Thread: A guaranteed basic income for all

I think the solution will be more complex than we now imagine. AI/robotics/automation is already a small but well established industry. I wonder if they have automated production of robot machinery replacements for humans yet?
Surely someone has to design, build and test the prototypes?

I think looking for socially engineered solutions will be a work in progress, especially as we will always have a moral imperative to consider the unintended consequences of this burgeoning ‘progress’. I’m not sure that enforced socialism is the answer, and I do believe that, while we should explore the consequences, it’s too early to be modeling such solutions.

Definitely a conversation we need: In my country (Australia) the supermarkets have "self checkout". It benefits the store, NOT society. We have lost countless traditional jobs for our young, it is not fun on a checkout, however, many young people and many "part time" young mum's are able to supplement the family income.

In this one example, I propose that society "tax" the machines (Income Tax) - remember we lost this revenue when a worker was displaced. Extrapolate this to wherever "robots" replace humans and we can at least claw back revenue, to fund "job share" etc.. etc.. for remaining jobs or whatever society deems is a fair replacement.

It IS a debate we need to have.

Currently my society needs to pay unemployment benefit, to the displaced - the burden is all "societies" - the supermarkets (et. al) reap the rewards.

Originally Posted by Ennis

Definitely a conversation we need: In my country (Australia) the supermarkets have "self checkout". It benefits the store, NOT society. We have lost countless traditional jobs for our young, it is not fun on a checkout, however, many young people and many "part time" young mum's are able to supplement the family income.

In this one example, I propose that society "tax" the machines (Income Tax) - remember we lost this revenue when a worker was displaced. Extrapolate this to wherever "robots" replace humans and we can at least claw back revenue, to fund "job share" etc.. etc.. for remaining jobs or whatever society deems is a fair replacement.

It IS a debate we need to have.

Currently my society needs to pay unemployment benefit, to the displaced - the burden is all "societies" - the supermarkets (et. al) reap the rewards.

If you wish to punish the corporation for buying a machine to replace the employee, consider both sides of the equation, before applying your taxation. Just saying.

Discussion welcome.

Originally Posted by Switch

I think the solution will be more complex than we now imagine. AI/robotics/automation is already a small but well established industry. I wonder if they have automated production of robot machinery replacements for humans yet?
Surely someone has to design, build and test the prototypes?

I think looking for socially engineered solutions will be a work in progress, especially as we will always have a moral imperative to consider the unintended consequences of this burgeoning ‘progress’. I’m not sure that enforced socialism is the answer, and I do believe that, while we should explore the consequences, it’s too early to be modeling such solutions.

A very well thought out response !I agree with everything you said, simple solutions to complex problems are sure to fail. It will certainly will be a work in progress with the usual resistance, and who is to say where it will take as, could anyone a hundred years ago had imagined where we are today? They all had as riding jetpacks to work ,! Where is my jetpack, I want my Fn jetpack!! LOL
Enforced socialism is surely not the answer IMO,
I also said Democratic Socialism . Socialism started when a group of people got together and pooled their resources to combat a common enemy, since then the degree of socialism has varied in relation to the common threat and problems.We have had a degree of democratic socialism in all democratic societies, and we can use the democratic process to arrive to a degree of socialism to combat today problems and what the future brings. We all seen what happens every time enforced socialism rears its ugly head. (Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot etc).
Ofcourse new jobs will be created in designing and maintaining the automated technology, but these lobs will cost a lot less , otherwise what is the use of having automation. I am sure as IA reaches singularity , more and more of these jobs will also be delegated to automation.
Then finally the question will be, If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, is it a duck?
We are after all complex biological machines, so what's the difference , if complex biological machines are replaced by equally complex mechanical machines? that question along can support another thread.

Originally Posted by Ennis

Definitely a conversation we need: In my country (Australia) the supermarkets have "self checkout". It benefits the store, NOT society. We have lost countless traditional jobs for our young, it is not fun on a checkout, however, many young people and many "part time" young mum's are able to supplement the family income.

In this one example, I propose that society "tax" the machines (Income Tax) - remember we lost this revenue when a worker was displaced. Extrapolate this to wherever "robots" replace humans and we can at least claw back revenue, to fund "job share" etc.. etc.. for remaining jobs or whatever society deems is a fair replacement.

It IS a debate we need to have.

Currently my society needs to pay unemployment benefit, to the displaced - the burden is all "societies" - the supermarkets (et. al) reap the rewards.

In the US we see the same, recently more and more toll booths are replaced with automated scanners only , no humans there at all, if one does not have an "easy Pass" a picture of his licence plate is taken a bill is send to his/hers address on registration file.
I agree on the taxation proposal, and hope to a perhaps also answer Switch's question.
Perhaps some sort of VAT, it is not a taxation IMO but a technology usage fee, after all most of these technology was developed , or its development was supported by the government ie as, why should we not get a return in our investment?
Please don't confuse innovation with development. Certainly private industry has innovated ,but the basis of that innovation was technology developed by the government . such as the internet,computers, Nasa, Defence, etc
Such fees would IMO be beneficial to Industry, because corporate culture is like lemmings, they will all like to stop before they go over the edge, but if they are the first to stop , they will be trampled by the ones behind them, so they all run.
But the truth of the matter is Industry need an economically healthy consumer,it is a symbiotic relationship.

But the truth of the matter is Industry need an economically healthy consumer,it is a symbiotic relationship.

The truth of the matter is that wanton consumerism is unsustainable.

I’m going to stick with the ennis example.
Not all technology or innovation is government funded. Most developments are demand led. Take the barcode machine for example. It still has to be programmed with basic information, but little add ons can make a huge difference.
There is consumer information to be gleaned and more importantly, usage can provide info on when to reorder, which can also be automated.

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

The truth of the matter is that wanton consumerism is unsustainable.

What do you have against Chinese food? LOL

Originally Posted by Buckaroo Banzai

What do you have against Chinese food? LOL

You would think that the Chinese have a head start on cheap labour, but the truth is they rely on immigrant slave labour for a lot of their domestic economy.

^There will be no fish left soon!!!!

Our current economic systems are based on a paradigm of eternal growth. The way I see it, there are only two ways that this paradigm can be sustained, either everybody gets richer or we make the economy grow by breeding (or importing) more consumers and more workers. On the other hand, developed societies tend to have declining birthrates, aging populations and job loss through automation, all of which lead to declining numbers of consumers and workers.

These economic pressures are making the rich richer (in many countries) and the poor poorer. I think that it is time for a gradual and well-thought-out overhaul of the capitalist system before it simply collapses due to the opposing economic forces that are acting upon it.

IMHO there are two ways to start this overhaul/reform:
1. A guaranteed basic income to help the have-nots from being pushed into ever deeper poverty as they are left behind in the new economy/society.
2. Abandon the Monetarist economy policies that have dominated the global banking systems for the past 40 years and let interest rates rise to reasonable rates - probably around 7%. This would discourage debt and encourage savings and investment in real property and assets rather than forcing people and organizations to gamble (invest in stock markets).

Originally Posted by buriramboy

^There will be no fish left soon!!!!

Why bother fishing, when you can sit back in a fishing boat and drink beer all day?

What is the purpose of government? To provide income to slackjawed layabouts?

Ha ha. Good one. No, that is not the purpose of government. Smaller government is always better.

Originally Posted by buriramboy

^There will be no fish left soon!!!!

Indeed !!! the problem is not unwillingness to fish, the problem is the lack of fish.
The false argument is that these jobs will be replaced by other better jobs , as it happened in the past, but this situation is entirely different, it brings in the workforce a different type of worker, one who does not sleep, does not eat, has no emotions, no family issues etc etc.
If for every job that was lost a new better one is created then what is the sense of automation, surely it is not to create new better jobs, industry does not make the investment for altruistic reasons.
As I said, for industry to produce it need consumers , a way has to be found to keep the cow alive otherwise no more milk for industry. IMO a basic guaranteed income accomplishes that task,
If you all can think of a better solution . As Ross Perot said
"I am all ears"

^^ Perhaps. The concept of a small government that intrudes upon your private life as little as possible is attractive, but how will that solve the socioeconomic problems that this thread is about?

I'm not just being critical here, I'm genuinely curious about a conservative solution. Preferably one that does not involve social Darwinism or Swift's Modest Proposal.

Any money will be left for buying (or manufacturing) of weaponry?

Originally Posted by Klondyke

Any money will be left for buying (or manufacturing) of weaponry?

For that you will need revenue and for revenue you will need a tax base, if less people have an income . there will be less taxes paid and less weapons purchased. Don't know if its a good thing or a bad thing LOL but also less services.
The economy is an algebraic equation, both sides need to balance.

Originally Posted by Switch

Not all technology or innovation is government funded. Most developments are demand led.

You may wish to search for how much ameristanis citizens already bankrolls ameristan university "reasearch" through their government imposed taxation.

Originally Posted by Buckaroo Banzai

For that you will need revenue and for revenue you will need a tax base, if less people have an income . there will be less taxes paid and less weapons purchased. Don't know if its a good thing or a bad thing LOL but also less services.
The economy is an algebraic equation, both sides need to balance.

Not necessarily. Give your people a guaranteed income, but they are only allowed to spend it on home made goods. What if they buy Chinese white goods, German cars or Japanese technology? Your tax money goes to a competitor. Where do immigrants fit in?
Recycle your tax income through home based industry.

I do not think some of the posters here are aware just how soon these changes are going to take place. We are not talking about a few jobs here and there. We are talking about entire industries that will no longer exist do to automation. Self driving semi trucks/lorries for example will wipe millions of jobs. These trucks have already been running from Texas to California since 2017. It is going to happen a lot sooner then the average person could ever imagine. Society is going to be caught out by all it because they only people at this point who know what is coming work in the Tech industry. Politicians are still cluelessly ignorant about it.

Elon Musk thinks that UBI will be a must as a stop gap to all the changes. The simple reality is that job training and the like will not be a solution as there will be millions of jobs that will simply vanish in the near future and there will not be replacement fields to migrate to. The tech sector knows what is coming but almost no one else does.

Elon Musk Thinks Automation Will Lead to a Universal Basic Income | Fortune

Originally Posted by Switch

Not necessarily. Give your people a guaranteed income, but they are only allowed to spend it on home made goods. What if they buy Chinese white goods, German cars or Japanese technology? Your tax money goes to a competitor. Where do immigrants fit in?
Recycle your tax income through home based industry.

Income then will be spend no different than it is today, the only thing that will change will be its source

Originally Posted by Norton

Times change and automation always replaces humans. Usualy because it does things better, faster and cheaper than a human. My first job as a kid was in a gas station pumping gas. No more in developed countries. All self serve. One of the nice things here in the LoS. Got humans doing a brilliant job.

Re a guaranteed base income, I would not support it. Put the money into job skill training. Always best to teach folks to fish rather than give folks fish.

While tech and innovation replaces humans with machines it also creates new jobs in different areas, often requiring new skills which is good for any work force. Fex, if you stayed pumping gas till the chip came along to bump you, doesn't mean you're thrown onto the scrap heap.

I don't have the figures but I'm sure there are more people working than there were say 20 years ago, many in jobs created by the very tech that cost others their jobs.

Re a guaranteed base income, ditto no support here, could never work in the west and pointless even trying to achieve it anywhere else. As you say the money is better spent training, which offers not just better employment conditions but also raises the standard of general education and ultimately quality of life.

Originally Posted by Buckaroo Banzai

As I said, for industry to produce it need consumers , a way has to be found to keep the cow alive otherwise no more milk for industry. IMO a basic guaranteed income accomplishes that task,

Fair comment on industry, but assuming you mean a basic guaranteed income for workers, which leads to other issues such as why one should not earn what another earns doing more hours or a more complex or unappealing task or unsociable hours, then doesn't an increasing minimum wage move toward that goal? Sure there are ways around it like zero hour contracts, but every system can be gamed.