To think the time is coming when a universal basic income is seen as a necessity?

@Meadowfinch sorry, forgot to add...
All the jobs really weren't replaced. The unemployment figures aren't accurate indicators because of changes that have manipulated the calculations.

If you look back a mere 32 years ago when I was starting out in the working world. Only around 25% of the cohort of school leavers that year went on to higher education. Just ten years before, it was even fewer. Go back a bit further and it was a mere 5%

Today, over 50% of young adults will be in full time education until at least 21. So they are taken out of the unemployment figures. Nowadays, legally, nobody can leave some form of education or apprenticeship until they are 18. So 16-18 year olds aren't appearing on unemployment statistics.

We have an ageing population, to boot. Those who have taken retirement, early or otherwise, don't appear on the unemployment stats either.

Employment as per government stats is in no way an accurate measure of changes in the amount of physical employment there is compared with earlier decades.

However, taking all those factors into consideration, employment has dropped. It's also become centralised.

There won't always be jobs for everyone. It sounds pessimistic, but the writing has been on the wall for a while, now. That's one reason why Blair did his big push about university education for all. It's a great way to delay the problem. And it's coming home to roost.

If the new government does succeed in ditching zero hours contracts, we'll see how bad it really is, because we've been running a gig economy for a long time. Those employed on an adventure hoc basis don't show up in unemployment stats either.

The jobs were not all replaced. The goalposts were simply moved about to give the appearance that they were.

hardship would be mitigated- no-one would be destitute or unable to feed themselves

Why do you think this?

There aren't enough homes for people, and people would have free choice over how they spend their UBI so you'd still have the destitute and malnourished!
If someone doesn't work and spends their UBI on booze or drugs are you just going to leave them on the street like now?

Sounds like a few posters are hinting at the lining up and shooting of those 'surplus to requirements' see: what will we do with all those idle people we don't need?? It's already happening, by the way. (Labour's hatred of the sick & disabled).

I don't think UBI is intended to replace wages. How on earth would that work? Everyone gets the same, from a waiter to the PM?! Why be PM? (Or a waiter come to that - both hard jobs).

Yes 100%! And for those saying how would we fund it, fair enough, but from what I understand it is basically an investment into local economies and would boost jobs. A feminist think tank in South Africa found the state would get so much of the money this way as well as reducing the need for other benefits and preventing people falling into the cracks which then costs the state in other ways.

Will try and find the link but found the idea that that it's an economic stimulus in that it gives every single person money to spend that most of them will put straight into their local economies.

It also makes sense to me that it's particularly good for women to have this stable income and that they would spend it in a way that if of meterial benefits to society.

Yes, and I am happy to pay for that

I don’t want to pay for UBI so people can be “creative”

IME people who claim to be “creative” rarely are.

All made by creative people. That was the point.

There is plenty of Art, Film and Music produced today

We don’t have UBI

Fund it through corporation tax. It's companies that would be benefitting from not having to pay employees with the potential for profits to skyrocket. If people aren't being paid to do the job, then the cost of 'production' is minimal.

Really? You don't appreciate art? You don't watch films, or go to shows, or buy art, or listen to music? All of that is bullshit?

Who brainwashed you into thinking the pursuit of creativity is bullshit?

I would quite happily do one day of refuse collecting and have six days to spend with my family, on my own leisure pursuits, on creative endeavours, than the current general set up of working 9-6, M-F.
I admit I don't personally feel I have the stomach for care work when it comes to other people's hygiene requirements, but perhaps the jobs that have less sign-ups require fewer hours.

I imagine it could work like this.
The xN essential jobs, the most popular ones, you need to do 10 hours a week. The least popular, five hours a week. So you choose that way.
Obviously there will need to be more to it, but I see it as offering those between the ages of 22 and 50 x amount of hours to contribute to society. IF they have high-fallutin' jobs like a heart surgeon, they are obviously free to do that work. But those of us who aren't, and who currently do work for the sake of work work, we could do those jobs that don't general feel like a vocation.

There will be people who genuinely LOVE to work, who want to be doctors, nurses, midwives, social workers, builders etc, and we need them. Other jobs will get filled as need be, shared, so we aren't doing 40 hour weeks.
People up to 22 (or maybe 25) are free to stay in education or learn a trade/skill/musical instrument. Those over 50 may choose to retire if they wish, or they can stay in the work pool.

There is a LOT to hash out, but I do think it is the change we need as a society, as the way it is now is not a good model. Not for most of us, anyway.

The only jobs AI seems to be replacing are the bullshit ones.

I think UBI is mainly wishful thinking from people who would rather be “creative” than do useful work.

I don’t particularly want to pay for you or your kids to be “creative”

My main concern would be that it would be used as an excuse to remove benefits and some people would be much worse off.

I looked at what cost estimates are out there a while back and I couldn't see how it could be done more cheaply than the current benefits system. Which at least has the merit of having some ability to distinguish between those who have higher costs (due to e.g. children) and those who can't work (due to e.g. old age or disability), and those who don't/can.

Who’s going to grow all our food and do all the boring work that we all only do because we need the money?

Society would collapse.

I think its a great idea.

It would self fund - via tax, mostly on the big corporations whose profits would increase because:

AI costs less.
People choosing to work actively want to work - you don't have to spend money chasing them to work, you don't have to spend money on them going off long term sick through stress.
Fewer but better quality employees who want to work means more WFH, smaller workforce, smaller premises to pay for.

Those who want to work will do a good job, and companies will have to provide good working conditions and attractive benefits. They will make more accessible work places, the work culture will be far healthier, we will see far fewer long term sick stressed people, more people job sharing with a healthy work/life balance.

Those who can't easily work through disability will have enough to live on and are more likely to find part time accessible work that fits their requirements.

Those who can't work at all will be supported.

Those who do not want to work can choose to do that and will be cheaper for the goverment to sustain as trying to force those who do not want to work into jobs is very expensive. Ok they won't have cash for the extras and goodies in life, just a decent basic standard of living... but without the fear of being forced into work they don't like/can't do/don't want, many will end up doing paid work here and there and voluntary work as there is no fear of having their benefits lifeline snatched away.

Theres this fear that everyone would down tools and sit on their arses - but that just isn't the case. Most people want to do something with their day and feel better if they are productive.

Some of the people who are terrified of work, have no skills, poor education, end up on benefits and avoiding work actually expend MORE effort on not working, than they would if they could just work one or two days a week.

Because employers would have to be more flexible and make working more attractive, there would be more opportunities for the 'want to work a little bit' people.

We'd also see more volunteers, which we really need!

However I don't see it happening because:

The power that is in the hands of those who cannot STAND to see someone apparently get something for nothing is huge.
The dramatic change to work culture and employers expected to make working attractive to people who do not HAVE to work, they simply WANT to work... is too much for them to stand.

I agree.

I did the maths on it too. It was actually mental. We can replace all pensions, all benefits and have a single universal income of £350 per adult per week. A flat tax on all earnings of 50%.

And have enough left over to pay off the deficit in 10 years with some extra left over. Absolutely wild. And all from income tax and benefit reform.

No brainer IMO.

I think the idea was that if nobody had to do the crap stuff all the time, nobody would mind doing it. If it was shared out, it would be less onerous.

But in fairness, the trouble with referring to the Ragged Trousered Philanthropist is that it was written at a time when what was necessary to keep the world going looked rather different.

Personally I think that these community based jobs will be highly regarded - like when we clapped for carers and nurses in covid. It's a nice thing to imagine care roles and community work being paid better than someone flogging crates of plastic tat from China, for example.

Exactly. It's terrifying and awe-inspiring at the same time. A real fine line between changing the course of our future for better or decidedly worse.
People don't seem to realise how much information these companies have on all of us already, we sold out decades ago for the most part. They are predicting what we will want and suggesting needs to us already, one company even getting advertising into people's dreams using noises and jingles. It's happening and people haven't clocked that "oh that's funny, I was just thinking about XYZ and now I'm getting ads for it" is actually very creepily advanced AI working.

Taxing the companies profiting in order to get UBI has already failed from what I can see, so I do agree funding it will be an issue as we already can't tax the super rich. I do like the possibilities it has for re-adjusting our communities and sustainability though.

I find this all really interesting.
If there was ubi how would you get people to do the jobs no-one really wants, such as care and refuse collecting. Would the rewards for those have to be greater to make them appealing?

Ds shared with me a space race type video with China v US. It was unsettling to say the least. Best case we lose loads of jobs, worst, well.. it’s bad.

I think a universal income will be necessary if AI remains relatively benign but all bets are off while the next few years of development play out.

Listening to Sam Altman and his peers I think few people (I was pretty oblivious until recently) realize what's actually happening in terms of the exponential nature of AI evolution. Even the big tech firms responsible don't seem to have a grasp on what the most likely outcomes will be - particularly whether artificial sentience is imminent. There's also very little global coordination on safeguards - it's reminiscent of the space race to some extent. The big powers (US and China this time) competing to get there first and not considering the consequences until it's too late.

With this and the threat from 'mirror life' I'm surprised any experts in the field can sleep at night - it's certainly unsettled me and I can only grasp the very basics.

I wouldn’t be delighted to cough up. I’m not that rich and yet I’d still be looking to leave.

And for the love of god can people io. This thread and similar ones stop saying ‘government funded’. It’s taxpayer funded. Important to use the latter or you start thinking there’s a magic pot of wealth we can just ‘have’.

I think it’s always easy to allocate money to people. The difficult task is getting the money together so it can be done.

We should think about taxes in an increased AI situation, who is paying them and how do we make sure profits are accessible here