Basic income

[hellheaven1987]

There's lots of things that could use human labor, it could do a lot of good.

Just ask them to farm government land in exchange for food and living facility.

[Love Mountain]

Just ask them to farm government land in exchange for food and living facility.

Nothing wrong with that

[removeduser_487563287433]

Is there any interest in the Academy for a discussion on basic income? After the Swiss vote last year, India is seriously floating the idea of basic income

A quick summary of what basic income is for those of us who don't read The Expanse and haven't followed welfare issues lately...
Basic income is a state issued income which every adult earns. Essentially it replaces welfare and a minimum wage. Private wages are paid supplementary to basic income. It is paid for through higher taxation and streamlined government services. Estimates vary, but the most common estimates suggest approximately 35-50% personal tax rates (depending on the local economy) would be required to finance a basic income for all adults.

There are appeals for a basic income that bridge political divides.
It appeals to the right (and even libertarians) because it would do away with welfare and the need for a minimum wage. Instead the market alone decides what to pay people; and the massive government apparatus that manages, reviews, checks, staffs welfare departments is eliminated. In that sense it offers significant personal freedom, and trials have shown increases in entrepreneurial activity. It would also potentially offer cost cuttings for government in pensions, education and health care and of course, their overall wage bill.
It appeals to the left because of the base level support it offers to the most vulnerable people - whether they are poor or unwell, they get no questions asked income support.

Arguments against basic income show it could potentially encourage laziness, and then there's that high tax rate which just feels wrong for right voters...

My personal feelings on it are that it definitely offers advantages. But I imagine there would be a massive readjustment with how some jobs are valued. Who is going to want to clean toilets if they can earn 75% as much sitting at home? Although in countries with strong healthy welfare states, the laziness argument doesn't seem to ring true.




(usual disclaimer... I did look for other threads on basic income, but if I missed it admins feel free to merge!)

Automation terrifies me. We need basic income.

[Ludicus]

[QUOTE=Basil II the B.S;15247111So, the first mini expertiment (2000 unemployed) went bad. .[/QUOTE]
Not yet.Quoting,

Kela, the social-security institution tasked with conducting the experiment, says it won’t release any results until after its completion in two years.

----
Is Finland's basic universal income a solution to automation

Both left and right are promoting the idea of a basic wage for everyone, currently on trial, as a solution to the new world of work.
In 2013 Carl Frey and Michael Osborne at the Oxford Martin School predicted that 47% of jobs in the US were at risk of being automated “relatively soon, perhaps the next decade or two”
After years spent on the margins of political thought, the universal basic income has, over the past year, gained traction among mainstream thinktanks and some in the Labour party. It has also been backed by Silicon Valley, including, last week, Tesla founder Elon Musk.
Trials of UBI are taking place around the world, including in the Netherlands, Italy and Finland. In the UK, the Scottish government is considering pilot schemes in Glasgow and Fife.
Supporters of UBI say that as technology changes the world of work, the current benefits system is becoming irrelevant. A universal basic income could, they argue, protect the increasing numbers working in an insecure labour market and moving between zero-hours contracts and part-time jobs.

Well, why not, Industrial automation maximizes profits | Malisko Engineering

-----------

A future that works: automation, employment, and productivity - McKinse

Rethinking social support

Full or partial automation will result in labor displacement, and it will be important to support workers as they transition from one set of activities to another. As work evolves at higher rates of change between sectors, locations, activities, and skill requirements, many workers may need assistance in adjusting to the new age. This could involve providing support during transitional periods, for example retraining or income support.

While our modeling suggests a higher likelihood of labor shortages than labor surpluses, there might be people whose skills and capabilities are mismatched to the work that needs doing, or where wages are put under pressure by specific increases in labor supply (for example, within a geography, for workers with particular skills, in specific industries). In these cases, adapted social safety nets could help provide support. Various ideas have been considered, including work sharing, negative income taxes, and universal basic income (see Box 8,
“When some old policy ideas are new again”)

[DaVinci]

I have read first time in the 80s about the matter of the topic in future-scenario literature, and already since that, i'm convinced, that the one or other solution around the matter "basic income", independent of classical work-achievement, will be the thing in future. And it is thinkable and feasable due to the inevitable ongoing automation. Most scientists, which investigate the matters around the theme-complex, agree that humans in majority anyway feel a need for doing something. Most people wanna do work and be satisfied with what they are doing, and a seemingly (high) payment is not the first priority. So the argument, basic income which secures so to speak the monetary survival, would lead to almost a complete lazy society is pretty much baseless. And even with that part of humans which prefer lazydom, society would work further. One answer is also a way increased offer of "free time" options, which in the best case, make sense for the individual and also in the most best case, the society. A quasi progressed society on earth would enable the free unfolding of the individual, a liberty of choice, which but considers parallel the greater good on this planet or at least does no harm. According education seems to be inevitable.

[Col. Tartleton]

What we know about humans is that the capacity to create value is distributed in a way that a small number of people are completely incompetent to varying degrees and a small number of people are extremely competent to varying degrees. This means that some people can never accumulate wealth, most will struggle to do so, and some will end up acquiring most of the wealth. With no wealth, everyone is equally poor, but as more wealth accumulates it is unevenly applied. So that the least capable people continue to flounder helplessly, the average person sees some improvement to living standards, and the most capable people see drastic improvements to living standards.

Give everyone 100 dollars. Now, every person has a cost of living attached to them, so now the incompetent person is spending 30 dollars per month of the 100 he has left.The incompetent people will trade it away at a loss. They managed to spend 70 dollars on 50 dollars worth of goods. The average people will trade it away evenly. They have 70 dollars worth of goods. The competent people will trade it away at a gain. They now have 90 dollars worth of goods. They get another 100 dollars per month and the cycle happens again. At the end of the year the incompetent person has got 600 dollars worth of wealth from 1200 dollars income. The average person gets their 100 dollars per month, they trade value evenly and then spend 30 dollars per month. At the end of the year he's got 840 dollars in value from 1200 dollars. The competent people turn their 70 dollars into 90 dollars so they have 1080 from 1200 dollars. Now obviously these numbers are imaginary, but the point is clear, even if you give people the same amount of money and expose them to the same living expenses, the economically literate people will eventually become rich, the economically illiterate people will become poor, and the middle will grind upwards or downwards dependent on factors outside their control.

So even if we can dictate income we cannot control eventual inequality for merit. The incentive to work harder and longer decreases, but the incentive to manage money to build wealth does not.

It doesn't solve anything. The poor will end up broke and the rich will get most of the gains.

[Basil II the B.S]

Not yet.Quoting,


----
Is Finland's basic universal income a solution to automation



Well, why not, Industrial automation maximizes profits | Malisko Engineering

I think most people here are misunderstanding my posts.

I'm in favour of UBI, what I'm terrified of is to end up in a society where the rich lives of capital revenues from stocks, the poor lives off UBI and social mobility is dead because noone works anymore.

The whole idea of being free from the worry of having to work has a huge, dangerous disincentive to do anything. It'll be the death of productive minds of mankind.

[Condottiere 40K]

We don't need ninety percent of humanity; with complete automation, we won't need ninety nine percent, except for genetic diversity.

So, how do you think this will play out?

One option, Butlerian Jihad.

[Ventos Mustel]

What we know about humans is that the capacity to create value is distributed in a way that a small number of people are completely incompetent to varying degrees and a small number of people are extremely competent to varying degrees. This means that some people can never accumulate wealth, most will struggle to do so, and some will end up acquiring most of the wealth. With no wealth, everyone is equally poor, but as more wealth accumulates it is unevenly applied. So that the least capable people continue to flounder helplessly, the average person sees some improvement to living standards, and the most capable people see drastic improvements to living standards.

Give everyone 100 dollars. Now, every person has a cost of living attached to them, so now the incompetent person is spending 30 dollars per month of the 100 he has left.The incompetent people will trade it away at a loss. They managed to spend 70 dollars on 50 dollars worth of goods. The average people will trade it away evenly. They have 70 dollars worth of goods. The competent people will trade it away at a gain. They now have 90 dollars worth of goods. They get another 100 dollars per month and the cycle happens again. At the end of the year the incompetent person has got 600 dollars worth of wealth from 1200 dollars income. The average person gets their 100 dollars per month, they trade value evenly and then spend 30 dollars per month. At the end of the year he's got 840 dollars in value from 1200 dollars. The competent people turn their 70 dollars into 90 dollars so they have 1080 from 1200 dollars. Now obviously these numbers are imaginary, but the point is clear, even if you give people the same amount of money and expose them to the same living expenses, the economically literate people will eventually become rich, the economically illiterate people will become poor, and the middle will grind upwards or downwards dependent on factors outside their control.

So even if we can dictate income we cannot control eventual inequality for merit. The incentive to work harder and longer decreases, but the incentive to manage money to build wealth does not.

It doesn't solve anything. The poor will end up broke and the rich will get most of the gains.

Several problems with this line of thinking

1) it assumes everyone is starting on a level playing field, which they aren't. The children of the rich aren't inherently better at producing value than the children of the poor, they simply have greater resources to work with. The best chess player in the world will lose to a rank amateur if they start the game without any pawns.

2) It assumes that there is a direct correlation between ability to produce value, and ability to reap reward. At best, this ignores that there are different skillsets involved in producing value, and convincing people of that value (ex: all marketing ever). At worst, it ignores the fact that a LOT of money is made through pursuing opportunities that others would find unethical (ex: people like Martin Shkreli)

3) it assumes that those who cannot meaningfully contribute to the economy are therefore undeserving of a basic standard of living. The victim of a debilitating accident or medical condition should not have to rely on the charity of friends and family to survive, because those may not be able to bear the financial burden either, or may be unwilling to help, or they may simply not exist at all in some cases.

[DaVinci]

I think most people here are misunderstanding my posts.

I'm in favour of UBI, what I'm terrified of is to end up in a society where the rich lives of capital revenues from stocks, the poor lives off UBI and social mobility is dead because noone works anymore.

The whole idea of being free from the worry of having to work has a huge, dangerous disincentive to do anything. It'll be the death of productive minds of mankind.

Substanceless and kinda hystery, to say the least.

It assumes, that the human mind's productivity (and creativity aka the brain's capability) is dependent on "the worry to work" for a living.

[Basil II the B.S]

Substanceless and kinda hystery, to say the least.

It assumes, that the human mind's productivity (and creativity aka the brain's capability) is dependent on "the worry to work" for a living.

What is it based on then? You tell me. If not sustain yourself and improve your living conditions, which are a basic and natural human instinct from the beginning of mankind. The only fields that do not rely on those are the arts.

Because what you just said sounds similar to this:




Which would be a spectacular failure.

-Why would you self improve if you already have a living and there are no jobs where your newly learned skills can be applied?
-Help community? Why should anyone? Because people are nice? Some are but you are delusional if you think selflessness is going to replace selfishness with basic income
-Meet people? Again why? Networking is often necessary, again, for job hunting.

And finally, the last one which is what society will end up revolving around: enjoyment. Which sounds great on paper, but we already have chunks of the new generation becoming reclusive, spending their day playing videogames and nothing else. That's your future. The society of Hikikomori, because once again you refused to understand what moves human nature.

[Col. Tartleton]

Several problems with this line of thinking

1) it assumes everyone is starting on a level playing field, which they aren't. The children of the rich aren't inherently better at producing value than the children of the poor, they simply have greater resources to work with. The best chess player in the world will lose to a rank amateur if they start the game without any pawns.

The children of the rich either learn to manage their money or they lose it. Plenty of people win the lottery and end up broke. Even if managing your money boils down to paying someone else to manage it for you, at least you're creating a job.

2) It assumes that there is a direct correlation between ability to produce value, and ability to reap reward. At best, this ignores that there are different skillsets involved in producing value, and convincing people of that value (ex: all marketing ever). At worst, it ignores the fact that a LOT of money is made through pursuing opportunities that others would find unethical (ex: people like Martin Shkreli)

In the case of Shkreli those opportunities are created by the state or brand loyalty. Neither of which is the fault of the capitalist. The person who owns a good has a right to set the cost. You can't make them sell it to you for less, that's coercion. That's like when the US invaded Mexico, beat them militarily, and then forced them to sell half their country at a price they'd never have accepted otherwise. That's not ethical either.

3) it assumes that those who cannot meaningfully contribute to the economy are therefore undeserving of a basic standard of living. The victim of a debilitating accident or medical condition should not have to rely on the charity of friends and family to survive, because those may not be able to bear the financial burden either, or may be unwilling to help, or they may simply not exist at all in some cases.

The world is dangerous. Everyone dies eventually. Everyone suffers. That is nature. I think we have a moral obligation to help each other, but it shouldn't be a legal obligation to do so. Taking money from me to pay a sick person is different than me giving them money voluntarily. We can't be moral people unless we choose to. If we're forced to its not a moral decision. Its not a decision at all.

[Ventos Mustel]

'creating a job' is in and of itself worthless. The paid money-manager is not producing any value except for the one paying them, enabling the rich to continue being rich while doing nothing productive at all.

All law is coercion, and some coercion is necessary to keep the selfish from wielding their power against the public good (Shkreli quite literally holding sick people's health for ransom, the US strongarming Mexico into a rotten deal). The opportunity may not have been of Shkreli's making, but he is damn well at fault for taking advantage of it. There is a wide, wide gap between Legally Can and Morally Should, and unfortunately a large number of the rich are deeply invested in preventing that gap from being narrowed so that they can continue their parasitic practices.

[Love Mountain]

-Why would you self improve if you already have a living and there are no jobs where your newly learned skills can be applied?
-Help community? Why should anyone? Because people are nice? Some are but you are delusional if you think selflessness is going to replace selfishness with basic income
-Meet people? Again why? Networking is often necessary, again, for job hunting.

I've never had to network for a job. I find networking more essential for moving up in a company rather than finding a job. To be honest, my credentials are well below average for my position and I believe people are just being lazy. Basic income relies on the principle of selfishness. Those with Basic Income should want to earn money. Basic income is a supplement, not a replacement. That's the benefit of a consumer culture.

And finally, the last one which is what society will end up revolving around: enjoyment. Which sounds great on paper, but we already have chunks of the new generation becoming reclusive, spending their day playing videogames and nothing else. That's your future. The society of Hikikomori, because once again you refused to understand what moves human nature.

Have you seen cosplay girls? And I'm not talking about the land whales.

[Basil II the B.S]

I've never had to network for a job. I find networking more essential for moving up in a company rather than finding a job.

Lucky you.

To be honest, my credentials are well below average for my position and I believe people are just being lazy. Basic income relies on the principle of selfishness. Those with Basic Income should want to earn money. Basic income is a supplement, not a replacement. That's the benefit of a consumer culture.
Have you seen cosplay girls? And I'm not talking about the land whales.

I referred to young people essentially dropping out of society, spending their day playing videogames and nothing else. It's actually a big issue in developed countries and spreading. You give them basic income and you are sealing their fate.

[Love Mountain]

Lucky you.

I really don't think it has anything with luck. Though I am a progressive by nature, I have no great admiration for the unemployed.

I referred to young people essentially dropping out of society, spending their day playing videogames and nothing else. It's actually a big issue in developed countries and spreading. You give them basic income and you are sealing their fate.

I really don't think it is. There are fringe cases, but most gamers I've met are well-adjusted individuals. I would know seeing as how I was one of the more unhealthy cases. Severe video game addiction is a symptom of underlying issues, rather than a social disease. Is alcoholism a social disease? Is smoking? Is drug addiction? Note that I am not saying that addiction is not a problem, nor that it doesn't exist, just pointing out that many of those who are "addicted" to video games are usually addicted due to problems in their life and this is their coping mechanism. Video game addiction is no more a "problem" than alcoholism.

Now in regards to basic income and those who are "addicted" to whatever it is. That's a good point, I'm just against singling out video gamers. The challenge here is determining whether people need help or not. Some are stuck in a self-destructive cycle of alcohlism, others function just fine while being severely addicted... A radical leftwinger would say that they shouldn't be homeless and hungry no matter how little they contribute. I say that homelessness or low-motivated workers are a drain on human society and outweigh the costs of simply paying them to keep out of sight.

[Condottiere 40K]

Bill Gates supposedly has given away twenty eight billion dollars, a programme he stated he'd follow when he was worth about fifty billion; he now has something short of ninety billion.

Rich families remain rich because they teach their offspring estate management and money management. The ones that don't learn or are unlucky fall off the gravy train.

That's why the nouveau riche tend to blow through their inheritances in three generations.

[Ἀπολλόδοτος Α΄ ὁ Σωτήρ]

On the subject of basic income I think it's being prematurely introduced in some EU countries such as Finland. This is a potential solution to unemployment in a highly automated industrial nations as an introduction to post-scarcity economy, but the industrialised world is still decades away from replacing low skilled manual labour in large numbers.

I referred to young people essentially dropping out of society, spending their day playing videogames and nothing else. It's actually a big issue in developed countries and spreading.

A lot of people working low skilled jobs don't have money to often visit bars, restaurants or entertainment venues, home entertainment such as movies, tv shows or video games are cheaper, however this still isn't fully related to their income status, some people simply don't find socialization interesting or are have issues. If basic income would be equal to the salaries of low skilled jobs not much would change in human entertainment preferences.

You give them basic income and you are sealing their fate.

Those being born in the next decade have their fate already sealed if they own no assets or aren't highly educated or exceptionally talented. They'll be unemployable.

If a capitalist were to own a factory producing ie. shoes, and had a choice between 10 unpaid workers producing 25 pairs of shoes per hour and had 10 shoe-producing machines at a rate of 100 pairs of shoes packages per hour, the capitalist will chose the machines despite the fact that machines cost maintenance and electricity, they are significantly more efficient and capitalist gets to sell more shoes. Perhaps these business practices would be considered unethical by some, but if not done, their competitors will and competition will put them out of business.

[Basil II the B.S]

I really don't think it has anything with luck. Though I am a progressive by nature, I have no great admiration for the unemployed.

You are lucky enough to live in a country where STEM grads don't end up killing themselves because they can't find a job. Try Southern Europe, though Finland risks joining the group as well.
The fact that it's not your case is not really important.

I really don't think it is. There are fringe cases, but most gamers I've met are well-adjusted individuals. I would know seeing as how I was one of the more unhealthy cases. Severe video game addiction is a symptom of underlying issues, rather than a social disease. Is alcoholism a social disease? Is smoking? Is drug addiction? Note that I am not saying that addiction is not a problem, nor that it doesn't exist, just pointing out that many of those who are "addicted" to video games are usually addicted due to problems in their life and this is their coping mechanism. Video game addiction is no more a "problem" than alcoholism.

Now in regards to basic income and those who are "addicted" to whatever it is. That's a good point, I'm just against singling out video gamers. The challenge here is determining whether people need help or not. Some are stuck in a self-destructive cycle of alcohlism, others function just fine while being severely addicted... A radical leftwinger would say that they shouldn't be homeless and hungry no matter how little they contribute. I say that homelessness or low-motivated workers are a drain on human society and outweigh the costs of simply paying them to keep out of sight.

I mentioned videogames as an example.
https://www.theguardian.com/science/...f-men-zimbardo

The broad picture is this:
http://washingtonmonthly.com/2016/01...ing-white-men/
http://www.w24.co.za/Wellness/Mind/S...ciety-20141208
and
http://www.popmatters.com/feature/66...iving-up-and-/

This kind of social dynamics happens and strikes back. Where do you think GamerGate comes from? The issue itself was dumb and overblown, but there's a significantly bigger issue behind it and that's the withdrawal of men from society, often into videogames and often as a result of the anti-male culture pervading the mainstream media, liberal politics, the academia and education in general.

Why is basic income related to all of this? Because again if automation is going to eliminate millions of jobs, then it won't be just ''young males'' retreating from society. It'll be an enormous chunk of the population.

Basic income won't fix any of this, it'll become an incentive to remain marginalized from society for even more people. Marginalized and resentful, in a moment where social upheaval is already pretty high.

Those being born in the next decade have their fate already sealed if they own no assets or aren't highly educated or exceptionally talented. They'll be unemployable.


If a capitalist were to own a factory producing ie. shoes, and had a choice between 10 unpaid workers producing 25 pairs of shoes per hour and had 10 shoe-producing machines at a rate of 100 pairs of shoes packages per hour, the capitalist will chose the machines despite the fact that machines cost maintenance and electricity, they are significantly more efficient and capitalist gets to sell more shoes. Perhaps these business practices would be considered unethical by some, but if not done, their competitors will and competition will put them out of business.

Even the turn of the highly educated will come. Even investment bankers are slowly being replaced by machines. Then it'll be doctors.

As I said it before, my crucial worry is to avoid society being split between those who are born into a rich family and live off what you call ''assets'' and the rest living off UBI. Because if that's the case, then it'll turn ugly in no time.

[Ventos Mustel]

Society is already well on its way down that path. The solution isn't to kill the idea of basic income, its to get more aggressive with estate tax