Universal Basic Income Could Be Used To Soften Hit From AI Job Losses In UK, Minister Says (theguardian.com) 190
An anonymous reader quotes a report from the Guardian: The UK could introduce a universal basic income (UBI) to protect workers in industries that are being disrupted by AI, the investment minister Jason Stockwood has said. "Bumpy" changes to society caused by the introduction of the technology would mean there would have to be "some sort of concessionary arrangement with jobs that go immediately", Lord Stockwood said. The Labour peer told the Financial Times: "Undoubtedly we're going to have to think really carefully about how we soft-land those industries that go away, so some sort of [universal basic income], some sort of lifelong mechanism as well so people can retrain."
A universal basic income is not part of official government policy, but when asked whether people in government were considering the need for UBI, Stockwood told the FT: "People are definitely talking about it." [...] While he has previously been a vocal proponent of a wealth tax in the UK, Stockwood told the FT he had not repeated his calls for the government to go further on taxing the rich. However, he added: "If you make your money and the first thing you do is you speak to a tax adviser to ask: 'Where can we pay the lowest tax?' we don't want those people in this country, I'd suggest, because you're not committed to your communities and the long-term success in this country."
A universal basic income is not part of official government policy, but when asked whether people in government were considering the need for UBI, Stockwood told the FT: "People are definitely talking about it." [...] While he has previously been a vocal proponent of a wealth tax in the UK, Stockwood told the FT he had not repeated his calls for the government to go further on taxing the rich. However, he added: "If you make your money and the first thing you do is you speak to a tax adviser to ask: 'Where can we pay the lowest tax?' we don't want those people in this country, I'd suggest, because you're not committed to your communities and the long-term success in this country."
Unemployment (Score:2, Insightful)
Isn't that supposed to be covered by unemployment benefits?
Re: Unemployment (Score:5, Informative)
No, unemployment benefits deal with frictional unemployment. The short-term, between jobs kind.
Structural unemployment, which is what allegedly the llms are about to unleash has always been dealt with by a more complex policy.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes but if you're dealing with mass unemployment due to AI, why set up a UBI when you could expand unemployment instead?
Re: Unemployment (Score:4, Informative)
The theory behind UBI that I've heard is that it saves on administrative procedures. A lot.
Imagine UBI exists.
All the right wing nut talking points about "fraud" would disappear and all those billions spent on ICE and the like would go to the people.
Or some such.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, sure. As if it takes much in the way of administrative procedures to operate existing unemployment benefits programs at higher benefit levels and/or longer benefit durations (it doesn't).
Re: Unemployment (Score:5, Insightful)
One of the biggest problems with existing programs is fraud (ie people making claims who shouldnt). Because such fraud happens there is then a lot of money spent on enforcement, as well as entitlement checks for anyone applying.
With a UBI scheme everyone gets it by default, so there is much less fraud and no entitlement checks. Everyone simply gets it wether they're employed or not.
It also means that actually working is beneficial, because someone working will always be better off than someone relying solely on their UBI. Contrast that with the current system where someone on low paid work might actually be worse off, or could be claiming welfare anyway to top up their low salary (more complexity).
Re: (Score:2)
How does UBI stop me from claiming twice and for my dead grandma and for twelve people who don't exist?
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
By: you only get it once. ... because they have to make their own claims ... ooops. And as your grandma is dead, her UBI got suspended the day she died ... no idea what YOU want to claim about her.
And no one cares about your grandma or other twelve persons
Re: Unemployment (Score:3)
Re: Unemployment (Score:4, Funny)
This is quite rare. If it does happen it rarely happens for more than six months, because there are required reports where they tend to get caught. People don't get cash aid with a phone call, they have to actually come in to the office and documents are notarized, and there's a lot more scrutiny both before granting and afterwards with SIU investigations and the like based on third party reports of fraud. Social security benefit fraud of this type is even more rare because of the reports of death which are furnished to the SSA.
Re: (Score:3)
One of the biggest problems with existing programs is fraud (ie people making claims who shouldnt). Because such fraud happens there is then a lot of money spent on enforcement, as well as entitlement checks for anyone applying. With a UBI scheme everyone gets it by default, so there is much less fraud and no entitlement checks. Everyone simply gets it wether they're employed or not. It also means that actually working is beneficial, because someone working will always be better off than someone relying solely on their UBI. Contrast that with the current system where someone on low paid work might actually be worse off, or could be claiming welfare anyway to top up their low salary (more complexity).
I wonder how much less fraud there will be. As an example, a friend of my wife is working, yet has three autistic children she is receiving SSI payments for as well as support from her ex. The wife says that all three appear normal, well adjusted, and intelligent. The oldest one plans to start college in a couple years.
All strata of people commit fraud. Or is this just the standard Slashdot narrative that the honesty, morality, and basic decency of all humans is inversely proportional to how much money t
Re: Unemployment (Score:2)
The SSA has to make a determination of disability before SSI (or for that matter SSDI) is granted, so blame the SSA for getting it wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
The theory behind UBI that I've heard is that it saves on administrative procedures.
The other big advantage of a truly universal UBI, universal meaning literally everyone gets paid, is it avoids disincentives to find work. If you lose your unemployment by getting a job, that's a big disincentive, particularly if the new wage is close to the unemployment benefit.
IIRC, there was research showing that a large number of people found jobs right as their unemployment was ending. I would be surprised if this wasn't the case.
Re: Unemployment (Score:2)
Oh please learn what those words mean. Disability is something entirely different from structural unemployment.
Re: (Score:2)
In any case my point was simply that there already are government programs that support people long-term. How to do it is not unknown.
Re: Unemployment (Score:2, Troll)
Rural Americans have been supportint the policies that hurt them for a very long time now, so perhaps they have grounds to claim disability of a certain kind.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Unemployment (Score:2)
Anyone who actually knows anything about unemployment insurance and disability benefits knows they are very, very different things.
If you want people to read your link you should present an argument that makes sense first.
Re: (Score:2)
You are an ignorant idiot. How much do you spend on food every month? Google's ai crap says SNAP averages under $300, depending on your income.
And, of course, the Sec. of the Treasury says you can eat dinner for $3/day.
Re: Unemployment (Score:3)
UBI will instantly be countered by an uptick in inflation. The ultra-rich profit off of keeping poor people poor.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm just afraid most would rather just drink, smoke, fuck and play video games. Shrugs.
Most likely only those who already are doing exactly that on unemployment aid.
Or would you hand in a $10,000 per month job, to live from $800 UBI?
Re: (Score:3)
This is called "the dole", and didn't work in the US. We tried welfare, and it nearly bankrupted us.
Welfare isn't bankrupting us, it never was. Welfare is a very small portion of the national budget. If you look at the budget, the largest expenses are social security and medicare. Incidentally, those could be considered a form of basic income.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, we literally are the world police and that cost money. Protecting Europe cost money. Supporting our allies in Asia and Australia cost money.
Are you suggesting we just close up shop around the world, pulling back all our military resources, shrinking our military to a defensive stature only? It would most certainly save us a lot of money. I do wonder the global ramifications of such a move though. Our military does provide stability in many places and if we just left, a power vacuum would develop and th
Unemployment vs. Unemployable. (Score:2)
Isn't that supposed to be covered by unemployment benefits?
NO current system is prepared for permanent human unemployable status.
UBI is nothing more than Welfare 2.0 until Greed N. Corruption is forced to give a shit otherwise.
What's in a UBI name? Nothing without proper funding to keep the pitchfork-armed masses at bay.
Re: Unemployment vs. Unemployable. (Score:2)
NO current system is prepared for permanent human unemployable status.
What gives you this idea? Permanently unemployable status has been the norm for large swats of society for ages.
And the idea that the llms will put all people out of work is just a fantasy of a few misguided imbeciles who live in a feedback-less world because of the low taxes they pay and their echo chamber.
Re: (Score:2)
What gives you this idea? Permanently unemployable status has been the norm for large swats of society for ages.
Care to name a few examples? Time, place, percentages? How the nation in question dealt with it?
Because the one that comes to mind would be France, just before the French revolution, where a lot of the nobility lost their heads. Personally, I'd rather not see people losing their heads.
That said, I support a UBI, but as replacing most other forms of welfare.
My rough US example:
1. $600/month for US citizens, non-us citizen legal immigrants get a tax deduction instead that adds up to the $600 for their earn
Re: Unemployment vs. Unemployable. (Score:2)
Not now because I have to go to buy milk and then work, but later in the evening I might. Really, you could probably ask the LLM to produce a list for you, it does have a lot of history books distilled and quantized so that you don't need me.
One class were the many poor in Europe in the early middle ages, they were sent on crusades, lead by the heirless offpring of their tribal chieftains.
Re: (Score:2)
In the UK at least, for a large swathe of ex mining towns, disability is basically a de facto UBI for a large amount of the population in the area. Areas like Merthyr Tydfil, which had a large mining industry which is now vanished.
You have something like 50% of the population who have been on disability for various things (mental health, something physical that is basically mild or made up) and have been this way since the 1980's - A lot of people who don't live in their middle class cuccoon "round here" wi
Re: (Score:2)
It's not LLMs that will replace such people, its robots and even manually operated machinery as such people are typically employed in manual labor fields anyway. And this has been happening for a long time, and spreads into more areas as robots become cheaper and more capable.
Re: (Score:2)
NO current system is prepared for permanent human unemployable status.
What gives you this idea? Permanently unemployable status has been the norm for large swats of society for ages.
Yeah. And they've been designed and funded specifically for retirement age. Not college-graduate age. BIG fucking difference.
And the idea that the llms will put all people out of work is just a fantasy of a few misguided imbeciles who live in a feedback-less world because of the low taxes they pay and their echo chamber.
Understand that YOU were hired on the basis of good enough. You are not the prefect employee. You were never the perfect employee. You were merely good enough.
The toddler-grade AI that we have today, is good enough to replace enough humans to cause mass chaos. NO government is ready to handle even a 20% unemployable rate. Much less 50%.
You will wake up eventually. I promise.
Re: Unemployment vs. Unemployable. (Score:2)
We don't have "AI", we have a massive resource waste in the hope that it will produce "AI". The LLM cannot even replace a creative tiktoker, nevermind someone who produces a value.
And that at the cost of destroying the future https://m.slashdot.org/story/4... [slashdot.org]
Re: (Score:2)
We don't have "AI", we have a massive resource waste in the hope that it will produce "AI". The LLM cannot even replace a creative tiktoker, nevermind someone who produces a value.
And yet tens of thousands are out of a job (allegedly) because of AI and not a never-Recession. Not that the end result is really different.
If said TikToker is being fed by TikTok income (and I mean that literally), then they are producing a value. Sadly. That value comes in the form of one less person on taxpayer subsidized social plans, simply to provide the other benefit which is avoiding mass chaos and violence in the streets when 50,000 local TikTokers are suddenly unemployable and will not survive
Re: (Score:2)
Which LLM is 0.0001 cent? Most plans I've seen that can do what a less creatitve toktiker does will run me a bill that is higher.
Re: (Score:2)
The LLM can copy "the creative tiktoker" and put the hundreds of thousands of "slightly less creative tiktokers" out of work though. That's still a lot of people.
There are still a lot of people selling worthless degrees for tens of thousands of dollars that are still confused as to exactly why those degrees are quite worthless. Thank you for clarifying that it has a lot to do with what we call a “job” today. If we keep bending that definition, drug dealers put “out of work” will qualify for unemployment benefits. Along with the OF “influencer” who got fat and ugly.
Copy that across every other industry and the numbers add up fast.
Hopefully most other industries still employ trained professiona
Re:Unemployment (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't know about the UK, but aren't unemployment benefits funded on the assumption that more people will eventually find work?
We need a new kind of disability payment, a market disability. Where being made of flesh and blood and needing sleep and food and housing is too much of a liability to make you employable anymore.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know about the UK, but aren't unemployment benefits funded on the assumption that more people will eventually find work?
I principle yeah. In practice, oh boy the UK benefits system is in a bit of a mess and needs some serious reform. As a result, a lot of people are going on long term disability for mental health reasons, since its the only practical way to get support. This has no return to work provision and the benefits bill is spiralling out of control.
Sadly our PM is a moron. The reform he trie
Re: (Score:2)
The driving force behind benefits policy in the UK is outrage that someone else is getting something for nothing, and you are paying for it through tax.
Except when it comes to the biggest cost to the system - pensioners. Then there doesn't seem to be any limit to the burden on working people.
Re: (Score:2)
The driving force behind benefits policy in the UK is outrage that someone else is getting something for nothing, and you are paying for it through tax.
I think this is a gross over simplification: ultimately the bill failed precisely because most people don't think that people in wheelchairs should have their benefits slashed. People broadly speaking want the two child benefit cap lifted.
Beyond that though it's a mess. Yeah some people are just mean spirited and some are terminally wooly headed. Most people
Re: (Score:2)
No. Unemployment insurance, at least in the US, is a) a fraction of your last salary, and intended to tide you over until you find another job. AND, while it used to be much longer, the GOP has cut it and cut it, along with not raising it to inflation.
They're talking about YOU being replaced by a chatbot, and all your experience ditto, and so no HR dept will hire you.
No. Just No. (Score:5, Insightful)
As an aside: this Be Quiet brand keyboard is both the best and the worst keyboard I have ever had. It is quiet...It bloody is, and a joy to type on... But it also suffers from double keystrokes / bouncing.
I think you are correct (Score:2)
Re: I think you are correct (Score:2)
At the very least drivers of light vehicles like Uber drivers and pizza delivery drivers and whatnot are going to be put out of work
you say it like it is a real loss for them, but it isn't. most of the money in this line is not made by the people who work, but by the people who "invested" in it the salaries and the taxes they don't pay.
Re: (Score:2)
you say it like it is a real loss for them, but it isn't.
It's going to feel like a real loss to them when they can't pay their rent or eat. I don't think you thought that statement through even slightly from atop that ivory tower.
Re: And you'll see when you lose access to (Score:2)
or they have replaced a bunch of workers with AI
Which workers have been "replaced" with "AI"? There is a recession that's been going on for over a year now. People are fired because of it, not replaced. There is a large group fired from government jobs. They aren't being replaced.
Who's actually being replaced?
Re: (Score:2)
But I don't think you're going to be correct permanently. Unless we do the Amish thing we are going to see large numbers of people without any useful or more specifically profitable work for them to do.
That's the thing. There are any number of other technological changes which occurred in the past for which you could make the same prediction. You could have quite reasonably predicted that the advent of tractors and mechanized farming would put millions of farmers out of work. In fact, it did. And yet we don't have bands of roving unemployed farmers ravaging the hills.
Same thing with computers. One would have predicted armies of unemployable secretaries, typists, and office clerks and yet we do not. Explai
Re: (Score:2)
There are no AI job losses in the UK or anywhere else. Maybe a few call center jobs. The rest is just excuses for a restructuring. But this is par for the course: everyone is using AI to push their own agenda.
There are a few, but it's not the bloodbath that certain people are predicting (and certain businesses are, for some reason, desperately hoping for).
If your job is basically applying rules to data, you can be replaced by AI... Like say if your job is just putting together dashboards in PowerBI it's probably time to learn how to drive a lorry. If your job requires accuracy, intellect or being able to work with incomplete information, you're pretty safe.
Re: (Score:3)
"Really, try getting a software development job without some skill at integrating an AI assistant into your workflow"
Whats that supposed to mean? Any idiot can type into ChatGPT "write me code to do X". Most idiots wouldn't be able to debug the resulting mess particularly if its a non toy language such as C++.
Re: (Score:2)
Any idiot can type into ChatGPT "write me code to do X". Most idiots wouldn't be able to debug the resulting mess particularly if its a non toy language such as C++.
True. The skill is being to articulate what X is.
I was musing on this yesterday. I can write assembly code. I don't now, I use a compiler. I used to double check the assembly on occasion too, now I trust the tooling.
I'm at the point where I'm reasonably confident that if I carefully construct a prompt, I'll get code which is pretty close to what I want. Yes, I still review it. I also trust the AI to do things like "Verify the HOST_IP setting is being carried through from the CLI through these services to th
nearly a decade of "AI" hype (Score:4, Interesting)
And I have yet to see anyone verifiably fired because of "AI" - that is - fired and their job replaced by the LLM.
Anyone having specific examples?
Like it matters. (Score:2)
And I have yet to see anyone verifiably fired because of "AI" - that is - fired and their job replaced by the LLM.
Anyone having specific examples?
Honest question: The fuck is that going to really matter?
You act as if you've got a right-to-work legal firm with a Larry Ellison amount of leverage behind them that's going to somehow make a difference when people start listing "AI" as the reason they got fired.
I got fired during the dot bomb for "vaporware" reasons. Are you shocked I haven't gotten my reparations by now? Do you think it's coming for "AI" defendants at some point?
Re: Like it matters. (Score:2)
You act as if you've got a right-to-work legal firm
In fact I do, it is called the government.
Hardly my fault that you've let your Larry Ellison buy yours and have it work for him and not for you. Get your bootstrapped individualist 2nd amendment ass a bit more involved and get your government to work for you and not for Ellison.
Re: (Score:2)
Professional translators.
Re: (Score:2)
Not at all. I happen to know several technical translators (Chinese and Japanese to English and back), they have more work now and better pay than 5 years ago.
Re: (Score:2)
Especially technical translation was hit hard. A user manual that needed translation to 18 languages a decade ago required a translator and a reviewer for every target language. The translator was paid a fee per translated word, the reviewer a lower fee per reviewed word. (With even lower fees for repetitions or complete/fuzzy matches retrieved from translation memories or terminology databases.)
With the introduction of machine translation, that translator role all but disappeared. The reviewer role remains
Re: (Score:2)
Not from what I see, like I said. All translators I know are fully employed with more work than they can handle.
Re: (Score:2)
A private prescription provider I use has moved from having front line staff answer queries to using an LLM. To be fair, the LLM is actually more helpful than the humans were. Presumably those people are no longer employed there, or I suppose they might have been switched to other roles.
Re: (Score:2)
And I have yet to see anyone verifiably fired because of "AI" - that is - fired and their job replaced by the LLM.
Anyone having specific examples?
A bunch of people I know (including me) got laid off so my ex-employer could shift jobs to producing AI gear. Does that count?
It doesn't need to be that direct. I'd also expect to see job growth and hiring to slow. It's tough getting a job as an entry level software engineer right now and most people think that's related: an AI is a pretty good replacement for a new college grad.
Re: nearly a decade of "AI" hype (Score:2)
I have not used a call center in any capacity, ever. It is a world beyond my comprehension, really, I'm not even sure it exists.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: nearly a decade of "AI" hype (Score:2)
No, I haven't. I go for human service, saves me a lot of trouble.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: nearly a decade of "AI" hype (Score:2)
if they are reading a script off a screen I'm actually talking to the screen, no?
Re: (Score:2)
Magic money (Score:5, Insightful)
Where is all the money for this UBI going to come from?
Tax the rich?
Yeah, that's not working now so I don't see it working just because UBI is a thing.
The sad reality is that AI is likely to cause major financial stress, regardless of whether there's a bubble or not. Once AI improves worker productivity by a huge amount there will be job losses. That loss of jobs means less money in the economy to purchase goods and services. Reduced demand means reduced profits for the companies that employed AI in the first instance.
Net result: huge economic contraction and a situation where nobody wins.
The oft-described utopia where nobody ever needs to work again (are you listening Elon) is better described as 100 percent unemployment -- with all the heartache and financial difficulties that brings.
Funding (Score:2)
I've actually supported a UBI in the USA for years. That said, my UBI is a lot less generous than most, making it easier to finance.
Anyways:
$500/month (well, $600 now). Get a job if you want to live in an expensive area or not have roommates.
Eliminate most other forms of welfare. This actually funds the lion's share of it. Biggest exemption would be medical, because that's too uneven of an expense.
Flatten the tax brackets to tax most of the UBI back from people actually working or otherwise earning mone
Re: (Score:3)
Eliminate most other forms of welfare.
This is often given as a way to (at least partially) fund a UBI, but is it feasible?
Politically, good luck convincing Social Security recipients (who on average receive much more than $600/mo) to give it up after making a lifetime of contributions. I agree that it's not feasible to fund your healthcare out of UBI, so we need to keep around Medicare/Medicaid. And it's not morally acceptable (in my opinion) that if someone on UBI ends up homeless that they're allowed to starve on the street, so we need to
Re: (Score:2)
$500/month (well, $600 now). Get a job if you want to live in an expensive area or not have roommates.
Eliminate most other forms of welfare. This actually funds the lion's share of it. Biggest exemption would be medical, because that's too uneven of an expense.
Flatten the tax brackets to tax most of the UBI back from people actually working or otherwise earning money. IE no 10% or 12% brackets. Remember, everybody is $6-7.2k ahead of the game income wise, before we start adding wage income....
This is a quite reasonable proposal. I could nit-pick every plank but in general, not a bad start.
Given the level of US debt, I don't think we're in the position to create an investment trust fund. I wouldn't trust politicians to (a) not raid it and (b) invest it for return rather than political gain. That was the stated intent of the SS trust fund and we're about to see the wheels fall off that plan.
Your biggest sticking point will be $600/month. That's $28k/year for a family of four, which is below the of
Re: (Score:3)
It can come from the same place that banks use to pay a trickle amount of interest on the bank accounts. And yet, banks have not faltered.
Considering that wealth is supposed to "trickle down", taxing the rich makes sure that there's no blockage.
Re: Magic money (Score:2)
So then they need a "bad Apple in every barrel approach". Regulate for the worst offenders and if the more reasonable people don't like it, suck it up buttercup because that's life.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think it SHOULD come from anyone. I am just not OK with free money being given to people with able bodies and minds. I think they should have to do SOMETHING that benefits society to get the benefit from it whether that means assigning jobs to them from registered job pools and then make up the difference with money from the government if it is not a living wage. But just simply saying that they can't do what they used to do so lets give them free money is a ridiculous idea. It will be popular, beca
not a UBI (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
If it is being targetted at specific industries then it is by definition NOT a Universal Basic income
Yep, "universal" means everyone gets it... If it's only for specific industries it's just subsidising pay so that employees can be paid less.
Given it's Jason Stockwood. he's probably trying get (more) subsidies for his businesses.
By itself it's worse than useless (Score:3)
I mostly see Ubi pushed by libertarian types like a software patch for capitalism.
That would work if hackers weren't actively breaking the system, in this case the hackers are the billionaires that have decided they have had enough of this capitalism stuff and having to depend on consumers and employees for their wealth and prestige...
This is before we talk about somebody inevitably coming along and saying that you don't have a right to anyone's labor and that socialism is slavery or whatever.
It's all good bumper sticker stuff that strikes at the core resentment people feel when somebody who worked less than they did get roughly the same quality of life.
Basically have you ever had a co-worker that didn't pull their own weight? Of course you have it's a pretty universal experience.
That resentment is easily exploitable so any attempt to do Ubi that is actually viable and not just an excuse to shut down systems like social security and Medicare and Medicaid is going to face opposition relying on that resentment that's baked into humankind.
I have no idea what to do about it and I think most people just ignore it along with the other underlining problems with a simple Ubi implementation.
Re: (Score:2)
It is amazing to me that you can talk so much sense and be level-headed and then instantly dive into supporting one wing of a two party oligarchy working together.
UBI to protect people from AI... (Score:2)
...and robots and the Internet and personal computers and the Green revolution and shipping containers and mechanization of agriculture and internal combustion engines and railroads and canals and horse collars and on and on and on.
You could use any revolutionary productivity improvement as justification for UBI. But we've been over this ground uncountable times in /. so time to trot out the same timeworn arguments which won't change anyone's minds.
I just can't anymore (Score:2)
I'm sorry, it's simply offensive at this point to be expected to believe that the anglosphere will do anything about this other than mass starvation
Premature (Score:3)
I think UBI is premature. First it should be remove and even provide benefits to job creation.
It cost less than pay anyone to do nothing. It's better to pay to do something instead, even if the created has less value than the income. You only need to pay the difference.
Besides, UBI cost too much so it will be too low or generate lots of debt, and unemployment benefits creates a barrier between people with and without job. It becomes too unbalanced. Job required dedication and effort, while unemployment benefits it's not, for a similar income. Definitely it won't end well.
And also it's the problem that AI has an unfair different less taxes than workers, which will push for automation EVEN IF IT DOESN'T GENERATE A SOCIAL IMPROVEMENT.
That's because AI will get an artificial advantage through different taxation. That's the reason we need to go for the opposite. Turn job taxation to job promotion first, so the automation only reach places where it's clearly better than workers.
If automation brings a lot of new production in the future, then the government will get a lot more taxes and maybe both an unemployment benefit + UBI can be changed over time, until a day UBI would be as great as a salary, so jobs will become entirely optional and maybe done for free (as a hobby).
But we are far from that moment.
They lie. (Score:3)
The AI bubble fueled by greed and hope for more greed needs additional hype fuel, so the news media is writing big headlines how AI stinks so that more hype cash is thrown into the hype engine.
So far, so capitalist hype train as usual.
But now the suits n ties are using these fake headlines to justify pretty much anything because OMG AI is coming.
We really are living on the wrong branch of reality.
The tech billionaires will prevent this (Score:3)
The only way to fund this would be to finally have billionaires and huge corporations contribute their fair share, and they have been working hard to influence politics and media to prevent this. Just glance at the US: the idiocracy will make the opposite happen. ... or the UK.
Just listen to and observe the likes of Thiel and Musk. Their egomaniac, narcissistic way to influence politics through their financial power, which exceeds the financial power of most countries on Earth will cause social turmoil, civil and non civil wars before anything like "universal basic income" will happen in countries like the US
Re: (Score:3)
That the wealthy "need to pay their fair share" is a common bit of empty rhetoric from Democrats. They never seem to define what just how much that is, just imply that what it is now isn't enough. But we as a republic decide what that is every time we revisit tax rates. What they pay now is what we collectively decided was their fair share. And yes, the very wealthy do have a say in
Just a stopgap measure. (Score:3)
In a world where machines are going to do all the real work, trade will slowly start to fade.
So, to start with, universal basic income makes sense, but I predict that there will be a fundamental shift into something else. Probably closer aligned to the old socialist ideals, but with machines taking up the roles of the workers.
Re: (Score:2)
Besides, people always find something new to do when tech makes their jobs irrelevant. We cannot predict what those things will be, but we can predict they will be.
Not Universal (Score:5, Insightful)
This post isn't a commentary on whether UBI is or is not a good idea, or whether benefits should or should not be introduced in this case. It's to stop people diluting concepts - UBI and the current benefits system (I'm in the UK) are separate concepts.
Re: (Score:2)
When the minister says there should be "some sort of lifelong mechanism as well so people can retrain", I know that means nobody is going to be trained for anything. Lifelong support means they don't need to, and thus most won't.
UBI can't be done (Score:3)
You can't give people the bare minimum to survive when the whole of society is built on paying people the bare minimum to survive. Why would anyone spend two hours travelling to and nine hours at work assembling widgets to barely pay for bus fares, rent and food if they got the rent and food for free?
How are you going to get anyone to do the work? You can't pay people more than subsistence wages because that would cause the world to end.
Re: UBI can't be done (Score:2)
Because most people don't want to live in the cheapest place they could possibly live and have no luxuries. Living on UBI won't be pleasant!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: UBI can't be done (Score:5, Insightful)
So? There are people who will never work. But that's going to be the case now and under UBI. The important thing about UBI is that they are graduated into working. Many people are stuck on welfare because the instant they work, all the benefits go away. So unless they find a job that is better than welfare they aren't going to do it. UBI would top up their salary so if they have to work a shitty job to get back on their feet they can do that job and still be topped up on UBI so it is an easier transition
Re: (Score:2)
Someone has to pay for it, but it won't be free
Bait and switch (Score:3)
Trickle down economics (Score:3)
The strongest should shoulder more of the burden as opposed to the weakest shouldering the burden of the wealthiest not paying their fair share.
Call me an old fashioned geek but I think that's a good rule for society.
Re: (Score:3)
Why will billionaires choose to pay more tax so unemployables can sit around eating pizza and watching porn when the billionaires can just build Terminators instead?
UBI fanboys clearly have no idea of how psychopaths think. The people who want to steal all the money in the world are not going to give it to "useless eaters".
It’s not just AI . . . (Score:2)
. . . there are other large factors at play.
As just one example: inflation adjusted, over the last ten years, the total cost to employ a full time minimum wage worker in the UK has risen almost fifty percent - from ~19k pounds to ~27k pounds. The youth unemployment rate in general is stubbornly around 15 percent - which is around triple the overall rate.
Where does that money originate? (Score:3)
That sounds nice, but where would that money come from? Is there a nationalized industry that the government has that is still turning a profit, which would enable the government to pay people?
Re: (Score:2)
Tax the trillion dollar companies, and stop them from hiding their profits in Ireland? Tax billionaires - I say go back to the top tax bracket under Republican President Eisenhower... 90%.
Mod story clickbait (Score:2)
Some politician says UBI could be used to soften the blow of the coming AI apocalypse. That's not news, that's a politician trying to get attention.
There is no AI apocalypse, and UBI isn't and can't be a thing.
At least, that's what ChatGPT told me.
Re: 13th Amendment For Americans (Score:2)
Even the Egyptian pharaoh knew that slave labor isn't useful for great achievements like conquering the neighboring tribes or building the pyramids. Eventually the trumpistani society will also develop to that level, or disappear.
Re: (Score:2)
You skipped step 3?
The actual 13th Amendment For Americans (Score:3)
Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Section 2
Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.