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

[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.
.

Did you see this PDF posted by 320?

http://www.modernmoneynetwork.org/sites/default/files/biblio/arguing_for_basic_income.pdf

What do you think of it?

I'll need to take some time on that puppy, I did skim it, though. From what I'm seeing, they're making their argument in a way that I would not. For example, on pages 6 & 7 they lay out their "why now?" argument, and it discusses the "what" but not the "why". Indeed, the welfare state has increased, but why? You & I might argue it has to do with technology and automation. This whole idea would be a tough sell, and trying to argue whether it is "socialism" or even a GOOD socialism, I think, is going in the wrong direction with it.

I'd lay out the facts without bringing any "isms" into it. Technology, automation and productivity are not only requiring fewer people to do more work as our population continues to expand, PLUS it is forcing many with inappropriate skill sets out of the picture entirely. This has to be addressed whether we like it or not.

I'll save this and check it out when I can, thanks for posting it.
.

 

[JimBowie1958]

I'll need to take some time on that puppy, I did skim it, though. From what I'm seeing, they're making their argument in a way that I would not. For example, on pages 6 & 7 they lay out their "why now?" argument, and it discusses the "what" but not the "why". Indeed, the welfare state has increased, but why? You & I might argue it has to do with technology and automation. This whole idea would be a tough sell, and trying to argue whether it is "socialism" or even a GOOD socialism, I think, is going in the wrong direction with it.

I'd lay out the facts without bringing any "isms" into it. Technology, automation and productivity are not only requiring fewer people to do more work as our population continues to expand, PLUS it is forcing many with inappropriate skill sets out of the picture entirely. This has to be addressed whether we like it or not.

I'll save this and check it out when I can, thanks for posting it.
.

Yeah, I dont think this falls into the category of socialism, which necessitates some kind of government control of industry.

But any time some see government expenditures to the individual, they knee jerk it as socialism.

 

[Mac1958]

I'll need to take some time on that puppy, I did skim it, though. From what I'm seeing, they're making their argument in a way that I would not. For example, on pages 6 & 7 they lay out their "why now?" argument, and it discusses the "what" but not the "why". Indeed, the welfare state has increased, but why? You & I might argue it has to do with technology and automation. This whole idea would be a tough sell, and trying to argue whether it is "socialism" or even a GOOD socialism, I think, is going in the wrong direction with it.

I'd lay out the facts without bringing any "isms" into it. Technology, automation and productivity are not only requiring fewer people to do more work as our population continues to expand, PLUS it is forcing many with inappropriate skill sets out of the picture entirely. This has to be addressed whether we like it or not.

I'll save this and check it out when I can, thanks for posting it.
.

Yeah, I dont think this falls into the category of socialism, which necessitates some kind of government control of industry.

But any time some see government expenditures to the individual, they knee jerk it as socialism.

Sure, gotta keep it small and simple enough for a bumper sticker.

The fact is, this is the by-product of the efficiency of capitalism, we just never planned for it.
.

 

[AsherN]

You can offset the total cost by setting an income level at which you need to "repay" the UBI. Essentially. if UBI is set at $10K. You get a job that pays $30K. You keep the $10K UBI. Your employer pays you $20K and the government $10K. So working people above a certain income, while getting the UBI, are not a cost to the program. Doing it that way makes the program dead simple to administer. Everybody gets the UBI. Recovery comes from the employer.

 

[Slyhunter]

You can offset the total cost by setting an income level at which you need to "repay" the UBI. Essentially. if UBI is set at $10K. You get a job that pays $30K. You keep the $10K UBI. Your employer pays you $20K and the government $10K. So working people above a certain income, while getting the UBI, are not a cost to the program. Doing it that way makes the program dead simple to administer. Everybody gets the UBI. Recovery comes from the employer.

Why not make everything 10k cheaper?

 

[JimBowie1958]

You can offset the total cost by setting an income level at which you need to "repay" the UBI. Essentially. if UBI is set at $10K. You get a job that pays $30K. You keep the $10K UBI. Your employer pays you $20K and the government $10K. So working people above a certain income, while getting the UBI, are not a cost to the program. Doing it that way makes the program dead simple to administer. Everybody gets the UBI. Recovery comes from the employer.

The basic idea here is to give everyone a base income that allows them to feel secure in their situation, regardless of job or the economy. This keeps society stable and consumers consuming.

But to have a phase in that lessens the pay off discourages job seeking. Everyone should get the same amount and that way no one feels cheated or exploited.

Check this out: http://www.modernmoneynetwork.org/sites/default/files/biblio/arguing_for_basic_income.pdf

 

[JimBowie1958]

[
Why not make everything 10k cheaper?

I think that would be called deflation and it gives economists the hives.

Seriously, giving the money to people to spend allows for market forces to determine value instead of the state setting arbitrary values.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Sure, gotta keep it small and simple enough for a bumper sticker.

The fact is, this is the by-product of the efficiency of capitalism, we just never planned for it.
.

Yep, capitalism is getting far too efficient for the good of capitalism itself.

True capitalism will work its way out of relevance.

 

[AsherN]

You can offset the total cost by setting an income level at which you need to "repay" the UBI. Essentially. if UBI is set at $10K. You get a job that pays $30K. You keep the $10K UBI. Your employer pays you $20K and the government $10K. So working people above a certain income, while getting the UBI, are not a cost to the program. Doing it that way makes the program dead simple to administer. Everybody gets the UBI. Recovery comes from the employer.

The basic idea here is to give everyone a base income that allows them to feel secure in their situation, regardless of job or the economy. This keeps society stable and consumers consuming.

But to have a phase in that lessens the pay off discourages job seeking. Everyone should get the same amount and that way no one feels cheated or exploited.

Check this out: http://www.modernmoneynetwork.org/sites/default/files/biblio/arguing_for_basic_income.pdf

I don't think we disagree. But at some point, the program is not sustainable. At some point, employers have to reimburse the govern,ment for that part of the wages. So it comes down to, today that job is worth $30K. Tomorrow, I'm getting $10K from the government. The employer still has to budget $30K for that job. He can advertise as $30K, $20 from him and 10 from the gov. Or advertise as 20, from him. But he needs to reimburse the gov for that 10. Otherwise, the program really is not sustainable.

Now, we can debate at which level should employers start reimbursing the gov.

 

[OffensivelyOpenMinded]

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.

No Karl Marx was not a trained economist.

 

[320 Years of History]

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.

No Karl Marx was not a trained economist.

A great many of the economists whose ideas formed the foundation of modern economic thought hadn't formal education/training in economics. Keynes didn't. Marx didn't. Engels didn't. Of the "greats," it's not until Milton Friedman and Joseph Schumpeter do we find folks formally trained in economics. IMO, we have Marshall to thank for the rigorous nature of the content we today find in scholarly economic thought and exposition.

 

[JimBowie1958]

A great many of the economists whose ideas formed the foundation of modern economic thought hadn't formal education/training in economics. Keynes didn't. Marx didn't. Engels didn't. Of the "greats," it's not until Milton Friedman and Joseph Schumpeter do we find folks formally trained in economics. IMO, we have Marshall to thank for the rigorous nature of the content we today find in scholarly economic thought and exposition.

But along with the credentials, we now also have more group think and less people working from their own experiences and free thought.

Everyone gets stamped to form in the great university cookie cutters.

 

[irosie91]

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.

No Karl Marx was not a trained economist.

actually he sorta was-----his liberal arts education included what passed for philosophy and political science "major"

 

[irosie91]

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.

No Karl Marx was not a trained economist.

A great many of the economists whose ideas formed the foundation of modern economic thought hadn't formal education/training in economics. Keynes didn't. Marx didn't. Engels didn't. Of the "greats," it's not until Milton Friedman and Joseph Schumpeter do we find folks formally trained in economics. IMO, we have Marshall to thank for the rigorous nature of the content we today find in scholarly economic thought and exposition.

IN THE GLORIOUS past-------college education was a lot more GENERAL than it got in the 20th century --------Karl Marx did "philosophy and --POITICS-----same sorta crap--------I was an undeclared major in school------at the end I just DECLARED myself the major for which I had sufficient credits ---TO BE THAT
---Karl Marx was an economist by virtue of being "educated" and ------his AVOCATION------Abraham Lincoln was a lawyer by virtue of reading some books

 

[Unkotare]

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.

No Karl Marx was not a trained economist.

actually he sorta was-----his liberal arts education included what passed for philosophy and political science "major"

Philosophy and Political Science are not Economics.

 

[OffensivelyOpenMinded]

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.

No Karl Marx was not a trained economist.

actually he sorta was-----his liberal arts education included what passed for philosophy and political science "major"

Philosophy and Political Science are not Economics.

She might just be saying he took a course on economics included with his philosophy and political science classes, which is possible.

Still doesn't make him an actual economist.

 

[Unkotare]

---Karl Marx was an economist by virtue of being "educated" ...

No.

 

[Unkotare]

....------Abraham Lincoln was a lawyer by virtue of reading some books

NO, he was a lawyer by virtue of passing the Illinois bar exam.

 

[irosie91]

---Karl Marx was an economist by virtue of being "educated" ...

No.

yup as was BAKUNIN ----both wrote BOOKS now read by anyone who has an interest in ECONOMICS of COMMUNISM-------or history of UTOPIAN ECONOMICS-------or----Equired stuff like in my liberal arts undergraduate days---
EDWARD BELLAMY TOO. I never did a course in economics------but lots of
people who do ------read Karl Marx and Bakunin and Bellamy

 

[there4eyeM]

It is definitely time to find alternatives to the present system.