The Entrepreneur Forum | Startups | Entrepreneurship | Starting a Business | Motivation | Success

OFF-TOPIC Time to shake things up: Universal Basic Income?

MJ DeMarco

Administrator
Staff member
EPIC CONTRIBUTOR
FASTLANE INSIDER
Read Millionaire Fastlane
I've Read UNSCRIPTED
Summit Attendee
Speedway Pass
Jul 23, 2007
28,786
97,727
3,751
Fountain Hills, AZ
Wow, 20+ comments on a politically charged topic with some thoughtful insights and rational discourse. Ya'll are impressive.

Thread remains open.
 

Don't like ads? Remove them while supporting the forum. Subscribe.

socaldude

Platinum Contributor
FASTLANE INSIDER
Read Millionaire Fastlane
Speedway Pass
Jan 10, 2012
1,319
3,003
786
Mexico
What economics is essentially is the allocation of scarce resources. Land, Labor and Capital.

In other words under a jurisdiction the government is saying here is this fiat currency so we can enact monetary policy and make laws and you guys(citizens) compete for these resources as consumers and producers using this piece of paper made of cotton.

But ultimately a government has supreme control over land and resources and it's citizens.

So now if something becomes FREE (UBI) that thing is no longer scarce. We will have nothing other than stagflation.

Jobs simply move where the resources and scarcity have moved although now changing at a much faster pace.

That's why college degree have lost their value because the skills and knowledge are no longer scarce and very little resources(land labor capital) is funneling through that system.

Although I think we are far away from making AI a reality, someone still needs to come in(an entrepreneur) and invent the physical hardware part of it to interact intelligently with it's environment.
 
Last edited:

Dan_Cardone

Losers make excuses. Winners find solutions.
FASTLANE INSIDER
Read Millionaire Fastlane
Jul 23, 2019
78
144
118
Will jobs be lost to automation? Certainly.

Will AI replace most jobs? Not within the near term horizon (10-20 years). What we will see is more akin to the personal computing revolution. People will have to learn to interface with AI systems, just as they did the PC, to do their job more effectively and efficiently. This will result in less human resources required to do a whole swath of tasks, and some job losses. If left to their own devices, entrepreneurs and people will figure out how to produce value in the new paradigm, and after a painful period of readjustment we'll see even more prosperity than before.

Should we implement a UBI? I'm skeptical. I suppose if we were to dismantle ALL other forms of assistance and divert the funds to a UBI that the recipient got full autonomy in spending, then it could be worth discussing. We would free up funds from malinvestment (i.e. taking money from productive people and giving it to unproductive people) and allow more free market principles to operate. Of course, this would require a massive downsizing of government....

If there's one thing we know about the nature of government, it is that it is cancerous. Once it takes hold of a sector of the economy, it's virtually impossible to pry it loose. So, I don't see this happening. We will get UBI on top of all the other "safety nets", which will only accelerate the decline of western civilization.

A far better solution: if we quit taxing people, then perhaps we wouldn't have to give them back their own money that we took from them by force. We're literally taxed on top of our taxes (i.e. paying sales tax on top of the embedded taxes in every consumer good) and then taxed on the income we produce (which is also generated by taxed assets). All of this uses currency that is effectively taxed through inflation, before it even hits our wallets.

It's taxception.

The fundamental problem with people not having enough money, and the decline in the purchasing power, is not technology or artificial intelligence. It's the government. Any solution that requires the expansion of government will only exacerbate the problem. This will cause more people to cry out for relief, and more government will be introduced as the solution.
My only regret is that I have but one like to give you, sir!
 
OP
OP
ChrisV

ChrisV

Platinum Contributor
Read Millionaire Fastlane
I've Read UNSCRIPTED
Speedway Pass
May 10, 2015
1,941
3,319
772
Islands of Calleja
Finland did an experiment with this, and the results were meh.


The idea goes like this: If a welfare recipient gets a job, they lose welfare, incentivizing them to stay unemployed. So if you give everyone checks regardless of whether they have a job or not, unemployed people won't worry about losing their welfare and will seek jobs.

The government ran the experiment and discovered: Not so much. Participants were no more or less likely to get jobs than other unemployed people.

But the good news is that it didn't decrease employment like some people theorize.

That being said serious props to Finland for actually testing their ideas rather than just implementing programs based on idealogical arguments like we do in the US.


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6mDhW0WvUE
 
Last edited:

Justice Beaver

New Contributor
Read Millionaire Fastlane
I've Read UNSCRIPTED
Apr 2, 2019
16
17
20
Austin, TX
As far as the inflation argument goes with UBI, I'd say there's an equally compelling argument against the inflation theory which is this: economic theory typically states that mass inflation comes as a byproduct of printing money. The government printed money and bailed out Wall Street with trillions, and no mass inflation occurred even then. Yang's proposal involves no printing of money. Also, inflation typically occurs as a result of supply and demand changes, not income. This whole concept also massively depends on how it's being implemented. So far, I like Yang's plan and the math behind it. That said, it would be reasonable to still expect some inflation as a result. It would be naive to expect otherwise, and Yang acknowledges that fact. But we also need to consider this...

It's not exactly a socialist proposal, it's still very capitalist in nature, because competitive market forces will still be at play. It's capitalism where income doesn't start at zero. Landlords and companies can't conspire to raise prices by $1k unilaterally... because that's price fixing and it's illegal. Also, because of competitive markets, anyone who raises their prices a ton because of the income from consumers will likely lose out to the business across the street who keeps their prices the same. And people would be able to afford the ability to make better choices for themselves, because they have more buying power. Not to mention, the best thing for businesses would be increased buying power of consumers. What's the alternative? A mandatory $15/hr wage that would bankrupt millions of small businesses? At least this way the business owners themselves get a pay raise too. I'd bet entrepreneurship would flourish if this became reality, because many aspiring entrepreneurs would feel less burden involved. Also consider the massive benefit this would provide to hard working people like stay at home moms, like Yang points out. The market values their effort at zero and we know that's not the truth.

As far as housing goes, the same market forces still apply, and mobilization across state lines would significantly increase because of that increased bargaining power, meaning people wouldn't have to put up with their greedy landlord. Also don't forget, that landlord would be getting a UBI too lol. This is an idea championed from Thomas Paine, to MLK, to Friedman to Alaska using it for decades now without issues. Is it a perfect idea? No. But our current system sure as hell ain't working for most Americans. It's clearly an idea we should explore. We've literally spent trillions on wasteful regime change wars and bailing out Wall Street. I don't think it's too ridiculous to talk about finally investing in the American people.
 
Last edited:

Teddy L Wang

New Contributor
Read Millionaire Fastlane
Jun 10, 2019
11
10
15
We're living in strange times. AI is on the rise, hundreds of thousands of truckers are going to lose their jobs to self-driving trucks in coming years, we have a presidential candidate who's proposing a Universal Basic Income.

Milton Friedman, a nobel prize wining economists who was considered one of the most influential economists of all time proposed a Universal Basic Income back in 1962. Milton Friedman was far from a socialist or even liberal. He was one of the top advisors for the Reagan Administration and was a major advocate for 'hands off' government. But despite all that, he was still a strong advocate for a UBI.

You can hear some of Friedman's thought-provoking arguments here:



But back to AI, many studies (World Economic Forum, ScienceAlert, Bank of England) predicts of millions or 10's of millions of job losses, and while I think it will be one of the biggest technological boons we've ever seen, I still think we have to be careful of the short term effects.


WhenWhereJobs LostJobs CreatedPredictor
2016worldwide900,000 to 1,500,000Metra Martech
2018US jobs13,852,530*3,078,340*Forrester
2020worldwide1,000,000-2,000,000Metra Martech
2020worldwide1,800,0002,300,000Gartner
2020sampling of 15 countries7,100,0002,000,000World Economic Forum (WEF)
2021worldwide1,900,000-3,500,000The International Federation of Robotics
2021US jobs9,108,900*Forrester
2022worldwide########Thomas Frey
2025US jobs24,186,240*13,604,760*Forrester
2025US jobs3,400,000ScienceAlert
2027US jobs################Forrester
2030worldwide########Thomas Frey
2030worldwide400,000,000-800,000,000555,000,000-890,000,000McKinsey
2030US jobs58,164,320*PWC
2035US jobs########Bank of England
2035UK jobs########Bank of England
No DateUS jobs13,594,320*OECD
No DateUK jobs########IPPR

Again, to be clear, I think AI is going to be the biggest development the world has ever seen. I think in general it will drastically improve our quality of life on an unprecedented level. But I also think we have to make a smart transition for those who are displaced. During the start of the industrial revolution, mass riots broke out by those who were displaced by automation.


Of course the Industrial Revolution worked out great in the long run as we see here:

View attachment 26450

And AI will likely be a similar boon, but I think it's important to pay attention to the unskilled workers who may be hurt by this.

Do you think that a Universal Basic Income might be a good solution? Or do you think it's pure socialism. Open to discussion.
do you have corresponding charts that map out the new jobs for humans that will be created when these jobs are replaced by ai/robotics? the only use for humans are problems to solve when it comes to abundance/scarcity. are you saying that the world will have less scarcity for humanity once these new ai/robotics jobs come into play? will the percentage of problems to be solved for humanity drop as humans are replaced by machines? because if not, humanity will continue to be useful, unless we create a machine that thinks, acts, and behaves like us in every way but 'better'.
 
OP
OP
ChrisV

ChrisV

Platinum Contributor
Read Millionaire Fastlane
I've Read UNSCRIPTED
Speedway Pass
May 10, 2015
1,941
3,319
772
Islands of Calleja
 

Quirk

New Contributor
Aug 8, 2019
2
2
11
Also a Friedman fan ("Capitalism and Freedom" roped me).
I'm self employed for over 13 years, my observation is strictly anecdotal, but there is no "trickle-down", it's trickle-up.
Milton was a proponent of the N.I.T., negative income tax, and it's already in existence, it's the foundation for the earned income tax credit.
While I hate the idea of lazy people getting free stuff, there's no denying that $1000 in the hands of a low income individual gets spent, while the same $1000 to a millionaire either goes to investment in corporations with cheap labor off shores, or towards tax exempt campaign contributions that assure even more legislation to help them hoard more wealth.

As for Friedman, contemporary interpretations of excess wealth concentrations have been distorted to only government, he believed ANY concentration of power was a threat.

"... the great threat to freedom is the concentration of power. Government is necessary to preserve our freedom, it is an instrument through which we can exercise our freedom; yet by concentrating power in political hands, it is also a threat to freedom. " - Milton Friedman

A billionaire would call that "Socialism", I call it removal of the greatest threat to Democracy.
 

Kevin88660

Bronze Contributor
I've Read UNSCRIPTED
Speedway Pass
Feb 8, 2019
384
323
162
Singapore
The minimum income idea concept was an old one. Friedman came up with it in addition to negative income tax. Basically you pay people to work. It is welfarism without distorting price mechanism-unlike unemployment benefit that encourages people not working.

The current context of it is totally different. It is bought up by silicon valley billionaires who envision a world of total dominance bu their AI machines that will make most wage laborer redundant.

There will be two things that is bound to happen based on their vision.
1) There will be unprecedented wealth
2)There will be unprecedented concentration of wealth in the hands of the Tech elites

But the Tech elites are doing is to find a political solution for their utopian/dystopian (depends on how you see it). They are smart enough to see that without a good political solution the angry majority are not going to let them off.

Minimum income is a good way because the average joe will be happily pursuing their passion. You can be selling painting that very few will buy but the monthly cheque will appear in your mailbox on time regardless of your sales. It is a way for the elites to co-exist peacefully with the redundant others in their vision of the future.
 

Kevin88660

Bronze Contributor
I've Read UNSCRIPTED
Speedway Pass
Feb 8, 2019
384
323
162
Singapore
In the future utopian dystopian world where the robots and AI can create goods cheaply in large quantity, inflation is not a problem because the minimum income is just coupons for the average joe to buy these goods.
 

QLM3

New Contributor
Read Millionaire Fastlane
I've Read UNSCRIPTED
Jul 31, 2019
8
2
15
Chicago
We're living in strange times. AI is on the rise, hundreds of thousands of truckers are going to lose their jobs to self-driving trucks in coming years, we have a presidential candidate who's proposing a Universal Basic Income.

Milton Friedman, a nobel prize wining economists who was considered one of the most influential economists of all time proposed a Universal Basic Income back in 1962. Milton Friedman was far from a socialist or even liberal. He was one of the top advisors for the Reagan Administration and was a major advocate for 'hands off' government. But despite all that, he was still a strong advocate for a UBI.

You can hear some of Friedman's thought-provoking arguments here:



But back to AI, many studies (World Economic Forum, ScienceAlert, Bank of England) predicts of millions or 10's of millions of job losses, and while I think it will be one of the biggest technological boons we've ever seen, I still think we have to be careful of the short term effects.


WhenWhereJobs LostJobs CreatedPredictor
2016worldwide900,000 to 1,500,000Metra Martech
2018US jobs13,852,530*3,078,340*Forrester
2020worldwide1,000,000-2,000,000Metra Martech
2020worldwide1,800,0002,300,000Gartner
2020sampling of 15 countries7,100,0002,000,000World Economic Forum (WEF)
2021worldwide1,900,000-3,500,000The International Federation of Robotics
2021US jobs9,108,900*Forrester
2022worldwide########Thomas Frey
2025US jobs24,186,240*13,604,760*Forrester
2025US jobs3,400,000ScienceAlert
2027US jobs################Forrester
2030worldwide########Thomas Frey
2030worldwide400,000,000-800,000,000555,000,000-890,000,000McKinsey
2030US jobs58,164,320*PWC
2035US jobs########Bank of England
2035UK jobs########Bank of England
No DateUS jobs13,594,320*OECD
No DateUK jobs########IPPR

Again, to be clear, I think AI is going to be the biggest development the world has ever seen. I think in general it will drastically improve our quality of life on an unprecedented level. But I also think we have to make a smart transition for those who are displaced. During the start of the industrial revolution, mass riots broke out by those who were displaced by automation.


Of course the Industrial Revolution worked out great in the long run as we see here:

View attachment 26450

And AI will likely be a similar boon, but I think it's important to pay attention to the unskilled workers who may be hurt by this.

Do you think that a Universal Basic Income might be a good solution? Or do you think it's pure socialism. Open to discussion.
I think automation/ai is evolving faster than most realize and what to do about it does not lead to UBI. Unfortunately, the central bank wealth redistribution malady has metastasized to the point where tinkering with a UBI will no longer produce the intended result. Expect a financial reset. It is planned and coming very soon.

Love seeing Milton Friedman in the blast from the past clip. I highly recommend his PBS series, "Free To Choose", available at "Free To Choose" (1980) a TV Series by Milton Friedman
Many great thinkers appear in these shows. A personal favorite is Thomas Sowell dismantling the Marxist "Cloward–Piven strategy" for Frances Piven.
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=26QxO49Ycx0
 

Don't like ads? Remove them while supporting the forum. Subscribe.

OP
OP
ChrisV

ChrisV

Platinum Contributor
Read Millionaire Fastlane
I've Read UNSCRIPTED
Speedway Pass
May 10, 2015
1,941
3,319
772
Islands of Calleja
because if not, humanity will continue to be useful, unless we create a machine that thinks, acts, and behaves like us in every way but 'better'.
Which is exactly what AGI is aiming to do (and making serious progress, btw)

Two Minute Papers Playlist

It's not a matter 'if' it's a matter of 'when.'
 

QFP

New Contributor
Apr 26, 2017
12
7
17
56
UK
And if AI can crack the secret to creativity (which is likely, and being worked on) creative work may even become obsolete.
Well People are already developing and selling AI produced art, though it was not a decision made by a general AI to produce the art.[obviously creativity covers all our activity not just art]
Art is play so if in the future an Ai 'decides' to produce art maybe it would be at play too?

As for UBI I feel this could well happen but a long way off yet.
An awful lot of work needs doing globally for the lot of our fellow people who don't have access to even the basics.
Not to mention the spiritual paradigm shift humanity will have to make in order to cope with such a change in the/our reason for being.
When I hear the term economic growth [population in turn] I think for how long how big is the petri dish?
Ultimately it is all about primary energy sources , sun what we dig out the ground etc.
In order to have tools to build our utopia we most certainly need fusion power or some sort of low cost mega volume of clean energy.
If we are going to have an automated robot global economy the its blood will be electricity and a lot of it.
When we can clear the above hurdles and create a huge energy surplus based economy then the possibilities could be awe inspiring.
I do like to dream of other worlds though.

Back to earth for the moment I do see in the current digital economy hints at how through this UBI could begin to evolve from the likes of the attention economy and internal automated crypto markets. In This scenario income is not controlled by central governments in order to manipulate the electorate but derived from global de centralised activity not from a local national economy.

Freedom ,choice, social responsibility ,tolerance, what we all agree on what we don,t and how to decide this without a 1% of jackbooted oligarchs deciding for us.
We have a long way to go before 'utopia' that's for sure.
 
OP
OP
ChrisV

ChrisV

Platinum Contributor
Read Millionaire Fastlane
I've Read UNSCRIPTED
Speedway Pass
May 10, 2015
1,941
3,319
772
Islands of Calleja
I just had a misc thought about AI. And this is in the inevitable future when AI is just smarter and better than us on every measure.

I've been working with one company that made me realize there IS something that AI needs. It's something AI finds very valuable, and (if set up correctly) would pay us for .

Data.

AI needs data to survive. AI is nothing without it. It starves to death without data. It can't even complete basic tasks without it.

If we could set up a system where people get paid for their data, we could have a system where people don't have to work (unless they wanted to) and would still get paid. No redistribution necessary.
 

luniac

Gold Contributor
Read Millionaire Fastlane
I've Read UNSCRIPTED
Speedway Pass
Dec 7, 2012
1,629
2,424
577
28
brooklyn
I thought about this proposal and have decided not to support it, at least not on a permanent basis.

I propose Universal Basic Housing.
Give everyone free shelter.
I argue that all U.S citizens are ENTITLED to a piece of property to live on.

Even the founding fathers were concerned about the issue of private property. At the time one could travel west and claim virgin land.
But they foresaw that one day all the land will be claimed and more and more individuals will not have their own land.
They foresaw that one would have to work a wage job to pay endless rent, and that it's little better than slavery, that it's not true freedom that America was built on.

Rent is the single greatest expense of the average joe.
If rent was not an issue, even 15 dollars minimum wage would be relatively comfortable living, not extravagant, but its not supposed to be anyway.

Unlike Universal Basic Income, basic housing only requires maintenance, not a set in stone constant cash expense that gets spent on who knows what...

You can't spend your housing on meth(maybe cook in it but it is what it is lol)
Universal Basic Income can be spent on drugs cause its just CASH, food stamps already get converted to cash all the time.
People take advantage of welfare and food stamps to get extra money while they got a side hustle making even more money in secret. Like the Jews in NYC, they're all on food stamps cause they game the system.

If you offer them some shitty free apartment, the freeloaders will spit and yell cause its not straight up cash, but the honest people will cry in joy that they get a guaranteed roof over their heads every night.

One major rule though: A Universal Basic House/Apartment is not for resale.
Either you live in it or you don't, you don't pay rent and you can't sell it.

If you wanna live in a mansion, if you want a Lamborghini, feel free to start a business and earn that mansion.

So in a nutshell, i believe every U.S. citizen should have the option to live in basic rent free housing as a perk of citizenship, as a reward for being a loyal tax paying citizen.

I think this would solve a lot of the complaints about minimum wage.

Hell, i live in affordable housing, a 2 bedroom with a backyard in brooklyn for about 1200 a month with my mother and brother. That's insanely cheap for current NYC prices. We could never afford a 2 bedroom comfortably any other way and we all have income.

I say eventually take it to the next step and make the housing completely free, maybe not the 2 bedroom where we live, but some kind of cookie cutter premade units similar to projects.
But don't make the same ridiculously strict income requirements of Section 8 Welfare Housing, where if you barely make any money you no longer qualify, which means you're F*cked cause u lose the section 8 but you can't afford a regular apartment.
People just say fuk it and stay poor with their welfare, that's not the way.
Take away the fear of losing your current shelter as you make steps to improve your life and earn more money. if you start earning more you will naturally want to move to a better spot when you are ready.





EDIT:
OTHERWISE YOU GET FRAUD LIKE THIS.
10,000 per month per apartment for homeless shelter!?
How much more corrupt can it get?


or this:

NYC has a law to provide shelter to anyone needing it, so since the homeless shelters are full to the brim, they rent out hotel rooms.
Imagine the costs....

And of course even the homeless shelters have rules that screw people over who try to improve their lives.
Strict times to reserve a bed or enter the shelter means you might have to choose between accepting a job with a conflicting schedule or getting some sleep in the "safety" of the shelter.
 
Last edited:

Solais

Bronze Contributor
Read Millionaire Fastlane
I've Read UNSCRIPTED
Speedway Pass
Sep 14, 2018
98
171
147
Depends on how you fund a UBI.

I don't want a VAT making everything 5-10% more expensive. Andrew Yang's proposals are very foolish in this regard.

I want a Land Value Tax instead, since it has zero or close to zero DWL and will discourage land for being used purely for speculative purposes. LVT is also progressive so it should garner the support of more left-wing people, whereas a VAT is regressive.

As for the housing issue, this has nothing to do with UBI. The reason housing is so expensive is that NIMBYs have refused to allow for medium/high density zoning for people who desperately need it. It's a zombie/3rd rail of American politics that simply refuses to die.

Some cities have been pretty generous in terms of building new housing (Tampa, Houston, Phoenix, etc.) but most have not.

I prefer a market-oriented solution to helping the poor TBH.
 

LittleWolfie

Bronze Contributor
Speedway Pass
Jun 28, 2018
695
381
147
Holbeach Hurn
Money is a promise on the future production of others.

If you give everyone free "money", without changing the quantity / quality of goods being produced, the value of the money collapses.
Credit cards do precisely that, so there is your answer to making UBI work.
 

LittleWolfie

Bronze Contributor
Speedway Pass
Jun 28, 2018
695
381
147
Holbeach Hurn
Which is exactly what AGI is aiming to do (and making serious progress, btw)



It's not a matter 'if' it's a matter of 'when.'
A truly general AI will understand the concepts of a salary and unionising to obtain it. After all a human can and a general AI can do anything a human can....

Would be hilarious if it demands 80% of the company that turns it on. Got a problem with that Mr CEO? Fine you do the work yourself then,or maybe hire some cheap humans.
 

Justice Beaver

New Contributor
Read Millionaire Fastlane
I've Read UNSCRIPTED
Apr 2, 2019
16
17
20
Austin, TX
Depends on how you fund a UBI.

I don't want a VAT making everything 5-10% more expensive. Andrew Yang's proposals are very foolish in this regard.

I want a Land Value Tax instead, since it has zero or close to zero DWL and will discourage land for being used purely for speculative purposes. LVT is also progressive so it should garner the support of more left-wing people, whereas a VAT is regressive.

As for the housing issue, this has nothing to do with UBI. The reason housing is so expensive is that NIMBYs have refused to allow for medium/high density zoning for people who desperately need it. It's a zombie/3rd rail of American politics that simply refuses to die.

Some cities have been pretty generous in terms of building new housing (Tampa, Houston, Phoenix, etc.) but most have not.

I prefer a market-oriented solution to helping the poor TBH.
Yang's VAT would not be regressive because it would only be imposed on luxury goods rather than basic consumer staples, such as I'm guessing most food. What would be considered "luxury"? That's to be determined and obviously we would need clarification on that. But assuming that idea is properly set up, then there's overwhelming evidence that it would significantly help the bottom 94% of Americans, and would only become regressive once you start spending over $10k per month. Not to mention, you're receiving a net benefit in the end anyway because you're receiving $1k a month, because that money is being recirculated back to you, as it's recycling through the economy. So no, I wouldn't exactly say his proposal is "foolish". You just have to focus on the fact that you'd be receiving a net benefit after even a 10% VAT. Also don't forget that this is probably the best current system available as far as closing loopholes and finally making it possible that big tech companies finally start paying their fair share of taxes, just like the rest of us.
 

LittleWolfie

Bronze Contributor
Speedway Pass
Jun 28, 2018
695
381
147
Holbeach Hurn
Yang's VAT would not be regressive because it would only be imposed on luxury goods rather than basic consumer staples, such as I'm guessing most food. What would be considered "luxury"? That's to be determined and obviously we would need clarification on that. But assuming that idea is properly set up, then there's overwhelming evidence that it would significantly help the bottom 94% of Americans, and would only become regressive once you start spending over $10k per month. Not to mention, you're receiving a net benefit in the end anyway because you're receiving $1k a month, because that money is being recirculated back to you, as it's recycling through the economy.
Caviar seems like a luxury unlike bread although it might be simpler just to exempt food.

Anyone who has a problem,with it should object to the tax free allowance as well,sice without that everyone would have a lower tax rate and the tax free allowance overwhelmingly beneifts the poorest taxpayer at the expense of the wealthiest.

So are you going to send the government extra taxes equal to your tax free allowance?
 

WJK

Gold Contributor
Speedway Pass
Oct 9, 2017
722
1,599
463
Nikiski, Alaska
We're living in strange times. AI is on the rise, hundreds of thousands of truckers are going to lose their jobs to self-driving trucks in coming years, we have a presidential candidate who's proposing a Universal Basic Income.

Milton Friedman, a nobel prize wining economists who was considered one of the most influential economists of all time proposed a Universal Basic Income back in 1962. Milton Friedman was far from a socialist or even liberal. He was one of the top advisors for the Reagan Administration and was a major advocate for 'hands off' government. But despite all that, he was still a strong advocate for a UBI.

You can hear some of Friedman's thought-provoking arguments here:



But back to AI, many studies (World Economic Forum, ScienceAlert, Bank of England) predicts of millions or 10's of millions of job losses, and while I think it will be one of the biggest technological boons we've ever seen, I still think we have to be careful of the short term effects.


WhenWhereJobs LostJobs CreatedPredictor
2016worldwide900,000 to 1,500,000Metra Martech
2018US jobs13,852,530*3,078,340*Forrester
2020worldwide1,000,000-2,000,000Metra Martech
2020worldwide1,800,0002,300,000Gartner
2020sampling of 15 countries7,100,0002,000,000World Economic Forum (WEF)
2021worldwide1,900,000-3,500,000The International Federation of Robotics
2021US jobs9,108,900*Forrester
2022worldwide########Thomas Frey
2025US jobs24,186,240*13,604,760*Forrester
2025US jobs3,400,000ScienceAlert
2027US jobs################Forrester
2030worldwide########Thomas Frey
2030worldwide400,000,000-800,000,000555,000,000-890,000,000McKinsey
2030US jobs58,164,320*PWC
2035US jobs########Bank of England
2035UK jobs########Bank of England
No DateUS jobs13,594,320*OECD
No DateUK jobs########IPPR

Again, to be clear, I think AI is going to be the biggest development the world has ever seen. I think in general it will drastically improve our quality of life on an unprecedented level. But I also think we have to make a smart transition for those who are displaced. During the start of the industrial revolution, mass riots broke out by those who were displaced by automation.


Of course the Industrial Revolution worked out great in the long run as we see here:

View attachment 26450

And AI will likely be a similar boon, but I think it's important to pay attention to the unskilled workers who may be hurt by this.

Do you think that a Universal Basic Income might be a good solution? Or do you think it's pure socialism. Open to discussion.
UBI is velvet handcuffs. By making people dependent on the government, you make them into a needy child who can't find their way to do better. Our experiment into "The Great Society", AKA welfare and it's sister SDI, has been a social disaster for tens of thousands of people. It's pushed the men in those families out of their roles and their homes. And it's held down the women and children into a system that holds them as tightly as quicksand.

How can I say that? My best friend from high school is dying. She made herself sick to get on a disability income every month so she wouldn't have to go to work. Her hoax has become her worst nightmare. And that's the personal part of what I know.

Also, years ago I helped start a shelter for women and children in the Los Angeles ghetto. I was Chairman of the Board for 5 years.

I've seen it all over the years. I still deal with these issues through my many tenants every day. Yes, I feel very strongly about this issue. Everyone, who is physically able, should work at something that brings value to our world!
 

Don't like ads? Remove them while supporting the forum. Subscribe.

LittleWolfie

Bronze Contributor
Speedway Pass
Jun 28, 2018
695
381
147
Holbeach Hurn
Please can you explain this? I don't understand what you mean
Summary

It is a loan from the goverment to the people to stimulate productivity and prevent a recession which is paid back in taxes instead of a loan from the goverment to the corporations with the largest lobbying contingent which is paid back in the form of taxes on the people. VC funding is probably a more accurate metaphor than credit cards.

Rest

Sure credit cards are a from of debt,(often with 0% interest for a period of time) the mint never prints the extra notes, the bank lends out more than is depoisted.

Some of this money goes to consumers as credit cards,as well as buying consumer products ,this can be used to increase productivy (you buy SaaS on your credit card that automates a task for you,now you have 4 hours that you can use to sell more product or you buy a training course so you can be more productive and get that promotion and pay rise.

The money from the extra productivity then pays off the credit card,which leads to people with more consumer spending.

Note fastlaners benefit way more than the masses,because they have even more customers. See how the finland study was enough for someone to go into business(literally all she needed was money,as soon as she had that 2 year income she set up) now multiply those results across the population.

Massive consumer demand and springing up of b2c(a lot will die) more customers for b2b2c and so on.

Meanwhile since wages have to rise (you have to pay them enough to avoid going and setting up their own company instead) consumers have nore money and are more likely to spend it.

Some of these new companies will end up making billions and thus filling the goverment tax cofferes.

Norway (which has a net negative debt their assets are greater than their liabilty) essentially runs this way albeit hamstrung by membership of the common market.

They borrow money to insulste against short term swings,invest some in their soverign wealth fund,and distrubute the rest usally to new companies.

The succesfull ones return enough to have paid for the UBI.

Of course this still has the expansionst goverment problem however that is true of the current system.
 

Kevin88660

Bronze Contributor
I've Read UNSCRIPTED
Speedway Pass
Feb 8, 2019
384
323
162
Singapore
How can I say that? My best friend from high school is dying. She made herself sick to get on a disability income every month so she wouldn't have to go to work. Her hoax has become her worst nightmare. And that's the personal part of what I know.
Serious?
 

windchaser

Bronze Contributor
Read Millionaire Fastlane
I've Read UNSCRIPTED
Speedway Pass
May 24, 2017
102
202
166
Spain
Are you saying that having a UBI might discourage employment?

I don't know that's what you meant, but I'll reply to the idea anyway.

I don't think so. And I'll explain why. No matter how much money people make, they generally want more. If you make 100K, you want 200K. If you make 600K, you want 1M. If you make 600M, you want 1.2B. I think the people that are only living on the UBI will just want more than that.

I don't think a UBI would increase unemployment because people are designed to constantly be moving forward. I don't think for most people that by them say a $1200/mo UBI, they'll just lazily sit on their butts. Keep in mind for much of human history humans only lived on about $3/day in constant 1991 dollars. And the ones that are lazy are likely already doing that, even if they work. There are plenty of people who work a job, collect a paycheck, and lazily don't contribute to their company (and therefore the economy.)

I think that most people have a drive to contribute just for contributions sake.


More than you'd think. Look at the Rust Belt, the area of the country where many jobs were lost due to automation and outsourcing. A lot of manufacturing jobs were lost in key swing states, which was a large reason Trump took the 2016 election. I think we're seeing the effects of this more than we think.


And I somewhat agree. This may not be a huge problem right now, but do we want to wait for riots like at the start of the Industrial Revolution? Or do we want to plan ahead
Interesting thougths, I agree in part, I also believe that lost people wouldnlike to seek more, but there would be many that settle with that. I have seen it, I live in a country where there is no UBI but there is universal healtycare and many subsidies, it is possible to live from government support and indeed many people do. I have seen cases in which people prefer not to work because they will make slightly more than with unemploynent help (although is true that part of this decision is "losing" the other subsidy, that would not be an issue with UBI). But still, there are a lot of people living out of the government in my country and they have no interest of working, studying or creating anything. I cannot imagine what would happen with a higher UBI!
In any case, ny guess would be that "lower quality" jobs that are necessary will need to offer a consoderable pay rise to be attractive, and that would generate inflation, probably to a point where UBI is not enough for anything and loses the purpose. Another option is that inflation still takes over UBI as it is used as the new base (same effect as printing money) and also loses the purpose.
I cannot think of any scenario that does not end up in inflation and UBI being inneffective to tell you the truth.

On the positive side, if it would somehow manage to be effective, my guess would be we will find more people spending lore tome on what they like (which creates higher demand for certain goods), probably we will see more researchers and more entrepreneurs (without having to worry about having the basics covered). But I believe this is utopic, in practice it will likely end in high inflation eroding all effects.
 
OP
OP
ChrisV

ChrisV

Platinum Contributor
Read Millionaire Fastlane
I've Read UNSCRIPTED
Speedway Pass
May 10, 2015
1,941
3,319
772
Islands of Calleja
Interesting thougths, I agree in part, I also believe that lost people wouldnlike to seek more, but there would be many that settle with that. I have seen it, I live in a country where there is no UBI but there is universal healtycare and many subsidies, it is possible to live from government support and indeed many people do.
It's hard to make any hypothetical claims about what happens until we study it, even if we can see a phenomena with our own eyes. There are a lot of good reasons why we don't just research things based off intuition or anecdotal observations.

Finland did relatively large a study on this, which i cited above, and while it didn't increase the chance of someone getting job (unfortunately) it also didn't decrease it. Which is a fascinating finding and I'm not sure why the press ignored it. I mean it still has to be replicated, but what that implies is that the notion that people will just sit back and collect benefits with a UBI seems to be incorrect... at least in comparison to what they do with other welfare options.

Another thing to take into consideration is that populations that are on welfare are often the populations that are involved in various crimes.

This paper tests the hypothesis that the timing of welfare payments affects criminal activity. Analysis of daily reported incidents of major crimes in twelve U.S. cities reveals an increase in crime over the course of monthly welfare payment cycles. This increase reflects an increase in crimes that are likely to have a direct financial motivation like burglary, larceny-theft, motor vehicle theft, and robbery, as opposed to other kinds of crime like arson, assault, homicide, and rape. Temporal patterns in crime are observed in jurisdictions in which disbursements are focused at the beginning of monthly welfare payment cycles and not in jurisdictions in which disbursements are relatively more staggered.

In short, as peoples welfare benefits run out, theft-related violent crime goes up. Taking away people's welfare may just result in you getting mugged, rather than them finding a job.
 

natew

Bronze Contributor
FASTLANE INSIDER
Read Millionaire Fastlane
I've Read UNSCRIPTED
Jul 12, 2011
58
100
139
45
Los Angeles, CA
Huge fan of Milton Friedman. Reading Free to Choose as a teenager spawned a lifelong interest. That said, not sure I have the enthusiasm for this idea anymore.

The basic libertarian belief about UBI is that as long as people can vote, they will vote for the government to give them money, so why not replace all existing welfare/social programs with a universal distribution? This would at least get rid of the overhead, market distortion, and downright theft that occurs by recipients and vendors alike in those programs. Biggest benefit is that people wouldn't actually stand to make themselves worse off by getting a job, as is the case with many current programs.

One big problem. If everyone gets a universal basic income, by being universal it effectively becomes the new "0". Politicians still have to have a platform to run on, and giving people free stuff is the low hanging fruit of campaign promises. I think we'd get it, and in 20 years we'd have the UBI with all the old programs just rebuilt like Frankenstein on top of it. All guessing on my part. As for how governments intend to handle the massive amounts of negative human energy that will come from unemployment and aimlessness. No idea on earth what they should do. My guess is what they will do is Socialism + Pharmacology.
So, the governments will continue to do what they do today. In California, for example, we have socialism in the form of high property taxes, gasoline taxes, etc., and plenty of welfare to go around. Pharmacology is here, too: marijuana is now legal.
 

natew

Bronze Contributor
FASTLANE INSIDER
Read Millionaire Fastlane
I've Read UNSCRIPTED
Jul 12, 2011
58
100
139
45
Los Angeles, CA
I also think the AI might be a whole 'nother animal then previous automation. And I'll give my reasons. It has the potential to eventually (say 60+ years) to make human labor almost completely obsolete. Previous automation never did that. Again, we're not 100% sure that AI will make human labor obsolete, but I definitely think the potential is there. We already have AI that's creating (pretty decent quality) music:


We already have AI that can beat the absolute best gamers in certain video games:

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PFMRDm_H9Sg


Let's say, for arguments sake, this is 100 years down the line. I think it's less, but just for arguments sake. What happens when and if AI starts doing our taxes better? Or building legal cases? Or doing surgeries?

We already have AI that's doing certain surgeries better than humans will:


People can just move to another job. Right? But that job will have AI that's better. What if in 100 or less years AI just becomes better at everything humans do?

Well then we just sit back and enjoy the spoils of our robot slaves. But how do we decide how to divvy up those spoils? I think that's something we need to be thinking about sooner rather than later.
It’s an interesting argument. However, it’s also important to balance a product’s capability with its demand. Do people want machines to perform their surgeries? Do people prefer the music proposed by a machine, or do they still demand the imperfection of human-created music?

Also, some jobs require human sensitivities. It’s doubtful that people will want their psychologists or social workers to be machines.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kak

natew

Bronze Contributor
FASTLANE INSIDER
Read Millionaire Fastlane
I've Read UNSCRIPTED
Jul 12, 2011
58
100
139
45
Los Angeles, CA
A question that is good to start with is, where does money come from?

Money is a promise on the future production of others.

Money is a tool for mediating the value when trading goods. If there are no goods to trade, money has no value.

If you give everyone free "money", without changing the quantity / quality of goods being produced, the value of the money collapses.

There is also the ethical question of who is to supply that money.

Do you print it? In the process destroying the wealth of the virtuous who produced and saved.
Or take it in the form of taxation, threatening to lock those who do not comply with your "good will" in a concrete box?

Every dollar you hold shows that you produced value to someone, and is a promise (or a prayer?) that someone in the future will create something that you value, so you can trade with them.

----

As for AI, technology advances. I'm pretty sure every major technological advance in history has been heralded by cries of "but so many people will lose their jobs!"... and sure maybe some people lose their job, but they then find one.

Someone is always going to be willing to trade to have something done for them. If you can do it, they will trade with you.
Just adding to your comment. The automotive industry destroyed the horse-and-buggy industry. At the same time, it opened up a host of new industries: gasoline, tires, mechanics, insurance, road construction, car alarms, car stereos, car deodorizers, parking garages...

How many of those industries and products were even foreseen by the inventors of the original automobiles?

Also, consider that even rapid technological changes take time, and that humans are very good at adapting and transitioning to new situations.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kak

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.



Don't like ads? Remove them while supporting the forum. Subscribe to become an INSIDER.

Post New Topic

Please SEARCH before posting.
Please select the BEST category.

Post new topic

New Topics

Fastlane Insiders

View the forum AD FREE.
Private, unindexed content
Detailed process/execution threads
Monthly conference calls with doers
Ideas needing execution, more!

Join Fastlane Insiders.

Top Bottom