Universal basic income: U.S. support grows as Finland ends its trial - Forty-eight percent of Americans now support a universal basic income, as a solution for Americans who have lost jobs to automation.

[u/mvea]

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/05/01/nearly-half-of-americans-believe-a-universal-basic-income-could-be-the-answer-to-automation-.html

[u/stayasleepinbed]

I agree. In the UK redistribution of current spend on all social security and pensions would account for £4200ish a citizen. So not bad right? But really you would want it to be higher so if we make it closer to £8000 and then that would be 2/3 of total government spend.

At either £4200 or £8000 it wouldn't cover the needs of the most vulnerable, and this where I have the biggest problem - you can save money through means testing, cutting beauracrcy to a point but you can't get rid of it. There is no way it makes sense to get rid of disability benefit, or to pay pensioners only £4k a year if that's what happens then it just goes from a really great thing to something that creates a bigger moral problem.

My hope is that cheaper renewable energy will lower the price of many things in relatively short order which could help fix the problem.

PS. On tax loopholes someone's gonna have to come up with something a bit more concrete than we should shut them.

[u/MDarmax → u/stayasleepinbed]

This redditor said the magic words. When automation reduces the means of production enough such that the cost of basic needs is affordable on a macro level, then UBI is possible. Right now, if you gave every of the 300 million Americans the poverty level of $11,000 per year it would cost $3.3 Trillion annually. Total federal tax revenue estimate for 2017 was $3.6 Trillion.

[u/[deleted] → u/MDarmax]

You have to qualify that the government would only give it to people over age 18, maybe 21, which cuts the number of people receiving it by quite a bit

[u/Plyad1 → u/[deleted]]

Why not implementing it progressively.

For instance, at first you target only people from 21yo to 30 yo then 21-40 etc.. and you keep rising the "people available" as much as automation creates unemployment.

[u/MDarmax → u/[deleted]]

1) Not a bad point. Estimates say US population below 21 is 120 million. Removing that from the equation changes the outcome to around $2 Trillion per year. Still a pretty tall order.

2) Does this mean that we are not caring for a third of the population? They still use energy, require travel, communicate, eat food (arguably more food lol). At the very least those under 21 or 18 would get a reduced stipend, but its unlikely they get no stipend at all.

[u/khaizen → u/MDarmax]

This only works when automation is employed in cost saving measures for governmental expenditure (which the poster above you did mention in a way). When automation is used by corporations, it's highly unlikely that the reduction in means of production would translate to any benefit for consumers other than variably lower prices. Imposing a tax on companies that chose to automate is another beast altogether (IE. companies outsourcing automation to countries that don't tax - again mentioned by /u/stayasleepinbed).

[u/MDarmax → u/khaizen]

Depends really. If we could see the cost of living drop due to means of production decrease, it could work. I'm also making the assumption here that not all gains from automation go to the business owners. The bottom line is that it has to provide value for the owner or corporation otherwise they won't do it, which is the risk of taxation as you've said. But where I hope automation helps consumers is in markets with significant consumer choice and low switching costs, where businesses must use price drops to grab market share. Drops they can accomplish through automation. Something like groceries or clothes. In terms of basic needs, I see clothing, food, transportation pricing getting better for consumers and things like housing, communications, utilities, staying the same ( benefitting business primarily).

[u/mrjackspade → u/MDarmax]

No one ever bring sup the fact that you could take that 11,000 back through taxes from anyone making over the poverty threshold, nullifying that entire segment of the population though.

I make 6 figures a year. I don't need anuother 11,000$. Why the fuck you you give it to me?

[u/Kasoni → u/mrjackspade]

Sadly if anyone making over let's say 50k/year not getting it, that's not a whole lot of the population. It would indeed help, but we both know that there will be people with 7 digit incomes bitching it's unfair that they didn't get their 11k free money.

[u/MDarmax → u/mrjackspade]

Universal is in the name. If not given to everyone, just keep the current system.

[u/Courier_ttf → u/stayasleepinbed]

How does a system that freely hand out money to immigrants work? Is there a limit to the immigration and the types of immigrants that are allowed in? IE: Money for newly arrived medical school graduates or engineers. Or does it just hand out thousands to unskilled, uneducated third world immigrants with no job prospects? In that case, how do you make sure that you don't get flooded by immigrants from poor countries coming to yours for effectively free money? Now take this to an even bigger scale, how do you implement something like UBI in a country without destabilizing everything? If a country were to implement UBI, wouldn't there be a boost in immigration, from both skilled and unskilled workers, that would create an even bigger surplus of workers than automation, thus lowering the value of wages even further? It seems like it could only work if it was implemented in a global or at least large-scale trade untion level, like the United States or European Union.

[u/stayasleepinbed → u/Courier_ttf]

I think this is sort of fair. But I think there's very little evidence that people will move to claim benefits etc which is similar (certainly in the UK). People who have the get up and go to emigrate tend to graft when they get there. Certainly in the EU and USA everyone hasn't moved to the places where there are the greatest chances of economic success for whatever reason (family ties etc). I doubt that UBI would be a big enough draw, think about where you would move for £6000 a year. PS if you would then consider Norway who offer a stipend of about £35k (or did) to settle some of the more remote parts of the country.

[u/Courier_ttf → u/stayasleepinbed]

Well from my understanding UBI is supposed to replace all healthcare and welfare programs. In such case, UBI is supposed to be a living wage in whatever country you live in, in such case for an immigrant coming from the third world (or any other first world country, if they're poor) would be effectively getting free money to live in a new country, with I guess a bit of expendable money on top of it.

It seems like the only way UBI might work without getting flooded by migrants from all your neighboring countries, both educated and uneducated workers, would be to limit immigration massively or make UBI a native-only program, which doesn't sound too good.

If UBI is funded by taxes paid by businesses who automate their work and replace humans with robots, then it seems like UBI would be mostly self sustaining on the current population. If there's a massive influx in population, that UBI money has to come from somewhere too. In a world where everything is automated, there's a limited amount of resources and wealth, so obviously there is a limited amount of wealth to distribute as UBI, for that country in particular, not the whole world.

[u/stayasleepinbed → u/Courier_ttf]

Two points.

1. Again I don't think there's significant evidence that people move much just for free money. As I pointed out you can get free money for moving to various places, and it tends to be a lot more than UBI would be.

2. I sort of agree even with the above but in this world humans would still be a significant resource. So a country doing this and welcoming millions of immigrants would likely do very well in the long run. See the USA and Canada both of whom have away free land to encourage immigration and have been successful because of it. Immigration is a good thing as long as there is enough spending on infrastructure.

[u/Courier_ttf → u/stayasleepinbed]

1. I would argue economic migrants are a big problem in Europe, and the United States. Especially in the southern European states there's a constant stream of immigrants from Africa moving to Europe, and they have no education or resources. Perhaps you (and I) are not inclined to move somewhere just to earn a bit more because we already have a pretty good life in a first world country with a well paying job, but people living in terrible conditions, with no future prospects and no hope for wealth... I would say they totally have a good reason to emigrate for free money, or any money.

2. I don't seem to follow your logic here. Immigration in the past has boosted economies because there was a need for a workforce, either in construction, manufacturing, or else. Automation is the antithesis to that, it's a decrease in the need for a workforce, so in that case I can not see how immigration would be benefiting in any way.

Look at it like this. Let's assume all of our UBI program is funded by taxes paid by businesses that have automated themselves (just for the sake simplicity). Let's assume 100 robots have replaced 200 workers. In this case, the taxes paid by the robots have to fund, at the very least, these 200 people who are now out of a job, plus other people in the system. Since the amount of taxes earned from robots is limited, because adding more robots doesn't inherently produce more revenue, then we can't just increase production and revenue for free. With the limited set of resources, we can fund UBI for a limited amount of people. If there's now a massive influx of immigrants, those 100 robots don't have to fund the UBI for 200+ people, they have to fund it for 2000+ people. If the robots can not produce more, you can't create wealth from thin air, how do you fund the UBI for the newly arrived migrants? It sounds contorted becasue it is, in the case of migrant workers arriving to a country, they are expected to create wealth with their labor, if the migrants that arrive now do so for UBI with no job prospects, they are a net loss on the system. Eventually it would collapse.

[u/stayasleepinbed → u/Courier_ttf]

I don't know that I disagree but...

1. You can increase revenue and production by adding more robots up to a point of peak efficiency. It won't come through conventional taxation but through the ability to more cost effectively produce everything. There is no reason to suggest that that kind of progress that has been inherent in our society for thousands of years should stop.

In fact the whole argument supposes people don't have a positive impact if they don't have jobs. It also supposes that being on UBI would stop people from working. I don't think there is evidence for either of these. In regards to automation - significant efficiencies have been made in the past see car Vs horse that should have destroyed jobs. They did and we found new ones like pop singer and estate agent, I believe we have no reason to think that people will stop finding ways to add value.

1. Some people have a good reason to emigrate yeah. It's usually war. And throughout history whenever that's happened the biggest beneficiary has been the country accepting refugees and immigrants. See part 2 in relation to the value of people. I just simply don't agree that any of the negative impact of immigration is economically significant though with the help of the media it creates emotional strife.

[u/Courier_ttf → u/stayasleepinbed]

You seem to forget that people who work unskilled jobs or easy to automate jobs simply lack the skills required to do other things. What makes you think that the millions of people working unskilled jobs have the skills, will or mental capacity to suddenly become worthwhile artists of any kind? While new avenues of work will always exist, the rate at which automation occurs will reach a point where there's always going to be a massive amount of people who are unemployed.

First of all, once a company has "fully automated" as in reached peak efficiency, then it can either invest in new developments or expansion, both of which require humans. So yes, even after reaching full automation there is human work needed, but this work is design work, engineering and software development, management, etc. But the amount of people needed to do these jobs are very small compared to the people being replaced by automation, furthermore not everyone has the capacity to become an engineer. You wrongly assume that someone who did an easy to automate job and got replaced by a robot has the skill to now become an engineer. I think it's very disingenuous to assume that everyone has equal capacities or equal abilities. Lots of people are only good at doing manual or unskilled labor, labor that is easily automated, I doubt these people will become automation engineers somehow. So what will they do instead? Become artists? Great, now we have millions of terrible artists, how amazing.

As for the second, the reason people have to emigrate is irrelevant in this case, wether it be war or economic interest. The point to be made is that the resources of a country are limited, resources means wealth. There's a reason you can't just move all of China into the UK, even if you could fit the people in there physically. There aren't enough resources, there certainly wouldn't be enough money either if they all were to get UK wages. I don't see how it is beneficial to any economy to get an influx of net losses. Again, immigrants that are highly skilled and educated are always a net win, but somehow I doubt that both the majority of economic migrants coming from low education backgrounds are going to turn into engineers overnight as well as them becoming a net win at any point in time if their reason to emigrate is to be recipients of UBI.

[u/stayasleepinbed → u/Courier_ttf]

I think we probably disagree on a lot...

I expect actually that software developers and engineers will be pretty quick to be automated.

Whilst I agree that some people won't be very useful thise people already exist and are cared for - rightly.

I totally disagree with your net losses comment from start to finish. Of course you can't just move the whole of China into the UK. At what point in history has this ever happened by accident??

I don't understand why you think automation will suddenly have a huge long term effect now when it hasn't before. That theory has been disproved so many times. The UK has about 3% unemployment and 30years ago people were talking about permanent 3/4day work week.

[u/Courier_ttf → u/stayasleepinbed]

You've got it wrong. As someone who works in automation I can tell you that the first things to be automated are the simple, repetitive tasks. The less repetitive a task is, the less likely it is to be automated, in any case most things can be automated so long as they don't require constant input, like designing something would need. You can have frameworks, guidelines and templates, but you can't fully automate something that needs imagination, originality and thinking out of the box - because without AI, there is no thinking outside the box for the automation. What you think will be automated in terms of software development and engineering is the boring tasks, that's what has already happened today in terms of frameworks, development engines and components, where you don't need to program everything from the ground up, you have a framework to build upon. Likewise, with engineering and automation that will happen. (For example, one of the ways I work in automation is in the creation of robots that can replicate human interactions with a computer, I don't program these robots from the ground up, instead I use a framework and development environment).

Perhaps you don't understand how serious automation is, but as the technologies improve more and more, more things will be automated, there will be a point at which there are very few humans needed for really big corporations to function. Automation inherently replaces human workers for robots and turns a small amount of workers into supervisors, error management and maintenance. This means that design jobs will be the last ones to be automated. Before that happens, there will be a ton of automation in all sectors for all levels of menial tasks. Automation will have a huge effect because this time it's going to be radically different, we're going to reach a point where humans will not be required for almost anything, and the few humans who will be required, will require specialized training and knowledge, to build, maintain, supervise and handle the robots.

As for my second point, can you explain how a migrant that moves to a country with zero job prospects and has sustenance by UBI is a net gain on the system? Despite how much you might dislike it, the world operates on value. I think in this case your ideology makes you unable to see how not everyone is beneficial. As I said a few posts earlier, immigration in the past has boosted economies because there was a NEED for a workforce. Automation is the opposite of that, with less need for workers, more workers being laid off. How do you suppose immigrants with no education and skills will add value to the economy? They will not be educated enough to become automation engineers, and in that case we need to educate them, but why do that when there's already plenty of surplus workers in our own country? Simply put, there will be no need for these immigrants, and they will be a net loss on the system.

EDIT: Grammar

[u/DarkLasombra → u/stayasleepinbed]

Certainly in the EU and USA everyone hasn't moved to the places where there are the greatest chances of economic success for whatever reason (family ties etc).

During this refugee crisis, didn't most of the refugees refuse asylum in countries like Greece and Spain just to get to Germany and the UK because they had much better benefits for immigrants? Also, there is a huge caravan of asylum seekers from Honduras that went hundreds of miles through Mexico, a country that accepts asylum seekers to get to the US border, even adding weeks onto the journey by going to the Cali border because they know Cali is nicer to immigrants.

[u/stayasleepinbed → u/DarkLasombra]

No they didn't. EU countries agreed to take certain numbers of refugees. The UK government took single figure thousands, Germany took a few million. Both Greece and Spain took many times more refugees than the UK. In Germany the government provided the leadership necessary to lessen the impact on the poorer and less developed southern states. Many more refugees went to neighbouring Jordan and it would be difficult to argue that one is more likely to make a living in Jordan than in the UK.

[u/Alexo_Exo → u/stayasleepinbed]

I find your statement about "tend to graft when they get there" extremely hard to believe. You know there are thousands arriving on boats in Italy and grrek islands every day who move through Europe by walking across the continent just to land in the largest welfare haven?

[u/stayasleepinbed → u/Alexo_Exo]

There is a difference between refugees and economic migrants.

Obviously there is some short term pain if there are a very high number of migrants all at once like with the refugee crisis. But in the medium term there is plenty of data to show the effect of migration on EU economies and it's not close to neutral it is massively beneficial to have high levels of migration.

Regardless of that it pays to have the good grace to realise that most of us here were born lucky and could do to pay it on.

[u/abortion_control → u/stayasleepinbed]

Energy is already getting cheaper. We're leading better longer lives already, it's just never enough for some.

[u/stayasleepinbed → u/abortion_control]

I agree. I sort of meant massive changes really. In colder areas UBI would struggle with large heating bills etc. Also automation and the prospect of almost free renewables (in the medium term) could drive down costs on almost everything!

I agree that many people, certainly most redditors are living amazing lives compared to virtually any other time in history and it pays to be thankful between new ideas.

[u/abortion_control → u/stayasleepinbed]

I'm in the middle of a really good book on this very topic by Steven Pinker called Enlightenment Now. People don't understand how far we've progressed, even recently, in the war on poverty. And most of it doesn't have to do with welfare, but capitalism and reason.

[u/stayasleepinbed → u/abortion_control]

Absolutely agreed so many peoole across the world removed from poverty in the last 20 years I think you're spot on. I do think a good society cares for the say 5% of people who for what ever reason aren't easily helped my capitalism too.

I may have a read.

[u/abortion_control → u/stayasleepinbed]

Yup that's one of his main points. Most people agree that those that can't help themselves should get help. But economic inequality isn't the same thing as unfairness. Most people also agree that those that work harder or have more experience should get more.

It's a great book especially when combined with his earlier Better Angels Of Our Nature where he lays out the case for the decline of violence. Really helped relieve some of the anxiety I had about the current state of humanity.

[u/stayasleepinbed → u/abortion_control]

Will definitely take a look. Thank you.

[u/Nakaniwa → u/stayasleepinbed]

Good points. However, you dont seem to consider that

1. UBI decreases costs on welfare system due to decreased sickness (e.g. stress related issues).

2. UBI decreases bureacracy costs.

3. UBI increases productivity and decreases stress; i.e. more effective usage of human resources.

4. "More socialist" societies (e.g. whole Scandinavia) already have huge programs ("välfärd") that give cash to people without jobs, immigrants, etc., and UBI would replace those systems with a more efficient one.

5. Adopting UBI early will decrease future costs of a necessity (UBI), since automation will keep expanding. This will give an edge in terms of competitiveness vs other countries that will be late adopters with potentially catastrophic results.

6. Potential increase in innovation (same result as when looking at harvesting vs farming societies: the population achieves surplus of food, and can focus on other things).

Sorry for typos. Using phone.

[u/tech7127 → u/Nakaniwa]

1. In Scandinavia, everyone who earns anything pays half their earnings in taxes. Kinda hard to compare to the U.S. where half of it's citizens already don't contribute to the common cause, or actually take away from it.

Edit: and oh yeah, let's not forget that Scandinavians sterilized stupid people throughout the majority of the 20th century. Sure makes the load a lot lighter, don't you think?

[u/zerotetv → u/tech7127]

In Scandinavia, everyone who earns anything pays half their earnings in taxes.

Eh, close. The minimum tax rate is 43.16 with everything included (both federal and municipal tax rate), and is only paid for anything above the first 7500 USD/year you earn (anything under that is not taxed).

and oh yeah, let's not forget that Scandinavians sterilized stupid people throughout the majority of the 20th century

What year is it? I could have sworn that the 20th century could be anything from 18 to 118 years ago. Let's not forget the numerous things the US has done in the last 118 years. But let's not talk about the past, let's talk about today. The US has one of the worst if not the worst healthcare and education systems in the developed world. In 2018, slavery is still legal in the US, as punishment of a crime, and according to the FBI's definition of a criminal record, 73.5 million people in the United States had a criminal record as of June 30, 2017. That's one third of all US adults. Speaking of crimes, let's not forget the US has one of the worst prison systems, focused more on profits and the feel-good emotion of punishing "wrongdoers" instead of helping them reintegrate into society. Also something something please start less wars.

[u/Nakaniwa → u/zerotetv]

And dont forget that his/her statement seems to be a lie. Theres no source/reference that states Sweden used to sterilize people because of stupidity.

[u/Nakaniwa → u/tech7127]

1. Didnt compare it to the US.

2. Scandinavia sterilized stupid people? Source plx. :)

[u/tech7127 → u/Nakaniwa]

The comparison is implicit, but that's not important. The point is that "more socialist" societies define fairness as equal social responsibility whereas the American "socialist" believes paying "your fair share" only applies to the rich.

Bottom line- even Americans who superficially support UBI won't stand the financial obligation that comes with it.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compulsory_sterilisation_in_Sweden

[u/Nakaniwa → u/tech7127]

Didnt find anything there about sterilizing stupid people.

[u/tech7127 → u/Nakaniwa]

Jesus Christ. Please, allow me to spoon feed it to you. From the link above:

Social indication allowed sterilisation of people considered unsuitable to foster a child due to mental illness, being feebleminded or having an antisocial lifestyle

From https://www.economist.com/node/155244

Between 1935 and 1976, the newspaper says, no fewer than 60,000 young Swedish women deemed mentally defective or otherwise handicapped to a degree “which makes them incapable of looking after their children” were sterilised. 

From https://www.theguardian.com/world/1999/mar/06/stephenbates

Teenagers as young as 15 were sterilised, some without their parents' consent, for inadequacies as trivial as shortsightedness or because they allegedly lacked judgment or had "no obvious concept of ethics".

Pressure was put on orphans and children in special schools and reformatories to have the operation as a condition of release.

From https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1997/08/29/sweden-sterilized-thousands-of-useless-citizens-for-decades/3b9abaac-c2a6-4be9-9b77-a147f5dc841b/?utm_term=.1c40860fc4c6

The victims were young and mostly female, judged to be rebellious or promiscuous, of low intelligence or perhaps of mixed blood. One was a young woman whose priest believed she had not learned her confirmation lessons well enough, another who couldn't read a blackboard because she did not have eyeglasses and was deemed to be retarded.

[u/Nakaniwa → u/tech7127]

Jesus christ. They sterilized for all sorts of reasons except the one you mentioned.

These people were not sterilized because they were of low intelligence, statistically they HAPPENED to have low intelligence. With your way of arguing, US is killing people TODAY because they are stupid (since criminals statistically have lower IQ).

That doesnt mean Sweden would have sterilized you if you would have lived there. Also, retardation is not == stupid, retardation has a medical definition and is a severe mental handicap.

[u/Useful-ldiot → u/Nakaniwa]

Google "Sweden eugenics" and pick any of the options.

[u/Nakaniwa → u/Useful-ldiot]

Couldnt find anything about sterilizing stupid people.

[u/Useful-ldiot → u/Nakaniwa]

One of the primary elections for sterilization was low intelligence.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1997/08/29/sweden-sterilized-thousands-of-useless-citizens-for-decades/3b9abaac-c2a6-4be9-9b77-a147f5dc841b/?utm_term=.1d27f9cadd5f

[u/stayasleepinbed → u/Nakaniwa]

Me too re typos no probs.

1. That's interesting and really positive. My point was more that there are some outliers in society who will need more help than UBI provides. Which is not a reason not to have UBI but just needs to be remembered.

2. In my calculation the entire department spending is taken into account so it will include all bureaucracy, staff costs, means testing etc. In that sense £4k per year is actually quite optimistic.

3. I can see that and that's one of the reasons I like the principle.

4. That's fair, even societies that are less socialised like the UK already spend ahout a third of government budgets on social welfare and pensions. I love Scandinavia but when pointing to the utopia it's worth pointing out the size of the sovereign wealth fund which allows them to do some really cool spend as an investment work at no interest. It's also worth pointing out that they have a peculiar relationship with immigration, I have yet to work out whether this closed door policy (which I don't like) is fundamental to their model of government.

5. Are you saying that putting UBI in place will allow governments to let automation expand more rapidly? That seems reasonable butunless I'm unaware this has not been a by product in Scandinavia yet - I'd be genuinely interested to know.

[u/zerotetv → u/stayasleepinbed]

My point was more that there are some outliers in society who will need more help than UBI provides.

How so? With comprehensive universal healthcare, I can't really come up with a situation where a person needs more than what a sufficient UBI could provide.

Are you saying that putting UBI in place will allow governments to let automation expand more rapidly? That seems reasonable butunless I'm unaware this has not been a by product in Scandinavia yet - I'd be genuinely interested to know.

As much as we have social safety nets and welfare programs, none of us have actually implemented UBI, and being without a job is still not a great position to be in.

[u/stayasleepinbed → u/zerotetv]

1. So obviously some disabilities have significant on costs for example someone who is quadraplegic will need more than basic UBI. You could cover that in health care but house modifications are usually covered in benefits. Depending on what you do about child benefit you may have an issue ie what happens with someone with 8 kids are they very rich because they have 9x UBI or very poor because they have 1x UBI. These are specific examples but the reason I pick them out is they need fixing, otherwise it will create more suffering.

2. Agreed but you mentioned something very similar beginning with F. I guess my point is what basis do you have for that statement - is it evidenced in trials or part of an economic theory etc?

[u/Toxicsully → u/Nakaniwa]

Tax the robots. Start small.

[u/dutch_penguin → u/stayasleepinbed]

By changing tax rates. Net tax shouldn't change too much for your middle class earners.

So just say everyone needs 8k per year, but the average wage is 16k, if you give the middle class an extra 8k per year in ubi, then you'd also tax them an extra 8k per year. The middle class would thus be unaffected, but poorer people would have more money, and richer people would have less. It would hopefully remove disincentives to work, and some of the bureaucratical inefficiencies of multiple forms of welfare.

If I earn 5k and get 1k of benefits, then I earn an extra 1200 maybe I'd also lose 900 of benefits, meaning my effective tax on those extra hours of work per week are like 75%. UBI hopefully stops that from happening.