nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Universal Basic Income & Working Less

BarcaDen

Here's an idea thats been getting traction recently - pay everyone a basic income, abolish existing welfare, and legislate for reduced working hours. I've no idea how this would work in practise (I've read many interesting hypotheticals but I think it would probably take 20 years of playing around with before it was done right) I suspect you'd have to take into public ownership the robotics and have the government invest heavily in automation/productivity. But it could be done.

Basically we've got the technology and the wealth to work far fewer hours but for inexplicable reasons we have people at one end (the precariat) struggling to get by, and people on the other working insane, radically inefficient and unproductive hours. This is a simple problem that could be fixed in a few months with a little imaginative thinking.

I'll just leave these ideas hanging out there, to see what you've got to say. I'll expand on my thoughts later.

Find more posts tagged with

ubi

basic income

Comments

starshine1234

refusal to engage.

Juvenile line-by-line type response.

Nonsense statements.

some delusional person wrote:

Only people can pay taxes.

Your strongly held belief is invalidated by evidence, therefore you are delusional. I'm not allowed to call you an idiot even if it's true.

Star Trek is fictional. Therefore, the jobs that humans do are also fictional.

In the future, corporations will employ very few workers.

Your solution to that inevitability is to force the reducing number of workers to pay for all of society.

That's not a solution. Thats a refusal to engage.

I am at least looking for solutions. My solutions is that the corporations that own all the robots must pay sufficient tax to support the societies that the corporations are parasitic on.

You say this.
A UBI would result in a massive tax increase on workers.

It need not be like that. You are being deliberately obtuse and you are refusing to engage.

Provide links please for that nonsense comment.

starshine1234

starshine1234 wrote:

He's not correct. Both you and he refuse to even consider a future where automation is widespread.

Suryavarman wrote: »

I have considered it. I think it is highly unrealistic.

Well, you're wrong.

Humans will never fly in heavier than air aircraft. Is that one of yours too?

Automation is already widespread in todays world.
Do you believe yourself to be living in a dream?

Automation is already widespread in todays world.
Do you think we'll regress and that there'll be less automation in the future than there is today?

You're clearly a troll. I should stop feeding you.

oscarBravo

starshine1234 wrote: »

Star Trek is fictional. Therefore, the jobs that humans do are also fictional.

Hang on: you introduce a character from a fictional TV show to illustrate your point, and then when other characters from that show are offered as a counterpoint, you dismiss them as fictional?

Seriously?

starshine1234

Yes, seriously.

I offer Data from Star Trek as an example of a robot.

He is an example of a robot, technically an android.

Is there a difference between the humans on Star Trek and the humans living in 21st century earth?

No, there isn't.
In that case, what is the point of making a comparision?

People here seem unable to imagine or to concieve of things that exist.
I felt that asking people to imagine a robot would be beyond them. An example of a robot from fiction would therefore seem to be of some assistance.

What was the point of saying that humans in the future will do the same job as humans in a tv show?
Will we all become rampant space captains?

Dohnjoe

starshine1234 wrote: »

He's not correct. Both you and he refuse to even consider a future where automation is widespread.

We're in a future where automation is very widespread.

30 years ago, I was reading this exact same stuff. Well I've reached those points and passed them.. the dystonian predictions didn't arise.

As certain vocations go obsolete, new ones are created. Otherwise we wouldn't have the relatively low levels of unemployment we do. This process has been happening for a very long time.

starshine1234

I don't agree, and you cannot simply demand that your unsupported viewpoint is taken as Gospel.

Your argument demands that people accept that humans can never become obselete.

People said automation would destroy jobs. It hasn't happened yet, therefore it can never happen.
Very poor logic there.

I haven't yet died. Therefore, I will live for ever.
Do you agree?

If you don't agree, how about this?
People have been saying I will die ever since I can remember. Their predictions have proven to be false so far. Therefore, they are wrong, and I will live for ever.

Is a robot like Data from the fictional TV show, Star Trek, impossible?

If he's not impossible, would his creation, and his sale, at prices similar to todays smart phones, help or hinder human employment?

Would 'comparative advantage' ensure that humans can still compete?
Humans can of course reduce the price of their labour. That is why many products are made in China. It's not because the Chinese are better workers or more advanced, it is because the Chinese are cheaper.

If all labour worldwide was the same price everything would be made in Germany.
When robots become commonplace either humans can reduce the price of their labour and still starve, or humans will be obselete.

ancapailldorcha

starshine1234 wrote: »

You're clearly a troll. I should stop feeding you.

Do not post in this thread again. You're adding nothing to it but nonsense and abuse.

BarcaDen

Suryavarman wrote: »

BarcaDen wrote: »

Great, good for you.

1) If it is true that we're entering an economic model where labour is abundant, cheap and replacable, how are workers going to have any bargaining power without a UBI?

We aren't. Humans will always have a comparative advantage in something.

2) How much poverty and precariousness are you willing to accept as more automation leads to fewer jobs?

Automation won't lead to fewer jobs.

3) We've had wage depression or stagnation since the 70s. Whats the solution?

We haven't.

4) If automation is inevitable and the machines are concentrated in a small number of corporations, what is the argument against some kind of government control of the machines?

Automation isn't inevitable as there is zero evidence that humans will be displaced by robots in the long run.

5) When the pension system breaks (and it almost certainly will), how will there not be a revolution?

The pension system can be reformed. If it isn't a UBI will only make things worse.

6) How much longer can we tolerate people doing unproductive, meaningless, servile bull**** jobs when robots can do them much better (just so we can preserve badly paid and demoralising jobs for the precariat?)

If robots can do these jobs so much better then why aren't they doing them?

Really, whats the point in have a debate when you so blatantly deny the reality around you? At least you're getting slightly better at abstaining from personal insults, I'll take my victories where I can.

K-9

Mod:

Thread has a short shelf life as it seems to be mostly sniping at each other at this stage.

Suryavarman

BarcaDen wrote: »

Really, whats the point in have a debate when you so blatantly deny the reality around you? At least you're getting slightly better at abstaining from personal insults, I'll take my victories where I can.

You made a number of claims without any evidence to back them up. The closest anyone in this thread has come to backing up their claim that most people will be displaced by robots is by citing a fictional TV series.

It's difficult to have a fruitful discussion if you persistently refuse to offer any evidence to back up your position.

Muhammed_1

I support a basic income for everybody.

All citizens who live in Ireland and who are aged between 18 and 68 should get the income with no strings attached.

The Dept. of Social Welfare is often stated to bully and to abuse people. A universal income would prevent that.

When robots are doing all the work there won'tbe any work for humans.

We can either support each other or we can starve to death, or destroy ourselves in civil wars.

hytrogen

Interesting thread with some extremist views from both sides. I think before we go down this road of ubi we need to sort out a few unnecessaries, such as, USC and minimum wages. But until we sort out the sovereign debt and stop selling off our natural resources to outside corporations who don't employ Irish nationals as well as, like Norway with statoil setup national exploration companies and have some real revenue going back into the coffers the concept of ubi is unsustainable at the present model we have here

Muhammed_1

It is correct to note that selling off natural resources, like our fishing rights for example, impoverish our nation.

We also have things like the electromagnetic spectrum to sell off, and forestry land too, among other things.

Those things should be leveraged to provide the funds to support the universal basic income.

In the future, when robots are doing all the work, we will either have a universal income or civil war.

hytrogen

Muhammed_1 wrote:

In the future, when robots are doing all the work, we will either have a universal income or civil war.

The future is not that far away..

Wanderer78

ah neoliberalism is a bust folks, sit back relax and watch the 'free' market implode

ancapailldorcha

Wanderer78 wrote: »

ah neoliberalism is a bust folks, sit back relax and watch the 'free' market implode

Either post more constructively or not at all.

StudentDad

The problem with unfettered capitalism is that unchecked, it literally beggars your neighbour. We complain about the disparity between the 'wealthy' and 'everyone else' in the West when the bald fact is that our 'prosperity' is built on a very deliberate economic gulf. Between 'us' and the rest of the world. Your typical worker in China or wherever isn't going to accept low wages forever. As these economies catch up so to speak there will be a levelling out. Then what? Given the technological and scientific breakthroughs in the past few centuries there is no logical reason for poverty in the Western World. Yet it's there. Why? Good old fashioned greed and the desire for power. Asia, once the military playground of the west is fast becoming an arena where we are loath to tread. Ultimately our own greed and shortsightedness will be our undoing.

SD

ancapailldorcha

If people want to discuss capitalism in general, please start a new thread as this one is for Basic Incomes.

johnnyskeleton

Muhammed_1 wrote: »

I support a basic income for everybody.

All citizens who live in Ireland and who are aged between 18 and 68 should get the income with no strings attached.

The problem is where does the money come from? We could print more money but then we have inflation. We could increase taxes and I've heard that there have been economic models produced that show that the increased taxes would pay for the basic income. However, I'm not sure that those models take into account human nature.

A basic income is a disincentive to work. High marginal rates at the moment are a disincentive to work longer hours if more than half of the extra is paid in tax. And the basic income would incur higher marginal rates.

The Dept. of Social Welfare is often stated to bully and to abuse people. A universal income would prevent that.

What one person considers bullying, another would consider encouraging people to work or inspecting their finances to reduce fraud on the system. The basic income system would remove this human interaction, making working on the side and not paying tax even easier.

When robots are doing all the work there won'tbe any work for humans.

There will always be productive activity to do. Even if it's entertainment or services that we would consider unnecessary or extravagant at the moment.

Muhammed_1

The ability to care for everybody comes from technology, and from technological improvements.

We don't live in the stone age.

We are capable of providing food and shelter to everybody.

Obviously, population growth can be exponential and so population growth would eventually have to be limited. This is a seperate question as currently in Ireland everybody could be cared for, if the will was there.

At the moment, we are capable of providing food and shelter to everybody.

But society is set up to reward greed and un-neccessary excess.

I am simply calling for a fairer society as the current setup is simply making the rich richer and the poor poorer. It is not sustainable.

We can either have planned change or we can wait for the system to self adjust, either by famine or by war.

War seems most likely at the moment.

Some people say that capitalism is fair in that everybody has equal chances of success.
That may be so but what we don't have is equality of outcome and that fact is destroying our hard won societies.
Along with political weakness and multiculturalism.

mahoganygas

Muhammed_1 wrote:

Some people say that capitalism is fair in that everybody has equal chances of success. That may be so but what we don't have is equality of outcome and that fact is destroying our hard won societies. Along with political weakness and multiculturalism.

If two people have equal chance of success but the outcome is that only one succeeds, what can we say about each individual?

There are obviously a lot of variables which can affect outcome. Some are controllable (education, work ethic, ambition), others are not (illness, misfortune, natural disasters).

If society provides enough of a safety net to minimise the effect of uncontrollable outcomes, then is it right to punitively penalise people for being successful?

Are we providing enough of safety net in Ireland? It's debatable, but compared to other countries we have an excellent welfare system.

Muhammed_1

Why compare ourselves to other countries?

If they jumped off a cliff would you push me off?

I don't think society provides enough support for people. We have lots of homeless people.

I don't see a universal income or a progressive tax system as punishing people for ther success.

Why do people only consider money when considering success?

People like redacted or the Clintons or Tony Blair have destroyed their own reputations.
Is that success?

No, it's not.

People like Clinton and Tony Blair and corporations like Apple should be mocked for their anti-society stance.

They shouldn't be described as successful as their actions are destroying societies.

Paying tax is necessary but Apple for example lobby to pay no tax. That is anti-society and it should be called out as such, and mocked and ridiculed. Same with redacted and his ilk.

K-9

Well if we want to be the best, comparing us to Scandinavian countries would be a good start!

We'd all probably need to pay more taxes, companies included. Our PRSI system is grossly underfunded so everybody should pay more there.

Our problem is when the economy is going well we cut taxes on the lower paid when that money should be used to fund a better system, or a basic income if that's the way to go.

For something like this to work everybody needs to pay something, even a nominal amount for those on low income or part time work. You pay much more National Insurance in Northern Ireland for example, and it kicks in earlier.

aliveandkicking

starshine1234 wrote: »

I find it difficult to come up with any jobs which can never be replaced.

Most construction work - plumber, electrician, carpenter, brickleyer, tiler etc. These kind of jobs can never fully be replaced by robots. Can you honestly see yourself ringing up a robot to come out to your house to get a leak fixed or rewire a faulty cable?

Other things off the top of my head like dentists, surgeons, paramedics, mental health workers, creche works, teachers, hairdressers, architects, chefs, performing arts like musicians and actors, professional sports players all have little to worry about in the near future anyway.

Muhammed_1

It'd be better to plan for the future rather than to simply react to what happens.

Saying that everybody should pay something misses the point that some people have no money from which to pay.

There are so many benefits to a universal income and many peoples lives would be transformed.

FreudianSlippers

Dohnjoe wrote: »

UBI already exists, it's called social welfare

I think you're misunderstanding the whole "universal" part of the UBI. Social welfare has been shown to cause problems in that it creates a systemic reliance on the welfare, effectively creating a "welfare class"; UBI theoretically reduces that problem by granting the basic income to all people.

Those earning more then pay more tax on the amount above their UBI.

For that reason, I think UBI would be doomed to fail in a country like Ireland or the UK which has used social welfare for so long, there is already a significant welfare class.

In other words, I think it's too late for UBI to solve Ireland's problems with welfare.

FreudianSlippers

aliveandkicking wrote: »

Most construction work - plumber, electrician, carpenter, brickleyer, tiler etc. These kind of jobs can never fully be replaced by robots. Can you honestly see yourself ringing up a robot to come out to your house to get a leak fixed or rewire a faulty cable?

Other things off the top of my head like dentists, surgeons, paramedics, mental health workers, creche works, teachers, hairdressers, architects, chefs, performing arts like musicians and actors, professional sports players all have little to worry about in the near future anyway.

I was at a seminar on this in LA earlier in the year with a room full of lawyers; the conclusion was that some aspects of the profession are certain to be lost to automation - document review for example - but the majority of the profession requires a level of personal interaction and decision making that computers are probably unable to sufficiently carry out.

I think that's true for the majority of the professions both academic and physical that you have listed there.

They of course joked until we get proper AI, but I think I'll be long retired/dead by then!

Suryavarman

Muhammed_1 wrote: »

It'd be better to plan for the future rather than to simply react to what happens.

Saying that everybody should pay something misses the point that some people have no money from which to pay.

There are so many benefits to a universal income and many peoples lives would be transformed.

Enacting an enormously expensive policy to prepare for a future that probably isn't going to occur seems pretty foolish to me and most other people.

UBI is the most wasteful welfare policy I've ever come across.

Yourself isit

aliveandkicking wrote: »

Most construction work - plumber, electrician, carpenter, brickleyer, tiler etc. These kind of jobs can never fully be replaced by robots. Can you honestly see yourself ringing up a robot to come out to your house to get a leak fixed or rewire a faulty cable?

Other things off the top of my head like dentists, surgeons, paramedics, mental health workers, creche works, teachers, hairdressers, architects, chefs, performing arts like musicians and actors, professional sports players all have little to worry about in the near future anyway.

Programmers.

There's an idea that software will eat itself, become self writing. I don't see it.

But then I doubt that we could automate most things. Industrial work maybe but we already do that.

sligolad1

Would you support a universal basic income set at the current social welfare levels (Children aged 0-17 €32.30, Adults of working age €188, Older people aged 66-80 €230.30, Older people aged 80+ €240.30) combined with a flat rate of income tax at 45%? For more info on the details of the model I'm proposing take a look at this report: http://www.bien2012.de/sites/default/files/paper_253_en.pdf