Politics & News

Only logged in members can reply and interact with the post.
Join SimilarWorlds for FREE »

Do you support Universal Income?

[b]Hawaii is considering introducing a basic income for all its citizens.
[/b]
The US state’s congress voted to look into the idea as research suggests a large number of current jobs are likely to be replaced by automated technology in the coming years.

State representative Chris Lee, who introduced the legislation, said: "Our economy is changing far more rapidly than anybody's expected.”

He added that it was important "to be sure that everybody will benefit from the technological revolution that we're seeing to make sure no one's left behind."

The bill declares that all families in Hawaii are entitled to “basic financial security” – paving the way for a policy that would guarantee this.

It also tasks several government offices with analysing the state’s economy and finding “ways to ensure all families have basic financial security, including an evaluation of different forms of a full or partial universal basic income."

This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »

Cierzo · M

I don't support it, but I would like to discuss it economically rather than ideologically
Where will the money to fund it come from? Or which other expenses will be cut?

1-25 of 27

sogdianrock · 61-69, M

hi Cierzo
There is a second industrial revolution occurring and the owners of industry want to head off a political revolution when countless millions of jobs end. Paying Universal Income is their only option short of Revolution. People can still work or do what they want. They can add extra income but it prevents mass discontent. This will not just be truck drivers replaced by robot trucks but accountants, managers, drs. Money is not real. Industrial output is and it needs customers and political stability. There is no choice anyway as you cannot stop progress and once people see the benefits they will not want to anyway.
Best wishes
:)

Cierzo · M

@sogdianrock You did not answer my question.

[quote] There is no choice anyway as you cannot stop progress [/quote]

Wrong. There are always choices and different views about what progress is. The future is what we want it to be. Kim Jong Un decides to press a button and the bright future of progress goes down the drain (I don't want that to happen or think it will happen).

[quote] Paying Universal Income is their only option short of Revolution[/quote]

You are really fond of no choices. What about corporations paying taxes for every robot that replaces a worker?

sogdianrock · 61-69, M

hi Cierzo
sorry I have tried to keep up.
Sure pay taxes to the government. They have to somehow placate countless millions. I suppose they could lock half up and pay the there half to keep them in jail. My preference would be Universal Income.
War is always a possibility. I do not wish that on anyone including civil war and there are a lot of guns in USA>
Best wishes
:)

QuixoticSoul · 41-45, M

@Cierzo
Some ideas are discussed in this article:

https://qz.com/611644/we-talked-to-five-experts-about-what-it-would-take-to-actually-institute-universal-basic-income/

There are lots of questions over details and implementation.

sogdianrock · 61-69, M

hi QuixoticSoul
thanks that was interesting.
Best wishes
:)

QuixoticSoul · 41-45, M

@Cierzo [quote]What about corporations paying taxes for every robot that replaces a worker?[/quote]
That would be one way to fund a system like BI. By themselves, corporations paying taxes still leaves the replaced worker in a lurch.

Cierzo · M

@sogdianrock You probably mean raising taxes to the rich, I guess.
What leads us to next question, what if they move their income source to another country or a tax heaven?

sogdianrock · 61-69, M

hi Cierzo ·
Sure the rich are greedy but not suicidal. They know they will have to pay.
For what it is worth once robots design better robots and build and repair themselves what value are the rich adding anyway?
Best wishes
:)

Cierzo · M

@QuixoticSoul Some of the ideas are interesting, some are laughable.
Some guy in the article says that although everyone gets a UBI many will go on working become job provides status and personal satisfaction. True, but fid he not realise that automation will take away that status and personal satisfaction from many?

sogdianrock · 61-69, M

hi Cierzo ·
It does not matter that many will loose status and personal satisfaction. They will adapt. Do you ride a horse to the shops? How do you think horses felt when cars came along? I like horses btw.
Best wishes
:)

Cierzo · M

@sogdianrock Some are rich because they add value. Many are because they are good at speculation. This state of things will not because of automation.

[quote] Sure the rich are greedy but not suicidal. They know they will have to pay [/quote]

There are many who already pay much less than they should, including supporters of UBI like Mark Zuckerberg. Why not making them pay more now, regardless of basic income?

sogdianrock · 61-69, M

hi Cierzo
I agree with you! Is ridiculous how Corporations evade tax.
Interesting talking with you btw.
Best wishes
:)

QuixoticSoul · 41-45, M

@Cierzo [quote]Some guy in the article says that although everyone gets a UBI many will go on working become job provides status and personal satisfaction. True, but fid he not realise that automation will take away that status and personal satisfaction from many?[/quote]
Yes, working an interesting and satisfying job just might become a luxury in the future, reserved for the especially able.

Widespread automation [i]is[/i] coming, there is no way to stop it. Question is how we adapt.

Cierzo · M

@sogdianrock Same here, although the 'there is no choice' sounds to me like religion, and then no discussion may happen.

Brianthesnail · 56-60, M

Interesting discussion but I disagree with one basic assumption that everyone seems to be making: that robots and automation are the problem, looking for a solution.
Technological progress does not directly eliminate jobs it changes the way of working. How many TV presenters were there in the 1700s? 😀
More seriously,how many worked in automotive companies? Generally progress build the economy and opens opportunity
Secondly, the introduction of universal healthcare is generally considered a good thing (in most of the advanced world) but it probably seemed I possible to pay for at the time - in the UK it was just after the 2nd WW, with an already drained economy but it proved possible. And no robots involved

If we want it, we can do it. But we have to define it. Like your article says the key question is how much? It should be enough only to avoid real poverty, not an incentive not to work.

Cierzo · M

@QuixoticSoul [quote] working an interesting and satisfying job just might become a luxury in the future, [/quote]

Isn't it a luxury now?

[quote] Widespread automation is coming, there is no way to stop it. [/quote]

Determinism is getting quite popular here. Big corporations want to push it, yes, but there is more to the world than them. Their desires should not (and must not) be the law.

QuixoticSoul · 41-45, M

@Cierzo It's not about determinism or what big corporations want to push. Just economics. If AI and robotic labor is cheaper than human labor, that's an economic reality.

Cierzo · M

@QuixoticSoul Economics. Thanks to automation costs will go down. But who will buy all those goods since basic income will be...well, basic? Not only that, the uncertainty this new paradigm brings will make people think twice about getting into big expenses.

QuixoticSoul · 41-45, M

@Cierzo Keeping people buying stuff is a huge point of Basic Income in the first place. Those folks will still have and spend more money than people with nothing.

I don't think BI schemes allow for big expenses anyhow. Just keeping someone out of poverty and contributing to consumer economy by buying day to day stuff. Day to day expenses are the lifeblood of a modern economy.

Brianthesnail · 56-60, M

@QuixoticSoul in my experience, robots are not cheaper than cheap human labor; automation doesn't reduce costs, it increase quality

Brianthesnail · 56-60, M

@QuixoticSoul agree there!

QuixoticSoul · 41-45, M

@Brianthesnail That's certainly true in some fields - and at the very least, automation tends to create consistency, which you can fine-tune to a high level of quality.

But, the current crop of automation that is worrying people is all about costs - and this makes it difficult to resist. Using a software lawyer, or phone secretary, etc doesn't necessarily improve quality - it's usually a "good enough" thing but it certainly lowers costs. Self-checkout machines at the supermarket are cheaper than cashiers. These sorts of substitutions are accelerating and they're purely cost-based.

If you're running a chip fab, the yes, quality and consistency are your prime concerns, and headcount second.

Cierzo · M

@QuixoticSoul So it looks like a UBI based economy would be a system where most people would struggle to survive with that meagre income, only able to day to day expenses...these are not the areas where automation is more likely to happen.

This UBI scheme sounds to md like coming back to the 19th century. There will be a tiny minority who will be the new bourgeoises, those who keep their place as productive force, and a massive amount of improductive people who will not have to slog for 12 hours in factories, but will have a lot of idle time, and little money to spend.

QuixoticSoul · 41-45, M

@Cierzo It's better than widespread unemployment and financial collapse. And perhaps the idle time will allow people to reeducate and innovate, creating new professions, etc.

And anyway, that's one of the less nice ways it can pan out. Perhaps we'll be able to salvage the middle class, and people will adapt faster than expected.

Cierzo · M

@QuixoticSoul That reeducation would be nice anyway, but it would take time. I don't think big corporations would like to delay automation.

I could agree with automation if for every job taken by a robot, businesses would pay a tax equal to the salary of the redundant worker, and that money is distributed by the government among all of them.

That way it would not be profitable for business to use robots only to replace workers and lower costs, only to produce new goods and services, or add value on those already produced.

1-25 of 27