[memeCrasher]

I can already tell you how and why it will be bad:

By living on a basic income provided to you by the government, you become dependent. That dependency is a weakness that gives the government greater power over you. What recourse do you have if the government removes your basic income? If we eliminate all other forms of income, say via automation, so there are no jobs you could turn to - what choice do you have? Go on to a rural agrarian existence, or die?

What delightful power and leverage a basic income gives the government over its population.

[petra]

Automation fully reduces the power of citizens, by making them economically useless, not BI.

It's probably the thing we need to fight, somehow.

[neon_electro]

Do you believe automation can have no net benefit for society, then? Is there no future where increasingly all of the basic needs of people can be taken care of by automation, freeing up humans to do creative work?

I would like to understand your viewpoint.

[dagss]

The point is I think: Problem is somebody invests in the automation (algorithms and hardware) and then own all the results from the automation.

You seem to assume that the proceeds from automation would be evenly distributed. Why would it? The reason most people today can eat is because they (or people close to them) are needed as a workforce.

In the past once things got too bad then people went on strike etc. and taxes were raised and wages improved. But if the basic need of the robot-owners are met without any humans working for them, strikes fail to be efficient. One can only trust in the benevolence of the people owning the capital and the inertia in the current laws and the democractic system to keep things somewhat stable...

[icebraining]

Why would the people owning the capital even invest in those robots if most people won't be able to afford the things made by them?

[TheSpiceIsLife]

I think the idea is that the scenario where most people can't afford to purchase goods is going to creep up on us.

[nine_k]

They only would need to sell to other robot owners. In a borderline case, a small group could own and operate a whole tree of technology required for a modern living standard, like a self-sufficient farm that buys nothing from the outside.

While possible, this is usually not efficient, though.

[louithethrid]

We are medieval creatures, we long for a purpose, no matter how small, no matter how trivial. If the machines take the purpose, all the fruit-baskets in the world wont fill that hole.

[neon_electro]

Is "machines taking all the purpose" a logical conclusion? I don't see a future where machines will create all of the popular culture in the world. I choose to support human-powered culture now, and increasing automation would not change my mind on that.

A UBI would enable humans to do more work that society either can't or won't automate. Care of other humans is an example. Yes, machines may be able to take on some of that role, but never all of it.

[icebraining]

Do you think Usain Bolt considers his life meaningless because a car is so much faster than him?

[louithethrid]

If that car would race againist him every race - yes.

[gnaritas]

Purpose can be found in many things unrelated to wage labor.

[gnaritas]

> freeing up humans

What a nice euphemism for unemployment, because that's what it does.

[dTal]

Some might consider "employment" a euphemism for slavery. It goes both ways.

[etplayer]

Automation certainly can benefit society (the majority of whom are workers), but in the way in which it is used at the moment does not benefit them in the fullest sense; they can take advantage of lower prices, but they can't take advantage of having much more free time to pursue creative hobbies, science, education and entertainment.

There are at least two possible solutions offered; the first is UBI in which everyone gets sufficient money to live off. Where exactly this money comes from and from what profits is up for question, and raises interesting questions about profitability in industries where there is higher organic composition of capital. The second option is one in which automation isn't used for profit at all, it is used simply to reduce working hours via ceasing commodity production and instead only the manufacture of use-values. In my opinion this second option (frequently called Socialism, endorsed by the likes of George Orwell, Einstein, Oscar Wilde, Marx and Engels) leads the way to an even greater emancipation and heightened productive capacity of society, given that there would no longer be any need to ensure high employment (high employment across industries is necessary for workers to buy back the products that they make, which generates profit). The second option also deals quite well with the psychological issues of living in a commodity-producing society brought up by the likes of Marcuse and Adorno.

Although the UBI solution to the problem of rising automation has rightfully earned the interest of many, I do not believe it goes far enough to ensure a more free, equitable and democratic society for all.

Edit: Regarding UBI, what is the incentive to stop companies from "offloading" the duty to pay a fair wage onto the state? I'm not really up to scratch on UBI details, so a response would be appreciated.

[nine_k]

The problem with socialism without free market is that it has been tried many times, and it drastically lowers productivity, leading to deficits. People start spending their copious free time in lines waiting for the rare and insufficient goods to arrive. If you think USSR was long ago and this time it will be different, look at Venezuela.

[etplayer]

This was not a problem with Socialism, it was a problem with the form of economic planning used. We must also bear in mind that there are forms such as market Socialism. Neither the USSR nor Venezuela paid attention to cybernetic planning; scientists in the USSR were repeatedly shut down by bureaucrats for suggesting it.

There exist modern planning methods, though still academic, such as those elaborated by Cockshott and Cottrell in Towards a New Socialism, it's worth a look if you haven't seen it already.

Nobody is suggesting rigid five year plans any more.

[neon_electro]

Agreed on your last point, far more than UBI is needed to achieve a "more free, equitable, and democratic society for all".

[p1esk]

Currently I have to pay the government if I work (taxes). If I don't pay, I go to jail. So my only other choice is not work and go on "rural agrarian existence, or die".

So, let's see, work and pay the man, or don't work and the man pays you, hmmm...

[adventured]

One is total dependency in which you can't exist without the government giving you an income. The other is the government being dependent on you and taking part of your income as their revenue source. In the first case, you're the dependent; in the second case, the government is the dependent.

Further, keeping with your example, it's not: don't work and the man pays you. It's: don't work and become entirely owned by and dependent on the man (who is the source of everything you have).

[gnaritas]

You're forgetting something, you can still choose to work and collect the basic income; that's rather the point. BI does not make you dependent on government, it simply allows you the option, which by the way gives you more control in your life as it allows you a safety net thus allowing you to take more chances in your pursuit of work because you can now turn down bad work.

A lot more people would be taking a crack at running their own small businesses with such a safety net in place.

[p1esk]

You will be no more "owned by and dependent on" the government than you are on whoever pays you salary right now.

[sjruckle]

I'd rather be dependent on someone I can talk to, and whose personal wealth is a function of my ability to produce than the State who I have basically no influence over. Both ultimately have their own interests at heart, but the first situation is more likely to turn out better for me if I do good work.

[p1esk]

Sooner or later your "good work" will be automated. The choice will be not "work or don't work", but "govern or be governed".

So, pretty much same as now, only you will have more freedom if you're OK with being governed.

[olleromam91]

Or less freedom. Just depends on how you look at it.

[louithethrid]

Yeah, but that guy rather wants you replaced with a robot.

[Matumio]

I hear this "dependency" argument over and over again, and it rings so very wrong in my ears. Survival depends on so many other people. Just ignore the flow of money for a moment and consider who depends on whose work most.

UBI is discussed mainly as an alternative means-tested welfare (at least in Europe). Which of the two makes you feel more dependent on government if companies don't offer you enough for your labour: A) you have to explain to some official that you are in need, prove that you are actively looking for work, open your financial situation and report what you are doing; if you don't comply with their suggestions your benefits will be cut; or B) you have an unconditional right to the money, they don't get to judge your situation, and you won't lose the money if you find paid work.

In addition, the assumption that government will somehow impose its own will against the majority of citizen and cannot be controlled implies that democracy is corrupt, in which case there is no point to debate its policies.

[SN76477]

I like the ideas of negative income tax a lot more, we can help people live better, we can even give some people money, but we cannot ignore effort.

[adventured]

A proper income tax credit system, which adjusts based on income, is also the solution to eliminating the regressive, backward minimum wage approach that simultaneously punishes low skill labor and small businesses the higher you raise it.

It's also vastly superior to the basic income, which is extremely regressive as it gives money to everyone, including the very well-off top 1/3.

[icebraining]

This is a bit of a silly conversation. UBI would obviously have to come with a restructuring of the tax levels, so UBI and Negative Income Tax are mostly the same in terms of outcomes. The difference is in presentation.

By the way, negative income tax is not the same as a tax credit. That's quite different, since a tax credit can only be offset against taxes you owe, and is therefore very regressive, since the poor already pay little income taxes.

[nnfy]

That is a striking perspective. While I was already hesitant about UBI, I had never considered that it effectively expands the power of the government.

[Gargoyle]

There's no reason that government can't be vastly reduced in a world that is capable of sustaining UBI. The only way UBI works is with massive increases in automation and productivity. At that point, why is a large, powerful government needed?

And further to the point, why can't collection of taxes and distribution of UBI be fully automated, taken away from governments altogether?