49% support universal basic income

[Jog On]

Given that as you already said, some people manage to play the system to do just that already (not to the endemic level the Mail claims but some people) this is clearly faulty logic. There is no inherent reason why we can't provide free food and housing to everyone alongside free education and healthcare... logistically it is possible should we collectively want to do that.

As technology creates more convenience and robots/software begin to do more of the work as we are seeing happening - would it be reasonable to assume that one day machines/software will do the majority of work that needs doing freeing up humans to pursue other activities?

If this were to become the case the whole paradigm that you have to work to maintain your existence would change as there simply wouldn't be enough work to keep everyone 'busy' and having unemployment rates at extremely high levels with that many people homeless/hungry/destitute would probably not work out very well for those in charge or the haves (as opposed to not haves). Just look at the French and Russian revolutions to see what happens when things reach crisis point.

If the trends we are seeing playing out before our eyes (and in a lot of cases of those on this forum - trends that we are helping to play out) keep going then some sort of transition will become necessary. Unless of course the grown ups in government and big business decide to curb it in order to keep people busy and gainfully employed and able to afford to consume. I doubt they can see past their P&L spreadsheets for this Q though.

"We can't afford it" is obsolete thinking, we might just have to afford it - and we all know the money's there being hoarded by said 'grown ups'.

[OwlHoot]

"We can't afford it" is obsolete thinking, we might just have to afford it ...

Absolutely, and the next challenge will be to structure incentives and disincentives, maybe in some way like I sketched in a previous post on this thread.

Guys, like it or not, over this century (calamities such as WW3 aside) society will change more than it has since the last ice age twelve thousand years ago, when hunters first thought it would be a good wheeze to start planting certain kinds of edible grass and herding animals ...

[tomtomagain]

As technology creates more convenience and robots/software begin to do more of the work as we are seeing happening - would it be reasonable to assume that one day machines/software will do the majority of work that needs doing freeing up humans to pursue other activities?

If one day, we reach a point where the "economy" is an automated box that requires no human input, that's not a problem.

All that will happen is that society will decide on a different mechanism for distributing the tokens that we currently use to access the resources and experiences provided by our economy.

Instead of getting tokens by going to work as we do now, you could get tokens for making a meaningful contribution to society ( for example, helping your elderly neighbours or doing some charity work ).

The end-point isn't the problem. The transition to that end-point is.

[bobspud]

https://www2.deloitte.com/uk/en/page...nd-people.html

Please never EVER post the words Deloitte and knows what they are talking about in the same sentence ever again...



In the past technology may well of provided loads to do but, given that I can build an Azure or AWS infrastructure that heals itself and scales while I drink beer, the days of having 20+ bodies sat in a help desk function is soon going to pop and as for ITIL or any of the other service process methodologies they will also start to hollow out.

Now add Kubernetes to that and let the developers build their services into single process containers and even my job goes bye bye.

If you are not already seeing this then you are well and truly out of the latest skills and probably on the end of the boot soon.

[vwdan]

What I mean is - if I do nothing and get paid 12 grand but if I get a job and get paid 16 grand - in real terms I am only 4 grand better off than the guy who sits on his arse doing nothing.

Therefore all prices will take into account that you get 12 grand for zero productivity and so my 16 grand becomes 4 grand.

A very simplistic way to look at it but as soon as someone can put zero in but take something out somewhere along the line the system will fail.

Well, no - because you still get the 12k - so now you have 28k to play with, 16k more than the other chap.

It's not benefits, it's universal income - absolutely everybody gets it as a baseline.

[Hobosapien]

WHS, but the Luddites still can't see it, maybe because they don't want to see it.

To glimpse how people in 100 years' time may "earn" a higher than average standard of living, I reckon the best way is to look at today's more enlightened and least mercenary activities, for example charity work and the many communities of those who publish academic papers.

All of these in some way suggest that citations in recommendation networks, a form of reputation brownie points as it were, may become the primary way of judging relative merit and making awards in money or housing or travel (or offspring permits?!). That will also reward virtue and community spirit, and hopefully discourage crime.

The majority who can't gain enough rep points will have to live in hope that they win one of the many Lotto-type draws. There should be a random element to give the lazy and incompetent hope, and incentivize them not to opt out of the system and turn hostile towards society's winners.

However, all this suggests the downside that virtue signalling and busibody personal interference will soar to heights that are ridiculous even by today's "caring" standards.

Charlie Brooker has already envisaged such a thing in Black Mirror season 3 episode 1:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nosedive

The episode is set in a world where people can rate each other from one to five stars for every interaction they have, and where one's rating will impact one's entire life. It tells the story of Lacie (Bryce Dallas Howard), a young woman overly obsessed with her ratings, who is chosen by her popular childhood friend (Alice Eve) as the maid of honour for her wedding, and sees it as an opportunity to improve her ratings and achieve her dreams. However, on her journey to the wedding Lacie gets angry at a customer service worker, beginning the rapid reduction of her rating from 4.2 to 0, and culminating in a drunken and panicked rant at her friend's wedding which lands her in jail.

Yep, way better than what we have now.

[OwlHoot]

Yep, way better than what we have now.

I wonder why she'd lose brownie points for getting angry with a robot customer service worker.

It would be a great and socially acceptable way to let off steam, as long as she didn't upset any human bystanders.

[original PM]

Maybe vr.

People will get bored if their daily lives are reduced to nothing except vapid PC conversations where using the wrong word would result in reducation.

In addition to that progress would stop except for that sanctioned by the 'government'

Maybe that's how the matrix really starts.

[original PM]

[WTFH]

Ah yes, Reaganomics.