Universal Basic Income thread

I would never work again

I can't wait for this shit

How do I sign up to be on the testing stage of this?

>>1227968
Allows people to focus on their inner development and true potential instead of slaving away.

I'm a huge UBI fan, as long as those who would spend and waste it all do not have destructive safety nets.

MMT FTW

>>1227973
I'm not sure where in Ontario the test run will start, but it will be in 2016. Based on the results they may choose to expand the program. They're looking to see if it would be feasible on a national level as a Citizen's Basic Income for all citizens.

>>1227980
I can tell you right now I would not waste it. If not not waste it you mean smoke so much weed and go pro in multiple videogames at once.

All this time my fucking parents have kept me from my dreams of success. Now I can actually achieve them

>>1227980
"Hello, I'd like a cheeseburger and fries. Hello? Hello....? HELLO!?"

>>1227995
The idea is people will work to thrive, not just to get by. So if you do get a job at McDonalds, it's so you have extra income. You'll always have a basic income that you should be able to live on.

>>1228001
Oh yeaaahhh.

I'll totally work! ;)))

I swear I won't waste it!

>>1228001
Because poor people always save extra money they get and totally dont buy beer and scratchers and rims with it

fuck giving them money. Make housing free like hotel type of shit. free food. but they don't get a penny. just free living. they would probably save money and it would be more helpful to the people. and anyone with an ounce of passion will leave the hotel when they start working. this way they don't take advantage of the government by buying f150s with their welfare

>>1227973
>>1228026
They're doing a pilot so they can heavily scrutinise the viability of this program. If the results show that everyone quits working and society falls apart at the seams, it won't be expanded. They want to know how society functions when people get a basic income.

This has been tested once before, in Dauphin, Manitoba: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mincome

File: 1455294023370.png (642KB, 1506x1600px) Image search: [Google]

642KB, 1506x1600px

>>1228051
That's why everyone pretends to work hard and yada yada shows how great basic income is and how humans are naturally good and THEN when it happens for real and it's too late to revert it do they start slacking off.

Seriously when is this shit going to hit national levels? There's no shortage of hopeless idiots ready to slave away at full time, high stress jobs. (I'm one of them). If this shit finally takes off the labor market might finally start turning in favor of the job seekers instead of the employers.

>>1228001
more importantly it reduces the labor force so that McDonalds* will need to offer a competitive wage if it wants to hire which will in turn encourage them to invest in increasing productivity instead being awash in cheap labor wage killing stagnation.
*applies to all businesses not just McDonalds

>>1228058
I think any of us who've been long-term unemployed can attest to the fact that no one can sit on their ass forever. People will want to get out and do something. Whether they start doing sports, get a job, decide to learn a skill or get an education, they'll try and advance themselves.

One of the major theories is if UBI is introduced, entrepreneurship will sky-rocket.

>>1228051
You are fucking naive. Government studies result in whatever the government wants them to.

>>1228076
Trust me. I CAN and WILL sit on my ass forever.

You can just do hobbies that don't cost much BTW.

Lifting weights, programming, critiquing films and music, playing instruments($300 for a guitar and practice with online shit)

>>1228058
That doesnt matter. The concept that everyone NEEDS to earn their living is actually a modern and quite backwards phenomenon.
if just 5% of the population decides on their own to be productive that will be an overall net benefit... 95% of the population can be leeches, it doesnt matter as long as they buy stuff.

>>1228076
Innocent anon, meet drugs and alcohol. Drugs and alcohol, meet innocent anon. Never assume the rest of the populace has the same intentions as yourself.

Imagine how lazy the average person is. Half of everyone is lazier than that.

>>1228082
Good.

Now this is something finally going right. For once I can actually live well

I fucking hate working. I want a NEET gf and NEET friends where we all hang out every single day and pool our basic income bucks to buy cool things for our tree fort

>>1228082
the leeches shouldn't be paid in money. they should only be paid in food and shelter. if they want a car or leather boots they go out and work for them.

>>1228078
> everything is a Statist conspiracy!!!1!!1
Nice libertardian meme you got there.

>>1228082
>the highest average standard of living ever in history is "a quite backwards phenomenon"

by all means, we should return to the days when the king gave the serfs a meager stipend to survive on

File: 1444753469196.jpg (9KB, 208x250px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 208x250px

>>1228091
Or... Rob and steal for them

Give us what we demand and we will live peacefully.

NEET gangs are an unnecessary plague on the world, but they can become necessary if our demands aren't met.

>>1228087
this is fine, happy trails.
and of the tens of thousands of little troupes of NEETs having fun one of you will in your fun, come up with something amazing that benefits everyone in some way.

>>1228091
it is economically inefficient to govern the distribution which is why welfare is broken in the first place.

>>1228094
Are Americans the only people on Earth who get that governments are not benevolent and all-loving and totally not corrupt?

so how does a ubi "pilot" work? some Chosen people get money, while I pay? how is that different than welfare?

>>1228079
I don't think any of the things you listed are sitting on your ass. You can turn those things into careers if you keep doing them long enough. Athlete, musician, programmer, journalist.

>>1228091
The idea is that people will be capable of making what they will of their lives. If you stick all the poor people in hotels and you feed them, they'll be stuck in an environment of low-achievement.

>>1228111
I guess but I don't have any wishes to.

When you make it a career you stop doing it how you want and when you want.

>>1228104
Americans are the only ones where people not part of the aristocracy don't get that they can become politicians, that the government is made of citizens, and that taxes are used to provide services that no other individual or institution can or would do.

>>1228108
>universal basic income
>universal
i dont know the specifics of their program but a universal basic income is meant to be given to everyone* (*may include checking birthdates, to give children different amounts than adults)

>>1228115
>implying Canada isnt an environment of low achievement
You Cacucks are so poor and unmotivated the government is literally paying you to keep living there. Pathetic

>>1228108
They do it in towns, cities and counties. The Mincome experiment in the 70s was in the city of Dauphin, Manitoba. Everyone who lived there got a basic income over the course of 2 years and they collected data from it.

It's not self-selecting. Everyone in X place is part of the experiment. The point is watching how the program works on a societal level.

>>1228118
>implying Canada isnt an environment of low achievement
Less so than some shithole like West Virginia. Sure, we're not Jew York or Silicon Valley, but that's because we're a smaller country.

>>1227968
They've done pilot programs like this before in North America (Canada & USA).

They've also failed miserably every time.
Sure there was measurable benefits from a UBI, for example women went back to the kitchen.
However every time it's been tried, just like socialism, the system burns through more money than what was available.

I'm skeptical about the government's motivation on this. What I heard last is that they will be restricted to Native Canadian communities for the experiment. Has anyone heard this as well?

My viewpoint: the real motivation for the UBI experiment in Canada is to see if UBI can politically neutralize the myriad of problems in Native communities. So, they'd be able to scrap the government programs and politics around tribal negotiations, buy them off and wash their hands of the whole thing.

So, before anyone starts booking their plane ticket out to Ontario, consider the possibility that there's zero real intention of making this for all citizens.

>>1228422
I've read that you need to be below some income level to qualify, so it's not ubi at all just welfare with a different name

>>1228070
Yes because they'll microwave those burgers with such gusto at 15/hr vs 8

Delusional Lazy NEETS

>>1228446
Ok, so that says it all then. They're not even trying a UBI at all.

>>1228124
Do not criticize Best Virginia

File: Costanza.jpg (66KB, 601x601px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 601x601px

>>1228209
>However every time it's been tried, just like socialism, the system burns through more money than what was available.

No fucking shit.

Ontario is the most in debt subnational in the world. We literally have no money to sustain what we currently have and yet we're planning on extending more of these retarded programs.

Whatever, I don't give a fuck I'm going down with the ship, watching it all burn.

I'm just stacking fucking guap right now until it all crashes and I dip to Goa or some shit

File: a dollar for racism.jpg (114KB, 878x878px) Image search: [Google]

114KB, 878x878px

>>1228076
>no one can sit on their ass forever
You seriously underestimate your fellow man...

>>1228076
>entrepreneurship will sky-rocket.
You mean drug dealing.

File: bob ross commies.jpg (115KB, 570x844px) Image search: [Google]

115KB, 570x844px

>>1228097
>NEET gangs
LARPers arent that scary though

File: Canada.png (966KB, 854x1006px) Image search: [Google]

966KB, 854x1006px

>>1228124
>but that's because we're a smaller country.
Your so low achievement that you couldn't be bothered to google if you were right tor not... Canada is bigger by 110,000 km

Lazy ass leaf

>>1228078
Not just government studies, you liebertarian clown.

>>1228096
>kings gave serfs a stipend

I dont think you know how feudalism worked friend.

>>1228964
>not being exploited by Jews = drug dealing

>>1228087
>buy cool things for our tree fort
Literally the start of the NEET economy powered by basic income, kek
I love it.

>>1227968
yall already did this

>>1228989
>he thinks the "jews" will magically disappear once everyone starts getting money for doing nothing

There's a reason Ontario is the most indebt sub-national in the world.


IF basic income DOES come, this will be the nail in the coffin.

>>1228450
you're missing the point you dunce. people making 15/hr can buy luxuries and contribute to the economy whereas people making 8/hr have to at the very least double up just to barely make rent and basic subsistence.

>>1228973
he's obviously talking about GDP you pedantic faggot

>>1227968
can someone fill me in on what this is? I've never heard anything about it

>>1229135
nvm just found some news links.

>>1227968
If it happened to me like right now in my current situation? I would still go forward with my potential simple min wage job (I have an interview tomorrow) and really wouldn't take that extra money for granted, maybe save it even as some kind of backup if the job didn't work out after awhile. I have to find my real purpose. But I'm American, this isn't a scenario that would really happen here.

>>1229076
And what makes you think those luxuries wouldn't increase in price. This system would never work.
>hand everyone basic income
>landlords and stores etc all raise prices to be higher than basic income

>>1229135
Basically the idea is that with jobs becoming more scarce due to automation, the goverment gives all citizens a "basic income" that allows them to not starve/die out if unemployed.

It basically scraps most other welfare types in favor of giving out a check to everyone. It's considered a far more efficient approach because instead of having a government agency that requires hundreds of bureaucrats and other expenses to decide who gets what welfare and when, everyone simply gets an identical amount of money to live off of.

Other benefits include people having the time to set up their own businesses, more time for child-rearing, opportunity to continue some education or learn a skill. It also increases what's called the "velocity of money" meaning that in our service economy, more money being spend day to day increases the demand for goods, and thus grows the economy as a whole.

File: 20e7a23.jpg (23KB, 300x300px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 300x300px

>>1227968
This will just even more wealth flight to more friendly tax environments.

But sure, go ahead and bring in the NEET tax Ontario I'm sure it will go well.

>>1229152
Where do you think that money has to come from? I can't see this system working.

>>1228895
Ill be taking my "basic income" cheques and buying physical gold and silver while I too go down with the ship.
See you after on the rich side of the fence anon.

>>1227968
Someone needs to edit Arnie's "GET TO DA CHOPPER!"

with Ben (Shalom) Bernanke's face superimposed over his head. Something tells me it is going to be very pertinent going forward.

>>1229157
just like every government program, it comes from taxes.
The system would work because it's far cheaper to administer than the current welfare system, which has dozens of different agencies with staff and infrastructure that would be eliminated and replaced with a singular basic income. People who actually crunched the numbers (at least for the US) found that by eliminating all non-healthcare welfare programs (SS, unemployment, food stamps, housing benefits etc.) and either raising taxes slightly or cutting some of the military budget it is entirely doable.

>>1229168
from what I know, welfare doesnt give people a lot of money to begin with, almost barely enough for basic necessities. Im just wondering what a weekly check size would be.

>>1229168
I guess the issue is that conservatives don't really care (in the usa) about anyone but themselves.

>>1229175
majority of people on food stamps and welfare smoke and drink.
Please tell me why we should give a fuck?

>>1229173
I've read it's about $900 / month or less. None of this plan remotely resembles a UBI plan.

First, as someone said, it's not for everyone, so there goes "universal".

Secondly, I'd be surprised if anyone in Ontario can live on $900 a month, so there goes another tenant of UBI.

It's just glorified welfare.

>>1229187
if it's seen as a means to end existing social programs, I'd be curious to see how that plays out.

>inb4 Laquisha spends her 900 on a tv and cries to the media when the government is no longer paying for other expenses

>>1229178
well for one presumably with a basic income crime would go down. Less homeless bums on the streets as well. Also more time for parents to spend with their children, getting involved with their education etc.

Another reason is people with basic income can still contribute to the economy by buying shit. If you own a company that makes TVs, for instance, people having a UBI would be a big benefit to your own sales.

but really you should care more because automation is making more and more people useless as time goes on. large number of permanently unemployed people is a recipe for disaster, and the alternatives that people might turn to out of desperation (communism etc.) are a lot worse

>>1229178
And where exactly is that statistic? And even if so , if you are freaking miserable I don't blame a lot of people for turning to that, even though they shouldn't just to feel better for once.

>>1229223
I see it with my own eyes you cuck

>>1229236
Do you meet every single person and know their story on a personal level and have cameras on them to verify that they are drinking and smoking? No of course you don't that would be fucking stupid.

>>1229240
idc what their story is. The money they receive should be regulated so that it cant be spent on useless shit.

I don't need cameras since I see it with my own eyes. I have a few friends from highschool that live in the "geared to income housing" section of town and the majority of the people that live in that complex are fucking welfare losers who blow all their money on drugs, alcohol and smokes.

You're just trying to justify it because you yourself are most likely a leach on society.

>>1229187
>$900 bucks a month
kek
That's maybe half a rent payment in toronto.

>>1229255
Actually I'm not a leach if you read what I said earlier. I would still be trying for the job I'm trying for. Nor have I ever taken any goverment money outside student loan/grant money that I'm slowly paying back.

>>1228895
Keep working, put UBI into your TFSA trading account, laugh at the poor when you move to your mansion in a non-sinking province / state / nation.

>>1229258
>That's maybe half a rent payment in toronto.

Not really.

You can rent a bachelor apartment in the nicest part of Toronto for $1500/month.

Buy even more silver and cryptocurrency every month, and get more expensive, fancy canned goods for my happening-storage.

Inflation

>>1228091
that doesn't work, and thats one of the main reasons basic income is suggested in the first place

>>1228035

In which case the govt gets the lotto money, or the rims place gets the money,and orders more rims from the manufacturer, who then puts people to work making rims.

>>1229275
this guy gets it, even though this whole idea is fucking retarded to begin with, But might as well make the best with the hand you're dealt

>>1229353
Why doesn't it work?

>>1229135
dole

>>1228082
>if just 5% of the population decides on their own to be productive that will be an overall net benefit... 95% of the population can be leeches, it doesnt matter as long as they buy stuff.
People like you should be round up and shot. Lazy cunt.

>>1228082
probably the dumbest shit I've read all day

>>1228097
you're confusing neets who larp in the park and niggers who shoot eachother

>>1229197
Well, if implemented in full, UBI gets rid of every social program, including social security.

It is for everyone (universal) so there's no restriction except citizenship. So, no matter how young or old you are, how rich or how poor, you will all get the same amount.

It's intrinsic and so cannot be taken or reduced in any way.

And here's the most controversial and difficult point:

It must be enough to support a single person completely.

I believe these are the three tenants. If any one of these are compromised, the system cannot be considered UBI.

>>1227980
Totally agree.

My hometown (Hamilton, ON) has been pinpointed as one of the cities where they will first try this experiment out. Hopefully I can be giving some updates next year. I'm hoping the number will be closer to the 1k range than the 700-850 that I've heard floating around.

>>1229488
>It must be enough to support a single person completely.

Here's another issue to think about, at least in the USA , probably true of different areas of Canada too, the variations in the cost of living in a specific area. Living in NYC vs living in a small town in Alabama vs anything in between. Do we determine this based on city or state averages?

>>1229076
Same fag from above

Way to move the goal posts. You deserve no further responses as you can't even formulate a valid one for your original argument.

>>1229505
Exactly right. That's another issue with these principles

>>1229505
Yeah Idk how they are going to get over that problem

>>1228051
>move to ontario
>act like a huge nigger
>crash the plan
>save the world

>>1229457
Isn't most of our manufacturing done overseas tho?

I mean we're not making any money off oil and Ontario has a dying manufacturing sector.

>>1228082
Yeah, in the not too distant past if you couldn't grow enough food to feed your family on your own land you just starved to death. Tradesmen were a rarity, though they would starve too if their trade was redundant.

>>1228116
if you have guaranteed income you would make your hobbies a career on your own terms

>>1231280
depends how much your hobbies cost. There's a reason why a lot of people play video games. It's the most inexpensive hobby.

>>1229178
Ever see the grocery store on food stamp day. People with kids buying bread and ketchup like crazy.
The lotto Line is wrap around.

File: 1427333385824.jpg (60KB, 605x500px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 605x500px

>>1229152
>just give everyone more money and people will make more money
I can't wait for everyone in Canada who has wealth to come to America like Californian businesses relocate to Texas.
Canada is becoming such a fucking joke.

>>1228046
Won't work if their potential jobs give out less than a home and food

>>1229076
>rent isn't a contribution to the economy
Contributions to the economy are just money flow

I actually hope Canada goes through with it so leeches in our country just move there

>>1228096
>by all means, we should return to the days when the king gave the serfs a meager stipend to survive on
Kekeroni

>>1229168
People who actually crunched the numbers (at least for the US) found that by eliminating all non-healthcare welfare programs (SS, unemployment, food stamps, housing benefits etc.) and either raising taxes slightly or cutting some of the military budget it is entirely doable.
Source?
I mean giving 1000 dollerinos a month to 200 million adults is 2.4 trillion per year. Checking the data, it seems plausible, but with removal of all other social spending, including medicare. The question is, who the fuck would implement it. If a Democrat proposes it, they'd get fucked by republicans for being literally socialism. If a republican tried that, it'd be all about muh poor immigrants, racism and removing muh free health care.

>>1228087
Me too anon, me too

>>1227991
>All this time my fucking parents have kept me from my dreams of success.
Okay so you're blaming them for your failure. What have they done to keep you from success?

>>1231944
>normies in charge of not taking the b8

>>1231706
I hope Canada goes through with it because it will just make the financial collapse happen sooner

>>1231825
>The question is, who the fuck would implement it

It's definitely not politically possible yet, at least in the US. However as more jobs are eliminated, (the driverless car comes to mind) there will be enough pent up frustration with the economy that it might be feasible. There really aren't a lot of alternatives. Some on the left might keep arguing for increased safety nets of traditional welfare for a potential solution. While the far left might argue for actual Socialism and public ownership of the means of production.

The right will hopefully be the ones to advance basic income, as many economists on the right originally were. The reason being it will come down to basic income or some form of socialism/communism

>>1232201
I understand the need for it especially if 50% of jobs suddenly became automated(not saying thats possible but hear me out)
This system is relying on the big money makers to pay enough taxes to be able to budget this. Which is not possible because majority would just tax evade through other legal means or move to another country.

>>1231825
Universal BASIC income.

Means that if you earn over x dollars you get nothing. If you earn under x dollars you get the difference.

Not everyone gets it.

Also, it will be taxable income. So there is returns on it.

You have to ask yourself. If you won a million dollars would you work less or more? Because if you don't choose more, you're retarded.

Those people who would live off the system and not do anything are the ones ALREADY living off the system and not doing anything. It wouldn't change that.

>>1232216
No, UBI is given to everyone regardless of how much you make, That's why its called UNIVERSAL basic income.

>>1232243
this, though there are versions of basic income that cut off if you earn over X dollarydoos (negative income tax in particular)

I think those versions would fall into the same welfare trap we have now, however, in that once you get your basic income, you stop having the incentive to work. It also fucks over those making close to whatever the cutoff is, because they might not make enough to live on, but also won't qualify for a BI. Whereas with a Universal basic income, there is never any disincentive to work to increase your income.

>>1232215
Well, at least in the US, you might not have to tax only the wealthy (though even getting a little bit of their money would go a long way.) I've seen proposals that introduce a VAT tax like in britain, for instance, and while regressive, everyone is still better off with the UBI that before. Also it should be completely possible to cut into military spending, which in a way is a form of welfare on its own.

File: oimg.png (14KB, 600x371px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 600x371px

>>1232243
No.

There's a reason why I try and do cash work as often as possible. The government just wastes my tax dollars anyways so why should I bother paying?

File: cozy.jpg (352KB, 828x1403px) Image search: [Google]

352KB, 828x1403px

Assuming it lasts the rest of your life...

I'd become a super NEET, play videogames, watch movies and fap to artificial girl 3 all day. I'd become the worst imaginable hikikomori stereotype. Literally the only reason I don't do this now is because I don't have any passive income, and if I'm going to work full time I may as well get paid well for it, so instead I work hard and study etc.

I'd be interested to know how many other currently productive members of society like me would just completely abandon everything.

>>1232387
Probably a decent amount, but still not as many as people on 4chan tend to think.

It honestly is a good thing though, as we already have a huge labor surplus which is only going to get worse as time goes on.

With a true UBI though, you and many other NEETs might find that it would be alright to work some shit part-time job, that augments your UBI to let you fund more/better. It also allows you to focus on school without needing to work some shit job, or on self-learning. Also allows mothers to actually care for their kids.

>other currently productive members of society like me would just completely abandon everything.
the thing is you aren't "abandoning society" by spending your UBI, you are contributing to demand in the economy, (paying rent, fixing your car, buying a new PC etc.)

>>1232400
It just depends on how many "abandon everything" What if too many people decide that they no longer want to work?
Would companies that pay workers minimum wage stop functioning if too many people quit their jobs.

So what benefits are associated with UBI and the pros and cons?

I think crime rate will go down and generally people's happiness will go up.

Under welfare, it was sometimes better to just stay on welfare and get an under the table job/illegal activities than to get an actual job. People won't have to resort to such activity with UBI

A lot of Ontarios social assistance systems would be removed like EI and welfare. People would be okay with more part time work (it seems in Ontario the majority of jobs are becoming part-time), which would also help companies fill in spots they can't get and be able to cut hours and thus save money

I'd be happy with UBI if it helped everyone and not just the poorer folk.

>>1232400
Well like I said in my first reply I myself would still be doing the min wage job I just got but just be able to save more and wouldn't have as much fear about doing badly or the job not working out. Really would just be more of a way to calm my nerves.

>>1232467
yeah, not having to worry if your boss is going to fire you because your bills will still be able to get paid.

>>1232441
EI pays out 2 grand a month if you're at the cap, so UBI wouldnt be able to replace EI

>>1232483
I was thinking more that since one has the basic necessities to survive now, ei would either be reduced (taking a smaller chunk of our paycheck out) drastically or just removed all together

I think the only social assistance that would be kept is disabilities and maybe old age (not sure if they have)

>>1232216
You're thinking of a negative income tax.

>>1228895
i can tell your from southern ontario. ottawa/toronto.

>>1232482
But yeah you still need to find your purpose and doing even a shit job can help you find that I guess. I mean job I got is nothing really that special but it will still in some way help. Then I still got plenty of time to fuck around .

>>1232215
>>would just tax evade through other legal means
Which is why you close the loopholes in existing tax law that allow them to do this.

>>or move to another country
Confiscate any and all national assets they have when they try this, and either outlaw the sale of their goods and services or place a very heavy tariff on said goods and services.

>>1232634
>Which is why you close the loopholes in existing tax law that allow them to do this.
You think that can happen when its the corporations that run the goverments? Who do you thinks funds all the political stuff.

>>1232634
>>1232636
Im not saying I dont agree with you though.
It's just that I don't see closing those loopholes being a possibility

>>1228035
Or you know...food.

>>1232636
>>1232638
Oh it isn't politically possible to do this right now, but things will change over time.

Sadly, there's too little research into UBI crypto. I'd be really interested in reading some good thoughts on the matter but it's mostly solving the hard problem of proving your uniqueness, which would be trivial in any government operation.

>>1228076
>no one can sit on their ass forever

I'm damn sure going to try

>>1228086
there are women who have kids just for the sole purpose of getting more welfare....its pathetic

>>1228076
Are you out of your fucking mind? I personally know motherfuckers who haven't had a job in 20 years and game the system and females who have had kids solely for the welfare and benefits.

>>1228051
This has already been done in the past in Canada, but the government scrapped the project after many years without analyzing the data.

Economists have since gone back to evaluate it, and it looks like it worked pretty well. People were healthier, happier, continued working, etc.

>>1233057
This is the big thing too.

The people who wouldnt work with a Basic Income are the people who are already abusing the system and not working.

Basic income will not create a huge change in unemployment numbers.

File: laughing_women_laughing_women.jpg (19KB, 360x271px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 360x271px

>>1227968
lets say the UBI would be like $600, global minimum or some shit, mmkay?

now what will most definitely happen is prices will rise until that "muh global income" won't be worth you shit.

in short: you can have your UBI but don't expect it to last you dumb nigger. kek , people are goinn to abuse this shit to the stratosphere.
pregnant girls everywhere, overpopulation, shit will go south real fast.

https://www.jacobinmag.com/2016/05/richard-nixon-ubi-basic-income-welfare/

Interesting article for all the naysayers.

>>1229474
yeah nah, we don't need hundreds of thousands of cashiers and box and button pushers if robots do all that shit for us. I literally don't know why this is difficult for people with your mindset to understand

>>1232215
I think the idea is that automation will make certain things damn near free to produce, so basic income is almost like allocating the value of what the worth of automated goods and services are

>>1233154
>>1233148
You are correct. Ignore all these uneducated teenagers.

>>1233158
Well, no. Because you are assuming that all of the wealth generated by the increased efficiency of the automation will benefit society and humanity, but it won't. It will benefit the 1%, and fuck you if you ain't part of that class. Now we're looking at the real issue, aren't we /biz/?

>>1233158
One mind at a time, etc. There is going to be a lot of resistance to these ideas even as they start to become entirely inevitable in order to avoid complete economic collapse

>>1233166
The fact is that there will NEED to be a basic income.

Automation will replace so many jobs. People will not be able to work, no matter how much they want to.

You'll only have to get to around 15-20% unemployment before you start seeing riots and revolution-tier shit.

In the end, either we get basic income, or the majority of humans die from starvation.

>>1233177
I think a lot of people, certainly not everyone, but a lot of people are going to realize in the coming years that Sen. Bernard Sanders basically had the right idea, whether or not his policies were perfectly fleshed out. It's just going to become more and more apparent, over time, as the veils are lifted one by one.

>>1233177
very bad idea.
in my country slavery is already a huge problem.
if basic income becomes real then thugs will just grab people from the street to keep in their basement and take their income to be filthy rich with almost no effort. it's even better than running hookers.
at first probably drug abusers or recreational users will be snatched from parties. then the demographic might expand.
people will be kept like livestock for their base income.

>>1233135
not really. never heard of sticky prices?
And 90% of our shit is produced in china, if a pen there cost 1$ at street price, it will cost 1$ here + shipping cost + customs + a little overprice for the vendor. It will not cost 15$.

File: 772955054[1].png (51KB, 604x453px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 604x453px

>>1233191
>if basic income becomes real then thugs will just grab people from the street to keep in their basement and take their income to be filthy rich with almost no effort

what?!
Is a joke right?
If you want to do that shit you could do it already kidnapping old people. But i never heard about this problem.

>>1233300
>you could do it already kidnapping old people
yeah well it's happening there are criminal organizations already doing it.
mostly to take the pension of the old and any valuable they have but the thing that really interest them is the home.
old folks who have no children and let strangers into their home often end up like this. hostages in their own home which they will be forced to sell (for money that only exists on paper). and get dumped on the street or killed.
there are no routine examinations or dissection in the morgue for old people above a certain age. unless there is suspicion of foul play they will just assume died of old age.

>>1233191
>kidnapping
>literally spend your life in jail charge
>risking it for a NEET's shekels
You gotta be real dumb, thats not how any decent criminal enterprise operates. I was born in a 3rd world country in Eastern Europe, and what they would do there in the 90s, is shake up old people with no relatives for their flats and shit. Even so, the ones who got caught probably regretted it.

>>1233432
if you grew up in east eu you probably know the criminals rarely get caught. if they do it means they did not stuff the right pockets frequently enough.
slavery is very real as it is even if the slaves have no income whatsoever. this move would only make it worse. way worse.
even if a slave can't work he would still turn profit.

>>1227968
I would quit my wagecuck job and focus on my other interests in life:

>learning more programming
>studying the Bitcoin code so I could develop Bitcoin applications
>learning Sanskrit
>studying Indian philosophy

>>1229187
Welfare receivers get at least 1200 dollars or more for themselves. Enough for rent, food, and internet if they play their cards right.

>>1233466
Well you're just an all around trendy little faggot arent you?

>>1233467
or enough for drugs and alcohol and no food kek
all while their kid with fetal alcohol syndrome starves to death only at the mercy of child services taking him or her away

>>1229261
You should try going into welfare areaa and seeing it for yourself because these kinds of lower class people all do what the other anon said.

File: royal neet pepe.png (204KB, 409x480px) Image search: [Google]

204KB, 409x480px

wagies on respiratory support

>>1232424
They would be fine. Companies that pay workers minimum wage do so at a huge to themselves and are trying to get rid of full timers so they don't have to pay benefits and wages. These companies are the ferengi of our world

>>1228079
>$300 guitar
Not if you want a good one.

>>1233497
They wouldn't be fine if everyone quit their miserable min wage job. They'd have to pay people more just to try and keep them

>>1233804
Well not necessarily more money, depending on the job. But overall a UBI would really level the playing field between employees and employers.

For one thing, a number of people will simply drop out of the market to be NEETs, go to school or raise children, thus tilting the balance back from our current employer first market.

Because people no longer would be deathly afraid of losing their jobs and starving/being homeless, they wouldn't put up with as much bullshit from managers. For some jobs, where wages are artificially low due to a huge glut in labor, wages and benefits would rise.

However, there are also arguments that by providing a UBI, unions would no longer be needed at all, and thus stricter laws (right to work, getting rid of coercive union dues) might happen. The minimum wage could also be either repealed or eliminated. This would create a much more "free market" than what currently exists, since people and businesses can negotiate what a fair wage themselves, without government getting involved, while the employees don't start off negotiations at an inherant disadvantage (eg: starving from not getting the job)

>>1233825
who will do the shit (and low value) jobs if you give everyone enough money to scrape by?

>>1233474
people with mental problems have problems with or without money.

>>1233886
people want more, always more. They never stop craving for a better car/dress/iphone/status. And all that can be archived only with money that can't come from UBI.
Being the lowest is always shit. Compare the worst not homeless people in Europe with the same one in africa. For the african the lowest european is a god, but the european know that he is shit.

>>1227968
UBI isn't viable until the vast majority of low-wage jobs are automated.

>>1234079
if you don't try it, test it and do some math a lot before this problem come, you will end up in a shitty position.

>>1233101

I hope UBI becomes a standard in the western world. Once it becomes a meme I'm sure meme magic will make it so.

>>1234079
The thing is a lot of the jobs that will be automated aren't just low-wage jobs. (though they certainly will be eliminated as well) Driverless cars are around the corner, and though it will take some time for adoption, that's a lot of trucker jobs (which generally aren't considered "low wage") gone for good.

But it's not just those trucker jobs that will be gone, but all the small towns that depend on their business. Diners, convenience stores, gas stations, among many others will suddenly start losing a lot of business, causing more job losses to compound. And that's just for automated cars and trucks.

I think UBI should start to be considered now, before automation takes hold, both to prevent misery later but also due to efficiency. Many countries already have huge amounts of welfare spending on different programs, (housing, unemployment, social security, food stamps etc.) We'd save money in the long run by just switching those over now, getting rid of the bureaucratic clout these programs tend to incur.

>>1233297

"sticky prices" refers to when something happens to an economy where income is less than what can be bought.

The products tend to "stick" to a certain position, while wages continue to fall.

UBI won't work. It actually is socialism. I feel bad for all the liberals actually proposing this idea. It will be the death of their country.

Short the CAD like I did. I made 25% real quick.

>>1234104

You aren't forward thinking.

All those automated vehicles will provide high-wage jobs for people who maintenance and also program them.

Are you retarded? The jobs will flow from one area to another; with the exception of an educational barrier.

File: old job vs new job.jpg (74KB, 1266x790px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 1266x790px

>>1234122
>he believe the new jobs meme.

>>1234116
>>"sticky prices" refers to when something happens to an economy where income is less than what can be bought.
>
>The products tend to "stick" to a certain position, while wages continue to fall.

No, sticky prices works for offer and demand, for wages and services. It's not a one way street.

>>1234104
UBI will never buy you the same life you had working a semi-skilled job that pays above average.

>>1233886
>>1233825
Well when you put it that way, employers may have to start complying because an employee who is good at his job an employer will want to keep and when an employee can just tell his boss to fuck himself without having to worry about his bills getting paid.

>>1228422
Can confirm, in a pre liminary report on this a few weeks back. The test trials are for the those isolated communites with the abbies to lazy to get a job, from there its expansible toi iother small towns.

>>1234122
>All those automated vehicles will provide high-wage jobs for people who maintenance and also program them.
sure it would create a lot of new high-wage technical jobs for people. But it won't employ nearly as many people as the current industry does, or else the automation would be useless to adopt.

If right now you have 100 truckers earning 50k a year, with driverless cars you'll have 10 technicians earning 80k a year. The number of jobs will always decrease.

The education barrier only works so far though. Even if we every school was literally perfect, not everyone has the brains or drive to be an engineer or scientist.

>"everyone will a safety net"
>THIS IS BAD
>"why?"
>I WANT PEOPLE WITHOUT JOBS TO DIE
fucking wagecucks, what are you even doing on /biz/? shouldn't you be out drinking with your workmates?

>>1234181
if you raise the wages on menial jobs and low value services that just leads to huge inflation.
that is my major problem with base income. unless there is a solution to the wage problem unless you can compensate people in a way that can not be exchanged to money it just leads to hyperinflation.

people will only work for much much more the amount that you get for free is the benchmark that previously was 0. in inflation the base income must be adjusted or it becomes quickly an empty gesture this leads to even more inflation.

>>1234509
>everyone having a base income will lead to hyperinflation
explain this.

>>1234517
because society needs people to work. if people are less pressured by living expenses to work they will raise their expectations of earnings. shortage of employees raises wages. increased wages add increased money supply for the same amount of assets and goods which results in quick escalation of prices which results in working people wanting even more money and base income neets needing even more money which results in more money printed which results in further inflation.

there are no stops on this train.

File: nyt_cost_graph.png.CROP.promovar-mediumlarge.png (183KB, 590x777px) Image search: [Google]

183KB, 590x777px

>>1234529
meh, on paper this is true but i'm not sure about reality.
Like think about the opposite.
Right now in the last 10-20 years wage are stable at best and going down in reality. If that was true the price of things should always be the same or go lower.

If you check the image the only things that go down are china imported shit, meanwhile american stuff go up. Even if median wage are going down. So if you give more money to people prices goes up, and if you give less money to people prices goes up? Something doesn't work as papers suggests.

>>1234537
so stuff made in china dropped in price and stuff provided domestically soaring in price.
you guys are doomed. i'm serious the chinese pull the plug on devaluing their currency against usd and you are rekt.

>>1234537
to answer your question your wages are not stable they are devalued with your currency. most workers hours worth a lot less on the market today as they were 20 years ago. you get the same money and imported shit dropping in price makes you feel you are not even living worse. but in reality you are in inflation maybe even hyperinflation you just haven't noticed it yet. i think like 60% of usd are not "located" in the us or rather not present as spending power currently. add that back and see where prices go.

File: lavoroNelTessile.jpg (58KB, 816x498px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 816x498px

>>1234539
china have a lot of worse problems than US/EU.
Eu and us are advancing a lot in advanced robotics like abb and baxter, and basically some sectors are reopening manufacturing in EU/US because local production with automation is cheaper than chinese production + customs + shipping.

Chinese are forcing local industries to automate to cut down cost but their robotics departments are a decade later and the precision is shit compared to humans.
Like foxconn announced 2 years ago to automate everything with their robots, too bad their robots where shit and had to keep humans in.

File: settoreTessile.jpg (47KB, 994x338px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 994x338px

>>1234542
ops wrong image.

>>1234541
that money was created to external demand, of course if all of that come back to us there will be a massive inflation. If the money is allocated outside of an economy it doesn't really cause inflation.

>>1234545
my guess is it will seep back in.

Sorry boss it's just not worth it stocking shelves at walmart anymore because of UBI, i'm quitting.
>Boss raises wages to attract employees
>to make a profit he now has to increase the prices in the store

and suddenly UBI has to be raised because prices are increasing. at the same time more people are unemployed so less tax dollars are collected. Valuable members of society like doctors and engineers start moving away as the government wants more tax dollars at the same time as prices rise.

Collapse ensues

>>1234547
well central banks in EU and US are printing money like no tomorrow hoping for some inflation to cause an acceleration of the money velocity to start the economy.
Basically if they stopped giving money to banks hoping that they start to do shit and give it to people there will be a 100X more inflation.

I mean bce printed 600 billions. Is like giving 100 mln poor europeans 6000€.
I'm not saying is enough for a basic income, but is somewhere close.

>>1234555
problem is the banks are just sitting on the printed money or it goes to the stock market.

and no acceleration happens it just goes towards a catastrophic failure.

>>1234529
>increased wages add increased money supply
you what? the government controls the money supply. nothing about a basic income requires printing more money.
also
>shortage of employees raises wages
isnt an across the board truth... shit jobs will have wage increases because people dont want to do them, they will pay higher wages for those jobs and/or increase automation for higher productivity as a result. on the other end of the spectrum theres jobs people absolutely want to do whether they need to or not and those wages are likely to dip as popular jobs get their own labor flood.
all in all i think the job market will have no trouble finding stable equilibrium with higher incentives towards productivity advancement.

>>1234585
if i could repoint out a point i just made.....
>shit jobs will pay more
doesn't this seem like an actually working market? compared with today where if you work a shit job you hate you get paid shit money for the privilege.

market prices reflecting the actual value of things is the sign of a working economy, we've been ignoring that our labor markets have pricing as broken as Venezuelan toiletries.

>>1234585
>the government controls money supply
not exactly true they control the initial money supply but the total is out of their control. the initial money supply is like 1-10% of the total.
>isnt an across the board truth
true very well payed employees will not be much affected in the first go. except their wages are always compared to the wages of cucks and when you increase the wage of cucks they will want more since they worth that much more.
>doesn't this seem like an actually working market?
sadly no it just distorts the entire market like all state intervention. shit jobs pay shit because they are low added value and low requirement (high supply) jobs.

basically i think you can't have free market and a free floating currency and base income.

whatever you hand out for free will make peoples time that do want to work more expensive. even exponentially more expensive.

this in itself could stabilize but if you add free market you will have an inflationary spiral as everybody adjusts expectations and the total value produced is not actually greater.

>>1234615
then how you solve the automation problem or structural unemployment?

>>1234625
you can't now
you have to wait for the right time when people can't just jump in and out of the market for jobs because it's no longer remotely possible for the majority. when education crates workforce at a predictable low rate then you can have base income.

>>1234625
the other approach is base income exists but it's not free. for every year that you receive base income you have to work a year. if you can't find work you will be government employed and do whatever the fuck they tell you like clean sewers.

this way the inflationary effects of base income are controlled because the wage of menial jobs is not getting a huge bump.

basically this is unemployment support. that we currently have in most countries just a bit expanded.

Won't the extra capital just cause inflation?

Unless the actual wages decrease to compensate I guess

>>1227968
it's an effort to keep stimulating consumption by a non-productive and broke system. it's a way to disengage public spending because, guess what, there's no money left. soon after the experiment begins, inflation will kick in and everybody will realize their free money is worth nothing.

i think it could work for a very prosperous society like switzerland, but for anybody else it just means the end-game is near.

>>1227968
http://www.cato-unbound.org/2014/08/04/matt-zwolinski/pragmatic-libertarian-case-basic-income-guarantee


>>1234684
>i think it could work for a very prosperous society like switzerland
Or Australia, or Canada, or Norway, or Germany, or France, or the US...

>>1234682
>Unless the actual wages decrease to compensate I guess
but how? the more you receive for free the more precious your time will be the less likely you will be to work the same amount for the same amount not to say LESS.

it doesn't make any sense to expect base income to come out of salaries. and people working for +1$ a day unless they are forced to.

>>1234684
if you economy produces ever increasing value as a result of base income it can work. if not it will definitely result in inflation spiral.

now why would less people working increase a countries productivity?

>>1234687
>Or Australia, or Canada, or Norway, or Germany, or France, or the US...

i was thinking about adding norway but i don't know much about it. the rest of the EU? i have my doubts. it's will just bring the living standards down and, given the current social/political climate, such a consensus seems inconceivable.

>>1234682
you don't create extra capital, you taxes the corp and rich people a little bit more.

Right now in Usa you spend 1 trillion dollar in welfare, basically 20k$ per poor person. Instead of being inefficient piece of shit like now with food stamps and overburocracy just give 20k$ to poor people.
Giving services and good to poor or give them money to them to buy them doesn't create inflation. It just decrease inefficiencies and get a shape to the shit labor market that lives thanks to gov subsides like wallmart.

>>1234689
>if your economy produces ever increasing value
yeah i suppose this meme has already been debunked many times.

ageing demographics, erratic immigration, social unrest, etc. successfully micro-managed economies don't seem very likely...

>>1234695
holy shit my english tilted badly.

>>1234695
>you taxes the corp and rich people a little bit more
i didn't do much research, but i don't think the theorists for UBI are thinking about that source of financing. what you're talking about is socialism and many countries already tried that.

from what i understood BI would be some kind of complex circular consumption tax that would free the govt' . it's pretty smart but for already dysfunctional societies, very unlikely. sorry to break your dreams. i also dream of free money sometimes too.

>>1234695
>you taxes the corp and rich people a little bit more.
unfortunately those are the two groups that are the best at avoiding taxes and pack up and move any day if they don't like how things are going.

>>1234702
>and many countries already tried that

tried? All europe use this system to pay for everything. And even US until the 70 had something like 80% as the highest tax braket.
So what's the problem to make the taxs a little bit higher for the richer? Has already been proven millions of times that the propensity to save money is always too high in rich people and that slow down money velocity. Especially now that there is an higher concentration of capital in few hands.

>>1234705
Tax loopholes can be fixed, and rich people want to be rich in rich countries. If EU adopt a UBI with US rich people will stay in the system and stop cry since be the richest in Tanzania or China is really shit compared to US/EU.

>less people working and forcing employers to raise wages creates more value than our current system
No.

>>1234702
funny how some people believe progressive taxes = socialism
well i lived in socialism it's not like that
in socialism the state controls supply and production
which results in everything being shitty and the shitty product has no competition no alternative it's also because of the bureaucratic overhead and inefficiency can't even economically produce the shit let alone superior competitive products.

>>1234707
>Tax loopholes can be fixed
could be but so far legislation always favored the rich and fucked the poor in the ass year by year.
so let me know when this trend changes when the tail will wag the dog.

File: Cattura.jpg (67KB, 539x392px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 539x392px

>>1234705
see the pic

>>1234709
Yes american see socialism as soviet union central economy. When people talk about socialism usually talk about the European one.

>>1234713
Right now we can afford the rich getting richer, but if you see there are trends all over europe to block multinational evasion/elusion. Governs are not stupid, they know that this economic system is at the last stage especially after all the QE made by BCE and FED that did basically nothing.
If the people don't get money all stops.

>>1234715
There are no socialist economies in Europe. Well, not in the EU anyway.

>>1227968
I'd probably focus on getting my plans for the business I'd want to run started. Find a job that makes enough beyond UBI to pull in some capital while making sure I have everything else I need ready, take out as few loans as possible and then focus on breaking even until I'm secure enough to make it a success.

>>1234707
raising taxes for corps and richfags is fine but only works to a point. look at most EU's deficit and public debt? the welfare state is living it's last spurts of life, so throwing basic income for the whole population with the same financing scheme is totally inconceivable. that's why the proponents of UBI have another paradigm for financing their plan. because too much socialism turns you into venezuela.

>>1234709
progressive taxes won't save this fucked system. why do you think they're raising the retirement age everywhere? major retirement funds are already crying for help in the US, i hear. the world system is bankrupt and taxes won't save it. we need to move away from this system, but given the current political configurations, it ain't going to work well for most of the world. what we'll likely see is an endeavour to some kind of totalitarian cashless, negative interest rate society where the current system will try to survive a little longer by sucking up people's savings. but that won't end well either. i like the idea of UBI but it has to be achieved on a smaller scale, in small homogenous societies.

>>1234715
my problem with this is third world countries not governed by these legislation can win a landslide by attracting rich peoples wealth and providing them tax heavens.

look how russian sanctions benefited kazakhstan (totally irrelevant before). they are one of the countries the traders use to avoid sanction.

>>1234722
>where the current system will try to survive a little longer by sucking up people's savings
agreed it will happen as there is no other alternative mid term. it won't work long term tho.

>>1234705
Some countries tried to cut taxes for the upper brackets, offer refunds etc to prevent rich people from fleeing to tax shelters. Taxation rates for corporations and the upper classes greatly shrunk in the past few decades.
They still fled to tax shelters, it didn't even slow down the trend.

Either you turn your country into an actual tax shelter (which is hard to sustain once you have more than a few million people) or you fight to shut down tax shelters and prevent tax evasion. Half-assed measures only become fiscal gifts for the super-wealthy.

File: EU-Corporate-Income-Taxes-graph-1995-2011.png (26KB, 465x347px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 465x347px

>>1234722
>raising taxes for corps and richfags is fine but only works to a point. look at most EU's deficit and public debt

>>1234723
rich can try to dodge taxes changing nationality but that can be easily countered. Like in Italy if you live here more than 6 months in 1 year you have to pay your share of tax even if made in china or us or uk.
Extend all the system to EU/US and magically no one moves to kazakhstan to live 7 months since is a shitty place.
They say they live in kazakhstan but the reality is that they still live in russia.

File: EU-Personal-Income-Tax-Rates-1995-2011.png (24KB, 502x292px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 502x292px

>>1234728

>>1234727
>it didn't even slow down the trend
well rich people are usually 2 steps ahead of legislation. they know exactly what is sustainable and hat not and what can they lose if they don't move fast enough but even a single % can cause them to move out of wanting more profit.

>>1234728
what i see in that graph is political desperation to keep jobs. i hate corps as much as the next guy but i know if the state could tax them they'd do it.

File: German_tax_rate_on_corporate_income_1995-2009.png (28KB, 2080x1347px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 2080x1347px

>>1234728
>>1234730

File: German_GDP_in_tax_havens.png (24KB, 663x294px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 663x294px

>>1234735

>>1234733
if you hate corporations wtf are you doing on this board. corporations are great and they simply operate based on pure logic. the politicians however now they are the real scum of the earth.

>>1234727
Part of the problem is that people have forgotten that direct force is the only weapon that can trump money, and we like to pretend it's bad to reign someone's shit in when they're being a parasitic cancer on society at large because they want us to think that's totalitarian so they can get away with it. We've even largely bought their idea that large-scale violence can only happen when it's bought and paid for by one of the wealthy people in charge.

Kill a few executives, demolish a few corporate bodies, and point the gun where it needs to be pointed. Even the fucking Arab militants and pro-Nork psychos will calm down and back off once they see you doing this.

Literally no one likes a billionaire bastard who puts all his effort into avoiding having to give a dime back to the society he's taken so much from. Not even he likes himself.

>>1234738
in every revolution without exception so far the transfer of power did not went to the worthy from the unworthy it went to the base scum the psychopaths the worst kind of criminals.

so have fun with your uprising. i want non of it.

>>1234733
Stop dodging. You used deficit in EU countries as an example that "raising taxes for corps and richfags only works to a point" when the EU has basically been slashing taxes for 2 decades. If anything, what the EU deficit actually proves is that cutting taxes only works to a point.

I don't think horribly burdening corporations and high-income earners is the solution, but you're arguing something completely opposite to reality. Owe up to that.

>>1234729
>since is a shitty place
lol not for the rich anon not for the rich.

>>1234743
the rich can make a gold castle, but can never make the tuscany hills, the paris landscape, the spain nightlife, the uk shitty weather... etc


unless they are basement neet, then you just need an optic cable and you are done.

>>1234745
because you have residence and business in a country now you have to live there? who are you kidding anon we are talking about rich people. they live wherever they want.

>>1234748
they live in EU or USA.
Rich people want services/places that only these countries can give.
If it wasn't true all the rich will have residence in Somalia.
And a lot of people don't want to learn a language or leave parents/friends. Even if is fiscally a pain in the ass staying there.

>>1234748
You think like the classic neoclassical economist. Sometimes there are values other than money to take into account.

>>1234752
rich people are all around the world even in kazakhstan there are people so rich you can't even imagine their wealth. or they can travel all year on their yacht and tend to their business online.

>>1234741
i was just pointing why there were tax-cuts in the first place. putting any faith in increasing taxation as a permanent solution for prosperity is simply naive. if it was that easy why haven't all recent socialist governments in the EU done just that successfully? because they are evil and corrupt?

>>1234753
the thing is the rich don't think like you do. and they can go anywhere as a tourist. it's unlikely they fall in love with a single location, but here is the catch. tax havens hide your wealth. so you can't tax them even if they stay all year in your country. you can tax them some but dam n anon it wouldn't work.

>>1234754
If you are rich you leave shitty places. Being rich in somalia is 100X worse than transfer in any EU/US country. Maybe for the residency you are still Somalian, but you are not living there.

>>1234755
>because they are evil and corrupt?
Sounds good.

>>1234760
Being rich in Third-World Asia is pretty sweet apparently.

>>1234755
because europe is a shit economic union. And nothing more. You removed boundaries so company can take the best from each country without paying anything back. If there is a country that want to help his citizens adding cost to a corp, the corp can easily jump to the next border without problem.
You made the countries too fluid without giving the EU the power to impose some fiscal baseline.

>>1234761
then keep rooting for the next """"real"""" socialist government to fulfil your dreams, anon.

>>1234766
No, really, the answer to "why did the government run the country into the ground instead of implementing these obvious measures" is generally "because they are evil, stupid, cowardly and/or corrupt." You'd have no problem accepting that explanation for a Latin American (or African, or Asian) country, why can't you accept it for an European country?

>>1234764
are you from an ex-communist country? universal basic income has evolved beyond income taxation. you should read about it. it would make the discussion much more interesting. plenty of articles on the internet.

>>1234771
is there a good article about the psychological effect on the remaining workforce and the effect on wages and inflation?

cause that is what keeps going around in my head. would be nice to read a through analysis on that.

to me it seems that most studies focus on the short term financibility and they gladly state it could work. sure like for a year.

>>1234774
This study is bretty interesting.
http://usbig.net/bigblog/2013/08/important-study-finds-that-giving-money-without-conditions-to-the-poor-increases-both-employment-and-wages/

>>1234778
well one time income is not the same as passive income. then here is this:
>Two-and-a-half years later, receipts of the grant worked 17% more hours than similar Ugandans who did not receive the grant, and they earned higher wages and salaries, so that their incomes increased by even more than the hours the worked for a total increase of 50%.
now project this to the entire population. that my friend is what people call inflation.

increased wage is a positive effect for a single individual or a small group it is catastrophic for the whole demographic.

>>1234774
>is there a good article about the psychological effect on the remaining workforce and the effect on wages and inflation?
dunno. i like the idea but didn't quite get into it yet. i guess BUI would cover basic needs (food, shelter, healthcare). but if you want anything beyond that (car, holidays, house with garden, etc.) you'd have to be ready to work to pay for it. Since the financing scheme won't primarily be income taxes, wages would actually give a significant edge to the working population, which in my opinion is an important factor. if you over tax workers in a UBI system, it's basically doomed. UBI would be financed through a consumption tax, so consumption would actually still be the engine for such a system, meaning it would still rely on the capitalistic drive of its population. that's why, i think, looking at the whole idea through the angle of income taxation is against the concept itself.

>>1234771
I know that. Is just my personal opinion that existing welfare transformed to UBI is not enough. Since i believe that at least in the beginning there will be a drastic boom in welfare since everyone will want to try to be neet.

>>1234780
>having a highly skilled and productive workforce is a catastrophe, much better having illiterate jobless drunks who survive by making rat kebabs
Amateur economists, everyone.

>>1234781
well the other problem with basic income is you need to provide a sum that lets a single person survive alone. if this person moves in with two of his friends they just decreased their living costs to 40%. so they can save (and or invest in state bonds) the rest of their 60% of earnings instead of consumption. yeah that wouldn't piss off those that work for like $2 a day and have more expenses then these neet assholes so they can't even save up at all.

>>1234784
>having a highly skilled and productive workforce is a catastrophe
i never said that also i don't find it believable that people enmasse will pick up books if they don't have to work for a living. i would and some will. for a certain type of people this would be nice. but the majority would sit all day in front of the tv. or if they didn't they would earn more money for the same shit they did before. and everyone earning more money while production stays the same is catastrophic.

>Amateur economists, everyone.
you are not really thinking this through or very naive.

>>1234787
>f this person moves in with two of his friends they just decreased their living costs to 40%. so they can save (and or invest in state bonds) the rest of their 60% of earnings instead of consumption

neets, immigrants, whores waiting to find a sugar daddy, junkies, etc. yeah, that why you need a morally homogeneous society for this shit to work. maybe after the Great Reset (or Wipeout), when most nation states will go bankrupt and dissolve, societies will reorganize in smaller, more coherent units and make it work.

>>1234788
>i don't find it believable that people enmasse will pick up books if they don't have to work for a living
Yeah, it's a good thing that doesn't happen, otherwise we would have a surplus of graduates and other overqualified people :^)

>the majority would sit all day in front of the tv
I guess they must not have TVs in Uganda.

>everyone earning more money while production stays the same
Well they worked more hours and got higher-paying jobs so productivity and production apparently increased.

>>1234792
>Well they worked more hours and got higher-paying jobs so productivity and production apparently increased.
yeah no the economy doesn't work like that.
you can do this to a few individuals but not everyone. if everyone moved to higher earning jobs the crazy supply would lower those salaries and in the end they wouldn't be higher earning jobs. or if wages increase all across the board then guess what you get hyperinflation (50% a year would count as that i think)

when you account the effect bui has on the job market dynamics it just doesn't add up.

productivity will fall there is no question about this it won't even stay the same as a large percentage drops out of the market. people will start having babies like crazy because the children are basically cash cows. will they invest in their childrens education? or they will just use their bui to buy booze and drugs and chips and maybe a pimp car?

i don't see it being sustainable in the present economic system at all.

>>1234795
>if everyone moved to higher earning jobs...
Uganda would become Taiwan.

>>1234797
no it wouldn't are you like 12?

what you don't understand also is people have to do the low earning jobs too otherwise these jobs wouldn't exist. we need people to work them and we need them to work it for cheap.
it's not that complicated if you fuck with that you fuck the entire system.

>>1234803
>it's not that complicated if you fuck with that you fuck the entire system.

because reasons....

>>1234831
yeah well i'm sure we all employ the minimum wage cucks for no reason it's all charity it's not like anything would stop working if they all went to unemployment. i'm sure you are right there is nothing to be afraid of.

>>1234841
no. It's not what you said. You said we need cheap labor because we need cheap labor. Nothing is set in stone. Go in medieval times and tell them that the cleric don't need temporal power over peasants an they will say the same thing you are saying now.
Things change, nothing is set in stone.
Cheap labor is not a DNA amino acid set inside us forever.

>>1234896
i get it i have to explain this fundamental and simple thing too.
we need cheap labor because if the labor is more expensive then it raises service and good prices all across the board.
cheap labor is small added value must be relatively cheap otherwise you get communism and communism is real bad worse than inflation. if cheap labor in a free market gets more expensive then all labor gets more expensive and all goods and services gets more expensive. it's all connected.
you can't eliminate cheap labor unless you have sufficiently evolved droids (which we don't yet) but even if you do it will cause problems.

>>1234900
today cheap labor 30 years ago was enough to live comfortably. You had a job you had the american dream at you hands.

Now magically if you have a low skill job you are fucked and it must keep going like this because economy will explode otherwise.

Sorry but this is bullshit.

>>1234901
not bullshit supply and demand.
if a labor is low demand high supply it will get cheap.
you could try to retrain your workforce every 5 years it's not really working as i can see anywhere.
also the american dream got fucked up by overspending that caused inflation. the entire us does not produce enough to stay afloat without getting into more debt. that means americans are fucking overpaid and not competitive as far as the market is concerned.

>>1234901
1974 california min wage 2$
2$ x 8h x20day x 11 months = 3520
median income 9900.
min wage % to median = 35%

2015 california min wage 9$
9$ x 8h x20 day x11 months = 15840
median income = 53000$
min wage % to median = 29%

And California have higher min wage than the rest of the country, yet you lost 6% of your purchasing power as low skill people.

>>1234909
yeah and it's only gonna get worse i think.
look at the very thing i talked about:
>raise minimum wage
>cost of operating certain goods and services are higher now
>people feel they earn less so ask for raise
>all other wages get raised in proportion because their relative value is not changed
>all goods and services are more expensive now
>we just had a bit of inflation and minwage cucks are still at the bottom where they started so...
>let's raise the minimum wage!
>...

>>1234920
hey the minimum income today is higher!

Mcdonald add the cost to the mcburger.
Meanwhile since the new cost is not that high BurgerKing decide to absorb the new cost and don't rise Burger price. Sure the lower margin hit them in the fiscal trimester but hey now they sell more burger since they are cheaper then mcdonald.

Higher minimum income will put a new angle in the market competition. Sure the monopolies will put down the cost on the user, but in a free market some cost will be absorbed by the companies.

>>1234957
>but in a free market some cost will be absorbed by the companies
now this is what i don't believe in short term it might seem like. long term it won't happen. the shareholders would go apeshit if it cuts into the profit. and if it doesn't then lowering the prices would have been the right strategy anyways.

there was a bakery that i used to go to that never seemed to raise prices. even tho we had pretty steep inflation.
what happened is that everything became less and less in both quality and quantity. it was gradual but eventually people stopped buying anything there and they had to close.
somewhere it bites back if you don't raise prices when costs are raised.

>>1234965
you think everyone have perfect knowledge. Market is not equilibrium is a constant fight.

And btw i think inflation happen when the monetary base total increase, not when is redistributed. Otherwise all similar economies should have the same wage distribution.

>>1234967
>you think everyone have perfect knowledge
no but i do think if you introduce stress into the system it will try to average out and will given time
>Market is not equilibrium is a constant fight.
sure but it fights to reach equilibrium at any given moment, why it seems to fluctuate wildly is because it has impossibly huge number of inputs and in the end people are emotion and impulse driven in the short run.
>i think inflation happen when the monetary base total increase
this is most certainly not so there is very recent evidence that you can print shitton of money and not have your currency devalued, more important is the total money supply and the velocity in this regard and peoples willingness to spend. now there is one more point. when the majority of the money is in the pockets of the rich it might sit there but when you give it to the poor it gets spent fast. poor and middle class people in general are the main consumers of goods. throw money at them and you will have inflation.

>>1234975
> throw money at them and you will have inflation.

and isn't this what everyone wants ? (bce fed)
Even draghi said that they are evaluating helicopter money, and that's a very retard way to increase inflation. I think UBI is far better choice.

>>1234981
throwing money at the people one time or two is controllable you can watch the ripples or waves it generates in the economy and stop. with base income it can built up to a tsunami before you realize you dun fucked up. and people will be royally pissed if you try to back out off it.

the us gov is desperate the banks sit on the printed money the usd does not devalue and they are neck deep in debt.

raising the minimum wage is a good option as there is plenty experience of how it goes down and it will start an inflationary wave.

but never forget when it's all done the rich will be richer and the poor will be poorer every fucking time.

File: 1462496548906.jpg (831KB, 1200x1600px) Image search: [Google]

831KB, 1200x1600px

>>1227968
>The pilot is starting in Ontario this year.

HAHA no its not, 9 billion in damages due to the fire, billions spent on refugees, and the Canadian economy is tanking. even if they did start it somehow its going to be extremely limited and most of Ontarians will not be getting basic income. Shouldn't believe in everything politicians tell you.

>>1229505
>>1231055

They ideally should make it unable to support someone in NYC, but able to support someone in middle america, so people spread out more evenly.

how will you pay for it?

it doesn't make sense as an improvement to the current welfare state if you have to tax more to pay everyone a "living wage"

>>1234998
actually that is not the problem
plenty people calculated that state pensions and disabilities and reduction of state employee wages would cover it. more efficient system too cheaper.

but long term it wouldn't fucking work because either nobody would fucking work or wages would increase dramatically. like i said in a hundred post so far.

>>1235010
now if you could give people the exact amount of base income so that people dropping out of the job market lose equal money to people remaining in the job market and gradually increase they sum as more people are unemployable you could create a stable transitioning system. more automation and more higher paid creative workers and less menial jobs over time.

but... i have the feeling that this is a social impossibility the bui would be so low at first that it would be an empty gesture.

>>1234990
Are you retarded?

Fort McMurray is 3 provinces away

also
>Most Ontarians will not be getting basic income
this is literally the definition of "pilot". They're going to give it to a small sample population, with no guarantee it will continue, to see what happens.

You're probably right in that 2016 is an optimistic estimate for it starting; they haven't even voted on it yet, and there'll be bureaucratic waffling before they do anything. But I wouldn't be surprised to see concrete decisions by 2020 or so.

>>1227968
god bless the queen

>>1235010

1. pensions as we use the term in the states are deferred compensation programs. think of them as wages for public employees rather than a social program.

2. states don't want to reduce public employee wages because they want a decent level of talent in their employ.

3. people actually in need of disability and subsidized healthcare receive much more in benefits than the $10k or so that they would receive if the pot of money used on welfare programs would actually be distributed evenly across the entire adult population.

>>1235023
>states don't want to reduce public employee wages
i meant it would be reduced by bui amount so the total is the same according to the positive calculations. i have my doubts as i said how long you can keep this up.
>people actually in need of disability and subsidized healthcare receive much more in benefits
i don't know about that anon in my country disability is the lowest amount you can get for living and people stay alive somehow.

>>1235065
>i meant it would be reduced by bui amount so the total is the same according to the positive calculations. i have my doubts as i said how long you can keep this up.

The bottom 50% of the american tax base pays very little into the system. Losing the tax payments from the lowest income earners wouldn't be a disaster.

>i don't know about that anon in my country disability is the lowest amount you can get for living and people stay alive somehow.

Think of someone with cancer who receives "insurance" from the government. When they receive treatment the government is likely to fork over much more than $10k a year in subsidies. This is something that would be lost with basic income.

>>1227968
i'd stop working and never do anything again except travel and go on dates.i already cucked my various bosses for all 3 years that i've been working out of college by faking my hours and just sitting on the computer when im there.

>>1235017
how is this even planned out beyond completely isolating your economy? if i sold shit in your neighborhood and suddenly everybody got a clean paycheck, i'd raise the cost of everything and 90% of the shitheads who don't make much would blow it all on what im offering and life wouldn't change for anyone but me.

>>1235023
>people actually in need of subsidized healthcare receive much more in benefits than the $10k or so that they would receive if the pot of money used on welfare programs would actually be distributed evenly across the entire adult population
They can use that $10k to fund private health insurance. Just sayin'.

>>1227968
>What would you do if you had UBI, /biz/?

Form a special interest group dedicated to protecting the rights of the people on UBI which I would then wield like a club in political circles to make myself rich and powerful; all the while quietly moving money to some far off country that I will eventually move to when the other shoe falls.

It's better than carrying these fucking socialist parasites.

>>1235018
God bless
Long live the queen

>>1234529
>>1233886
>>1234998

damn you're all missing the point completely, the WHOLE POINT of this is that it will be enforced because a huge portion of the workforce will be displaced by automation, meaning that the jobs that we need people to do are being done by non-humans. It doesn't fit into these traditional economic arguments you all keep putting forth because they are based on human action and desires

>>1234602
>shit jobs pay shit because they are low added value and low requirement (high supply) jobs.
how are you missing the point that basic income would completely change that?
low added value/low requirement jobs would dissipate as they're finally incentivized to be automated away.
the jobs that are still shit but actually have value and cant easily be automated away with some investment (jobs that need to be done by humans) will see pay rises meet their shittiness to make up for the unpopularity of the work.
>sadly no it just distorts the entire market
there is no way that scenario is distortion, that's a correction
>sadly no it just distorts the entire market like all state intervention.
it's not intervention in the market. welfare is not intervention, it's a participant in the market. intervention in the market is the minimum wage which wouldnt even need to exist in a place where basic income exists.

>>1236179
>how are you missing the point that basic income would completely change that?
in the long run like a hundred years sure, but you want to do it today. it won't work the world is not ready. that is all i said. it's a horrible idea that will ruin our shit in the short medium term.

>>1236179
>welfare is not intervention
kek a good one of course it is and it's awful. there are tons of videos that explain even to imbeciles how welfare ruins the poor and keeps them forever poor (and their kids too).

>>1236191
>100 years
wow, did you know it's 2016 though? did you know we have ridiculous technology now like the internet and genetic modification technology and increasingly scarygood artificial intelligence? and all of these technologies keep getting cheaper AND increasing productivity at the same time? were you not aware that new technology since the beginning of this millenium has steadily been separating the traditional lock between productivity and wages? wages have been decreasing as productivity has risen, this is literally the first time this has happened and it's not gonna magically go back to 1950s economics.

the time to say "in the long run like a hundred years" was 100 years ago.

>>1235863
UBI still wont pay as much as the jobs that would be getting replaced.
>guy does job that affords him a house and 2 cars and a boat
>replaced by machine
>receives 1000 dollar cheque each month instead
Yeah totally going to keep up that lifestyle.....

>>1236208
the alternative is
>guy does job that affords him a house and 2 cars and a boat
>replaced by machine

>>1227968

Fuck each and everyone of you commie faggots.

>>1236202
lol yeah i thought 20 years ago we gonna have flying cars by now and maybe android maids that suck your dick in the morning and clean up while you are off to work.

i guess it's just not there yet. i'm patient tho maybe before i die...

>increasingly scarygood artificial intelligence
uhhm... nope?? that just doesn't exists yet.

>wages have been decreasing as productivity has risen
that is also not true, wages have increased where they correlate to productivity. a lot of jobs just became less and less value.

>"in the long run like a hundred years" was 100 years ago.
you are a fucking moron sorry but it's true.
if you think technology will in a few years magically solve all our problems you are out of your mind.

>>1236214
you obviously didn't read what I said, Of course he may eventually be replaced by a machine but in the end UBI wont replace the life style many people enjoy right now.

>>1236228
first the people who will be replaced by machines are the forklift operators and truck drivers, cleaners and factory line workers. these things show great promise in being automated effort is already ongoing but it's far from complete.

but the majority of the people are not employed in these fields anyways.

eventually even hairdressers programmers and surgeons will be replaced by machines but it's not gonna happen today.

and making and maintaining these complicated systems will employ a lot of people for a long time. it's just 50-60% of the population will be unemployed and unemployable very soon.

not the ones that had yachts for a good while. also transitioning won't happen in poor countries first so there might even be some migration of the skilled workforce from developed countries to less developed.

>>1236222
>my ideas of technology are bullshit from cartoons and 100 year old scifi that wasnt feasible or needed in the first place
jesus dude, did you not notice the internet dramatically undercut the economics of every information based industry? did you not see the automobile industry laid off as robots replaced everyone? do you not see self-serve checkouts everywhere?

>increasingly scarygood artificial intelligence
>uhhm... nope?? that just doesn't exists yet.
self-driving cars exist and are about to make everyone who drives for a living a redundancy.
you and i are actually feeding googles learning AI technology every time we fill out a captcha.

>>1236228
what's your point? if you want a high income post-redundancy you need to find a new-high value niche.
that's been true forever and is not a proposed or expected change from basic income.

>>1236240
>automobile industry laid off as robots replaced everyone?
no i didn't there is huge shortage of workers for car manufacturing in my country we have to import them because the average uneducated dumb nigger can't do it apparently.
stop dreaming about automation in your head it's far more advanced then really is. i work for a company that does industrial automation. i know firsthand the difficulty the challenges and the costs and why not everything is automated already. it's frustrating especially for us. but it is what it is. the industry is 20 years behind the cutting edge civilian technology. the computers that are used in automation are slower and dumber on average than your wristwatch.
>self-driving cars exist
i would have noticed i drive a lot
>and are about to make everyone who drives for a living a redundancy.
in 20-50 years yeah but it will be gradual not so sudden. accidentally we are making self driving forklifts and cars so when i tell you it's more smoke in the mirror than real safe solution perhaps you believe it. or not whatever. it just something i have years of hands on experience in.

>>1236247
Where are you? I'd love to work in the auto industry, Where I am its impossible to get a job in there.

>>1233135
UBI only works with people who are not lazy. Therefore everyone should earn their UBI. If you are not worth it then you will remain as a slave wage until you correct yourself.

>>1236247
>there is huge shortage of workers for car manufacturing in my country
manufacturing jobs used to be plentiful and low education jobs, the fact that
>the average uneducated dumb nigger can't do it
is due to automation taking away those jobs.

>in 20-50 years yeah but it will be gradual not so sudden.
what reasoning do you have for that? it's a technology that doesnt actually need new vehicles and is basically done already by multiple companies.... they're literally just waiting on government approval for it to go live. it might be ~30 years before it's prevalent for the public but you're insane if you think driving industries like truck hauling and taxis dont take advantage of the cost savings as soon as they're available.

>>1236271
>it's a technology that doesn't actually need new vehicles
that's bullshit. did i mention i work in the field? most trucks go into the garbage they won't be converted to self driving. we need new standards for that and maybe new traffic regulations and infrastructure.
>you're insane if you think driving industries like truck hauling and taxis dont take advantage of the cost savings as soon as they're available.
it's not feasible yet it might be in 10 years, then as you said regulation and whatnot. frankly i would love a system that stops accidents if the truck driver falls asleep or gets a heart-attack first. doesn't even need to be completely automated just keep to the lane (which is hard very fucking hard) and use the break in a way that it doesn't cause an accident.

basically the self driving cars are akin to a driver that is blindfolded and gets impossibly little information from the outside world going full speed. the sensors (at least the ones that can be used outside and not get blinded by the sun and stuff) are ridiculously dumb and provide little information. it all works but it's mostly guessing and statistics. the entire traffic network has been built for humans and in assumption of human senses. automated cars don't see the world the same way. we might even need to refit all the roads for self driving cars to go safely about their business.
there are other approaches but those only work if there are no rogue human driven vehicles in the traffic and cars clearly know where they are and where is the road surface they can drive safely on.

>>1236282
>most trucks go into the garbage they won't be converted to self driving
>we need new standards for that and maybe new traffic regulations and infrastructure.
lol what? maybe your company is shit but google already has it working for current standards and infrastructure... and the main points of the technology are some cameras, a computer and an AI, there's no reason they wouldnt be providing retrofitting.

>>1236291
google car i think can go with about 40mph and no it's not everywhere and no it can't be fitted to the average truck in average mechanical condition (which is utter shit i kid you not).

shit ai1nt happening and there are no ai-s involved either.

>>1236291
>working for current standards and infrastructure
that is ever companies goal ours too, it's just impossible we get the same sensors as google or the dod for that matter. nah, in time we will get there but the 80% to 90% of trucks will die before getting a refit.

>>1236296
>i dont believe and refuse to do a websearch
http://fortune.com/2016/02/10/google-self-driving-cars-artificial-intelligence/
here's your spoonfeeding

>>1236303
>>1236303
you can't be this retarded!
you can call a pocket calculator ai it won't make it so. a car can't provide the power for a real ai anyways. not that self driving requires an ai. simple rules must be followed it's all sensors simple physics and servos. your mobile phone is a hundred thousand times more "intelligent" then what self driving requires.
problem is getting the right input rather than estimating what you can't see. i mean yes if you want human driver instinct into your car then yes you have to go with ai but nobody wants that that is the number one reason why we have accidents. self driving cars can reduce accidents by not making guesses but following simple predictable rules to the letter.

>>1236323
can self driving cars predict retards who just plow into peoples way and just have no respect for other drivers and the rules of the road? I've driven in New Jersey and in Quebec.

>>1236340
they generally can't google tries to account for known unpredictable behavior but generally this is just a top layer on the self driving. the most important layer is to keep to traffic rules. i expect the traffic rules to get more simple clear and probably more unified across the globe in result of this.
the thing is first where self driving or rather assisted driving cars can shine is the highways. there keeping lanes (even where the lane stripes are not visible) keeping from collisions and drifting in bad weather basically providing a safe and restful travel between cities is the very first thing most car manufacturers try to accomplish. and even for a long time the driver will be required to sit behind the wheels and take control when the computer can't decide what to do. (this indecision can happen for a multitude of reasons but mostly the sensors and signal processors lost track where the car is and what it is doing in relation to the road.)

>>1228086
There's the argument that without the stress of economic insecurity it will be easier for people to get sober. I believe that argument, so many homeless people spend their hard-earned quarters on cigarettes. You think they wouldn't like to have a hot meal instead? But they keep buying the things because being homeless is fucking stressful and not conducive to long term planning.

>>1236390
this is the part i agree with:
base income would provide more dignity and safety and less stress and more power to the workers.
and it would be a good thing if we could get rid off the abusers of the system. like if you had a credit score based on your work history you don't have to keep on to every job just some job for some time and you would have this safety net that base income provides. like every week you work a minimum wage job gives you 1 day base income. if you make more than minimum wage you get more points/days per week. with a median income you would get one week for every week you work. or something like that.

if you work you get more money and you collect base income years. when you collected enough to your lifetime you can retire if you wish.

only problem is this doesn't help the hoards of neets that are young and unemployed one bit.

>>1229470
See, there's this belief in a certain class of person that people don't like to work. I suspect you believe that because you yourself don't like to work, but derive some kind of pride from doing work you find unpleasant. Nothing wrong with that on a moral basis, but over the next few decades the vast majority of people won't be able to add economic value. If you're not enthusiastic about your work, you're more likely to be one of them, since it will be a while before someone makes an enthusiastic robot. You denigrate people for being greedy and lazy, but if an algorithm can do your job better and cheaper than you, you're actually the greedy, lazy one who wants the rest of us to pay your inflated wage for doing a job you don't even like, rather than going through the uncertainty of trying something new.

If you try something new, there's a chance you'll end up one of the 5% that actually succeeds. More likely you won't, and I don't say that because I know enough to judge you but precisely because I don't. The thing about a UBI is that the 90% of us who WANT to do something productive but don't succeed won't starve, riot, or commit suicide en mass.

>>1236323
>a computer that analyzes real time data to make informed decisions as a driver isn't a "real" AI
if you dont consider that AI you're not going to consider anything AI ever.
and more on topic then whether or not you consider it AI, it's a better driver than most humans and cheaper than most humans and pretty much ready to be rolled out and they clearly can make any vehicle work with it just like the original pilot vehicle fleet (which they still use) retrofitted commercial SUVs. automation WILL kill driving jobs within the decade.

>>1236340
it can predict retards about as well as any human driver can and it's only ever gonna get better
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDOnn0-4Nq8

>>1233886
Robots. That's why UBI is being considered in the first place, because humans are going to get replaced in a lot of fields pretty fast.

Sauce: https://www.weforum.org/press/2016/01/five-million-jobs-by-2020-the-real-challenge-of-the-fourth-industrial-revolution/

>>1236413
>See, there's this belief in a certain class of person that people don't like to work.
i don't like to work. i work a lot but i would rather do something else with my time. travel go on adventures or just chill at home. basically anything is better than work.
i only work to provide myself a safer more prosperous future. i struggled a lot and would not appreciate it much if this base income thing becomes mainstream after i reached financial independence. because i would feel like an idiot for working so hard.

fortunately i don't think it would actually work out so i'm not too worried. the only system that have built in incentive for every human to be productive is the liberal-capitalist one. and the only system that most rewards productivity compared to connections and loyalty is the same one. when you introduce redistribution then corruption begins to grow inefficiency begins to grow and poverty begins to grow.

>>1236430
>if you dont consider that AI you're not going to consider anything AI ever.
so your lift is an ai? it doesn't open it's doors if it's sensors tell it is unsafe so it makes a decision it must be an ai... no.

>>1236430
lol that video didn't use even close to the example of retards that im talking about.

>>1236430
most accidents involving google cars happen because people get infuriated with the slow fucking retarded google car in front of them or simply not expect anyone move so slow and they ram it when they zone out or look elsewhere.
the car itself is safe enough in the rated travel speed range. but those speeds are ultra safe even on icey roads so it's not that hard. try trusting a robot when breaking distance is hundred feet or more.

>>1236228
So? People don't riot while there's food in their fridge and a game on TV. They might complain, but most people are three meals away from savagery. So long as the UBI is enough for those three meals, people won't take undue risks over having to make do with less.

>>1236457
this all takes time. which is why i think unconditional ubi is a bad idea right now.

what i described here: >>1236410 is safer but does not actually differ from the current system with unemployment and pensions. so why change it?

more gradual shift is possible. but it won't help solve immediate problems.

if the ship is taking on water you can't fix it by setting it on fire.

>>1236448
>implying theyre not driving slow because it's been mandated as part of their testing
the sensors array see far further than any human can (and in all directions at once) and the laser ones can even detect ice (even black ice) all that information is being fed into a computer that is running at faster than human reaction times analyzing (AI) all of it rather than a fraction of it and can differentiate subjects and material just as well if not better than humans due to that advanced computer software (AI).

>>1236439
>this retarded analogy
hook a door sensor up to a computer that has AI that analyzes that what's in front of it is a human heading towards the door before deciding to open (not opening for ducks or people not moving towards the door) and it's an AI door.... how do you work in this field and know jackshit?

>>1236457
I never implied anyone would riot, Im just saying it would suck for a decent amount of people. You'd have to give up certain hobbies etc

>>1236477
>>1236457
Then again maybe with automation, "toys" might be significantly less expensive but that's most likely a far stretch

>>1236477
>it would suck for a decent amount of people
basic income only really kills low income jobs in the first place, if your job wasn't going to survive basic income it wasn't going to pay better than basic income either.
jobs that die from technological progress are going to die with or without basic income.

>>1236473
you don't seem to comprehend what makes an ai an ai. it's not a computer program it doesn't just make decisions based on inputs. it has personality, opinions, it is capable to both teach and learn and self improve. all this can be toned down in primitive ai-s but none of these traits will be present in self driving cars in the foreseeable future.

an algorithm/program that tries to find an optimal solution is not an ai by any measure or terminology.
>the sensors array see far further than any human can (and in all directions at once)
good joke anon i work with these sensors two things they can see to about a 100m reliably and they are very limited in what they can detect and on what angular resolution compared to your eyes. your eyes can see stars so distant it boggles the mind. shit is just not there.

don't get me wrong we can do amazing stuff with these primitive sensors of bad resolution. and it's very exciting to work with them and get something reliably right. but you don't have the first clue what you are talking about.

>>1236488
>it has personality, opinions
that's not artificial intelligence, that's an artificial personality. gamesdevs make that shit all the time.

>>1236493
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_intelligence
read
an ai is much more than a simple piece of software. those approaches have all shown serious limitations.

in the strict sense it's true not an official requirement that they have personality, but anything short of that can't be considered intelligence in my opinion. i'm a programmer to me if something doesn't have a unique way to solve problems it's just a piece of software not an ai. to me an ai start where it begins to have hunches and overrides simply statistical approach based on past experience and unique approach to solve problems.

>>1236513
>doesn't have a unique way to solve problems
googles cars arent programmed, only it's goals (rules of the road) are, it develops based on networked machine learning. it's AI.
and im a programmer too, a gamedev, and let me tell you there is nothing even slightly intelligent about a personality and it's ridiculous human-centric/narcissistic to think intelligence has anything to do with personality when you share this earth with trillions of other intelligent creatures that solve their own problems without any sort of personality or language that we can discern.

>>1236487
tell that to the guys who put cars together, getting paid 35 bucks an hour to put the same 5 bolts in the same spots day in day out.

>>1236537
>im a programmer too, a gamedev
good this will simplify things, later i will expand on my arguments. but the main point is you can't call a deterministic algorithm intelligence.

>>1236692
>an ai start where it begins to have hunches and overrides simply statistical approach based on past experience
>you can't call a deterministic algorithm intelligence
You seem to be implying that human intelligence isn't deterministic. I won't make the argument that it is since that's a whole other debate waiting the be started, but for the same reason I will say that you're standing on shaky ground.

>anything short of that can't be considered intelligence in my opinion
It's sort of pointless to argue about the definition of artificial intelligence anyway when you've already acknowledged the boundary between it and any other program is defined by one's opinion.

>>1236744
>You seem to be implying that human intelligence isn't deterministic.
it isn't at all. a human will not give the same answer to the same inputs ever time.
>I will say that you're standing on shaky ground.
well it seems pretty clear to me. a game dev may call the decision matrix of his npc-s an ai but i put the stakes a bit higher than that.
>>1236744
>you've already acknowledged the boundary between it and any other program is defined by one's opinion.
not exactly what i said. i think intelligence is more than the ability to assess risks and make decisions. it probably encompass self awareness creativity and something unique that distinguishes it from all the others you can call that personality but i don't mean human persona by this. i just mean unique patterns of reasoning and decision making.
obviously google is trying to do something in this direction they taken several steps, but i think it's premature to acknowledge their efforts as ai and i think they don't even intend to do a proper ai.
also don't think that a distributed network capable of learning and improving on the go is feasible today for cars specifically. the bandwidth you would need for that is crazy. it's more like they gather information from the cars analyze it and update their program and redistribute it. that's light-years form real learning network let alone an ai.

File: deep-learning-the-past-present-and-future-of-artificial-intelligence-29-638.jpg?cb=1462150593.jpg (47KB, 638x479px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 638x479px

>>1236764
i have to guess you are at least 5-7 years behind AI development.

Right now basically all narrow ai are developed using deep learning. Even the fucking nest thermostat.

Deep learning is not deterministic, is not preprogrammed. It evaluate the world and use probability to decide if what he sees it's A or B. A deep learning algorithm will never says That's a duck! it will says there is 86% of probability that's a duck.
If it's not a duck it will learn why that's a special case and retrain itself.
More tagged data you throw at it and more can judge the world.

Google cars don't have every photo on earth of everything, they have a basic knowledge of everything learned using a basic dataset and inferring everything from that. Like i would say humans do. If i see a gray cat i don't know to learn what a cat is if i see a red one.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pqvdZ2jp1NA

>>1236785
>it will says there is 86% of probability that's a duck
yeah well in industrial automation that doesn't fly for sure. i don't know what will be the future off self driving cars but i suspect they will not be allowed to make guesses either. the car will have to follow a strict set of rules and yes it could in theory learn to optimize in that given frame. for example if it can stop reliably better than human driver in a corner if someone steps in front of it it might start anticipating that a fucking child will step in front of it and it will go even slower than allowed or calculated to be necessary into that corner nothing is wrong with that. my problem is that first you need to solve the problem of safe driving and you can't use learning algorithms for that on individual cars.

in industrial automation we only focus on the first level and it must be absolutely sure. and there must be strong fault tolerant safeties in place for example if a car loses position data it must be able to safely stop not drift from it's lane not execute any dangerous maneuvers even on a highway. these are the important parts of automation how you handle errors and uncertainties. and they are not guesswork they are precalculated preapproved maneuvers that must be executed exactly to specification.

i don't see how in the civilian traffic where actual lives are at stake and not just you know material damage mostly the requirements will be anything less if not more strict.

>>1236764
>it's more like they gather information from the cars analyze it and update their program and redistribute it. that's light-years form real learning network let alone an ai.

Okay, that's hitting a little closer to home. It looked to me like >>1236537 was describing AI functionally as anything that adapted to new situations based on previous experience with little to no programmer intervention (learning, in other words) while you were describing it perceptually off of some sort of more complete Turing test. You hit the same definition here though. Effectively, the only learning is done during development and as such cars on the road can't be considered intelligent by the learning definition. Correct?


>it isn't at all. a human will not give the same answer to the same inputs ever time.
I would disagree with that. Given the exact same environment and, crucially, the exact same memories and state of mind the second time around a human should follow identical courses of action. But as I said before it's a complex issue and I doubt we'd get too far debating it. God forbid we start discussing the philosophical consequences of quantum mechanics on a business board.

>>1236806
>and state of mind
yeah but with an intelligence there is no such thing. with a computer program there is. that's why we like them btw they don't just put a crash dump in your face if they feel blue in the morning.
now you could say that an active neural network will also never have the same state of mind twice. but that won't be put in cars for a very long time.
when self driving cars have the base functionality to drive safely and a subsystem that can safely override the "driver" you can start putting ai-s into the cars to learn and have their own styles and whatnot.

but that's just my way of thinking. and we are a far cry from anything that can be considered safe automated driving under current road conditions. and i think it will be heavy on the infrastructure to make the roads automation friendly.