CDZ Why not have a 'Universal Basic Income' to replace welfare?

[Martin Eden Mercury]

Why don't we get rid of money.

It worked in Star Trek.

Star Trek is socialist fiction. That being said, if we could do most all of our manufacturing with replicators as on Star Trek, socialism might just work pretty well.

Whaaaaaaaaaat? Say it ain't so!!!

 

[JimBowie1958]

you did not invent this idea JIM BOWIE (jimmy the knife) Read the Utopian novel "LOOKING BACKWARD" ---nineteenth century EDWARD BELLAMY

Where did I say that I invented this idea?

Wow, that was really strange.

 

[JimBowie1958]

'Half of Americans Will Probably Have a Robot in Their House' Within 5 Years - Breitbart

I'm still waiting for the flying automobiles from the Jetsons

Most of the predictions of futurists don't pan out. But the basic income level/wage thing has been debated in economic circles for ages

WE do have flying cars and more are on the way. Why do you wait?

 

[JimBowie1958]

I like this idea as it will smooth out the transition from a wage based economy to a new technologically based barter economy that will arrive within 30 years if not much sooner.

Now before you start yelling 'But the lazy dindus wont work!' well, the way technology is advancing in such a way that very few people will work no matter how hard they try to find a job; there simply wont be enough jobs to employ more than about 15% of the population, if passed slave economies are any valid comparison economically. Just as there were some jobs one could not train a slave to do well, or a slave was too expensive to have them do those jobs, so too there will be jobs that an android wont do because of the same reasons. Of course the economy has changed quite a bit since 1860, but I think morphologically the analogy is valid.

Besides, what else do we have to guess with?

But this concept of a Universal Basic Income is the kind of thing we will need to salve the insecure who have alwayus thought of employment = financial security. In the coming technological Utopia we will have far deeper challenges, like finding a purpose to our lives when employment is not a realistic option..

Zoltan Istvan: 'Half of Americans Will Probably Have a Robot in Their House' Within 5 Years - Breitbart

We’ve followed two seemingly disparate lines of thought, so let’s take them to their logical conclusion: Let’s say that we do that. Let’s say that we accomplish sort of “science-industrial complex,” that we can win this battle against mortality itself. At the same time, we’re developing these technologies with increasing automation, and we’re making human workers literally redundant. What happens when those two concepts meet? It seems to me that we would have a more and more long-lived population, with fewer and fewer occupations available for them. How can those conclusions co-exist without becoming hopelessly entangled?

Oh yeah, no. Indeed it will be tangled. But, you know, this is where I think that in my own campaign and the Transhumanist party, we support, very deeply, a Universal Basic Income. Now when you hear the words “Universal Basic Income,” it doesn’t necessarily mean it’s some kind of socialist perspective. There’s also ways to create a universal basic income through Libertarian means and our Libertarian ideas and stuff like that.

One of our ideas is that with a Universal Basic Income, with the automation coming that’s going to replace so many workers, is going to be a huge amount of prosperity for the companies who are replacing the human workers with machines. That prosperity can go towards creating Universal Basic Income, so that we don’t create a society even moreso of the “haves” and the “have-nots.”

And, I think more prosperity is going to mean more money in the system. Let’s spend more taking care of those Americans who have lost their jobs. In fact, it’s not just those Americans who have lost their jobs. I’m not just interested in only those Americans who have lost their jobs. I’m actually interested in every single American.

The reason I’ve always liked the Universal Basic Income is because it allows for every single person to get a certain amount of money — enough to feed and clothe themselves, and house themselves — and on top of that, they can create whatever kind of world they want. They can build empires. But nobody is left out of that system.

And a Universal Basic Income can do a lot of other things too. It would wipe — it would essentially replace — welfare. ....

This or something very much like it is coming, and we need to evaluate our options and take responsible action to alleviate the most disruptive technology driven change that mankind has ever seen occur in one generation.

if no one is working where will the government get the money to pay everyone an income?

It is in the article. With the corporations having saved so much money by having a fully automated production line for their products, they can afford a tax to pay for everyone to have a base income so that we dont have people rioting in the streets.

 

[JimBowie1958]

I like this idea as it will smooth out the transition from a wage based economy to a new technologically based barter economy that will arrive within 30 years if not much sooner.

Now before you start yelling 'But the lazy dindus wont work!' well, the way technology is advancing in such a way that very few people will work no matter how hard they try to find a job; there simply wont be enough jobs to employ more than about 15% of the population, if passed slave economies are any valid comparison economically. Just as there were some jobs one could not train a slave to do well, or a slave was too expensive to have them do those jobs, so too there will be jobs that an android wont do because of the same reasons. Of course the economy has changed quite a bit since 1860, but I think morphologically the analogy is valid.

Besides, what else do we have to guess with?

But this concept of a Universal Basic Income is the kind of thing we will need to salve the insecure who have alwayus thought of employment = financial security. In the coming technological Utopia we will have far deeper challenges, like finding a purpose to our lives when employment is not a realistic option..

Zoltan Istvan: 'Half of Americans Will Probably Have a Robot in Their House' Within 5 Years - Breitbart

We’ve followed two seemingly disparate lines of thought, so let’s take them to their logical conclusion: Let’s say that we do that. Let’s say that we accomplish sort of “science-industrial complex,” that we can win this battle against mortality itself. At the same time, we’re developing these technologies with increasing automation, and we’re making human workers literally redundant. What happens when those two concepts meet? It seems to me that we would have a more and more long-lived population, with fewer and fewer occupations available for them. How can those conclusions co-exist without becoming hopelessly entangled?

Oh yeah, no. Indeed it will be tangled. But, you know, this is where I think that in my own campaign and the Transhumanist party, we support, very deeply, a Universal Basic Income. Now when you hear the words “Universal Basic Income,” it doesn’t necessarily mean it’s some kind of socialist perspective. There’s also ways to create a universal basic income through Libertarian means and our Libertarian ideas and stuff like that.

One of our ideas is that with a Universal Basic Income, with the automation coming that’s going to replace so many workers, is going to be a huge amount of prosperity for the companies who are replacing the human workers with machines. That prosperity can go towards creating Universal Basic Income, so that we don’t create a society even moreso of the “haves” and the “have-nots.”

And, I think more prosperity is going to mean more money in the system. Let’s spend more taking care of those Americans who have lost their jobs. In fact, it’s not just those Americans who have lost their jobs. I’m not just interested in only those Americans who have lost their jobs. I’m actually interested in every single American.

The reason I’ve always liked the Universal Basic Income is because it allows for every single person to get a certain amount of money — enough to feed and clothe themselves, and house themselves — and on top of that, they can create whatever kind of world they want. They can build empires. But nobody is left out of that system.

And a Universal Basic Income can do a lot of other things too. It would wipe — it would essentially replace — welfare. ....

This or something very much like it is coming, and we need to evaluate our options and take responsible action to alleviate the most disruptive technology driven change that mankind has ever seen occur in one generation.

if no one is working where will the government get the money to pay everyone an income?

read Edward Bellamy's "LOOKING BACKWARD"------it is a description of
a UTOPIAN SOCIETY-----not an uncommon theme for the 19th century----I
believe that Bellamy was a real live economist------but then----so was KARL MARX.

We are on the cusp of a technological utopia, but there are many tripwires and deadfalls between here and there.

But we will be there one day, the only question is whether the USA gets there in one piece.

 

[JimBowie1958]

I like this idea as it will smooth out the transition from a wage based economy to a new technologically based barter economy that will arrive within 30 years if not much sooner.

Now before you start yelling 'But the lazy dindus wont work!' well, the way technology is advancing in such a way that very few people will work no matter how hard they try to find a job; there simply wont be enough jobs to employ more than about 15% of the population, if passed slave economies are any valid comparison economically. Just as there were some jobs one could not train a slave to do well, or a slave was too expensive to have them do those jobs, so too there will be jobs that an android wont do because of the same reasons. Of course the economy has changed quite a bit since 1860, but I think morphologically the analogy is valid.

Besides, what else do we have to guess with?

But this concept of a Universal Basic Income is the kind of thing we will need to salve the insecure who have alwayus thought of employment = financial security. In the coming technological Utopia we will have far deeper challenges, like finding a purpose to our lives when employment is not a realistic option..

Zoltan Istvan: 'Half of Americans Will Probably Have a Robot in Their House' Within 5 Years - Breitbart

We’ve followed two seemingly disparate lines of thought, so let’s take them to their logical conclusion: Let’s say that we do that. Let’s say that we accomplish sort of “science-industrial complex,” that we can win this battle against mortality itself. At the same time, we’re developing these technologies with increasing automation, and we’re making human workers literally redundant. What happens when those two concepts meet? It seems to me that we would have a more and more long-lived population, with fewer and fewer occupations available for them. How can those conclusions co-exist without becoming hopelessly entangled?

Oh yeah, no. Indeed it will be tangled. But, you know, this is where I think that in my own campaign and the Transhumanist party, we support, very deeply, a Universal Basic Income. Now when you hear the words “Universal Basic Income,” it doesn’t necessarily mean it’s some kind of socialist perspective. There’s also ways to create a universal basic income through Libertarian means and our Libertarian ideas and stuff like that.

One of our ideas is that with a Universal Basic Income, with the automation coming that’s going to replace so many workers, is going to be a huge amount of prosperity for the companies who are replacing the human workers with machines. That prosperity can go towards creating Universal Basic Income, so that we don’t create a society even moreso of the “haves” and the “have-nots.”

And, I think more prosperity is going to mean more money in the system. Let’s spend more taking care of those Americans who have lost their jobs. In fact, it’s not just those Americans who have lost their jobs. I’m not just interested in only those Americans who have lost their jobs. I’m actually interested in every single American.

The reason I’ve always liked the Universal Basic Income is because it allows for every single person to get a certain amount of money — enough to feed and clothe themselves, and house themselves — and on top of that, they can create whatever kind of world they want. They can build empires. But nobody is left out of that system.

And a Universal Basic Income can do a lot of other things too. It would wipe — it would essentially replace — welfare. ....

This or something very much like it is coming, and we need to evaluate our options and take responsible action to alleviate the most disruptive technology driven change that mankind has ever seen occur in one generation.

Why don't we get rid of money.

It worked in Star Trek.

Star Trek is socialist fiction. That being said, if we could do most all of our manufacturing with replicators as on Star Trek, socialism might just work pretty well.

replicators require LOTS OF ENERGY-------some sort of special "forms" of
energy---------I want a replicator but I am not sure of the ENERGY SOURCE

But 3D printers and nano-manufacturing will not require much energy and we will have plenty of energy anyway, so no problemo.

 

[JimBowie1958]

I like this idea as it will smooth out the transition from a wage based economy to a new technologically based barter economy that will arrive within 30 years if not much sooner.

Now before you start yelling 'But the lazy dindus wont work!' well, the way technology is advancing in such a way that very few people will work no matter how hard they try to find a job; there simply wont be enough jobs to employ more than about 15% of the population, if passed slave economies are any valid comparison economically. Just as there were some jobs one could not train a slave to do well, or a slave was too expensive to have them do those jobs, so too there will be jobs that an android wont do because of the same reasons. Of course the economy has changed quite a bit since 1860, but I think morphologically the analogy is valid.

Besides, what else do we have to guess with?

But this concept of a Universal Basic Income is the kind of thing we will need to salve the insecure who have alwayus thought of employment = financial security. In the coming technological Utopia we will have far deeper challenges, like finding a purpose to our lives when employment is not a realistic option..

Zoltan Istvan: 'Half of Americans Will Probably Have a Robot in Their House' Within 5 Years - Breitbart

We’ve followed two seemingly disparate lines of thought, so let’s take them to their logical conclusion: Let’s say that we do that. Let’s say that we accomplish sort of “science-industrial complex,” that we can win this battle against mortality itself. At the same time, we’re developing these technologies with increasing automation, and we’re making human workers literally redundant. What happens when those two concepts meet? It seems to me that we would have a more and more long-lived population, with fewer and fewer occupations available for them. How can those conclusions co-exist without becoming hopelessly entangled?

Oh yeah, no. Indeed it will be tangled. But, you know, this is where I think that in my own campaign and the Transhumanist party, we support, very deeply, a Universal Basic Income. Now when you hear the words “Universal Basic Income,” it doesn’t necessarily mean it’s some kind of socialist perspective. There’s also ways to create a universal basic income through Libertarian means and our Libertarian ideas and stuff like that.

One of our ideas is that with a Universal Basic Income, with the automation coming that’s going to replace so many workers, is going to be a huge amount of prosperity for the companies who are replacing the human workers with machines. That prosperity can go towards creating Universal Basic Income, so that we don’t create a society even moreso of the “haves” and the “have-nots.”

And, I think more prosperity is going to mean more money in the system. Let’s spend more taking care of those Americans who have lost their jobs. In fact, it’s not just those Americans who have lost their jobs. I’m not just interested in only those Americans who have lost their jobs. I’m actually interested in every single American.

The reason I’ve always liked the Universal Basic Income is because it allows for every single person to get a certain amount of money — enough to feed and clothe themselves, and house themselves — and on top of that, they can create whatever kind of world they want. They can build empires. But nobody is left out of that system.

And a Universal Basic Income can do a lot of other things too. It would wipe — it would essentially replace — welfare. ....

This or something very much like it is coming, and we need to evaluate our options and take responsible action to alleviate the most disruptive technology driven change that mankind has ever seen occur in one generation.

Why don't we get rid of money.

It worked in Star Trek.

It worked in the Federation because they had an unlimited power source in antimatter engines and could replicate anything that they needed and so there was no perceived commodity as a store of value, because no one needed to store value.

I think that realistically something similar to this will happen using 3D printers, nano-manufacturing and nano-fusion of some kind to power it all.

By 2030 this is a done deal and there will be few jobs and even fewer reasons to have a job.

IT will be the most disruptive generation of technology development the world has ever known.

 

[Skull Pilot]

I like this idea as it will smooth out the transition from a wage based economy to a new technologically based barter economy that will arrive within 30 years if not much sooner.

Now before you start yelling 'But the lazy dindus wont work!' well, the way technology is advancing in such a way that very few people will work no matter how hard they try to find a job; there simply wont be enough jobs to employ more than about 15% of the population, if passed slave economies are any valid comparison economically. Just as there were some jobs one could not train a slave to do well, or a slave was too expensive to have them do those jobs, so too there will be jobs that an android wont do because of the same reasons. Of course the economy has changed quite a bit since 1860, but I think morphologically the analogy is valid.

Besides, what else do we have to guess with?

But this concept of a Universal Basic Income is the kind of thing we will need to salve the insecure who have alwayus thought of employment = financial security. In the coming technological Utopia we will have far deeper challenges, like finding a purpose to our lives when employment is not a realistic option..

Zoltan Istvan: 'Half of Americans Will Probably Have a Robot in Their House' Within 5 Years - Breitbart

We’ve followed two seemingly disparate lines of thought, so let’s take them to their logical conclusion: Let’s say that we do that. Let’s say that we accomplish sort of “science-industrial complex,” that we can win this battle against mortality itself. At the same time, we’re developing these technologies with increasing automation, and we’re making human workers literally redundant. What happens when those two concepts meet? It seems to me that we would have a more and more long-lived population, with fewer and fewer occupations available for them. How can those conclusions co-exist without becoming hopelessly entangled?

Oh yeah, no. Indeed it will be tangled. But, you know, this is where I think that in my own campaign and the Transhumanist party, we support, very deeply, a Universal Basic Income. Now when you hear the words “Universal Basic Income,” it doesn’t necessarily mean it’s some kind of socialist perspective. There’s also ways to create a universal basic income through Libertarian means and our Libertarian ideas and stuff like that.

One of our ideas is that with a Universal Basic Income, with the automation coming that’s going to replace so many workers, is going to be a huge amount of prosperity for the companies who are replacing the human workers with machines. That prosperity can go towards creating Universal Basic Income, so that we don’t create a society even moreso of the “haves” and the “have-nots.”

And, I think more prosperity is going to mean more money in the system. Let’s spend more taking care of those Americans who have lost their jobs. In fact, it’s not just those Americans who have lost their jobs. I’m not just interested in only those Americans who have lost their jobs. I’m actually interested in every single American.

The reason I’ve always liked the Universal Basic Income is because it allows for every single person to get a certain amount of money — enough to feed and clothe themselves, and house themselves — and on top of that, they can create whatever kind of world they want. They can build empires. But nobody is left out of that system.

And a Universal Basic Income can do a lot of other things too. It would wipe — it would essentially replace — welfare. ....

This or something very much like it is coming, and we need to evaluate our options and take responsible action to alleviate the most disruptive technology driven change that mankind has ever seen occur in one generation.

if no one is working where will the government get the money to pay everyone an income?

It is in the article. With the corporations having saved so much money by having a fully automated production line for their products, they can afford a tax to pay for everyone to have a base income so that we dont have people rioting in the streets.

That'll never work

You said it would be a barter economy therefore no money

 

[JimBowie1958]

I like this idea as it will smooth out the transition from a wage based economy to a new technologically based barter economy that will arrive within 30 years if not much sooner.

Now before you start yelling 'But the lazy dindus wont work!' well, the way technology is advancing in such a way that very few people will work no matter how hard they try to find a job; there simply wont be enough jobs to employ more than about 15% of the population, if passed slave economies are any valid comparison economically. Just as there were some jobs one could not train a slave to do well, or a slave was too expensive to have them do those jobs, so too there will be jobs that an android wont do because of the same reasons. Of course the economy has changed quite a bit since 1860, but I think morphologically the analogy is valid.

Besides, what else do we have to guess with?

But this concept of a Universal Basic Income is the kind of thing we will need to salve the insecure who have alwayus thought of employment = financial security. In the coming technological Utopia we will have far deeper challenges, like finding a purpose to our lives when employment is not a realistic option..

Zoltan Istvan: 'Half of Americans Will Probably Have a Robot in Their House' Within 5 Years - Breitbart

We’ve followed two seemingly disparate lines of thought, so let’s take them to their logical conclusion: Let’s say that we do that. Let’s say that we accomplish sort of “science-industrial complex,” that we can win this battle against mortality itself. At the same time, we’re developing these technologies with increasing automation, and we’re making human workers literally redundant. What happens when those two concepts meet? It seems to me that we would have a more and more long-lived population, with fewer and fewer occupations available for them. How can those conclusions co-exist without becoming hopelessly entangled?

Oh yeah, no. Indeed it will be tangled. But, you know, this is where I think that in my own campaign and the Transhumanist party, we support, very deeply, a Universal Basic Income. Now when you hear the words “Universal Basic Income,” it doesn’t necessarily mean it’s some kind of socialist perspective. There’s also ways to create a universal basic income through Libertarian means and our Libertarian ideas and stuff like that.

One of our ideas is that with a Universal Basic Income, with the automation coming that’s going to replace so many workers, is going to be a huge amount of prosperity for the companies who are replacing the human workers with machines. That prosperity can go towards creating Universal Basic Income, so that we don’t create a society even moreso of the “haves” and the “have-nots.”

And, I think more prosperity is going to mean more money in the system. Let’s spend more taking care of those Americans who have lost their jobs. In fact, it’s not just those Americans who have lost their jobs. I’m not just interested in only those Americans who have lost their jobs. I’m actually interested in every single American.

The reason I’ve always liked the Universal Basic Income is because it allows for every single person to get a certain amount of money — enough to feed and clothe themselves, and house themselves — and on top of that, they can create whatever kind of world they want. They can build empires. But nobody is left out of that system.

And a Universal Basic Income can do a lot of other things too. It would wipe — it would essentially replace — welfare. ....

This or something very much like it is coming, and we need to evaluate our options and take responsible action to alleviate the most disruptive technology driven change that mankind has ever seen occur in one generation.

if no one is working where will the government get the money to pay everyone an income?

It is in the article. With the corporations having saved so much money by having a fully automated production line for their products, they can afford a tax to pay for everyone to have a base income so that we dont have people rioting in the streets.

That'll never work

You said it would be a barter economy therefore no money

Well define what money is. There are people today who use plastic bottles of Tide detergent as a barter money replacement. The barter economy will have some commodity that will act as a store of value of some kind.

That is real currency, not the little folded pieces of paper, though some will use that too.

Suds for Drugs

Why Are Criminals Stealing Tide Detergent and Using It for Money?

Tide thefts skyrocket as product becomes bartering tool for drug users

Your online newspaper for Kitchener, Waterloo, Cambridge and area

 

[Elvis Obama]

"Riders of the Purple Wage" is one of my fav SciFi stories based on this theme. A world in which there's nothing to do but grow, to push the envelope. Science and the arts, basically.

The trend has been progressing with an ever increasing rapidity and what can slow it down? The recent economic crisis provided an opportunity for many companies to accelerate the process. It would be nice to think that we could mitigate the harm this transition is going to cause, but I can't see how we can. The people who are most directly affected, those whose labor can most easily be replaced, are the least skilled and the least educated. At some point in the process I guess it will become obvious that we're heading for the cliff. If a basic wage can cushion the fall, I hope we're wise enough to find a way to make it work.

 

[320 Years of History]

Half of Americans Will Probably Have a Robot in Their House' Within 5 Years

I used to have robots in my house, but they've all gone off to college or live in their own home now. LOL

+ ...

 

[Asclepias]

I like this idea as it will smooth out the transition from a wage based economy to a new technologically based barter economy that will arrive within 30 years if not much sooner.

Now before you start yelling 'But the lazy dindus wont work!' well, the way technology is advancing in such a way that very few people will work no matter how hard they try to find a job; there simply wont be enough jobs to employ more than about 15% of the population, if passed slave economies are any valid comparison economically. Just as there were some jobs one could not train a slave to do well, or a slave was too expensive to have them do those jobs, so too there will be jobs that an android wont do because of the same reasons. Of course the economy has changed quite a bit since 1860, but I think morphologically the analogy is valid.

Besides, what else do we have to guess with?

But this concept of a Universal Basic Income is the kind of thing we will need to salve the insecure who have alwayus thought of employment = financial security. In the coming technological Utopia we will have far deeper challenges, like finding a purpose to our lives when employment is not a realistic option..

Zoltan Istvan: 'Half of Americans Will Probably Have a Robot in Their House' Within 5 Years - Breitbart

We’ve followed two seemingly disparate lines of thought, so let’s take them to their logical conclusion: Let’s say that we do that. Let’s say that we accomplish sort of “science-industrial complex,” that we can win this battle against mortality itself. At the same time, we’re developing these technologies with increasing automation, and we’re making human workers literally redundant. What happens when those two concepts meet? It seems to me that we would have a more and more long-lived population, with fewer and fewer occupations available for them. How can those conclusions co-exist without becoming hopelessly entangled?

Oh yeah, no. Indeed it will be tangled. But, you know, this is where I think that in my own campaign and the Transhumanist party, we support, very deeply, a Universal Basic Income. Now when you hear the words “Universal Basic Income,” it doesn’t necessarily mean it’s some kind of socialist perspective. There’s also ways to create a universal basic income through Libertarian means and our Libertarian ideas and stuff like that.

One of our ideas is that with a Universal Basic Income, with the automation coming that’s going to replace so many workers, is going to be a huge amount of prosperity for the companies who are replacing the human workers with machines. That prosperity can go towards creating Universal Basic Income, so that we don’t create a society even moreso of the “haves” and the “have-nots.”

And, I think more prosperity is going to mean more money in the system. Let’s spend more taking care of those Americans who have lost their jobs. In fact, it’s not just those Americans who have lost their jobs. I’m not just interested in only those Americans who have lost their jobs. I’m actually interested in every single American.

The reason I’ve always liked the Universal Basic Income is because it allows for every single person to get a certain amount of money — enough to feed and clothe themselves, and house themselves — and on top of that, they can create whatever kind of world they want. They can build empires. But nobody is left out of that system.

And a Universal Basic Income can do a lot of other things too. It would wipe — it would essentially replace — welfare. ....

This or something very much like it is coming, and we need to evaluate our options and take responsible action to alleviate the most disruptive technology driven change that mankind has ever seen occur in one generation.

if no one is working where will the government get the money to pay everyone an income?

From the federal reserve where they get it now.

 

[Skull Pilot]

I like this idea as it will smooth out the transition from a wage based economy to a new technologically based barter economy that will arrive within 30 years if not much sooner.

Now before you start yelling 'But the lazy dindus wont work!' well, the way technology is advancing in such a way that very few people will work no matter how hard they try to find a job; there simply wont be enough jobs to employ more than about 15% of the population, if passed slave economies are any valid comparison economically. Just as there were some jobs one could not train a slave to do well, or a slave was too expensive to have them do those jobs, so too there will be jobs that an android wont do because of the same reasons. Of course the economy has changed quite a bit since 1860, but I think morphologically the analogy is valid.

Besides, what else do we have to guess with?

But this concept of a Universal Basic Income is the kind of thing we will need to salve the insecure who have alwayus thought of employment = financial security. In the coming technological Utopia we will have far deeper challenges, like finding a purpose to our lives when employment is not a realistic option..

Zoltan Istvan: 'Half of Americans Will Probably Have a Robot in Their House' Within 5 Years - Breitbart

We’ve followed two seemingly disparate lines of thought, so let’s take them to their logical conclusion: Let’s say that we do that. Let’s say that we accomplish sort of “science-industrial complex,” that we can win this battle against mortality itself. At the same time, we’re developing these technologies with increasing automation, and we’re making human workers literally redundant. What happens when those two concepts meet? It seems to me that we would have a more and more long-lived population, with fewer and fewer occupations available for them. How can those conclusions co-exist without becoming hopelessly entangled?

Oh yeah, no. Indeed it will be tangled. But, you know, this is where I think that in my own campaign and the Transhumanist party, we support, very deeply, a Universal Basic Income. Now when you hear the words “Universal Basic Income,” it doesn’t necessarily mean it’s some kind of socialist perspective. There’s also ways to create a universal basic income through Libertarian means and our Libertarian ideas and stuff like that.

One of our ideas is that with a Universal Basic Income, with the automation coming that’s going to replace so many workers, is going to be a huge amount of prosperity for the companies who are replacing the human workers with machines. That prosperity can go towards creating Universal Basic Income, so that we don’t create a society even moreso of the “haves” and the “have-nots.”

And, I think more prosperity is going to mean more money in the system. Let’s spend more taking care of those Americans who have lost their jobs. In fact, it’s not just those Americans who have lost their jobs. I’m not just interested in only those Americans who have lost their jobs. I’m actually interested in every single American.

The reason I’ve always liked the Universal Basic Income is because it allows for every single person to get a certain amount of money — enough to feed and clothe themselves, and house themselves — and on top of that, they can create whatever kind of world they want. They can build empires. But nobody is left out of that system.

And a Universal Basic Income can do a lot of other things too. It would wipe — it would essentially replace — welfare. ....

This or something very much like it is coming, and we need to evaluate our options and take responsible action to alleviate the most disruptive technology driven change that mankind has ever seen occur in one generation.

if no one is working where will the government get the money to pay everyone an income?

From the federal reserve where they get it now.

No.

 

[Fishlore]

This idea has a lot to commend it economically as well as socially. Young Republicans may be surprised to learn that the idea was seriously proposed by President Richard Nixon. He called the plan a negative income tax. Of course, that was before the GOP was hijacked by anarchists and religious fanatics.

Nixon was a criminal-------something of a religious nut-----and negative income tax is----in the minds of most republicans----WELFARE

I've never been a Nixon fan but I also never thought of him as religious. I know he claimed to be a Quaker but his mother said he never was.

As for WELFARE, I'm sure you are correct about what Republicans think. The issue for me is whether or not welfare is a bad thing. The Preamble to the Constitution cites "promote the general Welfare" as one of the aims of the government and the Declaration cites "the pursuit of happiness" one of the unalienable rights which the government is established to protect. Obviously, what these terms mean and what legislative programs are best for implementing them is a matter for discussion, but I take it that the government is intended to be more than just an impartial referee enforcing laws while chance and the "free market" control the lives of our citizens.

 

[Mac1958]

This or something very much like it is coming, and we need to evaluate our options and take responsible action to alleviate the most disruptive technology driven change that mankind has ever seen occur in one generation.

Good stuff.

Regardless of the political ramifications, you're right - we are going to have to consider this as the effects of technology and automation spread deeper and deeper into our economy and culture. It's already beginning.

The challenge will be having a civil, constructive conversation about this, because there are far too many unreasonable voices with far too much influence right now.
.

 

[irosie91]

This idea has a lot to commend it economically as well as socially. Young Republicans may be surprised to learn that the idea was seriously proposed by President Richard Nixon. He called the plan a negative income tax. Of course, that was before the GOP was hijacked by anarchists and religious fanatics.

Nixon was a criminal-------something of a religious nut-----and negative income tax is----in the minds of most republicans----WELFARE

I've never been a Nixon fan but I also never thought of him as religious. I know he claimed to be a Quaker but his mother said he never was.

As for WELFARE, I'm sure you are correct about what Republicans think. The issue for me is whether or not welfare is a bad thing. The Preamble to the Constitution cites "promote the general Welfare" as one of the aims of the government and the Declaration cites "the pursuit of happiness" one of the unalienable rights which the government is established to protect. Obviously, what these terms mean and what legislative programs are best for implementing them is a matter for discussion, but I take it that the government is intended to be more than just an impartial referee enforcing laws while chance and the "free market" control the lives of our citizens.

there is no way of knowing what the "INTENTIONS" were regarding the issue of
monetary support. The term WELFARE has a whole host of meanings. Actually being a "quaker" involves a kind of membership in a community of "friends" -----
and attending the "meetings"------according to some people who worked with
Nixon he was into PRAYING (so Kissinger noted in his memoirs)

 

[LoneLaugher]

I like this idea as it will smooth out the transition from a wage based economy to a new technologically based barter economy that will arrive within 30 years if not much sooner.

Now before you start yelling 'But the lazy dindus wont work!' well, the way technology is advancing in such a way that very few people will work no matter how hard they try to find a job; there simply wont be enough jobs to employ more than about 15% of the population, if passed slave economies are any valid comparison economically. Just as there were some jobs one could not train a slave to do well, or a slave was too expensive to have them do those jobs, so too there will be jobs that an android wont do because of the same reasons. Of course the economy has changed quite a bit since 1860, but I think morphologically the analogy is valid.

Besides, what else do we have to guess with?

But this concept of a Universal Basic Income is the kind of thing we will need to salve the insecure who have alwayus thought of employment = financial security. In the coming technological Utopia we will have far deeper challenges, like finding a purpose to our lives when employment is not a realistic option..

Zoltan Istvan: 'Half of Americans Will Probably Have a Robot in Their House' Within 5 Years - Breitbart

We’ve followed two seemingly disparate lines of thought, so let’s take them to their logical conclusion: Let’s say that we do that. Let’s say that we accomplish sort of “science-industrial complex,” that we can win this battle against mortality itself. At the same time, we’re developing these technologies with increasing automation, and we’re making human workers literally redundant. What happens when those two concepts meet? It seems to me that we would have a more and more long-lived population, with fewer and fewer occupations available for them. How can those conclusions co-exist without becoming hopelessly entangled?

Oh yeah, no. Indeed it will be tangled. But, you know, this is where I think that in my own campaign and the Transhumanist party, we support, very deeply, a Universal Basic Income. Now when you hear the words “Universal Basic Income,” it doesn’t necessarily mean it’s some kind of socialist perspective. There’s also ways to create a universal basic income through Libertarian means and our Libertarian ideas and stuff like that.

One of our ideas is that with a Universal Basic Income, with the automation coming that’s going to replace so many workers, is going to be a huge amount of prosperity for the companies who are replacing the human workers with machines. That prosperity can go towards creating Universal Basic Income, so that we don’t create a society even moreso of the “haves” and the “have-nots.”

And, I think more prosperity is going to mean more money in the system. Let’s spend more taking care of those Americans who have lost their jobs. In fact, it’s not just those Americans who have lost their jobs. I’m not just interested in only those Americans who have lost their jobs. I’m actually interested in every single American.

The reason I’ve always liked the Universal Basic Income is because it allows for every single person to get a certain amount of money — enough to feed and clothe themselves, and house themselves — and on top of that, they can create whatever kind of world they want. They can build empires. But nobody is left out of that system.

And a Universal Basic Income can do a lot of other things too. It would wipe — it would essentially replace — welfare. ....

This or something very much like it is coming, and we need to evaluate our options and take responsible action to alleviate the most disruptive technology driven change that mankind has ever seen occur in one generation.

if no one is working where will the government get the money to pay everyone an income?

Well...since everyone will be working......this is not going to be a problem.

 

[Katzndogz]

I like this idea as it will smooth out the transition from a wage based economy to a new technologically based barter economy that will arrive within 30 years if not much sooner.

Now before you start yelling 'But the lazy dindus wont work!' well, the way technology is advancing in such a way that very few people will work no matter how hard they try to find a job; there simply wont be enough jobs to employ more than about 15% of the population, if passed slave economies are any valid comparison economically. Just as there were some jobs one could not train a slave to do well, or a slave was too expensive to have them do those jobs, so too there will be jobs that an android wont do because of the same reasons. Of course the economy has changed quite a bit since 1860, but I think morphologically the analogy is valid.

Besides, what else do we have to guess with?

But this concept of a Universal Basic Income is the kind of thing we will need to salve the insecure who have alwayus thought of employment = financial security. In the coming technological Utopia we will have far deeper challenges, like finding a purpose to our lives when employment is not a realistic option..

Zoltan Istvan: 'Half of Americans Will Probably Have a Robot in Their House' Within 5 Years - Breitbart

We’ve followed two seemingly disparate lines of thought, so let’s take them to their logical conclusion: Let’s say that we do that. Let’s say that we accomplish sort of “science-industrial complex,” that we can win this battle against mortality itself. At the same time, we’re developing these technologies with increasing automation, and we’re making human workers literally redundant. What happens when those two concepts meet? It seems to me that we would have a more and more long-lived population, with fewer and fewer occupations available for them. How can those conclusions co-exist without becoming hopelessly entangled?

Oh yeah, no. Indeed it will be tangled. But, you know, this is where I think that in my own campaign and the Transhumanist party, we support, very deeply, a Universal Basic Income. Now when you hear the words “Universal Basic Income,” it doesn’t necessarily mean it’s some kind of socialist perspective. There’s also ways to create a universal basic income through Libertarian means and our Libertarian ideas and stuff like that.

One of our ideas is that with a Universal Basic Income, with the automation coming that’s going to replace so many workers, is going to be a huge amount of prosperity for the companies who are replacing the human workers with machines. That prosperity can go towards creating Universal Basic Income, so that we don’t create a society even moreso of the “haves” and the “have-nots.”

And, I think more prosperity is going to mean more money in the system. Let’s spend more taking care of those Americans who have lost their jobs. In fact, it’s not just those Americans who have lost their jobs. I’m not just interested in only those Americans who have lost their jobs. I’m actually interested in every single American.

The reason I’ve always liked the Universal Basic Income is because it allows for every single person to get a certain amount of money — enough to feed and clothe themselves, and house themselves — and on top of that, they can create whatever kind of world they want. They can build empires. But nobody is left out of that system.

And a Universal Basic Income can do a lot of other things too. It would wipe — it would essentially replace — welfare. ....

This or something very much like it is coming, and we need to evaluate our options and take responsible action to alleviate the most disruptive technology driven change that mankind has ever seen occur in one generation.

if no one is working where will the government get the money to pay everyone an income?

It is in the article. With the corporations having saved so much money by having a fully automated production line for their products, they can afford a tax to pay for everyone to have a base income so that we dont have people rioting in the streets.

Rioting in the streets is what the ruling class will want. You don't really think productive people will want to support the useless, do you?

Let them fight it out and reduce the surplus.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Well...since everyone will be working......this is not going to be a problem.

With robots and other forms of automated systems taking up 85% of the jobs that people would have been hired for, by 2050, where are all those jobs coming from?

This isnt a slam on Obama,btw, this is looking a good twenty to thirty years down the road.

 

[320 Years of History]

Is this Universal Basic Income (UBI) idea similar conceptually to the Alaska Permanent Fund's aims? How is it similar? How is it different?

My rough and quick read of the info you provided suggests to me that rather than "found oil" being the source of the income payments, it'd be the income generated for companies by "robot workers" that toil in place of a human. One might even think of it as humans "owning" robots or shares of robots that the humans "send" to labor in their stead, except that since it's a robot, it doesn't really come home every day, but rather works 24/7, and the employer or the "robot's head of household" somehow deals with repair and maintenance matters. All very "Jetsons" to me, not that that's a bad thing....