3 ms·
> 1) It can’t be enough to desirably live on. It must essentially be “survival level” so that there is still an incentive to contribute to society with your wor
by bananapub 2y ago
> 1) It can’t be enough to desirably live on. It must essentially be “survival level” so that there is still an incentive to contribute to society with your work. Unlike unemployment, this means that if you get a job you just make more money rather than trade unemployment for a paycheck.
such a bizarre position to take. "we could build a basic if functional utopia, but I'm worried about the work ethic of other people and how they have fun so instead I will insist that it fucking sucks".
why are you like this?
why do you:
1) care?
2) assume other people will just smoke bongs all day?
3) care if they do smoke bongs instead of doing something you find valuable?
how much oversight of the worthiness of how you spend your time and how you should be rewarded am I permitted right now?
- brightball 2y ago1) Because a UBI program has to be paid for. It will be paid for out of taxes. If everybody simply consumes it but doesn’t contribute to helping to pay for it the entire system will fail anyway. You cannot have a UBI if it incentives the majority of people to not work in some capacity because the system will naturally fall apart.
- phatskat 2y agoThe system shouldn’t survive, that’s fine. A lot of the takes here envision UBI somehow fitting into our current economic model. In the case where AI/automation truly remove a bulk of the jobs, we shouldn’t be trying to prop up our current capitalistic model. At that point of industrialization, we will need a model that allows needs to be met without worrying about what it means to afford something, or to at least drastically reimagine it.
- mnk47 2y ago>If everybody simply consumes it but doesn’t contribute to helping to pay for it the entire system will fail anyway. In a world where AI takes jobs, couldn't they also take on the responsibility of taxes? All the top dogs from OpenAI, Anthropic, NVIDIA, etc. keep talking about the ridiculous value that AI could provide. Trillions of dollars. I'm no economist, but here's a naive suggestion: make the robots pay taxes. If AI turns out to be as incredible as they're hyping it up to be, then every company on earth will be paying some big AI company for its services. Instead of letting OpenAI and others hoard all this money, take a cut of their insanely high revenue to pay for UBI. ... As I said, I'm not an economist - I suspect there's a serious flaw in my suggestion but I don't know what I don't know. I'd appreciate any rebuttals.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]