FWIS3

There's no chance of that happening in the US in the foreseeable future.

But I don't think the concept is a horrible idea. I'm very much in favor of federal programs that provide support for people who are below the poverty line. Those programs effectively give people money. The standard tax deduction and income tax credit do the same. Replacing all the various poverty-related assistance programs with a UBI has the benefit of reducing bureaucracy.

But it won't happen so don't lose sleep over it.

vendic - How is this any different than your belief that everyone should be fed, housed and given medical care?

Depends a lot on how the implement it and what else goes along with it.

If they run it like a Negative Income Tax, include some sort of federal service, limit what sort of credits can be spent on certain things (e.g. not spending it all on drugs), decriminalizing drugs and regulating them through medical or religious settings, changing culture to reduce Cognitive Dissonance of not working vs. the so-called "Protestant Work Ethic", executing religionists and racists who try to foment bigotry against those on the NIT/UBI, stuff like that.

Makes it way too complex.
In poor areas, everyone is now going to get money. So now there is great opportunity for "protection schemes".
If you require service for minimum pay, that is forced labor.
If you give it without requiring service that will effectively kill incentive to work.

This idea is like the dole in Australia without any checks and balances. Here is money for free. You are not required to do anything to get it. Society has never evolved so that there can be vast numbers of people just sponging off others...ok, except religion. People have always contributed to society in some way or they were freeloaders.

This is a nightmare waiting to happen. The basic idea came about because of the view that robots and AI will take over most jobs, thus freeing people to do what they want but they cannot survive without income. So a basic income was thought to fix this.

vendic wrote:Makes it way too complex.
In poor areas, everyone is now going to get money. So now there is great opportunity for "protection schemes".
If you require service for minimum pay, that is forced labor.
If you give it without requiring service that will effectively kill incentive to work.

This idea is like the dole in Australia without any checks and balances. Here is money for free. You are not required to do anything to get it. Society has never evolved so that there can be vast numbers of people just sponging off others...ok, except religion. People have always contributed to society in some way or they were freeloaders.

This is a nightmare waiting to happen. The basic idea came about because of the view that robots and AI will take over most jobs, thus freeing people to do what they want but they cannot survive without income. So a basic income was thought to fix this.

Are you confusing "service requirement" with "work requirement"? A work requirement is forcing people to perform some labor in exchange for the UBI. A "service requirement" could be a form of conscription or completely voluntary, but service would only be for a limited term of service. A service requirement would act as a form of eligibility, a prerequisite, as opposed to being an ongoing requirement, unlike work.

More importantly, a service requirement created a shared, cultural experience and teaches people basic adulting and civics beyond that taught in high school. It's a method of indoctrinating and ingraining a shared culture. Of course, that culture could be hateful racism, or it could inculcate citizens to tolerance and promote community.

As for an actual work requirement, it's not necessarily a bad idea, depending on how it's implemented. It's only "forced labor" if it's compulsory. If people have the choice to find a job or not work and rely on relatives, charity or starve, that's no different than the human experience for the last few hundred thousand years.

Not sure what you mean about religion. Priests generally get paid for doing work. Some religions promote charity and have had laws regarding giving a portion of their produce to the poor. Which did you mean?

Can you explain what you mean by "protection schemes"?

From what I can tell around the internet, universal basic income is what hippie kids really push these days as it's pretty clear communism doesn't work.

It's going to be a lot of years before we implement UBI in the U.S. Our form of the dole i.e. "Welfare" is almost universally despised by the conservative community. Even the ones who are on it. Just read the latest headlines about "welfare queens".

What I think may happen is that we will change what we think deserves being compensated for. Currently we have a fairly standard concept of what "work" is for the average person. I think that will start to change if we see a wholesale replacement of people with robots or interactive interfaces.

At some point society will have to change it's definition of what contributing to society really means. For example, maybe we should start paying parents a bonus for not raising a hooligan? Or paying children a salary for successfully attending school?

We already do some of this with support for the arts. Currently, people define themselves very strongly by what they do or what work they perform. Which means paying them for not being something or doing something won't work.

Personally I think this will lead to creating a generation of entitled snowflakes.
Some would argue that has already happened. lol

vendic wrote:Personally I think this will lead to creating a generation of entitled snowflakes.
Some would argue that has already happened. lol

too late.

SciFiFisher wrote:

vendic wrote:Personally I think this will lead to creating a generation of entitled snowflakes.
Some would argue that has already happened. lol

too late.

Yeah, where would the old people be if they couldn't complain about the entitlement of kids today?

Rommie wrote:

SciFiFisher wrote:

vendic wrote:Personally I think this will lead to creating a generation of entitled snowflakes.
Some would argue that has already happened. lol

too late.

Yeah, where would the old people be if they couldn't complain about the entitlement of kids today?

Ouch!!!
Old guy just got triggered!

Acceleration of automation will make it necessary.

Think of it as having a rich dad that everyone pays tax to.

It might. The world will be a vastly different place then.
I just can't see it happening inn my lifetime.
Unless I develop AGI.

SciFiFisher wrote:It's going to be a lot of years before we implement UBI in the U.S. Our form of the dole i.e. "Welfare" is almost universally despised by the conservative community. Even the ones who are on it. Just read the latest headlines about "welfare queens".

What I think may happen is that we will change what we think deserves being compensated for. Currently we have a fairly standard concept of what "work" is for the average person. I think that will start to change if we see a wholesale replacement of people with robots or interactive interfaces.

At some point society will have to change it's definition of what contributing to society really means. For example, maybe we should start paying parents a bonus for not raising a hooligan? Or paying children a salary for successfully attending school?

We already do some of this with support for the arts. Currently, people define themselves very strongly by what they do or what work they perform. Which means paying them for not being something or doing something won't work.

They have changed the meaning of what "contributing to society" means, for the worse. It used to mean someone who worked. Now, it only refers to people who work certain jobs and blacklists other jobs. The arts have been fighting this for a long time, despite being the epitome of capitalism. Most of the service economy is out - burger flippers don't deserve to live much less get paid a living wage. The pinkification of job collars is reducing the number of jobs men consider manly, and thus the number of jobs they consider worthy of receiving adequate compensation. Some extend this to include voting rights. Some would extend this to giving special consideration to those who create jobs, or to those who are paid a lot, regardless of how many jobs they create or destroy.