Universal Basic Income (UBI) Will Soon Be Needed

Automation and AI is moving at breakneck speed. Within a few years, we will see lots of jobs disapear. Already there are McDonalds being trailed with no staff. There are driverless cabs, trucks and buses in operation. Factory jobs are increasingly being replaced by robots. During Covid we saw changes to retail, education and business that are still having effects. Retailers now no longer need huge stores and staff, Universities can offer on-line education in many areas without needed huge investments in land and staff, and traditional books are replaced with online versions. Businesses can have staff work from home, or even replace them with AI, and no longer need huge inner city offices. All of these changes have flow on effects, like cafes that now have less customers, bookstores that arent needed etc. So there will be a lot less jobs, and more people out of work.

But this will be so massive, that it will affect business. If there are less people with money to spend, this will impact business, who will then need to cut back, reduce staff etc. And governments will need to spend more on welfare, while recieving less taxes from income and purchases. It could be the start of a downward spiral that could destroy economies worldwide.

So what is the answer?

A Universal Basic Income (UBI). This is a social welfare payment that is made to every working age person. It is not income tested, and applies to every person in the nation. It has to be high enough for people to live and also have money left to spend. It has been trailed in some nations, and it works.

So why everyone?

Firstly, there will be no need for Centrelink. If everyone gets a payment, then this can be closed. People can decide to keep working full time, and have more money, cut back to part time, or not work at all. It gives people back a life. Humans did not always work. We work to enable ourselves to live. If we can work less, we can have time to persue other interests, like hobbies, gardening, education spending time with families etc. These can change over a lifetime, so people can decide when to work more and when to cut back. This will free up more casual and part time jobs. And yes, some people will decide that they want to sit around all day and watch TV. Thats fine. Its a choice.
Business will keep operating and have customers. So the economy keeps working.

How will we afford it? Aside from savings by not needing Centrelink etc, we only need to revise the way we tax. At present the largest businesses pay no tax, because they send it offshore. The only tax collected is from GST, which is a value added tax. One idea might be to instead tax on turnover, which could be a very small rate on top of the GST, or replace the GST. Another option might be to put a base rate on products, for example 10% on all mining products etc, even those exported. Income tax could be removed, and businesses could reduce wages paid (without a reduction to the worker of the Nett ammount) as incentives etc. There are plenty of options and governments have already started looking at it.

The biggest obstacle will be the people themselves. There will be a group who will not want it just because it will mean that some people might decide to do nothing. This envy and jealousy will be a major reason for them to oppose it. It will bring about a better distribution of wealth, and a happier society, but some people would rather see others live in poverty. This is real, and is the reason why we still have a war on drugs. Our governmen is aware of research and trials in other nations where all drugs were legalised, as long as they were obtained through doctors. Initially drug use went up, then dropped massively. Drug deaths dropped, because people were seeing doctors, and drugs came from pharmacies so were safer. But the best part was that drug related crime disappeared, so much that prisons strted to empty. So better all round. But we wont see it here in a hurry, because if a party introduces this today, people would oppose it and would vote them out. The majority of people want others to suffer and be punished for what they dont agree with. Envy and jealousy. So this require governments to educate people over time.

Some people have estimated that we will hit a crisis point in 10 years. Others say that the recent advancements in AI might make it 5.
What do you think?

Comments

          • -1

            @Jolakot:

            pensions come out of general tax revenue

            So does everything else such as roads and medicare. So you saying they are all unfunded.

            The only people who are truly self funded are those with a big enough super pot. Unfortunately it looks increasingly like the government wants a piece of that too. Also a piece of your house on top of taxes.

            I guess to be truly self funded you need to have 8 or 4 kids depending on how you see the world

            • @netjock:

              The only people who are truly self funded are those with a big enough super pot

              Stop for a moment and think about what you've just said here, and now contrast it with your earlier point:

              It isn't UBI it is actually self funded

              Does that compute? My point was that pensioners are welfare recipients, paid by the government to do literally nothing all day regardless of whether they're still capable of working or not.

              We don't need to imagine or theorize how people would spend their day if the government gave them a subsidence level payment for doing nothing, because they already exist. We all know people who refuse to retire after they'll financially able to, because they get more from work than just money.

              I guess to be truly self funded you need to have 8 or 4 kids depending on how you see the world

              I think you missed the point. Imagine you have 90 adults; 10 of them are on a pension and 80 of them are working age adults. Those 10 pensions are paid for by 80 working age adults, so each of them must pay for 1/8 of a pension

              Fast forward and there are now 100 adults; 20 of them are on a pension and 80 of them are working age adults. Those 20 pensions are paid for by 80 working age adults, so each of them must pay for 1/4 of a pension.

              If a pension is $400 a week (adjusted for inflation), then the first lot only had to pay $50 each for all 10 pensions. But the second lot had to pay $100 each for all 20 pensions. The first lot paid half of what the second lot paid. On top of that, each working age adult had to contribute $100 a week into super while the previous lot didn't have to, so they are 4x worse off than the first lot.

              Massive oversimplification, but welfare for seniors (pensions, rent assistance etc) blows an $80 billion dollar hole in the budget each year. There are 13.58 million working Australians, so each of us has to contribute almost $6000 a year just to cover that bill, it's the biggest budget item by a fair margin.

              • @Jolakot: Might as well just stop here

                You are missing the point completely and arguing based on some kind of magic math you have sucked in from The Greens about how super is unfair and it should be scrapped with money redistributed to low income earners

                Your part about the pension is the same as all these people who think super concessions are "spend" that will over take the government pension. First: it isn't spend because the government spends nothing on super concessions, it is foregone revenue. Second: this forgone revenue is meant to mean less reliance on the pension which means of course the government pension is going to be lower than super concessions (if you add government pension not paid out as result of self funded retirees then government pension spend actually goes way up)

                A 22 year old university graduate joining a profession would most likely retire with $1m to $1.5m (I have run the models because I work in finance) which is way more than even part government pension ($900k for couples)

                Funding for pensions is more than just income tax so your theory of how many workers required to fund a pensioner is purely one sided maths because it doesn't account for tax contributions from elsewhere. Might work if you are trying to simplify and sensationalise the topic.

                I'm going to end it here. No point carrying on and giving you further information. I've seen this fancy zero sum game maths. You redrew the boundaries closer to you because that is all you can see. You can't enlarge the pie because it is just too complicated, you just want to slice and dice the cup cake and keep telling me there isn't enough to go around.

                • @netjock: Slice it however you like, but a dollar spent is a dollar taxed. If you can turn cupcakes into pies, then you should be working at a bakery.

                  • @Jolakot: That is the point. I work in finance. People come to me with financial cupcakes and I turn them into financial pies. You have no idea how many deals I have cut sitting at a table and pretending what is a few million between friends.

                    The problem is you think 8 people supporting 1 pensioner when there use to be 4 so things must be grim.

                    If you look at this chart you will notice that 47% of tax payers only pay 5% of tax revenue. So really it is 4 people in your example that is paying the pensioner with their income tax. So the money must be coming from somewhere else other than income taxes.

                    It is also reason for super concessions because having a super sum that will keep you out of a means tested pension actually helps the national budget. There is a lot of smart people in Treasury working these numbers out. If a random person can craft a better set of numbers on OzB forum then hundreds of people will be out of a job.

      • What do 90% of people on a pension do all day?

        Can't speak for the total 90% but the ones I know are taking an art class (being taught by an 80 year old artist), meeting up at the bowls club for coffee etc, playing bowls, travelling, spending time at the Men's Shed, helping out with a number of charity organisations, doing some part-time paid work.

        That's just the ones I've seen in the last couple of weeks.

        What use of their time are the non-pensioners doing all day?
        Making money for other people I'm guessing is what you would call a productive use of their time.

        • +1

          Exactly, you don't need to be working in order to be productive

          Even when offered the opportunity to sit around and do absolutely nothing all day while collecting a govt handout, most pensioners will still choose to fill their lives with activities and projects that bring them joy or satisfaction

          The idea that without work everyone will turn into lazy slobs is ridiculous, we're biologically hardwired to do fulfilling activities

      • My mum gardens, walks her dog. keeps quite active.

  • +8

    I agree with you, OP. This article summed it quite nicely: A world without work is coming - it could be Utopia or it could be hell.

    Basically, with all the automation, productivity and efficiency will increase, meaning income will increase (only if we tax the rich properly), meaning we will have more money to use. Education is free at all levels. So everyone can live and learn and do what they are passionate to do. This is the ideal future if human kind would want to progress further as a species. Capitalism is at its limit.

    • +7

      …only if we tax the rich properly…

      I think we should be taxing corporate entities more, rather than individuals.
      According to this article https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-05-04/the-tax-problems-the-… in the most recent budget, Australian workers contributed 45 per cent of all the revenue collected. Australian companies contributed less than half of what workers did, 21 per cent, including the taxes gas companies pay to sell Australian gas abroad. And the fastest-growing part of the revenue pie is income tax.

      • +3

        Por que no los dos?

        • +1

          Why not indeed.

        • +3

          How much more tax should everyday people pay?

          • @brendanm: And a democracy based on capitalism will ensure that this problem persists, because only those who have the most money get elected. And once elected, they would certainly vote for their common interests first.

            • @Banana3: What do you suggest then?

              • +3

                @brendanm: From an everyday people's perspective, not much we can do, but to vote for those who oppose capitalism as much as we can, hoping they would get elected.

                From a government's perspective, if they have the power to do so, is to use Finland's and other Scandinavian countries' examples as much as they can, and move away from the US' model.

                Don't get me wrong, capitalism worked. It has delivered us to Mars, the internet and beyond. But it is at its limit, a new system is needed if we are to progress further.

                • @Banana3: No, I'm asking you what system you are suggesting.

                  • +2

                    @brendanm: Modern socialism.

                    • @Banana3: What do you define as modern socialism?

                      • @brendanm: What Finland and the Scandinavian countries do. Socialism, but government only controls those that are essential to residents.

                        • +1

                          @Banana3: That's not socialism. That's a capitalism/socialism mix, like we have in Australia. Socialism gives government too much control, which leads to not very good outcomes, as history has taught us.

                          What you are after is pretty much what we have now, but more free stuff given out.

                          • @brendanm:

                            That's a capitalism/socialism mix

                            All systems are a capitalism/socialism mix and all the argument comes from how much each part of the mix should be. 100% of either is nightmare fuel.

                            There hasn’t been a government that isn’t a mix of ism’s.

                            • -2

                              @JumperC: The poster above claimed that Finland is socialist.

                              Do you also want to have a crack at defining "modern socialism"?

                              • @brendanm: I think it’s disingenuous to assume the claim is that it’s 100% socialist and argue that it’s not, while saying socialism gives governments too much control. Because clearly the meaning is ‘more socialist’ as there’s no such thing as a completely socialist or completely capitalist country.

                                There’s things where it makes sense for government control eg roads, because it’s impossible to have a practical choice of road providers to each individual household.

                                Whereas it makes no sense for there to be a government restaurant, because it’s comparatively easy to offer choice and the consequences of an individual failure to society is low.

                                Socialism has some outstanding successes, as does capitalism. It’s about the right tool for the right job, and then lots of arguments from people who find the one counter example where the choice was right 99.9% of the time but wrong in that 0.1%.

                                • -1

                                  @JumperC: You surely realise that Australia has things that are government owned/controlled, just like Finland?

                                    • @JumperC: So how is Finland "socialist" and Australia is not? I suppose you can choose to do a Mongolian basket weaving course at university in Finland, with no job prospects, and no benefit for the community, but the taxpayer will pay for it, which is great.

                                      • +1

                                        @brendanm: My point was no country is completely socialist so I was pushing back on the kind of pointless argument that it wasn’t socialist, I never said it was ‘socialist’. It’s generally regarded as one of the more socialist leaning countries because of the high level of welfare support available.

                                        The world isn’t black and white, using extreme examples is disingenuous because it ignores the typical experience.

                                        There isn’t a torrent of people doing basket weaving in Finland any more than there are people in the US getting student loans they will never be able to afford to pay off. The difference is people in Finland aren’t becoming homeless because of essential medical bills.

                                        I think people who devalue more equal societies haven’t widely traveled. You can live like a king in a poor country without such social safer nets but you’re always doing some degree of looking over your shoulder to make sure no one is going to use violence. Ultimately I’d rather pay my taxes and live in a society where people are generally content. It’s a seriously undervalued benefit to society. (Also having customers who have money to spend is great when you’re running a business).

                                        • -2

                                          @JumperC: I like that we have safety nets, Medicare, etc etc here. I think the American system is bad. We already subsidise university places, and the government gives out loans for uni that are interest free. There are enough people here making crap decisions on what to study, or to study at all, and I don't want to be paying for their poor choices. I have no issue with paying tax, as long as it's spent on things we opportunity, not equality of outcome.

                                          • @brendanm:

                                            I believe in equality of opportunity,

                                            That’s one thing a UBI helps achieve. Early in my career I took a job that paid less but gave better experience because I knew I wouldn’t starve on the lower wage. People once started businesses now worth billions from their parents garages, but they had unconditional support to get through that initial unprofitable period.

                                            Something like a UBI doesn’t even bring people up to equality of opportunity, just gets a little closer.

                                            It’s somewhat subjective what a poor choice is. There’s a thousand failed businesses for every globally successful story, and hundreds of people that told them it was a poor choice.

                                            We will never have equality of outcome. That’s impossible in any system.

                                            Sometimes even living in a society where people aren’t desperate enough to stab you for your shoes is it’s own reward.

                                            • -2

                                              @JumperC: A ubi take more from the middle class. It will increase inflation. We already have a very high minimum wage. Why would someone take a low paying job over sitting at home getting ubi?

                                              There’s a thousand failed businesses for every globally successful story

                                              They likely weren't asking for taxpayers money to set it up. We don't need every single person to have a uni degree, and there are lots of people who shouldn't do uni, but do anyway. The taxpayer should not pay for these things.

                                              Sometimes even living in a society where people aren’t desperate enough to stab you for your shoes is it’s own reward.

                                              We already have this.

                                              • @brendanm: There’s no such choice as ‘taking a low paying job over UBI’.

                                                The whole point is you keep it even if you take that low paying job, thus making you middle class. People already work when they don’t have to, if you think they won’t of the opportunity even still exists, it says more about you than anyone else.

                                                The point is we’re heading towards a world where there simply won’t be jobs to take, no matter how much people want to work. And then, and not before then, is when a UBI will exist.

                                                We already have this.

                                                I’m not suggesting we’re going to go right for a UBI tomorrow. But we’ve already had a taste. The pandemic removed all obligations for Jobseeker and paid employers to employ people. People still worked, even low income jobs. Because surprise, even a low income job is a better standard of living. Most humans aren’t currently plotting to spend their days on a basic income, unfulfilled.

                                                They likely weren't asking for taxpayers money to set it up.

                                                You don’t understand much about the business world if you don’t think taxpayers money is spent supporting business startups.

                                                We don't need every single person to have a uni degree, and there are lots of people who shouldn't do uni, but do anyway. The taxpayer should not pay for these things.

                                                Not sure how this is relevant but we’re almost exclusively paying for Uni for those people currently. Albeit somewhat as a disguise for that money to be funded to research or subsidise other courses because it sure as hell doesn’t cost what the taxpayer is charged to run those courses.

                                                • @JumperC:

                                                  There’s no such choice as ‘taking a low paying job over UBI’.

                                                  Of course there is, why do you think people couldn't get workers with all the covid rubbish, people were getting paid to sit on their asses.

                                                  People already work when they don’t have to, if you think they won’t of the opportunity even still exists, it says more about you than anyone else.

                                                  People already don't work when they do have to. I'll happily take the ubi and do cash jobs on the side if you want, I'll be far better off.

                                                  The pandemic removed all obligations for Jobseeker and paid employers to employ people.

                                                  Yeah, that worked out really well. Handing out money for no work, with no extra money for.ing in was great for the economy 😂

                                                  You don’t understand much about the business world if you don’t think taxpayers money is spent supporting business startups.

                                                  Some? Sure. All, no.

                                                  Not sure how this is relevant but we’re almost exclusively paying for Uni for those people currently.

                                                  No we aren't, a portion, yes. 'almost exclusively" is an overstatement. What we should do is increase subsidy for things we actually need, and have a shortage of, and decrease the subsidy for useless things.

                                                  Albeit somewhat as a disguise for that money to be funded to research or subsidise other courses because it sure as hell doesn’t cost what the taxpayer is charged to run those courses.

                                                  Correct, unis are a scam designed to get some people rich. In addition to that, we waste a tonne of money on garbage "research grants" on top of that.

                                                  • @brendanm:

                                                    Of course there is, why do you think people couldn't get workers with all the covid rubbish, people were getting paid to sit on their asses.

                                                    There were absolutely shit-tonnes of workers available during the JobSeeker doubling, it wasn't until AFTER people had trouble due to record low unemployment. And you need to lookup what an UBI actually is before you bother commenting further.

                                                    People already don't work when they do have to. I'll happily take the ubi and do cash jobs on the side if you want, I'll be far better off.

                                                    ? Duh? Way to contradict yourself? You don't need to 'do cash jobs' if it's an UBI you can do jobs 'on the books'. That's what a UBI is and you've just described why it doesn't decrease the number of available workers.

                                                    Yeah, that worked out really well. Handing out money for no work, with no extra money for.ing in was great for the economy

                                                    Record low unemployment, DURING a global pandemic. Yeah. Seems to have been pretty good.

                                                    No we aren't, a portion, yes. 'almost exclusively" is an overstatement. What we should do is increase subsidy for things we actually need, and have a shortage of, and decrease the subsidy for useless things.

                                                    Given it's a loan, people who obtain useful employment that boosts their earnings pay back their Uni fees, the ones that remain on low incomes don't. So yes. Almost exclusively.

                                                    What we should do is increase subsidy for things we actually need, and have a shortage of, and decrease the subsidy for useless things.

                                                    We actually did that. Though it didn't really make a difference, because Universities internally were already using the funding from 'useless' but easy to teach things to fund the 'useful' but hard to teach things. All it ended up doing was giving people doing courses that won't increase their income more debt that will be wiped when they eventually die. Basically, on paper it did almost nothing, but in reality it actually just cost more taxpayer money for no real benefit.

                                                    we waste a tonne of money on garbage "research grants" on top of that.

                                                    The biggest problem we have with research is that we fail to monetize it properly. We do good research, which then goes to other countries to be monetized. A decade of defunding science didn't help that.

                                                    • @JumperC:

                                                      And you need to lookup what an UBI actually is before you bother commenting further.

                                                      U(niversal) B(asic) I(ncome)
                                                      Money for nothing.

                                                      There were absolutely shit-tonnes of workers available during the JobSeeker doubling,

                                                      You were in the people republic of Victoria, where your dear leader shit the entire place down. The world kept turning in other states, and places couldn't get people to work, because they were getting it too good sitting at home doing nothing.

                                                      Record low unemployment, DURING a global pandemic. Yeah. Seems to have been pretty good.

                                                      Amazing what happened when you stop filling the place with migrants. Not sure what that had to do with my comment anyway, record low unemployment has exactly what to do with printing money and causing inflation to spiral out of control?

                                                      ? Duh? Way to contradict yourself? You don't need to 'do cash jobs' if it's an UBI you can do jobs 'on the books'. That's what a UBI is and you've just described why it doesn't decrease the number of available workers

                                                      Haha, it's not money for free, it's a redistribution of wealth. Tax will have to be increased to cater for it, and even though higher income earners will technically receive it, it will be clawed back off them, plus change, at tax time. If I just work for cash, I keep the ubi, and don't pay the extra cash. I get to live off other peoples "free" money, what a dream!

                                                      Given it's a loan, people who obtain useful employment that boosts their earnings pay back their Uni fees, the ones that remain on low incomes don't. So yes. Almost exclusively.

                                                      That doesn't even make sense. Are you saying that "almost exclusively", uni courses are useless and the jobs you get with your degree don't pay enough to cross the $46k or whatever it is threshold, to begin paying off the hecs loan?

                                                      Basically, on paper it did almost nothing, but in reality it actually just cost more taxpayer money for no real benefit.

                                                      Are you saying we should stop offering government supported places and hecs loans for these garbage degrees then?

                                                      The biggest problem we have with research is that we fail to monetize it properly. We do good research, which then goes to other countries to be monetized. A decade of defunding science didn't help that.

                                                      No, the biggest problem is that we pay for half this utter crap. Was reading an article on Australia's grand mosque the other day, turns out the information had come from this -https://researchdata.edu.au/special-research-initiatives-id-sr200200989/1785333 . $300k for a predetermined outcome. That's not science, that's not research. Plenty more where that came from as well.

                                                      • @brendanm: Wow. I was in QLD actually.

                                                        I give up if you’re going to just make shit up there’s no point educating you.

                                                        Read what I wrote again, actually process it. Or maybe undertake some useful education on your own.

                                                        • @JumperC:

                                                          Wow. I was in QLD actually.

                                                          Location: Vic

                                                          I give up if you’re going to just make shit up there’s no point educating you.

                                                          Educate me about giving free money to people? Hot tip, nothing is free.

                                                          Read what I wrote again, actually process it. Or maybe undertake some useful education on your own.

                                                          Read what I wrote, and actually process it.

                                                        • @JumperC: Feel free to actually give a counterpoint to anything I've said. Here, I'll give you some dot points you can reply to if you like;

                                                          • If Australia abolished all social payments except Medicare related, we would apparently have approx $6-7k to give to every adult per year. If we go by the $7k amount, that's about $135 a week. We then have no parenting payment, no rent assistance etc etc. So, significantly down on current dole payment, plus all other payments have been removed. Does this seem good?

                                                          • As the above scenario is just silly, it's quite obvious that to provide a UBI that could possibly replace all that is currently offered is going to be very expensive. Where do you propose this money comes from?

                                                          • If we have easy access to the money from the second point, why aren't we using it now?

                                                          • What do you think the attitude of the hardworking majority will be toward those who are able bodied, but choose to sit at home and receive "free" money?

                                                          • What do you expect the result would be on inflation, of every low income adult suddenly has $X more per year to waste?

                                                          • How do you think this inflation will affect the person working, who may receive the ubi, but loses it all, plus some, to the increased taxation?

    • +1

      Lemme fix that neg for you 👍

  • +1

    lmao another MMT guy

  • +12

    Pointless posting these UBI threads.
    All you get is a lot of hysterical reactions from people who have no clue about it, and so make massively wrong assumptions and rant at a snowman.
    Economic is hard, and it takes a lot of time to explain just what the coming problem is, how our old assumptions are being undermined, etc. The OP tried to summarise, but it cannot be conveyed convincingly in a few paragraphs.

    I'm completely unqualified to explain how it might work, but at least I bothered to learn something before saying even this much.

    The best place to start is with what is wrong with our current welfare system, and why it is increasingly unsustainable.

    • +2

      I'm completely unqualified to explain how it might work, but at least I bothered to learn something before saying even this much.

      This should be the starting point for every conversation.
      Unfortunately many will not admit to the first part of the statement.

  • +12

    A reminder that the OP's narrative might not be the whole story. We've just been through 25 years of the Internet hitting the economy and ending many jobs (I used to be a journalist). End result: unemployment is 3.5%, just above its 50-year low point.
    This has been the story for hundreds of years. Perhaps most famously, in the 1810s a group called the Luddites protested new technology by destroying textile machinery.
    Somehow the economy always finds more stuff for people to do, from games programming to providing therapy for disabled kids.
    That's not to say the economy and society don't have problems. But we might start by dealing with the problems we actually have, rather than the ones that some of us fear will soon appear.

    • -2

      And yet, our ability to adapt to new technology is advancing slower than the rate at which new technology is being created.

      It's like a Mario level where the lava is rising from the bottom of the screen faster and faster, with the top of the screen opening up at the same rate. Mario can only jump from platform to platform so quickly, so eventually the lava will catch him no matter how hard he tries to jump away from it unless he starts from the very top of the screen.

      Instead the platforms are jobs/industries, the lava is technological progress, and Mario is each of us. Like if truck driving is automated tomorrow, and we then spend 6 months retraining all truck drivers to do entry-level coding, then the majority of those guys are going to have to retrain again in a few years when entry-level coding is automated unless they took to it and managed to move into mid/senior roles. These people will be kicked from industry to industry at a rapid pace trying to remain relevant at the bottom of the rung, at each step growing in size as more and more people are displaced, until our entire system buckles under the weight of now 'unskilled' workers.

      Those new job opportunities will also be created at a faster and faster pace, plenty of young people will find a ton of room to grow from them, but there will still be millions of middle/older aged people displaced from the workforce who never be retrained fast enough to ever catch up again.

      • Like if truck driving is automated tomorrow

        if

    • You are certainly right but there will never be as powerful as a shake up as AGI.

  • -7

    Wall of text alert

    But UBI is the way to go.

    Funded by an extra 33% tax increase on people earning above $100,000

    Everybody gets a basic $50,000 universal base income.

    People with disabilities and poor circumstances gets a top up depending on what they need, up to $200,000

    The people that neg this post will be the hypocrites and elites that are the cause of this class struggle.

    • Hahaha, I hope you are trolling.

  • -3

    @thesilverstarman

    As a car mechanic, your thought process is understandable

    You like to reason it out and add details along the way

    Read over what you wrote again and ask yourself "Are my assumptions correct?"

    Rather than repeat what you have read elsewhere, apply some critical thinking

    If you come to the same conclusions again, then you better stay on the tools

    • +1

      I wasnt always a mechanic. Its a midlife change after doing other things that relate to politics, business and policy. Mechanics has always been more of a hobby that I get to now make money from.

  • +1
    1. Capitalism is good at: harnessing & directing human energy
    2. Capitalism is good at: raising general welfare
    3. Capitalism is good at enhancing human freedom
    4. Capitalism is good (or alternatively bad) at: distributing & redistributing gains, depending if one accepts the unequal nature of reality and distribution of gifts, or takes a "flat earth" view of humanity and human capabilities ("anyone can be a brain surgeon if they get the same opportunities in life").

    5. Capitalism is bad at: conserving human and environmental ecologies

    Your proposed system addresses 4, with potential deleterious consequences for 1, 2 & 3, while largely keeping the negatives of 5.

    The accounting system that accompanies capitalism is largely responsible for its greatest failures, but that is something that is maintained with your UBI. Financial accounting vs real world measure of energy & resource stocks and flows.

    Capitalism with corrected handling of debt, resource depletion, and human capital destruction, via differing (true cost) accounting treatment, that does not treat each of those as $zero cost externalities would fix most of the major deficiencies, without having to upend human societies to be achieved, noting that, as human societies are complex, any attempt to rewire them almost always delivers HUGE externalities that were unforeseen or unaccounted for in the planning stages.

    Communism looked good on paper, as do most appeals to "equality", but their deliverance may run fundamentally against nature and what is ultimately good for us.
    We are biological beings, and nature advances via unequal distribution of talents and rewards, pushing life through hardships to deliver the best outcome.

    A UBI is a direct attempt to shortcut the way nature works, and with that will come a bill, which proponents of UBI's list where?

    If you google the "Mouse Utopia Experiments" you may get an idea of how other living mammalian species faired when a similar program (basic needs taken care of via resource distribution independent of effort, hence "Utopia") was instituted for them.

    • +1

      Communism has only ever existed on paper, as has full capitalism.

      Absolutes don’t exist and are nightmare fuel when they get close to their on paper ideals.

      It’s undeniable that some people need some form of incentive (usually monetary, sometimes just fame or control) to increase productivity. There’s lots of room to argue how much incentive, and how much before it’s a disincentive for some people.

      I don’t think a UBI means anything like equal, nor removing rewards for out performance etc. in places where it was trialled more people ended up starting businesses, volunteering etc. in some ways a UBI is actually a driver of capitalism.

      Environmental destruction etc relies on either punishments or incentives to avoid. Essentially it has to have a financial disincentive minimum, and if the financial rewards from trying to evade that are high enough, non financial disincentives. I don’t think a UBI changes that at all.

  • OP, now tell us who you have been smoking?

    • +1

      OP clearly copy pasta from an ai chatbot and sticks it on ozbargain. Ignore the OP troll and he/she will go away.

      • Nice thought, but no. I write too much, and dont summarise as good as GPT would

  • The impact of automation and AI on the job market is a significant concern, and it's important to consider potential solutions. A Universal Basic Income (UBI) has been proposed as a way to provide financial stability to individuals who may be impacted by job loss due to automation and AI. UBI has been trialed in some countries, and the results have been promising.

    However, implementing UBI will require significant changes to our tax system and social welfare structures. It's important to carefully consider the economic impact of UBI and its potential consequences before implementing it on a large scale.

    It's also important to address the root causes of job displacement due to automation and AI. This could involve investing in education and training programs to help individuals develop skills that are in demand in the job market. It could also involve creating policies that incentivize businesses to invest in creating jobs rather than automating them.

    Ultimately, it's crucial to approach this issue with a long-term perspective and consider all potential solutions. The impact of automation and AI on the job market will only continue to grow, and we need to be proactive in addressing it.

  • +1

    I'm with you OP. My income is already drying up thanks to AI. Our lives would all be much better if we had the security of a UBI.

  • +2

    It has to be high enough for people to live and also have money left to spend.

    They can never give an actual number

    It has been trailed in some nations, and it works.

    Where and for how long?

  • -5

    The problem isn't money, the problem is purpose.

    Women will do just fine leeching off the government purse because there's no shame in being a dependent woman.

    Men on the other hand will be ruined by UBI. Like it or not, men are only valued for their utility. It determines their position in society, and most notably it determines if they get to have sex and children. If there is no point to you existing (by society's standards) then what? We already know how society treats men it considers just taking up space. It will be a million times worse when all men (barring the genetic cream of the crop) are redundant. What do you think happens when men have all the time in the world and no purpose at all?

    • Sexism aside, you think UBI precludes people working? UBI is a basic living wage, you still work to then afford 'nicer' things- you just don't have to worry about covering food, education, rent on a basic flat etc. It does require government systems in place for medical, education etc, and teachers and doctors still get paid on top of their UBI (and there may be an income cutoff for UBI- say over $100k and it starts to shrink or something.

      • The choice though would be sit there receiving your 'basic living wage' for free, or work your arse off with only a slight increase after deducting the 75% tax required to pay for everyone else's basic living wage.

        Will destroy the middle class.

      • Men and women are different and have different social expectations on them as a result. Saying that out loud is apparently intolerable sexism. You don't judge a woman who is supported by a man, but you do so for a man that is supported by a woman. There aren't legions of desirable househusbands that women are lining up to marry, are there? Why exactly is that?

        If UBI is necessary it will be necessary because of a lack of jobs, not a lack of workers. Do you go to work today for pocket money? No? Well what's going to make you get out of bed on a cold and rainy day when that's all the incentive to work you have? Work is called work because it isn't fun. Most people don't have the chops to do tasks that make them miserable for zero reward for even a day, good luck getting the entire population to do that for peanuts.

        Individual teachers and doctors might still get paid, but their professions will still be decimated by automation. If the government can put 30 kids in front of a machine that can identify and tailor education to the individual, never gets tired, frustrated, or bored, do you not think they'll do that? It won't ever molest the kids, won't shout at them, and will deliver superior educational outcomes. Putting kids in Skinner Boxes to educate them will work because Skinner Boxes work.

        If we're not going to pay UBI to certain people that establishes a precedent for UBI not being universal. Welcome to all the human rights abuses and social control of the Chinese Social Credit Score. Said something the government doesn't like? Well, I guess you don't get to eat for the week then. You hand a government power and they abuse that power like clockwork. Hand them 100% control of the food supply and you just made 99% of people into slaves.

        When people don't have to work anymore that's going to have major social consequences. That won't be distributed evenly, and especially so by gender (because AI is one thing, sex bots and artificial wombs are another matter. Scarcity equals wealth). I don't understand why that is in any way a contested statement if one is being honest.

    • +1

      This is an issue that people deal with now. It is entirely artificial. When people cant work, lets say because they are injured, or even retire, they are often lost. This is because they identify who they are based on what they do. The worst thing you can do to these people is to ask them what they do, because the answer causes great stress. Nobody is suppossed to just work. People used to work to feed their families. Now we seem to think that we need to just keep running around the wheel like a hamster. You dont need to work to have purpose. To work out what your purpose is, ask yourself what do you want people to say about you when you die, or what you want on your tombstone. It wont be that you were a lawyer or worked 40 hours a week. It will be that you were a good mother or father, that you helped people, that you were passionate about football and helped generations at the club etc. This is your purpose, and what you need to link your activities to.

      • It is not artificial, you see it in nature all the time. In sexually dimorphic species (at least where the male is larger or more showy) the males compete with each other for mating rights. In the human world money is a proxy for power, and the most powerful males form the largest cohort of desirable mates (which is why some ungodly pig whale of a man will have a model for a wife if he's a billionaire).

        There are certainly some outlier males that will work no matter what, but by and large ordinary men work so hard so they can get laid, get a partner, and have kids. We know who earns the most money and who does the most discretionary spending, men do the majority of the labour (and are paid accordingly) and their female partners spend it (supposedly on house and children, but it's called discretionary spending for a good reason).

        You (assuming you're male) may not need to be employed to have purpose but you must labour. Your social status depends on your worth (which is exactly why people ask "What do you do?"), and in the case of men that always comes down to what utility they can offer to others. Women have inherent worth because they can have children and they are the object men compete for because we are a sexually dimorphic species. This is the root of all gendered differences in social structure, and the reason they will become more pronounced once money is off the table.

  • Hasn’t this sort of been done before?
    The Romans with their slaves, bread and circuses.
    Worked after a fashion for a while. Wasn’t it when the money ran out?

    While I find the concept personally unattractive- As long as it doesn’t get in the way of the small proportion of people that are interested in working and prospering through innovative ideas we’ll probably cobble along fine for a generation or so.

    • First they diluted the currency until it became fiat.

      the currency slowly become worthless and all the valuable land was titled away, but some work still needed to be done. Those that inherited wealth lived as the upper class, and never needed to work.

      Skilled artisans and merchants made a living in the empire, but no roman wanted to risk their lives serving in the army. So the army was comprised of the disenfranchised poor citizens and poor foreigners.

      Under UBI things will be similar, however unlike in Roman times the disenfranchised poor will never take the wealth from the landowners, military robots will keep us in line

      • Ahh, good to know.
        They can move right along with a UBI in that case….👍

    • Most people will still be interested in working, we’re heading to a future where UBI or not there will be less opportunity to do so.

      They’re not going to introduce a UBI to stop people working, they’re going to end up doing it because a significant proportion of the population won’t be able to find work that pays a living wage, regardless of how much they want it.

  • +7

    Let's be honest here. Much of the push for this comes from people who want to sit at home all day playing video games in their underwear while smoking bongs and eating junk food.

    • +2

      People don't do that now after work?!

    • the push will come from business and the wealthy. If they see that they have less people to buy products , they will fear collapse and losing money. They need people to have money to buy things. If not, capitalism fails.

      • Paying someone to buy things doesn't make any sense - cheers

    • +1

      Let’s be honest, most of the pushback come from people who think that’s true, but haven’t enough world experience to realize there are serious societal issues that will arise if large numbers of people who want jobs can’t get them because we just don’t need that many skilled people anymore.

      I for one would rather someone is doing that than torturing me for my credit card PIN so they can eat today.

    • +1

      Not many people can do that for very long. Humans need purpose and a sense of accomplishment. A lot of people I knew doing that in their late teens/early 20s grew into some of the most successful people I know.

  • +2

    drug related crime disappeared,

    Uhhh did it, or did they just decriminalise possession and the like…. Still a lot of crazy people on drugs in San Francisco causing a lot of crime.

    If people stop working and pursuing knowledge becaus they don’t have to, it’ll just lead to the generation that gets annihilated by AI because they were too stupid to see it coming

  • +1

    You cite things having already been automated, e.g. factories, McDonald’s, retailers need staff. Yet at the same time the unemployment rate is the lowest it has been in decades. The PC replaced lots of employment in typing pools, ATMs replaced bank tellers, imported cars replaced domestically produced cars. Yet the economy moves on, other industries rise and people fill that labour demand. That will happen again.

    • +2

      I'm not sure that's true. The unemployment metrics have CHANGED. I haven't checked, but I feel that full employment has gone down.

      • +1

        Casual employment and part time employment (under employment) are at record highs and increasing. Blue collar workers over 40 are absolutely (profanity) in our economy. They make up around 30% of our workforce. But they are completely ignored in places like this because they aren't on the internet. You can hear their stories on talkback radio.

        Ai will bring the same conditions to the overconfident here who are so sure the economy will find new jobs for them, just like it found new jobs for all the factory workers displaced by globalisation.

        I encourage people to speak to someone who used to work for Ford or Holden and see if they still earn 90k a year

        • Although I broadly agree - there aren't many examples of this happening throughout human history. You could pivot to the American rust-belt as an example. BUT, that more example of uncontrolled Globalisation as opposed to Technological displacement. As in, people still do those jobs, they are just in a different ("cost effective") country.

    • In the 1950s and 60s a single income family with children could afford a new home, new car and live a good middle class life. That is now impossible. Employment is not lower than in the past. We now include part time and casual work as jobs in the data, instead of just full time work.
      In the past technology replaced some manual work, and also created new industries. We needed humans to work on and with the technology. This was technology that replaced physical work. AI replaces human minds. Combine the two and you can replace humans in many areas completely. Big difference.

  • +2

    they said the same thing decades ago when robots are put into factory assembly lines, life style seem to have gotten a lot better than 20-30 years ago

    • +1

      Sure, but it didn't get better for the people that lost their factory jobs, it just got better for everyone else as consumer goods became cheaper.

      • skills up and do something else that how human race advance.

        when they make robots to replace factory assembling lines, those factory jobs may disappear but more job in robot manufacturing, coding, maintenance popped up that doesn't exist before

        we have the lowest unemployment record in human history despite all these so claim massive job loss so obviously technological innovations create more jobs than it killed

        • +3

          I'm talking about the actual experience of factory workers that were displaced, not the utopian ideal where a 45 year old machine operator gets a job in IT

          These people are still alive, they don't earn the wages they used to even if still employed

          • @[Deactivated]: that is life, life is not meant to be easy, to survive and prosper you got to learn to adapt, no government or agencies can cater for everyone in all industries, those who can't adapt has to do with less, sad but true and it is the reality.

            • +3

              @Hearthstone: I don't disagree with what is reality, but your first comment implied life got better for everyone, as if those who were worried about it were proven wrong, instead of what is reality - they were hurt in the way they were concerned about

              • @[Deactivated]: Life gets better for future generations; we can't stop innovating because some people will be out of a jobs.

                My grandparents would be working on the fields and machines took over, my parents won't work on the field but works in the super markets, then my generations won't be working in the super market but in high tech industry with better pay and condition. I can see my kids generations are already way ahead of me when I was their age, Online education, WFH, more pay, cheaper goods and so on and so for

                Not everyone will be like that but each generation there are more innovation, better opportunities and choices, people need to adapt and find their ways.

                Average folk now on better health care than a king would get back in the bronze age

            • +1

              @Hearthstone: If you’ve been to countries where life is harder you’ll find it does adapt, often to violently taking from those who have it easier to the detriment of all.

              • -1

                @JumperC: I came from those countries, everyone seem to do whatever they can to get employment, working hard, building for a better future not looking for hand out

                • +1

                  @Hearthstone: Doubt.

                  You’re describing your experience, a survivorship bias. Try going to somewhere not just impoverished but unequal. If everyone is poor, sure. But if you’ve lived as a person with just ‘average’ western wealth in a poor country security can be an enormous issue. You feel much less free and safe.

        • +3

          skills up and do something else that how human race advance.

          What can you skill up to once AGI arrives that matches human capabilities and exceeds them?

          • -2

            @Mistredo: that up to individual to figure it out, if you are hungry you figuring out what food you want to eat and can eat no one is there to tell you what you must eat

          • @Mistredo: Specialize - find a niche. Imagine being handy and practical when the industrial revolution took hold. Bosses trying to keep the new but unreliable machines working and "Odd Job Bob" down the road will take a look and bandage it back together till the engineer arrives or until it breaks again.

            • +2

              @MITM: This is both not wrong, and utterly missing the point. When the Industrial Revolution took hold 50 jobs could be replaced with 1 Odd Job Bob. The other 49 remained unemployed the rest of their lives. Their children or grandchildren sometimes found new employment because humans still had their minds to offer a world that needed less of their physical labour.

              The coming revolution will treat humans like the Industrial Revolution treated horses. Horses didn’t get better jobs.

              • +3

                @JumperC: Exactly.

                So many people missing the point of concern and keep repeating the same half baked conclusions they picked up when learning about the industrial revolution in high school - 'the Luddites were ignorant and wrong'. The Luddites were not wrong.

                The economy will adapt - eventually.

                We - the people alive now - will not adapt. The elon musks of the world will adapt.

                Most of us will not have the quality of life we have now, we are the generation that will be impacted and forced through the change. How can everyone "adapt" when there simply isn't the same ratio of income shared between capital and labour.

                The owner of each McDonald's has less employees now compared to 10 years ago. Their profits went up, their employees did not share in those gains.

                UBI is all about taking from the working class to give to the poor. It is a distraction from the actual solution needed - taking from the wealthy and giving to the working class. And the ignorant masses support their own demise.

  • +6

    Totally agree. Happier healthier society, less crime, all proven in numerous trials since the 1970s. But people think other people get their tax dollars and think it will cost the government. In fact it will save the government. Tax will be less complicated, everyone gets taxed when they work, no need for tax free threshold. And why would everyone stop working? Who wants to live on $600/wk . It means more people can take time looking after family, the elderly without being forced to work to make ends meet. Wealthy people may refuse to get it and they should donate it to good causes or pass it to the poorer relatives perhaps…

    I've seen first hand, and also by having people renting a room in my house, how unfair and overly complicated Centrelink is and how people literally cannot eat and resort to petty crime such as shoplifting for necessities!!! Bring on the UBI!

  • Why you asking here, ask AI.

    sheesh you are behind times….

    ps. they also said post offices would die off when email was becoming mainstream…
    you're missing insights about the jobs it would create.

    • +4

      they also said post offices would die off

      Maybe not killed by email but…

      Australia Post will soon assess the viability of more than 3,500 post offices run by small businesses or individuals, as the mail carrier stares down the collapse of its letter operations and difficulties meeting the needs of a rapidly digitising economy.

      • little did they know

    • +1

      The problem is jobs created will eventually be much less than jobs no longer required. Organized properly we will quite foreseeably produce much more than today with less than a billion workers. Only so much needs to be done.

Login or Join to leave a comment