[jonkho]

I imagine for most people, and I’m talking about the ones that would continue keep at their their existing job, if there was an extra $2000/month spare cash coming in or $4000 for a couple, it wouldn’t be a difficult stretch of imagination to say they would spend the money on the two most immediately obvious things: 1) upgrade their car 2) upgrade their shelter. If everyone is now affording a new $1000/month car payment and a $2000/month in extra rent budget, how would this ultimately not lead to people trying to outbid each other and cause inflation, especially rent? Wouldn’t rent or mortgage payments essentially rise to absorb this new quantity of money? Would this be essentially a transfer of wealth to landlords?

[ajsnigrutin]

First of all, if ~50% of people work in a country (from age 0 to pensioners), they continued to work, and got 2k extra 'free money', they'd have to pay more than those 2k back in taxes, to cover the 2k for people who don't work at all.

If we somehow took 2k/person/month from some nonexisting trillionaire, who has the money to finance it for everyone, then probably yes, prices would go up, because everybody has now 2k/month more to spend.

[jonkho]

If the average worker had to pay for those that didn’t via increased taxes of $1000 a month (to balance that budget), I cannot see that happening without a revolt. Would you even agree to pay an extra $500 per month in taxes to pay for someone else’s living expenses? Most workers are living almost paycheck to paycheck as is.

[andarleen]

Not if the extra “free” money are covered by increased productivity due to automation, as it happened over the past decades. Typically the main beneficiaries from increased productivity are shareholders or company founders, and that is why money gets clogged in a few hands. Workers should also benefit more from from it as it is also their productivity that grew 10x along with that of the company. So we are not really talking about free money, we are talking about money you are entitled to anyway. Sure it is your company that invested in new tech to grow productivity, but it is the society as a whole that enabled it - try making robots or new tech in a society ridden by unemployment, inequality, civil unrest and so on. Furthermore, UBI would reduce corporate socialism and get us back to a free flow of capital, as the wealth would be fairly spread across society.

[luckylion]

The issue is that we all already benefit from increased automation and new technologies. We all carry computers with us with powerful batteries and access to the internet.

It's the (much rarer) high-skill workers whose productivity has shot through the roof by using technology as leverage. The individual low-skill worker's productivity hasn't really increased by a lot, unless you say "we've built a robot that does 95% of the work, but let's attribute all of the output to the remaining 3 humans".

> Furthermore, UBI would reduce corporate socialism and get us back to a free flow of capital, as the wealth would be fairly spread across society.

The issue with "fair" is that it's very subjective. Some may say "it's fair when everyone has the same", others may argue that it's unfair when somebody who works hard gets the same as someone who chooses not to work at all.

[andarleen]

UBI doesn't mean we all get the same - it just means none of us starve, and can live with dignity no matter what we do ...or don't do.

We can explore a different mindset where a slice of tech improvements and automation also benefit us as a society in that sense. Is it really that bad a thought that the goal of tech is to finance a society where no one is left without food and basic, decent, shelter? In the sense that we take a radical turn where we don't motivate people through fear but rather through need? The need of having more than just food or shelter as oppose to the the fear of starving or homelessness? Why does it have to be a struggle for so many when we can just build tech that covers basic needs.

[luckylion]

> UBI doesn't mean we all get the same - it just means none of us starve, and can live with dignity no matter what we do ...or don't do.

By that definition, most of Europe has UBI and then some ;)

> Is it really that bad a thought that the goal of tech is to finance a society where no one is left without food and basic, decent, shelter?

That's a very US-centric view. Food insecurity is a solved problem in Europe and has been for decades. Basic, decent shelter? How about 450sqft, utilities included and we'll buy you a TV, throw in free health care, free higher education and 400€ a month in cash? Yet still, people will claim that this does not allow for genuine self-actualization because somebody else will have 900sqft and two TVs or a car.

> Why does it have to be a struggle for so many when we can just build tech that covers basic needs.

Because people don't want to be limited to basic needs, they want what they see others having. They want smartphones, microwaves, computers, internet, entertainment, transportation etc. And as society, we still need somebody to actually create all of that and keep it running. Incentivizing opting out of contribution is, from society's perspective, counter-productive, and the more you redistribute, the more you encourage the contributing members to leave.

Consider this: Germany is at or near the top for total taxation of working individuals. At the same time, top salaries for high-skilled workers are significantly lower than in the US.

Say we add some more taxes to redistribute more towards the unemployed and remove the rest of incentive to work for low-skilled workers. We'll increase the number of people opting to not work, further increasing the required taxes on those that do. And we'll increase the earning-gap for high-skilled workers compared to e.g. the US, increasing the reward of emigration for that group. That's a vicious circle and it's going to be hard to stop once it reinforces itself.

[andarleen]

These all are very interesting points, but I think most are centred around unemployment benefits, rather than UBI.

This pandemic made me realise how fortunate we are for living in Europe - literally any part of the eu, has done a better job at helping people and making sure they dont starve, compared to the US. Thats a great observation! Europe is indeed very close to UBI. The only issue is it finances it through more taxes on an individual’s output and is not universal.

People who want more than basics can demand it as much as they want. Thats not UBI, thats lazy and scrounging. Go get a job. Period.

The point you are making re even more taxation is also spot on - that is why my view is that instead of taxing current workers even more we instead invest in tech that leads to even more productivity growth and we tax the difference in that new productivity gain.

I dread more taxation, as it usually means more taxes for us, less for those who disproportionately benefit from increases in tech and automation, due to the current economic system.

For example if BMW automates 10x more of their assembly lines, then tax the gain in productivity but NOT at a level where it punishes said growth, rather at a level where both BMW and the taxman are happy. Money go into a UBI pot much like norway’s sovereign investment fund.

Tech can be treated like a natural resource that we all own, but none of us have exclusive rights over it, while those who successfully exploit it will get more of the pie.

Apply the same to all sorts of manufacturing, agriculture and anything else that can be automated.

The money in that pot go to everyone in the country, and this is where UBI is radically different from unemployment benefits. Everyone gets a share, meaning those already in employment will get a tax cut and those not in employment don't get the stigma associated with benefits.

Dont worry about people immigrating to the us - the very workers we automate out of jobs dread us highly skilled immigrants, as they dint see the benefits from our work - more than taking pictures with shiny new iphones - and they want us to stay out, by voting for Trump.

TL;DR I guess I have a few random ideas about an ideal world where we use tech for building a star trek like society, where basics are no longer an issue and all we do is advance our society.

[andarleen]

A transfer of wealth would indeed be an issue. But I am wondering, would UBI give more people the option to live outside large cities, given that the scarcity of income is no longer an issue? And as such the demand for rent would go down? Will try and comment less, because debate on HN gets heavily penalised unless it conforms to certain patterns. But yeah UBI and inflation / transfers of wealth are an interesting topic.

[luckylion]

Germany might be an example to look at this. We have welfare that's paid out wherever you live. It's conditional in so far that it's expected that you look for a job and aren't rich, but that's about it. It has a fixed money component (~400€/month) and covers rent (up to some amount that's set locally, depending on the local rent prices), utilities, health insurance etc directly.

Therefore, if you're okay with the amount of money you'd get, you'd probably be better off if you're not living in a large city, because, rent aside, city living is a bit more expensive. Also, considering that you're supposed to look for work, living in a city (where the jobs are, if they are anywhere) would increase the chances of you being expected to take a job, which you wouldn't have to in more rural areas.

People still move to the cities, even though the job market isn't promising for low-skill workers there either.

There are certainly many reasons, but some I believe to be involved: it's harder to get an apartment when you're on social benefits (even more so if not in the community you're currently living in), it's harder to live in a rural area if you don't have a car (which you'll likely not be able to buy while on benefits), few people have the means to move when money is tight.

[andarleen]

I have to read more on how this works in Germany, but the idea of UBI would be that everyone would get 400 eur. I know that is not possible right now without taxing individual income even more, and as such my view is we should come up with tech we can tax. I dont have the specific silver bullet for how it could work, but would it be possible to tax every robot that replaces a human worker? Or tax anything that 10x’s productivity in any field, but at a level where it still is very motivating for an investor to make that 10x investment by letting them keep 8x of the output?

[luckylion]

> Or tax anything that 10x’s productivity in any field, but at a level where it still is very motivating for an investor to make that 10x investment by letting them keep 8x of the output?

That'd only work on monopolies where the company would actually have a 1000% margin. For most things, you'll invest in some great new automation, but so will your competition. Now you've both increased productivity and if you try to cash in your 10x profits, your competitor will simply take 5x profits, massively undercut your prices and you'll be gone very soon. Productivity gains will typically lead to lower prices, that's why meat, milk etc is dirt cheap these days, if we still had food prices like in the 50ies but with today's productivity, any secret illuminati meetings of the 1% would see a lot more people arriving on tractors ;)