# Universal Basic Income -- has the time come?



## JohnG (Sep 5, 2017)

Interesting article in The Economist about an idea that has backing from unlikely bedfellows, from some libertarians, to the left, to Silicon Valley.

Reads, in part:

"Backers [of a universal basic income] make other arguments, too. Workers could take more time to train and explore different careers. The security of a basic income could boost enterprise, because leaving a job and using up savings to open a business are more palatable prospects in such a world. So is finding fulfilment in unremunerated ways.

A basic income could also help to right certain old injustices. Women do the lion’s share of the world’s unpaid labour. In most of the world, they work more hours a day than men do, but command a lower share of financial resources, largely because they take on more unpaid child care and responsibilities for the family home. A universal basic income would shift purchasing power toward people who do work which, though valuable to society, is not rewarded financially.

As well as offering the possibility of a simpler and perhaps fairer welfare state, supporters of a universal basic income say it answers fears that paid work will break down as a mechanism for distributing purchasing power. In recent years, across many rich economies, the wages earned by the typical worker have grown pitifully slowly—and by less than GDP per person (see chart 2)." -- The Economist

https://www.economist.com/news/brie...-citizens-are-being-heard-more-widely-sighing


----------



## Maxime Luft (Sep 5, 2017)

If a universal income is given to everyone, including the working poors, homeless, business men and the middle class, inequalities will remain. Won't they?

I think the time has come to reduce ever greater income disparities.


----------



## JohnG (Sep 5, 2017)

Maxime Luft said:


> If a universal income is given to everyone, including the working poors, homeless, business men and the middle class, inequalities will remain. Won't they?



I've never seen UBI presented primarily to erase income disparity, though it would help the poorest. 

Supporters of UBI offer a long list of benefits (a bit too long to summarise) but they include: freedom from fear of starvation and being homeless, compensation for "unpaid" labour that benefits society such as taking care of children, and the possibility for people to become mini-entrepreneurs (paid while tinkering).

Maybe specifically, I see the main benefit as providing something for "surplus" workers. An increasing number of people simply won't be able to participate in decent-paying jobs, as those jobs require greater education and other skills that aren't easily acquired. Besides, if AI takes off, the mechanization that has cost so many their jobs may look mild.


----------



## ghostnote (Sep 5, 2017)

I've been saying on these forums a couple of times that something like unconditional income will come and that it's unavoidable. So as a couple of high paid managers from global corporations and top economists from left AND right. I've been labeled communist...

Yes it's controversial, that's why I think in these times, with this mindset, it'll take at least 50-100 years to shift into it. And to everyone who thinks it's not affordable to give everyone a monthly income: If you cancel pensions and all the other expenses which are part of the social programms of a state, then it's pretty much doable.

However, this is not about inequalities, or just a socialist dream idea. It's something necessary to keep the capitalist system alive we live in.



Even Elon Musk thinks the same:


----------



## gamma-ut (Sep 5, 2017)

UBI looks to be a good idea on the surface but I would argue that recent political events do not bode well for the idea. In the UK, tax credits are used to subsidise wages for low-earners. In practice, the credits subsidise employers as they avoid having to pay a reasonable wage to their workers. UK voted Brexit on the basis that the political class had forsaken them.

In the US, the number of men out of work but not seeking employment has steadily risen since the 1950s - it's covered in the book Men Without Work. So, even though unemployment as measured by the statistics office is very low, the number of non-employed people remains quite high. The US voted for Trump as a protest against the political classes.

Society will need something. I am far from convinced UBI offers the answer.


----------



## aumordia (Sep 5, 2017)

Can we please stop with the utopian schemes? Or at the very least, please conduct it on some small scale and give it a while to see how it turns out. I'm reaaaaally sick of the whole "hey that sounds like a great idea! Let's force it on the whole world!" ***creates communist hellscape*** "Huh that's not what the theory said should happen!" thing.

EDIT: And that's assuming good intentions, which, for many of the average joes pondering this scheme, is certainly the case. But as for the amazon/wal-mart/etc oligarchs and their entourage, this smells like "Hey sorry we sent all your jobs overseas and broke the back of labor with mass immigration and destroyed your communities... how about we pacify you with handouts so that you don't get upset and actually make the world better for yourselves? Because that would be Bad For Business, and we can't have that!"

There are a TON of things we can do to secure meaningful, remunerative work for the vast majority of our citizens, we'll just have to give up the cult of the infinite GDP and get a big hanky for Warren Buffet and George Soros to cry into.


----------



## erica-grace (Sep 5, 2017)

Well, that takes away the incentive for people to work hard, to invent, to create, to try and stand out, to try and make a difference in this world. I am not saying that we should keep our feet on the heads of the poor - no. Society should try and do something there. But income equality for all? Sorry, that is not the answer.


----------



## JohnG (Sep 5, 2017)

Those urging UBI are not utopians or advocating income equality. In fact, people who normally seem to be in radically different camps have urged it -- from conservatives and libertarians to lefties.

Globalisation is not going away, and trying to legislate it out of existence seems to be both very hard, and full of unexpected (and undesirable) artifacts. It's like squeezing a balloon -- if you pinch one place it bulges out unexpectedly in another. 

Even with Republicans everywhere in the US, there doesn't seem to be consensus on how to restore manufacturing which, while appealing, is like trying to fight gravity. If wages are 100% higher in one country, labour intensive jobs are going to move somewhere else, whatever you try to do. Import tariffs may shield an industry temporarily, but they cost consumers in the form of higher prices _and_ keep capital tied up in industries that are not competitive. And that's ignoring the possibility of retaliation or other unwelcome responses.

The list of issues UBI is meant to address include:

*1. Dislocated worker*s -- pro-trade economists alway argue that the "gains from trade are so great that the winners should be willing to compensate the losers." Except that never seems to happen, and even when it does, government has not demonstrated a keen ability to retrain workers for what they really need. UBI in part would address this issue of left-behinds in former manufacturing regions. Instead of the government having to guess what those workers could do, they figure it out themselves through the private sector, while not starving.

*2. Trapped workers* -- one fallout from UBI is to enable workers in dead-end jobs to take a risk and start a business without facing total loss of support. New ideas have to have space to germinate, and successful ones benefit the entire economy.

*3. Who deserves benefits, and what should they be?* -- most people in rich countries are ready to help "those in need," but inevitably there is disagreement on who is really in need and, even if they are, how much and what sort of aid they should get. The state deciding what kind of benefits people should receive implies that a legislator knows better than an individual what's good for him or her. Programs like food stamps or other "give people stuff instead of money" are decried by economists (and conservatives) who argue that individuals are best suited to making optimal decisions for themselves; it may _seem_ sensible to restrict people to food only (and certain kinds of food) but perhaps the best thing is for that person to move to another place that has more jobs? In that case, cash is king.

*4. Benefits tie people down in economically depressed places *-- The means by which benefits are distributed can anchor people to economically depressed regions. Most food stamp and similar benefits are tied to location in the US -- your state or even county administers them and drops you if you move. If you move, even for good reasons (staying with relative far away to look for work), you can lose your benefits or find them suspended for months until you qualify for benefits in a new location. Poor people can't often risk six months with no income.


----------



## ghostnote (Sep 5, 2017)

There are already regional tests going on in Finland and (correct me if I'm wrong) in Switzerland. Mind you we're talking here about a very low income to cover the basic needs, so the necessity for a real job would still be there. And that's also what different scientific researches on this matter showed: People would still want to work.


----------



## muk (Sep 5, 2017)

There are no regional tests in Switzerland that I knew of. But there was a democratic vote in Switzerland in 2016 on the question if there should be a UBI for all Swiss citizens. The vote ended with 23.1% yes and 76.9% no. Most commentators speculated that what cost the initiators the most votes was that they couldn't present a concept how the UBI would be funded. They had some rough ideas (higher VAT and no costs for social programs anymore, mostly), but few were taking their word for it that it is indeed fundable. For Switzerland clearly the time hasn't come yet, but it was an interesting public debate and maybe it set some things in motion.


----------



## chimuelo (Sep 5, 2017)

It's a great step as automation and AI are going to harm world economies.
There's no avoiding this.
The problem in the USA is the ruling class elites want you removed from the work force in exchange for free stuff.
This is because it makes their numbers appear better, and they can be counted for a vote now.
They really don't care if comfortable poverty works or not.

If you could get a base pay as a safety net, then work harder for extra income this makes you productive, plus dignity is rewarding knowing the harder you choose to work, the more prsperous you become.

Liberal social programs ruined millions of American families with their penalties for working.
Turned decent people down on their luck into unproductive, uneducated dependents.

But hey, vote for me, you'll get more Big Macs and fries....


----------



## aumordia (Sep 5, 2017)

We can't raise the minimum wage, we can't make sure companies pay it (as in, you wanna send jobs overseas? fine, but you still have to pay OUR minimum wage to sell to US, and meet OUR safety and environmental regs, etc), we can't make iphones in california in intel cpu's in arizona... a whole long list of things we apparently can't do.

Oh, but we CAN give everybody a "sorry for your loss" stipend? All 300 million of us? Just wave the magic wand, right? What a transparent crock. UBI isn't a new concept, this is just Manoralism all over again, and the new lords are Jeff Bezos, Carlos Slim, etc. 

There is SO MUCH we can do to improve the lives of working people in America, but it will come at the expense of the cult of infinite economic growth. The GDP and the general welfare are not the same thing, and UBI is just a hack to keep the GDP up while glossing over the harm that an obsession with economic growth has inflicted on our countrymen.

Sure, keep pushing for UBI, because the next step is to put everyone except the oligarchs and their coterie on UBI and nothing else. A few fat cats on top, huge masses on subsistence below -- call it whatever you want on paper, in practice, this is serfdom.


----------



## JohnG (Sep 5, 2017)

no need to get mad about it, though of course the situation is upsetting today and probably getting more so.

It's a valid question as to whether UBI would offer a superior solution to the social support today, which is expensive already. Maybe it would and maybe it wouldn't, but I'm not sure the current system is going to be sustainable either. I don't see how things get better for workers with AI coming at us, and robots / mechanization have already wiped out most of the manufacturing jobs in the US so far, including in areas like mining.

The idea that all the jobs are "shipped overseas" makes a great rallying cry, but it appears that job losses stem much more from automation than relocation.

Everyone understands that UBI would have to be subsistence, not luxury, or it would kill incentives. However, it would address some problems that conservatives talk a lot about. Many feel that today's setup is wasteful and that there's too much fraud, plus it takes a lot of civil servants to monitor who's getting what with so many different programmes, each with its own rules.

So the idea is not to add this on top, but to acknowledge that we either have to spend (in the US for sure) a lot more on education, including for people beyond age 18, or provide people with at least a bare minimum.

If you object to Jeff B and Carlos S, that's fair enough, but what does society do about it? Placing very high (90%? 70%?) marginal tax rates on people like that causes other problems, as was seen in France just recently.

An issue against UBI is that work provides a lot more than just money. Something to do, a role in society, an answer to "who are you?" and pride. Pretty tough to replicate those.


----------



## ghostnote (Sep 5, 2017)

Thanks for clarifying muk.

Again, UBI is not THE answer, it's just one answer to the problems coming in the next few decades. However, In the end you can turn everything around as much as you want, without regulations of the free market there's no way of 1.)Keeping the current capitalistic system alive and 2.)Let everyone benefit from it. Ludwig Erhard once said: "As much market as possible and only as much state as necessary." The free market is important, but it needs to be regulated by the state.


----------



## chimuelo (Sep 5, 2017)

ghostnote said:


> Thanks for clarifying muk.
> 
> Again, UBI is not THE answer, it's just one answer to the problems coming in the next few decades. However, In the end you can turn everything around as much as you want, without regulations of the free market there's no way of 1.)Keeping the current capitalistic system alive and 2.)Let everyone benefit from it. Ludwig Erhard once said: "As much market as possible and only as much state as necessary." The free market is important, but it needs to be regulated by the state.



Exactly.

Most people know this and history proves it true.
Politicians are not the answer.
They are simply lawyers for investors in Washington DC's control of trillions in revenue, mere mouthpieces.
Why would HRC get millions for "speaking" (basically means lying in Liberal speak) or Obama race off to party with billionaire investors the day after leaving office, or 400,000 dollars for another speech we don't get to read without a FOIA Request.

Billionaires and CEOs need to remove these parasites and leeches, then fix the mess these lying bastards have created.
People with vision can address these matters.
Not middlemen seeking bribes and cash for themselves...


----------



## synthpunk (Sep 5, 2017)

"All in all you're just another brick in the Wall"


----------



## NoamL (Sep 5, 2017)

I don't understand UBI. What keeps grocery stores, gas stations, and landlords from just raising the price of everything?


----------



## gsilbers (Sep 5, 2017)

ive been following this trend for a while and offer a few thoughts. 

The idea when it came out was as an answer for automation, which displaced workers. 

Within the above statement there a couple of issues. We have been living in a capitalist world since USSR came down. 
And within that realm, the notion of workers being replaced by automated machines falls in the idealogy that those workers need to get new skills that require more knowledge of new jobs. Programming, AI, math, solar power etc to they can succeed in a free marketplace. 

At the same time, there havent been a bigger difference between rich and poor and the trend still being the rich get richer and poor poorer since the early 20th century. In the 50-70s the US had a much little difference between rich and poor and was considered a great time for americans as a one man salary provided a house, car and for wife and kids. 

Somehow, there has been a displacement of power and money over the 70s until now. which i believe is due to globalization. Just see the buldings and life quality in China, mexico, chile and so on. AMerican suddenly are not a 1st world anymore than any other city in anypart of the world. (at least most cities). 

Over the past 30-40 years, corporations , via lobbying and other methods wanted to expand to other markets and make things for cheap. All the factory jobs went to china as well as the money to pay for those jobs that eventually bailed out washington and wall street. they got enought money now to buy those products that once were reserve for americans EU and japan. 

So now we see again the corporations creating AI and the turn of this century suddenly automation and technology being the main power players with little personal take over industries who had plenty of jobs. those new tehc companies need cash and stock holders as they reap the investments to make products cheaper for people to buy them across the globe. And with more displaced workers, less money to buy those goods and services. And therefore we reach to this issue of universal basic income. 

The previous generations who fought communism and those cry fowl about giving "free" money to others who dont deserve it have a point which is based on the marx idealogy which we have seen over and over again that it doesnt work. But that marxist idealogy was born from days past where labor was a big "thing" but now its machines doing it for us. So that mixes things up. Yet there is still , in the most basic nature, they have a point. 

IF suddenly we instituded full universal basic income then why I would for example, keep doing my patches and kontakt instruments while i could be drinking senseless with my friends? My soundsets and kontakt instruments (company in general) pays for other services like marketing, computer, etc while dirking at the bar with my friends doesnt. 
And thats the botton line fear. legalized weed+UBI= fall of society.  
I mean, its basic income, and that means that if i want to work ill get more. but it would all depend on what that "basic income" means. would it provide shelter food and a few other things? then its more than enough for a lot of people.

With all what i wrote above, we are still going for a utopian scenario. one where a robot will work for us and we get money and services. But the main problem still remains. Companies are paying top dollar to lobby for laws that help them and not their workers or the population. So it might turn out that basic income means that it will help out to "live" maybe in precarious conditions because thats there would not be any work or your little hobby wont really pay off. 

And i think this is where there is a problem in ideology. The goverments intervene smoehow no matter what, even within a free market place the US and EU place market rules. These rules help on a fair game. Lower or assist student loans, give rules for corporation to be accountable and so on. So if these corporations lobby so hard and have made it so in the past 30 years that moeny comes out of US and EU and goes elsewhere, then why would they want to share what their robots are making? And if goverments DO force corporations to pay up huge taxes then they go elsewhere and we dont have the robot/automatino to pay us.

Bill gates was proposing to tax these robots and every jobs that gets automated then give those poeple the money somehow. and the whole notion of UBI is cool in a utopian world but as i mentioned before if i prefer driking than working hard, then my son would rather not go to harvard or programmoing school so learn something usefull for society. he too, will want to drink and smoke when he turns 18 and so on. But maybe there is poeple that WANT to work hard and learn and be productive, then we will have a much much income inequality which will lead to a whole lotta other issues. 

I DO like the idea of UBI, but there are still a few kinks to resolve. Like what would be % of population that would just quit their jobs and do nothing all day besides whatch tv and drink.
And in a way help find a more clearer way to differentiate UBI from communism. 

http://basicincome.org/basic-income/faq/

second post:
https://www.quora.com/Is-universal-basic-income-a-form-of-Communism


----------



## gsilbers (Sep 5, 2017)

NoamL said:


> I don't understand UBI. What keeps grocery stores, gas stations, and landlords from just raising the price of everything?



why do think those prices will get raised?


----------



## NoamL (Sep 5, 2017)

I'm not sure @gsilbers , it seems intuitive. For example the government offers financial aid for students, and colleges seem to have raised tuition to "include" finaid.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Sep 5, 2017)

I like the idea of a UBI in the abstract until I start thinking about all the details - mainly how it's paid for. And I don't see the value in replacing very successful programs like TANF with a check. It sounds good to libertarians because the evil government won't be helping people manage their lives, but a lot of people really do need help managing their lives for one reason or another.

UBI also isn't a solution to the nonexistent problem of robots taking jobs. If you lose your job, say to autonomous trucks (which I don't believe are coming anytime soon anyway), your problem isn't solved with $12,500 a year instead of $80,000 or whatever. Apparently it's very hip to talk about UBI in Silicon Valley, but it's just a big distraction as far as I'm concerned.

The real issue *is* inequality. We need to think about predistribution and redistribution, and I'm very much in favor of the government being the employer of last resort so that everyone who wants to work has a job. The problems we need to solve are here today.

Of course, this is all moot in the current political tragedy. The Rs have been destroying everything in sight and creating problems, certainly not even pretending to try and solve them.


----------



## Iskra (Sep 5, 2017)

'A state that can give you everything you need can also take everything you've got"
Don't remember who said that, and I think the quote was related to Soviet communism. I'm in Europe and we don't see communism as a bad thing per se, but just by judging the results achieved by soviets, UBI sounds frightening closer to that, at least on paper. Sounds too close to the ultimate 'Bread and circus' to me. 'UBI and Internet connection'
UBI is also debated here by strong left wing parties, and with the same kind of arguments, first is always preserve people from starvation because of poverty (which increased obviously during the crisis). Truth is that no one dies of starvation in the first world. There's a safety net already in place via subsidies, family helps, social care, red cross-type organizations, food banks, and a myriad of things.
Plus, experience seem to show that the more subsidies, the less the people are willing to struggle or work hard, in a very broad a general sense, so I don't think that insisting on the same medicine but with a bigger dosis would work...
But hey, what do I know, I'm just a piano player. 

Edit: Spelling, still wrong somewhere


----------



## Kyle Preston (Sep 5, 2017)

NoamL said:


> I don't understand UBI. What keeps grocery stores, gas stations, and landlords from just raising the price of everything?



The same thing that prevents them from price-gouging now, laws. Whether they follow them is another matter. But solutions don't need to solve every societal problem in order to be necessary (not saying you think this Noam ). And yes, businesses will try and maneuver themselves to slowly raise prices to make money other ways. Those profit margins will never fucking be high enough. This is why we need laws. A free, unchecked market will not fix these problems. We've run this experiment so. many. times. 



ghostnote said:


> Again, UBI is not THE answer, it's just one answer to the problems coming in the next few decades.



Totally! So many responses in this thread seem to imply that since UBI doesn't _solve every problem ever_, we should ignore it. 

It's like if an automaker said:​_*Hey, people shouldn't have to die when they drive a car. Let's build seat belts to save them. *
_​And the CEO says:​_
*Well, given the choice, most people wouldn't wear them. Plus, it costs us money. *_​
And the automaker says: ​_*You know what, you're right, people wouldn't wear them. Bad idea old sport, my apologies.*_​
I really feel for the people whose jobs have been replaced by automation and bots. The money doesn't disappear, it's part of a country's GDP. But that money shifted from one part of the country to another and will NEVER GO BACK. Not without solutions like UBI.


----------



## JohnG (Sep 5, 2017)

Nick Batzdorf said:


> the nonexistent problem of robots taking jobs



It's hardly "nonexistent." A study showed recently that, "47% of workers in America had jobs at high risk of potential automation."

and:

"Economists are already worrying about “job polarisation”, where middle-skill jobs (such as those in manufacturing) are declining but both low-skill and high-skill jobs are expanding. In effect, the workforce bifurcates into two groups doing non-routine work: highly paid, skilled workers (such as architects and senior managers) on the one hand and low-paid, unskilled workers (such as cleaners and burger-flippers) on the other."

https://www.economist.com/news/spec...ause-mass-unemployment-automation-and-anxiety


----------



## gsilbers (Sep 5, 2017)

NoamL said:


> I'm not sure @gsilbers , it seems intuitive. For example the government offers financial aid for students, and colleges seem to have raised tuition to "include" finaid.



its a good point. companies would see it as free money and if a product was considred basic then they could charge more since its needed or in high demand. and with no real compitition then free market will not work. 
but i also see the same in car prices and loans. cheap loans thanks to low interest rates. it helps poor poeple buy high prices products. 

I was asking also because in venezeula and USSR this is what happened. the state run and person-state run companies didnt really have a real incentive to compete or be efficient. the companies cannot fire poeple or charge more or less for products and leads to less production which in turns creates low supply of whatever product or service so everything goes into the black market at crazy expensive prices.


----------



## gsilbers (Sep 5, 2017)

Nick Batzdorf said:


> I like the idea of a UBI in the abstract until I start thinking about all the details - mainly how it's paid for. And I don't see the value in replacing very successful programs like TANF with a check. It sounds good to libertarians because the evil government won't be helping people manage their lives, but a lot of people really do need help managing their lives for one reason or another.
> 
> UBI also isn't a solution to the nonexistent problem of robots taking jobs. If you lose your job, say to autonomous trucks (which I don't believe are coming anytime soon anyway), your problem isn't solved with $12,500 a year instead of $80,000 or whatever. Apparently it's very hip to talk about UBI in Silicon Valley, but it's just a big distraction as far as I'm concerned.
> 
> ...




dont you think that UBI would be that predistribution and redistribution? $12,500 a year is not much for you but if you give it to 300 million people, it adds up to a lot of redistributed wealth.


----------



## Iskra (Sep 5, 2017)

gsilbers said:


> 300 million people, it adds up to a lot of redistributed wealth.


Redistributed from whom to whom, exactly? Because the biggest chunk of the income tax collection comes from the middle class, not the big cats. So that expenditure will mean more taxes for middle class workers, but I doubt the moguls and tycoons will pay much more income tax, and the corporations will pay the same taxes they're paying now. If you increase the corporation taxes, they will move business to another place (it's already happening now), and the Warren Buffets of the world always find a way to avoid taxes. So that would be redistributing wealth from the people that are working hard to earn a little more to the poorest, not the real top to bottom of the pyramid.
Devil is always in the details.
That won't really redistribute wealth, but turn the majority of population into poorer people, so in the end it will increase the inequality and not the other way around. There's no such thing as a free meal, so if the goverment/state have to expend more money, we all know by our own experience where they're getting it from.


----------



## JohnG (Sep 6, 2017)

Well, two points:

1. UBI as it's usually described is a substitute for some existing programs so it's not 100% an incremental cost; and

2. If indeed nearly half of jobs are going to disappear because of AI, especially jobs like security guards etc., if there ISN'T redistribution, there could be something much uglier for capitalism down the road.

I think the populists are tapping into free-floating frustration, bewilderment, and anger, giving it a locus. People look at the world they face and they don't recognise it, mistaking the changes as being driven by The Other -- minorities, immigrants, and other people who don't have much of a voice. 

What if that frustration were to to be refocused on the Silicon Valley guys and hedge fund managers who are stealing such a disproportionate share of the economic pie?

You either take care of the discarded people, or they will be coming through your window at night.


----------



## ghostnote (Sep 6, 2017)

JohnG said:


> You either take care of the discarded people, or they will be coming through your window at night.


That's right. You either try to adjust the economic system so poeple will have a reasonable chance to build up a living or you better start building up a police state. Economy, the chance for wealth, has always been a guaranty for peace and culture.

I remember asking myself why so few people tried to migrate to europe. Then the the stream from 2015 happened. It certainly had something to do with politics and football... and of course the UN who has stopped supporting the camps around the syrian borders. However, I don't want to know what will happpen once globalization will even out wages across the world. Sure, it might take 30-50 years (maybe more), but in the end there will be another exodus because these jobs will most likely be taken by machines in the western world.

UBI would be one answer to this question. And to be honest a very strong one.


----------



## gsilbers (Sep 6, 2017)

Iskra said:


> Redistributed from whom to whom, exactly? Because the biggest chunk of the income tax collection comes from the middle class, not the big cats. So that expenditure will mean more taxes for middle class workers, but I doubt the moguls and tycoons will pay much more income tax, and the corporations will pay the same taxes they're paying now. If you increase the corporation taxes, they will move business to another place (it's already happening now), and the Warren Buffets of the world always find a way to avoid taxes. So that would be redistributing wealth from the people that are working hard to earn a little more to the poorest, not the real top to bottom of the pyramid.
> Devil is always in the details.
> That won't really redistribute wealth, but turn the majority of population into poorer people, so in the end it will increase the inequality and not the other way around. There's no such thing as a free meal, so if the goverment/state have to expend more money, we all know by our own experience where they're getting it from.



If I'm not mistaken the top 10% of earners (companies included) pay for a big chunk of the overall taxes. I guess I could google but the idea is that if companies use more and more robots then people will pay less and less taxes. 
Im sure there would a transition period if this ubi takes off. Big if.


----------



## gsilbers (Sep 6, 2017)

ghostnote said:


> That's right. You either try to adjust the economic system so poeple will have a reasonable chance to build up a living or you better start building up a police state. Economy, the chance for wealth, has always been a guaranty for peace and culture.
> 
> I remember asking myself why so few people tried to migrate to europe. Then the the stream from 2015 happened. It certainly had something to do with politics and football... and of course the UN who has stopped supporting the camps around the syrian borders. However, I don't want to know what will happpen once globalization will even out wages across the world. Sure, it might take 30-50 years (maybe more), but in the end there will be another exodus because these jobs will most likely beeing taken by machines in the western world.
> 
> UBI would be one answer to this question. And to be honest a very strong one.



Some of us see as helping others and understand some people sometimes have a bad turn in life and need help. But republicans stream of thought is more about liberals taking free rent and money at their expense


----------



## ghostnote (Sep 6, 2017)

gsilbers said:


> Some of us see as helping others and understand some people sometimes have a bad turn in life and need help. But republicans stream of thought is more about liberals taking free rent and money at their expense


Right. A wealthy country who has the capacities to cover refugees should do so. The thing with 2015 is that it was absolutely uncontrolled because of the incompetence of the german government. The result was a stream not only from Syria, but also Afghanistan, Iran and Africa. Nothing wrong with that, but lately we had some serious crimes commited by refugees. On top of that many of them got more fundings by the state then a long term unemployed citizen. Many unpriviledged people in the country picked that up and turned right.

To get back ontopic: While the term socialist is pretty much normal in Europe, it's also a swaer word in 'merica. American capitalism -as much as communism - is an idiology. Everyone is equal and everyone has equal chances to find his luck are both lies. The truth lies somewhere in between, but that needs reforms and an open mind. Free from ideologies.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Sep 6, 2017)

John wrote:



> 1. UBI as it's usually described is a substitute for some existing programs so it's not 100% an incremental cost; and



Hence my cynicism about destroying and replacing very successful programs that are in place now. "Replace" usually means "cut" to politicians, especially Republicans.



> 2. If indeed nearly half of jobs are going to disappear because of AI, especially jobs like security guards etc., if there ISN'T redistribution, there could be something much uglier for capitalism down the road.



Ah, the robots. That's another whole subject, one I've done a lot of research on for a story I'm submitting: it's *far* from a given that AI is going to eliminate jobs faster than we can create new ones. Nobody knows whether it could happen in the future, but productivity - which is what technology-assisted work is to an economist - has been growing much more slowly than it did during the post-WWII golden years.

And if productivity increases, it means GDP increases and there is more profit to be distributed. The key is to ensure that those profits don't all end up in the hands of ten people while the rest of us starve.

...which is why I say the issue is just a slightly enhanced version of what we're facing today.

There are good policy solutions, but we need to get rid of Republicans if we want a better country.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Sep 6, 2017)

Iskra, you're looking at the world of 100 years ago! Marx didn't have a country to play with, and arguing against him is missing the point. Margaret Thatcher did that, and look what a fool history has shown her to be.

To repeat: a $12,500 stipend for someone who's lost his/her middle-class job to robots is a safety net and not a solution. I'm totally in favor of expanding the social safety net, but it's almost a separate issue.


----------



## ghostnote (Sep 6, 2017)

Nick Batzdorf said:


> it's *far* from a given that AI is going to eliminate jobs faster than we can create new ones.


A good point. Dystopia sells better than Utopia. But It depends on how fast technology will evolve and that's something I'm not sure the jobmarket can compensate over time. Once singularity is reached, it's over.

Corporations in Germany are already complaining they can't get any competent apprentices.



Nick Batzdorf said:


> Marx didn't have a country to play with


Ha, he didn't have the human nature in mind also.


----------



## Luke W (Sep 6, 2017)

Nick Batzdorf said:


> To repeat: a $12,500 stipend for someone who's lost his/her middle-class job to robots is a safety net and not a solution.



As I understand it, UBI would be as Nick said: a universal safety net to ensure everyone can eat and avoid being homeless, nothing more. A few would quit their jobs, most would not. Those with ambition would still rise, utilizing the UBI but not depending on it, with extra courage to attempt new business ideas or risky projects. Those without ambition would likely remain at the bottom. Inequity would probably remain as-is, regardless of the improved safety net.

The problem I see: Unless you distribute the stipend as vouchers for necessities, I don't see how you keep some people from spending it unwisely and still ending up on the street - which defeats the purpose. You'd have to do a food-stamp type system, which attempts to force the recipient to the spend the stipend as intended - as in a monthly housing voucher, grocery vouchers, utilities vouchers, etc.

I don't see it as a radical plan until you up the amount to middle-class salary range.


----------



## Iskra (Sep 6, 2017)

gsilbers said:


> If I'm not mistaken the top 10% of earners (companies included) pay for a big chunk of the overall taxes. I guess I could google but the idea is that if companies use more and more robots then people will pay less and less taxes.


Not sure in the US, in Europe the 10% percent of highest *payroll *gives around a 20% chunk. 60% of all money usually comes from the vast majority of people of low-mid to high-mid wages. Note that I highligthed payroll, because although in Europe from 100K up you pay between 45-55% of income tax (depending on the country), all the really wealthy people have private one-men companies, or one-man investing funds so the actual % they pay is around 20%. Not 50%. Companies pay around 20-25% of benefits in taxes (in some countries like Ireland that's lower).
Plus in the EU we have a consumption tax for everything of around the 18%-20% (in the US the rate is around 5%). So for everything spend you do, you pay around 20%. 

If companies use more robots, the total amount of money raised may decrease because a lot of people may loose their job, but the taxpayers will pay exactly the same or more. If anyone is willing to give an example in recent history where he government decreased taxes consistently, I'm all ears.  It never happens.
Here's the evolution of taxes in the EU since 2000 if anyone is interested to read the data:
https://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/sites/taxation/files/taxation_trends_2017_-_key_messages.pdf


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Sep 6, 2017)

Ghostnote:



> Corporations in Germany are already complaining they can't get any competent apprentices.



The problem with that argument is that you don't see wages rising as companies compete to attract workers.

We have those people here in the US too. Economist Dean Baker calls it the "hard to get good help crowd."


----------



## Iskra (Sep 6, 2017)

Nick Batzdorf said:


> Iskra, you're looking at the world of 100 years ago! Marx didn't have a country to play with, and arguing against him is missing the point.



?? I'm not arguing against Marx, who was a pretty bright guy. I'm arguing against the rationale behind the 'let's pay everyone as equally as possible' that the UBI implies. In any form, that kind of solution never worked. Best example is soviet russia, that's why I raised it.
As I said before, UBI for everyone will probably increase taxes in the middle class one way or another (VAT or energy taxes instead of income tax, which is already too high) and turn poorer 90% of population (poorer but moe equal), while the top 10% will be as is now.
I think it was Warren Buffet who said that he paid less taxes than his secretary. That's how the world works now. And I'm not saying that's good, that's awful and twisted! But expect that the intervention of the goverments (the same goverments that contributed to this situation) is going to change it, I'm afraid is wishful thinking. 
Economy, taxes, wealth and equality are all really complex problems with no simple solutions.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Sep 6, 2017)

Iskra, I repeat: you're not describing the world of today. And you're assuming that public policy is dictated from the mount, rather than being a series of man-made decisions.



> If anyone is willing to give an example in recent history where he government decreased taxes consistently, I'm all ears.  It never happens



Take a look at the United States in the '80s. Our top statutory rate used to be 90%.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Sep 6, 2017)

Crossed posts. Yes, Iskra, you're arguing against Socialism and the Soviets.

That's what Baa Baa Black Sheep is to the totality of music - an extreme oversimplification. Nobody is talking about 100% equality or eliminating a reward for work. It's a matter of the current worldwide distribution being unsustainable.

The basic measure is called the Gini Coefficient, although economists who specialize in inequality look deeper than that.


----------



## Soundhound (Sep 6, 2017)

We should start with Calvin Trillin's Alice Tax. You can have one of any big ticket item, 1 yacht, 1 lear jet, 1 house... after your wealth surpasses that, it goes to the government.


----------



## NYC Composer (Sep 6, 2017)

I find it hard to believe that a bifurcated country like the Dis-United States will ever get over the Ayn Rand-ian idea that it is immoral to give people money without insisting that they work.

I also think the practical problems of creating and implementing such a sweeping program are quite daunting.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Sep 6, 2017)

There's always hope, L!

But you're right that UBL isn't going to happen today or next week. We've moving at universe-expanding speed in the opposite direction right now.


----------



## Kyle Preston (Sep 6, 2017)

NYC Composer said:


> I also think the practical problems of creating and implementing such a sweeping program are quite daunting.



Agreed, it will not be easy. Though the consequences of not doing so, in the face of all this evidence, will generate bigger problems imho.


----------



## NYC Composer (Sep 6, 2017)

In an interesting discussion with my wife, the human rights funding researcher, she asked me what I thought was the most effective government program for lifting families out of poverty. I guessed at the G.I. Bill. She said it was the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) which gives people..... (wait for it...) money!


----------



## JohnG (Sep 6, 2017)

NYC Composer said:


> She said it was the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) which gives people..... (wait for it...) money!



The EITC is, essentially, almost like Universal Basic Income. Except it's fairly challenging for the least privileged in society to collect it (you have to fill out a tax form correctly, have a social security number, and a few other things) and (correct if wrong, Larry) you have to have had work to generate income.


----------



## NYC Composer (Sep 6, 2017)

I believe you're right, John.


----------



## Replicant (Sep 6, 2017)

NoamL said:


> I don't understand UBI. What keeps grocery stores, gas stations, and landlords from just raising the price of everything?



Absolutely nothing, and that's the key thing that everyone forgets in this conversation every time it pops up.

The overwhelming majority of automation simply preys on people's laziness/desire for "convenience" with one hand, and offers them the exact same thing they had before with the other.

McDonald's is the perfect example of this. My local McD's has a couple of robots now and they cut the tills down to two. They still _hire people_ to help you out on the kiosks and guess what? You're _still _in a crowded line up at the kiosk just like you were at the tills! Most people just use the tills anyway. 

One day, you'll just go up to an AI face on a screen that can talk to you to take your order; guarantee you this is the endgame. So you're _right back where you started_ and the only difference is they don't have to pay a person.

The robot revolution is exclusively about making the wealthy even wealthier until everyone else has no money to buy their products. But what do the owners of the machines care? They have access to the tremendous amount of production at no cost and the second your gas company knows you _definitely_ have X amount of dollars every month is the second they raise their prices to the highest possible amount, leaving the average citizen with fuck and all.

Oh but that can be avoided if the state intervenes! Right? Sure, then the state has squashed the free market entirely, also having free access to all the output, which they will turn around and export to whatever countries haven't yet caught up in automation and no, you won't be getting a monthly wage increase from the revenue.

This, all in combination with the fact that a UBI, much like all wealth redistribution programs, is inherently unsustainable past a fairly low threshold.

"But then we'll all be musicians, and poets, and painters!" Nope. A minority of the population has the ability or desire to actually be that; everyone else finds meaning in "normal" jobs. Not to mention, AI is quickly on track to replace every human creative and intellectual pursuit you can name. The unemployed rig workers previously making a monthly income exceeding the GDP of some countries aren't going to take up the clarinet; they'll probably take up arms. Get ready for mass unemployment, a meaningless existence living under the constant threat of crime, civil unrest, domestic terrorism and jihadis. 

I used to think it was some survivalist paranoia, but no — the future is a lot more Blade Runner and lot less The Jetsons.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Sep 6, 2017)

EITC is a wage subsidy. It's a big help, but it's not enough (lots of Walmart employees are on TANF), and it's not the same thing as an unconditional UBI.

***
Replicant, you're only looking at one side - the supply side, not the demand side. Why would companies invest in robots to make stuff if there are no customers for it?

...which gets back to what I said at first: this is no different from the problems of today.

Without going into details, the story I'm shopping is called "The Robot Evasion" for just that reason.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Sep 7, 2017)

By the way, there's also a very positive side to technology! It can let people switch to better jobs, for one, but mainly it improves our lives. Remember, life expectancy in 1960 was about 52, now it's 72 (that's worldwide - it's higher in developed countries, of course).

Yeah every invention can be used for good and bad, but it's important to look at both sides.


----------



## Replicant (Sep 7, 2017)

Nick Batzdorf said:


> Replicant, you're only looking at one side - the supply side, not the demand side. Why would companies invest in robots to make stuff if there are no customers for it?



I think that the question is how will the damage be undone if we say we've gone too far?

WalMart up here in Canada previously had lots of "self checkouts", but many of them, including my local walmart, removed them entirely simply because they realized that by putting these employees out of work, those employees couldn't reinvest money into WalMart products and like I said: People were still standing in lines anyway.

I'm not as optimistic that other companies will be as smart; if they are, it could be a self-correcting problem, but I think that's really optimistic. Technology that can replace people usually wins out.



Nick Batzdorf said:


> By the way, there's also a very positive side to technology! It can let people switch to better jobs, for one, but mainly it improves our lives. Remember, life expectancy in 1960 was about 52, now it's 72 (that's worldwide - it's higher in developed countries, of course).



I think that you're painting with too broad of a brush, here.

Arguably, biotech and medical advancements are the greatest use of technology we could possibly have. It's unquestionable that medicine, prosthetic, and stem cell advancements make our lives better, but this entirely different from technology that upsets economics and society on every level.

The invention of the calculator made the accountant's job a lot easier; an AI makes the accountant irrelevant.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Sep 8, 2017)

I'm painting with too broad a brush when I say that every invention can be used for good and bad?


----------



## ghostnote (Sep 8, 2017)

Nick Batzdorf said:


> I'm painting with too broad a brush when I say that every invention can be used for good and bad?


That's exactly the point here. When people paint the future, they tend to use darker tones. We all know the reality is much more complex than that and that in the end we can't imagine the future problems realistically, because we're bound to our zeitgeist.


----------



## chimuelo (Sep 13, 2017)

USA has the right amount of people and the right amount of capital to pull off UBI.
There will still be poverty though.
Mental issues, substance abuse, drug addiction don't go away from having an allowance.

I'd say let California show the rest of the world first.
They have the most poverty, the highest wealth inequality in the nation.
Jerry Brown is the best thing to have happened to the states pension fund.
He'd be up for the challenge.

If it fails, only rich Liberals would be out some money.
Nothing wrong that.....


----------



## Jeremy Spencer (Sep 14, 2017)

Replicant said:


> McDonald's is the perfect example of this. My local McD's has a couple of robots now and they cut the tills down to two. They still _hire people_ to help you out on the kiosks and guess what? You're _still _in a crowded line up at the kiosk just like you were at the tills! Most people just use the tills anyway.



I was at a McD's is Calgary yesterday, and everyone was lined up for the till....avoiding the "robots" altogether. What a stupid idea that was, putting many minimum wage workers out of work. What's worse is that McD's once tried outsourcing the drive-thru ordering through India!!


----------

