You'll be surprised at how advanced AI is at the moment. Its something we have to seriously start to think about and prefer for.
A lot of us are likely to witness a singularity in the next decade or so. After that? All cards are of the table, serious preparation needs to be done and this seems like an interesting and possibly viable solution.
It can happen during this century, but we are far away from it happening, so it ain't happening within the next 10-20 years.Well who knows when it will be? I think it will be soon, next few decades.
Yup agreed.If we ever witness singularity all bets are off. Might as well tear up the rulebook and start again. That will be a complete game changer. We’ll have created a god, here on earth.
Basic Income is more of an interim solution for the automation of jobs that is already well underway
Surely money is better spent on ways to progress on population reduction?Basic Income is more of an interim solution for the automation of jobs that is already well underway
Surely money is better spent on ways to progress on population reduction?
Wholeheartedly agree.I am in favour of a living wage, free child care, free tertiary education and decent disability money and pensions. In terms of unemployed people, Id rather see money being spent on food stamps, education etc with money renumeration being used as as incentive to get themselves out of the hole they are in rather then simple cash with no ties attached.
So the idea that it cost £14bn must be on top of the £270bn we already spend on welfare. So we have a population of 64million, 57.7% are age 16-64 so working age , so 36,928,000. Would be around £7,500 each a year. Based on spending all of the budget on it....
It's certainly an idea, but realistically we have to stop drawing comparisons with Norway, Finland etc they are different countries, cultures that we simply are not. Much more liberal minded country.
Hmm I have mixed feelings about it. In theory I agree with it. People should be allowed to live a decent life. However, as a person who came from not a great neighbourhood myself I noticed that most of the time, the big problem is not the lack of money but how it is spent. I've seen too many people spending children allowances and benefits on lottery tickets, cigarettes and beauty fashion creams etc while leaving their own kids without basic needs. Don't take me wrong, in their mind they are doing the right thing. A lottery win can improve their fortune substantially, cigarettes calm them down and beauty fashions may improve their chances of landing their sugar daddy partner. However, we all know that rarely happens isn't it?
I am in favour of a living wage, free child care, free tertiary education and decent disability money and pensions. In terms of unemployed people, Id rather see money being spent on food stamps, education etc with money renumeration being used as as incentive to get themselves out of the hole they are in rather then simple cash with no ties attached.
I'm totally and utterly against foodstamps. A ridiculous way to dehumanize and degrade large sections of the population.
I think the idea is that it replaces all other forms of welfare.
Call it by any other name....but this is still welfare.
Yes true, but does that mean it's using up 100% of the welfare budget though? I don't know tbh must be some admin/other costs.I think the idea is that it replaces all other forms of welfare.
I was just adding to your post.I didn't imply otherwise?
Yep. Tax the rich who have more money that they can spend in their lifetime. What is the problem with that?I was just adding to your post.
Btw, who's going to pay for this? Taxpayer money?
Why do the poor deserve it?Yep. Tax the rich who have more money that they can spend in their lifetime. What is the problem with that?
Today this person can get JSA and you would be picking up the tab.
Yes you pick an example of something that someone could do, that you find pointless, but there are many examples which would largely be beneficial to society.
Working and getting paid is done by necessity not because it benefits society, which prohibits quite a lot of things people could be organising themselves to do which could benefit society.
You could choose to go and work and earn more money so you can live a better lifestyle (and many people would)
You could choose to do nothing and live a basic lifestyle
You could choose to volunteer and help people who need help, care, etc
You could choose to organise social and political movements which may not get you paid.
Many things people can choose to do. In this world many cannot do them because of the necessity to work.
The idea that work as a necessity to live IMO needs to be something we can move away from in order to allow society to organise itself a lot better.
Why do the poor deserve it?
So the idea that it cost £14bn must be on top of the £270bn we already spend on welfare. So we have a population of 64million, 57.7% are age 16-64 so working age , so 36,928,000. Would be around £7,500 each a year. Based on spending all of the budget on it....
It's certainly an idea, but realistically we have to stop drawing comparisons with Norway, Finland etc they are different countries, cultures that we simply are not. Much more liberal minded country.
The money has to come from somewhere. Would you be happy if 30 percent of your income got taxed so that a worse poorer fellow can stay at home and watch tv all day?
If you think that's the final number you're far off.
If this scheme gets in motion majority of the working forces who pays tax will quit their job in favor of free monthly salary.
The effect will multiply the deficit by alot more than 14bn.
The high paid workers probably still works, but those that got paid less will simply do nothing as it still pays the same amount of money.
While pursuing life interest sounds hipster and utopian in the real world things needs to be produced. Foods, clothing, labor, capital... without the incentives to work you can get paid 2k/mth but if there's no farmer who tends their crop because they got paid for not doing anything your 2k will be worthless. We'll end up having to pay very high price for a piece of bread because the baker would need to get more than 2k to want to work his bread.
If you think that's the final number you're far off.
If this scheme gets in motion majority of the working forces who pays tax will quit their job in favor of free monthly salary.
The effect will multiply the deficit by alot more than 14bn.
The high paid workers probably still works, but those that got paid less will simply do nothing as it still pays the same amount of money.
While pursuing life interest sounds hipster and utopian in the real world things needs to be produced. Foods, clothing, labor, capital... without the incentives to work you can get paid 2k/mth but if there's no farmer who tends their crop because they got paid for not doing anything your 2k will be worthless. We'll end up having to pay very high price for a piece of bread because the baker would need to get more than 2k to want to work his bread.
If this scheme gets in motion majority of the working forces who pays tax will quit their job in favor of free monthly salary.
Because the modern society is build in that way that doesn't give too much chances to most of people. Top 1% have more money than bottom 90 percent and the difference is going to increase with automation.Why do the poor deserve it?
My 150 employee got paid monthly wage of around 100 pound per month ( according to regional minimum wages )
If they got a monthly benefit of say 100 pounds per week they'd all quit their job.
Why do the poor deserve it?
Because the modern society is build in that way that doesn't give too much chances to most of people. Top 1% have more money than bottom 90 percent and the difference is going to increase with automation.
Why does someone deserves 100 billion dollars? If you don't think that there is not something wrong that some people have a hundred billions while a large percentage of society doesn't have food and a house, then there isn't a point on continuing this discussion.
You've missed the very point though. The 'farmer' or a 'baker' would be a hundred robots maintained by one human (or maybe even maintained by other robots) rather than a hundred humans.
Automation of those jobs is already happening and it's not going to get rolled back, how we deal with that is the question. If UBI is not the answer, and I don't know if it is, then what is?
I highly doubt that. I don't know about you but could you live from 1000 GBP per months the same life you do now? I don't get payed a lot money, about twice that, but if I had to go back to 1000 GBP per months I would run into seroius problems. Let alone that I actually like my work.
Also there are enough studies out there that show the majority of people actually draw a big sense of self worth from their jobs so to suggest everyone would just stop working if there was free money is imo unfounded nonsense.
But that of course is not how this works. A basic income means everyone gets the bare minimum that is needed to survive, not payed more than minimum wage.
Bare minimum according to whose standard? A roof on the top of your head? Or a bland bread enough to survive?
Agree with this except for the bolded part - if you can make that kind of money then you have obviously deserved it. However, as I said in response to EAP: a roof over your head and food shouldn't be a fight today.
