5 ms·

Yep, agreed. Universal basic income is one solution that keeps coming back as a silver bullet. Not sure what the downsides are yet, but I'm pretty certain that

Yep, agreed. Universal basic income is one solution that keeps coming back as a silver bullet. Not sure what the downsides are yet, but I'm pretty certain that there's still going to be haves and have nots: just a few rich that own all the automation and resources vs the rest of us just surviving on basic income. Maybe we'll all be ok immersed in VR adventures as long as we're fed and clothed...

rfghsfgt 10y ago
One danger is that it lowers the incentive to work.
- ThomPete 10y ago
  You will always be incenified to work when it's basic income at least the UBI version as it's not the negative tax version that some talk about.
- hx87 10y ago
  If there is little need for work, extrinsic incentives to work don't matter much. Intrinsic incentives (i.e. work is fulfilling) will be enough.
  - rfghsfgt 10y ago
    But that often isn't enough to get people to work on boring but necessary work.
    - hx87 10y ago
      > boring but necessary work Sounds like a fantastic job for machines! Humor aside, even with UBI you will always increase your income and wealth if you put in extra work, unless some current schemes where your income stagnates or even falls if you earn enough to put yourself outside some arbitrary bracket.
wcummings 10y ago
>Not sure what the downsides are yet It's fantastically expensive.
- Retric 10y ago
  As a share of the USA's Gross Domestic Product, health spending accounted for 17.5 percent. Single payer systems like Canada are 10.9% and have similar or better health outcomes. So, ~4.4% GDP is pure healthcare waste. Social Security is 4.9% GDP and welfare is another ~4%. So, right now we could use 13.3% GDP or 7k per person in the US. However, that 7k would remove the justification for a lot of low income tax breaks freeing up enough to hit the 1,000$ per month range without raising net taxes. Now, this would take a huge shift at the federal and state levels, but compared to say the 'New Deal' it's not actually that large a change in policy. Further, while some people would stay at home, it would also free up a lot of jobs and inefficiency. The real problem is a small but very influential slice of the population would be worse off. PS: Remember, every policy change is going to make somebody worse off, so harming someone is not enough to make a change bad.
- hx87 10y ago
  Not any more expensive than paying all the wages under the current system. Besides, it gets rid of the current welfare system's eligibility-determining bureaucracy, so it might even be cheaper.
NumberCruncher 10y ago
For sustaining the basic income the owners of the automation and resources should pay taxes. At least a bit. How much tax do the big players pay?
794CD01 10y ago
It's politically infeasible. You might as well ask "why doesn't everyone just get along? what's the downside?"

rfghsfgt 10y ago

One danger is that it lowers the incentive to work.

ThomPete 10y ago
You will always be incenified to work when it's basic income at least the UBI version as it's not the negative tax version that some talk about.
hx87 10y ago
If there is little need for work, extrinsic incentives to work don't matter much. Intrinsic incentives (i.e. work is fulfilling) will be enough.
- rfghsfgt 10y ago
  But that often isn't enough to get people to work on boring but necessary work.
  - hx87 10y ago
    > boring but necessary work Sounds like a fantastic job for machines! Humor aside, even with UBI you will always increase your income and wealth if you put in extra work, unless some current schemes where your income stagnates or even falls if you earn enough to put yourself outside some arbitrary bracket.

wcummings 10y ago

>Not sure what the downsides are yet It's fantastically expensive.

Retric 10y ago
As a share of the USA's Gross Domestic Product, health spending accounted for 17.5 percent. Single payer systems like Canada are 10.9% and have similar or better health outcomes. So, ~4.4% GDP is pure healthcare waste. Social Security is 4.9% GDP and welfare is another ~4%. So, right now we could use 13.3% GDP or 7k per person in the US. However, that 7k would remove the justification for a lot of low income tax breaks freeing up enough to hit the 1,000$ per month range without raising net taxes. Now, this would take a huge shift at the federal and state levels, but compared to say the 'New Deal' it's not actually that large a change in policy. Further, while some people would stay at home, it would also free up a lot of jobs and inefficiency. The real problem is a small but very influential slice of the population would be worse off. PS: Remember, every policy change is going to make somebody worse off, so harming someone is not enough to make a change bad.
hx87 10y ago
Not any more expensive than paying all the wages under the current system. Besides, it gets rid of the current welfare system's eligibility-determining bureaucracy, so it might even be cheaper.

NumberCruncher 10y ago

For sustaining the basic income the owners of the automation and resources should pay taxes. At least a bit. How much tax do the big players pay?

794CD01 10y ago

It's politically infeasible. You might as well ask "why doesn't everyone just get along? what's the downside?"