[stavros]

The solution to the lack of jobs should be a strong social safety net, but Americans don't want this because socialism, so what can you do? You can't really halt progress, and taxing the rich (or corporations) is very unpalatable there, so everyone is kind of stuck.

[daheza]

Things will continue to get worse until people get too desperate and extreme things happen. Then some politician will realize this can rise to power on this, delivering only a few small promises which will lightly alleviate the pressure and then we continue the cycle again.

[thayne]

You need more than just a strong social safety net. If people are losing well-paying jobs, even if the safety net covers their basic needs, their quality of living goes down, and they are potentially also losing something that gives them purpose and something to do with their time, not to mention losing a sense of independence.

Let's suppose that we did get UBI, and AI replaced most jobs. Then we'll basically just have the wealthy elite who control the resources and the AIs, and everyone else who live off of the basic income, with no real way to increase their wealth. That still sounds dystopian to me.

And to be clear, I am not at all opposed to a better safety net, but it should be a safety net, not a replacement for employment for most of the population.

Also, I don't think it is very likely that AI will replace everyone's job. But I am worried that it will result in shrinking the middle class, and increasing wealth disparity.

[stavros]

Switzerland pays you your previous salary for two years if you're laid off. "Covers your basic needs" isn't a ceiling for a social safety net.

[thayne]

And what happens after those two years if there just aren't enough jobs to be had?

[stavros]

"Stuff". What does it matter? I'm saying that the ceiling doesn't have to be "covers your basic needs". The fact that I haven't presented a full plan doesn't mean my point is invalid.