Universal basic income


#144

Those who you described here are continuing their life in a more or less human way.

Take a longer look at the way how the internet is changing the standards of living – Think exponentially and take responsibility for the process of the global bliss experience and therefore for the emergence of the collective decision-making body.

Of course — one tonne of gold is not static as well — even if it is placed in a safe for 10 years.

That is ok

We don’t want to circumvent the problem — We want to remove it with the roots so it won’t appear again. A discussion on an important subject is always good as long as a person really want to solve the problem.

It is like that quite often – You meet a person who will do a smoke and mirror clever riposte/message in order to retrieve/gain a status of an intelligent contributor instead of taking into account a bigger picture on the way of real conversation.

All the generalizations have been made for the purpose of clear conversation. We can talk about particular examples of issues if you have any.

I will disagree :smiley:

Heyam takes a deep breath and says in a totally epic way Let’s do this! ;D


#145

Ok. Thanks.

When I engage people on just about any subject matter, it’s a pretty quick assessment to ascertain whether I am speaking to an ideologue (a person that regurgitates their politically rooted or socially constructed notions based on things everyone else says, and, is immutably strict on those positions), or a person that is not absolutely concrete bound to the ideas and notions to which they are exposed, or, in the best case, a thinker.

The ideologue is the most boring. There’s nothing to be learned or discussed. The ideology supplants the individual. You might as well be talking to the ‘collective personality’. The person in the middle can usually carry through a complex conversation, ask a few questions, and potentially be swayed one way or another. But the thinker…that’s a rare encounter. Here’s an encounter where there’s original ‘meat and potatoes’ ideas, premises to those ideas, and well constructed conclusions from both.

Based the small amount of dialogue we’ve had, I’d place you in the Ideologue category. Just an observation, not an insult.

Could you expand on this statement?

I just wanted to put this little quote up to ensure it’s long term survival. No need for rebuttal here.

I supposed you are entitled to your disagreement with my assertion on the disagreeable nature of Man, but I would counter with a single piece of evidence: WAR.


#146

It is an offense but I’m not taking that.


#147

This is an absurd to be in a situation where you need to explain yourself in a face of a problem which would be potentially devastating for every single person.

We are heading towards the world of abundance and everyone deserves to be fully aware of what that means. There is no need for drama nor for tragedy.

COUNTDOWN TO THE SINGULARITY 2013 – 2038 (from Peter Diamandis)


#148

i dont think universal basic income is necessarily needed yet until artificial intelligence advances further and to the point where robots starts replacing jobs at a mass scale where a large percentage of the global population literally cannot get a job. we see it already, but its not advanced enough yet. And then as jobs are replaced, the manufacturers of these robots can be taxed. like, the wage of the job a robot will take will go into the pool for UBI, and then distributed. like i said though, i only see this happening maybe 20+ years from now? Maybe much longer if society continues to find ways to create jobs for humans at a higher/same rate than the rate of jobs being replaced by robots, UBI is probably not necessary.

But then when technology does reach that point, then you’d get into weird stuff, like if you have UBI, would you be able to have a healthy, happy, productive society? Or will it just be like in the movie Wall-E (i wont lie, i cried in the theaters watching it back then. eeevvvaa). In an ideal world, yes, it would be amazing. people would be able to pursue their passions and hobbies, etc., never having to have that feeling of having your soul and life being slowly sucked away by a job that you dont really find fulfillment in. but on the other hand, people may not be able to find their “purpose” if they have UBI because for many people, their life’s purpose is their job. their job defines them regardless of whether or not it makes them happy. And having the motivation to make make more money than others and climb the economic ladder, is actually what does bring them fulfillment.


#149

I think you are both right but are missing an important element. Gender is one of the biggest determinants for agreeableness and that is evidenced by the extremes i.e. that the most disagreeable people tend to be men and the most agreeable women. It is invariably the men that start the wars.

The problem with Peter’s view is that it is almost exclusively optimistic which is a trait that I share. There is a distinct failure at the moment among many people to be considering the civil and economic impacts that are likely to result. In fact I am far more concerned about the economic singularity than I am the technological one. The technical one is based on the assumption that society will survive the economic one and I don’t think that is a certainty. We are likely to see unprecedented civil unrest and rebellion as more and more people become “useless” from an economic point of view as the machines take over the jobs. UBI in all its current formats does not work from an economic perspective, the numbers simply don’t add up. We need a solution of some sort and quick!


#150

I don’t think this is an issue. The problem is confusing work and pay. There are plenty of people that do work today and live fulfilled lives without direct pay. We call them retired. There will be plenty of activity for people to do. Some might call it work and others might call it leisure it depends on your perspective. The issue is how you will be paid to live and to what standard.


#151

You have a good point, But I’d like to clarify, i think what I meant was there are jobs and occupations that define many peoples purpose and meaning in life, and with AI or robots stripping them away the job out pure efficiency , effectiveness, and precision, those people don’t have the chance to work the occupation they want even if they wanted to due AIs or robots being sophisticated enough where it wouldn’t be worth it to allow a human to do the job they’d want and in a sense, that strips their identity away potentially causing crisis within people. Of course this is assuming more of the pessimist side, I, personally, hope there’s UBI in the future . It would be so rad to just pursure my true passions and have the opportunity to travel and do creative things without any financial worries


#152

I guess it depends on what sorts of jobs you are thinking. For instance a mechanic might be able to work all day on a classic car restoration if that is their passion. They simply won’t get paid for that activity! A person who loves cleaning can still clean. They just won’t get paid for that activity!


#153

You are precisely correct. I just didn’t feel like I needed to be that precise with Heyam, given his ‘global bliss’…

I tried to credit someone with what you are referring to when you mention technology, civil unrest, economic impact etc., but you are just as close to properly elucidating the problem as he was.


#154

Summary of Potential Problems:

-The Deprivation of Maintenance of the Psychological Self and Civil Unrest:
I don’t know what @naxypoo 's background is but he’s actually touching on a very serious issue. In the clinical psychology field there is often reference to stripped identity. A door closes on a previously held opportunity(s) for self actualization (the reinforcement of identity in somewhat laymen’s terms). Might be summarized as the maintenance of the psychological ‘self’. These persons often suffer large periods of anxiety and depression. I’ve seen this first hand in my own wife when she left the medical community in which she was viewed in very high standing. Even today (3 years since) she speaks in the first person when mentioning her work. It’s evidence of the subconscious assertion of her identity being tied to her job title, and therefore her work, and therefore…WHO she is.

This is a primary to each living person.

This deprivation of ‘self’ on a large social scale, combined with a massive displacement of human capital would most likely result in massive movements of civil unrest, to which @spacebuzz has already referred. To take this a step farther however, I’m not sure it’ll just be civil unrest, especially given the nature of the human psyche that I refer to above. It might start as civil unrest in the more technological advanced parts of the country, but in the long run and if technology continues it’s march, I think there will be massive pockets of micro-civil war that will result in tech free zones. Those tech free zones will be the geographically representative areas that cling to a desire to maintain a functional relationship between human life and how it should be lived, or was lived. I’m not trying to get all apocalyptic here but my mind actually goes into vapor lock when I examine the idea that our current virtue system (the relationship between productivity, money, and psychological health) somehow manages to become no longer related.

Which leads me to…

-View of the Role and Origin of Money / Source of UBI:
@spacebuzz illustrates this quandary with his quote, “The problem is confusing work and pay…we call them retired.” While there might be the idea that money is somehow separated from the mode of it’s production, history says it’s been a fairly stable process for a very long time. And @spacebuzz, those retired folks produced their leisure in retirement by saving their life’s work in the form of…money. You cannot separate them.

Money has a specific virtue and value just as work has a specific virtue and value, and both entail each other. It is necessary that man negotiates with man, which means there needs to be a tool available that facilitates that peaceful negotiation of mutual needs. I loath using this phrase but I need to use it for context here; the ‘society of man’ (used to focus discussion on the historical relevance of society TO mankind) has dictated through time that money, whether it be in the form of goats and chickens or government guaranteed paper notes, is tied to an activity or trade that makes possible without violence, an exchange of goods and services. It is entailed that in order for those goods and/or services to actually be present, human output (work) preceded their appearance and availability. To my knowledge, the only movement of ‘monies’ that has taken place outside those parameters is either charitable in nature, or, is confined to small examples of work for work micro societies (such as American Indians) where physical money wasn’t required to make satisfaction. Keep in mind however, that trades of work for work are still preceded by the production of something of value.

And so…since the money for UBI must have an origin, the success of UBI will most likely rest upon the idea that a giant shoe horn can somehow separate the good and worthy intertwining of money and work. UBI will require the separation of the role of money FROM the reality that it must be produced. The fundamental problem, which I tried to mechanically explain above is that money, in all it’s forms, is the final store of value for human work and effort, which means, money is the direct representation of human production. Human activity, when portrayed as passive activity or leisurely activity, is not the same thing as human production.

I cannot be precise enough and I cannot string together a group of words that are powerful enough to convey the danger of this idea. Personally speaking I’m not sure I want to see those two incredibly serious and deeply inter-related issues separated, because I will be unfamiliar with the nature of man if it’s successful. ALL of you will be unfamiliar with the nature of man.

-View of the Role of UBI:
Obviously this isn’t settled. @spacbuzz has a view of it’s role, as does @naxypoo…and @Heyam 's view of human bliss. Someone even thought they could go on vacation. But the better question here is; who will decide? Ohhh but there are more sinister questions to be asked before we discuss the role of UBI. After all, one can’t properly discuss the role of UBI without consideration of it’s implementation. Implementation is…entailed.

All of you reading this and participating in this thread should have a small chill if you are properly examining this question. Who will decide the roll of UBI? Let’s drill it down a bit further; who will decide from whom or where this shall be taken? If it has to be produced…it has to come from somehwere…right? Who shall assume the power to do such a thing? If UBI is to be distributed to EVERYONE, then just exactly how much needs to be taken?

A fundamental necessity of UBI will be the power to take from those that are unwilling to give, which means, the man, board, or government committee, will need authority to execute the aim of UBI. Who decides what the limit of that authority is to be? What system of check and balance will the body of society hold over this board or committee, given the necessary nature of the power required to execute the plan? To what extent will that board or committee be empowered to act against a man or group that refuses to comply?

Example: UBI will have the power to collect from large corporations such as Apple. Apple refuses to comply. The UBI board seizes Apple property and charges the board members with felony crimes. Apple takes a giant hit in production. That’s what happens. And the result is that Apple can no longer ‘contribute’ the same amount as it did before.

Now expand the above river of cause and effect to every entity, corporate or otherwise doesn’t matter, that refuses to comply, and explain how the once giant pool that UBI draws from doesn’t become diminished in increments over time, and the once great idea of UBI starts to be assailed by those that benefit from it’s distribution…because UBI has to reduce it’s payouts…again…and again…and again.

More. Civil. Unrest.

What about the supposedly altruistic relationship between the society that receives UBI and the entity that grants it? What happens when that society demands more?

My own personal view is that the idea of UBI only remains sweet so long as it remains an untested idea. The law of unintended consequences here is so vast it’s hard to get it all on paper (properly). And to violate the idea that no man is entitled to the product of another mans life, on such a large scale, is the childish tampering with a kind of God mode. A mode that remains full of well meaning and bliss right up to the point where it’s implemented…and then it’s realized to be the most evil thing Man has ever done to Man.


#155

The work you have done to write your post is more valuable than a day of work in a factory and yet you did not get a dollar for your effort. The problem here is about an appropriate evaluation of our activities and life in general. Very often it is difficult because of affections or ignorance. Good understanding of life gives it real value and there is no limit in this regard.

Humanity is evolving quite fast nowadays – this process is very dynamic – sometimes it is hard to notice that because of everyday routine or some problems. The way we think is changing and it is possible to get a depression or other mental problems because of the fluctuations of the collective mind. However, this does not mean that you should focus on the wrong side of the way how the thing goes. Do not think that people with mental problems will go crazy when UBI will be introduced. People want to live better lives – Although, this is true that sometimes there is a need for a bit of education in order to find out how to go in the right direction – but who wants to keep repeating the same mistakes?

btw. I thought that talking to yourself in the third person may be considered strange - first person is ok


#156

i just looked back at my comments that i wrote from after being awake for over 24 hours and having two beers before bed. i am appalled by how incoherent i was LOL. there was clearly an epic struggle between my phone, my fingers, and myself to properly type things.


#157

Happens to the best of us my friend. No worries.


#158

Not all forms of effort receive payment in the form of money (nor do they produce money). Leisure doesn’t produce money for the person doing the leisure-ing. I will not receive a single dollar for my efforts in speaking against the idea of UBI, just as you will not receive a single dollar for your efforts in promoting UBI.

But…we all have a belief system (a system of values and moral guidelines). Each and every one of us regardless of culture or origin. As such, a single person’s value system is wide ranging array of interests and dis-interests. A judgement, pre-supposes a value, otherwise how could you refer to that thing (or idea in this case) as having value.

My value system tells me that UBI is not a good idea because I contain (as a person) a large number of underlying values that cumulatively result in my negative stance. Many of those values are things I have already stated here in this thread. Your value system tells you that UBI is a good idea and that it should be implemented because you have a large number of underlying values that cumulatively result in your positive stance. I could accuse you of many forms of negligence in your pronouncement, but in my experience, accusing someone of having faulty ideas is not a good approach. However, speaking against that persons ideas with other ideas, well, that’s the divine purpose of language and speech.

And so…you and I disagree and we get to expand and elucidate that disagreement using language and speech, instead of sticks and bows, clubs, guns, or worse.


#159

#160

#161

#162

The last video is unavailable in The UK …


#163

I would strongly encourage everyone reading this thread to go and read through this book in it’s entirety…if nothing else, at least read chapter 7 which delves into the economic fallacy of techonophobia…which has been going on for more than a century.