Universal Basic Income

[wufan]

Can one of the mods move the UBI discussion from the Trump thread to this thread? I’d like to have a discussion on it and there are already many things being discussed.

[wufan]

I’m opposed to UBI because I am a staunch believer that living in a meritocracy is the best path to individual freedom. That belief is based on other core beliefs, but it’s pretty close to first principles. I want to understand a few things about UBI and why folks think it is a good idea. I will try to lay out my initial core objections in the next few comments and hopefully someone will offer the counter narrative to it:

[wufan]

The pursuit of happiness is the pursuit of purpose. I believe that many people find purpose in the success of providing for their family, whether that be as care giver, earner, or both. A UBI would seem to discourage this as “gold medal for everyone”. Is there really purpiseful joy in doing whatever you want whenever you want and knowing that paternalistic Uncle Sam will pay for your house even though no one will pay you for your post modern performance art? There’s good evidence that when people don’t have a purpose they turn to drip of choice to ease the pain. Is that a utopian society?

[wufan]

I disagree that that jobs are going away with automation. This will create new jobs. Someone has to build or install the robots. Even if the robots are building robots, people still have to build those. Quality inspection has to be ramped up to make sure the robots aren’t failing. Preventative maintenance has to be performed. Somebody has to watch the gauges to make sure they don’t overheat. Surely someone would be willing to do this for not very much money so they can pay to witness some postmodern performance art? Someone has to stay sober to make sure the junkies don’t overdose.

[jdshock]

This is the fundamental difference. UBI proponents tend to be of the mindset that we're moving to post-scarcity economics. At some point, even if it's 500 years away, the vast majority of jobs will be replaced. There will be a transition period to that time period.

In my opinion, the rest is moot. You either are allowed to survive without working or we have a massive die off when jobs are lost.

[wufan]

If there’s no scaricity, like zero, then why would you need an income at all? Won’t robots just bring food to your house for free whenever you want?

[wufan]

How will we pay for this? If no one is working, where does the money come from? Why the hell would a super wealthy industrial capitalist put in 100 hours a week every week for years so that he/she can sit in a lonely throne room all alone with no employees?

[ShockCrazy]

I'll go point by point.

I’m opposed to UBI because I am a staunch believer that living in a meritocracy is the best path to individual freedom. That belief is based on other core beliefs, but it’s pretty close to first principles. I want to understand a few things about UBI and why folks think it is a good idea. I will try to lay out my initial core objections in the next few comments and hopefully someone will offer the counter narrative to it:

Your understanding of UBI is fundamentally flawed. This is NOT socialism. I am all for meritocracy, hell I benefit from it. This IS NOT giving everyone the same standard of living. We already have accepted that there is a level of living that we deem the minimum we accept as a society by having welfare programs. UBI is about making sure everyone gets that minimum level. You want anything nice beyond a terrible studio apartment, eating crappy food? You work for it.

I disagree that that jobs are going away with automation. This will create new jobs. Someone has to build or install the robots. Even if the robots are building robots, people still have to build those. Quality inspection has to be ramped up to make sure the robots aren’t failing. Preventative maintenance has to be performed. Somebody has to watch the gauges to make sure they don’t overheat. Surely someone would be willing to do this for not very much money so they can pay to witness some postmodern performance art? Someone has to stay sober to make sure the junkies don’t overdose.

I'm guessing you aren't all that familiar with automation. I worked on automation for 5 years, it's going waaaay faster than we can keep up and at a certain point there will be no involvement of humans. AI is reaching the point that it is self taught and can better recognize it's own flaws and mistakes way better than a human can. Some fun links: https://gizmodo.com/stunning-ai-brea...-th-1819650084 The new Deepmind AI can now take only the rules of Go, with no fed in games for analysis and beat every human who has ever played the game. That is staggering. This robot self teaches pattern recognition https://futurism.com/elon-musk-just-...-need-to-know/

How will we pay for this? If no one is working, where does the money come from? Why the hell would a super wealthy industrial capitalist put in 100 hours a week every week for years so that he/she can sit in a lonely throne room all alone with no employees?

People still work. Although eventually we are facing a reality where it is very few. Self learning AI is going to happen. When that happens human input really isn't necessary, and now AI taking over all things is a loooooooooong way off, it's going to start eating away at the margins soon. Commercial trucking and delivery as we know it will be obsolete as a profession in the next two decades.

[wufan]

Nm

[wufan]

Thanks for the response! I was hoping folks would respond to my individual posts so as to keep the thought streams separate, but no biggie.

First, I didn’t say it was socialism. I said I believed that this would decrease the value of a meritocracy. Would it not? Please help me understand your perspective.

[wufan]

I'll go point by point.


Your understanding of UBI is fundamentally flawed. This is NOT socialism. I am all for meritocracy, hell I benefit from it. This IS NOT giving everyone the same standard of living. We already have accepted that there is a level of living that we deem the minimum we accept as a society by having welfare programs. UBI is about making sure everyone gets that minimum level. You want anything nice beyond a terrible studio apartment, eating crappy food? You work for it.


I'm guessing you aren't all that familiar with automation. I worked on automation for 5 years, it's going waaaay faster than we can keep up and at a certain point there will be no involvement of humans. AI is reaching the point that it is self taught and can better recognize it's own flaws and mistakes way better than a human can. Some fun links: https://gizmodo.com/stunning-ai-brea...-th-1819650084 The new Deepmind AI can now take only the rules of Go, with no fed in games for analysis and beat every human who has ever played the game. That is staggering. This robot self teaches pattern recognition https://futurism.com/elon-musk-just-...-need-to-know/


People still work. Although eventually we are facing a reality where it is very few. Self learning AI is going to happen. When that happens human input really isn't necessary, and now AI taking over all things is a loooooooooong way off, it's going to start eating away at the margins soon. Commercial trucking and delivery as we know it will be obsolete as a profession in the next two decades.

If we already accept that there is a standard of living that we pay for through welfare programs, then why is UBI necessary? Why is it the responsibility of the federal government to provide it?

[wufan]

I'll go point by point.


Your understanding of UBI is fundamentally flawed. This is NOT socialism. I am all for meritocracy, hell I benefit from it. This IS NOT giving everyone the same standard of living. We already have accepted that there is a level of living that we deem the minimum we accept as a society by having welfare programs. UBI is about making sure everyone gets that minimum level. You want anything nice beyond a terrible studio apartment, eating crappy food? You work for it.


I'm guessing you aren't all that familiar with automation. I worked on automation for 5 years, it's going waaaay faster than we can keep up and at a certain point there will be no involvement of humans. AI is reaching the point that it is self taught and can better recognize it's own flaws and mistakes way better than a human can. Some fun links: https://gizmodo.com/stunning-ai-brea...-th-1819650084 The new Deepmind AI can now take only the rules of Go, with no fed in games for analysis and beat every human who has ever played the game. That is staggering. This robot self teaches pattern recognition https://futurism.com/elon-musk-just-...-need-to-know/


People still work. Although eventually we are facing a reality where it is very few. Self learning AI is going to happen. When that happens human input really isn't necessary, and now AI taking over all things is a loooooooooong way off, it's going to start eating away at the margins soon. Commercial trucking and delivery as we know it will be obsolete as a profession in the next two decades.

I work in a large factory that uses automation in some areas but not others. I’ve worked in a factory setting for 15 years. I am extremely familiar with automation and have brought it in and decommissioned it. I’ve worked on it, with it, validated it, and I’ve worked in a completely manual setting. I’ve not worked with AI. Have you?

Bottom line is that I see job opportunity in an automation setting, not job elimination. I’m not on board with the robots putting us all out of work. Help me understand.

[ShockCrazy]

Maybe it decreases meritocracy ever so slightly, but I don't believe most people want to live at the poverty level, that's not a fun way to live. Most want more for themselves and their kids. There will always be slackers, but honestly who cares? Why begrudge someone who wants to live in squalor, I honestly don't care, even if it costs me bit more each year, if it means children don't go hungry and people who do have desires feel they can push for them without out fear of starving, I'm in.

It's necessary because 1. Welfare programs are inefficient 2. Administrative costs are high because we spend time determining worthiness.
It's the governments responsibility because we've already decided it is. But here is the real reason why. There are different kinds of people: a very small set of truly terrible people who don't care about the struggles of others, who have no interest in helping others and really don't want them helped. There is larger set of people who can maybe see the struggles, but think it's someone else's responsibility to help people. Then finally there is a much larger set of people who would help but truly don't see the struggles of other people and deny support out of ignorance. At a certain point it becomes the responsibility of a society and the government to provide as best it can for people. It doesn't need to be luxury, it can be very basic but at certain point we should care how people live because we CAN fix it, for most of history this was not even in the realm of possibility, it is now. You can have your luxuries but why not help others too, these aren't mutually exclusive despite the talking points people would have you believe.

Finally I have written code for automation, much more deterministic than actual true AI, but the concepts are similar. Automation fundamentally by design is job elimination, it must be. If any sort of automation being implemented is ADDING jobs instead of removing them, it's fundamentally doing it wrong and it probably shouldn't be automated... Yet. There will be jobs, but there really SIGNIFICANTLY fewer. Even on the team I worked on with the things we developed we probably could have cut a person or two, and seen no difference(except for stupid meetings). It will take jobs and the pool available jobs will shrink as automation and AI grow. Plus lets say it does have a large expanding job pool, most people are NOT qualified for a job in developing or managing AI/Automation. It's not because their dumb, but because it really takes a different thought process and structure that just isn't suitable for everyone. Everyone has different skills, and this is certainly not a skill everyone shares.

I guess there's one fundamental premise we need to deal with. One day, maybe not for a hundred years, but one day in America there will be more working age adults than available possible jobs for them. I am as certain of that as I can be, I don't know the timeline but it will happen and we NEED to accept that. And once we accept that we need to answer, what do we do about it? What is the fate of someone who literally has no available job for them to do? Do we abandon them the eventually starve and die? Is that the fate of our society?

[Kung Wu]

Social security tax rates are decided by the government. Social security funds are managed by the government. Social security taxes are collected into a community pot. Social security payouts are decided by the government. Citizens cannot opt out. The purpose of social security is to provide a safety net to the community by redistributing money from one citizen to another. Social security is an example of a system of socialism in America.

For the same reasons above, UBI is also a socialist system (and certainly a more pervasive one). That UBI doesn't result in the "same standard of living" for recipients of a centrally mandated redistribution of wealth, doesn't have squat to do with whether it's the implementation of a socialist system.

[ShockerDropOut]

I am a simple man. Not nearly as well educated and smart as a lot of you on here. When I look at something like this, listen to all the arguements, I just can't get past the point that it is a pig wrapped in a bright pretty bow. It looks like socialism, walks like socialism, and smells like socialism. So despite all the flowery language about AI, no jobs for people to work, whatever, it is what it looks like to me, socialism.

I am not a big fan of entitlements and this would be yet another layer of a bloated government bureaucracy. I frankly do not believe it is the government's responsibility to provide a standard of living for anyone. The government would waste more time and money on this than it would help. That is not to say that I am deaf to the plight of those truly in need. I just happen to believe it is the responsibility of the citizenry to lift up a brother in need, not the function of the government. There are people that will and do give very generously to worthy causes. I have yet to witness a government program of this nature that does not add layers of needless regulations, costs, and disincentives to those in need and to those willing to step up to help relieve the situation.

It is time to start shrinking the size and scope of our cesspool of a federal government, not adding even more liberty choking tendralls to it.

[wufan]

UBI is certainly a social program of wealth redistribution, but it’s not socialism. There’s no requirement on the proposal that mandates that the government maintain the means of production. I think that even staunch conservatives would agree that if a dystopian (or even utopian) future lead to the inexistence of employment, that we will need to rethink the virtues of capitalism.

For the the purposes of this discussion, it isn’t important to me whether or not UBI is more socialist or less socialist, but whether or not it is needed, would accomplish its goals without damaging other aspects of economy/community/individualism, how it would be implemented, and if it is the best possible solution.

If others feel feel it is best to dismiss the argument as anti-American, or what-have-you, then so be it. I hope to learn more about UBI so that I can have better arguments against it or recognize that all or parts of it are worthwhile.

[wufan]

Maybe it decreases meritocracy ever so slightly, but I don't believe most people want to live at the poverty level, that's not a fun way to live. Most want more for themselves and their kids. There will always be slackers, but honestly who cares? Why begrudge someone who wants to live in squalor, I honestly don't care, even if it costs me bit more each year, if it means children don't go hungry and people who do have desires feel they can push for them without out fear of starving, I'm in.

It's necessary because 1. Welfare programs are inefficient 2. Administrative costs are high because we spend time determining worthiness.
It's the governments responsibility because we've already decided it is. But here is the real reason why. There are different kinds of people: a very small set of truly terrible people who don't care about the struggles of others, who have no interest in helping others and really don't want them helped. There is larger set of people who can maybe see the struggles, but think it's someone else's responsibility to help people. Then finally there is a much larger set of people who would help but truly don't see the struggles of other people and deny support out of ignorance. At a certain point it becomes the responsibility of a society and the government to provide as best it can for people. It doesn't need to be luxury, it can be very basic but at certain point we should care how people live because we CAN fix it, for most of history this was not even in the realm of possibility, it is now. You can have your luxuries but why not help others too, these aren't mutually exclusive despite the talking points people would have you believe.

Finally I have written code for automation, much more deterministic than actual true AI, but the concepts are similar. Automation fundamentally by design is job elimination, it must be. If any sort of automation being implemented is ADDING jobs instead of removing them, it's fundamentally doing it wrong and it probably shouldn't be automated... Yet. There will be jobs, but there really SIGNIFICANTLY fewer. Even on the team I worked on with the things we developed we probably could have cut a person or two, and seen no difference(except for stupid meetings). It will take jobs and the pool available jobs will shrink as automation and AI grow. Plus lets say it does have a large expanding job pool, most people are NOT qualified for a job in developing or managing AI/Automation. It's not because their dumb, but because it really takes a different thought process and structure that just isn't suitable for everyone. Everyone has different skills, and this is certainly not a skill everyone shares.

I guess there's one fundamental premise we need to deal with. One day, maybe not for a hundred years, but one day in America there will be more working age adults than available possible jobs for them. I am as certain of that as I can be, I don't know the timeline but it will happen and we NEED to accept that. And once we accept that we need to answer, what do we do about it? What is the fate of someone who literally has no available job for them to do? Do we abandon them the eventually starve and die? Is that the fate of our society?

I don’t believe that progress in technology will end the opportunity for employment. It hasn’t in the past and it won’t in the future. It is easier to imagine a world where tech makes some jobs obsolete than it it to imagine a world where whole new industries are created.

Thats TD not to say that “this” technological revolution won’t be different. It certainly could be, but if I doubt the end point of employment, is there any other reason that I would be in favor of a UBI? Is there something about it greater than the inevitable conclusion of a world without careers?

[Kung Wu]

UBI is certainly a social program of wealth redistribution, but it’s not socialism. I think that even staunch conservatives would agree that if a dystopian (or even utopian) future lead to the inexistence of employment, that we will need to rethink the virtues of capitalism.

It's not even a form of government, so nobody is calling it in and of itself socialism. But as you said, it's clearly an economic system that one would expect to find in a socialist government, because it adheres to all the criteria to meet the definition of a centrally controlled form of wealth redistribution.

As a conservative, I reject outright that automation is causing a fatal macroeconomic problem, and will continue to reject outright any wealth redistribution system under the pretense that "some day" we might need it. If that "some day" ever comes (it won't), then we can reconsider it then, otherwise it's just academic gobbeldygook at best, and hoodwinking to try and push the needle toward socialism at worst.

In the mean time lets solve real existing problems today by reducing, not increasing, wealth redistribution.