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; } } }

Child Item

Are you prepared for UBI?

completedit

Life will be better overall. We'll grow up through maturity and character as opposed to basing growing up on getting on the corporate ladder.

Time to embrace it. AI is coming for all jobs sooner or later. We only have a short time on the planet, can't be wasting 40 hours a week in an office or in a shop or whatever else.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

GreeBo

Who gets to define what "basic" is?

nelly17

UBI wouldnt even cover the rent on the HAP and RAS Schemes - so where would all of these people go? Personally Id be in favour but as long as the government are happy to pay down landlords mortgages and leave them with the asset at the end of the day it wont happen. Council housing is whats needed, correct that situation, house prices will fall because they are no longer propping up landlords to hold on to their property, people willing to go our and work and save for a house can get an affordable one, level the playing field, introduce UBI.

Geuze

GreeBo wrote: »

Who gets to define what "basic" is?

A good question.

Note that I do not endorse the following, just providing info:

https://www.socialjustice.ie/content/policy-issues/type/basic-income

Eligibility and Structure

Social Justice Ireland has costed many versions of a Universal Basic Income over the past 25 years. For example, in our 2016 conference paper entitled Costing a Basic Income for Ireland, we proposed a partial Universal Basic Income starting at €150 per week, that was fair, efficient and sustainable. This paper was an exercise in showing how a UBI could be paid for in Ireland within current structures. It was not a paper advocating at what rate a UBI should be set, however the following are some of the basic eligibility conditions and details of that version of a partial UBI, which may be instructive in any debate on its introduction:

Payment would be conditional on residency within Ireland. In line with current welfare requirements, non-citizens must have lived here for a number of years before becoming entitled to a UBI.
The level of the payment would be age-dependent.
Payment would be constant and does not change upon the taking up of employment or the acquiring of other income.
All income, aside from the UBI payment, would be subject to tax at one single rate of 40 per cent. All other income tax rates, as well as Employee PRSI and Universal Social Charge, are abolished. The rationale for using a tax rate of 40 per cent was to show what could be achieved in the prevailing context in 2016. Raising the necessary funds on the basis of a more progressive taxation model would be preferable.
The Employer PRSI rate would increase to 13 per cent.
There would be no tax credits or tax reliefs.
The UBI would replace almost all core welfare payments, payments in respect of disability, illness and other additional needs would be retained.

Geuze

https://www.socialjustice.ie/sites/default/files/attach/policy-issue-article/4642/chapter9.pdf

Here is more to read.

gypsy79

We essentially have UBI already (between tax credits and social welfare)

I am all for UBI to remove the massive admin of said systems and together with a simplification of the taxation system (removal of tax credits)

biko

Geuze wrote: »

[*]Payment would be conditional on residency within Ireland. In line with current welfare requirements, non-citizens must have lived here for a number of years before becoming entitled to a UBI.

Seems I was wrong above when I said you needed to be a citizen, seems all you need to do is to live here for a while
(as you can if you're an EU citizen) and then be set for life.

Hence, any member of EU will have the right to be supported for life by the Irish tax payer.

"Social justice"?

Geuze

Bear in mind that UBI proposal is from SJI, so it is to expected that they would not have citizenship restrictions.

dominatinMC

biko wrote: »

Seems I was wrong above when I said you needed to be a citizen, seems all you need to do is to live here for a while
(as you can if you're an EU citizen) and then be set for life.

Hence, any member of EU will have the right to be supported for life by the Irish tax payer.

"Social justice"?

This is the kind of detail that will no doubt be "conveniently omitted" if this proposal ever gets legs and makes it into the mainstream media. Nobody in their right mind could agree with it. Of course, the Europhiles will try and convince us it's for the greater good and accuse detractors of being racist.

biko

So for the local hippies it means to move around the country and never having to work for money.
For EU nationals it means moving to Ireland after a while being set for life.
For non-EU nationals it's an incredible incentive to get to EU/Ireland.

And Irish workers are supposed to pick up the tab. I'd rather not.

nelly17

To be honest theres not much chance of it in the mid term future - just look at the dithering over the leaving cert when backs were to the wall, they didnt know what to do because they dont think in terms of plan-B and are so unwilling to be the one who breaks from the norm just because well thats the way they have always done it. No Finance minister will ever actually pe progressive enough here to have the balls to take such a step because he doesnt want to be remembered in history as the one who ****ed it all up.

TuringBot47

Wanderer78 wrote: »

Me bollocks! Wealthy people aren't better than none wealthy, there's a lot of luck with it, and many are born into wealth.

Luck?
There's a nature vs nurture argument here, but not much.
Clever people are more genetically likely to have clever children.
Clever people are more likely to nurture their children to learn, work and create.

On the other side of the coin, an unemployed slob with issues or a bad attribute is likely to pass on their "values" or culture to their children.

So the element of luck involved is more to do with who your parents are.

Wanderer78 wrote: »

many none wealthy are intelligent, have incredible work ethic, people skills and are very creative.

Who? What skills?
A lot of people overestimate their intelligence.
People skills can be confused with some mindless common banter with no empathy for other people.

Most people just want a risk-free existence, including myself... living as an employee. Clock-in/clock-out and relax.
So people have to be shown the route to set up their own business, have good presentation skills, communication skills and to sell themselves. Even then, a lot of entrepreneurs have to work serious hours to get their business off the ground.

People can work hard physically, but that doesn't generate as much money, nor should it. Just because someone kills themselves digging up a garden all day, doesn't mean they should get six figure salaries.

Wanderer78 wrote: »

Jesus, what planet do some be living on!

Ehh... the real world, the working world.
Your style of writing, typos and grammar tell me you're the one who is on the outside looking in not me.

Ipso

GreeBo wrote: »

Who gets to define what "basic" is?

The people who will change the basic to equal.

Church on Tuesday

Ubbquittious wrote: »

UBI and AI can fcuk right off

Whatever about UBI, AI will not be ****ing off anytime soon.

Here to stay and it's eyeing potentially your job.

Dr. Bre

Finland saying it has worked

FVP3

Church on Tuesday wrote: »

Whatever about UBI, AI will not be ****ing off anytime soon.

Here to stay and it's eyeing potentially your job.

I asked Siri was she looking for my job. She played the Ramones.

FVP3

TuringBot47 wrote: »

Doesn't matter.
People who are better will still rise above them.
People with intelligence, a good work ethic, people skills, creative... the cream rises to the top...

So this "grab all the property" robbery that you talk of, still won't make people equal. In fact it would be a complete disincentive for decent people to go out and work, create, take risks etc. It would drag everyone down to the lowest level.

Thats what he said. He said, grab all property and let people start off from the same level. Didnt say they would end up equal

andekwarhola

completedit wrote: »

can't be wasting 40 hours a week in an office or in a shop or whatever else.

Except for the ones doing that to fund UBI through their tax?

completedit

andekwarhola wrote: »

Except for the ones doing that to fund UBI through their tax?

Modern Monetary Theory!

We are going into a different future. The rules have been thrown out. AI and machine learning are the future. There is simply not going to be enough jobs to support a growing population in my opinion. Your logic assumes people don't want to work, the reality is most people won't have a job even if they want to work. Not sure what happens for the jobs that will still be needed though.

TuringBot47

FVP3 wrote: »

Thats what he said. He said, grab all property and let people start off from the same level. Didnt say they would end up equal

And what's fair about that ?

People who are better, who work harder, who work smarter, who are more intelligent should be rewarded.

On the other side of the coin... in the future, if wealthy people are able to artificially implant or enhance their children that's not a level playing field.

But right now in history, there's the jealousy of the losers... the people with little or no skills outside of simple manual labour who for some reason are attacking the ultra rich but really they're always going to be below average in a normal population anyway.

One eyed Jack

completedit wrote: »

Modern Monetary Theory!

We are going into a different future. The rules have been thrown out. AI and machine learning are the future. There is simply not going to be enough jobs to support a growing population. Your logic assumes people don't want to work, the reality is most people won't have a job even if they want to work. Not sure what happens for the jobs that will still be needed though.

The same point was made during the Industrial Revolution, and the Agricultural Revolution before that. The reality is that new positions and roles were created as a result of the agricultural and industrial revolutions, and it would be no different in the technological revolution - new roles are being created that didn’t exist ten or twenty years ago.

It’s wishful thinking to imagine that the rules have been thrown out and machine learning and AI are going to displace employment opportunities. All that will actually happen in reality is the same as has gone before - new employment opportunities will emerge. We’re nowhere even close to machine learning and AI being at the level you’re thinking of though, and quantum computing is, if you’ll pardon the pun, still light years away from being scaleable -

Quantum computing heats up down under as researchers reckon they know how to cut costs and improve stability

UBI doesn’t even get out of the starting blocks as a viable means to provide sustainable economic growth and development.

completedit

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The same point was made during the Industrial Revolution, and the Agricultural Revolution before that. The reality is that new positions and roles were created as a result of the agricultural and industrial revolutions, and it would be no different in the technological revolution - new roles are being created that didn’t exist ten or twenty years ago.

It’s wishful thinking to imagine that the rules have been thrown out and machine learning and AI are going to displace employment opportunities. All that will actually happen in reality is the same as has gone before - new employment opportunities will emerge. We’re nowhere even close to machine learning and AI being at the level you’re thinking of though, and quantum computing is, if you’ll pardon the pun, still light years away from being scaleable -

Quantum computing heats up down under as researchers reckon they know how to cut costs and improve stability

UBI doesn’t even get out of the starting blocks as a viable means to provide sustainable economic growth and development.

Something I have to look into more but one thing is certain, there will be plenty of winners and many more losers.

Ush1

No it's a silly concept perpetuated by people who don't understand an economy and the very value of money.

pgj2015

corsav6 wrote: »

Considering we're the most intelligent species on the planet it's a major Fu*k up on our part that we have to slave away for 40/60 hours per week just to survive, all while destroying the planet.
If any other species had this intelligence they'd have made a far better job of things.

How can you possibly know that?

completedit

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The same point was made during the Industrial Revolution, and the Agricultural Revolution before that. The reality is that new positions and roles were created as a result of the agricultural and industrial revolutions, and it would be no different in the technological revolution - new roles are being created that didn’t exist ten or twenty years ago.

It’s wishful thinking to imagine that the rules have been thrown out and machine learning and AI are going to displace employment opportunities. All that will actually happen in reality is the same as has gone before - new employment opportunities will emerge. We’re nowhere even close to machine learning and AI being at the level you’re thinking of though, and quantum computing is, if you’ll pardon the pun, still light years away from being scaleable -

Quantum computing heats up down under as researchers reckon they know how to cut costs and improve stability

UBI doesn’t even get out of the starting blocks as a viable means to provide sustainable economic growth and development.

Also, brilliant, we can look forward to even more growing inequality as all these magical jobs turn up.

Because the reality is since the 80's, inequality has soared(which I'm sure you know) Real incomes have fallen(Ireland is an exception in the OECD but will surely buck the trend in the years ahead) so these jobs that have come about are not doing much.

Sometimes things don't follow the course of their antecedents. History is full of examples of things that were not possible, until they were.

And if people like Bezos =, who have said that all they can spend their money is on space travel while many of his employees make a pittance, are driving the ship during this change, are you really telling me that sufficient jobs will come about to sustain the global population?

One eyed Jack

completedit wrote: »

Also, brilliant, we can look forward to even more growing inequality as all these magical jobs turn up.

Because the reality is since the 80's, inequality has soared(which I'm sure you know) Real incomes have fallen(Ireland is an exception in the OECD but will surely buck the trend in the years ahead) so these jobs that have come about are not doing much.

You can go further back than the 80’s if you like, social inequality has always existed, because it is the basis of social progress. If everyone were equal, society would remain stagnant and there would be no such thing as economic growth and development. The role I do now for instance didn’t exist 20 years ago, and likely won’t exist in 20 years time, but other roles will exist which present opportunities for employment. The products I buy now didn’t exist 20 years ago, and likely won’t exist in 20 years time either.

UBI has always been something of an ideological pipe dream, and will still be an ideological pipe dream when the vast majority of people are more interested in providing a better quality of life for themselves and their families, than caring about people who want everyone to be equally impoverished in the pursuit of a more equal society.

FVP3

TuringBot47 wrote: »

And what's fair about that ?

People who are better, who work harder, who work smarter, who are more intelligent should be rewarded.

He said to start with i.e. no inheritance etc. I dont think that is possible but it desirable.

That said incredibly naive to believe that people who are born into wealth would definitely make it were they not. With a working class accent Boris Johnson would probably have made an incompetent bus driver but Trump would be on the streets, or dead.

FVP3

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The same point was made during the Industrial Revolution, and the Agricultural Revolution before that. The reality is that new positions and roles were created as a result of the agricultural and industrial revolutions, and it would be no different in the technological revolution - new roles are being created that didn’t exist ten or twenty years ago.

It’s wishful thinking to imagine that the rules have been thrown out and machine learning and AI are going to displace employment opportunities. All that will actually happen in reality is the same as has gone before - new employment opportunities will emerge. We’re nowhere even close to machine learning and AI being at the level you’re thinking of though, and quantum computing is, if you’ll pardon the pun, still light years away from being scaleable -

I agree that AI is over estimated in its potential, but human level intelligence would of course replace humans were it possible. And if human level intelligence were possible, why stop there? Super human would be trivial if we ever got to human.

Previous technological changes couldn't replace all humans, of course - but it replaced horses and most beasts of burden , or as the man said

there was a type of employee at the beginning of the Industrial Revolution whose job and livelihood largely vanished in the early twentieth century. This was the horse. The population of working horses actually peaked in England long after the Industrial Revolution, in 1901, when 3.25 million were at work. Though they had been replaced by rail for long-distance haulage and by steam engines for driving machinery, they still plowed fields, hauled wagons and carriages short distances, pulled boats on the canals, toiled in the pits, and carried armies into battle. But the arrival of the internal combustion engine in the late nineteenth century rapidly displaced these workers, so that by 1924 there were fewer than two million. There was always a wage at which all these horses could have remained employed. But that wage was so low that it did not pay for their feed.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You can go further back than the 80’s if you like, social inequality has always existed, because it is the basis of social progress. If everyone were equal, society would remain stagnant and there would be no such thing as economic growth and development. The role I do now for instance didn’t exist 20 years ago, and likely won’t exist in 20 years time, but other roles will exist which present opportunities for employment. The products I buy now didn’t exist 20 years ago, and likely won’t exist in 20 years time either.

UBI has always been something of an ideological pipe dream, and will still be an ideological pipe dream when the vast majority of people are more interested in providing a better quality of life for themselves and their families, than caring about people who want everyone to be equally impoverished in the pursuit of a more equal society.

UBI isn't about equality at all, people can earn what they want after they get the payments. You may be mistaking it for communism, a common theme on boards if some mentions anything to the left of Ayn Rand.

andekwarhola

completedit wrote: »

Modern Monetary Theory!

We are going into a different future. The rules have been thrown out. AI and machine learning are the future. There is simply not going to be enough jobs to support a growing population in my opinion. Your logic assumes people don't want to work, the reality is most people won't have a job even if they want to work. Not sure what happens for the jobs that will still be needed though.

You're waffling around the issue about this is funded. I'm actually not against UBI by the way but simplistic sloganeering about most people not having to work isn't exactly an argument.

One eyed Jack

FVP3 wrote: »

I agree that AI is over estimated in its potential, but human level intelligence would of course replace humans were it possible. And if human level intelligence were possible, why stop there? Super human would be trivial if we ever got to human.

Not necessarily. In many circumstances it will always be more viable to employ humans than it would be to replace them with machines, cheaper too. That’s why AI while it’s an interesting concept, it’s not going to be displacing anyone in employment, it will just create more employment opportunities.

Governments need as many people in an economy employed, so they can avoid ideas like UBI, because UBI has to be paid for somehow, by someone, and people aren’t willing to pay for it. They might support the idea in theory, because y’know, poor people, and something about nobody having to work because automation takes care of everyone’s needs now, but it’s not a reality like the OP describes, simply because people want to work, because they don’t want a basic quality of life. That’s what drives most people in society - the idea of achieving and sustaining social mobility.

FVP3 wrote: »

UBI isn't about equality at all, people can earn what they want after they get the payments. You may be mistaking it for communism, a common theme on boards if some mentions anything to the left of Ayn Rand.

Seems to be what the OP thinks it’s about? They don’t like the idea of anyone becoming too wealthy, but their idea of wealth redistribution relies on handing out free money to everyone regardless of their income (I haven’t quite figured out will billionaires qualify for this Government payment/subsidy), but no, I’m not mistaking it for communism or anything else. That would imply the idea is in any way coherent. I do wonder though, if the payment is made to everyone in society, then what’s it supposed to achieve? UBI seems to me like giving a man a fish, whereas the current economic model means in order for people to sustain themselves, they must learn to fish.

I know which one leads to innovation, greater social mobility, more opportunities and social and economic progress and development. It isn’t UBI, that just creates and fosters dependency.

daheff

UBI, while a nice idea, won't work in the long run. All it will do is give people money to have a basic lifestyle....like the dole.

If everybody gets UBI and works, then nobody is better off as we'll see the price of everything inflated because of higher demand.