Basic income thread

what does Jow Forums think of basic income? i had some random thoughts on it the other day.

oxygen and sunlight are like basic income. There exists a world which could be conceived of in which you have to pay for oxygen tanks, and you live underground so you also have to pay for UV/light. but in reality there happens to be enough oxygen on the planet that most species have not evolved the behavior of hoarding it. It is recycled through chemical processes so there is no fear that it will disappear. and organisms put oxygen and carbon dioxide and other gases back into the atmosphere to allow other species to do with it what they will.

Is it rational to fear that people will take money from this basic income pool and never recycle it back into the community? I think not, because that person knows that the pool exists, so he won't have the desire to hoard his money. He'll go spend it in the community, trusting that the river of money will keep flowing.

Attached: human.jpg (1147x1484, 718K)

Other urls found in this thread:

thevenusproject.com/
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

Are they not teaching about the tragedy of the commons in school anymore?

they do. the difference in 2018 is that we now have material abundance, we just need to figure out how to distribute it.

take a look at community food forests

No. Just no. Maybe air and sunlight are free, but people's work and resources (which also require work) are not, because it requires strength and willpower many people wouldn't want to waste for free.
The faster you stop believing in commie utopias, the better.

... can I get some references to anyone talking about how we have a material abundance in the wake of modern societies? Last I dipped my toe into the subject of scarcity, we are planning for a diminishing collection of natural resources, not a proliferation of them.

Attached: tractors.png (1711x793, 561K)

BTW, community food forests are a flat joke when it comes to actually solving resource problems. About the only publications I've ever come across that talk about successful community farming come from the study of their use in Cuba, and even in that dank as shit environment, where the state can push these incentives, it just barely met the needs of a community.

we don't have full material abundance yet but we're approaching it
and most essentials can be recycled, oil is the big sticking point to that obviously

Eh I think it will have to happen at some point if automation becomes big.

OP, take your communist bullshit and fuck right off

oxygen is not free. plants put in work to do photosynthesis. they do it for the benefit of the ecosystem though, because it happens to work out that the ripples will come back to benefit them.

the people that would receive free money are being given slack so that they might be able to establish a better social system within their communities, rather than each be suppressed by monetary concerns. then they would be paying people back by greatly improving society. yes, a small percentage of people would become hedonists and alcoholics, but those would be such a small percentage that it's worth the investment. humans actually like to be responsible and serve their fellow humans

Alright, I see your point. But that's still in the pipe dream phase. It's becoming a necessity soon that this happen, but very few industries are heading in this direction. We will be lucky if we can get a circular supply chain in place, like very fucking lucky. You are optimistic, and that's fine, but realistically, we are far far far from being on this path (at least in the US).

yes, because there are currently very very few food forests. think about how much land is wasted to grass lawns. what if 85% of that was bio-diverse vegetable fruit nut mushroom and bean gardens?

Attached: 20160421_174034.jpg (4128x2322, 3.04M)

Either Space Commie Utopia or UBI with Capitalism, fuck off.
The only way any of this can work is that we have slaves providing the resources to everyone else. Automation is coming, but not anytime soon.

i agree. so what do you think we should do to bring ourselves closer to this path, if anything?

>very few industries are heading in this direction
dont know what you mean by this, UBI would be implemented by the government not industry
and robots aren't going to be completely taking over the workforce anytime soon

>yes, a small percentage of people would become hedonists and alcoholics, but those would be such a small percentage that it's worth the investment
And you know this how?

that type of shit has really low calories per square meter
food forests don't feed people, farms feed people

Commie pinko retard shit. That's what I think.

So you really wanna kill another twenty million people you sick fuck? I bet you would love to watch a few million people starve.

Not only do you not understand basic economic principle, you can't read a fucking history book as well you filthy degenerate scum.

>Not only do you not understand basic economic principle
what happens in a society that is 100% efficent and no human work is required to produce any human needs

because some people are too driven by their hedonistic desires and can't work towards betterment.

on the other hand, most people will feel like shit after a few days of not doing anything, so they'll start doing something that they can build upon each day. for a lot of people, this something will expand into something that benefits people around them

>100% efficent

You have to pay for shit you degenerate fuck. Which means getting a job and being a productive member of society. Nothing in life is free. Even if it was you can't have it. Because you have to work for it.

If you don't pay for it somebody else does. I'm not paying for your shit because you are a free loading mooch, and the epitomy of a useful idiot. Who's paying you to fucking shit all over boards with this disgusting pinko crap? I'll have you know this is America, where we lynch commies.

Even if we had infinite, free resources, and logistics were not a thing, and humans for once in history were motivated by a pure altruism and not baser human greed and survival, even THEN communism wouldn't work.

Communism, basic income, leftist swill, kills people. It killed a fuck ton of people before, and it will again. Capitalism is far from perfect, but it takes human desire and greed into account, and attempts to harness it.

Communism is a gigantic faggot autists pet idea for how he would use his special 'retarded' "critical theory" and because he's autistic and taking nothing, not economics, not humans basic instincts, not even normal, rational reasoning and logic into account. And you fucks fell for it.

Because free stuff.


You dumb fucking bastards. You'll be shot with the rest of us.

Attached: 1545003880848.jpg (680x680, 44K)

How can you call other people stupid if you can't answer a simple question?
If there is a system that can produce everything humans need and requires no human work to maintain, how would the economy work?

right now most farms in the US are corn and basedbeans, which do not feed people. corn goes into junk food and feeds livestock. yes we eat meat, and that brings us to another issue of mass produced industrial meat. inb4 vegan cunt: i fucking love meat, but i accept that the greenhouse effect is a real problem that needs to be solved if we want humans to flourish in the future. and methane output from cow farms and the lack of prarie really exacerbates the GHG in the atmosphere.

not to mention that most fruit, nuts, and beans actually are quite calorie dense (and fiber!)

Attached: ishmael.jpg (796x1257, 206K)

i think we are at least 300 years away from that type of system. have you heard of the venus project? thevenusproject.com/

That system might well be impossible, it's a hypothetical question

carbs feed people
wheat, rice, potatoes
you grow those on farms, not in vegetable gardens
people dont live off fruit

the economy would just be "everyone can just walk up to the resource/energy outputs and take what they need then continue on and do their thing"

wtf I love serfdom now

some people do, but i get your point. we can grow grains too hahaha, i didn't mean to exclude those.

growing grains efficiently takes space though
that's why farms exist

Humans won't change their behavior until there is a crisis. So basically, wait until there is a massive ecological crisis, and hope it's not too late.

Hell, we've known about plastics in the aquatic food chain for 20+ years. We are only now discussing how it might be effecting humans, and very few fucks are given.

A UBI could be implemented by a government like China, but the political system in the US is not able to do something like this. First of all, industry is so strongly tied to government policy, you'd be stopped right there. This doesn't even include how much time would be spent in courts fighting something like this.

>oxygen is not free.
It's basically free, only action I need to get it is inhale and exhale.
>yes, a small percentage of people would become hedonists and alcoholics, but those would be such a small percentage that it's worth the investment.
Why do you think it will be small?
You know, in USSR they had a label for those kind of people, "anti-soviets". Because it turned out anti-social folks were basically leeching off the hard-working people in the communal system that lacked that "invisible hand" thing. So, the state had to deal with them manually, either by forcing them to some job or, if that wasn't effective, by sending them to mental hospital.
And there's some more things you have to delegate to state if you're ditching free market.

yes, and the space exists, so let's use it, and let's figure out how to get the produce to people who want and deserve it and not have a bunch of it go to waste

You are forgetting that most land is not suitable for the production of crops. You are making the assumption that lawns can just be replaced by food crops. If you looked into the reality here, you'd find that most of this land is not suitable for crop production, whether it's the climate or soil.

And yes, you are talking to someone who lived in Eugene Oregon during the 00s, believed in radical green anarchy, has read Ishmael, and will now recommend you checkout the book in the image, just for funzies.

Attached: 16729.jpg (353x475, 39K)

It wouldn't.

Society would immediately break down as wars are fought over whatever magic creates the resources, who owns them, and who controls the means of production.

well let's say the system can produce enough for the entire population to life a comfortable life, but it can't produce much more than that
what kind of economy do you have then

people don't have difficulty being fed outside of the developing world

oooh nice. i am a fan of bill mollison

>Society would immediately break down as wars are fought over whatever magic creates the resources, who owns them, and who controls the means of production.
why would you need to fight wars over it if it could provide for everyone with no scarcity? and every country could build the system so there would be no singular ownership?

You aren't considering how industrial and economic production effects the quality of the air your breath. In many places, breathing the "free" air is detrimental to your long term health, creating a real cost associated with your consumption of that air. Those with less spending power end up trapped in the areas with poor air quality, while those who can afford it move to locations with better air quality. It's foreseeable that at some point there will be no common air source that is free from detrimental pollution, at which point you will be paying heavily to breath clean air; whether it's to acquire access to that clean air, or just pay for the health care to treat the effects of breathing that air.

I meant how do you know it will only be a "small percentage"?. You have literally no way of knowing this. Nothing beats real life data, but even going by pure logic would make this claim extremely dubious. This grant would mostly benefit people of the lowest socioeconomic status, who already receive welfare. We have enough data to safely say that welfare recipients aren't "doing something they can build upon each day that will expand into something that benefits people around them". Coincidentally this is also the same group that has the highest rate of violent crime, gambling addiction, opioid addiction, meth addiction, alcohol addiction, mental illness,
a much lower than average IQ and a tendency to spend all their money on entertainment, junk food and symbols of wealth like golden necklaces and watches.
Even if we ignore addicts, gamblers and people who are just generally content being poor as long as they have a ps4, ray bans and an iPhone, these people would need to spend the majority of that money simply on keeping up with the middle class. It would go towards replacing their 30 year old car, their 30 year old fridge, replacing torn clothes, leaky pipes, barely functioning or broken household appliances, etc. And it would be enough to ever bring them up to middle class level, just closer to it. This would do basically nothing to stimulate the economy.
Thus UBI makes sense from a humanitarian standpoint (although we already have welfare and it's clearly not working), but you're trying to paint a picture that it would somehow be good for the economy. I don't agree with you and thankfully not a lot of people do. I hope UBI is implemented somewhere so we can all watch as it fails and we can finally move on and forget about this stupid idea.

>air pollution
This is an issue affecting mostly China at time. But China is kinda weird place, like literal cyberpunk.

>cyberpunk
China is more garbagepunk than cyberpunk

Lol, what? This is a problem that effects most industrialized countries. You are also disregarding the fact we live in a closed system. You can't localize something like the effects of pollution over time. What happens on one side of the world will eventually effect all other locals.

But again, your basic premise that China is the only place that experiences heavy air pollution is just so insanely uneducated, it hurts.

I'll tell you why. Because I want more. Because I want more than "no scarcity". I want so much shit that I will never be satisfied. I want to live like a king and order people around. There will always be better and worse lands, better and worse houses, better and worse climates, sweeter and more bitter fruit, and prettier and uglier women. And I will always want the very best of all of them. I will not settle for a condo in Nebraska, I want a seaside villa in California. I will never settle for a car that does 0-100 in 2 seconds if there's one that does it in 1.999. I will never settle for an aeroplane that lifts me to the heavens when I could have one that lifts me another yard higher. I promise you that as long as I live I will scheme and fight to get the very best of everything, and to get from you what's yours through manipulation, deceit, strategic pressure on you and the people around you, or by force.
And as long as I keep doing this there will be a disruption in your system. And this promise means you can never fully trust everyone to "do the right thing" and stop struggling and fighting for more more more, because you never know who's me. And there will be many many more like me, so you can never for sure tell if a person is cooperating or deceiving. And many of the others will be worse than me. And in a world where the majority of people stopped trying hard we will be like ravenous wolves, reaping and taking everything. Until you kill all of us. And then at that point you're back to square one and before you know it you're googling Stalin quotes for inspiration on how to run your failing regime.

The Stockholm syndrome in this thread is strong. Keep stocking those shelves, if you do it well enough you'll be a billionaire someday too.

People aren't going to war right now because they want more, why would this be any different?
You're kind of avoiding the question, which is how economics would work in a society where humans don't have to work to have their needs met

As opposed to getting 1k a month and being laid off because Mr Shekelstein has to pay 80% taxes and can't afford to employ me anymore? Surely that would make me a billionaire in no time.

>As opposed to getting 1k a month and being laid off because Mr Shekelstein has to pay 80% taxes and can't afford to employ me anymore? Surely that would make me a billionaire in no time.
Corporations just got a huge tax cut and they're laying people off anyway.

>people aren't going to war right now because they want more
Okay, so you were trolling the whole time. Thanks for making that clear now.

It's the truth. Are you at war to take more resources? Are most of the countries in the world? They aren't, because militaries and governments and order exists. You're implying that this would somehow be different if we suddenly had full automation, and I don't see why it would be

Yeah so let's build a system on top of these trustworthy people who have our well being in mind. Let's base the whole thing on tax income from the people who would murder to avoid taxes and are openly laundering their money in cayman islander bank accounts just to avoid taxes.

Like, really, they have all these fancy, but scary technologies, like genetic engineering of children, social rank system inside payment apps.
They also got cyberpunk problems like kinda low standard of life, air pollution and overpopulation.

Yeah, just let them keep doing what they're doing. Keep working to produce more for less and less compensation and fewer rights. Everything is fine, you just need to bootstrap harder.

Because they are limited in what they can get by how much money they can earn.
There's no such thing as "goods just enough for a comfortable life". People adjust their "needs" based on what is available. This availability is money, earned through work.

If you just give to people, what'll stop them from taking everything and not giving anything?

Well, so what? In my town air quality is good anyway. It's not my business that Chinese commies turn their cities into wastelands.

>what'll stop them from taking everything and not giving anything

when they are no longer satisfied with social isolation and realize they want to try to love someone else

If tied closely to a well-defined standard of living (that is, no blowing it on blackjack and hookers) UBI could remove dead weight from the workforce and open up jobs for people who actually want them (whether it be for luxury or self actualization). This could in turn lead to better products and services.

Yes. War isn't what you see in movies and video games. The US spends so much fucking money on its military because if they didn't other countries would stop doing what you tell them and the dollar would go bust in no time. Right now war is waving your dick around and showing that you could fuck shit up if you wanted to so others don't dare mess with you. But they would if they could. Putin is going into crimea, South Korea is at war with North Korea, African countries are at constant war with each other, radical muslims are at war with christians, refugees are at war with Europe, the US is at war with every communist regime in general. War doesn't mean you all line up on a battlefield and start shooting each other. It's an ongoing process where you constantly try gaining traction and cornering your enemy into a position where you know for certain they can't defend themselves. And even then you don't destroy them, you keep them there so you can keep milking them. Why was the United States the biggest importer of German made weaponry during WW2? Why did the US give out loans to Hitler's regime? Because war is more complicated than "see enemy, shoot enemy".
If we suddenly had full automation (why suddenly? why do you not question how we'd get there in the first place?) people would still want more, it doesn't matter why, what matters is that they would. I just told you that I will always want more. Just accept that there are people who will never be satisfied. If I don't have to work to have my needs met then I will work to have them exceeded. At a cost to you because I will be taking from you. I will go out of my way to inconvenience you and demand a ransom to leave you alone. I will have all the time I need since I won't have to work. And then you won't have your needs fulfilled anymore because you'll have less than you're supposed to according to the system. And I'll have more. You don't have to understand why, just accept that this will happen.

Well then lets say this automated system can provide for your basic needs like food, water, housing, utilities. Are you saying that if everyone was given this wars would break out?
>If you just give to people, what'll stop them from taking everything and not giving anything?
They don't need to give because automation provides for all their needs.

Most countries in the world are not the US and most countries in the world are not at war. You're still avoiding the question of how an economic system would work when humans no longer have to work to live. You say chaos would break out because you want more, well like today, authority would exist to stop you doing so. Or are you saying once everyone has their needs provided for they'd all turn into criminals because they're unoccupied and greedy?

Jesus fucking christ you're dense. I'm going to murder you for your possessions, not because I need them but because I want them. You can't make an assertion that wars wouldn't break out because I will fucking start them. And if I will that's proof that humanity as a whole has that capacity in it. So there will be others who will do the same.

What the fuck? Are you implying that consuming things == not being with people, or that you'll jail people for consuming more than your arbitrary amount goods?

HOL UP!
You began your post by saying they'll be provided basic needs and ended it saying ALL their needs are provided for.

If only your basic needs were provided for, you wouldn't be here to debate, Jow Forums if pretty far from a basic need, after all.

Attached: weekend-afternoon-randomness-35-photos-9-13.jpg (600x594, 88K)

It's a completely ridiculous proposition which is completely infeasible, the only countries where such a thing could have worked were the northern European countries, which featured a very high productivity, compared to their relatively small populations, but since they allow third world migration in the millions, that is drastically changing.
Even Germany has issues with pensions, but is willing to spend billions on very unproductive people and trying to integrate them into a economy where they gave absolutely no place.

I am not "against" UBI, I think it is a good idea if you combine it with the elimination of all welfare programs, but it is simply IMPOSSIBLE if you allow third world migration into your country, as you are drastically lowering the productivity per person and increasing the costs. UBI won't work in Africa and it won't work if your country is full of Afticans, with very strict border control it might have been feasible and probably we would be seeing the framework being layer out in northern Europe right now.

>I'm going to murder you for your possessions
why aren't you doing so now? because you have a job?

sorry, I meant needs and not wants. Everything to need to survive but not luxury goods

How will they acquire luxury goods, then?

Attached: 9yCJvAyPRV6J4XMHj9gsROB_iz59hDmbhffQw61nb5s.jpg (600x800, 58K)

The most just way too realize such a thing as a citizen’s dividend is to fully tax a real common, like land (land value tax movement is a real thing). Much better and much more sound than taxing the fruits of people labour, and shuffling that money back to people seems like a better deal than subsidizing all these bloated gov. bureaucracies that don’t work anyway and leave people feeling alienated. First priority would be to move current taxation from income to land though.

You can still work and earn money and buy them. The only thing that's different is you don't have to. Because all your basic needs are provided for.

>If there is a system that can produce everything humans need and requires no human work to maintain
And that's where you're already wrong, kiddo. If you think that's how technology works, you don't belong on Jow Forums.

What the fuck are you talking about? I just gave you examples of people going to war and your response is to ignore them and say that "that only happens to some countries so my previous point that it wouldn't happen at all still stands".
I'm saying that a very small percentage of the population who will be ravenous will fuck it up for everyone and you can't stop this because it's in their nature. I'm not avoiding shit I'm telling you what will happen. Authority is an illusion in many western countries, I live in aus and aboriginals are free to steal or rob as long as they don't physically harm you. They can walk into a store, pick something up and walk out. I own a store and we're not allowed to do anything. And it happens too often for the cops to do anything. This is another example but I bet you'll just ignore it as well because your commie brain filters conflicting info out.
>why aren't you doing so now? because you have a job?
Because I am preoccupied with working, and because there's no ceiling to what my work can provide for me. If there would be no work left because of automation then there would be a limit to what I can achieve, and I would also have unlimited time. And you would also be less alert.

Where are you going to work if everything is automated? What job can you get if anything you do a robot can do for free? You must admit that for 99% of people who don't have any special skills or aren't entertainers this won't be an option.

>. If there would be no work left because of automation then there would be a limit to what I can achieve
You can still work to provide non-essential things. You just don't have to work. Nobody needs to work. How would your ideal economy work in that situation?

And a small percentage of the population are psychopaths as it is, that's why law enforcement exists, obviously, what bumfuck part of Australia do you come from where abbos are allowed to steal your shit

>Saudi arabians with infinite oil money
Literally no domestic production but oil

>Native Americans getting paid for being native americans
Endless drug and alcohol abuse

>Spain in the 16th century after all the gold was brought back from the americas
Total economic collapse, hunger and catastrophe, "people can't eat gold"

You think it has never been tried, but it has, and it failed miserably EVERY SINGLE TIME.

Oh, and while we're at it, HOW will people's basic needs be provided for?

>Money?
Living standards vary wildly with geography, how much will they be given?
>Food directly?
"I don't like that."
"That's not enough."
"That's haram."
etc

Attached: daily_picdump_3015_640_high_30.jpg (600x799, 72K)

I'm posing the question of "what would you do with the economy if nobody needed to work", I'm not providing an answer, despite how desperately you want to call me a communist

Your racist bias is showing, npc faggot.

I didn't call you a communist, and that's not the question you asked me.

Anyway, you failed/refused to define what that would actually mean, so I can't really answer.

I'm really sorry you feel that way, that was not my intention. Feel free to read up on those things, I did not make them up.

Attached: cute-kids-dogs-best-friends-friendship-29-5a992a033d0d5__605.gif (209x301, 1.31M)

Attached: socialism2.jpg (500x312, 52K)

>Are you implying that consuming things == not being with people, or that you'll jail people for consuming more than your arbitrary amount goods?

no. if someone never gives, then they probably don't have any good relationships because they're probably a selfish asshole. if they do have a good group of friends, then that means they probably have something worthwhile to give to at least some people (they are valuable to some people)

sorry, must have confused you with another poster
The question is basically if automation reaches a hypothetical point where nobody NEEDS to work to survive, how the economy could function, because idiots in this thread are saying "thats communism" instead of a technological inevitability (even though we will probably never hit 100% automation)

What? So if you have all day to do anything and have no responsibilities, you're guaranteed to not have any friends/not spend any time with them? Why?

The answer is the same. "Nobody needing to work" is a completely arbitrary and ephemeral thing to say. I raised both some examples of it failing and some problems with the definition in .

Attached: animals-with-thrice-as-much-talent-as-i-15-gifs-10.gif (300x233, 2.3M)

>resulting to insults when confronted with an example of law enforcement failing to be effective
Predictable. You do realise "bumfuck part"s of the world are still part of the economy right?
And I told you many many times how the economy would work. A small group of people would have an unimaginable amount of power and eventually they would force people to work anyway. You just admitted that there's still work to be done, so they would force everyone to do those jobs and then profit off of their labor. The point is that your system doesn't do a good job at punishing intentional bad actors. Jail time and fines aren't a good motivator at all, the reason why our current system somewhat works despite being fucked up is that it's in your best interest to play along. You keep saying I could work if I wanted to, but can you give me one example that 90% of people could do to earn more money? Something almost anyone can do if they work hard? Not everyone can be a celebrity or an inventor. You can't prove me wrong because for that you'd need to actually present a comprehensive economic model that takes into account the neverending greed that people have. That accounts for people wanting more. There's already a high rate of unemployment, why would then jobs be readily available to those who want more than sustenance after automation? There wouldn't be. There would be a very real limit to what one can achieve and that would encourage intentional bad actors, since there would be no alternative to crime if you wanted to achieve more than sustenance.
Also
>ideal economy
There's no ideal economy, this is real life. I can't just conjure up an economy that sounds nice, it needs to actually work. You don't even have a comprehensive model for your economy, you just keep repeating how good it would be to be taken care of, and ignoring problems that other people point out instead of addressing them.

>"Nobody needing to work" is a completely arbitrary
Automation provides enough food, water, housing, utilites for you to live. No guarantees to the quality of life because that's subjective, but let's say what a working class person in a first world nation would typically make

This

>What? So if you have all day to do anything and have no responsibilities, you're guaranteed to not have any friends/not spend any time with them? Why?

no, not at all. you would spend time with them. but what do friends do? do they just hang out on the streets without buying anything or talking to anyone outside their group? as a group, they're probably gonna go to a bar, or play online video games, or buy food to cook together, play instruments together. that's not to mention that they need to pay for their apartments. yes this is with the money they've been given, and this is how it gets recycled back into the community.

Attached: acid-dishes.jpg (640x640, 117K)

If you're baiting, fuckin' 10/10 mate, seriously, hats off to you. I'm now mad.

There is no
>what a working class person in a first world nation would typically make
If you calculate an average, a lot of people will starve, and a lot will have way more than they need. You're literally hand-waving away a problem that countless people have tried to work out before you. There's people who work low-end jobs all their lives and retire with millions, and there's people who make millions and end up penniless, in a year or two. What about them? What about people who blow their money and starve?

You've circled back and admitted that they won't work and just spend that money. The very existence of money keeps this from happening, because it signifies scarcity, and has to come from somewhere.
They exchange the money for services and don't work. That means that labor will be more costly because people don't need to work. That means businesses will fail, that means more people out of work, which means less tax income, and a smaller amount of money to redistribute for the initial group.
There's a reason this has never worked.

Attached: daily-morning-awesomeness-35-photos-25 (1).gif (230x307, 3.24M)

I'm not providing you with a system, I'm providing you with a scenario, a technological scenario where automation is 100% efficient, can provide for all your needs without human invention, and isn't controlled by the elite. There's no reason to assume law enforcement wouldn't exist. Would you have everyone work false jobs they don't need to do just to stop them revolting?

Not him, but 100% efficiency is by definition impossible. Physics prevents it.

>If you calculate an average, a lot of people will starve
I'm not sure you understand what I'm trying to say
Imagine there automated food production system could make enough food to feed everyone on the planet

>and then you look at the clock and it's actually only been like 40 minutes since you dropped
>and then somewhere in the house the grateful dead begin playing
>and you know that everything is going to be ok

That's why it's a hypothetical scenario and not a real one. Reality approaches 100%, it never actually gets there, but it will pass the point where everyone is required to work, it probably has already in first world countries

So, are they given money, or food directly?

You decide

the main point is that most people will get jobs and give back to the community, because it's part of human nature to contribute socially

>money
They'll blow it on crack, pretend it's not enough, riots
>Food directly
They won't like it, it's not enough, it's not what they wanted, their religion forbids it etc. Riots. Has literally been tried before in the US, did not work.

I brought several examples proving this statement wrong in .

Attached: i-guess-it-really-is-whats-inside-that-matters-29-photos-17.jpg (600x748, 69K)

it hasn't been tried because the technology doesn't exist. I said nothing of how you use it, only that you can feed (clothe, house, etc) the entire world with no human intervention. If this technology exists, how would you structure the economy?

something to remember is that basic income is not meant to be a substantial amount of money. it's just a little boost, like $600-800 a month

i think it's not technology, gtfo

Make everything even more capitalistic and libertarian and make any and all welfare payments dependent on permanent sterilization. Anything else would end in explosion of population and crime.

So, you admit you were wrong. I quoted hat post for the third time and still no one came up with any response.

Attached: weekend-morning-awesomeness-xx-photos-19-1.jpg (600x585, 49K)

so you'll tell the labour force that's suddenly out of a job to sterilize themselves or go hungry

Yes. There's no such thing as free lunch. The entire socialism/communism/UBI movement only exists because people are unable/unwilling to cope to this fact.
Technology don't change nothing.

Attached: sht-happens-sometimes-4.gif (320x400, 2.91M)