Do you think Universal Basic Income would be a good thing given

>>136083110
No
Systemic elimination of inferiors is the only way to "solve" automation

>>136083110
>Do you think Communism is a solution to [Insert problem]
No

UBI is socialism and opposed to free market capitalism

>>136083110
No, but Canada will adopt it anyways. You'll find out why it's a bad idea soon enough.

>>136083110
>would stealing even more from people be a good thing

File: 1474674317371.png (26KB, 861x758px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 861x758px

yes but only if we strictly limit immigration and kick out all the illegals

free shit is my birthright as an american

>>136083110
No, jobs have been lost to industrial revolutions in the past and new jobs emerged the same thing will happen this time around. Instead of wasting time trying to sneak in communism the government should be looking at what jobs are likely to be required in the future and start helping to foster those

>>136083110
youre fuckign stupid for asking

File: 1499612025523.jpg (127KB, 704x660px) Image search: [Google]

127KB, 704x660px

>>136083356
Based Swede. Hang in there bro.

File: 1478659128659.png (68KB, 320x422px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 320x422px

>>136083237

This is the cheap and environmentally friendly option.

>>136083237
this, learn to swim

>>136083110
NEGATIVE INCOME TAX NOW

>>136083110
I'm starting to think so...but it should be at a minimum at first and should only go up when there's less jobs being created

File: 1488678837013.jpg (22KB, 480x437px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 480x437px

>It'll work this time because robots.

>>136083237
fbbp

Not really, but at least it doesn't incentivize perpetual unemployment like the current welfare system does.

>>136083110
Yes.
Its either UBI or start culling the surplus of people.

We cant sustain this constant growth in population with adequate and meaningful jobs. Especially in countries being flooded with immigrants.

>>136083110
It's free money right? The gov just prints more?

>>136083110
No, I think jobs increasingly being taken over by automation is a good thing because of an aging population.

This way we will have fewer people to do work, but also less work that needs to be done.

There's no need for any "Basic Income" because this massive boost in unemployment should never happen.

That is, unless there's massive immigration at the same time. That could definitely cause unemployment. So we simply prevent that.

No. Employee owned co-op type things are the future not permanent welfare. Very few marxists would hate that, but the globalist corporatists who fund them would!

>>136083718
its coming little nigger

you'll see when 50% of the jobs are taken if its so stupid.

>>136083110
Not unless automation fully removes scarcity in every way will people not be able to work for a living.

>>136083110
No. Stop taking gibs. Stop giving power to the state.

>>136083110
>How about a free lunch, would you like that?
Anon, I...

File: 6865216.jpg (165KB, 397x578px) Image search: [Google]

165KB, 397x578px

>>136083110
fuck off, leaf

File: IMG_5832.jpg (22KB, 251x242px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 251x242px

>>136083110
>all the jobs are being taken by automation
>5% unemployment rate

>>136083110
No. If you, as a country, have such a surplus of money — lower fucking taxes or something. If you don't have a surplus of money in the first place — this poorly veiled gommunism will make things even worse.

>>136084851
>increasingly

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sIlCR4eG8_o

>>136085016
haha you realize they wont allow those trucks to drive without a person in the driver seat right? we arent going to place full faith in the AI.

File: 1501011508195.png (1MB, 4592x3196px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 4592x3196px

>>136084851
>>5% unemployment rate

Not in Europe. And not when your economy crashes this or next year

>>136085405
AI lanes

>>136085405
i didn't point to driveless truck technology to show it fulfilled, again I wrote increasing. The technology is getting better and better this way and in a few years perhaps there will be completely driverless trucks.

>>136085527
not our fault socialism is failing in europe. maybe they should become more capitalistic like the US and their unemployment wouldnt be so low.

cost of AI lanes vs cost of a driver, which do you honestly think is cheaper and more practical?

>>136085758
it doesnt matter if the trucks can be completely autonomous, the law makers wont allow them to drive on the road unless they have a human behind the wheel.

>>136086025
you do realise that as technology progresses this is bound to change right?

>>136083110
No.

Proponents of UBI fail to understand that pricing is a mechanism for distributing goods when there aren't enough for everyone to get what they want.

>UBI comes out
>poorfags all decide they want to get a better place to live
>more money chases the same amount of housing
>prices rise
>people pay more money to live in the same places

>>136085824
>not our fault socialism is failing in europe
Actually most of the countries on the map aren't "socialist" and the EU is technically the most capitalist institution on Earth (a capitalist economic alliance) so you can't really call Europe socialist. The root of the problem is deeper - our youth simply refuses to work the low wage jobs. I'm sure that if you didn't import all those millions of Mexicans that you'd look the same because both of us are aware of the average american youth - both white neets and black ghetto trash who refuse to work. Merkel is trying to do something similar with refugees but she's dumb and that's another topic

>cost of AI lanes vs cost of a driver, which do you honestly think is cheaper and more practical?
The difference is that the interstate is more of a state property so it doesn't work like that. If I was the US government I'd either dedicate the slow lane for AI trucks or directly build a new lane next to it purely to lift the burden of cost for human labor from US companies and make them hyper-competitive on the world stage. It doesn't matter that the taxpayer is paying as long as those companies bring back taxable revenues due to that infrastructural expansion that doesn't exist anywhere else in the world, you know, much like the sole reason the interstate was built in the first place

>>136086579
that's called inflation.

Many people will be free to do other jobs and its certainly true that there is no shortage of houses in most places, but even if there were to arise a shortage the people will meet that demand by building more. This is no problem.

If you are not improving society then it is off to the gas chambers for you.

>>136086210
lol no it wont and the companies dont even want it. they aren't creating automous vehices to get rid of drivers, they are doing to lower the wage of the drivers. Companies dont want people out of a job because then they wont have customers, they want people to have a job but not have to pay them that much. The companies dont want UBI because that means higher taxes on their businesses and it would undoubtedly cost them more than just keeping the people employed but paying them less. Futhermore the companies would rather pay people to buy their products than the government give the people money to buy anyone's products.

>>136087236
gas everyone as automation increases?

>>136087006
>there is no shortage of houses in most places
It's not a question of an absolute shortage of housing, but rather a relative shortage of housing in desirable areas.

And building more housing isn't something that happens quickly.

TL;DR Supply curve is less elastic than demand curve.

>Many people will be free to do other jobs
People are free to do jobs now. If anything UBI encourages them not to do jobs.

>>136083110
i am in automation
i am the guy that programs people losing their jobs based on certain conditions being met in script
i dont care

>>136087628

>People are free to do jobs now.
People aren't doing other jobs now as to when there will be automation and they'll kind of be forced to pick another job

> If anything UBI encourages them not to do jobs.
that's not how it works in practice. They've found that ubi actually makes people not sit and do nothing but actually motivates them to work.

File: columbine two.jpg (17KB, 330x206px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 330x206px

>>136087895
>They've found that ubi actually makes people not sit and do nothing but actually motivates them to work.
Sauce?

>>136087431
>Companies dont want people out of a job because then they wont have customers
many companies value profits over anything else, if automation is profitable they'll probably make the switch.

Don't accuse me of not being caring for people's jobs I'm against automation to a degree.

>>136086811
lol they dont want to work the low wage jobs because they can still have the same living standard without a job by living off the socialist welfare state. When you remove the welfare you'd be surprised at what people will do to earn money when their life depends on it.

>thinking companies will base their businesses model off of the hope that someday, the slow moving government, will build AI lanes for them. as I explain here
>>136087431
companies dont want people out of jobs

>>136088206
I don't recall but i must have heard it in some ted talk about it or read it in an article about the ontario experiment about it.

Here's an article about it

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/finland-universal-basic-income-lower-stress-better-motivation-work-wages-salary-a7800741.html

>>136087683
>>136088214
its not profitable to not have customers

>>136088406
Profit denial https://archive.is/jWZYL

>>136083110

no. literal slavery. jewish despotism will quintuple.

>Antifa: The Welfare Begging Thread

>>136083110
no we need to kill the labor class

>>136087388

>>136088584
exactly why would they not have customers because of automation?

>>136083110
How can we encourage college kids to depend on government, and become liberals? Tell them stories about how magic robot Santa, will give them their free lunch.

If I am mass producing something, I am not going to give it to you for free. You mass produce something too, with your automatons, and we'll trade.

File: IMG_5892.jpg (11KB, 251x233px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 251x233px

>>136089053
>being this stupid

>>136089555
im still waiting for your answer

i bet you have none, you're talking nonsense. Customers don't cease to come because of automation in any way or shape so spit it out or quiet.

>>136083110
Who's going to pay for it? What programs will be cut to allocate the necessary funds?

>>136089203
But you don't produce anything... by giving you money yull go out and spend it thus giving people who actually work money while keeping the uneducated in check

>>136090098
the idea from many of UBI proponents right now is to take tax a portion of the profits from automation to pay for it in part otherwise taxation.

>>136087741
Not really worried for the gutter trash minimum wagers, since you guys still haven't invented a self check register that doesn't go down a dozen times a day for updates.

>>136083110
Universal Basic Income could of course work since money is created ex-nihilo and "economics" in its essence are just behavioural patterns preserved and inherited by mimicry. (which are malleable at any given time)

The one thing that could let it fail though is that people are simply stupid and most of the times act against their own intrerests and well-being.

>>136083110
no theres always going to be inovation unless we get lazy as a species which an attempt at universal basic income would cause. stagnation

>>136083385
Free market capitalism guarantees you will be priced out of the labor market within a decade though. What are you going to do when literally all jobs are performed by machines?

>>136083110

Problem with this itll make people doing shitty jobs to just quit.

Farmers, cleaners, garbage collectors will just quit and receive the same money.

Then you get to enjoy food lines.

>>136083110
UBI is the dumbest idea ever. Seriously communism makes more sense, that's how bad it is.

>everybody gets $1000 a week no matter what or month w/e
>$1000 because basically worth nothing the next day
>you still have to get a job because $1000 has essentially become worth $0
>you stupid fucks

>>136084114
intergalactic colonization nigger no need to cull just send them elswhere we can even have a planet where we send the criminals

>>136089203
What happens when a chinaman steals your product and figures out how to mass produce it with even cheaper robots?

>>136090523
>which an attempt at universal basic income would cause. stagnation
why?

>>136090670
>$1000 because basically worth nothing the next day
why?

>>136083110
Do you really think a bunch of satan worshipping human trafficking elites are going to give you anything when automation takes over? They are kust going to kill you, maybe take some slaves for perpetual harvesting

>>136083110
Stop calling it 'UBI' and call it what it really is, 'Welfare for All'

>>136083110
Yes it might be necessary in 100+ years. But right now in highly capitalistic first world countries the unemployment rate is 10% MAX. The global economy is literally alien compared to 200 years ago and unemployment is still low (in free market countries).

>>136090966
Sadly, this is a possibillity.

But we could always
>if x then y will go full [insert year]
In others words,
we're fucked.

>>136090966
elites aren't all powerful.

They only have the power they are permitted to have over the people.

>>136090811
because instead of being forced to inovate or starve the majority of people will simply consume what there robots give them. struggle is how progress is made

>>136090886
Inflation which would increase quickly because the baseline of value for everyone starts at $1000. The next day is hyperbole but you get it.

File: IMG_1007.png (185KB, 1657x2561px) Image search: [Google]

185KB, 1657x2561px

>>136090526
(((Capitalism))) is a kike pyramid scheme.

>>136091272
What would make people, ie the ones that grant them such power, remove their power from them?

War?
Famine?

(in other words: nothing has so far)

>>136091369
>struggle is how progress is made
nice meme

>>136091442
>Inflation
read >>136090308
It's all made up.
And yes, made up stuff can be all too real.

>>136085527
>including kids in still in school
people don't work during school years anymore

File: Mai Shiranui from The King of Fighters XIII 2.jpg (231KB, 1000x1500px) Image search: [Google]

231KB, 1000x1500px

Personally I'm okay with Universal Basic Food Stamps. However, I think we need to make them for billionaires as well as poor people and everyone in between.

Everyone should receive from every social program... not just the shit poor.

>>136089966
no jobs = no money in consumer's pocket = no customers for companies. Like I said before, companies would rather pay people low wages and/or give workers vouchers for their products and still have customers than pay more taxes and let the inefficienct government give money to people so the people can buy any company's products. Its pretty simple, companies would pay more in taxes if UBI existed than if they just kept the people employed but paid them less and they would be able to guarantee the consumers would buy their products rather than letting people choose who to buy products from.

>>136091490
its not like that.

The people have the power to vote in a democracy but they choose to live in a democracy. All power comes from God.

>>136091651
What the fuck? lol Yeah dude currency and economics are just made up. Why the fuck everything cost money amirite?

>>136091959
>currency and economics are just made up
Of course. Or would you say those are natural materials of the earth?
>Why the fuck everything cost money amirite?
behavioural patterns

>>136092083
>math isn't a natural material
>abstractions can't into reality
>but behavioral patterns

File: libshits and technology.png (53KB, 1648x504px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 1648x504px

>>136083110

imagine taking all the money spent on education, healthcare, transportation, energy, welfare, pensions etc, and simply giving a small amount of cash (350-400 USD) to every adult so they could purchase any services they wanted from the private sector. at the same time you could get rid of most regulations (such as minimum wage) and trade laws so there's more competition and lower prices. this is how UBI could work

>>136083110
>do I think paying people for simply existing is a good thing
No. Fuck off, commie.

>>136092560
But It won't and it shouldn't be tried

>>136092387
>math isn't a natural material
What is math?
A set of patterns humans agree on for expressing abstract thought.
Math is not fixed, hasn't been, and probably won't ever be.
Math expresses thought.
Thought derived from ideas and observation.

>abstractions can't into reality
>but behavioral patterns
Uh, what?

>>136092791
why not? Just stop wasting money on things like education or healthcare and give it to the people instead, if they really want to learn something they can use their UBI to pay for lessons or buy books. milton friedman talked about this in one of his interviews

>>136083356
UBI is not communism. Why would you make a statement like that? UBI gives everyone a stipend to spend however they want.

What does that have to do with 'seizing the means of production'? The choice of what to do with the money is with the receipient.

>>136091477

Not if we kill all Jews first.

>>136092837
Economics is just an observation of how resources are distributed among groups and individuals. Currency is a medium exchange, but you're saying these things aren't real.

If you prefer you could join some colony that relies on barter, so you can have something from the earth I guess.

>>136093265
Whatever the inital amount of UBI is would essentially become worthless in a short period of time. It really won't have the effect people think it would. You'd still have to get a job.

>>136093265
You're correct, but people seem to be unable to grasp the concept :-(

>>136083750
How tf is sven gonna hang in if day by day, he won't be aloud to rise up, because he will be outnumbered.

Swedish men need to get their shit together and start saying "fuck laws! if we do this together now, we can overthrow the jew!".

>>136083110
Yes, but unfortunately I think we would also need an irrefutably fair AI delegating the budget because otherwise it's just going to be a new flavor of communism.

>>136093594
>Whatever the inital amount of UBI is would essentially become worthless in a short period of time. It really won't have the effect people think it would. You'd still have to get a job.
I don't understand this argument. UBI gives everyone the same amount. All this does is increase the spending power every individual has. There is no reason for the price of goods to increase proportionally.

Compare it to a hike in minimum wage, which *does* cause the price of goods and service to go up because the group of individuals that pay employees minimum wage have to recoup the significant losses they will incur from the increased wage payout

>>136083110
>infinite consumption
nope

>>136093932
Where do you think the money for UBI comes from?

File: Kushner Corps.jpg (45KB, 587x403px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 587x403px

>>136084114
>start culling the surplus of people
You called for my services?

File: BStroustrup_MAIN_phixr.png (567KB, 720x720px) Image search: [Google]

567KB, 720x720px

>>136093884
>communism
m8, please describe what UBI has to do with communism

>>136083110
This is just a ploy so that Silicon Valley doesn't face congressional blow back when they try to automate vehicles.

>>136083707
Commies don't understand this shit has happened at lest twice already.

>>136094042
From the savings the companies that employ automation accrue. If you get to replace a dozen factory workers with one robot, you've likely:
>Stopped paying 12x factory workers salary
>Paid for 1 robot
>Increased production volume and quality substantially

There's plenty of middle ground here for the company to increase revenue AND pay an automation tax

>>136083110
Yes. I want free shit.

>>136094376
And a company wants to give away its production for free why?

Why would anyone bother running a business for absolutely no incentive to them? Are you going to take on the risk and hardship or running an industry for literally no pay off?

This still doesn't solve the issue of giving the UBI amount any actual value.

>>136093594
Let's see

>but you're saying these things aren't real
No, that is not what I have stated.
"not real" != "made up"
cite >>136090308 and >>136091651

>Economics is just an observation of how resources are distributed among groups and individuals.
>how resources are distributed among groups and individuals
behavioural patterns
>how resources are distributed
steered and influenced by "economic theory"
>Economics is just an observation
no behavioural patterns = no action = no observation
>Economics
behavioural patterns!
>"Economic theory"
compilation of preferred pehavioural patterns

How do they prolong?
>mimcry and inheritance

>Currency is a medium exchange
Wrong.
Currency IS USED as!
Currency is a made up thing.
Through behavioural patterns even made up things can appear to be all to real.
>but you're saying these things aren't real
No, see above.

>barter
A specific set of behavioural pattern.

>>136091781
>no jobs = no money in consumer's pocket = no customers for companies

It's not universal that all jobs will be automated so that's not true. Conversely and a propos in this thread we're talking about basic income which would put money into everyone's pockets to afford products and services.

But I actually agree with the point of view that it costs more to automate now for different reasons so I switched sides especially with ubi. Nevermind that, I just think its so for different reasons than you do - I didn't see it in the same way I now do. I also see your point of view but I agree to it for different reasons.

>>136083110
I think UBI is inevitable, but the automation isn't there yet. Maybe in our lifetimes though.

It will have to be coupled with restrictions on childbirth though. Otherwise overpopulation becomes a big problem. Automation may make labor limitless, but it won't make resources limitless.

For starters a 2-child policy for anyone on UBI only.
If you want more kids then you have to make $X/yr per child on top of the UBI.

>>136094726
You literally didn't refute anything. Yes economics is largely behavior and business decisions. That means money serves no purpose and studying an economy is pointless for some reason.

>>136083110
LOL WEED DUDE LMAO

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8_QnE9-iK80

>>136083110
Communism is never a good thing.

>>136083110
>These are the direct descendants of the stupid fucks who perpetuated the great manure crisis

I see the jews are at it again

>>136083110
UBI assumes that automation will eliminate all jobs and that the result of this is that the economy will continue as normal, except everyone will be poor except a tiny overclass of Capital owners.

The problems with this are that

1: That doesn't make any sense because the way rich people get rich is by selling things to working people. Ergo if there is no working class, there are no rich people because there is no economy. "Rich" loses meaning because all goods are infinitely cheap except as limited by scarcity of resources and energy (more on this later)

2: The presupposition that Capital will control all automation and that the poor will be left with nothing ignores the fact that automation BY DEFINITION decreases the costs of goods and services--including the means of automation. Once automation is available, it will render itself almost infinitely cheap through necessity.

3: The assumption that automation means infinite resources. This is dangerously false, and I will tell you why: Automation presents the single greatest threat to the environment in human history, not because of climate change through greenhouse gas emissions or any of that nonsense, but because--and really think about this for a second--electronics and machinery, all mechanical action in fact, gives off HEAT.

Heat from electrical/mechanical devices dissipates into the atmosphere. This may astound you but space actually doesn't dissipate a whole lot of heat because there's nothing in it to transfer heat into, we can only radiate a small amount of heat off. At current estimates if our rate of energy consumption continues to increase at the present rate, within a few centuries Earth will be uninhabitable. Automation accelerates that trend in a radical way.

>got a 50 cent min wage raise (40 extra dollars a month! yay!)
>the same month my landlord raised my rent 40 dollars

>basic income
>ishygdsdt

>>136094717
The individuals running those companies would still make a lot more money than those on UBI.
UBI would only be enough to live a lower-class lifestyle. Many people would still choose to work in order to afford a more comfortable lifestyle.

>>136095506
>At current estimates if our rate of energy consumption continues to increase at the present rate, within a few centuries Earth will be uninhabitable. Automation accelerates that trend in a radical way.

Space Marines

>>136083110
FUCK U FUCK U FUCK U

>>136087388

>>136095740
>rich
>taxed an insane amount to care for everyone and their stupid fucking kids who keep multiplying

I don't think so Tim

>>136095506
>all mechanical action in fact, gives off HEAT.

Uh, biological entities give off heat too you know.

>>136094954
>You literally didn't refute anything.
That wasn't my intention at all.

>Yes economics is largely behavior and business decisions.
I agree.
>business decisions
Behaviour as well.

>That means money serves no purpose
That's a tricky one.
In it's essence, money (and currency, finance) are made up things by humans. (ie not a natural occuring substance of this planet)
I see it like this:
>money does not have purpose in its essence
>a purpose is bestowed upon money by (almost) universally aggreed human behaviour
[That's really a tricky one.]

>and studying an economy is pointless for some reason.
Never said that.
However, "Economics" are teached as IS (ie natural law)
but in essence "Economics" is MADE TO BE.

File: 0313b5d1556fa6d810dcaf20fda29286.jpg (15KB, 472x472px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 472x472px

>>136095506
What does point 3 mean?

Well point 3 means, my dear brainlets, that you can automate everything you fucking want and you will STILL never get post-scarcity. I'm sorry to break this to you but in the future, the scarce "resource" will be fucking heat dissipation. As our energy usage increases geometrically you will see a colossal shift in the environment and in the economy as the greatest economic problem is not how to acquire materials and furnish goods, but how to avoid cooking the entire human race in the process.

THIS is the redpill, automation solves NOTHING economically. The economy simply changes to one of heat exchange, because only a certain amount of heat exhaust is acceptable to avoid destroying the fucking planet, and killing everyone in it, and unless everyone obeys the fucking rules we go extinct.

There you go, welcome to Neo-Econ 101. Post Scarcity literally cannot exist because the first law of thermodynamics makes unlimited economic growth physically fucking impossible EVEN IF you assume unlimited resources and EVEN IF you assume the total automation of all labor.

What will happen will be, of course, that costs of living will crash through the floor and as such material goods will essentially become cheaper than dirt regardless of their size, design or function. The next problem will be electricity, which is all that is necessary to run these machines besides perhaps skilled technical labor, and the NEXT problem, the REAL problem, will be controlling heat output from the machines themselves as our society explodes into an orgy of mass expansion like the City from Blame!.

UBI would only work if we got rid of every other social program, and use that to pay for it.

>>136095908
That's why I mentioned population control here >>136094809

>>136095908
>Choice between being taxed out the ass or being dragged out into the street and guillotined by the starving masses.

Hmm...

File: C5bRB3vWMAAhwXv.jpg (67KB, 1200x1150px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 1200x1150px

Venezuela
food and medicine shortages, soaring prices, political instability and violence
https://youtu.be/w84uRYq0Uc8

>>136083110
yes
we aren't ready yet though

YES

Basic income revives the middle class and saves the economy.

Your Low Class is people who just take their check and nothing else. They live semi-comfortably.

The middle class takes their check but also has the income from their job. They have enough discretionary income to spend on things low class can't and thus revitalizes the mid-tier economy.

Upper class isn't really effected.

>>136096079
Just because something is man made doesn't mean it's invaluable or worth our attention/use. Language for example allows for the exchange of ideas. So the cashier at McDonald's can tell me how much the burger is that I am purchasing, so I can go home and watch something on youtube while I eat, so I can go on 4chan and read retards opinions, so I can type in a responses.

>>136096399
So you're interested in creating an underclass.

>>136096500
Or just not assuming the responsibility fuckboi. Because there is no incentive to do so.
>what do you want to be when you grow up
>I want to work my ass of so everyone can enjoy the fruit of my labor/production while they do nothing to earn it

>>136096672
This is some dumb shit
Literally "print more money til nobody is poor"

>>136096902
>print more money
UBI is wealth redistribution, it does not increase the total amount of cash in circulation.

>>136083110
No its retarded. If people start to become unemployed because of immigration you might as well get the government to do mass scale public works programs regardless of whether machines can preform the work. You could give them the same amount of money that UBI gibs would have but those people would actually be producing something.

I also have fears this stuff will cause inflation if markets aren't strictly price controlled

>>136083110
automation is eliminating jobs while also making new ones, and there are some jobs that simply cant be automated, just because wagecuck#2934 gets fired from Burgerking because they replaced him with a robot does not mean everyone should get free money.

>>136083110
fuck off commie

>>136097057
>wealth redistribution
So what happens when the people with all the money leave and all the millions of millions without money are still here?
Pro tip ask every country that's ever tried socialism

>>136096780
>I want to work my ass of so everyone can enjoy the fruit of my labor/production while they do nothing to earn it
It doesn't matter what you think you *deserve*, what matters is the angry mob outside of your house. If you don't feel like you have a responsibility to them out of empathy (you'd be an idiot because you don't create value in a bubble) then you should at least consider what happens to aristocrats after a breaking point in society.

>>136083110

UBI only works in homogeneous, high functioning countries. It would work well in places like Denmark or Finland but crash and burn in "diverse and multicultural" countries.

>>136097057

>UBI is wealth redistribution
Which is why no one wants it except for the usual gibs crowd.
>15th century
>make money copying books by hand
>printing press gets invented and you get sacked
>reeeeeeee give me free money nooooooooow

>>136096780
An underclass already exists. UBI would keep them living comfortably enough that they don't start rioting and causing problems. Motivated individuals would still have a ladder to greater wealth and reproductive rights.
You'd get a gradual reduction in overall population, and a very light version of eugenics to slowly improve the gene pool.

>>136097353
It doesn't work like that. There are still engineers and doctors and lawyers in Canada even though the disparity in income and income tax between here and the US is absolutely insane. Doctors and engineers in the US make 3-4x what they do in Canada with lower living expenses to boot, and yet 'rich' people still stick around with all that wealth distribution.

>>136090254
What? I don't understand a damned thing you said.
>> But you don't produce anything...

Like when Obama said "you didn't create your business" What?

>> by giving you money yull go out and spend it thus giving people who actually work money

Why would people whom work want to except paper from people whom don't work? that is a rip off. Such paper wouldn't be backed by any labor, so its worthless.

>> while keeping the uneducated in check

What? It is the college educated who don't work. Like I said, college is encouraging their students not to work because automation is going to come save them. Every college person I have meet is either on food stamps and section 8 or they have some middleman job that is a total racket.

Ive never gone to college, and Ive built "automation". I don't need your communism.

>>136088406
Nice sample size.

Also yeah
> Finland
turns out white people usually like to work.

UBI + blacks in urban areas = disaster waiting to happen. Blacks will literally morph into feral, perpetually ill subhumans in three generations time.

Who pays for UBI?

>>136097057
Sounds a lot like communism, just surprisingly lazier.

>we've given up on seizing the means of production (mostly because we don't know wtf we're doing anyway)
>how about you just pay us to exist instead

>>136097366
You think wealth just happens? Nobody is going to pursue these positions if their efforts are pointless. Why would there be an angry mob outside of my house if the environment we all live in now punishes me for success. I'm never going to attempt to attain these positions of responsibility if there is absolutely no incentive to me for it.

>>136097521
The current underclasses on welfare breed like rats. I could have sworn some other communist state implemented reproductive restrictions... hmm, slips my mind.

File: download.png (6KB, 197x256px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 197x256px

>>136083110
I want universal free blowjobs.

>>136083110
No, i want Socialism

>>136097118
>some jobs that cant be automated
Not true. With the advent of AI and advances in robotics, anything can be automated. Even creative industries.

Its killing more jobs than its creating. Where in the past automation added to a humans productive capability, these automations recquire few if any people to run them, they are replacements for human productivity.

This is not like the luddite automation, this is something different and denying it wont so anyone any good.

>>136097118
>while also making new ones
So when 3.5 million truck drivers are replaced, and the places they patronize close from lack of customers, how many new jobs will be created?

If businesses had to employ MORE people in order to automate, they WOULDN'T.

Where are these new jobs going to come from?

>>136088406
>2000 people
>guaranteed income no matter their income
>look for ways to increase that
>virtually no impact on the economy because 2000 fucking people

Extrapolate that to the whole population and the amount they earn in UBI becomes worthless and they'd have to get a job whether they like it or not.

>>136083110
It's ok/ I don't care but people are not meant to be all equal and since the pension system here is not working anymore it would be the next step I guess

We could have make it but we rather import millions of niggers to keep the..., well what to they even good for ?!

With our shrinking society we should spent that money in automation and have a good life after but noo

yes, but it should be funded by taxing corporations who hire any temp labor or immigrant visa workers. ie. if you hire anyone, who does not reside in the country and is not a permanent resident, then you pay a flat tax. regardless of the # of personnel. so even if you hire just one foreign worker, you pay ie. 10% of your annual revenue into the pool. it's a penalty iow. the pool of all corporate proceeds will then dictate the total annual payout per unemployed worker.

this will create an equilibrium within the economy imo. if corporations decide that they do not want do business in the country any more, then they can leave. because if they aren't generating their revenues organically as a residual of REAL domestic production, then they are just stealing from the country any way. they are not paying any penalty for essentially using the country as a cheap labor farm. while they sell globally, they pay tiny costs domestically, this is the entire problem with the economy right now.

>>136097423
>Which is why no one wants it except for the usual gibs crowd.
It probably wouldn't make much of a difference to gibs anyway since they have welfare. This would just replace welfare / EI / etc for them

>reee free money
You didn't need 4 years of education at a $20k/year school to get an entry level job in the 17th century. Automation is replacing the jobs you could get outta highschool. There isn't going to be a lot left that doesn't require higher education. The UBI is so that people can afford to live while retraining or starting a business or whatever. UBI is just basic living expenses, its not some insane sum of money

>>136083110

Universal Basic Income already exists, it's called welfare

being said if you just handed it out and allowed people to go out and make money and then tax accordingly it would work better than having a beurocracy to make sure people arn't trying to better thier situation (or even more often working under the table)

but of course the best solution for the economy is no gibs at all, I think we're too far gone for that..

>>136083110
>Do you think Universal Basic Income would be a good thing given jobs increasingly being taken by automation?

Yes. Along with laws against having children unless you can afford them. And also UBI Work Requirement.

The wealthiest capitalists are supporting UBI because it is a good idea. It keeps society from falling apart as we transition to post-scarcity and automation.

Those with no jobs shouldn't have kids and also UBI should put recipients to work doing what is needed in whatever ways they can. People therefore would not just sit around not working. The UBI panel should put them to work if possible in exchange for UBI. No UBI if you don't do whatever work you are assigned to, then you're on your own totally.

Those who don't rely on UBI would have much more freedom and better lifestyles and would also still get the money. This would push people to do something on their own to work if at all possible instead of just giving up.

Again that's why rich capitalists like UBI. It's how we save capitalism and put everybody who can to work (sometimes called Guaranteed Employment, to get UBI, do whatever work needs to be done, no matter how awful, otherwise you're on your own).

In the end UBI + work requirement to get it is less welfare, more making every single person produce for the nation.

File: labor force participation - employed or looking.png (157KB, 846x478px) Image search: [Google]

157KB, 846x478px

>>136084851

>>136090703
Then the spread of supply and demand become one and the price saturates into nothing. And we move on to better things.

But until then "Chinaman" isn't going to want worthless universal income stamps in exchange for his "automation" produce.

Come on people, these are the basics of production and trade, and you are thinking in terms of your free carrot at the end of your master's stick.

>>136083110
Here in Seattle we are now giving them minimum of $15/ hour because they demanded it and its gutting the college aged lower and middle classes.
Yet now they want a living wage, meaning welfare, because they think it will give them more time to study and improve themselves or that workers are already becoming unneeded and business just were not adapting to automation

>>136097890
China's 1-child policy did it's job pretty well. The side effect being an aging population down the road.

A 2-child policy lessens that problem, but really if you have mass automation an aging population doesn't matter.

Remember I'm thinking many decades from now when robotics and AI are considerably more advanced.

>>136098530
>because they think it will give them more time to study and improve themselves

For education, corporations should be paired with government education so that people are giving the skills and training that companies need. Most people can be put to work doing something worthwhile.

And while working hard all day doing skilled jobs, such people should be given enough to scrape out a meager existence.

>>136097890
>we've given up on seizing the means of production (mostly because we don't know wtf we're doing anyway)
This is exactly the point. No one can adequately distribute the means of production. Its too complex and everyone thats tried it has fucked up. The solution is the ability to put a price on things. Pricing things works perfectly for balancing whats needed, when, for what, by whom, etc

>Nobody is going to pursue these positions if their efforts are pointless.
Wealth redistribution already happens everywhere and people pursue positions where income is heavily taxed all the time. Look at Silicon Valley, California income tax is the highest in the US (I think) its like 22%. What do you think that is? Just another form of wealth redistribution. I don't see anyone 'giving up' because they get a chunk of their income taken away by the state. They still earn obscene amounts of money and seem pretty fucking happy about it.

>punishes me for success
You aren't being punished for success. Your 'success' directly depends on others. Capitalism doesn't exist in a bubble

>If there is absolutely no incentive to me for it
Most proposals for UBI suggest an automation tax. This is no way is going to put a noticeable dent in the profitability of anything. People in countries with high income tax still become entrepreneurs, doctors, etc.

>>136098227
>do whatever work needs to be done
The only thing I don't like about this is the ditch digging argument. Useless work is pointless

File: 1487018939376.jpg (65KB, 1024x689px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 1024x689px

>>136098593
No

>>136098842
Again, why bother assuming responsibility when you literally carrying everyone's weight with no incentive? As it is right now people are dependent on each other to get things produced and add value to the economy and are rewarded with currency. You're expecting someone, idk who exactly to just take care of everyone because you don't want a job.

>>136098842
>The solution is the ability to put a price on things.
No, no, fuck.
The solution is to prevent monopolies from forming and exploiting consumers by fixing prices. Just let the fucking market determine the worth of things. When the government has the ability to control prices directly, you get into situations where they can dictate who can start up a business, who can run a newspaper, and who can provide goods and service. You don't think lobbyists or corrupt fucks will take advantage of this? Who do you think, exactly, will be setting the prices? The people in the various industries, or ties to various industries.
Everything else you said was pretty spot on though.

>>136099002

Infrastructure needs a lot of fucking genuine work. Older people need a lot of fucking legit, hardworking caretakers.

Train people to make them nurses and engineers and make them do the many things the country must do, if it's at all possible for them, in exchange for getting UBI.

America has a ton of fucking work it needs to do. Work with corporations and organizations to make people get trained and work hard (in only the most genuinely needed areas) in exchange for UBI. It will be a boon to our bridges, to aging Baby Boomers, to the many other things the U.S.A. legitimately needs ASAP. No ditch digging needed. Turn people taking government handouts into producers contributing and making the country money instead.

There is so much that we actually need people to work hard all day on right now, no making up tasks is needed.

>>136099264
>Again, why bother assuming responsibility when you literally carrying everyone's weight with no incentive? As it is right now people are dependent on each other to get things produced and add value to the economy and are rewarded with currency. You're expecting someone, idk who exactly to just take care of everyone because you don't want a job.

You're like a broken record.

>no incentive
You still get fuck tons of money, asshat

>take care of everyone because you don't want a job
UBI ends up helping people who want to find work, start a business or train for a better job more than it helps people who want to do nothing. We *already* have a system for people who do nothing its called welfare. Nothing appreciably changes there.

>>136099264
>literally carrying everyone's weight with no incentive?
Being filthy rich isn't an incentive?
If you're filthy rich, and get taxed, you're still slightly more filthy rich than the person next to you, because HE'S getting taxed too.
At no point in a reasonable tax system does it make sense pursue less income.

>>136083237
this

4channers will be the first to go of course

>>136083110
no. adapt or die. universal basic income exacerbates the problem

>>136099532
>UBI ends up helping people who want to find work, start a business or train for a better job more than it helps people who want to do nothing. We *already* have a system for people who do nothing its called welfare

Exactly. UBI was and is a Libertarian idea.

Make everyone work and give incentive to work as much as possible. Incentive to work instead of the Welfare Trap is the idea behind UBI.

>>136099532
Tons of money from who? Yourself? Because you're the one giving out the fucking money and retards are just returning it to you.

>Here is all this free cash
>haha you gave it back, looks like I win again!

>>136088584
>its not profitable to not have customers

but it is profitable to not have workers

>but if there are no workers, there will be no customers!

too bad every company will ignore that

>>136083110
No its just communism with a different name

>>136083110
No, it fcking wont. The unemployment rate would triple because businesses wouldnt hire people because of muh 15$/perhour minimum wage. Not all businesses can afford to pay that wage.

>>136099346
>Just let the fucking market determine the worth of things
I don't know what about my writing style made you think I was implying the state should set prices. I'm saying the market is the solution. It works by allowing anyone to set a price on something. I agree that the government should only step in to control megacorporations and monopolies. Companies like Google and Facebook are dangerous as are telcos (ATT, TW, Comcast), and entertainment (Disney) etc.

>Work with corporations and organizations to make people get trained and work hard (in only the most genuinely needed areas) in exchange for UBI.
Ehhh this is no longer UBI. And by suggesting people do different work for the same income then you're getting into some dangerous shit I think. One of the nice aspects of UBI is supposed to be freedom from bureaucracy. You are handed cash, spend it however you want. I guarantee if you put any sort of establishment between a person and access to UBI it will be abused. Whether its government or private corps.

>>136099736
Except UBI doesn't make any goddamn sense because the base value of currency is pegged to whatever the amount is issued in UBI. If implemented, it would literally do nothing. The market would find equilibrium in relation to all the free cash handed out and essentially all the money received in UBI would be worthless.

>>136091756
That's the point isn't it. By making it universal you save a shit ton on administration. People with other incomes can just be taxed.

>>136099948
>I don't know what about my writing style made you think I was implying the state should set prices.
The part where you said:
>"The solution is the ability to put a price on things. Pricing things works perfectly for balancing whats needed, when, for what, by whom, etc"

Isn't universal basic income just another way of saying, rashoning...?

>>136099960

Citation needed. Most studies found people who got UBI either just spent more time getting education for in-demand high skilled jobs or were women who spent more time raising or caring for their husband's kids themselves after getting UBI.

None of the studies seem to show the outcome you mentioned.

>>136099758
I can't tell if you're being serious or not but income tax (and a proposed automation tax) will usually leave you with the majority of what you made so you are continually increasing your net gain. Like... this isn't a fancy concept, its just a tax that would be leveled against corporations that automate large sections of their workforce.

>>136100392
OH, so the Rothschild couldn't get their carbon tax, so now its called automation tax.

>>136100339
Those studies are samples, not an entire population what part of "universal" do you not understand?

>>136100392
>build up capacity for the sole purpose to care for 95% of the population for which I am responsible for now
>taxes will totes be low bro

>>136100747
Happened in agriculture, why not in the economy as a whole?

>>136100934
Agriculture is heavily subsidized. Farmers aren't giving us free shit nimrod. These subsidizes effect the middle class the most.

>>136101057
They practically are. One mechanized farmer feeds like a hundred thousand people, yet food isn't expensive, in fact it has never been cheaper. How can this possibly work?

>>136101159
>subsidy
>free

>>136101280
Why can't the same development happen for the economy as a whole?

>>136083110
No cause it's neoliberal bullshit on steroids. The money will be coming from big corporations in tax, which means they will have to mistreat their employees more to make more money, especially seeing as they will use tax loopholes to get out of paying.

Democratise the fucking robots. Why does a corporation have to own all of them, why not individual people? In most cases it's software, are you really too lazy to demand a right to copy SOFTWARE onto your computer?

>>136101343
Okay but under the model you're proposing it would be extreme corporate welfare, not UBI.

The day we need this is the day we need total nuclear holocaust. But it's just repackaged communism.

>>136101159
>mechanized farmer
wat.bmp
Watching too much anime weeb.

>>136083110
his name was seth rich

>>136101536
Honestly don't care who will end up paying it out. It seems invitable that someone will in the long term.

>>136101704
I'm not sure what it's called in English so I might've accidently used a word I learned from Hearts of Iron. I think everyone understands what I mean.

>>136101777
Welfare is paid mostly by the middle class, so you'd be footing the bill.

>>136083595
We need open borders to fill the jobs because population is declining!

We need universal income because there are too many people and not enough jobs.

Well which is it?

>>136101909
Yes. That's how it's been done here since the war. Making it universal is, in my country's case, more like a more efficient replacement of the existing system rather than a whole new introduction.

>>136083479
>By all means, let's continue to pay useless roastie civil servants to sit around on their fat asses instead of firing them and abolishing all social programs in favour of computer-administered gibs tied to one's SIN that get clawed back once one reaches a certain income level and/or shits out too many kids
I mean, it won't actually turn out that way so I guess nothing should actually be done

>Retards against UBI
How is the free market supposed to work when workers don't even have the resources to move to better offers?
If I nuke the area surrounding my territory and my workers can't afford to get through the radioactive waste without dying so they are forced to "work" for me for their continued survival, how is that the free market working?
Similar principles apply to the job market in general.

File: 2017-07-30-22-14-21--160018919.jpg (9KB, 273x184px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 273x184px

The (((elites))) are already working on solving the unemployment problem due to automation by mass culling of 90% of the global population via HFCS, WWIII, AIDS, super gonorea, tainted vaccines, fluoride, encouragement of the gay life style etc

Why keep around 6 billion worthless people when killing is more Efficient and cost effective.

>>136083110

It will be a necessity. The communist dream will occur or at least the socialist one. With the proper technology that makes it so men don't have to be cogs in the machine. We don't need slaves for the commune. We make them.
Only THEN can it possibly work and that still leaves the issue of a powerful government entity in charge distributing wealth. That last statement is not a good thing either. And it is an issue I can't wrap my head around.

>>136083110
no. maybe in white countries it would. but not for third world parasites.

>>136083110

When has welfare ever bred anything good

File: 6470.detail.a.jpg (11KB, 280x266px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 280x266px

>>136101950
Choose whichever one you like, goy!

>>136094809
>It will have to be coupled with restrictions on childbirth though.
No need.
You are taking the information "poor people have more children" and not asking WHY.

Poor people have more children because birth control costs money, and currently government gives you money for more children.

For UBI you don't say they can't have children, no one will stand for that breach of personal freedom.
What you do is say that children do not benefit from UBI in any way whatsoever until they are adults, so children are a pure financial drain. That will stop those lazy niggers from popping out kids for more UBI money, because it will effect their bottom line.

Of course, normalfags are retarded sheep so this will never fly. All some dumb cunt has to do is say "what about the children" and suddenly we are back to square one and the system falls apart because retards can't help themselves and say "no, children do not qualify because the system will not be sustainable otherwise"

>>136083237
Unless you have jews in positions of power making the decisions on who is the actual inferior...

>>136099814
>thinks it will cost companies less to pay more taxes if UBI is implemented than to keep them employed and lower their wage
>thinks multi-billion dollar companies became multi-billion dollar companies by being stupid.

>>136093265
>implying they dont first seize the means of production before they offer UBI

>>136103133
You are particularly stupid.
It is not profitable to have workers. It is profitable to have customers. These two are not the same thing, they are not mutually inclusive.
If a business could have 0 workers and infinite customers it would be the most successful business ever.
You are not going to hire more workers to altruistically keep the economy afloat, because the next business over who does not do so will out compete you and you will go bankrupt.

Businesses ARE stupid, you retard. If short term profits > long term profits, successful businesses will choose short term profits every time. In fact, our entire economic system hinges on this happening.
If you are a CEO and you told your shareholders "I didn't raise profit margins even though I could because the business would collapse in 10 years" you would be fired and the shareholders would find someone else who would tell them "I raised the profit margins this quarter. 10 year collapse? I'll have it figured it out ( not really, but as long as I say it I'm legally in the clear )"
Why is it businesses fail but the CEOs who ran those sunken ships still getting jobs as CEOs in other places? Because they are good at bleeding the business for short term profits, which makes shareholders happy on the surface, which makes their resume look nice, which gets them more jobs. The business failing is the problem of people who can't survive the fallout.

File: 1454900530107s.jpg (4KB, 125x120px) Image search: [Google]

4KB, 125x120px

I actually don't know that UBI would be so terrible. It'll be a good control lever to prevent chimpouts, and the smart people would just throw their UBI payments into investments and work anyway.

Need two walls and mass deportations first, tho

>>136103893
lol you are basing your assumption on taxes staying the same. Implementing UBI would raise the taxes on companies much higher than if it wasn't implemented and they just employed people. If every company automates and puts everyone out of a job there will be no customers. If UBI is never implemented however, yet they automate almost everything then what companies will do is employ people to do small things and compensate them with product vouchers. Businesses will make coalitions so your vouchers can be used on things the company you work for doesnt make. Businesses already do a form of this now. If you work for a large company you usually get discounts on their products and discounts on products from other companies they have made deals with. Companies dont want UBI because then the people could spend their money anyway they see fit, they would rather make them buy their products.

>doesnt realize there are tons of companies who do plan for the future, care about future profits and have been around for more than a century.

File: 1436723943382.jpg (34KB, 338x305px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 338x305px

>>136103893
>Businesses ARE stupid, you retard. If short term profits > long term profits, successful businesses will choose short term profits every time.
full retard. By that logic, no long-term businesses could ever exist when some are decades old or even longer. No doubt some people are retarded in business and only make short-term decisions, but that's not the point. Shitty short-term businesses die out because they're short-term by definition and long-term planning businesses continue to stay in business because by definition they're long-term focused

shit bait/10

>>136107419
>By that logic, no long-term businesses could ever exist
Unless short term profit and long term sustainability are not mutually exclusive.

>>136107553
right, so you don't have any arguments. thanks for confirming it

File: tumblr_mgvwf63hTZ1s15f9ho1_500.jpg (47KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 500x500px

>>136108276
Very possibly. I'd like to see a proper study done, but the only people running the studies will be UBI proponents so they'll be entirely untrustworthy.

>>136108545
not directed at you personally, but I hate how this obsession for studies this and that has eclipsed individual common sense and reasoning for "this (((study))) says X is good therefore we do X". They don't ask why something works or doesn't, apparently it just does and thus it should be national policy. fucking ridiculous

nobody needs a study to know that eating literal shit isn't healthy. You don't need a (((study))) to know that if you pay people to do nothing, they will become nothing

>>136108883
>perception builds reality
read our (((study))) to know what matters
[matters, get it?]

>>136096122
Heat will only become an issue if we PRODUCE extra energy, not just use the one we already have more effectively. So solar energy, for one, will not increase the temperature.

>>136111214
but I'm not claiming that perception builds reality, reason does. And oftentimes perception isn't accurate to reality at all (people can think all sorts of things that exists/doesn't exist even though it is false, like playing peek-a-boo with a toddler), so I don't even know what you're trying to say, no study needed -- studies which, incidentally, are still subject to their own perceptions as to how data is interpreted towards a conclusion