[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.

[luckylion]

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

I see where you're coming from, but that only works with stable prices. Prices aren't stable. Technology, automation lowers prices (or increases quality). Your 2020 BMW is nothing like the 1970ies BMW, and had you wanted a 2020 BMW in 1970, you would've had to pay outrageous sums of money.

> 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.

I believe the general issue is that it wouldn't be an issue at all if everyone was like you. The harsh reality is that most people are not. It's like anyone that read Kant and who felt the categorical imperative resonate with them, and they go "why do we need laws? I wouldn't act in a malicious way". We don't have laws to regulate their behavior, we have laws for the vast majority who didn't read Kant or don't care about what would happen to society if everybody acted like they do.

You likely live in somewhat of a bubble, your friends are usually similar to yourself etc. I have no doubt that a lot of your well-meaning ideas would work great with them. I also have little doubt that they won't with the population at large, because they are very different. It's like a bunch of people who read books talking about information dispersal, not keeping in mind that a large chunk of the target audience is functionally illiterate.

> 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.

It's the high-skilled workers in the US who compete with high-skilled immigration, it's a benefit for the low-skill workers, as we'd usually bring know-how and taxes, create jobs and generally improve society. The low-skill workers vote for Trump to stop low-skill immigration, they don't mind high-tech billionaires like Elon Musk or Peter Thiel.