4 ms·

There is no credible model for UBI anywhere from AI. It's not going to be paid for by anyone, anywhere. Petrostates including Alaska can pay one, sort of, but t

There is no credible model for UBI anywhere from AI. It's not going to be paid for by anyone, anywhere. Petrostates including Alaska can pay one, sort of, but they are not replacing people with automation, and their largesse won't last forever. The model of capitalism is to pay for labor and avoid taxes and fees at almost all costs. AI-enabled businesses will not seek to contribute any more to UBI than they seek to contribute to any other non-employee. People who don't labor won't get money.

arccy 9mo ago
just change the tax code to be progressive based on earnings per employee...
- BobbyJo 9mo ago
  Over the long term, earnings per employee should shrink due to competition. So, a tax like this, can only be expected to generate significant income in emerging industries, where competition isn't as tight. IMO that would be bad for technological progress. I think the core issue that needs to be curbed by the government is anti competitive practices, like Google and Meta buying out competition in infancy, as thats the kind of thing (monopoly) that keeps earnings per employee high longer term.
  - reactordev 9mo ago
    The Government can't put the genie back in the bottle. UBI won't work because economics. Taxes fund the government but what use is a government that cannot govern? What happens when AI is used as employees at all these companies? Is everyone a CEO now? Where does the value come from? Once you peel back the onion, all you get is tears.
    - givinguflac 9mo ago
      “UBI can’t work because economics.” Where is your source? The data says otherwise. https://www.wbur.org/onpoint/2024/08/19/universal-guaranteed-income-experiment-economy https://www.wbur.org/onpoint/2024/08/19/universal-guaranteed...
      - quantified 9mo ago
        UBI can cause recipients to survive well. Paid for by taxpayers on a very very small scale. There is no model for funding UBI on a large scale. From what?
      - joquarky 9mo ago
        Look at the US tax system and tell me how UBI won't become just as convoluted.
- nerdponx 9mo ago
  As if we needed more incentives to suppress wages
- quantified 9mo ago
  Can you explain the mechanics of this? Fewer employees means higher tax?
zwnow 9mo ago
The model of capitalism is to use money to build some means of production and hopefully generate more money from that. We are arriving in a form of techno-feudalism where nobody produces anything. People with means to produce will pay the owners of AI who just own and make money through renting shit to people who cant afford building their own data centers or whatever. Its what companies like Amazon or Microsoft already do. They dont produce, they own and collect. All of this has nothing to do with capitalism, its all about selling the big AI lie to producers so people base their products on some AI they dont own. And the cycle repeats, Amazon squeezed actual producing companies out of their money decades ago and now we will repeat this with AI. Capitalists have means to produce, feudalists just collect and own.
- xyzzy123 9mo ago
  Most businesses get their inputs from suppliers and add value to produce an output. Even if you could afford to build your own datacenters you could not make the chips. Any realistic business will have a web of suppliers. I think before you can diagnose "feudalism" you need to think really carefully about who has power in what parts of the value chain, and why. This will be specific to the business you are in. I agree, it is a real problem if your suppliers are acting in a monopolistic or market distorting way.
- quantified 9mo ago
  > Capitalists have means to produce, feudalists just collect and own. I think I get your distinction, but I think reality doesn't sort itself that way. Strictly, the means to produce is the factory, the land, something tangible that effects transformation, while money is just "finance". Capitalists are owners, though, and capitalism is ownerism. "Capital" is conventionally just money.
lovich 9mo ago
Why is it that every year we are capable of producing more, but we keep asking people to accept less? Like how is “we can replace all workers with AI agents” not compatible with “we can extract enough wealth from the new profitability to sustain everyone at the current rate as a service(UBI)” If we’re more productive after replacing everyone with machines then why can’t we just cover everyone’s basic(victuals/housing/basic utilities+internet) needs?
- lazide 9mo ago
  Until people stand up and start setting things on fire, what else do you think is going to happen?
  - GolfPopper 9mo ago
    As JFK said, "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable."
    - lovich 9mo ago
      Who cares what he said? He’s not even the top billing at the Kennedy center anymore /s
- nerdponx 9mo ago
  I'm not sure if you're being facetious, but the answer is that the same mechanism that incentivizes all of this innovation prevents the gains from being distributed evenly. You can get fabulously wealthy if you can be an early mover in bringing important new technology to the market. But then you get to keep that wealth and you don't have to share it with anybody if you don't want to. So that's what ends up happening. There's probably a correct balance somewhere between incentivizing innovation and redistributing income and/or wealth, but then it's hard to preserve that balance because the wealth seekers always have an incentive to lobby for favorable policies, manipulate markets, etc. I do not believe that we as a society have managed to figure out the necessary institutions that could preserve such a balance on a multigenerational time scale.
kiba 9mo ago
LVT is AI proof. Severance taxes taking care of diminishing natural resources such as oil and the revenue can then be reinvested in the economy.

arccy 9mo ago

just change the tax code to be progressive based on earnings per employee...

BobbyJo 9mo ago
Over the long term, earnings per employee should shrink due to competition. So, a tax like this, can only be expected to generate significant income in emerging industries, where competition isn't as tight. IMO that would be bad for technological progress. I think the core issue that needs to be curbed by the government is anti competitive practices, like Google and Meta buying out competition in infancy, as thats the kind of thing (monopoly) that keeps earnings per employee high longer term.
- reactordev 9mo ago
  The Government can't put the genie back in the bottle. UBI won't work because economics. Taxes fund the government but what use is a government that cannot govern? What happens when AI is used as employees at all these companies? Is everyone a CEO now? Where does the value come from? Once you peel back the onion, all you get is tears.
  - givinguflac 9mo ago
    “UBI can’t work because economics.” Where is your source? The data says otherwise. https://www.wbur.org/onpoint/2024/08/19/universal-guaranteed-income-experiment-economy https://www.wbur.org/onpoint/2024/08/19/universal-guaranteed...
    - quantified 9mo ago
      UBI can cause recipients to survive well. Paid for by taxpayers on a very very small scale. There is no model for funding UBI on a large scale. From what?
    - joquarky 9mo ago
      Look at the US tax system and tell me how UBI won't become just as convoluted.
nerdponx 9mo ago
As if we needed more incentives to suppress wages
quantified 9mo ago
Can you explain the mechanics of this? Fewer employees means higher tax?

zwnow 9mo ago

The model of capitalism is to use money to build some means of production and hopefully generate more money from that. We are arriving in a form of techno-feudalism where nobody produces anything. People with means to produce will pay the owners of AI who just own and make money through renting shit to people who cant afford building their own data centers or whatever. Its what companies like Amazon or Microsoft already do. They dont produce, they own and collect. All of this has nothing to do with capitalism, its all about selling the big AI lie to producers so people base their products on some AI they dont own. And the cycle repeats, Amazon squeezed actual producing companies out of their money decades ago and now we will repeat this with AI. Capitalists have means to produce, feudalists just collect and own.

xyzzy123 9mo ago
Most businesses get their inputs from suppliers and add value to produce an output. Even if you could afford to build your own datacenters you could not make the chips. Any realistic business will have a web of suppliers. I think before you can diagnose "feudalism" you need to think really carefully about who has power in what parts of the value chain, and why. This will be specific to the business you are in. I agree, it is a real problem if your suppliers are acting in a monopolistic or market distorting way.
quantified 9mo ago
> Capitalists have means to produce, feudalists just collect and own. I think I get your distinction, but I think reality doesn't sort itself that way. Strictly, the means to produce is the factory, the land, something tangible that effects transformation, while money is just "finance". Capitalists are owners, though, and capitalism is ownerism. "Capital" is conventionally just money.

lovich 9mo ago

Why is it that every year we are capable of producing more, but we keep asking people to accept less? Like how is “we can replace all workers with AI agents” not compatible with “we can extract enough wealth from the new profitability to sustain everyone at the current rate as a service(UBI)” If we’re more productive after replacing everyone with machines then why can’t we just cover everyone’s basic(victuals/housing/basic utilities+internet) needs?

lazide 9mo ago
Until people stand up and start setting things on fire, what else do you think is going to happen?
- GolfPopper 9mo ago
  As JFK said, "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable."
  - lovich 9mo ago
    Who cares what he said? He’s not even the top billing at the Kennedy center anymore /s
nerdponx 9mo ago
I'm not sure if you're being facetious, but the answer is that the same mechanism that incentivizes all of this innovation prevents the gains from being distributed evenly. You can get fabulously wealthy if you can be an early mover in bringing important new technology to the market. But then you get to keep that wealth and you don't have to share it with anybody if you don't want to. So that's what ends up happening. There's probably a correct balance somewhere between incentivizing innovation and redistributing income and/or wealth, but then it's hard to preserve that balance because the wealth seekers always have an incentive to lobby for favorable policies, manipulate markets, etc. I do not believe that we as a society have managed to figure out the necessary institutions that could preserve such a balance on a multigenerational time scale.

kiba 9mo ago

LVT is AI proof. Severance taxes taking care of diminishing natural resources such as oil and the revenue can then be reinvested in the economy.