Universal Basic Income & Working Less

Water John

That's a very good, simple analysis.

4068ac1elhodqr

UBI could be a great thing, but there's no mention of how this additional spending power will prevent spiraling inflation taking hold.

Raycyst

There is no increased spending power.

The increases in peoples money is more or less cancelled out by the loss of employment.

recedite wrote:

There seems to be an attitude in this thread that UBI would be a substitute for a working wage, and therefore society could only afford it if the machines were doing all the work. But that is not the case.

The amount of the UBI payment could be tweaked to suit conditions in society. At low levels it could be barely enough to survive on, thus providing a strong incentive for people to go out and supplement their income with actual tax-paying work.

Some interesting points.
Having machines doing all the work isn't enough. The wealth they create must also go to the government or else the existence of the machines means nothing. At the moment large corporations don't pay tax and there's no reason to expect the owners of robots will pay tax either.
Therefore, the mere existence of robots does not help society unless the government comes up with some way of taxing them, or of taxing the profits they create.
Very little chance of that it seems given Trump wants to reduce corporation tax in the US and have a tax amnesty.


Recedite's other point that UI may not be enough to live on also has problems. Some people need more money than others.
A large group of people would reject consumerism in a UI world. They'd live in communes out of necessity and they'd brew their own beer and grow their own cannabis. They'd probably grow fruit and veg and forage too. In other words, they don't need much money.
If the government cuts UI sufficiently to encourage those people to work large numbers of other people would starve.



Young people are liekly to reject consumerism when they realise they don't have the money for it. Having wealth could become a negative factor, like being a member of the aristocracy in the past.

For example, Corbyn seems to be a new type of politican and his support is growing. They now reckon Corbyn could win the next election!

recedite

Raycyst wrote: »

Recedite's other point that UI may not be enough to live on also has problems. Some people need more money than others.
A large group of people would reject consumerism in a UI world. They'd live in communes out of necessity and they'd brew their own beer and grow their own cannabis. They'd probably grow fruit and veg and forage too. In other words, they don't need much money.
If the government cuts UI sufficiently to encourage those people to work large numbers of other people would starve.

Just to clarify, it would be enough for these people to survive on, but they would not be able to afford holidays, or cars, eating out, or branded clothes, or most of the small luxuries that people expect in life.
But UBI is not judgemental. If these hippy types can exist happily on a small amount of money, then fine. Maybe they contribute to society in some other way. Maybe they plant trees or do some voluntary charity work. By not monitoring and means testing them all the time, the state can save a lot of admin work so the civil service staff can be re-allocated to something else.

Rich people would also get UBI. That is also fine.

There are also other people who appear to be on social welfare swanning around shopping malls for hours, shopping and buying the latest fashions. These types are probably bored and receiving too much in money and benefits on the existing social welfare programs.

WhiteMemento9

recedite wrote: »

Just to clarify, it would be enough for these people to survive on, but they would not be able to afford holidays, or cars, eating out, or branded clothes, or most of the small luxuries that people expect in life.
But UBI is not judgemental. If these hippy types can exist happily on a small amount of money, then fine. Maybe they contribute to society in some other way. Maybe they plant trees or do some voluntary charity work. By not monitoring and means testing them all the time, the state can save a lot of admin work so the civil service staff can be re-allocated to something else.

Rich people would also get UBI. That is also fine.

There are also other people who appear to be on social welfare swanning around shopping malls for hours, shopping and buying the latest fashions. These types are probably bored and receiving too much in money and benefits on the existing social welfare programs.

What about all the people who want to work but no longer can can due to rising automation replacing huge amounts of jobs so they can't find employment through no fault of their own or lack of trying. Is it just a case that they are forced to live on whatever it is deemed they can survive on?

Water John

If someone ends up in that position, at present, they get UA and will be asked to do nonsense courses.
With UBI, the money wont be much different but they can work any hours they can find, establish a small personal business etc.
We won't have a whole industry working around the unemployed. People will have dignity and flexibility.

WhiteMemento9

Water John wrote: »

If someone ends up in that position, at present, they get UA and will be asked to do nonsense courses.
With UBI, the money wont be much different but they can work any hours they can find, establish a small personal business etc.
We won't have a whole industry working around the unemployed. People will have dignity and flexibility.

At present though if you want to find work most likely with some effort you can. We have currently a very low unemployment rate. I am talking about the situation when we have mass unemployment due to automation.

The incentive will be there to work but while jobs become more and more scarce the ability to find one will be the problem. It seems many think this Utopia will exists with people not working if they would rather not and all those who want to top up there wage go earn a few quid on the side. The jobs simply won't be there to do this. The problem then becomes, with an ever reducing work force and tax base etc not only that paying these people only enough to live on is unfair but also how do you afford to keep paying all these people a living wage?

Water John

If people haven't an adequate income, all those automated things, won't have enough buyers.
I think the change, over time, will realise it's own equilibrium. I would see the arts etc having a much broader role in our lives.

WhiteMemento9

Water John wrote: »

If people haven't an adequate income, all those automated things, won't have enough buyers.
I think the change, over time, will realise it's own equilibrium. I would see the arts etc having a much broader role in our lives.

It will eventually find an equilibrium. The current ideas though floated around the UBI are a trojan horse of sorts which will only serve to widen gaps and prop up the current system long enough to squeeze the majority of society very hard. It won't be until unemployment rises hugely, demand drops massively and a lack of disposable income leads to an inability to fund the current consumer economy that things will change. That will be a slow process that maybe only really enacts significant change when enough people are effected to cause mass revolt.

The problem is that if things do play out this way it will mean extreme hardship for many who don't deserve it and it will be a particularly painful period in history for the majority of society.

DaniilKharms

Personally I think UBI is just a stopgap between the end of capitalism as we know it - due to mass unemployment resulting from AI, automation and robitics - and the eventual post scarcity economy.

During the US Great Depression the unemployment rate was 25%. Experts of all stripes believe that we're headed for that and more.

At some point capitalism is unsustainable without high levels of employment, and the most optimistic route from here to wherever we end up post capitalism probably goes through UBI.

Raycyst

How is the UI to be paid for?

The question may seem difficult but the answer is simple. In a futuristic world technology, robots and artificial intelligence can provide for all of humanity, if population numbers aren't too high, say less than 10 billion, AND IF, the owners of intelligent robots choose to share their wealth with everyone else.

It is that second step which is the problem. Corporations will not share their wealth with governments. They don't willingly do it now and they will be less likely to in the future.


In the future, large corporations are the only people who produce things of value. If they refuse to share their wealth, or if they choose to abandon a country, then countries and societies will fail.

Political leaders need to recognise these problems. I think they have recognised the problem and they have no solution so they try to distract people with nonsense identity politics and global warming scares.

Tigger

DaniilKharms wrote: »

Personally I think UBI is just a stopgap between the end of capitalism as we know it - due to mass unemployment resulting from AI, automation and robitics - and the eventual post scarcity economy.

During the US Great Depression the unemployment rate was 25%. Experts of all stripes believe that we're headed for that and more.

we being Ireland?
if automation causes widespread unemployment then no one will have money to pay for the machines
i like the world of the Culture depicted in Iain M Banks' novels
people do things based on their interests and my live a future life with no work or
some people might choose to live in a 1980 tec level area or some might chose to live in a 1980s tec level except for healthcare is is at modern (the future ) levels
its a sort futuristic socialism that i monitored by computers that organised things for humanity

it would need resources and energy to be basically limitless tho as the issue with wealth isnt the availability of labour in a automated world it is resources and energy
and ultimately space food and air

DaniilKharms

Raycyst wrote: »

How is the UI to be paid for?

The question may seem difficult but the answer is simple. In a futuristic world technology, robots and artificial intelligence can provide for all of humanity, if population numbers aren't too high, say less than 10 billion, AND IF, the owners of intelligent robots choose to share their wealth with everyone else.

It is that second step which is the problem. Corporations will not share their wealth with governments. They don't willingly do it now and they will be less likely to in the future.


In the future, large corporations are the only people who produce things of value. If they refuse to share their wealth, or if they choose to abandon a country, then countries and societies will fail.

Political leaders need to recognise these problems. I think they have recognised the problem and they have no solution so they try to distract people with nonsense identity politics and global warming scares.

My take:

- without UBI or some other stop gap the future will be dystopian sooner than later
- capitalism will destroy itself looking to generate ever more profits by removing labour from the equation, but..
- that same technology can lead to the post scarcity economy you describe, and probably will, out of necessity.

Corporations are basically going to make themselves obsolete, at some point, because without employees they can't survive (that is to say, with high levels of unemployment capitalism will crater, as will corporations).

DaniilKharms

Tigger wrote: »

we being Ireland?
if automation causes widespread unemployment then no one will have money to pay for the machines
i like the world of the Culture depicted in Iain M Banks' novels
people do things based on their interests and my live a future life with no work or
some people might choose to live in a 1980 tec level area or some might chose to live in a 1980s tec level except for healthcare is is at modern (the future ) levels
its a sort futuristic socialism that i monitored by computers that organised things for humanity

it would need resources and energy to be basically limitless tho as the issue with wealth isnt the availability of labour in a automated world it is resources and energy
and ultimately space food and air

At the point where there's widespread unemployment money in the sense you're using it will no longer be a thing.

And of course, you have to think holistically.

Take the humble iPhone.

To make an iPhone now you need to:

- find the raw materials
- mine the raw materials
- refine the raw materials
- transport the raw and refined materials
- process raw materials into components
- assemble the components
- package the resulting phone
- transport the phone to the POS

NONE of that can't be automated, at some point in the future. And - and this is the crucial bit - the manufacture and upkeep of all of the technology used to do all of that can ALSO be be created by robotics and automation, as can the design of the technology.

So, at that point, what the ACTUAL cost? Because the ACTUAL cost of all of the above is either people or resources. And if neither "costs" society anything, and unemployment is near universal (relative to where we are now) there's no point in bringing money into it.

Energy is a concern, no doubt, but long enough timeline and solar and fusion, etc., will make that too an obsolete concern.

Of course this is all optimistic, because the alternative is too dire to consider.

RE: socialism, ironically the very technology being pushed by capitalism to drive profits and shrink workforces is the first step towards creating the basic requirements for actual communism. Not that I think that SPECIFIC outcome is likely - who knows - but it's never before been even possible. That's all changing.

Raycyst

It's a dystopian future for sure in my view, even if you take currently unknown advances into account. The problem is humans.


Corporations don't want to pay tax and they won't want to support large numbers of useless people, who can't consume due to lack of funds. The corps would have to pay a universal income to those people and the corp doesn't want that.

The corporations robot assets aren't equally distributed throughout all countries. A government can always threaten to commandeer the robots, by changing the law to take ownership. So the corporations have to keep governments onside if they have valuable assets in that country.

If your country doesn't have large amounts of valuable robot assets within its own borders then your country could be abandoned by the corp.

The best defence against being abandoned by a corp. is to have their assets in your country where you can threaten to take them, or tax them at 99%.

Corps. will consolidate their assets in countries which can be defended and which don't contain too many people to be carried by the corp.

I suppose Apple is building a datacenter in Ireland and that is something they'll want to protect.

Global warming is a very serious problem on a timescale of 50 years, as is the growth of Islam, and the capitulation of the west, and UI doesn't solve those problems.

We can't solve the political problem of multiculturalism.

DaniilKharms

Raycyst wrote: »

It's a dystopian future for sure in my view, even if you take currently unknown advances into account. The problem is humans.


Corporations don't want to pay tax and they won't want to support large numbers of useless people, who can't consume due to lack of funds. The corps would have to pay a universal income.

The corporations robot assets aren't equally distributed throughout all countries. A government can always threaten to commandeer the robots, by changing the law to taker ownership. So the corporations have to keep governments onside if they have valuable assets in that country.

If your country doesn't have large amounts of valuable robot assets within its own borders then your country could be abandoned by the corp.

The best defence against being abandoned by a corp. is to have their assets in your country where you can threaten to take them, or tax them at 99%.

Corps. will consolidate their assets in countries which can be defended and which don't contain too many people to be carried by the corp.

I suppose Apple is building a datacenter in Ireland and that is something they'll want to protect.

Global warming is a very serious problem on a timescale of 50 years, as is the growth of Islam, and the capitulation of the west, and UI doesn't solve those problems.

We can't solve the political problem of multiculturalism.

I think you need to look at this in a "over the next 500 years" sort of perspective.

Also, corporations can't be altruistic. As long as there's money to be made from removing workers they will remove workers... and when they remove so many that there's not enough people with money to buy products then what??

At some point the outcome of prioritising profit and growth above all else will be the end of capitalism. And without capitalism, corporations won't exist in the way they do now. And of course a big part of that will be that their profit motive will be meaningless and will have to be replaced... by what? No one knows.

No matter what happens re: taxes, infrastructure, etc., as long as corporations prioritise growth and profit, capitalism is dead... and "value" is of course a construct. Without capitalism value will be completely redefined.

The much much much bigger issue than multiculturalism long term will be that property right will largely have to be binned. It doesn't matter if every step in the supply/production chain is automated, if the raw materials are still being privately held.

But again, these are issues which will play out over centuries.

If we're lucky.

recedite

Raycyst wrote: »

Corps. will consolidate their assets in countries which can be defended and which don't contain too many people to be carried by the corp.

I suppose Apple is building a datacenter in Ireland and that is something they'll want to protect.

If that is true then Ireland is in a good place, being small and with relatively few citizens.

However you are still thinking of UBI as a solution to some of tomorrow's problems. Which it is, but it can also work in today's world.

Think of it like children's allowance, except extended to all citizens regardless of age. That allowance is paid to wealthy families even though is doesn't have a major influence on their total income. By doing it that way, it saves a lot of clerical work in sorting out who would theoretically need it most.

Raycyst

I agree that the universal income should be introduced immediately or very soon. Paid to all citizens on a no questions asked basis. We'd need to close the borders though which I'd support.

The UI would cause an explosion in small industry and in small scale producers of products. Hundreds of thousands of people would be free to try to make extra cash on the side. They'd be offering lots of services like gardening and window washing.

Lots of unemployment though in the Dept. of SP.

Water John

Well obviously, one would have to be resident here for a number of years to qualify.

recedite

I think it would have to be restricted to citizens.

Of course there will always be an incentive for lazy people to migrate from countries with no social welfare to countries with good social welfare. Which in turn tends to collapse the good social welfare. Also as multiculturalism increases, social cohesion decreases. People are less willing to pool their resources within the overall society.
It becomes "dog eat dog" again, which is just what the corporations and the banksters like to see.

Water John

Citizen would be the easiest but won't float, I'd imagine. One could argue, that as a reasonable immigration policy that newbies would have work for a number of years to build a type of tax credit, in the country.

recedite

Water John wrote: »

One could argue, that as a reasonable immigration policy that newbies would have work for a number of years to build a type of tax credit, in the country.

I'd agree with that, and at the end of that period they would be granted citizenship, so it really amounts to the same thing. It's 5 years at the moment to citizenship.

With special exceptions from the taxpaying requirement for the genuine refugee who would be granted citizenship even if unable to work. I think these would be very few and far between though, if only genuine cases were allowed.

Raycyst

Ideally the solution would be to change the global setup so that a universal income could be paid in all countries. The rates would be much lower in Africa than in Europe but services and products are cheaper in Africa.

All of Africa can't move to Ireland or Europe.

DaniilKharms

Raycyst wrote: »

Ideally the solution would be to change the global setup so that a universal income could be paid in all countries. The rates would be much lower in Africa than in Europe but services and products are cheaper in Africa.

All of Africa can't move to Ireland or Europe.

It'll eventually happen. But it will be a slow process at first, then eventually be unstoppable.

the_syco

BarcaDen wrote: »

Here's an idea thats been getting traction recently - pay everyone a basic income, abolish existing welfare, and legislate for reduced working hours.

So, work less, get more, and if you don't work, you get more than you do now?

I'd be interested in what political party you vote for.

Water John

Your thinking must be out of sync in the middle of the night. UBI would approximately equal UA.
You pay tax then on anything you earn over that. That would be the general proposals for UBI. Barca is suscribing a very specific idea. In general, you work whatever hours you want to.

Raycyst

I don't agree with the tax system kicking in immediately after the UI money. I think people should get approx 10k for free as a universal income, and another 10k as a tax free allowance.

Huge numbers of people in our society would be happy to live on 10k for free and then work part time for another 10k. Brew your own beer and grow your own cannabis.

It is the tax free allowance of 10k which allows for the explosion in small scale trade and crafts.

The purpose of the government is to provide the lifestyle that people want. I understand that not everyone shares the same viewpoints and so the government has to compromise.

Multiculturalism does not work and it makes the governments job impossible as people want diametrically opposed things in a multicultural society and the government can't possibly keep everyone happy.



Corporations aren't real people and yet the government treats them more favourably than real Irish citizens. Ordinary people are taxed at up to 60% and corps only pay 15% and many pay effective rates of less than 1%.

People will not stand for this for ever, but changing the system is very difficult.

The best way in my opinion is to constantly describe the corps as greedy and anti-society. Create a backlash against the corps and then watch them fall over themselves to get back onside.

There are problems. Trump for example wants to reduce corporation tax and have a tax amnesty.

recedite

Raycyst wrote: »

I don't agree with the tax system kicking in immediately after the UI money. I think people should get approx 10k for free as a universal income, and another 10k as a tax free allowance.

Its the sort of thing that could be tweaked at every annual govt. budget, similar to the way income tax rates and personal tax credits are reviewed annually now.

At the end of the day, the books would have to balance, so people would probably have to start paying tax before the first €20K. But in a well functioning economy, and with more people participating in their own way overall (to wealth creation) it might be feasible.

na1

What UBI will do in 10-20 years:
80% are human-like animals: sitting on the sofa, watching TV, eating fast food, with signs of severe intellectual degradation, no interests, no hobbies, no free money. just eat,watch & sleep 
10% are trained engineers who support manufacturing automation.
10% a rich oligarchs, who owns all of the manufacturing and owns a 90%  of the world wealth, and who control the governments.

DaniilKharms

na1 wrote: »

What UBI will do in 10-20 years:
80% are human-like animals: sitting on the sofa, watching TV, eating fast food, with signs of severe intellectual degradation, no interests, no hobbies, no free money. just eat,watch & sleep 
10% are trained engineers who support manufacturing automation.
10% a rich oligarchs, who owns all of the manufacturing and owns a 90%  of the world wealth, and who control the governments.

Considering that where it's been tried the opposite happened, in that more people worked, not fewer, you may want to rethink this.

The other bits about automation and engineers will happen no matter if UBI exists or not.