Universal basic income: forced early retirement

[undercover]

Obviously this idea has been tossed around many times throughout history, so the idea itself is nothing new. But the inevitability of it actually happening out of pure necessity is somewhat new and is going to have to be met sooner rather than later.

Looking at history, GDP and productivity has increased substantially in the past 50-60 years, allowing many people to retire "early" (or retire AT ALL in the beginning). Retirement is a concept that historically has been reserved for the super elite or super rare success story. Now, with basic needs being met in many areas of the states/world, it's relatively easy. This is obviously thanks to high paying jobs due to productivity improvements combined with a financial machine that allows the average person to invest their "excess" so that they can "retire early".

I mean, it's still somewhat reserved for the privileged and people that have advanced degrees/business owners since they're able to command the highest incomes, but you're still 100x more likely to be able to retire early today no matter who you are now than you were even 50 years ago.

So yeah, with dramatic improvements in AI and robotics over the next coming (relatively few) years, productivity is going to increase exponentially to the point where menial jobs are going to be non-existent. And who knows where it goes from there. Menial jobs make up a significant portion of the workforce today. Thus, the necessity for a UBI. I'm not sure exactly how it will be implemented, but there's some reasoning that the "workers" replacing humans will need to be taxed (via taxing the entities in control of these workers directly I suppose) in order to fund the UBI.

Here's some reading/watching material. I'm sure there's more and better since Elon Musk is obviously not the first person to think about this, and probably not even the best person to ask about it, but it's what I could find quickly:

http://www.businessinsider.com/elon-musk-universal-basic-income-2017-2
(Elon Musk saying UBI will be a "necessity" once robots replace the majority of retail/transportation/food jobs)

https://medium.freecodecamp.com/bill-gates-and-elon-musk-just-warned-us-about-the-one-thing-politicians-are-too-scared-to-talk-8db9815fd398#.56ul2hqx6
(Similar article quoting Musk again, just a little more varied)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AFERVdpmPDc
("The Future of Jobs and the Question of Basic Income" panel hosted by Stanford/White House)

[goateeman]

I'm a fan of UBI, even though I am ready to FIRE and never work again.

I believe humans should not have to work mindless jobs to have a basic standard of living.  The human brain is much too creative and precious to waste on mundane tasks like driving in terrible traffic, repetitively assembling the same products over and over again, or sweeping floors or the myriad of other tasks that machines could do better.

AI and robotics can free the human mind from doing these boring tasks, and UBI can free people from worry about basic rent / food.  Then people can be free to work on things that interest them.

You never know, that janitor at the school may have been the world's greatest painter.  The automobile assembly worker could have been the world's greatest singer.  There so much untapped potential that's never revealed because people have to worry about basic living.

[CBnCO]

Interesting post, so why don't we add a dissenting opinion:

I'm completely against the concept of UBI!

To sum up why:

1. It's immoral to take by force from one and give to another
2. Government administration of such a program is guaranteed to be politically motivated and inefficient
3. Private charity is welcome to fund such a program if they can get enough voluntary donations to do so
4. Perhaps human over-population is the root cause that we should be discussing a strategy for?

[goateeman]

Interesting post, so why don't we add a dissenting opinion:

I'm completely against the concept of UBI!

To sum up why:

1. It's immoral to take by force from one and give to another
2. Government administration of such a program is guaranteed to be politically motivated and inefficient
3. Private charity is welcome to fund such a program if they can get enough voluntary donations to do so
4. Perhaps human over-population is the root cause that we should be discussing a strategy for?

I believe UBI's basic concept is everyone gets a basic stipend for basic rent and food, and nothing more.

It's not taking from one another to give to someone else, it's to give everyone the same amount to start with.

There would be minimal administration since everyone gets a flat amount, period.  Very little room for abuse. 

Private charity is often inefficient and scam ridden.  I have volunteered at charities where there are certain people who gain incredible perks or money that outsiders know nothing about.  If you are against inefficiency then you should be against most charities which waste so much money on marketing and administration, amongst other hidden costs.  Each charity, even if efficient, has its own administration costs and overhead that is duplicated at every organization. 

Over population is a different topic altogether, one that can be addressed with different means.

[prognastat]

Interesting post, so why don't we add a dissenting opinion:

I'm completely against the concept of UBI!

To sum up why:

1. It's immoral to take by force from one and give to another
2. Government administration of such a program is guaranteed to be politically motivated and inefficient
3. Private charity is welcome to fund such a program if they can get enough voluntary donations to do so
4. Perhaps human over-population is the root cause that we should be discussing a strategy for?

1. What is your solution to if automation has taken over a large enough percentage of the job market? In your belief there should be no tax so no funds will be available to cover for these people that simply aren't able to perform a job, because they are inefficient compared to either robotic or software automation? I'm glad you have your principles, but if this were to happen you will either be part of the starving unemployable group in which case I suspect you won't be willing to die for your principles or if you are part of the elites that will be benefitting from the automation are you ok either being murdered by revolutionaries or murdering many of them both through allowing them to starve and later as form of self protection?

2. Currently plenty charities are more inefficient than the government.

3. Historically much of charity does not simply go to those in need. First there are plenty of charities that have plenty of money going to the people managing it rather than the cause. Second a historically large source of charity is the church which often has ulterior motives in enforcing and spreading their beliefs using the charity. Also people's priorities aren't always the most thought out, some people donate large amounts to charities supporting animals when large groups of people still live in abject poverty and tons of children die every day due to lack of medical care, food, sanitation etc.

4. Human overpopulation is no longer as large concern for most. Population growth is actually slowing down as large portions of the third world are being elevated out of poverty and in doing so lowering birth rates. Currently the estimates are saying we will peak around 11 Billion people.

[eljefe-speaks]

1. It's immoral to take by force from one and give to another

?

What if I murdered someone and took all his cash? Is it immoral for a legal entity to repossess that money by force and return it to the victim's family? You may wanna put a finer point on this.

[prognastat]

Interesting post, so why don't we add a dissenting opinion:

I'm completely against the concept of UBI!

To sum up why:

1. It's immoral to take by force from one and give to another
2. Government administration of such a program is guaranteed to be politically motivated and inefficient
3. Private charity is welcome to fund such a program if they can get enough voluntary donations to do so
4. Perhaps human over-population is the root cause that we should be discussing a strategy for?

I believe UBI's basic concept is everyone gets a basic stipend for basic rent and food, and nothing more.

It's not taking from one another to give to someone else, it's to give everyone the same amount to start with.

There would be minimal administration since everyone gets a flat amount, period.  Very little room for abuse. 

Private charity is often inefficient and scam ridden.  I have volunteered at charities where there are certain people who gain incredible perks or money that outsiders know nothing about.  If you are against inefficiency then you should be against most charities which waste so much money on marketing and administration, amongst other hidden costs.  Each charity, even if efficient, has its own administration costs and overhead that is duplicated at every organization. 

Over population is a different topic altogether, one that can be addressed with different means.

I think his primary objection is that to provide this basic income would require taking money from the people at the very top and that to him this is unethical no matter what.

[alleykat]

Interesting post, so why don't we add a dissenting opinion:

I'm completely against the concept of UBI!

To sum up why:

1. It's immoral to take by force from one and give to another
2. Government administration of such a program is guaranteed to be politically motivated and inefficient
3. Private charity is welcome to fund such a program if they can get enough voluntary donations to do so
4. Perhaps human over-population is the root cause that we should be discussing a strategy for?

I agree.  I am against it too.  Why are we doing away with human jobs.  People need those jobs to make a living and feed their families. I don't think they are working those jobs because they love them. You are talking millions of people.  I really would hate to see the day.  I understand efficiency, etc but honestly how efficient do we need to be and how much more money do these people need to make. Let folks earn some money.

[goateeman]

I think his primary objection is that to provide this basic income would require taking money from the people at the very top and that to him this is unethical no matter what.

Yea I can't figure that out.  This is how all governments and societies work.  Here in the US, we work for the government to cover our taxes first, and only then can we start to make money ourselves.  If we try to avoid paying taxes, we go to jail.

So he's against something that's already a mandatory thing in life?  UBI is far more fair in my opinion.

[Cali Nonya]

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jan/03/finland-trials-basic-income-for-unemployed

Finland is doing a trial of this concept.
Just adding this article to be in the updates since this is a topic I am interested in.

[eljefe-speaks]

Population growth is actually slowing down...

My wife and I won't even be replacing ourselves. So, minus 2 right there!

[prognastat]

I think his primary objection is that to provide this basic income would require taking money from the people at the very top and that to him this is unethical no matter what.

Yea I can't figure that out.  This is how all governments and societies work.  Here in the US, we work for the government to cover our taxes first, and only then can we start to make money ourselves.  If we try to avoid paying taxes, we go to jail.

So he's against something that's already a mandatory thing in life?  UBI is far more fair in my opinion.

You are coming at it from a pragmatic end his argument is not a pragmatic, but an idealist one. I have some sympathy for the mindset that the government should not have to take these funds by force and enforce regulation by force. However history shows us why and so far I have yet to hear a convincing libertarian argument as to why we would not just see a repeat of history.

The alternative to having some form of socialist redistribution of wealth and regulations on people and companies preventing abuses is violent revolution. Look what happened in the French revolution when the working class/peasants felt there was no reason to maintain the current class structure. Or in Russia for a more recent one. When the working class has no hope and in my opinion no redistribution and no regulations will ultimately lead to this the end result is lots of people dying.

[goateeman]

Interesting post, so why don't we add a dissenting opinion:

I'm completely against the concept of UBI!

To sum up why:

1. It's immoral to take by force from one and give to another
2. Government administration of such a program is guaranteed to be politically motivated and inefficient
3. Private charity is welcome to fund such a program if they can get enough voluntary donations to do so
4. Perhaps human over-population is the root cause that we should be discussing a strategy for?

I agree.  I am against it too.  Why are we doing away with human jobs.  People need those jobs to make a living and feed their families. I don't think they are working those jobs because they love them. You are talking millions of people.  I really would hate to see the day.  I understand efficiency, etc but honestly how efficient do we need to be and how much more money do these people need to make. Let folks earn some money.

the concept of UBI is not to take away human jobs. It has nothing to do with jobs, actually, merely a concept to provide people basic necessities of life - rent and food.

If you're talking about keeping jobs, there's nothing you can do about that.  Machines are far better at doing "boring" jobs than people ever will.

Let's say there's a job where you as a human get paid $10 per hour to run on a human sized "mouse exercise mill" to generate electricity.  Would you want to do this meaningless job for 40 hours per week, just so you could pay your basic rent and not be homeless?

That type of job is meaningless and causes misery. Why not let a machine take it instead?  Farming as an example is a huge shift in labor.  People used to work in farms to produce enough food to eat.  Now machines have replaced human labor to allow us to have major abundance in food.  Do you still want to wake up at 4am, go to the rice paddies and plant rice, clear mud, and do hard labor until night just so you have food in your stomach?  Why do it if machines can free you from this misery?

[Optimiser]

Interesting post, so why don't we add a dissenting opinion:

I'm completely against the concept of UBI!

I was too. Now I'm kind of on the fence.

To sum up why:

1. It's immoral to take by force from one and give to another

This is the biggest hurdle for me.

2. Government administration of such a program is guaranteed to be politically motivated and inefficient

What I like about UBI is that it could actually remove government inefficiency and cronyism. Government already redistributes large amounts of wealth through TANF, food stamps, housing vouchers, subsidized loans, social security, medicare, etc. But now you only get the money if you are using it for what they think is appropriate, and the bureaucratic cost of distributing the money is very high.

If a UBI system was implemented 99% of the bureaucracy could be eliminated. Mail every single person a check every month, or direct deposit it or whatever. No application process, no eligibility requirements. No opportunity to lobby for group A to get more benefits or group B to get less. Maybe we even drastically reduce the tax code too. For example everybody gets $1500 a month of UBI. Everyone pays a flat tax rate on all non-UBI money they earn. No itemized deductions, exemptions, tax credits etc.

3. Private charity is welcome to fund such a program if they can get enough voluntary donations to do so

This will never happen. I understand that is probably your point.

4. Perhaps human over-population is the root cause that we should be discussing a strategy for?

I don't think over-population is the problem. The current and future levels of automation that will eliminate most jobs people currently do and increase the profits exponentially for those who own the machines doing the work is the problem. With large scale automation and no UBI system no one will have any money to buy anything.

There is a good discussion of similar topics going on over at: http://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/welcome-to-the-forum/robots-and-their-impact-on-the-future/

[goateeman]

...
You are coming at it from a pragmatic end his argument is not a pragmatic, but an idealist one. I have some sympathy for the mindset that the government should not have to take these funds by force and enforce regulation by force. However history shows us why and so far I have yet to hear a convincing libertarian argument as to why we would not just see a repeat of history.

The alternative to having some form of socialist redistribution of wealth and regulations on people and companies preventing abuses is communist revolution. Look what happened in the French revolution when the working class/peasants felt there was no reason to maintain the current class structure. Or in Russia for a more recent one. When the working class has no hope and in my opinion no redistribution and no regulations will ultimately lead to this the end result is lots of people dying.

Even idealistically, I can't agree.

Life is inherently not fair.  Some people are born with superior genes than others.  Some are tall, some are handsome, some have great hair, some are much smarter.  Some are born autistic, some are born without limbs, some get cancer through no fault of their own.  When people are born out of the gate being unequal through no fault of their own, how can life be "fair" to begin with?

UBI doesn't discriminate, it gives everyone the same basic life's necessities.  I don't see how anything can be more fair than UBI.  Everything else in life is just not fair.

[Slee_stack]

I think his primary objection is that to provide this basic income would require taking money from the people at the very top and that to him this is unethical no matter what.

Yea I can't figure that out.  This is how all governments and societies work.  Here in the US, we work for the government to cover our taxes first, and only then can we start to make money ourselves.  If we try to avoid paying taxes, we go to jail.

So he's against something that's already a mandatory thing in life?  UBI is far more fair in my opinion.

UBI doesn't replace government or taxes, it simply adds another complication to the overhead.

Complications are inherently inefficient.

Can someone do a quick summary of why UBI would be more financially effective then our current social program structure?  What other government programs could be eliminated?  Which ones would still remain?  Where are the cost savings?  I'm easily sell able with hard numbers.

[goateeman]

UBI doesn't replace government or taxes, it simply adds another complication to the overhead.

Complications are inherently inefficient.

Can someone do a quick summary of why UBI would be more financially effective then our current social program structure?  What other government programs could be eliminated?  Which ones would still remain?  Where are the cost savings?  I'm easily sell able with hard numbers.

Quite contrary, UBI is the most efficient. it gives everyone a universal level of basic living standard. 

I believe Sweden has tried it, and replaced all other sources of welfare programs with UBI.  There is so much corruption and waste in most other programs.  UBI is so much easier to administer and audit in comparison.  A lot of the information is in the links in the OP. Go read them up. 

[Optimiser]

Can someone do a quick summary of why UBI would be more financially effective then our current social program structure?  What other government programs could be eliminated?  Which ones would still remain?  Where are the cost savings?  I'm easily sell able with hard numbers.

https://www.cato-unbound.org/2014/08/04/matt-zwolinski/pragmatic-libertarian-case-basic-income-guarantee

[prognastat]

...
You are coming at it from a pragmatic end his argument is not a pragmatic, but an idealist one. I have some sympathy for the mindset that the government should not have to take these funds by force and enforce regulation by force. However history shows us why and so far I have yet to hear a convincing libertarian argument as to why we would not just see a repeat of history.

The alternative to having some form of socialist redistribution of wealth and regulations on people and companies preventing abuses is communist revolution. Look what happened in the French revolution when the working class/peasants felt there was no reason to maintain the current class structure. Or in Russia for a more recent one. When the working class has no hope and in my opinion no redistribution and no regulations will ultimately lead to this the end result is lots of people dying.

Even idealistically, I can't agree.

Life is inherently not fair.  Some people are born with superior genes than others.  Some are tall, some are handsome, some have great hair, some are much smarter.  Some are born autistic, some are born without limbs, some get cancer through no fault of their own.  When people are born out of the gate being unequal through no fault of their own, how can life be "fair" to begin with?

UBI doesn't discriminate, it gives everyone the same basic life's necessities.  I don't see how anything can be more fair than UBI.  Everything else in life is just not fair.

It's still idealistic, it just isn't the ideal to you. I may be misrepresenting his opinion here, but generally the argument I get is that people work hard for their income and the government is using force(the threat that if you do not pay they will either take it without your consent or take away your freedom by putting you in jail) to he likely feels he has never consented to this system and the government taking taxes by threat of prison is no different than a mugger on the street threatening you in person for your wallet.

The rest doesn't even enter the equation for most people making this argument. It is more immoral to take someone's gains by force to them than it is for someone who was dealt a bad hand in life to suffer. Either that  or the ones that don't believe that believe that if there were no taxes that charity would suddenly skyrocket and cover the difference by people voluntarily providing their money/time.

[Ocinfo]

UBI doesn't replace government or taxes, it simply adds another complication to the overhead.

Complications are inherently inefficient.

Can someone do a quick summary of why UBI would be more financially effective then our current social program structure?  What other government programs could be eliminated?  Which ones would still remain?  Where are the cost savings?  I'm easily sell able with hard numbers.

Quite contrary, UBI is the most efficient. it gives everyone a universal level of basic living standard. 

I believe Sweden has tried it, and replaced all other sources of welfare programs with UBI.  There is so much corruption and waste in most other programs.  UBI is so much easier to administer and audit in comparison.  A lot of the information is in the links in the OP. Go read them up.

Sort of reminds me when my company switched to a per diem setup for travel. Found it cost too much money to approve each expense so instead we get a flat amount per day depending on location and I can choose to have nice meals or buy a box of cereal and pocket the cash. Not the same scale but same idea of removing overhead.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[prognastat]

UBI doesn't replace government or taxes, it simply adds another complication to the overhead.

Complications are inherently inefficient.

Can someone do a quick summary of why UBI would be more financially effective then our current social program structure?  What other government programs could be eliminated?  Which ones would still remain?  Where are the cost savings?  I'm easily sell able with hard numbers.

Quite contrary, UBI is the most efficient. it gives everyone a universal level of basic living standard. 

I believe Sweden has tried it, and replaced all other sources of welfare programs with UBI.  There is so much corruption and waste in most other programs.  UBI is so much easier to administer and audit in comparison.  A lot of the information is in the links in the OP. Go read them up.

Sort of reminds me when my company switched to a per diem setup for travel. Found it cost too much money to approve each expense so instead we get a flat amount per day depending on location and I can choose to have nice meals or buy a box of cereal and pocket the cash. Not the same scale but same idea of removing overhead.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yeah, although some people might take advantage sometimes it is more efficient to just let them. Another example being when multiple states implemented drug tests for welfare recipients and turns out that the amount of money they were able to save by finding people on drugs was far exceeded by how much needed to be spent to catch them and actually made the welfare less efficient.(Not even going in to the fact that doing something that doesn't harm others shouldn't be illegal)

[Ocinfo]

I'm fairly supportive of UBI. I do wonder how it would effect the overall economy. Would prices increase to account for everyone having the additional money? There have been studies but still not sure. I actually prefer UBI over higher minimum wage because that will likely lead to job loss due to automation as wages get above $15hr. Also, if many UBI recipients aren't MMM followers most of the money will be spent and the economic benefit of it exchanging hands many times could offset a lot of the cost.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[JLee]

Interesting post, so why don't we add a dissenting opinion:

I'm completely against the concept of UBI!

To sum up why:

1. It's immoral to take by force from one and give to another
2. Government administration of such a program is guaranteed to be politically motivated and inefficient
3. Private charity is welcome to fund such a program if they can get enough voluntary donations to do so
4. Perhaps human over-population is the root cause that we should be discussing a strategy for?

I agree.  I am against it too.  Why are we doing away with human jobs.  People need those jobs to make a living and feed their families. I don't think they are working those jobs because they love them. You are talking millions of people.  I really would hate to see the day.  I understand efficiency, etc but honestly how efficient do we need to be and how much more money do these people need to make. Let folks earn some money.

the concept of UBI is not to take away human jobs. It has nothing to do with jobs, actually, merely a concept to provide people basic necessities of life - rent and food.

If you're talking about keeping jobs, there's nothing you can do about that.  Machines are far better at doing "boring" jobs than people ever will.

Let's say there's a job where you as a human get paid $10 per hour to run on a human sized "mouse exercise mill" to generate electricity.  Would you want to do this meaningless job for 40 hours per week, just so you could pay your basic rent and not be homeless?

That type of job is meaningless and causes misery. Why not let a machine take it instead?  Farming as an example is a huge shift in labor.  People used to work in farms to produce enough food to eat.  Now machines have replaced human labor to allow us to have major abundance in food.  Do you still want to wake up at 4am, go to the rice paddies and plant rice, clear mud, and do hard labor until night just so you have food in your stomach?  Why do it if machines can free you from this misery?

I would like to see a response to this.

I understand the initial reaction of "I don't want anybody else to profit from my labor" but people need to look at the bigger picture.  Let's say you have a robot that can perform 100,000 operations per day with precision.  For the sake of argument, let's say that a human can perform 1,000 operations per day with imperfect precision.  If we can build ten robots to replace 1,000 people on an assembly line (and do a better job), those 1,000 people need to find other jobs. It doesn't take 1,000 people to manufacture, operate, and maintain ten robots, so we're creating excessive workforce numbers by incorporating automation.

In other words, we're faced with a situation where we have to create work for these people to do something in order to "earn" their money -- even if the task they're doing could easily be replaced by automation.

To take it a step further, let's say all life necessities were conducted by automation - farming, construction, building maintenance, etc were completed with advanced AI and robotics.  We'd have to intentionally introduce inefficiencies just to occupy people's time so you feel they're worth paying.  I don't understand that argument.

(edit: I am using "you" in the general sense, not targeted at the person I quoted)

[goateeman]

I would like to see a response to this.

I understand the initial reaction of "I don't want anybody else to profit from my labor" but people need to look at the bigger picture.  Let's say you have a robot that can perform 100,000 operations per day with precision.  For the sake of argument, let's say that a human can perform 1,000 operations per day with imperfect precision.  If we can build ten robots to replace 1,000 people on an assembly line (and do a better job), those 1,000 people need to find other jobs. It doesn't take 1,000 people to manufacture, operate, and maintain ten robots, so we're creating excessive workforce numbers by incorporating automation.

In other words, we're faced with a situation where we have to create work for these people to do something in order to "earn" their money -- even if the task they're doing could easily be replaced by automation.

To take it a step further, let's say all life necessities were conducted by automation - farming, construction, building maintenance, etc were completed with advanced AI and robotics.  We'd have to intentionally introduce inefficiencies just to occupy people's time so you feel they're worth paying.  I don't understand that argument.

(edit: I am using "you" in the general sense, not targeted at the person I quoted)

Yup, you see the big picture.

I see people protesting about losing trucking / taxi type of jobs to self-driving cars.  It blows me away.  Who in their right mind would want to sit behind the wheel of a vehicle mindlessly for 8 hours or more each day, in terrible traffic, just so they can afford basic living?

Personally I'd rather be homeless than do some of those really shitty jobs.  Same thing with the coal jobs.  Who wants to be around coal dust all day, in a coal mine, just to be able to make a minimal living for rent / food?

Would people want to get find other ways to spend their time?  Once they don't have to worry about being homeless and starving, they can discover what other talents / passions they have, and bring creativity and joy to themselves and society.

[CheapScholar]

Im a conservative Republican and I'm in favor of UBI when the time is right, and that could be within a decade quite honestly.  There are interesting libertarian perspectives that favor UBI.  Even Milton Friedman argued it would make good economic policy at a certain point.

It's not stealing from anyone considering we have a fiat currency and everyone would receive the UBI payments.  The fact is, many jobs will be automated and basic jobs will become scarce.  The most dangerous people in society are those with nothing to lose.  I don't think having millions of people in America trying to scrape by on charity handouts will be so great for society.  I think a UBI will start with a payout that is enough to buy a basic healthcare plan (or you forfeit your UBI and get a catostrphic government plan if you don't have health insurance).

It's very possible that by the end of this century, people in developed countries will receive a UBI that provides basic health care and enough money leftover to afford low end housing and food staples.  This will create an environment where people can work or create new products if they so desire to become "middle class" or even "rich" by our standards today.

[goateeman]

Im a conservative Republican and I'm in favor of UBI when the time is right, and that could be within a decade quite honestly.  There are interesting libertarian perspectives that favor UBI.  Even Milton Friedman argued it would make good economic policy at a certain point.

It's not stealing from anyone considering we have a fiat currency and everyone would receive the UBI payments.  The fact is, many jobs will be automated and basic jobs will become scarce.  The most dangerous people in society are those with nothing to lose.  I don't think having millions of people in America trying to scrape by on charity handouts will be so great for society.  I think a UBI will start with a payout that is enough to buy a basic healthcare plan (or you forfeit your UBI and get a catostrphic government plan if you don't have health insurance).

It's very possible that by the end of this century, people in developed countries will receive a UBI that provides basic health care and enough money leftover to afford low end housing and food staples.  This will create an environment where people can work or create new products if they so desire to become "middle class" or even "rich" by our standards today.

1000% agree.  Hope more people see the light. 

[prognastat]

Im a conservative Republican and I'm in favor of UBI when the time is right, and that could be within a decade quite honestly.  There are interesting libertarian perspectives that favor UBI.  Even Milton Friedman argued it would make good economic policy at a certain point.

It's not stealing from anyone considering we have a fiat currency and everyone would receive the UBI payments.  The fact is, many jobs will be automated and basic jobs will become scarce.  The most dangerous people in society are those with nothing to lose.  I don't think having millions of people in America trying to scrape by on charity handouts will be so great for society.  I think a UBI will start with a payout that is enough to buy a basic healthcare plan (or you forfeit your UBI and get a catostrphic government plan if you don't have health insurance).

It's very possible that by the end of this century, people in developed countries will receive a UBI that provides basic health care and enough money leftover to afford low end housing and food staples.  This will create an environment where people can work or create new products if they so desire to become "middle class" or even "rich" by our standards today.

Pretty much a "socialist" liberal here and pretty much agree completely. I have no problem with UBI being the very minimum and someone being able to scrape by their whole life without doing anything if they want to and there is no reason for them to work since he would be more inefficient at doing his job than a robot or software would be meanwhile leaving the market completely open after those basics are covered. People would be guaranteed they wouldn't be starving and have a roof over their head and if you want a better life you can try to build one by doing a form of work still viable for humans.

I think we are likely to see the first large shift within a 10 year time frame where most of transportation will be automated. Then there will be a second wave later where a lot of desk jobs are going to disappear too once AGI(Advanced General Intelligence/General AI) or at minimum highly functional non intelligent software automation becomes common.

Like you said, you don't want a significant enough portion of your population that has nothing to lose and sees no non-violent way of improving their lot. You want the majority of people to have a vested interest in maintaining your system.

[Ocinfo]

Why is everyone convinced that this time, these changes (automation, AI, etc) are going to result in massive, non replaced jobs? There has been at least 500 years of consistent advances that devastated entire vocations but a new field has always developed. I highly respect the views of Musk and Gates but maybe they're wrong. It could be different this time but it might not. I will say that this time the replacement jobs are heavily dependent on intelligence and education whereas in the past that didn't matter quite as much. What's the 21st century version of the 19/20th century factory that gave displaced farmers a new life?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[rpr]

Im a conservative Republican and I'm in favor of UBI when the time is right, and that could be within a decade quite honestly.  There are interesting libertarian perspectives that favor UBI.  Even Milton Friedman argued it would make good economic policy at a certain point.

It's not stealing from anyone considering we have a fiat currency and everyone would receive the UBI payments.  The fact is, many jobs will be automated and basic jobs will become scarce.  The most dangerous people in society are those with nothing to lose.  I don't think having millions of people in America trying to scrape by on charity handouts will be so great for society.  I think a UBI will start with a payout that is enough to buy a basic healthcare plan (or you forfeit your UBI and get a catostrphic government plan if you don't have health insurance).

It's very possible that by the end of this century, people in developed countries will receive a UBI that provides basic health care and enough money leftover to afford low end housing and food staples.  This will create an environment where people can work or create new products if they so desire to become "middle class" or even "rich" by our standards today.

On the opposite spectrum politically, but I agree with you here as well on the UBI.

In fact, I believe that with respect to health care, we are already down the path of automation. A lot of surgery is done these days with robots and in the future more will be as well. Also lots of medical issues can be diagnosed with AI as well. In fact, human related errors will probably decrease significantly. So I can slowly see health care costs coming down.

[WhiteTrashCash]

I would love if UBI became a reality because then I could stop working and live my dream of becoming a rock musician. I'd also like to write novels. That would be a lot of fun. While I'm dreaming, I would also like a pony.

[goateeman]

Why is everyone convinced that this time, these changes (automation, AI, etc) are going to result in massive, non replaced jobs? There has been at least 500 years of consistent advances that devastated entire vocations but a new field has always developed. I highly respect the views of Musk and Gates but maybe they're wrong. It could be different this time but it might not. I will say that this time the replacement jobs are heavily dependent on intelligence and education whereas in the past that didn't matter quite as much. What's the 21st century version of the 19/20th century factory that gave displaced farmers a new life?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think it's due to machine learning.  Based on Moore's law, artificial intelligence will first match human intelligence, and then surpass it at a logarithmic scale.  To assume this will not happen is ignoring reality.  I mean, the first "modern" computer were invented less than 100 years ago, and look at how they run the world today already.  In less than 1 lifespan of a human, machines have already affected our lives so much.   I don't know how anyone can question the coming machine / AI age. 

Society changed in the last 100 years.  People went from riding horses to flying to the moon.  Imagine that type of change happening every 10 years, or 5 years, or every year.

The smarter machines get, the faster things evolve.  I work in IT.  I see it, feel it.  Life is changing so fast already.

[goateeman]

I would love if UBI became a reality because then I could stop working and live my dream of becoming a rock musician. I'd also like to write novels. That would be a lot of fun. While I'm dreaming, I would also like a pony.

And I would love for you to do that, because more awesome music adds to life's meaning. 

If reality means you have to bust your ass mopping my floors, then sucks for you, and sucks for me.

[rpr]

I would love if UBI became a reality because then I could stop working and live my dream of becoming a rock musician. I'd also like to write novels. That would be a lot of fun. While I'm dreaming, I would also like a pony.

And I would love for you to do that, because more awesome music adds to life's meaning. 

If reality means you have to bust your ass mopping my floors, then sucks for you, and sucks for me.

:)

[prognastat]

Why is everyone convinced that this time, these changes (automation, AI, etc) are going to result in massive, non replaced jobs? There has been at least 500 years of consistent advances that devastated entire vocations but a new field has always developed. I highly respect the views of Musk and Gates but maybe they're wrong. It could be different this time but it might not. I will say that this time the replacement jobs are heavily dependent on intelligence and education whereas in the past that didn't matter quite as much. What's the 21st century version of the 19/20th century factory that gave displaced farmers a new life?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The self driving improvements are an example of how fast these kinds of things progress. This improvement alone is capable of removing a large portion of the jobs available in a very short(relatively speaking) time frame not seen before.

The advances made recently in AGIs and machine learning are even surprising experts in the field. Imagine AI that can learn to do anything faster than a human is capable of learning it and with more precision and lower error chance than a human. There would be no reason to hire a human even if it was as fast as a human would be and it would likely rapidly outpace any human. Once it hits this point it wouldn't just be a matter of it replacing current jobs it would replace any "new jobs" immediately too.

There will likely always be some form of employment where we want humans involved, however for most millennial and younger that I know a lot of us prefer interacting as little as possible with strangers in many things. For many not having to interact with a human when having a package delivered, ordering fast food or taking a cab is actually a bonus.

[fattest_foot]

Why is everyone convinced that this time, these changes (automation, AI, etc) are going to result in massive, non replaced jobs? There has been at least 500 years of consistent advances that devastated entire vocations but a new field has always developed. I highly respect the views of Musk and Gates but maybe they're wrong. It could be different this time but it might not. I will say that this time the replacement jobs are heavily dependent on intelligence and education whereas in the past that didn't matter quite as much. What's the 21st century version of the 19/20th century factory that gave displaced farmers a new life?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think it's due to machine learning.  Based on Moore's law, artificial intelligence will first match human intelligence, and then surpass it at a logarithmic scale.  To assume this will not happen is ignoring reality.  I mean, the first "modern" computer were invented less than 100 years ago, and look at how they run the world today already.  In less than 1 lifespan of a human, machines have already affected our lives so much.   I don't know how anyone can question the coming machine / AI age. 

Society changed in the last 100 years.  People went from riding horses to flying to the moon.  Imagine that type of change happening every 10 years, or 5 years, or every year.

The smarter machines get, the faster things evolve.  I work in IT.  I see it, feel it.  Life is changing so fast already.

Yeah, I've heard the argument before. People thought the industrial revolution was going to be the end of people working actual jobs. And while we love to joke about "this time is different," I think this time really is different. And you nailed it, it's because for the first time the automation will meet or exceed human intelligence. The industrial revolution was a massive uptick in human potential for automation, but it pales in comparison to automation that is more efficient than its creator.

So while we may be able to theoretically create a new job after the robots replace their human counterparts, because AI will exceed human intelligence, the AI will be able to instantly replace that new job with a more efficient automation. It cuts out the "we need to automate this new function" step; it just goes straight to it.

Edit: prognastat beat me to it.

[prognastat]

Why is everyone convinced that this time, these changes (automation, AI, etc) are going to result in massive, non replaced jobs? There has been at least 500 years of consistent advances that devastated entire vocations but a new field has always developed. I highly respect the views of Musk and Gates but maybe they're wrong. It could be different this time but it might not. I will say that this time the replacement jobs are heavily dependent on intelligence and education whereas in the past that didn't matter quite as much. What's the 21st century version of the 19/20th century factory that gave displaced farmers a new life?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think it's due to machine learning.  Based on Moore's law, artificial intelligence will first match human intelligence, and then surpass it at a logarithmic scale.  To assume this will not happen is ignoring reality.  I mean, the first "modern" computer were invented less than 100 years ago, and look at how they run the world today already.  In less than 1 lifespan of a human, machines have already affected our lives so much.   I don't know how anyone can question the coming machine / AI age. 

Society changed in the last 100 years.  People went from riding horses to flying to the moon.  Imagine that type of change happening every 10 years, or 5 years, or every year.

The smarter machines get, the faster things evolve.  I work in IT.  I see it, feel it.  Life is changing so fast already.

Yeah, I've heard the argument before. People thought the industrial revolution was going to be the end of people working actual jobs. And while we love to joke about "this time is different," I think this time really is different. And you nailed it, it's because for the first time the automation will meet or exceed human intelligence. The industrial revolution was a massive uptick in human potential for automation, but it pales in comparison to automation that is more efficient than its creator.

So while we may be able to theoretically create a new job after the robots replace their human counterparts, because AI will exceed human intelligence, the AI will be able to instantly replace that new job with a more efficient automation. It cuts out the "we need to automate this new function" step; it just goes straight to it.

Edit: prognastat beat me to it.

Yeah there is a vast difference between a machine that can do one very specific task better than humans and a program that can learn to do any new task faster than a human could learn to do it and improve on this skill faster than a human could.

I think there will still be things we have humans do because we are sometimes silly value the fact that a human did something even if it is of lower quality than something done by a robot or program. There will be a market for people on UBI to make things/art for richer people or services that don't currently don't exist, but I doubt unlike previous times this will be a large enough amount to not need some kind of system to help a lot of people that simply won't be able to.

For example I believe things like actors will still be a viable job even if we make robots indistinguishable from humans that can act just as well or better than humans. People will value a human doing it simply through the knowledge that it is a person. Same for a lot of art. Chances are the art in a dentist office or for most poorer people will be produced by robots/AI however rich people will value that their art was made by an inefficient human with a life story.

[PathtoFIRE]

It could be different this time but it might not.

Good point, although that doesn't necessarily counter the arguments, just makes one pause. I think with the more recent changes in industry, there has been a real shift in the material wealth of people, which is starting to spread globally. I have no doubt that everyone, including the most advanced countries, could continue to absorb even greater material wealth. You also have increased travel, communications, etc. The real question is whether these things are finite. Yes, history has shown that displaced jobs/industries do eventually get replaced in one manner or another, and one could imagine current professions or pursuits that are limited now and could expand, as well as posit future unimaginable jobs. But I think there may be a limit to our material wealth, travel, etc.

Or maybe not, maybe we will become space-faring, and the potentially massive scale of us spreading out towards the stars would require work from billions of us on top of an army of trillions of robots. Asimov's Robot series imagined one of the earliest colonized planets, Solaria, a planet of 20,000 mostly solitary people each controlling around 10,000 robots to provide all of their needs and comforts. Kind of dystopian, but once I got that image in my head, I never doubted the possibility of a life for many/all without what we think of as work. Then again, these first worlds became so dependent on robots that their societies withered away while the second wave of planetary settlement eschewed robots completely and ended up thriving as a whole (while preserving the everyday struggles of working and providing that are familiar to us in our present time).

[Ocinfo]

Good responses. To be clear, I'm not sure one way or another regarding if this time is different. I'm an engineer that works with tech everyday, for a company founded by MIT many years ago and I routinely work with NASA and other very well respected companies. I'm well aware of how fast things are changing but what if Musk is right and we start going to Mars in large numbers within the next 50 years. There has always been a breakthrough. Hell, maybe AI will get rid of jobs then start identifying new opportunities for employment. Wouldn't that be ironic?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Holocene]

I see people protesting about losing trucking / taxi type of jobs to self-driving cars.  It blows me away.  Who in their right mind would want to sit behind the wheel of a vehicle mindlessly for 8 hours or more each day, in terrible traffic, just so they can afford basic living?

It blows you away?  It seems completely reasonable to me.  These people see that their jobs are at risk.  Being a taxi/bus/truck driver, etc. may not be an ideal job or something you want to do, but the reality is that it's how a lot of people make a living and support themselves.  We're not at the point where we have UBI right now.  If we did, I'd agree with your point.  But right now, of course people are out there scared about losing their jobs and maybe protesting as the only way they see to try and prevent it.

Personally I'd rather be homeless than do some of those really shitty jobs.  Same thing with the coal jobs.  Who wants to be around coal dust all day, in a coal mine, just to be able to make a minimal living for rent / food?

This rubbed me the wrong way.  If you were actually facing the choice between working a shitty job and being able to afford shelter and food, I'm guessing it wouldn't be so easy to say that you'd rather be homeless.  I don't think many people actually want to work these jobs, but again, we're not at the point of being able to not work and still have a basic standard of living, so until we get there, this point seems almost insulting to those who work these types of jobs.  Now, I'm sure that was not your intent, but that is how I interpreted these statements, based on where we're at today without UBI.

Would people want to get find other ways to spend their time?  Once they don't have to worry about being homeless and starving, they can discover what other talents / passions they have, and bring creativity and joy to themselves and society.

In the end, I think we actually agree!  I do think our society as a whole and at the individual level would benefit from UBI.  I believe it would be a positive thing to allow for people to pursue their interests and take risks without regard for how much money it may make them.

I do struggle to see how we'd get to UBI in the US.  With our current two party system, no side seems open to ideas or opinions that are outside of the standard party lines.  I don't see our congress being able to get enough support for this major of a change anytime in the near future.

It does seem like there will be a tipping point at which something will have to change since so many people will be out of jobs and there won't be enough jobs around to support the workforce.  Something like driverless cars might do it, considering how many are employed in the transportation industry.  But I'm guessing it's going to be a tough transition.

[Dropbear]

I'm also interested in seeing UBI emerge.

It doesn't even need to be dependent on artificial intelligence surpassing human intelligence.  We're already seeing simple and repetitive jobs being automated!

Sure, there are new jobs now that didn't exist in the past.  But these new jobs are generally fewer in number and more highly skilled than those they replace.  We can expect this trend to continue...

The impending widespread automation of jobs is a challenge for an economy that is based on the cyclical nature of of consumption: to earn, be taxed, and to spend.  (Even mustachians are valid consumers in this respect, they're just more mindful consumers than most.)

The current economic system relies on the whole population being a part of it.  For every person who loses their income, that's one less person who is able to buy products and services that give people their incomes.

We also currently have welfare systems that cost significant amounts to maintain, because they require extensive processes to check who is entitled to receive payments, and how much.

In this context, the increasing efficiencies gained in modern systems of production allow us to increase economic efficiency by removing our dependency on work and welfare. A guaranteed universal basic income gives us the ability to more closely follow our human needs and aspirations.

[prognastat]

I see people protesting about losing trucking / taxi type of jobs to self-driving cars.  It blows me away.  Who in their right mind would want to sit behind the wheel of a vehicle mindlessly for 8 hours or more each day, in terrible traffic, just so they can afford basic living?

It blows you away?  It seems completely reasonable to me.  These people see that their jobs are at risk.  Being a taxi/bus/truck driver, etc. may not be an ideal job or something you want to do, but the reality is that it's how a lot of people make a living and support themselves.  We're not at the point where we have UBI right now.  If we did, I'd agree with your point.  But right now, of course people are out there scared about losing their jobs and maybe protesting as the only way they see to try and prevent it.

Personally I'd rather be homeless than do some of those really shitty jobs.  Same thing with the coal jobs.  Who wants to be around coal dust all day, in a coal mine, just to be able to make a minimal living for rent / food?

This rubbed me the wrong way.  If you were actually facing the choice between working a shitty job and being able to afford shelter and food, I'm guessing it wouldn't be so easy to say that you'd rather be homeless.  I don't think many people actually want to work these jobs, but again, we're not at the point of being able to not work and still have a basic standard of living, so until we get there, this point seems almost insulting to those who work these types of jobs.  Now, I'm sure that was not your intent, but that is how I interpreted these statements, based on where we're at today without UBI.

Would people want to get find other ways to spend their time?  Once they don't have to worry about being homeless and starving, they can discover what other talents / passions they have, and bring creativity and joy to themselves and society.

In the end, I think we actually agree!  I do think our society as a whole and at the individual level would benefit from UBI.  I believe it would be a positive thing to allow for people to pursue their interests and take risks without regard for how much money it may make them.

I do struggle to see how we'd get to UBI in the US.  With our current two party system, no side seems open to ideas or opinions that are outside of the standard party lines.  I don't see our congress being able to get enough support for this major of a change anytime in the near future.

It does seem like there will be a tipping point at which something will have to change since so many people will be out of jobs and there won't be enough jobs around to support the workforce.  Something like driverless cars might do it, considering how many are employed in the transportation industry.  But I'm guessing it's going to be a tough transition.

Unfortunately I think culturally it will be a struggle to get a large enough majority of Americans to agree with UBI until a large portion of people are already feeling the negative effects instead of us being able to get some initiative before some big struggles. On top of this neither of the two main parties and their politicians seem all that concerned at this point when I do think this stuff really should be more of a discussion already(not necessarily UBI, but the effects of automation in the near future).

[goateeman]

Unfortunately I think culturally it will be a struggle to get a large enough majority of Americans to agree with UBI until a large portion of people are already feeling the negative effects instead of us being able to get some initiative before some big struggles. On top of this neither of the two main parties and their politicians seem all that concerned at this point when I do think this stuff really should be more of a discussion already(not necessarily UBI, but the effects of automation in the near future).

I fear you are probably right.  Most people are too dumb / narrowly focused on their small piece of the world instead of the greater good. 

I should be the one to argue against UBI because hey, I have a great life and can FIRE. Why should I wish others have to have it as good as me?  I see the greater good for mankind, that's why I think UBI is a good thing.

Sadly, it seems there are a lot of people who oppose it, thinking it's worse than welfare or some other incorrect idea.  Look at how many people would rather work their shitty / mundane jobs instead of looking at the bigger picture.

[Holocene]

Unfortunately I think culturally it will be a struggle to get a large enough majority of Americans to agree with UBI until a large portion of people are already feeling the negative effects instead of us being able to get some initiative before some big struggles. On top of this neither of the two main parties and their politicians seem all that concerned at this point when I do think this stuff really should be more of a discussion already(not necessarily UBI, but the effects of automation in the near future).

Agreed.  I don't think we (as a country) will be proactive and try to set something in place before a large portion of people are affected by it.  Like I said, I think it's going to be a tough transition.  It sucks that a lot of people will be struggling before we likely see any change.  We can't agree about healthcare subsidies and welfare programs right now, so I can only imagine the reaction from some people to the government giving away money to people for doing nothing!  Maybe the fact that everyone gets it would appease some of this?  I don't know.  I'm glad I'm not in that position of having my job likely replaced by automation, but I definitely feel for those that are.

To be honest, I hadn't really thought much about this myself before I started reading this forum.  My initial thought was, "Why should people get money for doing nothing?  You should have to work for it."  I'm guessing that's what a lot of people will think.  But then I started reading more about it and thinking about the future and how automation is bound to be replacing a majority of jobs, so UBI started making more sense.  I'm also a bit of a socialist so it didn't take much for me to see that side of things.  When you think about it, the concept is contrary to everything we've ever been told or learned about how the world works.  It's a major shift in how our society would function.  Somehow, I see UBI as both impossible and inevitable...

[MMMdude]

I am 100% against this concept - it's completely absurd.  Here in Canada when numbers are thrown around, UBI for everyone would cost 5 times what the entire current budget is.  Ontario is apparently testing this soon...I have no idea how you can partially test UBI.  Give a bunch of people money for nothing yet don't decrease costs.  Let me guess the recipients will love it and this will be seen as a successful "test".  Ontario government is likely the leftist leaning party in the entire world.

You either do UBI 100% full bore and eliminate all the useless government positions or not at all.  You can't partially test this.

[MMMdude]

Interesting post, so why don't we add a dissenting opinion:

I'm completely against the concept of UBI!

To sum up why:

1. It's immoral to take by force from one and give to another
2. Government administration of such a program is guaranteed to be politically motivated and inefficient
3. Private charity is welcome to fund such a program if they can get enough voluntary donations to do so
4. Perhaps human over-population is the root cause that we should be discussing a strategy for?

Bingo on #4!  Honestly one of the reasons I don't want kids.  There are too many of us here - period.  If that wasn't the case we would be near 0% unemployment.

[MrsPete]

Who's read HG Wells' The Time Machine?  You're suggesting that we live out that novel and allow the majority of humanity to become the Eloi.  People need challenges, need to be productive, need to participate meaningfully in the economy, need to work to improve themselves.  Without the NEED for a job, a whole lot of people will not see any reason to educate their children.  UBI is essentially the same concept as generational welfare -- what has that done to society? 

At the same time, I understand that many low-skill jobs are disappearing, and that's endangering a segment of society.  Still, I can't accept that just supporting these people for life is a good idea. 

[RangerOne]

I don't believe we have any truly good examples of UBI working long term in the real world to go off but it has long been a concept economists have been aware of. I would say that if you like free markets, you like efficiency and you think current welfare is harmful, then a UBI is a strategy that even the best conservative economists have suggested as an alternative to our broken convoluted welfare system.

The one that jumps to mind whom I have the most respect for on the conservative side of things is Milton Friedman. https://medium.com/basic-income/why-milton-friedman-supported-a-guaranteed-income-5-reasons-da6e628f6070#.sm8tescy3

There is really an elegance to this solution that is sorely missing from all of our combined welfare programs, which often in their poor design and execution can discourage instead of encourage productivity of their recipients.

Philosophically of course you could posit that any forceful redistribution of a persons property(wealth) through taxes is unjust or takes away freedom. But another way to look at it is that we agree to remain part of society at large in order to take advantage of communal defense, infrastructure, and social stability through the rule of law. Well, giving people just enough income to not be dirt poor and out in the streets goes straight into social stability. It reduces crime, increase job opportunities to provide service to the people on the bottom rung.

All that money we collectively pay in taxes would then trickle back up to those who are best able to provide the most competitive services to those living off of a ubi. On top of that when they get sick of being at the very bottom, they can go out and seek work without ever fearing that the ubi will not be there if the get fired or fail. The desire to make more and have more keeps them pushing upwards, but the fear of losing your safety net disappears because you don't have to worry about making money disqualifying you from getting ubi in the worst case.

I hope and partially believe that this kind of system will be part of the solution to many of our current poverty woes in wealthy democratic nations as we grapple with automation and globalization. Just from an efficiency stand imagine how much money could be saved by scrapping all of our crazy welfare programs with their own rules and governing agencies.

I would be interesting to read a proposal as to how to do this and what it might look like in the US. I am certain there must be a number of studies that have been done by think tanks.

[RangerOne]

Interesting post, so why don't we add a dissenting opinion:

I'm completely against the concept of UBI!

To sum up why:

1. It's immoral to take by force from one and give to another
2. Government administration of such a program is guaranteed to be politically motivated and inefficient
3. Private charity is welcome to fund such a program if they can get enough voluntary donations to do so
4. Perhaps human over-population is the root cause that we should be discussing a strategy for?

Bingo on #4!  Honestly one of the reasons I don't want kids.  There are too many of us here - period.  If that wasn't the case we would be near 0% unemployment.

I am sorry but the US and other wealthy industrialized nations do not have poverty because of over population. We have an abundance of space, money and resources to have every citizen be taken care of or have a job here...

That may be a problem in places like India, but most populations even in China have been declining. China of course famously because of extreme government intervention. But now also because of growing middle class.

Educated people with money have fewer kids. Almost every major western country would have a declining population if not for immigration. In fact you may want to encourage more well off citizens to have a few more kids to maintain a strong cultural footprint.

Though I would also say that if you are concerned about overpopulation and poor people who shouldn't be having a zillion kids, then I would hope you are for federal and state funding of planned parenthood. Its kind of all in the name, when young adults are consistently able to prevent unplanned unwanted pregnancies, we all benefit.

[GetItRight]

Interesting post, so why don't we add a dissenting opinion:

I'm completely against the concept of UBI!

To sum up why:

1. It's immoral to take by force from one and give to another
2. Government administration of such a program is guaranteed to be politically motivated and inefficient
3. Private charity is welcome to fund such a program if they can get enough voluntary donations to do so
4. Perhaps human over-population is the root cause that we should be discussing a strategy for?

^ Agreed. I can't get past the initiation of force, the violence, the gu to your head and hand on your wallet that is required for such statist redistribution programs. I will say that UBI seems a lesser evil than the current system of government taking by forcer, but it is still immoral and unethical... A violation of everyone's rights if it is funded by force rather than voluntarily.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QxUzTW5dM4o

[RangerOne]

Who's read HG Wells' The Time Machine?  You're suggesting that we live out that novel and allow the majority of humanity to become the Eloi.  People need challenges, need to be productive, need to participate meaningfully in the economy, need to work to improve themselves.  Without the NEED for a job, a whole lot of people will not see any reason to educate their children.  UBI is essentially the same concept as generational welfare -- what has that done to society? 

At the same time, I understand that many low-skill jobs are disappearing, and that's endangering a segment of society.  Still, I can't accept that just supporting these people for life is a good idea.

Well you really have 4 options:

Option 1:
-Keep a mess of welfare programs like we have now.
   - that are expensive and inefficient to manage
   - trap people who use them by threatening loss of benefits if they work

Option 2:
- Establish a full employment mandate funded by the government
   - Guarantee every able bodied person a job if they can't find one in the private sector.
   - Do we really have a job at all times for everyone? Maybe.
   - Sounds pretty complicated.

Option 3:
- Establish a UBI through a negative income tax:
  - Guarantee a very base level of income which can handle at best necessities.
  - Make sure that any form of income or work results in a better standard of living, aka more money than UBI alone. This is kind of inherent in the design of a negative income tax.
  - Assume that human nature will drive people to seek work because they always want a bigger tv, a better car and nicer stuff in general. Very few if anyone will want to be stuck on a UBI. (your better off working at Starbucks than living on UBI)
  - There is non of the disincentive there is to work with current wellfare because you never risk losing a UBI by working.
  - Managing a UBI is simple, can be done with the current or an expanded IRS,   you can kill every other welfare program. The government sucks at running complicated programs but its pretty good at collecting taxes.

Option 4:
- Don't do welfare, don't guarantee jobs, and no UBI.
- Basically let people who fuck up and fail starve and live on the streets
- Try to deal with the problem after the fact (aka more crime and homeless to clean up after, more health issues, less consumers)

Basically the assumption that a UBI would create a larger non-working class is not necessarily correct. And in fact their is evidence to suggest that our current welfare is establishing a far larger non-working class than a UBI would, because it does the same shit as a UBI with more complexity and the bonus feature of making people dependent on it.

I suppose guaranteed employment is also an interesting option. But keep in mind, guaranteed employment, welfare and even probably zero safety net dealing with droves of poor people, probably all result in more government bureaucracy and therefor size than a UBI.