Universal Basic Income Thread

We can't have nice things until we have a homogeneous nation. Step one to getting your universal basic income is getting rid of the niggers.

Why not just get the government to pay rent and small food expenses under 1k?

Attached: 1527191433345 (1).gif (554x400, 46K)

If bots do all the jobs, why not let people relax and enjoy life?

Hopefully never.

hopefully never.
UBI is mandatory welfare and welfare is poison for your soul.

we have it in canada. its being tested

if all labor got offloaded to robots then you owuldnt need the government to give people a basic income.
UBI is just a way to solidify a place for state power after its become obsolete. It doesnt make sense for the state to tax the few people who own the robots, give it to everyone else, and then have the people trade the money back to the owners so they can get taxed again. Its unsustainable and masturbatory.

Because the people will always have to be poked and prodded. Don't you know your history?
This is never ending until the day we end it.

it'll never happen.

>It doesnt make sense for the state to tax the few people who own the robots, give it to everyone else, and then have the people trade the money back to the owners so they can get taxed again.

Why not?

Ask Finland how that worked out for them. Kek

>never is a long time user

Hopefully the ruling class will understand it's in their best interest to give people money so they can buy the products they need and keep the whole system going.

I'm mostly sure we'll need UBI when we get AGI.

poked and prodded for what?
If anything you should be worried about the former overseers being releived of the need to keep so many sheep around.
Why would the world's gazillionaires need whole continents of people toiling away to create an economy capable of sustaining their life styles if all they need is robots?

>Its unsustainable and masturbatory.

who is in charge of taxing the robots?
are they paid a wage for their efforts in taxing the robots?
are their wages paid by taxes?
found a leak

>Its unsustainable and masturbatory
Why?

I think we just need to get rid of niggers and then we can do it.

Hopefully never...just get a fucking job Cletus...

soon, brother, very soon.

So there's johnny the capitalist, the state, and the people.
Johnny owns the whole world's automated capital and made $10 last year.
The state taxes johnny's income at 90% so they take $9 from johnny.
The state then distributes this $9 to the people, minus the cost of the government which is 10%.
so the people are given a UBI of $8.90 which they then exchange with johnny for all of their needs.
Johnny's income is now $8.90. He pay 8.01 in taxes. The state consumes 80 cents and distributes 7.20.
etc etc
do you understand the issue?

this

>so why not just print more money?

I have to ask then, what is the value added by the government if we're just going to constantly expand the availability of fiat currency? At such a point all the government is doing is giving us permission to pretend that we have more money.
Johnny keeps racking in the dough, even at an insane tax bracket. The government keeps getting payed for its "services". and the people just have to be happy with whatever static amount they receive. In this scenario where labor has been abolished, a UBI only serves to maintain a reason for the state to keep power.

The fact is: Johnny cant make a profit from his machines if his customers have no money. His customers cant get money if literally every single thing can (and it can) be done by a machine. If not then, then soon.
Here's the only deal that works. Johnny needs to lower his prices dramatically. somehting he can do because he has no overhead. If he has to hire humans to do something like fix broken robots, and there are still a few things people value human labor for. Then the entire economy will be based on those things. That which is created automatically will be so cheap as to be nearly free. Those tasks which still require human hands will be payed for by johnny keeping his prices above 0. His employees will spend their wages on things created or done by humans which are still valuable. Like art and media. As the last vestiges of human labor are eliminated, johnny must ocntinue to lower prices until eventually (if actually possible) the price is 0. At which point we dont need a UBI because everything is free.
If somethings are not free, then they're worth paying someone for, and the economy is based on that. There is no way to fuck it up.
That is unless prices are kept artificially high by a UBI which keeps everyone except johnny and the state in poverty until the system collapses.

The solution: michaeljournal.org/articles/social-credit/category/a-sound-and-effective-financial-system

"The goal of a financial system is to finance the production and distribution of goods that satisfy needs.
If the financial system succeeds then the goal is achieved, if it doesn’t succeed the goal is not achieved. In doing anything else the goal is missed."

>if all labor got offloaded to robots then you owuldnt need the government to give people a basic income.
explain this logic.

>Labour theory of value
There are costs that automation can never cover. What happens if a robot malfunctions and kills/injures people? Who is held responsible? another robot?

The entire automation thing is just a meme anyway.
>Once labour is automated...
This isn't some binary line that we just cross, we have been automating labour since the dawn of time. Horses/Oxen effectively automated many farming tasks, but create new tasks as these animals require supervision/breeding/feeding/etc. More modern machines that fill the same roles create similar analagous tasks: operation/installation/maintenance/etc. Sure we could consider doing these jobs with machines too, but then who/what maintains those? We just end up with a "who watches the watchmen" scenario.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turtles_all_the_way_down

Automation doesn't really eliminate work, it just replaces a form of work that humans are shit at (eg pulling plows) with one that we're better at (eg feeding cows).

Attached: koishi_12.jpg (225x225, 14K)

>robots never malfunction
>robots don’t require maintanence
>robots aren’t built by humans
>robots can never be sabotaged, deliberately or on accident

Marxism is a fucking disease. Everything against capitalism is adverse to the nature of man.

Attached: AF28159C-DC58-4C92-B2F3-5C3148717008.jpg (4032x3024, 2.48M)

...

but UBI doesn't change the cash pool, it moves it.

you're right. So the question of
>what do we do when automation is at 100%?
Is just an intellectual exercise. It's not physically achievable. But we can, and likely will, get really really close to 100%. And there is a threshold where we need to take a look at how we run our finances and why we do it that way.
It is also very important that the states do not leverage that moment for more power because it may not be possible to get it back afterwards. A UBI is exactly how they'll do it.

Around the same time that 'real communism' happens.

Attached: 1528746514802m.jpg (1024x815, 98K)

>Universal basic income works
>Communism and socialism work

Attached: 1528127508203.jpg (221x250, 5K)

that is not a coherent response to what I've said.
Either all labor is completely automated, and no one can afford any price above 0 so everything must be free. Or labor is not completely automated and there are enough jobs to pay very low, near free, prices for what we need.
The only thing capable of upsetting this equilibrium is if people can derive an income from a source other than having a job or owning capital. A UBI would keep prices artificially high, and the people dependent on a state which lords over them.

>I deserve free money

Attached: 1528439353984.png (400x400, 55K)

I hope never. Only the chosen few should be allowed to enjoy free money.

art.

money has always been free, we just currently distribute it to a chosen few banks instead of everyone.

maybe i should answer with more than one word.
the idea there will ever be an equilibrium in the economy merely by satisfying all the needs of poverty is patently ridiculous. we don't need poverty to need the economy. there will never be an equilibrium in what people want.

Hopefully never. The belief that automation must lead to unemployment and therefore must be compensated with UBI is fallacious on the face of it.

Automation leads to LOWER PRICES and MORE AVAILABILITY. This means that without any UBI someone can work part-time at minimum wage and make a living if prices keep going down.

Poor people now own 40 inch flat-screen TVs that they bought at WalMart for $150. A TV that size (and that thin) cost $6,000 in 2012 and was only an experimental pipe dream in 2006 that the rich CEOs of Samsung and Vizio MIGHT have a prototype of in their house.

Poor people now have access to enough food to become overweight. 200 years ago 90% of the world population was under-nourished.

Poor people can now buy a used car for $500 on Facebook or get a bike at WalMart for $40. Cars used to cost $10,000 back when $10,000 was worth $300,000 and bikes used to be toys for the outrageously wealthy.

Quality of life is always improving for the poor but no one notices because they're too busy staring at virtual metrics (dollars) instead of tangible assets (quality of clothing, furniture, housing, food, entertainment, travel, etc)

UBI won't be necessary because as prices continue to fall and supply continues to rise eventually it will be possible to make a living on an hour of contract labor - assuming current trends continue

OP never mentioned automation.
the idea UBI isn't useful just because automation will only destroy 50% of current human work is the fallacy.

UBI would only remove poverty not incentives to be a wagiecuck.

Attached: soybrain.png (655x473, 96K)

>Implying hummans will work as hard after UBI

Then people want more than what is available and that want will create value. Value worth paying money for. Hence there will always be jobs worth paying humans for. There will always be a money supply.

If however automation were so total that robots could even out produce humans in artistic industries, you have the same problem. But like you said, it doesnt matter because people will always want more than is available.

There is no good reason to believe creative works are beyond a machine's capabilities.

You under estimate greed and human pettiness.

>when I git gibs waaaa

Attached: keynes btfo.png (565x85, 5K)

Lol hopefully never you Jew nigger

How do you plan on paying for it? There's 325 Americans, if you gave every American $1,000 every month, that's 325 billion dollars a month. Our Nation's economy will completely collapse within a year...

Attached: 1522870246001.png (1000x1118, 483K)

>money has always been free
???

Hopefully soon. We could use the money to fund hate houses with weight rooms while shit posting full time and buying tons of guns and ammo.

Negative Income Tax is far superior.

confirmed jackass

this guy gets it.
The journey from now to the (possibly impossible) totally automated economy will be one of greater abundance and less work. The economy isnt capable of collapsing if there are greater supplies of quality goods at lower prices. That's the opposite of a collapse.

UBI isn't useful in an automated economy like it isnt useful in a manual one. UBI is bad, and you shouldnt want it.
You are right that the question of automation is irrelevant to whether UBI is useful though.

UBI would not remove poverty it would just redefine it.

UBI doesn't magically make people have money, though.

Think of cash the same as any other resource (gold, time, wheat, etc). We trade one resource for another. Maybe we trade wheat for gold. Maybe we offer our time in exchange for cash...

When people possess more of something (and when it's given freely), its value declines -- but the value of other resources does not. This means that as cash enters the market (via UBI), cash is devalued relative to other resources. The result? It takes more cash to acquire the same amount of a resource. In other words:

>If everyone had money, companies would raise prices -- because they KNOW people can afford the new prices

If UBI were $1,000 per month you know what would happen OVERNIGHT? Landlords in the ghetto who currently charge $400 per month for rent would jack their rates up to $800 per month. Because they know those niggers can afford it.

What UBI does is it creates an economic inefficiency. It creates an artificial floor for budgets, bolstering prices and discouraging innovation. So long as there are potential customers who can't afford your product, you're incentivized to make your product cheaper. Once everyone can afford it, you lose that incentive.

By NOT having UBI, prices fall over time. This is why poor people are now wearing fashionable clothes, sleeping on memory foam, and playing video games on large TVs. When you introduce UBI, you immediately put the economy into a stalemate -- and that's bad for everyone.

>cars used to cost $10,000
check out the average cost of a car by year, my man, and stop talking out of your ass. $7200 in 1980. same year the average wage was $12,500. guess a lot of people used to make $300K. hard times now. well at least they can get cars on Facebook.

I want to be stupid rich, and UBI might actually give me the ability to take stupid risk it requires without risking complete financial ruin. But then again who is paying for my stupidity?

>By NOT having UBI, prices fall over time.
what did you mean by this?

No we don't. It's those same emotions that lead people to accept lives of squaller that they can afford on what meager government benefits are available today. The experiment is being done already. And yes, getting your living payed for by someone else saps your motivation and your character.
In the US we're definetaly not doing welfare as well as we could be with what we have, but the most optimal welfare system still has to contend with individuals who will simply compromise their life styles to live entirely off of free money.

When will we have robowaifus?

Creative works are beyond a machine's capabilities, simply because they're not participating in the meta of art creation (the human experience). They can potentially create ok shadows of rote genres but they cannot fulfill the needs of the growth of any medium.

>running out of money
What are you on kid?

The government literally creates and destroys money as it wishes.

>redefine poverty
how are you moving the goalposts on poverty? it's the state of not meeting needs.

You're talking out of your ass. The cost of living has skyrocketed while wages remain the same. Rent, food, gas, water, electricity everything. And thanks to obamas cash for clunkers a used piece of shit car today will still run you $5000 not fucking $500.

Nobody in the US can live off part time

>who is paying for my stupidity?
we're all INVESTING in your stupidity.
for every 999 of you that fail miserably, one of you succeeds and makes the world a better place.

Companies build robots to achieve efficiencies. What you are suggesting is that we tax their attempts to achieve efficiencies?

really gets the old noggin joggin

I'm referring to pre-1910 prices. The Model T was introduced in 1908 and the automation that led to it brought prices down dramatically. Before the Model T cars were luxuries only affordable by the outrageously wealthy. When Henry Ford automated everything the real price of cars fells dramatically, and continued to fall for decades

Cars weren't invented in 1980. You need to go back further

I mean what I said.

In a world without UBI, competition forces companies to innovate to try and lower prices and drive up production. Automation and innovation cause once-luxuries to drop dramatically in price. There was a time when no one could afford refrigerators, but now every apartment, suite, hotel, condo, house, shack, and gay bar has one.

In a world with UBI, the incentive to compete is lessened. Not entirely removed, but greatly diminished. This means prices remain stagnant or, in some extreme cases, go up. Prices will PARTICULARLY go up for goods and services that target the poorest individuals. Low-income housing will no longer be $300 a month for rent, because the landlords know that the individuals living there are receiving a basic income check. If the entire check goes to pay your rent you're just as bad off as you were before -- except worse, because of something most UBI advocate fight for and don't think about

Almost every UBI advocate wants to obliterate all social welfare programs. "If everyone received a check each month, we wouldn't need food stamps or government housing or child tax credits or medicaid or (insert program here)". Many poor people can barely afford their rent, and subsist on these programs to acquire food, clothing, etc. Now imagine if they could barely afford their rent and all of these programs went away? Suddenly no food, no clothing, no medical care, etc.

At the end of the day, UBI actually hurts the poor and helps business owners.

Give people credits stupid, money is a concept that's value is represented by paper currency. If everyone has $1000 in credits that they are literally just given to them from out of nowhere, how is that going to cost anyone anything?

>tax their attempts
not their attempts, their achievements.

You can poverty for about 500 Billion a year.

Just refund the difference between a persons income and the poverty line to bring everyone just above the poverty line.

pic related shows the gap. most are working poor, so you cut smaller checks per person in those groups

Attached: 5345435134.png (321x458, 16K)

I ironically support UBI. It is a solution to leftists attacking our employment.

> unironically

When the baby boomers die off and millennials get into power then you will see UBI. Thats like 25 years away though.

>Because the people will always have to be poked and prodded. Don't you know your history?
>This is never ending until the day we end it.
Don't poke me, bro!

Attached: trump wins pokemon protestor.png (560x699, 459K)

prices always goes up, it called inflation.

if prices drop, then production gets cut, and people spend less, and then deflationary spiral

it doesnt matter where the spending comes from, consumption drives expansion.

besides, a negative income tax wouldnt have such problems.

>I don't understand what a poverty line is.
>Also, if we increase everyone's income to $1 above the average, then everyone will have an above-average income.

the whole "we'll just know what everyone is earning and fill in the gap" meme fails to take into account the amount of effort/money has to be dumped into information gathering and processing and the whole bureaucracy that UBI is trying to remove. it's also a concept that fails to recognize that money is not intrinsically valuable so it really doesn't matter how much you need as long as it is evenly spread and administered on a routine basis, the economy will simply adjust to it rather than have any disasterous outcome that is predicted.

101% the poverty line ends poverty

ur welcome

There is a massive amount of work that goes into this. You dis-incentivize them from improving their own technology and make it impossible to gain an advantage over their competitors in other countries. You commies think your idea is novel, but what you are really doing is just throwing more taxation on productive people and redistributing it to the lazy. The same old shtick you've always been up to. The trouble with socialism is eventually you will run out of other peoples money.

>25 years
well at least i don't need to save for my retirement (not that i could).

You're making two simultaneous mistakes.

First, you're looking at virtual metrics. The "cost of living" has skyrocketed because a loaf of bread used to cost 9 cents in 1930 and now it's $2.00 -- but in 1930 there were no minimum wage laws. The first minimum wage law as enacted in 1938 (bread cost 11 cents by this point) and the minimum wage was 25 cents. This meant one hour of work was equal to 2.3 loaves of bread. Minimum wage today is $7.25, meaning that one hour of work today is equal to 3.6 loaves of bread. You can afford almost 60% more bread today than you could in 1938!

Looking at other metrics (the price of a house, the price of a car, the price of a refrigerator, the price of a TV, the price of nice clothes, the price of paint, the price of oral hygiene products, the price of entertainment, etc) life has gotten cheaper (relative to minimum wage) in almost every regard. And this is just looking at PRICE, with no regard for quality!

When you factor in quality, things get even brighter. Sure in 1980 you could buy "a TV" for $430 (that would be a super-low-end color TV, with better TVs costing around $1400) and now you can buy "a TV" for $200 (low-end at WalMart)... but "a TV" in 1980 was a shitty 19-inch CRT with 240x320 resolution. Now that $200 gets you a 50-inch 1080p! Think I'm lying? walmart.com/ip/Sceptre-50-Class-FHD-1080P-LED-TV-X505BV-FSR/631796609

When factoring in quality it's important to remember that at all times multiple quality levels have been available. In 1980 you COULD buy a 50-inch TV, but it cost THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS. So if we compare the cost of things (relative to minimum wage) but try to keep quality consistent, we see that prices have fallen DRAMATICALLY more!

The second mistake you make is a failure to understand the demographic you're advocating for. Poor people don't go to car dealerships. I said you can get a used car ON FACEBOOK for $500. I know you can, because I bought one.

>effort/money
no more than $500 billion to plug that gap I can show maths.

>Information gathering and processing and the whole bureaucracy
>IRS does what 22 other departments use to
>not efficient

>intrinsically valuable
it market-ably valuable. and thats all that counts

>long as it is evenly spread
that makes trade impossible.

Shit works right now, they call them tax credits.

Meanwhile UBI has to explain why Bill Gates gets a welfare check.

Isn't it convenient that all of your supposed theories as to why everything is like there is blame the poor and move towards keeping them poor?

Wonder why that is

>tax disincentivizes stuff
it's a stupid meme.
having widespread poverty so that labor is inclined to work low paying jobs disincentivizes innovation much more than any tax could ever do.

Hes talking about real prices...essentially automation leads to more abundance, more material wealth and hence due to lower scarcity, real prices decline. When Cars were invented and they had to be made by hand individually, they were extremely expensive in real terms.

A short way of thinking about his ubi view is that giving a bunch of money to people leads to inflation and hence in real terms theyre not any richer since, even though they have more money, things are more expensive.

As right-winged as I am, universal basic income is the way of the future for one reason- all are jobs are going to be replaced by robots

how to compare a horse buggy to a car?

Never, because the day it would be implemented, this nation goes up in flames.

Kill yourselves, commie fuck retards. You're just taking up space and making the world worse.

Attached: 1516310970351.png (644x644, 302K)

>wants workers to have good wages
>most likely is in favor of mass immigration and multiculturalism

pick one

and on the matter again of UBI, we have people in my country who live off of UBI, they are known as the aboriginals. They live on reserves and receive enough money to keep food on the table and you know what? They have done absolutely nothing with the money. They haven't pursued productive passions. They drink and do drugs and go hunting and chillax. Productive work, for 95% of people, involves sweat and toil, not passionate fun. Give people enough money to get by, and they will relax, they will not choose to work their asses off.

You're defining price as raw dollar amount. I'm defining price as relative value compared to your human productive capacity. An uneducated human providing 1 hour of their time to perform menial tasks that require no training can purchase more than the same person providing the same amount of time for the same quality of task 100 years ago. The actually price tag is irrelevant. If you remove dollars from the equation entirely and treat it like a barter system then it's like so:

>1930: One ounce of gold ($20.67) could buy 188 loaves of bread ($0.11)
>1960: One ounce of gold ($36.50) could buy 165 loaves of bread ($0.22)
>1990: One ounce of gold ($386.20) could buy 551 loaves of bread ($0.70)
>2000: One ounce of gold ($272.65) could buy 157 loaves of bread ($1.72)

Other than when people hoard gold during a stock crash (1990) and drive the price up, gold is usually worth about 150-200 loaves of bread. This doesn't change over time, despite inflation changing the price tags.

So if a poor person went into their backyard with a pickaxe and found gold, they would be just as rich as a poor person who did the same thing 100 years ago. Ergo inflation is a distraction during economic discussions.

Soon comrade soon

Attached: McRobot-810x553.jpg (810x553, 70K)

Not a single part of any of my posts "blamed the poor". I'd challenge you to quote anything I said (even out of context) that implies that

And nothing I said suggests that the poor stay that way. For most people poverty is a temporary thing. Sure there were "1 million people in poverty" 30 years ago and there's "1 million people in poverty" today, but it's not the SAME 1 million people. People move in and out of poverty and eventually escape it entirely. I've seen it happen many times. There's no part of the economy that "keeps people poor" and there's no incentive for businesses to keep people poor

However if UBI were implemented, then that WOULD keep people poor. It would hurt the poor and help large corporations