And for every "lazy junkie" who would take that money and fund their addiction, another person would be free'd up to go do more work with and help people like that.
Universal Basic Income
- Thread starter esmufc07
- Start date
Good post.
It's not exactly a glowing endorsement though is it, and it's the closest meaningful trial of a universal income that's ever taken place. No country is ever going to trial something like this on a massive scale from the word go. Finland is arguably the most socially liberal country in the world, it's quite telling that the results were so poor they brought the trial to a close earlier than planned. They deemed it a failure and there's no getting around it.
Something like UBI will have a place in the future but unemployment through automation isn't really going to take hold whilst any of us are still alive.
To your bolded point - we don't know that. These people were all jobless so increased unemployment was impossible. Whether they made more or less effort to find jobs has not been released yet.
A) It wasn't a meaningful trial in any way as it was just welfare which is totally different in nature to universal income.
B) How soon are you planning to die? Because automation is already making inroads and it will rapidly accelerate.
C) UBI isn't supposed to get people into work, like JSA or whatever. It's to help as the job market decreases and changes.
@11101 you seem to think it's an unemployment benefit...
@11101 you seem to think it's an unemployment benefit...
Ubi has some attractive points but I think bringing back workhouses and potentially even soylent green are solutions more likley to actually be implemented and win votes
Employment levels are rising. As some jobs are replaced, new ones are created. It will be a long, long time before we reach the tipping point where employment numbers decline due to automation.
So do governments. We are decades if not centuries away from it ever being implemented as simply a support mechanism. Until that point, governments will expect a return in the form of increased economic benefit. If it can't do that it's dead in the water.
Something like this doesn't get done over night. So when do you suggest we start working on it exactly, if ever?
I think your problem may be that you're looking at it in the short term, through the lens of what you see now.... Not what we expect to see and over the long term.
I mean centuries? Do you pay attention to tech advancements in general?
Regardless, of course there will be economic advantages just read the thread for examples. It's more about working out how best to implement and fine tune it imo... anyway I feel I'm repeating myself.
So what do you suggest as an alternative?
Good shout, maybe sprinkle a bit of the Running Man in too. You're probably right though judging by a lot of people's involuntary initial reaction when first hearing about UBI.
Last edited:
What happens when people who receive this amount are still unable to manage? Addicts of various kinds, drugs, gambling, alcoholics etc, the homeless, mentally ill, etc. all have problems that money alone cannot solve, are they left destitute or does the state only provide a base-line safety net? Would all state benefits disappear, if not how is all this funded?
Sounds great in principal, but life and people in general are just not like that?
Sounds great in principal, but life and people in general are just not like that?
That just isn't true. Full time permanent jobs are already in serious decline and we are only just beginning to see jobs being replaced by technology. The next decade will see a huge change.
Yeah I'd like to see stats backing up that there has been a serious decline in full time permanent jobs because it does not correspond to my own experience... Not saying it isn't true but can you back up your statement with facts?
It depends on country really. The countries that manufacture "technologies" will be just fine because millions of jobs will be created while doing so, probably even more jobs than there are now. The issue will be in countries that just buy it instead.
For what it's fecking worth (expletive added because RedCafe is getting on my tits making me have to spell everything out correctly, it's not text speak it's a fecking acronym FFS - ok at least I've still got that), they showed a few fully automated Supermarkets and Warehouses on BBC click a few weeks ago (one was Amazon). I was surprised and I've been expecting it 
It's not that far away...
It's not that far away...
Not really. There will just be a slight lag in some countries. Manufacturing is, in the medium term,, highly vulnerable to automation.
Australia
https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwjmqqqIya7gAhUVXn0KHVBaAYIQzPwBegQIARAC&url=http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-06-07/full-time-job-rate-hits-new-low-as-casual-work-takes-over-report/9840064&psig=AOvVaw3Zkv2Z8g2kzFM7e9NswpXa&ust=1549798933142473&cshid=1549712530739
UK
https://www.bmmagazine.co.uk/news/permanent-employment-in-dramatic-decline-survey-reveals/
And Service too (but I don't think many see this), there's the example above and they are already replacing greeters with greeter bots.
Keep an eye out for these job stealing cnuts:
Also the Dolly Whorehouse
Itshappening.gif
And Service too (but I don't think many see this), there's the example above and they are already replacing greeters with greeter bots. Also the Dolly Whorehouse
Itshappening.gif
Customer service is expensive. So you send it offshore which is rubbish quality so bots seem cheap.and efficient.
I had to research to find out more on this and found this...
https://www.npr.org/2018/10/05/6544...rops-to-3-7-percent-lowest-in-nearly-50-years
https://www.statista.com/statistics/279898/unemployment-rate-in-the-united-kingdom-uk/
There is not much of a increase in unemployment over past 50 years despite technological advancement. If we assume technology will develop at same pace, we may not see any drastic changes in job market in next 50 years or so.
I would have assume that automation would shit labor from unskilled to skilled with only a low % of pure loss of jobs. For example, manufacturing jobs will move into software/IT related. Mining jobs will move to renewable energy jobs etc. Imo a big % of unemployment will not be due to lack of jobs but lack of skill matching as many traditional skill sets may not have jobs and new skill sets will require reskilling of existing labour.
Another argument may be that, it is not lack of jobs but rising population that is causing unemployment rates to increase.
Not arguing for or against, but just exploring theories either way.
Perhaps this is discussion in a new thread.
You say shift from unskilled to skilled but it's not as easy as that is it? Education, training, and cost all factor in that equation.
sounds like fun.
Anyway we know what business is like, they'll crunch the numbers and it'll just be cheaper and more efficient to automate instead of retrain and rely on a suitably educated workforce in sufficient numbers. Pessimistic I know, but we're seeing it already...
sounds like fun. Anyway we know what business is like, they'll crunch the numbers and it'll just be cheaper and more efficient to automate instead of retrain and rely on a suitably educated workforce in sufficient numbers. Pessimistic I know, but we're seeing it already...
Last edited:
Increase mininum wage by a few pound an hour. Say 12. Let employers get help with this inc in costs, while simultaneously cutting unemployment benefits.
Force people into work
Force people into work
Congratulations, you're now the architect of a system forcing the disabled and broadly incapable off of welfare with no jobs to move into.
If it isn't obvious, that's what "force people into work" as an approach will invariably do.
I didnt say cut disability. My soon to be father in law is in receipt of that and in no way would i force him or anyone else into work. In fact id almost go a far as saying disability is too low. He was forced out of work because of it about 5 years ago.
Im on about tageting those that drop out of school at 16 and have never worked a day in theirs lives and are seemingly as well of as full time working men and women.
Its a large problem in the town i live in
Sounds like some super-sized ramping up of Labour's tax credit policy, as the 'help' for employers would effectively be a subsidy going to the workers. Very progressive of you, but as there are many times more people on minimum wage than there are on benefits it would be very expensive, but every credit if that's what you want.
It's strange how it tends be in towns with fewer employment opportunities. Almost as if there's some sort of connection.
What you're missing is that the only way to drive numbers down is to make the system even harsher than it already is for claimants, and that will mean many on benefits like ESA being taken off by an assessor who's feeling pressured to meet their targets. This is essentially what the Tories caused over the last decade, and you'd only worsen it. There's no magic option for only targeting the scroungers - who, by the way, are a way smaller group than you think they are, so I'd argue that putting absolutely any attention towards this isn't worth the political opportunity cost.
Obviously you need a middle ground
Those types shouldn't be getting the same benefit as someone who worked 20 years and got laid off. Maybe it could be based on your national insurance record or something
Theres plenty of jobs available in the town. Also plenty that never apply. I know alot from being a similar age in school or know someone who knows someone.
Those types shouldn't be getting the same benefit as someone who worked 20 years and got laid off. Maybe it could be based on your national insurance record or something
Oh of course they are small i understand that. And cutting disability because you have a few hundred fake claims isnt the right way to go either.
On the unemployment benefits, my post above said maybe it could be based on ni record or something.
Its just a thought. I dont know figures of unemployed vs min wage so it could very well cost more. But if people earn more wont it all circle back round?
UK employment is at record levels. Literally the highest it's ever been, like for like.
I currently work as a carer for 2 boys with severe autism. I love my job, it helps my mental state and for the first time in many jobs I wake up without dread, actually wanting to go to work. The money is awful though, minimum wage and only 30 hours. I have a second job doing building work which keeps me afloat. Something like UBI would allow me to keep doing the job I love with financial stability. I have no idea how viable it is or the financial implications of it, but I don’t want to leave my job and it’d be great not having to choose between a job I love and poverty or work I hate with financial stability.
That's what Corbyn says too. Increase public spending to grow the economy. If you believe it you should vote for him, especially if you're not worried about how much tax you pay.
Someone like you shouldnt have to be working a second job to make life comfortable. Thats were my inc min wage and subsidize the employer idea comes from.
Seems to suggest it's candidate driven not by employers or automation... Which I would concur with
Long term it says there may need to be change... But as far as I know currently we have record employment in UK with no real discernable decrease in full time employment (some of that has shifted more towards self employment)
Im not sure if this is a snide "your wrong comment". I agree with very little than Corbyn believes in.
I want to reward those like @Cascarino who work a full time job and still aren't comfortable. Is that idea wrong?
Not at all, the great majority of people would want that. Wanting it and paying for it are two different things however. People can't complain about how much tax they pay and want to increase public spending at the same time.
For the record I'm not wealthy but I am willing to pay more tax even so.
Neither am i. I have just bought a house with my partner and our combined income is the only reason that was possible so i can't imagine how tough it is for some.
Something needs done. Im not the one the come up with the idea or i wouldn't be posting here. But i can't wrap my head around how minimum wage is less than what it takes to actually live comfortably
Yes, I very much get that, and of course it was worse before the minimum wage. Labour introduced it in the late 90s, strongly opposed by the Tories at the time. To be fair the Tories did come round to the idea and now support it, but it was certainly one of the successes of Labour government of that time.
Well said. This will be particularly relevant to low skilled jobs which are easier to replicate with robot type roles.
The living wage is a different thing to the minimum wage, and was originally promoted by citizens uk, who are leftish as far as I know. Organisations pay it voluntarily, and whilst it may not be enough it is at least higher than the minimum wage. I must admit I thought it was mostly paid by local authorities and the like, but looking at this https://www.livingwage.org.uk/accredited-living-wage-employers a lot of private employers pay it too.