3 ms·
> If automation will take over certain "jobs", then whatever is needed by humans will be produced without anyone doing those "jobs" and people will have all tho
by RunningDroid 9y ago
> If automation will take over certain "jobs", then whatever is needed by humans will be produced without anyone doing those "jobs" and people will have all those things without paying for it for very cheap (because if everything is automated, at some point there is nobody to pay to).
The flaw with this logic is it ignores greed on the part of the CEO/shareholders/owners of the company that can now manufacture essential goods for next to nothing and likely has enough money to successfully lobby against any legislation against it (and possibly lobby for Mickey Mouse law, patent edition)
- anotherbrownguy 9y agoI see. So, if there will be these profitable companies which profit from building and maintaining automation technologies, will they be so small that anyone can start their own automation company or be so big that they will require huge investments and go public? In the first case, many people will be owners of such businesses and many people will profit from it... in the second case, people will buy stock of those companies and will profit from it. So, it seems like the money will be distributed over many people, basically anyone who is willing to invest. So, no universal basic income required. However, that is not even the main problem of the idea of universal basic income. The main problem is that governments don't have any money to give out to anyone. Governments rely on people's money to operate. So, if people won't have any jobs, they will pay no taxes and governments won't have any money to operate, let alone give it back to people. If they are going to tax businesses, people won't invest. Also, businesses don't want to pay taxes, so they would rather spend the money in expanding themselves than pay taxes on profits.