Universal basic income and what it may look like

[porkpiesinthepark]

I've been thinking for a while about the criticism of UBI and I think it's due to people not being able to imagine the government trying to 'match' peoples wages. In my opinion, it never will but there will be alternatives to what we have now, which will be able to offer something better.

So say the UBI is £1000 a month for a single person.
We could change the housing market to allow much more public housing with rents set at an affordable level, much more stability, no private landlords and the option to customise/ change your home. Let's face it, home ownership is out of reach for the majority at present. I don't find people are dying to own their own homes but desperate to be out of the instability of the private rental market, out of parents houses, out of house shares etc. If you could offer the next best thing to owning your own house, I think people would go for it.
There would be much more community linked to people having extra time due to not working or not working as many hours. Now, not having enough to do in the day is bad but most people have these huge dreams for retirement and this would just allow them to do some of these things now instead. Also more volunteering, looking after elderly relatives etc.
I don't think that private car ownership would be a thing. There would be a big system like Uber who you could call rides on. There would be a cheaper option, say if ten people wanted to go to the city centre at the same time, they would have to walk to a hub and then the van would pick everyone up, like public transport but based on demand. It would be a status symbol to be able to call a car out just for you.
I think a lot more people would wfh getting the cost of transport and childcare down. Schools might even go remote, as there wouldn't be both parents working and so in theory they could help facilitate the lessons. Then teachers would have small classes of Sen kids like mine, key workers and vulnerable children. Kids would interact with others through volunteering groups with parents, or just playing out as there would be less cars and more parents around to keep an eye on them.
People will either hate this vision as it's so different to what we have now. Or they will like some parts. But what we have now can't continue.

@Room102 Plus the climate change impacts and how internationally we ensure tech is shared to mitigate that and cope with the huge population movements that will ensue and distributing food and water to everyone globally. Unless all of that happens the only outcome will be large scale war. And probably the end.
**
A much smaller population will massively reduce any fight over resources- surely a good thing, certainly for the environment.

They [falling birthrates] won't matter so much because of the AI, if the transition is managed properly

I'll qualify this however, by saying that they fall exponentially once the cycle has started. It is being seen already in some countries but is happening everywhere outside subsaharan Africa. And once it has started it is hard to reverse because it is exponential: to recover it takes a long time if you let it go to far before you do something. And that time is passing now, and the problem isn't being recognised and nothing is being done. So if you want there to be people around in the future - as in care about the existence of the human race for its own sake - then it matters in that respect. Because it is accelerating, almost everywhere, right now.

It depends on the interaction. At the moment we need people to mine resources, work in factories, ship things from one country to another, farm food, produce energy, maintain infrastructure, be doctors, etc.

Machines can take over much of that but not yet. Will the timings align perfectly? It seems unlikely.

Like the OP's bananas? You'll soon find that there are no bananas left to buy at the capped price.

Totally agree with this OP.

Whether people like it or not, the lightning fast speed at which AI and robots are being developed means that within even a decade many jobs are likely to be redundant. UBI will probably be one of the most logical ways of ensuring everyone can access at least a basic standard of living.

I used to work at a supermarket checkout 20 years ago. Walking round my local supermarket the other day I was thinking how my younger self would hardly have believed the number of self service and self scan checkouts compared to staffed checkouts. There’s no reason to believe that many other roles won’t be automated in a similar way.

SO everyone gets £1000 a month and noone has to work?

Who would do all the jobs?

I wouldn't bother doing my job for £1000 if I knew my neighbour was doing ntohing for the same, why would I?

In any case that's not how universal income works as far I know. People with jobs earn additionally to it.

I don't see how it won't just add to inflation.

The robots are coming though….

Room102 people have been saying machines/robots/AI will eradicate jobs for decades.

It happens. Alongside the creation of new occupations that machines can't do (yet), and the result so far has not been sweeping unemployment/under employment.

Technologies change and there's a constant requirement for creation, maintenance, upgrade of new systems. Plus machines don't do well at jobs involving working with people, because people don't tend to follow the rules, we are unpredictable.

Also there are lots of situations where humans make (and are collectively happy about) emotionally driven, irrational choices & we tend not to like the results when machines replace humans in these situations. Eg. In crisises we will make extremely unpredictable decisions, protect vulnerable, unproductive people, like young children, even where it would be arguably irrational to do so. Humans will also be driven by beliefs, religion, passions & fears and these guide our decision making in ways its extremely difficult for machines to replicate.

Yawn. Another in a recent glut of 'trendy smart thinking' (aka know-it-all-doom-mongering) threads about the coming AI-induced apocalypse.

Seriously, what did you people do with yourselves before this spring?! 🙄

The answer to "who does the crap jobs" is, in theory, anyone who isn't happy to live on a basic income and doesn't have the skills to do a non-crap job.

UBI pays for Maccy Ds (or home made food), a bus pass, supermarket clothes, a hamster, a week's holiday in a caravan in Weston Super Mare. Comfortable, acceptable, respectable. If you want a Labrador, Nike trainers, gourmet meals out, two weeks in Barbados, then you need a job.

Room102 people have been saying machines/robots/AI will eradicate jobs for decades.

Yes, and they were correct.

It happens. Alongside the creation of new occupations that machines can't do (yet), and the result so far has not been sweeping unemployment/under employment.

There will be new occupations. Just far fewer people/ hours required to do them this time. The rate of progression because of the exponential aspect and that we are now in the final acceleration of the curve is what people are not appreciating.

Technologies change and there's a constant requirement for creation, maintenance, upgrade of new systems. Plus machines don't do well at jobs involving working with people, because people don't tend to follow the rules, we are unpredictable.

These systems are already writing code and will be able to update and upgrade themselves. This is where the risk part comes in if it's not kept under human control. Which inevitably - because people are stupid - it won't be IMO. But no, it will all require little human input at all in a couple of decades.

Also there are lots of situations where humans make (and are collectively happy about) emotionally driven, irrational choices & we tend not to like the results when machines replace humans in these situations. Eg. In crisises we will make extremely unpredictable decisions, protect vulnerable, unproductive people, like young children, even where it would be arguably irrational to do so. Humans will also be driven by beliefs, religion, passions & fears and these guide our decision making in ways its extremely difficult for machines to replicate

Machines - if kept under control - operate to the parameters humans set. Much of the risk is largely about them setting inappropriate parameters or missing parameters out. If humans want AI to consider such factors it can be programmed to do so. "Rationality" itself is also about perspective - I think this is what you are getting at: that utilitarian principles for example are not desirable with no modifications - but this comes back to what I said about the outcomes being entirely dependent on who is programming it and for what purpose and what controls and safeguards are in place. Although a little more evidence-based policy making rather than religion/ belief/ fear based policy making would not go amiss.

Also robots can mean increased productivity without job loss, where there is sufficient demand/capacity

Eg - say 1 person can make 10 widgets per hour. If you add in 3 machines, with the human required to oversee/maintain the machines, you make 50 widgets per hour. If there is a demand for more widgets, this can benefit everyone. Also perhaps the widget supply feeds into another product which can then be made faster or cheaper and so on and so on.

But the answer to poor wages shouldn't be that the government tops up those wages. The answer should be that the employer should pay a living wage. In your case, that employer is the government, which is actually an illustration of how a lack of a competitive market suppresses wages. The government employs the vast majority of teachers in this country and so holds a monopoly over them.

We also need to deal with the issue of fathers not paying their way, often by taking cash-in-hand work. In my view that means that there should be a minimum amount due per child, calculated at half the cost of bringing up a child. This would be due regardless of the situation of the NRP. Arrears would result in automatic sanctions including a block on their passport (if you can afford to travel abroad, you can afford to pay for your child).

Arrears would result in automatic sanctions including a block on their passport (if you can afford to travel abroad, you can afford to pay for your child).

This thread is every tories teenage wet dream!

When I come across a news story or polling which indicates they're losing their hold on the nation - I always remember when asked, people would rather sugarcoat their views instead of openly airing them such as the post I've italicised as these views would spark controversy. But they really need not worry. As long as all the workers are fighting amongst each other for scraps and working themselves to the bone they'll feel embittered by those they perceive 'lesser' i.e. in receipt of state support. I don't think this is the work of this specific government, as I've said in my posts it's an ingrained yet insidious attitude. Who wouldn't want to be a tory though, imagine all those billion-pound contracts funded with our money of which we see next to zero material change but the problem is actually the neighbour two doors down who might possibly be in contravention of universal credit guideline Clause 5, Section 8.79, Paragraph 2.8.

Is Labour / Starmer really the answer to the issues on this thread?

@Room102 has made some convincing arguments on the huge structural change coming our way

The way I see it politicians on all sides are squabbling about petty shit and the media are right along there with it

I have been somewhat convinced that things need to change but now I’m just annoyed and how much airtime is spent on the ridiculous

And I already thought that was annoying enough

@SunnyEgg He absolutely isn't. I'm not sure he'd know the best way to get to his front door were it not for the support of his aids.

I agree with you that politicians on all sides are squabbling about petty shit, and I can't see any party who really has any clear vision or rather who could inspire the confidence of the country. Having said that, I think we're so far through the looking glass as a country that I don't think we could find any reconciliation between those who believe, just to use an example, that childcare should be affordable as a matter of course, and those who think women shouldn't have gotten pregnant had they not factored in those costs; swap out childcare for school meals, or anything tbh.

The way I see UBI working is that Job Seekers Allowance (the current name for unemployment benefit), or its equivalent Universal Credit, simply has the requirement to look for work removed.

It is currently £84.80 per week for over-25s. Just over £4,400 per year or £367 per month.
If you are unemployed, you would not need to look for work. All those people whose job it is to harass /cajole you into work are now redundant.

If you are already on any pension or benefit which pays more than this rate, you don't get any extra - your current pension / benefit is taken to include the UBI.

Housing benefit and council tax benefit are totally separate and continue as before (pending massive, massive council house building programme and total overhaul of housing - which is a separate issue to UBI)

For people in work, the tax system is adjusted, so that someone doing 37.5 hours per week on adult minimum wage (or more) is no better off - the UBI is paid through PAYE, but the tax free allowance and/or the tax rate adjusted to give the same net pay. (The level of NMW is also a separate issue).

Everyone who is working is paid UBI through the PAYE system, or for the self employed via their tax return. For people on very low wages and low hours, this would be a net extra added to their pay.

The other extra costs would be that it is now payable to every adult over 18 years. So anyone who currently doesn't work or claim benefits or pension - e.g. all SAHP. This extra cost would be met through general taxation, preferably on assets of the wealthiest, not necessarily on income.

Taking away the work requirement means that if you are happy to live on £84.80 per week, you are welcome to do so, at the taxpayers expense. It would be enough to buy food and second-hand clothes, but you would have to sofa-surf / live in a van / live with someone else who pays the bills, etc.

The advantages of putting such a UBI system in place is that it would ease the handling of a transition to a post-AI world, would put cash directly in the hands of SAHP who in cases of financial abuse may not have any other access to money, and it would de-link survival-level income from work.

We need to abandon the idea that everyone should work for their food.

@Room102 has made some convincing arguments on the huge structural change coming our way

The way I see it politicians on all sides are squabbling about petty shit and the media are right along there with it

I have been somewhat convinced that things need to change but now I’m just annoyed and how much airtime is spent on the ridiculous

And I already thought that was annoying enough

This is exactly it: squabbling about the irrelevant, like hearing people argue over what to play on the radio while the car hurtles towards a cliff edge.

Another post that misses the point spectacularly.

They just heard about Chat GPT and now all of a sudden they everyone’s an economist and AI expert. Mostly regurgitating what they read on Twitter.

It would replace the personal tax allowance (currently £12,750) so wouldn’t really be an “extra” if you currently work. The idea I would be to massively simplify the tax system as well as scrapping the benefits system. So no more personal allowances, state pensions, tax exempt this and that etc. Everyone over 18 gets UBI and any iotger income is taxed at a flat rate. The potential for savings in administration costs are significant. It would completely do away with the DWP.

If everyone had an extra £1600 a month, holidays and dental work would suddenly get a lot more expensive, as would every item of discretionary spending.

They just heard about Chat GPT and now all of a sudden they everyone’s an economist and AI expert. Mostly regurgitating what they read on Twitter.

If that's aimed at I don't even use Twitter. Or any social media actually other than my account here. But you carry on. Your post exemplifies what I was talking about.

The current tax system doesn’t give out £12k to every adult. It just doesn’t tax them on the first £12k they earn.

Actually paying everyone £12k a year (tax free) is a completely different thing. Far more than the £2.4k that’s saved by not taxing them at the basic rate on their personal allowance. Even if they’re higher rate taxpayers, it’s less than £5k less tax collected each. Which is nothing like giving them £12k.

Obviously.