Universal Basic Income: The Answer to Automation
57% of the world's jobs are at risk of being automated. Universal Basic Income may be our only way out.
Here's why.
57% of the world's jobs are at risk of being automated. Universal Basic Income may be our only way out.
Here's why.
What if they use basic income to control us? "If you are not compliant with the establishment X or Y directive, you will not get your income (and obviously you cannot work either)".
I'm pretty confident that this will be used to crush people into an ever-increasing level of submission.
Interesting, I hadn't considered that. But the solution is baked in... Universal ought to mean universal!
Is there a way to achieve this without the state?
Yup, they actually used to have private welfare in the U.S. called "Mutual Aid Societies", where people gave a percentage of their income to help each other out when they needed it. It was sort of like a nonprofit insurance where you'd pay into the pot when you had a job and take from the pot when you needed money for food or medical bills. There were people who made sure those taking money out were trustworthy, and then many many people who didn't need it at all contributed as well voluntarily for charity. Worked out way better than what we got now.
Great post! I wonder what yo uthink of the opposite strategy - ensuring everyone can work, by choosing create jobs by e.g. planting crops which require the most human labour... completely counter-intuitive, but it works! See my post here for some info on a village which has done just that: https://steemit.com/voluntaryism/@freewill/no-police-full-employment-and-taking-back-control-from-the-state-is-this-a-model-for-society-steemit-could-get-behind-miranaleda
I think there's a serious underlying problem to all 'basic income' proposals. One that's not mired by ideological economic arguments for capitalism and the old protestant work value. But really centered on power politics and caste stratification.
It's very simple. Basic income is a gift. Like welfare, it may or may not be sufficient for survival - depending on the vagaries of elite charity. And like welfare, it will engender dependency of the many on those institutions or elite who gift this welfare.
Who controls the levers of distributing basic income will have control over all those dependent on it. They will become serfs. Another slave class. Unable to even eat without the largess of the patron class.
Can you imagine how this might be used to prevent political or social organization? How this might be used to suppress freedom rather than promote it?
This literally puts the survival of the many into the hands of the very few. And for that reason, it's an exceptionally dangerous idea.
Without a UBI though, productivity gains will just be used to make the rich richer... there still won't be any more work for the "serfs", but without UBI, they won't be able to eat either.
Why did Switzerland reject this, if it's so good?
There have been referendums which rejected and accepted marijuana decriminalization, rejected and accepted abortion legalization, rejected and accepted EU membership etc. The fact that one country has decided against something in a referendum says very little about the proposition itself.
It's hard for the average citizen to get their head around... It goes against a lot of what we are taught about society. Change will come, but it's going to be slow and will take some braver Western country to implement it fully and show the benefits before the other countries follow suit.
Anyone who has looked into this subject will understand that a UBI is essential for humanity to move forward with technology. Unfortunately the majority of people are still too indoctrinated to think outside the box & will desperately try to hold onto our old economic system. I expect huge resistance to UBI from the less open minded(majority).
There is no need for an UBI. As I posted earlier on Steemit, IMO robots can create much more jobs then they could ever destroy. The free market will provide demand for services, that can only or better served by humans than by machines. And because of the high productivity of the robots, these jobs can be financed without any problem: https://steemit.com/economics/@capitalism/why-robots-will-create-more-jobs-then-they-could-ever-destroy
The problem isn't robots taking our jobs. It's AI taking them.
I don't think the problem is AI taking our jobs, I think the problem is AI crushing us as thoughtlessly as we crush ants.
Maybe given enough time, but the much more immediate threat from AI is job loss.
But why should people be forced to work just because of some idea that we "ought" to if we have robots who can do the work for us? People would be able to be free to be creative members of society, following their passions instead of doing bullshit jobs they don;t give a shit about.
Okay but nobody is "forced to work". If you're consuming resources at the expense of society, yes you should have to pay the people who work for keeping you alive. Secondly, robots and AI's won't take all of the jobs. We're just seeing a resurgence of the same myth that spawned panic over employment during the industrial revolution. As we quickly found out, there's always work for humans to do, and we're not hitting "the singularity" anytime soon. Robots and AI's just reduce costs, meaning everything gets cheaper, and then people find work elsewhere. New kinds of jobs are created as a result of this - and even if there are not as many types of jobs in general for people to work at, more of these jobs will be created at lower wages due to the increase in labor supply. This means in some areas, human labor will be cheaper than buying the automated machines. Though the lower wages sounds bad, everyone will actually end up have a higher standard of living. Money does not equal wealth. And if we let people "follow their passions" with basic income, far less will get done and we'll start to consume more than we produce. Rather than do that, why don't we fix our school systems so people are actually able to follow their passions profitably, thereby increasing the standard of living for everyone?
I love history, but I don't believe the past is a guide to the crazy future we're rapidly approaching. Low/no skilled labor is already getting fucked right up the ass due to the automation of manufacturing in adition to the pressure of gloablism. Robots that can replace no/low skilled labors in industries like home building will eliminate those jobs. An architect will be paid to design your home, and someone else who owns robot workers will be paid to have the robots build it without food, sleep or smoke breaks. I believe that high skilled jobs will last until we create an artificial intelligence that easily outthinks us all. My argument isn't for the universal basic income. My argument is that society is going to experience such serious upheavals within the next 80 90 years that I don't know what it'll look like at the end but I do suspect yesterdays solutions won't be applicable.
Productivity gains should be spread throughout society, not used to make the rich (who own the machines) richer. Why should people still be working the same number of hours per week that they were in the 70's when we have seen so much gain in productivity due to increased automation?
good post @futurism 8]
All "income" must come from somewhere. Money is a representation of value that people agree to exchange with one another and requires that some people are exchanging their efforts (value) for that money, which money they then use to purchase the value created or possessed by someone else. Without it being primed with value, it cannot have any value.
A system based on people being forced to give up their value (taxation) so that someone else can receive the benefits of their value and without those other people having to provide commensurate value in exchange is a 1) system of slavery and a 2) doomed money system.
Additionally, imagine UBI as "everyone is given all the food and housing they need to survive". Okay. Who will plant the crops, tend them and the livestock, harvest the food, distribute it, provide building materials and labor, etc., etc., etc., for free?!? Would you do all that for free? Would anyone? If not, how in the world could those things be provided for free? They cannot.
UBI is an unsustainable illusion.
To answer your question, yes. I do believe that people will do all those things for free, and since they are, they will research the quickest and most efficient method to get it done, since the effect of an hourly wage will not coerce them into working at the slowest rate possible to earn the most profit. Try thinking like this, if you had all the means to survive, what would you do with your life? A lot of people would probably say that they would spend the rest of it relaxing and doing nothing. Lets take a look at that mindset for a second though, shall we? It is absolutely awesome to have time to relax and do what we want when we want, but I hold that this is only so nice, because it is a luxury. If this is your every day, is it still going to be just as special to you? I sincerely doubt it. Sure a lot of people definitely will take some time off and do nothing. However, I really have a hard time believe that a hedonistic lifestyle will be fulfilling. There are a lot of people out there, who want to help their fellow man, but cant for various economic reasons. When you eliminate the barrier to entrance, suddenly these people can actualize their dreams. A universal basic income would spur massive amounts of innovation, because there wouldn't be any sort of coercive force keeping you tied down to any one job. So to answer your question, who is going to plant the crops, harvest food, and distribute it? People who WANT to, rather than people who are coerced to. You cant think of it as getting something for free, because chances are that in this UBI world, you would be doing something with your time that in some way assists your fellow man as well. Humans are naturally giving. Deep down inside, we all wanna help each other. However, for most of us today, life just gets in the way of letting us do that, because we have to earn money to keep ourselves afloat. So why would we share our means of survival with anyone else when we're barely staying afloat ourselves? When you remove all of that and give everyone a UBI, suddenly theirs no more struggling to stay afloat. Everyone has breathing room. When you have this, you get freedom to pursue your desires. "If you arent interested in changing the world, it just means that you're one of the people who wont." - Jaques Fresco.
"I do believe that people will do all those things for free". Really? How could they? To put in the physical effort, the time and resources to do that would swiftly drive the person doing so into destitution. Even the altruistic need to provide for themselves and their families. If they were not remunerated, how could they?
Your idea that people will not work simply because they don't have to is in my opinion worng... people enjoy working because it fulfills them. If you have time, check out my post about a little village in Spain who have purposefully planted crops which require intensive human interation in order to generate MORE work for themselves: https://steemit.com/voluntaryism/@freewill/no-police-full-employment-and-taking-back-control-from-the-state-is-this-a-model-for-society-steemit-could-get-behind-miranaleda
But hold on - money can and is being created for free (quantitative easing) why not distribute that "free" money to the people, rather than buy bonds with it (which essentially just gives the money to those invested in the stock market). check out www.positivemoney.org.ulk if you have time... they have some very good arguements on this subject.
If being prosperous were as simple as printing pieces of paper we could all make ourselves rich in a few minutes. That is not how reality works, of course, so you gotta ask yourself why.
"PositiveMoney" promotes the idea that we can keep a centralized and state-enforced money system but just turn it into a nicer one that cares, that will somehow be better now... because we can trust politicians... :-P
Any system that is enforced and not subject to the free market (which is individuals able to make free will choices to opt in-or-out of whatever they wish) is corrupt from inception and further corruptible. That cannot work which is why crypto-currencies like Bitcoin and Steem exist in the first place.
Being prosperous isn't as simple as printing pieces of paper, obviously, but if you automate all the work which is required of people, then they will be prosperous without having to lift a finger. If all the gains from automation only go to those who had enough money to buy the machines which now do the work, you're going to have a huge chunk of the population who are desperately poor, and I can't get behind that at all. Society will need to find a fair way to distribute the "wealth", and UBI is an attempt at that.
I know I'm probably on the wrong website to promote state solutions to our troubles, but the free market solution is bound to end up with unelected people with just as much power as the state currently has... the rich will get richer and more powerful. I've read plenty on the subject, from philosophers and economists, and I just can't see it ending well.
My thoughts exactly.
Is there a way to implement without forcing everyone else to go along for the ride?
Cylons would disagree :)
