[ art / civ / cult / cyb / diy / drg / feels / layer / lit / λ / q / r / sci / sec / tech / w / zzz ] archive provided by lainchan.jp

lainchan archive - /civ/ - 3208

File: 1479970399287.png (101.64 KB, 300x300, commanime.jpg)


As more and more jobs are getting automated away, what are your thoughts on countries implementing a universal basic income?




Anyway, I think UBI would be a nice band-aid, but long term it would either devolve into slavery(workfare, anyone?) or will be torn down because it's simply incompatible with capitalism.


I think that a universal basic income ought to be implemented along with progressive taxation or some other measure to make sure people who don't need the money aren't also getting it, to work effectively.

We should also pay attention to sustainability - basic income won't decrease consumption, and if how we consume is using up natural resources we won't get back, or depleting them at a rate they can't be replenished then you have a problem.

That's why I'd rather we use the government or other orgs to reduce the cost of living than use basic income, but I think it would be fine to have, if we didn't treat it like a magic bullet.


Whats to stop corporations from hiking up prices in response to UBI to make sure they make as much money as they can? UBI sounds great, but it it's not done properly it will just put more people in poverty.


They do that faster than the average wage increase and inflation already as it is, so how is that any different?


The same thing that stops them now? You DO realize that market forces driving prices down is the entire point of market capitalism, right?

If you're really worried, look up "price elasticity of demand".


They tried this in parts of Canada in the 70's as an experiment and people actually involved, either as receivers or social workers or whatever, gave it positive reviews but it was unpopular with conservative forces for simple ideological reasons (something actually showing results is never enough proof for anyone driven by ideology/paranoia). Specifically, single mothers and boys who dropped out of high school to support their poor families were said to benefit from it the most because it allowed them to finish school or get other training.


so stupid question then: why is everything still so fuarrrking expensive compared to the mid 2000's? why is minimum wage a starving wage unless you are commuting?


because markets Lain




if Marx and the like are indeed correct, wouldn't pacification of the proletariat be beneficial to the capitalist class? a guaranteed basic income would push class antagonisms under the rug, no?


Taxation is theft comrade.


Very precise, anon.
Basic income is more often than not advocated by social democrats, which isn't a surprise since their entire platform consists of class collaboration and "capitawism wit a human fais". No wonder another completely domesticated idea was produced.


We're more capable than ever to completely transcend the dominant economic paradigm. But to do so we need to stop fearing to theorize a bit more radically (striking at the root).

Autonomy is a concept I urge people who were semi-interested in basic income to look into. Together with associates of interest, you could right now make your own little self-sufficient, AUTOMATED commune. Solar powered rail-robots would pick the fruits. This is the era we're living in, people.

And then a SocDem comes and says to you "no, keep your credit card, keep buying with your new infinito-minimum-wage from the century-entrenched oligopolies while all prices mysteriously arose in unison. So we tried taxing them a bit but they just kept getting away somehow, it's almost as if the market economy is bound to find loopholes in regulations in favor of the economic class that perpetuates its existence... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯"


Well, if nobody is willing to work for soykaf wages anymore because they all get income guaranteed, suddenly the Capitalists don't have such a big bargaining chip, eh?

They have two choices: raise prices or oppose the regulation. They can easily block UBI from being effective with either of those.

tbh Capitalism became outdated somewhere in the middle of the 20th century. We've been living in an era of artificial scarcity ever since.


It just means higher taxes (more theft), bigger government (a more powerful monopoly on violence), a sense of entitlement, dependence, and pacification among the populace (easier to control), a loss of culture (social alienation), and inevitable tyranny.

Governments have a natural tendency to grow and as they do people's freedom and quality of life suffers. Be independent and get help from your local community if you need it. Quit pushing for bigger government that enslaves us all.


If you examine places where this was actually tried, the opposite is true. People used it to improve their educations and get out of poverty by getting better jobs. It was called "mincome", you can look it up. Leave your axiomatic thought processes at the door though.


What are some examples?


It was tried in parts of Canada in the 70's as mentioned earlier. It's easily found if you look up "mincome". It failed because conservative politicians know they can gain votes by ignoring the real results of these experiments. Pointing out a bunch of alleged welfare bums is more productive to their campaigns than actually admitting that there was any success.


While I'll agree with you that it's more efficient and effective than welfare systems across the west, taxation is still theft. Taxation works by a bunch of politicians deciding that you have to pay a certain amount of your hard earned money to an entity against your will to be spent on things you have no say in meanwhile wasting most of it through inefficiency or corruption and if you don't comply a bunch of people will break into your house and point guns at you, likely beat you up, and drag you away to a court room where you'll be punished for violating laws you don't consent to and forced to pay a fine (ie, sacrifice a portion of your live working in servitude for someone else) and/or be locked in a cage. While it's nice to think about how it helps people, you can't ignore the fact that that it enables a cycle of theft, violence and dependency.

Here's a thought experiment. Do you like libraries? I do. Do you think people should come together to help fund libraries because it'd be too expensive for most people to do themselves? I do. Would you be willing to contribute some of your time and money towards building one? I would. Would you ask other people to help out? I would. Would you point guns at people who don't contribute and force them to against their will? No I wouldn't.

That's the difference between government and voluntary action. Government is a monopoly on violence. While it can do good in some instances, it's usually horribly inefficient and relies on stolen money and a de-facto monopoly to operate. In almost every instance the private sector does a better job with less resources and without violence or force.


Communism has to get rid of the idea of exchange value, rather than merely reconfiguring capitalism.

Read Gilles Dauve, Eclipse and Re-emergence of the Communist Movement.


File: 1480205622842.png (39.64 KB, 200x154, 1479852073625.png)

>While I'll agree with you that it's more efficient and effective than welfare systems across the west, taxation is still theft.


So violence and theft is okay?


How could a government support itself without some form of taxation? Falling back to arguing that governments shouldn't be able to collect the money they need in order to perform the most basic of tasks is ridiculous.


Voluntary contributions. People would vote with their money. The government would have to compete in the free market and provide a quality service to stay competitive. No need for the government to have unearned monopolies.


better yet: abolish money and get rid of the distinction between government and community. Then, everyone helps their neighbor.


But anon, "hard earned money" is theft!


What do you mean by this?


He's saying you aren't paid accordingly to your work.


Different people value different things differently, to you a job might be worth an hour of labor at a set rate, for another it might be by unit produced, others it might be a percentage. Some people will be willing to work for more or less depending on working conditions and supply/demand. That's up to the entrepreneur himself or the employee and employee to decide. It's a voluntary arrangement, you're free to work elsewhere or be self-employed I can assure you some government thugs stealing my money doesn't help me with enjoying the fruits of my labor.


File: 1480284424622.png (24.17 KB, 148x200, HeavenKnowsImMiserableNow.jpg)

One says "all tax is theft", one says "our labour/value system is theft".

Neither really fits a conventional definition of theft unless you use an unconventional definition of property.

The system of value and labour can be considered theft if you assume that workers own that which they produce, or if they have the right to the full value they add rather than the minimum value the market & the law deign to give them.
One counterargument to this theory is that nobody forces workers to sell their labour, and that they have freely agreed a fixed price for their work.

All tax can be considered theft when you consider the only legitimate transfer of value that which occurs between informed, consenting parties, and that one or more of those parties does not consent to the state taking a share.
One counterargument here is that both parties knew that the state would demand taxation, so it forms an implicit part of the contract both parties agreed to.

Basically, you're both arguing over ideology and you ain't gonna agree, so start your own flamethread & let people discuss UBI.


File: 1480284521231.png (63.52 KB, 157x200, StarveOrSlave.jpg)

>It's a voluntary arrangement, you're free to work elsewhere or be self-employed

This will only be true when we have Universal Basic Income.


Tax is theft when it's involuntary. If people are willingly giving money then it's nobody's business. The same thing with work. If someone is forcing you to work against your will then there's a problem. If you're working on your own will for a wage you and your employer agreed on then that's fine. Seems to fit standard definitions of theft.

Would Universal Basic Income be voluntary or would I be forced to give my resources to the collective?


File: 1480286742097.png (1.24 MB, 200x182, credit?.gif)

>countries implementing a universal basic income?

Any working examples of countries doing this right? Source docs/research would be appreciated.

Job automation doesn't mean that human jobs are going away, it just means that there should be more high-paying, technically advanced jobs in the pipeline.


If automation doesn't eliminate jobs, then why automate?


File: 1480288889506.png (67.91 KB, 200x116, mortal-deer-owned.jpeg)


Technically advanced jobs require smarter people to perform.


Smarter and less people.


>it just means that there should be more high-paying, technically advanced jobs in the pipeline.
Not true, there's a job ceiling that we've gotten very close to hitting now.


File: 1480292216072.png (3.99 MB, 200x113, du.webm)

>muh job ceiling


easy, safe, quiet, human, more flexible, whatever


It's harmful. If capitalism is really struggling that badly (re: it is) then why attempt to patch it up instead of replacing it altogether? If Basic Income succeeds then that will only afford capitalists/politicians more time to impose on others' civil liberties and shore up their defenses to future threats to their power. Thinking long-term it's just: A. BAD. IDEA.

I know people tend to not like change, so that may be why keeping capitalism on life-support seems more palatable than uprooting it, but I could never support BI for reasons given above, among others.


I hate the concept of universal basic income because it causes a big shift in power, whatever organization that delegates it will be corrupt.

Marxist analysis of capitalism points out that it will at some point cease to exist (Never read Marx, saying it from what I heard) I don't think that to be true, whats happening is the change from capitalist stage:
mercantilism -> industrial -> finance -> ?

I think that the financial stage of capitalism was passed in 2008, when over manipulation of the market almost caused a burst in the stock market bubble, the big nanny state fixed that by giving away trillions of tax payer money (and a little something created out of thin air) to banks(after all, they are too big to fall right?) . They, the "big" ones, know that the bubble will burst and are making arrangements for when that happens.

The universal basic income idea is being revisited because as data has shown consumption is decreasing even when you get "free money" by credit card operators and without consumption there's no market witch means that there is no banks and no shell companies to fake stocks. To reestablish some market the owners of value (land, food, water) will administrate the UBI and as corrupt they are, shown by previous paragraphs, will force ultimate slavery for a world that does not need to work.


1900 jobs done by robots = 0
2000 jobs done by robots = a good few
2100 jobs done by robots = all of

Future 101 m8


It's just a bandaid that can be horribly abused by those in power.



How would you say capitalism is struggling? Can you present a metric to prove that point? Even under Bama, the markets did well, they adapted.

I used to consider myself a little bit of a libertarian, but I always thought basic income was actually a good policy, although I'd implements something like a negative income tax instead. With a system like BI you could streamline (and ultimately eliminate) social security, medicaid, and the other big govt. entitlements driving us towards a debt crisis. Ultimately I think it could even be revenue neutral.


>tax is theft
Nuh-uh, property is theft.



Theft is the taking of another person's property or services without that person's permission or consent.

How does property fit that definition?


>How would you say capitalism is struggling? Can you present a metric to prove that point?

There are different ways to look at this but I'll go with a simpler, more humane focus. Capitalism has been struggling ever since production began shearing off from wage growth somewhere around the early 1900s when the pool of available workers began catching up to the demand for them. Once this equilibrium was met, wages began to stagnate whilst those who owned the means of production pocketed the ever-increasing profits (intentionally). This is where the troubles began. And over the period between then and today we have experienced numerous economic crises as a direct result of capitalism's global hegemony and its inherent, unchecked drive for ballooning profits funneled to the few by the many. So, the point here is that capitalism has struggled--and will subsequently always struggle---when the workers are no longer treated and respected as those whom make it possible for the owners of the means of production to profit.

As long as capitalism continues on this trajectory, it can lead to nothing else but a continued decrease in quality of life for everyone but the capitalists. And if an economic system based on capitalism fails to adequately treat its workforce, the working and those with the potential to work, with respect and dignity then civil unrest will begin to set in and fester.

Capitalism is in its terminal stages at this point due to pathological greed and basic disregard to human life; no turning back now. Buckle up.



Your humane focus is nice but it's not empirical.

Maybe you're right but it sounds like the Americans at least, and most of the rest of the world are blaming the socialists (rightly so) for their troubles.

> workers are no longer treated and respected as those whom make it possible for the owners of the means of production to profit.

yes because this maxim is no longer true, in many cases the owners no longer 'need' workers. Most of the worlds money is created through computer systems now, HFT algorithms, software, hardware, and robotics make money, workers don't. I knew a few guys who coded HFT algorithms, they were compensated very generously for their time.

I think you're right though, workers will eventually be forced to ask for respect. Instead of leading to some sort of socialism I think it'll lead to something like a craftsman's revolution. Make business small again, connect everyone with goods and services they need through the internet. I may be too optimistic but I think we're headed to a future with fewer iphones and a lot more PocketChips or whatever. And I'm pretty okay with that.

> Capitalism is in its terminal stages at this point due to pathological greed and basic disregard to human life; no turning back now. Buckle up.

The commies have been saying that we're coming to the end for a long time, we're finally in "terminal capitalism". They said it in 99' with the WTO protests, WUO said it in the 60's and 70's I'm sure the trotskyists have been saying is since whenever Marx wrote his manifesto. Market based economies are much more stable and efficient than the marxists prognosticated, it can last indefinitely and it will probably be impossible to supplant in our lifetimes.


He's talking about Proudhon, chummer.


>I think it'll lead to something like a craftsman's revolution.
I think that's optimistic.
I don't think the less skilled half of the population is going to suddenly be able to make a living selling artisanal sourdough to the productive class. Mollification through UBI and limits on breeding seem like the path of least resistance for the secret master to kill off the useless eaters.


Secret masters.



Maybe, speaking for my govt. (Canada) I know there's been a huge reinvestment in the skilled trades. I don't think that's necessarily going to happen everywhere. But I think ultimately it's the consumers who are going to change the economy, not the workers.


File: 1481781228196.png (30.13 KB, 200x145, change.jpg)

>there's been a huge reinvestment in the skilled trades
In programming promoting the idea of the trades being worthy of pursuit, yes, there has been government investment.
In the education, support, and wages of the workers performing the trades there has been a steady decrease in profitability coupled with a massive increase in the number of insourced foreign trade workers.

Inflation-adjusted wages are lower than they have been in 40 years. This is why I'm leaving the trades and why tens of thousands of "skilled" foreign workers unable to comprehend unenforced labor laws are being brought in.

Trades are a meme and labor standards have been vaporized.


Probably there will be new kinds of jobs created. I wouldn't have predicted the very large service industry in the U.S after automation of things like farm work. The service industry seems like drudgery that only makes for an unnecessary and generally unwanted luxury. I would expect more stuff along those lines until quite far in the future.


It's good until you realize that NO ONE will do the shit jobs unless they are forced to and then we're back to communism/fascism.

>the markets did well, they adapted.

You're a moron if you think the markets doing well benefits the layperson.