[72 and sunny]

Universal Basic Income (UBI) is rapidly approaching, radical, paradigm-changing plan that calls for (Western) governments to hand out some basic pay to their citizens, on a monthly basis, in perpetuity.

There are different plans floating around and there are some difference between them, but one of the more sensible/likely ones suggests that you should not get UBI if you are also employed/making above certain threshold amount. If you are making below the threshold, the UBI will make up the difference (up to the full UBI amount).

In the US, Liberals claim that such deal with be more just. Conservatives that it will reduce huge government. Whether it will save money, most argue, depends on the particulars of the plan.

Still, just the other day, Swiss voters soundly rejected this plan despite the plan calling for an UBI of 2500 SF ($2600) per adult, and about 600 per child per month. In that proposal, a household consisting solely of you and your gf, for an example, would be in effect receiving a salary of $60,000 (Swiss equivalent) per year, for doing nothing.

77% NO
23% YES

Why did the Swiss chose to reject despite being bombarded with the globalist "Vote Yes!" propaganda, that included a written in English in a public square in a German/French/Italian-speaking country?




Well, Switzerland is one of the world's most functioning countries, has one of the highest rates of individual earnings, and standards of living. These people, being smart as they are, figured why tinker with the winning formula. Given also their very low rate of unemployment (3%) they knew their social service expenditures will inevitably rise if they approve the plan. Finally, they were also concerned that they will be overrun with rapefugees, and other opportunistic UBI tourists.

But that was only a small temporary setback (as the Swiss probably didn't want t be the first who started it) but there are no shortage of other takers lining up to take it, as other places are already well on its way in implementing UBI.

Brits are discussing it.

Other Europeans are revving their engines.

Finland will introduce it next year.

So will Ontario this fall, and the rest of the Canuckistan provices after that.

Therefore, UBI in the Western world is just about here, and its just a matter of time before becomes a reality in the United Socialist America. Some US proposals quote an UBI sum of $10k per year, or paltry $833 net per month for a single person (below the federal poverty level line). If you think that's too little, they suggest you to room up with one or two other UBI receiving people to make it more palatable.

How will this be financed?

Most proposals suggest that by implementing UBI the US drops will have to drop/close all other forms of public handouts, and yes that includes Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Food Stamps, Tax Credits, blah, blah... e-v-e-r-y-t-h-i-n-g. Also, something about taxes, but things aren't too clear there.

Will the UBI see the light of the day in America?

To answer that question with more certainty it's best visit any mainstream mouthpieces of the elite (NYT, Wash Post, Huff Post, SWJ, Bloomberg, Economist, Guardian, etc.) and read their opinion pages on it. What's the general sentiment? If they are mostly positive, that means the plan is already realized among the elite, they are just buttering you about it now.

Here's one easy breezy article in Guardian:

And here's the writer of that article.



He also wrote the book Utopia for Realists: The Case for a Universal Basic Income, Open Borders, and a 15-hour Workweek

Here's another one of his photos.

Surprised yet?



Why are they doing it?

The primary reason given is that THEY are concerned about the advent of technological progress/automatization that will see many blue and white collar jobs disappear in the upcoming years. In reality, like with everything that concerns the global elite there are several reasons at play at once. Some of them are:

Almost certainly, there's money to be made in raiding those Federal coffers, and also money to be saved. No brainer.

Unoficially, they are also tired of supporting deadbeats who are dragging the rest of the productive society down, so they hope that UBI will separate the wheat from the chaff. Go getters may find it easier in their careers/workplaces, while the rest check themselves out of the rat race, by playing video games, smoking weed and jacking off to VR porn all day long.

Of course nobody will ever admit that ^this^ is one of the partial reasons.

Finally, and this is biggie, the elite are scared of the large swaths of American men who they've been fucking since the start of the globalization in the late 80s, men who are chronically unemployed, underemployed, overarmed and cooked on meth. As the Trump experiment has shown, the pressure cooker is starting to whistle, and one quick way of preventing that cooker from blowing up is by introducing basic existential pacifier in the form of UBI. Threat removal has been at the forefront of the elite minds since the time of David, its priority especially wildly accelerating after the Holocaust

That is why it's not by sheer coincidence alone that UBI implementation is practically being overnighted after Europe opened its legs wide for some 3rd world loving. If you ever wondered how will Europe incorporate and take 'edge off' their largely uneducated/skill-less imports - UBI is the answer.

Of course nobody will ever admit that ^this^ is one of the partial reasons.

Even though it does not look like it that way now, with the speed of political changes driven by "wisdom of the crowd" useful idiots in the American socmedia I predict UBI will arrive in the US within FIVE years, no matter who's cucking in Congress at the time, and what administration occupies the Whore House. Bernie Sanders' numbers have been a current litmus test for the feasibility of radical social ideas in the U.S., and plenty of American idiots have passed it with flying colors.

On behalf of the global elite, bet is already being placed that UBI is a necessary strategy toward implementation of the borderless, one govt. world for easier macro and micro-management of the increasingly unruly world populace. Threat removal to the elites and increased profits to the elites, two sides of the same global coin, swirling together toward the blissful, if hickupy future.

Where does that leaves us?

No matter which side you are taking in this matter, there's no doubt that this type of new thing is very interesting because it raises some good questions, and offers some possibilities that were unknown perhaps to generations before us.

Imagine if you can retire at 18?

[Atheistani]

I just saw this on the news here in UK. Interesting stuff.

[Travesty]

As a world we don't have a choice. I know there is a lot of hate against socialism here, at some point though the technology will both kill jobs and while supplying enough for everyone with complete ease.

You have to give out UBI there isn't a real choice. It is that or war and blood. People won't be able to contribute to the economy in a concrete way anymore.

The new real economy be more of one that is of built of social capital and seeking self actualization. People will be provided with so much comfort for so little it will be harder to motivate a person of normal or below average IQ to chase much in life.

There is no chance getting around this with good 'ole roll up your sleeves capitalism as a planet. Capitalism works very well when there is scarcity, because that is what motivates people.

[Fortis]

There is no other option. You can't asscock everyone by saying "HEY, no more jobs you fucking losers. Go die."

[NovaVirtu]

(06-06-2016 05:59 PM)72 and sunny Wrote:  

Unoficially, they are also tired of supporting deadbeats who are dragging the rest of the productive society down, so they hope that UBI will separate the wheat from the chaff. Go getters may find it easier in their careers/workplaces, while the rest check themselves out of the rat race, by playing video games, smoking weed and jacking off to VR porn all day long.

Of course nobody will ever admit that ^this^ is one of the partial reasons.

Is this necessarily a bad thing?

Some people are just going to suck no matter what.

These go-getters as you say could take advantage of this. It would be easier to start a business if you aren't stressing over how to pay the rent all the time.

Could be good from a public health standpoint, too. If people aren't stressing over bills and working long hours to pay said bills, weaking their immune systems and destroying their health, you get the idea....

I dunno. These are uncharted waters we're heading into. It will very interesting to see how the experiment in Finland plays out.

[weambulance]

Quote:

Most proposals suggest that by implementing UBI the US drops will have to drop/close all other forms of public handouts, and yes that includes Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Food Stamps, Tax Credits, blah, blah... e-v-e-r-y-t-h-i-n-g. Also, something about taxes, but things aren't too clear there.

If I had to choose between a subsistence + light entertainment UBI, like ~$15k a year, and the mess we have now with entitlement spending I would definitely choose the UBI. But the welfare state that already exists is exactly why something like a flat UBI isn't going to happen in the US without some kind of major collapse first.

If anyone seriously tried to cut off the Free Shit taps that have been flowing my whole life there would be riots in every city in the country.

[philosophical_recovery]

Interesting that you post this.

Recently, Ycombinator had a blog post on how they are planning to create a Utopia out of Oakland by trying this.
Ycombinator, if you didn't know, is a start up incubator run by San Franscisco types.

Quote:

We have a few updates we want to share on our Basic Income Project:

Our Research Director

Elizabeth Rhodes is joining Basic Income Project as our Research Director.

She recently completed a joint PhD in Social Work and Political Science at the University of Michigan, where her research focused on health and education provision in slum communities in Nairobi.

We received over 1000 applications for this position (including tenured professors from Oxford, Columbia, and Harvard), and Elizabeth stood out as the right candidate based on her aptitude and her ambition. We’re very excited to work with her.

Pilot Study in Oakland

We want to run a large, long-term study to answer a few key questions: how people’s happiness, well-being, and financial health are affected by basic income, as well as how people might spend their time.

But before we do that, we’re going to start with a short-term pilot in Oakland. Our goal will be to prepare for the longer-term study by working on our methods--how to pay people, how to collect data, how to randomly choose a sample, etc.

Oakland is a city of great social and economic diversity, and it has both concentrated wealth and considerable inequality. We think these traits make it a very good place to explore how basic income could work for our pilot.

It’s also close to where we live, which means we’ll be closer to the people involved. We think our local resources and relationships will help us design and run this study effectively, and we hope that will enable us to produce the best research possible.

In our pilot, the income will be unconditional; we’re going to give it to participants for the duration of the study, no matter what. People will be able to volunteer, work, not work, move to another country—anything. We hope basic income promotes freedom, and we want to see how people experience that freedom.

If the pilot goes well, we plan to follow up with the main study. If the pilot doesn’t go well, we’ll consider different approaches.

And Some Thoughts on how We’re Thinking About Basic Income

We think everyone should have enough money to meet their basic needs—no matter what, especially if there are enough resources to make it possible. We don’t yet know how it should look or how to pay for it, but basic income seems a promising way to do this.

One reason we think it may work is that technological improvements should generate an abundance of resources. Although basic income seems fiscally challenging today, in a world where technology replaces existing jobs and basic income becomes necessary, technological improvements should generate an abundance of resources and the cost of living should fall dramatically.

And to be clear: we think of basic income as providing a floor, and we believe people should be able to work and earn as much as they want. We hope a minimum level of economic security will give people the freedom to pursue further education or training, find or create a better job, and plan for the future.

We’ll be spending the next few months designing the pilot, and we welcome any input to help us do the best job possible—especially from the Oakland community [1]. And again, we hope to follow-up with a long-term study on how people’s happiness, well-being, financial health, and time are affected.

If you have thoughts on either, please get in touch at [email protected].

-Elizabeth Rhodes, Matt Krisiloff, and Sam Altman

[1] We’ve already been connecting with Oakland city officials and community groups for feedback, but we’re planning to host some public events in Oakland to get more voices involved. Details to come.

Archived Link:
http://web.archive.org/web/2016060700020...sic-income

I'm not afraid of saying it:

I think UBI is a utopian goal and will end in some sort of disaster.

That said, this could be propped up and kept from turning into a disaster in many ways, but it will take a lot of outside money. I just hope that this experiment is conducted honestly. I have doubts about that.

[ivansirko]

Strange they first tried this in Switzerland. Of all of the countries of Europe that would seem the least likely to succeed. I am surprised there it only had 77% opposed.

[ivansirko]

(06-06-2016 05:59 PM)72 and sunny Wrote:  

Imagine if you can retire at 18?

You have accomplished everything in your life....you are now living off of your retirement...at the prime of your youth.

I just hope this doesn't give those morons any ideas....

[Phoenix]

Comedy. This is no different to trannies in girl's bathrooms, or gays suing Christian bakeries, or people who still think communism is legit. Just untreated psychosis that should be medicated if possible, or excluded and ignored otherwise.

[Samseau]

Almost guaranteed at some point in the future, technology becomes so productive and efficient that it produces far more wealth than it consumes.

Is this point 1 year or 50 years away? Also, if the technology continues to be ever more productive, then in theory the surpluses generated by tech continue to increase, which means the UBI allowance will always grow.

I do wonder if UBI is implemented in the USA if people will just move out to rural parts. 10K is actually quite a bit in places like South Dakota boonies. Combine it with ever cheaper shipping thanks to stuff like drone delivery, and we may have a real revolution on our hands here.

That said, I'm skeptical. Let's see if it's possible to bring back jobs to the USA, and if it's not then it's probably time to try the UBI. Money has to flow through the economy somehow and if people don't have jobs then how is money going to flow?

Also, the first economist I ever read to propose a UBI goes to Ferguson's When Money Dies:

http://www.amazon.com/When-Money-Dies-De...1586489941

Excellent book. One of the key takeaways about making sure inflation doesn't take off is to have a UBI scheme backed by taxes, and not money printing.

[Phoenix]

A UBI scheme backed by taxes is what we already have. Obviously if you're paying taxes you're not net collecting 'UBI' (welfare). You're in the slave class, not the parasite class.

The whole reason welfare isn't fixed and universal is that the political class don't want that. If it's variable you can campaign for the favor of different voting blocks -- playing the 51% game. Vote buying is the easiest way to get votes. Welfare is merely a product of democracy.

[Ensam]

(06-06-2016 07:33 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

Also, the first economist I ever read to propose a UBI goes to Ferguson's When Money Dies:

http://www.amazon.com/When-Money-Dies-De...1586489941

Excellent book. One of the key takeaways about making sure inflation doesn't take off is to have a UBI scheme backed by taxes, and not money printing.

Milton Friedman proposed the same concept but called it a negative income tax.

[Repo]

The system would have to have some kind of checks and balances. For example, the UBI should be low enough that it would discourage being jobless, but high enough that you wont starve. Also, it shouldnt go up based on how many kids you have, or that would encourage welfare queens. Oh u popped out 5 babies? Better find a way to make due with what you have. Free access to birth control would be essential to keep the population in check. In fact, it should probably even be encouraged. That said, I think we are still a long way off for this system to really be necessary, but barring world war 3 we may see it in our lifetime. If its implemented before its really neesed, it will fail miserably.

[MMX2010]

Haven't read any of the replies, but I think good trolling would be, "Yes, I support the UBI, provided that those who receive it are sterilized."

[Mr. Accuride]

Universal Basic Income for everyone can work if the money is coming from productivity controlled by the state, managed intelligently by the state, and then issued in the form of a citizens dividend. We already have modern examples in Norway and Saudi Arabia, although it doesn't look like it at first glance.

The companies that produce oil in both countries are majority state owned. In Norway's case, the government managed the money received from the oil well enough to start other productive ventures that are also majority state owned, which allows them to weather the present oil crash and have enough to give its citizens generous welfare. Because of the culture of Norway, there are still people who work, although probably not required at this point.

In Saudi Arabia's case, most of the money was hoarded by the king and his princes, though they also provide a generous welfare program to its citizens to placate them. Because of their culture, this has resulted in massive laziness by the people and an essentially 90% unemployment rate with most of them completely unemployable. The Sauds are collapsing because of the oil prices, so this may not be sustainable for long. That is an example of huge mismanagement.

Replace oil with automation and you will have an idea of what UBI will look like. Whether it works out like Norway or like Saudi Arabia will depend on the underlying culture. Which, unless Trump starts a cultural turnaround, is why I have severe doubts of UBI ever working effectively in the US.

[Atheistani]

Automation wont change a thing, jobs will simply be created elsewhere. We will still need to compete with other countries so no, there will never be a time people can just work 2 hours a day. Humans are competitive and work harder to get ahead of others. People said the same things with the Industrial Revolution and then the widespread use of Computers and Robot, but those things never lead to this scenario.

If anything the whole "People will be out of work due to technology" just seems to be a cover for something else, some other motivation to introduce this benefit.

[EDantes]

Honestly even though it's morbid to talk about it, population control seems to be the most practical solution to most of our economic problems today, as the worst of them are the aftermath of the post-WWII baby boom in which we had far more children than we could sustain. There would be no need of a "UBI" if we were breeding in proportion to the resources actually available to support our population.

In ancient times there were real-life consequences for having more babies than a person or a tribe could afford, since there was no welfare or safety net to take care of an endless supply of mouths to feed there was likely some naturally-enforced population control.

Today though an unemployed welfare mom can pop out 7 babies with 7 different fathers and have her irresponsible lifestyle subsidized by the taxpayer with no repercussion.

[porscheguy]

This is why I don't get too upset when I hear about the illuminati plans to reduce the population. Already you can argue that half of the world's population is redundant. The bottom 50% are mostly foragers who produce no wealth, and consume none either. If they went away tomorrow, most of us would hardly notice. But because they are humans like we are, we feel sympathetic to their poverty and want to find a place at the table for them. If the population is reproducing exponentially, and technology/automation is doing likewise, eventually the population is going to get fucked. The problem however, is that while you can't just say to the people who have been left behind "too bad, go die" they need to stop reproducing exponentially. Earlier someone said that 90% of the people in Saudi Arabia have been rendered unemployable/redundant. That means that 90% of the Saudi people are dead weight who should be actively discouraged from reproducing.

I'm not a fan of the UBI as it reeks of socialism. And with socialism comes a lot of undesirable things including, but not limited to undesirable people continuing to breed, loss of personal autonomy, and such reliance on a tiny ruling minority, that you'd be fucked by the slightest hiccup in the system. I personally am not interested in living in high density housing, no car, no guns, and limited options. But what do you do with the surplus population until they die or stop breeding?

Some (myself included) believe another world war is brewing. Who, what, where, when, and why remain to be seen, but it'll happen. And perhaps it'll hold off the socialist utopia until long after I'm gone.

[Phoenix]

"Universal Basic Income for everyone can work if the money is coming from productivity controlled by the state, managed intelligently by the state, and then issued in the form of a citizens dividend."

Yeah because that already worked great in the USSR.

I'm out. Out before someone repeats the luddite fallacy or supports socialism. These threads just depress me. They always say the same thing: it's 2016 and nobody has learnt anything.

[Travesty]

A below to mid average IQ person can gather berries and hunt deer.

They could plant crops and raise livestock.

They could go to a factory everday and make widgets.

They can sit at a desk and push paper that has easy and predictable patterns.

These people cannot contribute to scientific discovery or deep data analysis. They cannot build new software that is complex enough to not already be obsolete.

We already see this in the tech city takeover phenomenon spreading everywhere.

You have an income disparity of a an upper middle class that pushes everyone else out by cost living increases. This class has many winner that break into the 1%.

However this class is shrinking and will continue to as a total percentage of the population.

You can argue people will move on to new jobs, the value of those jobs overtime will be feel good value and not concrete value hence the lower wage and buying power overtime.

This will accelerate with technology not decrease no matter how many people put social media consultant or Wordpress widget maker on their resume.

Unless we give gene therapy to every low IQ, inbred population to increase their intelligence we don't have a way out.

[Brodiaga]

(06-06-2016 10:10 PM)Phoenix Wrote:  

"Universal Basic Income for everyone can work if the money is coming from productivity controlled by the state, managed intelligently by the state, and then issued in the form of a citizens dividend."

Yeah because that already worked great in the USSR.

I'm out. Out before someone repeats the luddite fallacy or supports socialism. These threads just depress me. They always say the same thing: it's 2016 and nobody has learnt anything.

There was no Universal Basic Income in the USSR. Instead, "parasitism" (тунеядство in Russian) was a felony, meaning that work was pretty much guaranteed to everybody, but those who were caught not having a job or willing to work were punished.

[RBerkley]

(06-06-2016 10:10 PM)Phoenix Wrote:  

"Universal Basic Income for everyone can work if the money is coming from productivity controlled by the state, managed intelligently by the state, and then issued in the form of a citizens dividend."

Yeah because that already worked great in the USSR.

I'm out. Out before someone repeats the luddite fallacy or supports socialism. These threads just depress me. They always say the same thing: it's 2016 and nobody has learnt anything.

The "It's 2016" Cuck-ed Prime Ministre of Canada, Justin Trudeau implemented deficit spending for two years while promising to increase social services. There are also talks of "free tuition" for the current generation of college students who are the ones protesting all day for feminist causes.

What was his catch-22?

Increase income taxes on the "rich" (as in successful businessmen who are not public sector workers), and proposals to increase sales tax from the 10-15% by at least 3-7% higher.

There are also plans to increase the amount of newcomers to Canada from the current 250,000 per year to around 400,000 to 500,000 per year. This causes a strain on housing, causing rents to go higher. Youth unemployment in Toronto have been reported to be around 25% for the past five years.

In Canada, criticizing immigration policy is considered 'hate speech'. Feministe Liberals and Yuppies preach mass immigration, yet get angry if they see those same immigrants walking through their wealthy communities in downtown Toronto, Bridle Path, Forest Hill, Burlington, etc.

An old white man who lost his job in the recession is viewed as scum for seeking welfare, but a Canadian-born woman who produces several thugspawn from different men automatically receives subsidized housing, childcare benefits,etc. However, an immigrant woman who is married is encouraged to divorce her husband before she seeks government benefits.

The UBI is just another way to implement feminist policies, and further the destabilization of society, because the UBI will still discriminate against men in any way.

[ovloV]

I support some type of system of UBI because we'll need it sooner or later. People will simply become obsolete as automation grinds on, and you can't just lay them off with a shrug, especially considering it's not their fault.

I used to do research in automation, and this stuff happens fast and usually all at once. Take self-driving cars, there are about 3 million people employed in the US that drive a car for work, including bus drivers, cabbies, long distance truckers, and now some Uber and Lyft people. Those 3 million jobs simply won't exist in another decade or two. We'll need some way to keep society moving without huge numbers of impoverished people. Otherwise, you'll have a Marxist revolt in the streets.

Also, nobody should think that their job is safe. It doesn't matter how smart you are or what field you work in: you are replaceable by a machine sooner or later, and it will probably be sooner. If my grandkids have to work, I'll be surprised.

[El Chinito loco]

(06-06-2016 10:10 PM)Phoenix Wrote:  

"Universal Basic Income for everyone can work if the money is coming from productivity controlled by the state, managed intelligently by the state, and then issued in the form of a citizens dividend."

Yeah because that already worked great in the USSR.

I'm out. Out before someone repeats the luddite fallacy or supports socialism. These threads just depress me. They always say the same thing: it's 2016 and nobody has learnt anything.

There's so many things wrong with UBI.

First of all where exactly is this magic money coming from? Taxes.

Who is getting taxed to support these people? Mostly the productive middle and upper middle class in society with the rich wriggling out of it as usual.

Ask people in the Philippines how well that works out when you have a society where it's common to have only a few productive members in a family with lots of non productive freeloaders leeching off them. Now make that government policy..

Second obvious way to finance UBI.. money printing and digging a deeper government debt hole.

Imagine the fed finally going with negative interest rates and combining that with UBI. It's the ultimate liquidity trap. You know banks will have a field day with this. There's unimaginable exploits just waiting to be discovered.

The usual argument for UBI is that people will use that money to purchase goods and services thus unlocking liquidity and spurring economic growth.

This is like Keynesian economics for the mentally challenged.

Here's another way to look at UBI. It's essentially an unlimited government subsidy for every large corporation financed by the people and distributed through the state.