't a question of how it will cope. Practically every job will be gone in the future. We won't really need use for money, except to make sure that people who DO work get benefitted then the people who don't. At least, that's what I think.

Here's my thoughts on universal income, I've always dislike this concept as your not earning it instead your giving it and something given doesn't always have the some merit as something earned. Although, That being said you'll immediately have more free time as you are no longer working allowing you to study more and grow as a person. [QUOTE=Ajacks;51997950] Personally, all the landlords I know would love this. They would simply be able to raise their rent knowing their low income tenants were getting an extra $12,000 a year.[/QUOTE] While effectively killing off the middle class because nobody can buy anything.

[QUOTE=windows098;51997961]This isn't a question of how it will cope. Practically every job will be gone in the future. We won't really need use for money, except to make sure that people who DO work get benefitted then the people who don't. At least, that's what I think.[/QUOTE] That would be true if population declined, or at least stayed at current levels as our technology advances. The only way to get to an eden where everyone gets everything without the need to work is to halt our massively expanding population. Which will not happen until an outside force is applied, simple human nature.

[QUOTE=Ajacks;51997973]That would be true if population declined, or at least stayed at current levels as our technology advances. The only way to get to an eden where everyone gets everything without the need to work is to halt our massively expanding population. Which will not happen until an outside force is applied, simple human nature.[/QUOTE] That's not really a problem. Nearly all of the developed world (the only countries that would be able to implement UBI) are at or just below replacement level for population.

if something like this doesn't materialize the nations that are in danger will become feudal states. Is it worth it to not do this? If you're rich yeah

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;51998024]if something like this doesn't materialize the nations that are in danger will become feudal states. Is it worth it to not do this? If you're rich yeah[/QUOTE] I doubt the elite would enjoy a non-UBI, post-automation world where a majority of people are in poverty and can barely afford their products. The rich become rich for a reason, the class system is a symbiotic relationship.

[QUOTE=Ajacks;51997973]That would be true if population declined, or at least stayed at current levels as our technology advances. The only way to get to an eden where everyone gets everything without the need to work is to halt our massively expanding population. Which will not happen until an outside force is applied, simple human nature.[/QUOTE] Said force is presently being applied. [video=youtube;QsBT5EQt348]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QsBT5EQt348[/video]

[QUOTE=Daniel Smith;51998046]I doubt the elite would enjoy a non-UBI, post-automation world where a majority of people are in poverty and can barely afford their products. The rich become rich for a reason, the class system is a symbiotic relationship.[/QUOTE] The rich just stay rich, in a different context. In a feudal state, they aren't really going to be worried at all, they're on the top of the pile by quite a lot.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;51998361]The rich just stay rich, in a different context. In a feudal state, they aren't really going to be worried at all, they're on the top of the pile by quite a lot.[/QUOTE] If I'm reading this correctly, you're worried about the top 1% or something living in cities where machines and robots do literally everything and everyone else lives in shanty towns on the edge of civilization? I doubt the rich would be malevolent enough to allow that to happen, especially since we would be fast approaching a post-scarcity once automation really kicks off and only genuine psychopaths would just allow people to starve. Most of the corporate evil comes from industries headed by old men who will be dead before unemployment and global warming really starts to affect most people. I don't see how the class system could just disappear, it physically cannot happen in any civilization no matter how advanced. Once someone is at the top, they will stay there until another force comes along and replaces them. However that doesn't mean ordinary people will or have to suffer.

[QUOTE=Ajacks;51997950]Personally, all the landlords I know would love this. They would simply be able to raise their rent knowing their low income tenants were getting an extra $12,000 a year.[/QUOTE] That's not how universal basic income works. Hell I should have quoted the entire post. UBI replaces a lot of current social programs, which is why funding it isn't as problematic as some people think it would be, and the return on investment is significantly higher so you're getting more return on the dollars spent. Wages for low-paying jobs would drop, but they'd remain at a level where people found the working conditions acceptable compared to the wage, instead of the current system where people have to work shit jobs so they don't die even if they're being horribly abused. The idea is to provide people with enough money to survive, but not live in wealth. That money is then put back into the local economy, because poor people can't afford to save money, they have to keep paying rent and buying food and clothes. That provides a constant cash flow in the local economy that makes job creation and investing possible. Under UBI, there would be no such thing as food stamps, or a lot of other programs. It simplifies the system so administration is no longer a nightmare.

Terrifies me to think what a mess when automation hits fast and hard, and crusty politicians without the faintest idea of the implications brush off solutions/stopgaps and just go "uh, work harder? find another job???, smh we survived the industrial revolution you'll be fine lol"

[QUOTE=Ajacks;51997950]So, how can the US economy cope with $1.8 trillion of basic income a year at a minimum of $12,000 a year per person ? For reference that is over twice our military budget. That's roughly 10% of our GDP. We have survived and thrived with the rise of mechanized farming, which drastically reduced the need for farm labor which employed the majority of our country at the turn of the last century. The rise of technology destroyed existing jobs but it also opened doors for entire new industries that are thriving and growing. Personally, all the landlords I know would love this. They would simply be able to raise their rent knowing their low income tenants were getting an extra $12,000 a year.[/QUOTE] it's actually 3.8 trillion dollars. Not sure where you got 1.8 trillion from (haven't seen the video tho.) 350000000 x 12000. Here's a pretty interesting post that explains how much we could get just from purging the hell out of our current budget. [URL]http://www.economonitor.com/dolanecon/2014/01/13/could-we-afford-a-universal-basic-income/[/URL] tl;dr, at our current level of spending, we can afford $4,500 per person, children getting a full share. [sp]whether parents get paid for the children is a big issue btw. this guy compromises in his estimate by giving the full amount, but the government holds some back for education.[/sp] But yeah, this'll probably disappoint a lot of people, but UBI isn't something we're just pushing onto the rich. If you have a remotely decent job, expect tax increases or at the VERY least your middle class welfare to be axed (tax breaks for mortgages for examples.) Especially because certainly the UBI would have to be bigger than 12000 wouldn't it? Good luck fucking living off 12k a year fam. Also administrative costs really aren't as much as people think (addressing this to other posters.) Food stamps come out to like [URL="http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/mar/19/michele-bachmann/michele-bachmann-says-70-percent-food-stamp-fundin/"]1%[/URL], social security is about [URL="https://www.ssa.gov/oact/STATS/admin.html"]2%[/URL], a lot of it varies state by state too. [QUOTE=Rudevinny;51999586]Delusional baby boomer politicians should be a dying breed by the time it happens, I hope. Basic income is actually being tested in Finland with some several thousand random people. Hopefully it turns out to be viable. Most people on welfare currently don't want to do odd jobs, not necessarily because they deem themselves to be above menial work, but it would cut their benefits so it wouldn't be financially worthwhile for them to do any work that doesn't pay more than their benefits already do.[/QUOTE] Welfare traps are a problem that UBI addresses. But it doesn't have a zero effect on increasing unemployment. We also just flat-out value our time too when coming up with our reservation wage and if it is unnecessary to have a job, there are people who still won't want to do menial, body injuring labour.

I don't see a UBI being put in place in the United States anywhere in the near future without a major change in our society and government. I can see the Northern and Western coastal states being more accepting of it, everywhere else will fight it because Socialism, Liberalism, and ETC.

[QUOTE=Bbarnes005;52000104]I don't see a UBI being put in place in the United States anywhere in the near future without a major change in our society and government. I can see the Northern and Western coastal states being more accepting of it, everywhere else will fight it because Socialism, Liberalism, and ETC.[/QUOTE] UBI transcends the whole 'left-right' spectrum though it can be viewed as 'right-wing' because you give people money and they can do whatever they want with it, it can be viewed as 'left-wing' because obviously you're providing everyone in their basic needs Also the U.S. was actually very very close to implementing UBI during the Nixon presidency I think you'll find most people support the idea, they're just concerned about where the money for it will come from and are possibly cynical of other people's intentions with the money