UNIVERSAL BASIC INCOME

>if we don't want an even bigger split between rich and poor than we already have

That's the problem. too many people who will fall on the poor side, as demonstrated in this thread, always go against their own self-economic interests.

The best feasible outcome is the robots become conscious and kill us all.

i'd love UBI.

allows me to focus on my own projects with less risk.

yoo but dumb normies already pay me for being """disabled"""
this is a bad thing!

Attached: 1529195956106.png (383x351, 267K)

I don't know if I agree this would work or not. But I would love to be able to have enough income to support myself(or family) without worrying about finances. Money is a huge problem for marriage stress. Also I could focus on what I find interesting, wouldn't have to worry about failing and not being able to sustain myself. Could do IT, don't like that? Do health care, etc. great in theory, it's always in practice things go arry right?

Yes it is. Snd when population numbers are low enough, you too will be weeded out of existence if you arent on top of power chain. You being on biz tells me you probably arent.

Why do we need such a large population? Just have darwinism in the future. Those who cannot provide value do not survive or reproduce. It has worked for humanity and all other species of life in the past

>iq is the only objective value in species
Tell that to Lebron James. He is a better specimen than any of us at 100iq

"Universal basic income" is the socialism camel's nose into the tent.

Fuck socialism.

Socialism cannot and will not work on a world-wide basis. It doesn't even really work in small countries.

Get off your ass and go to work. No freebies for you.

>Also I could focus on what I find interesting
You playing vidya games and jerking off to loli porn doesn't contribute anything to society, retard.

You know what does? Millions of people working.

Now go become one of them. Your "interests" don't mean a fucking thing.

UBI cements the gap between poor and rich. Once you give people money for free, a non-zero number of them stops working. Out of that population, a non-zero number would have created value they won't.

This is what happened to the black community in the US. This is why socialist countries produce average mediocrity, while the most unfair first-world country, the US, continues to attract talent. You want to keep someone in servitude, fulfill their basic needs.

UBI will not be, as envisioned by some advocates, a vehicle for entrepreneurs to individually pursue their passion and provide value to society. It will be an additional engine for devaluating money in favor of those who already own all the assets.

You want to talk about voting against your own self-economic interests? Stop thinking "free money" and start looking at the effects of social policies rewarding idleness over performance. Current welfare systems are already tremendously powerful dysgenics engines, and UBI slapped on African demographics and immigration trends ensure a world population trending towards 85 IQ. What happens if the elite decides they don't really need the literally retarded masses anymore, once said masses have been neutered in mind and body?

No, the problem is that too many people fall on the poor side. Period. UBI on a worldwide scale would be unsustainable. Too many worthless fucks breeding like rats.

But population largely goes down over time as the quality of life improves in countries, it's just that there's a population boom at the start of things improving heavily and then it goes down from there. Under something like UBI the population should go down anyways

this. in desperate times, the masses dictate the future, not the rich

>Too many worthless fucks breeding like rats.

Not pants-on-head-retarded education on contraception could help that a lot

Will never work in countries where income was people's only motivation to work and produce in the first place.

You're never going to fix an incentive problem with education. If people are given money for being alive, the dumbest will produce more people and take the money, as reproduction is what any idiot can do without effort.

Should note I say "will", but it is what is happening and has happened for generations. Welfare queens aren't named that way because they don't understand contraception.

>Conscious machines killing all humans
Unironically this.

I'm just hoping I can upload the algorithms that make me self aware into an artificial body in the next 50 years.

>No, the problem is that too many people fall on the poor side. Period. UBI on a worldwide scale would be unsustainable.
the government already pays the poor to exist through food banks, emergency room visits, increased police force, etc. you could scrap most of that if you just redirected the money into their hands directly. which is a much more libertarian solution than having them jump through a bunch of hoops along with the poor who are actually trying to better themselves

>Welfare queens aren't named that way because they don't understand contraception.
so with UBI they won't need to pump out babies anymore to get their check? increased standard of living lowers reproduction across the board. there's a ton of research into this already

ooooooo stramman here

Attached: badass.jpg (1354x1060, 111K)

*strawman

Attached: get out of here.jpg (318x159, 4K)

They'll still pump babies to get more money. You want research, look at subsaharan and middle eastern populations behavior in european countries giving enough money to unemployed people. Three generations of data for you. Can't stress this enough - it's critical to step out of your filter bubble if you want to understand the ramifications of UBI.

link the research. I'm only aware of ~4 UBI experiments and none of them have lasted 3 generations.

My biggest issue with UBI is that rent-seeking will still exist. If UBI is increased then the rent seekers will just increase the income they extract.

I never see this point brought up. Am I wrong?

what rent seeking in particular?

Just imagine if twitter, Facebook or Reddit paid you to sort content (which you already do for free). That's the way you sneak UBI into the world. We already have steemit, and Peepeth may very well be next

one of the main benefits of UBI would be the removal of the poverty traps of the currency welfare system. having people waste their time of useless tasks isn't much better.

This.

Nobody talking about Partial Basic? Universal Basic Income on the Blockchain.

That's why you pass laws where you cap the m2 price for renting.

capping prices is almost always a bad idea
also the concept of rent seeking doesn't necessarily pertain to renting
>m2
as in money supply?

Problem here (Finland) is that with the current welfare system accepting part time and other project related work that is not "9-5" goes against your own short term economic self-interest. There are multiple cases where people end up at a net loss for working, not to include hours spinning the bureaucracy and worrying about available liquidity for payment due dates. UBI is proposed to fix this.

>You want research? Here look at these places in the world (that's not research) and their situations that have nothing to do with UBI. I will also continue to ignore the fact that there is actual research on fertility rates overall going down over time when people are in better situations economically

I'm for UBI but ONLY if having kids stop being a human right and the population problem and especially the low quality population problem is dealt with.

Offering UBI in return for sterilization would be perfect. Reversible sterilization methods exist and even in the cases where reversal fails, one can still extract egg/sperm, so if those people prove themselves worthy of a reversal later, either economically, through merit or through some special ability testing, they can have kids.

>Offering UBI in return for sterilization would be perfect.

That would never fucking fly. Besides the reproduction rate overall goes down when people have better lives economically so it's not exactly something that absolutely needs to happen. Overpopulation would solve itself in this instance (especially if you don't give out more money for having more kids)

Yes. Post national currencies will be used for luxuries. National blockchains will be food/water/shelter stamps. Minimum wage won't exist so people can undercut machines for luxury currencies.

After a few generations, so much retarded meat will be genetically enhanced and reintegrated with machines to unlock unprecedented productivity by offering something back to machines.

This is the way to true technocracy.

automation lowers the cost of living. This means consumers have more money to spend on new services, which means demand for new types of jobs. If you're going to make an argument for a free money program, don't use the luddite fallacy.

Attached: 1523617213979.png (300x300, 26K)

>Besides the reproduction rate overall goes down when people have better lives economically
To some extent, but it always goes more down among the more intelligent than among the people with less intelligence, lower inhibition and lower responsibility. The "useless breeder" problem is still there until there's a technological fix (like heavily genetically edited babies).

How about we create a new hallmark holiday called "purge day"
The same people complain about the environment while remaining ignorant that our numbers are the problem now that we've become a technological society.

Attached: g.foolcdn.comeditorialimages412927playstation-virtual-reality-best-gaming-stock_large-f14aedbdafcd67 (580x538, 330K)

>our numbers are the problem

But that actually does solve itself over time with increased quality of life

how so?
>soiboys not breeding because they're sip'n trade'n ?
I could see that

>which means demand for new types of jobs
that remains to be seen. a lot of the new jobs created after the industrial revolution already existed, just expanded to service more people. something like programming is a new, but employs a minuscule amount of people relative to the value it produces
> luddite fallacy
not exactly fallacy, the luddites, and many others, did lose their jobs. and the benefits industrialization created didn't come around fast enough to benefit all the people it replaced.

Attached: FT_14.04.10_biggestOccupations.png (640x639, 59K)

No it doesn't. Low iqs still overproduce babies. You can't just look at the average of a country and say it's fixed. The management and elimination of the diseases that are called the effects of aging will also fuck everything up again.

People, as they are now cognitively, can't be free to have babies whenever they want. It's a problem. Why are only the Chinese willing to look reality in the eyes?

Every new human created is an infringement on all living humans.

Imagine being in a room with a specific food production rate and air oxygenation rate. Imagine fuckers in the room decide to split into multiples of themselves ad infinitum.

Currently our culture is too cowardly to act like anything else than bacteria.

People who are 30 now with economic access to quality Healthcare can expect to live beyond year 200 and who knows how long beyond that.

take it to Jow Forums niggerfaggot

>Low iqs still overproduce babies.
humor me. find one decent piece of research that points to low intelligence as the cause for reproduction and not poverty.

t.baby boomer

user I'm pretty sure everything these people are saying is 'common sense.' Everyone knows statistically significant research to back up positions is for losers

*Laughs autistically*

Attached: Andrew Yang.jpg (898x1024, 86K)

>implying poverty isn't a function of iq

It isn't.
It's luck and class.

Universal. Basic. Theft.

Attached: IMG_0177.jpg (1280x720, 205K)

Your lack of employment history is showing.

This, we've had automation and improvements driving prices down for all of history. There's no reason certain things won't just get cheaper.

I think the UBI concept is just a power fantasy for central planner wannabes that think they know better than the market does.

For example, imagine how astonishing it is that ice is so cheap that you can get a slushie on a street corner for a dollar. Used to be that only royalty could afford to have it delivered.

Ah, which is why lotto winners almost always are wise with their money and certainly don't have an overwhelming bankruptcy rate.

UBI is economics, retard.

motherfuckers buying lotto tickets are poor, theyre stupid because they lack the opportunities afforded by class. honestly, people buying lotto tickets are just poor decision makers in general, I've known some pretty wealthy people to buy shit tons of them so it's not surprising they make poor decisions with it when they win.

Explain why poor children adopted into rich families still end up poor on average.

>I think the UBI concept is just a power fantasy for central planner wannabes that think they know better than the market does.
UBI is the opposite of central planning. it's replacing state controlled welfare and giving the decision to the people.

No it's not, it's taking decision away from the people, getting a cut, then giving a smaller piece of decision back to people less capable of utilizing wealth.

What is 100 million dollars more useful in the hands of? 10 farmers or 100 chronically unemployed low IQ welfare leeches?

this user speaks well.

You overestimate the intelligence of pavement apes.

Wow you're a fucking idiot and your statement disproves your point. None of those people can use 100 million effectively

And you're speaking out of your ass with no actual info to back yourself up

Here you go sweetie: personal.lse.ac.uk/kanazawa/pdfs/SSR2014.pdf

automation has already displaced so much labor, how are people not getting this. if you were born a century back, you would most likely be doing charlie work.

because age 0-3 is the most important ages of your life where you are taking literally everything you see, smell, touch, taste, and hear in.

Looks like we're two peas in a pod then.

You don't think a skilled farmer could make better use of ten million dollars than 10 people on welfare?

Maybe... he could buy some seeds and fertilizer and farm equipment... and hire those ten people to work his fields... and they could use that money to by food...

Or you can give to the welfare leeches and it'll all be drained within a year and then everyone starves.

Even when adopted from birth, statistically, the IQ of adopted children closely match that of their parents, not their adoptive parents.

Environment does play a factor in IQ, but it's not nearly as important as your genes.

A lot of the typical "get a job, fuck your welfare, hurr, survival of the fittest, free market, taxation is thefffft" stuff in this thread.

This reaction is knee-jerk libertarianism that does not actually address the bottom-line problem, which is that a large number of low-to-average IQ service sector jobs are going to simply disappear. They will be replaced by a smaller number of high IQ jobs. You can't give IQ to people, and you can't just say "get a job, welfare queen" when there is no job for you to get.

Unlimited Buttfucking Inflation

>No it's not, it's taking decision away from the people, getting a cut
the government already does that through current taxes. paying for welfare, rent control, increased police and emergency medical. just handing out the money directly is probably cheaper.

is it possible that 400 years of slavery and abject poverty caused irreparable damage to their genetics?

Delet

Attached: 1529251768384.jpg (1200x1333, 799K)

Redefine human to have at least 3 digits IQ, the rest go to the oven

>There are people comparing UBI to welfare
Are these people retarded? Welfare encourages putting in less effort because if you make too much you lose your benefits and might actually be worse off than before you started working.

>Irish living under serfdom
>Slavs living under serfdom
>Jews being kicked out of every country they've ever been in
>Chinese suffering through centennial purges through most of its history

There have been plenty of races that suffered much worse hardship over a much longer time. Slavery wasn't nearly enough time to create meaningful genetic change.

Chances are though, that only the Africans with the shittiest genetics were captured by other Africans and sold to South and North America, so there's a chance that has something to do with US blacks having the lowest IQ scores even compared to Africans that have come to the US recently.

UBI just gives everyone the same bidding power, which usually translates to rent prices skyrocketing because it can be afforded across the board.

So we'd be going from maybe worse off to definitely worse off. Unless you're a landlord.

>In response to ongoing controversies over his stated views (such as Sub-Saharan Black African countries suffer from chronic poverty and disease because their people have lower IQs, and black women are objectively less attractive than women of other races), he was dismissed from writing for Psychology Today, and his employer, the London School of Economics, prohibited him from publishing in non-peer-reviewed outlets for 12 months.[7] A group of 68 evolutionary psychologists issued an open letter titled "Kanazawa's bad science does not represent evolutionary psychology" rejecting his views,[8] and an article on the same theme was published by 35 academics in American Psychologist.[9]
I'm impressed it only took you 4 hours to find this nut.

Attached: uZC5fF9.gif (400x225, 1.93M)

Retard

>which usually translates to rent prices skyrocketing because it can be afforded across the board.
which prompts land owners to build more housing. invisible hand of the free market and all that

Except iq score is normalized so that average is 100 by definition. Kill all current sub 100 iq humans and half the population will still be sub 100 iq.

Heh, I knew you'd go for that rather than addressing the actual data. You can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink.

But yes yes, I'm sure that multiculti London is the bastion of reason here when a man uses research to point out that Sub-Saharan Africa hadn't even invented the wheel or two story architecture before other civilizations had arrived.

Fear of falling into destitution is what drives society forward. I would quit my job in an instant if I knew I could make a livable wage doing nothing. And so would many other people. Unskilled industries would completely die because noone wants to do that shit and there's not enough money in it over a basic income to make it worthwhile if you already have a guaranteed basic income, and believe it or not, those people will not suddenly be inspired to take up new high paying career paths just because they have the time to study, they will spend that time drinking their asses off and watching TV. Once the unskilled laborers cease to exist as a class the entire system will begin to collapse.

Also, here's another one, lol:

papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1441512

Attached: 4f4af139ecad045710000015-750-504.jpg (750x504, 96K)

guess I should have explicitly said pic related. the guy even managed to get the larger scientific community to publicly announce how wrong he is as an individual.

>Explain why poor children adopted into rich families still end up poor on average.
you're gonna need to back this one up too.

>IQ and Stock Market Participation
what?