Could a Universal Basic Income (UBI) work?

[DustyBin]

No doubt, but that's kind of the point of a benefits system.

Correct. However, if people choose not to work and to live on benefits (or in this case UBI) that's abuse of the system surely?

The point I was making is that, overall, it is better for the economy to have money circulating rather than sitting in the bank/investment accounts of the top tier in society.

Whilst I'm ideologically opposed to punitive taxation, or even worse a wealth cap, I can't argue with you here. There is point at which wealth becomes nothing more than numbers. I'm talking about the very top tier here though, not ordinary higher earners.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Anybody living purely off UBI is going to be putting most or all of it back into the economy.

But it will still be, consuming stuff that other people have had to work to produce. And if the person has chosen to live purely off UBI then that's still a problem because that person is imposing an extra burden on everyone else while choosing not to contribute.

The point I was making is that, overall, it is better for the economy to have money circulating rather than sitting in the bank/investment accounts of the top tier in society.

I don't think the advantage goes all one way: While it's good for money to be circulating, you have to remember that banks etc. generally don't just sit on money in investment accounts - there would after all be no profit in doing that! Rather, they use it to invest in and lend to businesses - and that will often therefore end up being used to generate more economic capacity, which is less likely to happen from people just buying food and consumer goods etc.

 

[PsychoMouse]

Correct. However, if people choose not to work and to live on benefits (or in this case UBI) that's abuse of the system surely?

That's the point of having UBI though, the jobs won't exist due to AI advancements.

 

[DustyBin]

That's the point of having UBI though, the jobs won't exist due to AI advancements.

Whilst I’m not entirely convinced yet, I agree that this is a possibility.

As others have said, it would represent a huge societal change. Unlike the industrial revolution, which saw some jobs replaced by technology but others created, the AI revolution has the potential to put many people out of work permanently. It would be more akin to the shipyard or coal mine closures which some areas have never recovered from, but on a larger, national scale.

I think there’s a certainly a conversation to be had around the ethics of all this, and how to deal with it if we let it happen, with UBI being an obvious (possible) solution.

 

[johncrossley]

What is money needed for if you have artificial intelligence doing everything? A computer doesn't need or want money.

 

[simonw]

What is money needed for if you have artificial intelligence doing everything? A computer doesn't need or want money.

Because you need someone to buy the goods and services that AI has produced.

 

[johncrossley]

Because you need someone to buy the goods and services that AI has produced.

But there are no staff required to be paid, meaning that goods and services can be provided without payment.

 

[simonw]

But there are no staff required to be paid, meaning that goods and services can be provided without payment.

Wages are only one element of the cost of production.

 

[johncrossley]

Wages are only one element of the cost of production.

What costs are there that don't ultimately lead to someone being paid? No money would be needed to extract and process raw materials, for example.

 

[takno]

What costs are there that don't ultimately lead to someone being paid? No money would be needed to extract and process raw materials, for example.

The raw materials aren't unlimited. you've got to have some way of rationing things and providing signals to the robots of what we'd like. We've generally found money a faily good system for that.

 

[ainsworth74]

The raw materials aren't unlimited. you've got to have some way of rationing things and providing signals to the robots of what we'd like. We've generally found money a faily good system for that.

It'll take us a while to get through all the raw materials that are available in the solar system, so I think we'll be fine

 

[DynamicSpirit]

What is money needed for if you have artificial intelligence doing everything? A computer doesn't need or want money.

Artificial intelligence is not going to do everything! Human beings will still exist, and they will still have ideas for things they want to do, new businesses they want to set up. new innovative products that they've decided they want to make. In short, humans are not going to stop creating things just because computers will be able to do more than they can do today. People are also not going to suddenly stop wanting to interact with other people, and therefore wanting other human beings to provide services for them.

 

[simonw]

What costs are there that don't ultimately lead to someone being paid? No money would be needed to extract and process raw materials, for example.

some one will own the land where the resources are located and will want recompense if they are extracted; the resources will need to be moved from one place to another using fuel and equipment. The materials will need working on and storing somewhere all at a cost and then transported to outlets or direct to the end consumer.

The world isn't how you seem to think it is.

What this has to do with the Tories, I don't know.

Ruddy nora! 90 days! I'm not sure I've heard anyone suggest a suspension of that length was likely! I wonder if that got bumped up following his antics at the end of last week?

The report says it got increased from 20 to 90 as a result.

 

[DustyBin]

Artificial intelligence is not going to do everything! Human beings will still exist, and they will still have ideas for things they want to do, new businesses they want to set up. new innovative products that they've decided they want to make. In short, humans are not going to stop creating things just because computers will be able to do more than they can do today. People are also not going to suddenly stop wanting to interact with other people, and therefore wanting other human beings to provide services for them.

Quite. I’m not sure where this idea that we’re going to turn into potatoes comes from!

 

[johncrossley]

some one will own the land where the resources are located and will want recompense if they are extracted; the resources will need to be moved from one place to another using fuel and equipment. The materials will need working on and storing somewhere all at a cost and then transported to outlets or direct to the end consumer.

The world isn't how you seem to think it is.

What this has to do with the Tories, I don't know..

I'm not talking about "how I see the world". This is about whether UBI is needed in a hypothetical world where there is 100% replacement of jobs by AI, including all services. Perhaps some posts need to be moved to a new UBI/AI thread.

 

[DustyBin]

Perhaps some posts need to be moved to a new UBI/AI thread.

Not a bad idea actually as it’s become a (OT) discussion in itself!

 

[edwin_m]

Perhaps some posts need to be moved to a new UBI/AI thread.

Can the mods set up an AI system to identify off-topic posts and move them into a new thread?

 

[simonw]

I'm not talking about "how I see the world". This is about whether UBI is needed in a hypothetical world where there is 100% replacement of jobs by AI, including all services. Perhaps some posts need to be moved to a new UBI/AI thread.

Well there never will be 100% replacement and as I say you seem to be ignoring a huge proportion of the world economy.

 

[Cowley]

I was going to move the AI stuff into the thread below but it does feel related so I’ve left it for now. This thread is about UBI though and where possible it would be good to stick to that.

There’s a thread on AI anyway which can be found here, so please use that one if you want to develop the discussion further.

I thank you.

 

[E27007]

The much maliigned Tony Benn expressed a very succint opinion on the crushing of the human spirit by the constraint of "having to work"

 

[Tetchytyke]

It is a curious aspect of the British mentality that the poor are expected to “work hard” for even the most meagre rations, but that this requirement never quite seems to stretch to the rich.

I find it utterly bizarre that we get angry at someone potentially getting say £1000 “for doing nothing”, yet when it’s a rich person it is “passive income” and is something to be applauded. Apparently sitting on a land bank that your great-great-great-great-grandfather “acquired” (stole) in feudal times and living off the rental income from it is something to be admired.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

It is a curious aspect of the British mentality that the poor are expected to “work hard” for even the most meagre rations, but that this requirement never quite seems to stretch to the rich.

I find it utterly bizarre that we get angry at someone potentially getting say £1000 “for doing nothing”, yet when it’s a rich person it is “passive income” and is something to be applauded. Apparently sitting on a land bank that your great-great-great-great-grandfather “acquired” (stole) in feudal times and living off the rental income from it is something to be admired.

I wouldn't see the comparison in the same way. As far as I'm concerned, if someone wants to spend their life doing nothing then that's sad but it's their choice. But if you've chosen to spend your life doing nothing then you have no right to expect anyone else to support you. So what I object to is the culture of entitlement - whereby some people assume that the state/everyone else somehow owes them a living. One of the problems of UBI is the way it would drive that kind of culture.

In the case of someone who is wealthy (perhaps because of inherited wealth) that consideration doesn't apply because they aren't relying on the rest of society to support them. If they are choosing to do nothing but live off their wealth, then they are not really contributing to society, but they are also not really asking anything of society, so in ethical terms that problem of 'entitlement' isn't there.

 

[Trackman]

I know its on trial here, but hasn't the UBI idea been trialled in other countries with positive results?

 

[Tetchytyke]

If they are choosing to do nothing but live off their wealth, then they are not really contributing to society, but they are also not really asking anything of society, so in ethical terms that problem of 'entitlement' isn't there.

The money to pay the rent has to be earned by the tenant- either a business or a private individual. So the wealthy landowner whose income is from rent is both contributing nothing to society and expecting society to fund his lifestyle.

It’s curious how it’s feted when it’s a wealthy landowner but scrounging when it’s a poor person.

 

[Sm5]

But there are no staff required to be paid, meaning that goods and services can be provided without payment.

I just wish that would be true..

I recall seeing a BBC documentary on nuclear power made in the 1950’s stating the eventual aim of nuclear is to provide electricity for free.

No business does anything for nothing in a capitalist system.

I know its on trial here, but hasn't the UBI idea been trialled in other countries with positive results?

If UBI replaced all other benefits then it would make administering and fraudulent use of the benefits system much less prevalent.

It would remove many news papers of column inches, make name/shame TV programs history and remove a lot of heated debate online.

The problem is there is always someone who will want more, and others who want to take it away from others.

I do think initial access to UBI should be linked to some measure of net historical contributions… ie youve put something into the system before you take something out… to discourage youngsters taking the easy way out, and discourage economic migrants hoping to just to exploit the system. Maybe those economically inactive and low in contributions could do something for society (volunteering, charity work, social work etc) as way of contributing and qualification.

Simply paying someone able, to do nothing makes no sense… it smacks of french farmers being paid to not farm.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

The money to pay the rent has to be earned by the tenant- either a business or a private individual. So the wealthy landowner whose income is from rent is both contributing nothing to society and expecting society to fund his lifestyle.

No. If a landowner is getting income from rent, then they are contributing to society by maintaining and renting out their property. Like it or not, renting stuff out is a legitimate business.

 

[AlterEgo]

If UBI replaced all other benefits then it would make administering and fraudulent use of the benefits system much less prevalent.

It would remove many news papers of column inches, make name/shame TV programs history and remove a lot of heated debate online.

The problem is there is always someone who will want more, and others who want to take it away from others.

You’re right. It will replace the current “you’re on benefits” stigma because we will all receive it.

 

[Tetchytyke]

If a landowner is getting income from rent, then they are contributing to society by maintaining and renting out their property. Like it or not, renting stuff out is a legitimate business.

I’m not talking about “renting stuff out” though, as I suspect you well know.

What do the freeholders of agricultural land contribute to society? The farmer does all the work. They just get their hefty ground rent. And at the end of it they get the land back to rinse and repeat.

Grosvenor Estates- the Duke of Westminster’s land ownership company- owns the freehold to huge swathes of London. The buildings that are built are all leasehold and, despite the Duke contributing nothing to their construction or upkeep, will revert to him if the leasehold owners don’t continue to pay him huge amounts of money in ground rent and lease extension fees. Same with so much of the country- if it’s not one Duke it’s another one, and if it’s not a Duke it’s some shady company of dubious provenance in the Cayman Islands or BVI.

Of course they only own this land in the first place because of enclosures in the 16th and 17th century.

But it’s the poorest in society that have an entitlement culture?

 

[DynamicSpirit]

I’m not talking about “renting stuff out” though, as I suspect you well know.

No I didn't. You referred to 'money to pay the rent' so I assumed you were talking about renting stuff out.

What do the freeholders of agricultural land contribute to society? The farmer does all the work. They just get their hefty ground rent. And at the end of it they get the land back to rinse and repeat.

Well that's a separate question. Personally I think there may be an issue there to do with responsibilities of landowners etc. and how we treat land ownership: But that's a whole separate issue which, as far as I can see, doesn't have anything to do with UBI or entitlement culture.

But it’s the poorest in society that have an entitlement culture?

You're the one that keeps trying to link this to 'the poorest in society'. I've made no such connection so I think you're somewhat putting words in my mouth there. As far as I'm concerned it's a simple case of, if you have decided to live your life by not contributing anything to society, then you have no right to expect society to support you - and that argument applies no matter what your circumstances. I would say UBI fails on that basic moral point (though there are also some economic arguments why I don't think UBI would work anyway).

 

[etr221]

Grosvenor Estates- the Duke of Westminster’s land ownership company- owns the freehold to huge swathes of London. The buildings that are built are all leasehold and, despite the Duke contributing nothing to their construction or upkeep, will revert to him if the leasehold owners don’t continue to pay him huge amounts of money in ground rent and lease extension fees. Same with so much of the country- if it’s not one Duke it’s another one, and if it’s not a Duke it’s some shady company of dubious provenance in the Cayman Islands or BVI.

Of course they only own this land in the first place because of enclosures in the 16th and 17th century.

Or their ancestor came over as one of William the *******'s heavies, and got a chunk of land for beating up the natives...

For a Hollywood take of the different view of the poor and the rich, see Finian's Rainbow - When The Idle Poor Become The Idle Rich