Only 10k?

That should be the deposit.

But I guess anything is a step forward - as it is we're actually paying people for their bad decisions.

Yes.

1.) UBI is stupid and is just a "new form" of communism (insert another fancy word here if the term communism offends you, doesn't really matter what you call it, it's nothing more then giving to those based on need instead of based on earning it). It'll destroy ambition and be horrible for any country that implements it but it's a great way for politicians to buy votes so will probably happen at some point in our lifetime.

2.) The reason why all of your jobs exist in your example, is because of technology destroying farming jobs. At one point around 90% of Americans were farmers, now it's under 2%. That's because technology was able to replace inefficient work with more efficient work (aka fertilizer/roundup/giant tractors/etc.). The same thing will happen to a lot of jobs now, and will happen to a lot of jobs in 10 years, 20 years, and 100 years from now.

That truck driver in your example might transition to a plumber. Or maybe he'll work on/repair trucks. Or maybe he'll transition to a totally new industry/job that isn't even created yet. When I was a kid people asked me what I wanted to do for a living and guess what, I never said online poker player because 25 years ago that job didn't even exist. How was I suppose to guess that it'd be created, AND that I'd get into that line of work.



Life will go on. The giant social welfare state we've created will continue to grow, and eventually we'll suffer the consequences of overspending/supporting the lazy/destroying ambition. But most likely it'll take decades and when it does happen we'll probably just slowly slip from 'MURICA #1 to america #9 or #6 etc. etc.

The neural programming of our brains is ridiculously complex, and thus far we have been quite bad at figuring it out (look at our chemical solutions to psychological problems). Additionally, advances in physical robotics have occurred at a snail's pace when compared with the advancement of things like the abstract reasoning in purely digital AI. To think we will be able to create robots which can act with the amazing degree of human subtlety, when we can't even solve the problem of vacuuming the carpet robotically (Roomba can't move the coffee table), is a long way off imo.

So, given that I agree with Clayton that most of the jobs Strasser listed require a deeper human interaction, I think this points to physical reality being relatively safe from a robot invasion any time soon.

Now, if, on the other hand, those purely digital AIs keep advancing as fast as they are... oh, wait, that's the plot of The Martix... but at least UBIers on their recliners is less dystopian than being naked in a feeding cell.

The counter argument to this and the big difference people think "this time is different" is because for most of human history we've been improving our labor abilities. It started with sticks, hammers, horses, cotton gin, cars, trains, assembly line robots etc. The reason 90% of farming jobs disappeared is because tractors/machines could be leveraged to do the manual labor of hundreds of workers.

A lot of these workers moved to white collar jobs that leveraged their brains not their muscles. Now beginning with the invention of the computer we finally have a way to improve our cognitive abilities. Once a sufficiently smart AI comes along that can do the cognitive work of a large number of people, a large % of the population becomes completely skill-less / worthless in terms of their ability to add value to society. All a human has is their brain and their body. Once a robot can use both better what use is the human? Of course SOME jobs will never go away, but there's only so many pop stars, celebrities, pro athletes, robot managers/repairmen that are needed. Large industries like doctors/lawyers/drivers/engineers/programmers are all in danger of being replaced by machines eventually.

Not saying I agree with the above, but that's pretty much the argument.

Think a step ahead. Give people UBI and what do you think will people spend it on? Health care ???, nice try . So after they bought a new flat screen TV and then have no money left to fix their tooth, what now?
You're back at where you've been before, but more TV's sold

You're not solving a problem, you're pushing the responsibility somewhere else. The payment for sterilization might solve the problem, but politically hard to enforce (altho you can argue nobody gets forced lol).

It's not our place to tell them where to spend their UBI... But it's also not our problem if they can't pay for food/housing/etc. Seriously if we give you 15k a year to live on and you find yourself broke and hungry you can literally starve to death if you don't feel like working. As long as it's possible to survive on UBI at a level that approximates 15k annual earnings today we don't have to do food stamps, section 8, or any other welfare program any longer.

Healthcare was always supposed to be a public service like fire departments, police, roads, etc etc. It's a completely inelastic good that has literally infinite demand. Rationing is the only solution that has any prayer of working to keep it's cost under control. The free market is the right answer for 90%+ of things we consume... Products whose consumption isn't optional and have no alternatives are one of the places where government should be 100% in control. Not being able to see that is one of the reasons why Libertarians are silly ideologues instead of being mostly right.

I'm strongly in favor of universal health care, with a private system also available in which you get the public system cost as a rebate.

As for the poors, someone will always end up owning someone else. While people are free, some will make bad choices, some good. Some will want to breed and spend while other will want to save. Some will want things now and some will be happy to lend to those who wants things now, in order to have more later. Some will invest wisely, others will be taken by conmen. The money and power will always flow to the smarter and more disciplined. You can't solve this problem without total control over people. And then you have the problem of who does the controlling, and how - see 1950s-1990s China, Russia, etc. There's no solution, only marginal mitigation. Attempting to solve it doesn't work.

Great quote from Margin Call ("there'll always be same number")

Well, you can make 100% the same argument as you make and remove UBI.

A dummy who will spend 90% of $500 on garbage, will do the same with $1,5k. He'll just buy more garbage. Somebody who can't find a way to add $1k worth of value to another persons life, well, maybe ...

As long as you will not let (the dumb) people starve to death on the street, you might as well control what you give instead of subsidizing phones, beer, and flat-screen TVs. Government inefficiencies are an issue on their own, nobody will argue with you about that fact.

Universal + private is basically the case in literally every country in the world.

There is no "solution" to the problem in itself (yes, somebody will always play a number on somebody else), but the health of the population/society can be increased from a macro perspective.

No you can't. In a future where there are DEFINITELY less jobs than there are people some people are going to have to sit out on paying work. If you don't provide those people with at least subsistence they will get nasty in a hurry.

There will always be winners and losers. What to do with the losers is an old problem without any good solutions. There's a reason why I'm in favor of offering 15k to get sterilized lol.

I also picked 15k a year for UBI because I think it's a small enough amount of money that people will still be motivated to go look for work... But it's a large enough amount of money that assuming no kids people should be able to live a bland acceptable sort of life with no kids.

Obv we aren't going to give anyone 15k as a lump sum. The money comes weekly ldo. Might not be the worst idea to make it come daily if technology lets us do that with relatively little in the way of transaction costs.

Disagree. On a micro level, of course, there's always a bottom of society no matter how rich the country is. On a macro level (society vs society) there are obviously better and worse solutions.

Some do control better than others. There's a reason certain races/tribes/societies/countries rule the world at certain times and others not.

Well, if more people are without work, you have more people on welfare. That's fine, you just call it UBI.

The amount of welfare is not determined by what people think is "fair". Many people forget that some a$$hole has to produce value AND you have to be able to take from them without them stopping to produce in your community/state/country.
If there is no money, some new-born babies have to sleep on paper (Brazil), while you can ask every Brazilian and they say it's a shame...yet it is what it is.
Or in other words, if 15k/year welfare was possible, you'd have it already.

In case you are in favor of immigration, you'll start paying for the whole world or pay 15k to everybody in the world not wanting babies

Discussing ideas is all good, everybody can agree in theory, but there's a reason why certain things just won't happen.

Mandatory military service in exchange for ubi?

Bored, what's up with this sterilization thing? Sounds a bit creepy. You think some people just shouldn't have the ability to procreate? Drain on resources?

Funny how the folks studying this subject for a living don't have concrete answers yet we have posters here opining authoritatively as though they have done the research themselves. The claims about UBI reducing incentive to work, destroying ambition, leading to vice & degeneracy, etc. don't jive with the data we have. There have been at least 14 countries conducting UBI experiments, three of which provided unconditional UBI to participants.

Canada gave 10,000 people a $500/month stipend for five years. The only two groups who worked less were women taking maternity leave and young males (high school completion rates increased so it's likely the young males weren't working because they were attending school).

India ran a three year study where they gave 6,000 people ~$4.50/month, about 40% of one's monthly nut in rural India. Results included:

- 52% of participating households felt their income could satisfy their food expenditure at the beginning of the study. After six months the number rose to 78% of participants
- 66% of girls of secondary school age in participating villages attended school while attendance for the same age cohort in the control villages was only 36%
- 25% increase in the number of girls with normal weight for their age versus a 12% increase for the control group
- Qualitative shift in foods purchased with substantial increased purchases of vegetables, eggs, fruits, milk, fish, and meat.
- No increase in alcohol consumption
- Incomes for participants rose 21% while incomes for the control group rose 9%
- Reduced incidence of illness
- People receiving the stipend were 300% more likely to start a business
- Participating households had a 32% greater chance of working more hours than the control group
- At the start of the study less than 40% of participating households considered themselves farmers, but after 12 months that figure rose to over 62%.
- 34% increase in the number of wells, 48% increase in the number of ploughs
- ~40% increase in the quantity of livestock, compared to a ~19% decrease for the control group

Since 2011 Kenya has been conducting an unconditional cash transfer experiment where participants receive ~$1000/year via MPesa. Findings so far:

- Increased consumption in the form of durable good purchases and investment in self-employment activities
- Increased expenditure on food in proportion to non-durable expenditure increases
- Increased expenditure on healthcare and education more than proportionally to non-durable expenditure
- No increase in alcohol or tobacco consumption
- Households that received the stipend in a lump sum often invested in things like metal roofs for their homes, while those who received a monthly payment struggled to save their transfers
- Cortisol levels were lowest in households receiving lump sum transfers and when transfers were made to the wife rather than the husband


Obviously these kinds of studies are really complex and imperfect, but dismissing the concept of UBI with the temerity displayed by some posters seems foolish given their presumptions are at odds with the way UBI has panned out in praxis.

I'm on your team when it comes to UBI not being bad, and I like that you're bringing data, but your studies seem really flawed.

$500/month in Canada is nothing. It doesn't negate the need to work in any way. It's like a little pay rise of $3/hour.

Similarly, $5/month in India isn't a test of UBI either. It doesn't negate the need to work and it doesn't make them not desperately poor and wanting to improve their lot any more.

Again, we're talking about a world where there aren't jobs or ways to increase their wealth and improve their life even if they wanted them. People are trapped in what they have with no chance for improvement except investment or gambling. Social mobility dies.

A more fitting test of future UBI - where your needs are taken care of rather than getting a tiny pay boost - is what happens to lottery winners. Most of them fall apart.

http://time.com/4176128/powerball-ja...ttery-winners/
That last statistic is pretty shocking. Without regular activity to generate income, many people get bored and directionless and lost the plot. So there is potentially something to the criticisms of UBI.

Tooth,

I'm not sure about that lottery anecdote. From my observation (I've played a lot of poker at casinos) people who play the lottery are already more prone to terrible financial and life decisions, as well as depression, alcoholism, and, ultimately, suicide. You kind of inherently have to have a dysfunctional personality and be bad at math to want to play the lottery. Their thesis of the lottery corrupting people could be right anyway, but wanted to point out that they might be thinking about it backwards.

UBI is just empty talk. Market would promptly inflationary price in long run UBI. UBI convertible only to food and healthcare is a possible solution. But having real assets priced out of any UBI range (housing f.e.) UBU is far away from quality of life as you CAN imagine...

claiming lottery winners are a better test of UBI than an india study of 40% UBI is just hilariously flawed, I mean come on.

What do you think the world will look like in 20-30 years when robots are making everything? It'll be more like a today's millionaire's life than today's subsistence hobo life, imo.

Again, UBI that's 40% or less of what you need for subsistence is not going to be a test of UBI, any more than lottery winners are. Because you still need to work just to survive. So nothing has really changed and it hasn't invalidated the claims about what will happen if people get enough to not need to work.

Single moms on a welfare check that provides enough to live (for example in many Western countries) are probably a better test of UBI. Or even better, immigrant populations in say, Europe, who get free housing and a reasonable amount of free welfare, and who are unqualified for nearly all jobs (the future scenario we're talking about). How's that working out for them?

there is a massive difference between getting freerolled food/housing and getting freerolled literally anything you could ever desire (and the related stress of family/friends coming after that money)

40% is substantive. covers at least one major staple.

Yes there is. The second is a superset of the first, and in the second, you have far less reason to be unhappy or resentful. And far more paths to happy, financially secure states if you have the tiny bit of wherewithal to take them.

CBorders is on the right track with real world evidence though. It's just that the data provided is irrelevant, as it's a test of tiny non-sufficient income supplement rather than the kind of non-work sustaining UBI we're talking about. Surely there must be other data.

To my knowledge it's mostly been experimented on small populations so far, with the pay being sort of small and the populations being sort of homogeneous. I'm sure in the next decade or two we'll see some much larger trials that we will be able to draw more defined observations from. I think that's why it's a big hubbub right now: A lot of the dialogue is based on conjecture and hypothetical scenarios; it's not like all of Asia provided 18k/year or whatever for a few decades and we can look at some concrete data trends.

It is irrelevant. If UBI is large enough to be relevant it is large enough to be priced in into the market making UBI utility marginal

Definitely not. I don't know the rules for aids. Take extreme cases, afaik it's illegal (?) to have sex with your brother/daughter (even if adult). Why? Don't tell me because it says so in the bible

I let you figure out why and then apply that same reason to possibly a bigger group. Then you draw the line.

The next level is to not legally force people to not procreate, but incentivize them not to. That can include people with serious genetic defects. From a societal health perspective, it's absolutely insane not to do this.
On the other side you have the value of freedom, so these values are at play here.

China's one-child policy is also another measure.

The idea in itself is not creepy at all. It's done on dogs all the time. Yes, save me the jokes .

Where you draw the line is important.