Automation + Universal Basic Income =

Do you believe that a universal basic income (UBI) is the solution to automation of labor? Let's face it, automation is happening and it isn't going away, and thanks to the $15/hr movement, businesses have already started speeding up the process. These machines will work 24/7 shifts for $0/hr, need no health insurance or paid parental leave,

businessinsider.com/self-service-kiosks-are-replacing-workers-2016-5

As labor jobs are increasingly being replaced by automation machines, there needs to be a replacement income source. If millions of workers are put out of a job with no way to feed their families, civil unrest will manifest and riots will ensue on a level unlike you've ever seen before.

A solution proposed is called a "universal basic income." A universal basic income is, according to the Basic Income Earth Network, "a periodic cash payment unconditionally delivered to all on an individual basis, without means test or work requirement."

basicincome.org/basic-income/

reddit.com/r/basicincome/wiki/index

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=tf7IEVTDjng
youtube.com/watch?v=xtpgkX588nM
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_income_tax
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_socialism
youtu.be/LSHZ_b05W7o
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

>post-automation society
>all the university degrees Cred Forums criticized as being "useless" are now viable

>user, why do you have to be a YouTube producer when you could just GET A REAL JOB

>"What you call "real jobs" have been taken over by robots. Arts, humanities, etc... These are the "real jobs" now."

NO
FUCK YOUR UNIVERSAL COMMIE INCOME

> has no idea how autoamtion actually works or what is possible
> has no idea how the markets or social programs work
> doesn't want to work
go kill yourself

Creative pursuits can also be automated though idiot

Universal Basic Income will Make America Great Again.

UBI is anti-communist

Pay people not to work and guess what? They won't.

If there are no jobs, nobody is going to work anyway.

>I don't understand economics: the post

>If there are no jobs
This will never happen you delusional Luddite

UBI will actually make a communist revolution less possible. People will be satisfied with the current capitalist system as the quality of life improved drastically. Poverty will be (at worst) all but eliminated among even the most financially unfortunate.

Is this the new joke among you leftcucks? Pretend its the oppositions idea?

There will always be jobs. We'll need engineers to design the robots, mechanics to fix them, etc. the job market changing =/= no jobs.

>These machines will work 24/7 shifts for $0/hr
Yeah, because the electricity (and thereby fuel) they consume is totally free, and they just pop out of thin air fully formed and ready to use.

Lefties are fucking retarded.

retarded bong.
automated is literally the opposite of creative.

lol. those machines will never work. they'll need a ton of repairmen which are much more expensive than a mcdonald employee.

Until I see a robot write a quality screenplay or compose a quality musical piece, I remain skeptical.

Really? And where will all those Mcworkers go, then?

Do you know how communist countries dealt with unemployment?

says portugese slime

>robots powered by advanced AI neural networks competent enough to repair the machines without human intervention replace the repairmen

>tfw automation engineer
>tfw 300k starting

>And where will all those Mcworkers go, then?
To work. It might not be at McDonalds, but there will still be jobs.

You Luddites have the same argument every 50 years or so
>With all these tractors, what are all of the unemployed farm hands going to do? Technology made their job useless, so now the economy is ruined

>Muh pipedream

Yes. By making the rest of the population work extra hard to support those leeches. Much like we do now unfortunately. And now your glorious idea is to expand the system to encompas everyone.

The machine's wage is the cost to build it, utilities to power it, and parts to maintain it. They don't just magically run on free energy and never break.

no we dont need to give useless niggers and muslims free money just because they exist. you can fuck right off.

What jobs will be available for these McWorkers? Labor jobs are the most vulnerable for automation.

Under UBI, you'll get free money too.

>With all these tractors, what are all of the unemployed farm hands going to do?

Well, that's the point. They went to factories. Then they were replaced by robots, too, so they went to Mcdonalds. Where are they going to go now?

>Yes. By making the rest of the population work extra hard to support those leeches.

No, they made unemployment illegal.

Get them ready for war. :^). Israel must be completed.

>Rats currently multipliying because of the few dollars welfare systems trow at them

>ey, guys! Lets give money for free (as far as you comply with the goverment)regardless of your work or skills

>rats multiply * 1000

There is no faster way of genociding whites than UBI

>jackpot trips

>free

OH LOOK ANOTHER FUCKING UBI THREAD

>PLEBBIT

SAGE

>Do you know how communist countries dealt with unemployment?
I think he is referring to killing the leaches

Not so fast!

youtube.com/watch?v=tf7IEVTDjng

Is this legit? No role-playing involved? What did you study? Where?

I'm asking because I'm studying for a electronic engineering degree right now. Thanks in advance.

Christ, people, nobody's claiming there will literally be *NO* jobs left -- just that *manual labor* and *service industry* jobs at the very least will slowly become automated, and the population will either remain stable, continue to increase, or at best, decline more slowly than the number of jobs will (yes, even if we do impose stricter limits on immigration).

"What do we do if we end up with more people than jobs that we need done?" is a perfectly legitimate question, and the UBI is one answer to that question.

Nobody's suggesting that the robots will fucking program themselves, or that we won't still need other skilled workers: scientists, engineers, doctors, lawyers, accountants, journalists, electricians, managers, plumbers, and so on. But we won't need factory or farm workers. We'll need fewer waiters. Eventually we may not need truck drivers, and so on.

This will create a surplus of labor and a very large unemployed underclass. This is a problem.

Understand what the fuck you're arguing against before you try and do it, please.

>muh capitalism
>muh free market fixes everything

What's the point of automation for a business if no one can afford your product?

>Universal Basic Income
jesus christ how many retarded faggots can there be in a single board?

Yes, I do believe that.
The alternative is pure shit for everyone. We can do better than that until we get rid of money completely.

Gee, it's almost as if economies evolve. If you had told farmers that they would end up working in factories because of automation, they'd call you crazy. To them, farming was everything. If they lost their job farming, there would be no new opportunities. But guess what? They were wrong

Learn the differences between the 3 types of unemployment. That's macro 101

It's not up to me to find jobs for these people. I'm an economic agent, not an economy

When you're trying to reduce a population, sending robots into combat instead of people won't do it.

You'd have to increase corporation tax to 90% to fund UBI. And that erases all incentive for automation.

Doctors and lawyers will disappear. Not completely, maybe, but a lot of traditionally high-paying jobs will disappear.

The trades are actually in a better position. There's no way they'll be able to replace a plumber in the short term. Lawyers though? A 19 year-old made an app to contest traffic fines.

>get rid of money completely.
You do realize that money formed naturally, right?
Nonmonetary transactions are inefficient. We need money to eliminate waste

Solid argument there

>Gee, it's almost as if economies evolve

But manufacturing and service jobs existed since forever. Most of today's Mcjobs aren't really new.

What i never hear explaining is this: Who is going to pay for this? If you think raising taxes is the answer, you don't know anything about macro-economics.

>But manufacturing and service jobs existed since forever
Yeah, because the Luddites are wrong. You're only hurting your point.

Like I said, look up the different types of unemployment

The solution is working a job that is not automated. What a novel idea. There are a lot of jobs that simply can't be automated.

GAS THE THINKING MACHINES!
BUTLERIAN JIHAD NOW!
ATREIDES/HALLECK 2020!

Negative income flat tax lad

>people think you can automate the labor sector without giving workers an alternative income source and not have a widespread civil uprising

Nigger we are reaching a point where the cost of training McWorkers to do another job that is still available will be more than the value of the work they do. The new jobs that open up will be too less in number and require too much technical knowledge for McWorkers.

In short, this time the Luddites will be right, as much as it pains me to say.

There will likely be less overall jobs after automation is completed. Far more jobs can be automated than not.

universal income coupled with open borders is batshit insane.

>You're only hurting your point.

How? You're proposing that destruction of today's McJobs will not be a problem because we'll create new McJobs, just like in the past. The problem is that this never really happened, at least not on a sufficiently large scale.

Automation leads to the ultimate death of society but I can't justify limiting expansion. What do?

Forgot the pic

Any welfare with open borders is insane.

its a meme, dont be naive belgium bro

I remember reading about that. Listen, I'm not saying it'll never happen -- hell, maybe someday we *will* have superintelligent AIs managing literally everything -- but that's a long, long way off. Working AI, period, is a long way off. That traffic fine app is a tool; a useful tool, yes, but it's lightyears from that to a machine that does the job of a lawyer. Most people really underestimate how fucking dumb computers are.

I'll be absolutely shocked if we see anything akin to a working AI in our lifetime -- anything that could replace a skilled worker in a field that requires years of education and training, e.g. law or medicine. Automation of the workforce, on the other hand, is happening NOW.

it does. but sometimes untermenschen like yourself need to be pruned. pic related,

>a company will need to chose between automation and firing people to be able to compete in the market or be less competitive and keep their unproductive workers
>somehow they will chose to keep the workers

Yeah, makes total sense, user. Thanks for enlightening us.

You're talking as if it's a technological or economic limitation. We've had the technology for decades to automate almost anything. The fact is, it's simply not always practical or necessary. Believe it or not, there are many jobs that humans will ALWAYS do better and cheaper than any machine. You guys act like you just flip on the machine and that's it. It runs forever. No more future costs. It's not that simple. There are a lot of factors businesses take into consideration, which is why they choose not to automate, even though the technology has always been there.

There are jobs that will always be done by humans...

- Artistic/creative pursuits
- Massaging and probably even a classier version of prostitution
- Therapy and counselling
- Artisan "handmade" products
- High cuisine
- Athletics and competition; everything from football games to chess matches
- Industries and niches that haven't even been invented yet

Since total automation would make products really cheap, people would be left with more money to spend on these things, which would in turn create more employment in these industries. It's the same thing that happened with the mechanization of farm labor.

People would probably work fewer hours as well due to the increasing productivity. When nothing was automated, most people had to work from sunrise to sunset and still barely scraped by. With increased productivity, people began having a two-day weekend, then shorter days during the week. In the future, people might work a few hours a week and be done. Furthermore, they'll probably retire much earlier as well. This will spread the work around.

Also keep in mind that the population tends to plateau or decrease as a country becomes more affluent, probably because your economic well-being is not dependent on having kids to support you in old age. For instance, Japan and some of Western Europe are not even at the replacement rate.

No.

You raise the minimum wage and lower the work week to 36 hours. Decades later do the same and lower the work week to 30 hours. Fuck your dogshit Marxist fantasies.

>universal basic income
meh who cares might be good

i dont buy into the meme that we dont want to tax the rich or else they;lve leave and take their investments because those bastards are jews anyway and have caused this mess.

Lol yes, that's why thanks to money we can buy water from Fiji on the other side of the world without aaaaany waste whatsoever
Money won't be necessary in a society where everything is done by robots. AI will know much better than the free market how to get rid of waste and make processes efficient and for sure it won't require money to work

Ive held a job for 20 years and I'd be the first to turn neet if someone just paid for me to sit at home with everything I need to survive.

I don't have a problem admitting this. I suspect a great majority of people would as well. So where's all the money come from?

That's a valid argument, but I think you underestimate computers. Google's DeepMind managed to cut the total energy use in Google's data centers by 15% and Hong Kong's subway system is run by a computer. I think it's going pretty fast, especially with the advent of neural networks.

>hich would in turn create more employment in these industries

But how many of these industries are infinitely inflatable? Can the music industry sustain millions of uncreative hacks? Will people go watch lame athletes?

>I don't know what the marginal rate of technical substitution is

>universal basic income
does it come with Soma tablets too? I can't think of a better way to enslave goyim with apathy

No, he's not. But he is way overestimating lawyers and doctors.

All they basically do is remember lots of things and try to diagnose based off that information.

That is the one and only thing computers are good at.

I'm pursuing a career in filmmaking. Glad to know I made the right choice in the long run. :)

Take museum workers for instance.
For years they've been laid off and automated with a set of headphones linked up to an MP3 player that scans barcodes/qrcodes and tells you about each exhibit rather than having guided tours. Unless you want to be an artist you don't really have much room to work with. I've about £1500 in DSLR stuff and if I'm feeling lazy I just turn the dial to auto and don't really have to worry about setting up shots since the auto-exposure and autofocus mean that all I need to do is make sure I've got a good image composition, right now nearly everyone has a DSLR, it won't be long (expecially since mirrorless is taking off) before your camera has augmented reality software and a few algorithms to get you to make the perfect shot. Photography compared to 30 years ago is massively automated, 30 years ago you had a limited amount of film and had to nail shots perfectly if you wanted to conserve film and make money, now you can just put a 64gb card into your camera and stick it on burst mode; you might need to spend time sifting through photographs for the best ones, though that doesn't take too long.

A good example would be passport photos, years ago they were shot using a polaroid or a film camera, now you have photo booths.

>what is deep learning and why can it produce music indistinguishable from human-composed music?

That's not what people mean when they say that the free market is the most efficient. What they mean is that it comes the closest to giving everyone what they want.

Let's say that a giant robot mining machine comes across a huge deposit of gold underground. How would they calculate how this should be used?

Under a free market system, the gold would be bought by the highest bidder and used in profitable pursuits - e.g., things that people are willing to pay for. Some of it would go to manufacturing electronics, some would go to industrial applications, and some would be made into jewelry. It would be directed to each purpose in proportion to the demand from the people. This is as close as you'll ever get to a system where everyone gets what they truly desire.

Even with the best automation in the world, how would you quantify how much each person wants something? How would the robots decide how much of the gold will be made into jewelry and how much will be made into electronic components?

Prices ARE the signals that society needs to produce more of something. Trying to allocate goods without prices is like driving at night with no headlights.

Yeah, web MD is totally a great doctor.

Protip: the human body is not uniform. Everything affects different people in different ways. You can't just look at a list of symptoms and then make a diagnosis. If that were the case, than everyone is a doctor

>Universal Basic Income
OP, for starters make calculations what sort of UBI your country could afford. Then maybe this idea would not look so interesting for you.

That's my plan, I'm playing the long game

I would add that psychiatry and psychology are hugely dependent on being able to understand and relate to human emotions. Robots would be very bad at this.

Thank you, finally someone understands econ

The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they truly know about what they imagine they can design

These people who think we can just figure out an economy like it's some sort of machine don't understand economics. It's an organic entity. We are the economy.

> These machines will work 24/7 shifts for $0/hr, need no health insurance or paid parental leave,

These magical machines aren't made by magic, fagot.
They are made, and maintained, by people with jobs

>They are made, and maintained, by people with jobs
In China.

Is Cred Forums actually this stupid?

Automation is a real danger. People like Bill Gates and Larry Page say its inevitable and will cause massive civil unrest.

Those small jobs that can't be done by machines won't even give work to 5% of the global population.

For every thousand of jobs eliminated, maybe one job will be created.

>Pay four employees 2 hour shifts.
>Pay one employee the same for 8 hour shift.

Why isn't this happening today? Maybe because companies aren't charities, if they can save costs, they will.

>Apple are the tech leaders
fucking kek

The Matrix has it right if the machines will give us a program to keep us occupied after they start using us as batteries.

I for one welcome our machine overlords.

>For every thousand of jobs eliminated, maybe one job will be created.

Don't worry, all the unemployed will move on to make big bucks as Deviantart painters and YouTube comedians :p

I'm a translator who spent the first chunk of my career as a programmer. I've spent enough time wrangling with computers to know how fucking dumb they are, and the answer is "really fucking dumb." They're very good at certain things: a smart programmer etc who comes up with a clever and elegant set of instructions can make a computer do things that make it look really intelligent, and if you throw massive amounts of data at a machine it's good at finding the optimal solutions for those few specific types of problems the smart programmer taught it to solve (e.g. AlphaGo).

That's a far, far cry from the kind of diverse and above all versatile intelligence you need to read and UNDERSTAND a single legal document. I mean, for fuck's sake, *I* won't be replaced anytime soon and my job essentially consists of juggling words around, something a computer in theory should be really good at, except it turns out that the amount of background knowledge and context you need to be able to read or write a language at an acceptable level far outstrips the knowledge of vocabulary and syntax you need (things which we can easily describe in terms computers understand). This is why machine translation is still so crude (and it is, despite the amazing strides we've made).

Basically, you vastly underestimate lawyers and doctors, because you vastly underestimate how complex the intelligence required to "remember lots of things" and truly understand them is.

>MUH AUTOMATION!
>everyone who who doesn't know or intentionally conceals how global economy works
Good goys.

And for every thousand of jobs replaced by machines, maybe two people will service them.

>Why isn't this happening today? Maybe because companies aren't charities, if they can save costs, they will.

As I said, working hours have decreased throughout history as productivity increases.

Regardless of what the typical workday is, we're probably going back to a system where there's a household with one breadwinner, a spouse, a few kids*, aged parents, and possibly several other relatives.

* It would probably become normal and socially acceptable for children to live at home until mid-20s or so... Remember that 16 and 17 year olds used to go out and live on their own in the past.

That's like saying there'll be a steamboat pilot job waiting for every oar puller that previously propelled the ship.

No, I think the negative income tax is far more sound.

youtube.com/watch?v=xtpgkX588nM

>I don't understand microeconomics
>But trust me when I give my opinion on macroeconomics

>tfw Elysium is literally our future if automation and AI continue to expand

I think we are headed to mass poverty starvation wars over resources if we don't start having this talk. Although tbqhf having Matt Damon lead the human revolution against the corpratists.

if UBI becomes a thing it should be reduced when the person has a child so as to not have retarded underclass populations continuing to explode like the current welfare systems in USA and Europe

>free money
Wow sounds like a great idea. if only it were possible. . .

Automatic factories still need electrical power or otherwise to keep them going, so the companies still have to pay expenses to keep their factories running as well as people to maintain them. The only way to subsidize and offset for the products of such a factory is when we get closer to unlimited energy for electrical power, or going the way of the Aircraft Carrier / Submarine with mini nuclear reactors powering every largescale automatic factory which would essentially require more government control as nuclear plants operate under government, and also be a potential hazard requiring even more government for active military protection of each said reactor - so people losing their jobs to automatic in this sense could very well find a job in a local-level military option that can grant them security in a stable job-location conducive to family values.

This leads to a police/military state though with strong, large government which is /essentially/ not what the US is about.

So uh.. If you lose a job to an automated process - you're just fucked. But there are lot of jobs that aren't automated and never will be so whatever. Probably cheaper to send all those jobs to china than to build and maintain an automated factory - unless Trump wants to secure our Tax system and make it so that is no longer a cheaper option in the long run.

Can't really just give free money to /everyone/ cause that's not how money works you dumb socialist.

Yeah, because we're all unemployed oar pullers. Nobody got a job after the steam engine put them out of work

Elysium got it wrong, Matt Damon wouldn't have been employed because the robots they were building were more than capable of replacing him with a change in software.

Wow...

>Do you believe that a universal basic income (UBI) is the solution to automation of labor?
no, people do not have a right to live at someone else's expense

> matt damon film is a documentary about the future
never change

No.
Because then whats the point of the automation anyway?

The reality is that as automation continues money becomes irrelevant. You only automate to lower how much you pay people, but the downside is less people have money to spend.

ie, people generating money to spend at your business is someone elses problem.

who's going to keep building those machines? And come up with better ones? Some faggy art major?

UBI is for everyone.

This is incorrect

Protip: the economy can not be simplified to fit your circular flow model

According to the Luddites, the machines will build the machines. They just assume scientists will create hard AI (which is theoretically impossible) which can replace everything a human does.

In the past people worked what they had to in order to survive. There was no formal employment with laws. Especially in agriculture, thus requiring long hours.

.Productivity doubled between the 70's and today. Were the work hours cut in half?

Of course not, the company simply pockets the larger profit.

>UBI is for everyone.
So everyone is paying everybody else's UBI? Makes sense. duh.

Fuck off commie faggot. Basic income will never work.

>Implying the marginal product of labor has changed as much as the marginal product of capital
Do you really think that humans are jus working twice as hard as they were in the 70s?

People should be paid universal income according to:
value of labor produced autonomously by robots in country * tax percentage / number of people in country

Robot labor should be taxed, that tax would then go towards basic income. You have a robot that produces lets say $100 per hour of value minus the labor needed to service the robot. The resulting value gets taxed and a significant part of that tax is paid to all people. Meanwhile you could lower corporate or income taxes to balance it out, I think that's the only sane way basic income could be implemented.

No but I believe in negative income tax.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_income_tax

Regular basic income is for cucks because even millionaires and billionaires receive their "basic income" check in the mail.

It should be only for people who make underneath a certain amount.

Er, yes. You *have* read something about it before posting, right?

see

>value of labor produced autonomously by robots
Robots can't produce labor. Only humans can produce labor

>Do you believe that a universal basic income (UBI) is the solution to automation of labor?

I think it would solve a lot of problems, and cause entirely new ones that may even be worse.

GBI basically gives the government total control over your life; say the wrong thing and whoops you lost GBI, fuck you.

I would only support a GBI in the event it gets amended as a constitutional right so that the government cannot fuck around with and use it for political aims.

>Slippery slope fallacy

The jobs that wont be automated are either useless shit like art degrees or STEM fields that only require 10% of the population.

Universal Basic Income is a good idea only if it can be afforded.

Pros And Cons Of UBI And The Machine Revolution :

Pros :

On the plus side more rich people might fit into a higher tax bracket. They will have few employees to pay. They will collect most of the money from sales of their product into one individual tax profile. There will most likely be a shift to some other fields. Mainly robot repair and possibly management and supervision positions. The industries will most likely adapt. Be glad this change is happening slowly instead of quickly or it may have had a more detrimental impact on quality of life. Sudden mass unemployment would rock the proverbial boat so much it might have tipped leading to some sort of economic fallout. People who's jobs have been taken will form some sort of organization to protect human employment.

Cons :

The very real problem is if there are not enough people to purchase goods from retailers the economy could be utterly destroyed this would make UBI a necessary choice if unemployment reached a high enough level. The production of goods could exceed the demand for them halting the growth of the economy because machines are far too efficient. The military may become automatized leading to major conflicts because the human cost is no longer calculated into war. Other problems may include : Robot terrorist cells
Robot armed rebellions
Robot assassinations (you can do the same with a drone)
Homicidal robot pizza delivery boys (jk)
Nuclear war initiated by robot subs that Israel rigged up and no one claimed responsibility (could be done with an unmarked sub and suicidal crew today actually)

Automated fucking anything for military, civilian or mafia use because of robotic proliferation.

>payment unconditionally delivered to all
Fuck off commie.

But the manufacturers have to gain new customers somehow, and one way to do that is to make the product cheaper. That's why we're not paying a fortune for a suit of clothes, like people did for most of history. The other way to gain new customers is to keep the price the same but raise the quality.

>it gets amended as a constitutional right so that the government cannot fuck around with and use it for political aims.
Yeah, because the federal government has never fucked around with any of the Constitution. All of your rights are being protected exactly as our founding fathers intended

The reason companies buy robots? To save money. Why would they want to save money? To make money. Where do you get you NEET-bucks from? From the profit these companies make. Once you force them to make their goods more expensive, they'll sell less and there's no more profit to tax in the first place.

Don't put your foot in your mouth, you were doing good up until this post

It's a roundabout way of delivering productivity increases back to the public instead of simply allowing big corporations to hold it all in their warchests.

Google, Apple, and Facebook hold more money than 50% of the nations on earth, combined.

Person with robotics experience here. Industries in nations like the US and Japan are already incredibly automated. However, we don't see it on a daily basis because your average layperson does not interact with factory floors and warehouses.

There are jobs that people will always be better at than their machine counterparts (at least until some world changing breakthrough in AI amd robotics occurs). Many jobs have a social component to them, meaning that we must interact with other people in order to be effective. I see automation as a tool, but not a complete replacement for labor. It will make our lives easier, maybe decrease the number of jobs, but never outright replace all of them.

Explain why it's theoretically impossible.

Psychiatry and psychology are witch doctor medicine. Rather that using the scientific method to work out treatment options it's entirely trial and error.

Yes

Fully automated luxury communism

Please enlighten me, oh great one.

As companies automate and therefore have less employees.

How do people purchase their products?

Electricity is 0.12$/kWh. realistically automated machines are free. if they are made right they shouldn't malfunction.

>Why would they want to save money? To make money.

And what happens in a system where there is 100 money and someone never fails to take 1 more money for themselves every year?

100 years later you have one person with 100 money, and everyone else with no money.

You cannot sustain an economy or society on this; there has to be a change.

Even if you're only looking at the poorest nations on earth, this is still too close to call.

I'm currently working a trade career putting in 70 hours a week to earn a reasonable income.

if the government starts handing out unconditional gibmes equivalent to a basic income with no requirements I'll quit working and enjoy life as a neet spending all my time on vidya games and shitposting.

People ARE machines. Automatons. If they break down, you find another. Unskilled labor is easy to find, and often not worth replacing with complex machines. Skilled labor is worth replacing, but difficult and impossible to replace at this point in time.

>it's entirely trial and error.

... As was all medicine and science early on.

Remember that psych fields have only really been around since the mid-1800s or so. Before that, most mental illness was chalked up to supernatural causes.

Stupid idea.
Why not just let them starve and if they chimpout just shoot them.

That's how the world is

actually if constitutionally guaranteed it would lessen governments hold on individuals. If you aren't worried about having to pay for food and shelter, you're pretty damn free to do whatever you want.

just what kind of jobs do you expect to be automated?

Look up the differences between the three types of unemployment. Once you understand that, look up the marginal rate of technical substitution. Once you understand that, I can explain it to you.

That's far too technical to get into, but it's akin to time travel in a conceptual sense. It's not a lack of technology, it's a natural limitation of reality. Soft AI is possible. Hell, I work in machine learning. But hard AI is a pipedream

>You'll still buy food
>You still buy clothing
>You'll still go out to see movies
>You'll still buy various forms of entertainment
>You'll still buy furniture and appliances
>You'll still buy new computer parts
>You'll still buy shit for your hobbies

Just because you have money from the government doesn't mean you magically stop spending money in the economy.

The fundamental reason a GBI is attractive is because it allows a large segment of the lower class to spend more money on goods and services, which has a direct return on taxes.

The problem is that the GBI has to come from somewhere, and only three choices exist: The rich, the middle class, and the corporations.

Two of these three wield enough political influence to ensure they will never have to pay out for GBI. The third typically just gets fucked.

The realistic solution is WW3 and the global media's already pushing towards that direction with anti-russian propaganda, trying to set up Putin as the new Hitler and forcing the notion of a united EU army.

No its fucking not. I am an automation engineer. You make 60k-70k starting.

Just graduated with a degree in film. Currently working for free 3 days a week putting closed captions on nigger church videos cause muh "experience", the other 4 days I work at a grocery store for 9/h. Turn back now.

There are an enormous number of people who don't realize that this is the only outcome of automation.

They think they're going to live in some Utopia where they drink martinis on a beach all day while they ponder the mysteries of the universe.

Frankly I'd love to have a UBI. It would give me the freedom to quit my job and try out other things to do that I find more fulfilling. Essentially it would act as a safety net.

I don't think the majority of people would just waste away watching TV etc and not doing anything productive. We would do the things we cared about, rather than what's necessary to pay our way. Potentially we'd lead much more fulfilled lives.

Problem is, it's completely unaffordable. Oh well.

And you think they'd be more protected without being enshrined in the constitution? Are you fucking retarded?

That's why I said I only agree with it if it's got a constitutional guarantee so that the government cannot fuck around with it and if they do there is both a legal option to correct the issue and casus belli for civil war / revolution / revolt against a government violating its promises to the people.

I cannot wait for the day tourists will be able to order ramen without spending 10 minutes staring at the machine.

If everyone plans for themselves, some will fuck up and some will succeed. Capitalism is about profit and loss.

If the state plans for everyone, then when they fuck up everyone is fucked.

I think people would be much more worried about survival if it was entirely dependent on the state. people like to have control over their own life

Sociopath confusing their desires with reality.

>I don't think the majority of people would just waste away watching TV etc and not doing anything productive. We would do the things we cared about, rather than what's necessary to pay our way. Potentially we'd lead much more fulfilled lives.
This

But it is affordable. Ignore capitalist lies.

The point is the output doesn't remain constant.

Lets say we're in a small town. Theres one restaurant that employs 8 people. The other 16 people are self employed farmers who own their own land.

The restaurant fires 7 people and replaces them with robots.

The restaurant has just laid off 30% of its potential customers.

If replacing humans with robots meant that you had to employ equal numbers of humans to maintain and build the robots, they wouldn't do it.

WW3 will have the entire world set back industrially a hundred years; it's not even remotely a viable option, nor a desirable one.

Learn to differentiate your fetish for post apocalyptia from what would actually work in reality.

meant for

What about stem fields like engineering? Somebody will have to maintain and build the machines

edgy

Newfag detected.

Look at his filename.

It's a long running joke on Cred Forums that people say "I have a PhD in mathematics. 300k starting wherever I want"

It's mostly used on /sci/ but other boards know of the meme

Well, I can tell you that with a GBI, I'd be buying camping gear, going out hiking, and even take a trip to Japan; things I cannot afford to do right now.

They will build and maintain themselves retard

I'm not saying I want it to happen, I'm saying it's going to happen.

Why tho?

Could you actually explain why you think we are set back industrially?

Do you have historical proof this happens?

It can't be a natural limitation of reality seeing as every one of us knows of at least one system in the worlrd that is capable of it, and can reasonably believe there's a 7 billion more. If time machines grew on trees I wouldn't be so sure time travel is conceptually impossible, even if we weren't able to replicate it at that time.

I think we should just borrow against future generations. Do what the boomers did, but this time we'll crash this coutry with no survivors!!!

Communism works with (robot) slavery, who would have thought?

You'd need GBI and a job to do that.

Machinist here.

Not even close.

China takes the little shit, like plates and forks. I can hold a tighter .0005 +-.0002 tolerance than any Chinese machinist.

Any. Fucking. Day.

UBI is not communism. Read the thread.

>rather than what's necessary to pay our way
You realize jobs are a means, not an end. Same with income. If everyone quit their job to do what they wanted, our economy would crash and billions would die.
WE are the economy

This doesn't even make sense

The problem is that the middle class has already been egregiously screwed over in the entire Western world and sure as hell it can't sustain all poors a UBI: in the Western world the middle class is one the verge of dying out (either by moving upwards or, much more common, downwards).
Another implication people here don't get is that automation will render outsourcing of manufacturing useless for the most part:as a result, economic growth in those shitholes will stop or slow, hence you have million poor shitskins with no jobs and no chance to lift themselves but, unlike 200 years ago, they can see the prosperity in the US or in Europe and thus migrate.
Secondly, whites are getting old and the older you get the harder it is to adapt to new jobs: how do you plan on making 50 years old workers/artisans to adapt on (supposedly created) new jobs?
Finally, my area of expertise are foreign languages (translation, intermediary negotiations, interpretation etc), so I can just hope translation devices won't upgrade (seeing Google translate I can still hope for the best).

Is there one mechanic for every car in your city?

Does New York have a population of 13 million mechanics?

1 Robot replaces the productivity of 30 people.
1 Mechanic can service 10,000 robots.

In the end, you create 1 job and lose 30,000 jobs.

No; STEM fields are not a viable replacement - most people aren't even capable of that shit to begin with.

Do you really need those tolerances to make a burger flipping machine?

Just saying it's not doesn't prove its not. At the very least it's entirely socialist.

What the hell do you think happens to industry when you nuke every major industrial center on the planet?

Do you even understand what nuclear bombs DO?

how do you fund a universal income though?

Where does that money come from?

Lets say for example it was the modern and current value of $20,000 USD a year. For america alone, that'd be a pool of $60Billion USD per year that would have to be paid out to citizens. What generates this money?

Me buying any service or product from an automated company or corporation gives that money to the corporation. even a 15% flat tax on every product would only result in 15% of that $60Billion going back to the government.

Where does the money come from man.

>1 Robot replaces the productivity of 30 people.
>1 Mechanic can service 10,000 robots.
>In the end, you create 1 job and lose 30,000 jobs.

Where in the fuck did you learn to math?

Every human brain behaves like a strong AI, by definition. Now you're telling me strong AI is conceptually impossible.

Ffs look up the different types of unemployment already

I already have a job, so it works out.

>WW3 = Nukes

Do you have any idea how bad of an idea it is to use a nuke? The people would eat the country leader alive and then you would get a counter-strike of a nuclear nature almost immediately.

No one in their right mind would launch a nuke. A third world dictator maybe but certainly no one in their right mind.

Money represents goods and services, in an extreme case if all goods are made by a single automated factory that requires 10 maintenance workers those 10 workers plus the people servicing them won't have enough purchasing power to purchase all the goods from the factory so it reduces amount of goods flowing to people.

If we give everyone UBI at least there is a baseline demand for goods and services and we can start giving incentives for efficiently creating real wealth instead of what we do now which is provide incentives for jobs even if they don't actually create any real goods or services.

Omg you truly don't know what AI is. Tell me, what do you think the A stands for?

Human minds don't behave like strong AI. Strong AI is theoretically meant to behave like human minds. Unless you believe that all reality is a simulation (as many do), then hard AI is theoretically impossible. It's a natural barrier of our universe, like the speed of light

Pay citizens based on their attained level of education and more for each successive degree, pay citizens to keep their bodies healthy and join sports clubs.

See the chain

>1984

All the factories I worked in have mechanics working there repairing what needs to Be fixed, even the robots.

The tighter and cleaner things are, the less entropy is introduced into a mechanical system.

It's the parable of the poor man and boots.

The poor man buys boots for 20$ every six months.

The rich man pays 100$ for boots once and they last 20 years.

I'm not on board with the UBI... But for what it's worth, the US could cut ANY AND ALL social welfare programs and give the poorest people a yearly check for $14,000 or so, and actually save money.

>You were born in time to see the world turn inside out on an actual global scale and it will happen in the next 10-40 years
What the fuck
I feel this was all planned anyway, the way human morality and genome has progressed.
Are we completing the cycle of our own Gnostic consciousness?
The way culture is turning in both directions tells me we are heading to a complete beta selfish mindset and on the other spectrum a selfless uncaring God complex.

And they still have human inspectors. Yes, machines are getting better at recognizing defects in parts, but they're still imperfect. When machines fuck up, they tend to just keep making the fucked up parts until someone shuts them down and corrects it. This requires humans to look them over every so often to make sure it's still making them correctly.

Why are we fighting to keep unnecessary humans alive?

Why not just let them die and have a planet with 100,000 people who can actually do productive things on it?

Why artificially inflate the population? What purpose can they serve? What use are they?

60 billion is less than 10% of your military budget. Most people would still work to get more money, if I lacked education I could spend the money educating myself for a job or killing myself with heroin without needing to mug people.

You keep saying that it's theoretically impossible, but what I'm asking is why it's impossible. If you were to perfectly replicate a human brain through artificial means it would behave like a human mind, thus being a strong AI. Do you mean to say it's impossible to replicate a human brain, which is a mere physical object? Why is it impossible?

Microsoft is a $$$$$$$$ company
Microsoft probably attracts the best minds from around the world
They released an AI
We turned her into a Nazi in like 10 hours flat.
Computers are dumb.

Tell the niggers who are feeding people in Africa. What the flying fuck. I get asked at the grocery store, "do you want to give $2 for starving children?"

No.

You fund it with taxes on corporations, if you're going to do it correctly.

Basically offloading all taxation from the average person to the corporation. It means an effective reduction in corporate profits from what exists today, but with the benefit of a more stable and productive society in the future.

This also creates a situation where people exist as a system that decides where resources are spent / invested by the society. This pretty much already exists, but it further clarifies it; you can call it the "invisible hand of the free market". You essentially maintain a free market economy, but with more economic freedom for the individual at the expense of lower potential profits (but still profits) for the successful.

The economy is, in essence, a cycle. Well, a functioning economy is. Money has to get back into the pockets of individuals someway, somehow. Today we use payment for labour, but this has issues when you cannot actually find a job. There's also a big problem with all the money collecting in the pockets of those at the top of the system - there is no "trickle down" happening. When people do not get enough money to spend that money on goods and services you get stagnation, and that is exactly what the world has been experiencing for the past 20+ years.

Unfortunately, corporations are run by short-sighted psychopaths with an overwhelming amount of influence over the government. Our societies will sooner turn into dystopia and collapse from civil war and strife than they will a peaceful conversion to corporations paying for the bedrock of the economy. Even though civil war and strife are bad for most of these psychopaths, they can't look further than next quarter's profits for it to matter to them.

It's likely a new sector of the economy would emerge.

Imagine if someone told you 20 years ago that people would make a living playing video games and streaming it over the internet. You would think they were retarded.

Well, in the future we may have all sorts of stuff like this, if VR catches on and people spend a considerable amount of time in a virtual world maybe you will have people making a living selling virtual stuff in a virtual economy.

>natural limitation of reality
Human brain exists. We have the materials, we just don't know full programming and techniques for manufacturing an equivalent to such "hardware" YET. And once we are through with artificial brains, there won't really be a limit.

Good. Society must be ruled by scientists and engineers, not "capitalist" slave drivers and their cucks (menial job workers, office drones).

Money represents 3 things:

1: a medium of exchange
2: a unit of account
3: a store of value

A dollar will always be worth a dollar, and nothing can change that. That's what makes it money

Do you have any idea what the fuck happened to Europe during WW2?

The entire continent was fucked industrially and had to be rebuilt over the following two decades, and that was with other industrialized nations without damage being able to help them.

A WW3 situation is one where nobody has the industry left to help anyone else. It would not only set us back a hundred years of industrial development - if not more - it would also set us back on technological and social development to a more extreme degree.

It sounds to me like you're a fucking retard who thinks WW3 won't be WW3.

What if the poor man buys boots for $2 every six months? How does the process translate into the price and reliability in this case? I mean you don't see those chinks running out of work.

>Imagine if someone told you 20 years ago that people would make a living playing video games and streaming it over the internet.

Yes, the whole 1000 of them.

Nowhere does it say that it's not communism

Tell me, who owns the means of production if everything is automated and there UBI? Is it private entities like it is now? In that case, the government would have to tax them into oblivion just to pay for UBI.

However, if the government had stake in these automated industries in order to provide UBI, then that is, by definition, socialism. From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.

How is a human different from a robot in labor, economics-wise? Only difference between a human assembly worker and a manipulator arm is legal status. Human earns money and buys shit, but that's outside labor section of economics.

>A dollar will always be worth a dollar, and nothing can change that.

>What is inflation for $50,000,000,000 Zimbabwean

>Obfuscated answer
Just tell me how can a government fund UBI when the government itself is funded by the people who receive UBI by paying taxes on products? It's just retarded this whole UBI crap.

There are shitloads of people who make money doing essentially useless crap on the internet. I'm one of them.

>i dont buy into the meme that we dont want to tax the rich or else they;lve leave and take their investments because those bastards are jews anyway and have caused this mess.
It will happen depending on how much they will get taxed.

no.
Music's dead

The people aren't taxed, you put the taxes on those producing goods instead of purchasing them.

Communism is a cult of labor (hint: the flag). If you don't personally participate in the building of socialism, you are considered a parasite. It's exactly the opposite of giving people money for nothing.

>through artificial means
This is why it's impossible. The human brain took nature billions of years to develop, and even that was sheer luck.
Humans can't replicate nature on a natural level. There will ALWAYS be human error in the process which will cause the result to be imperfect. Soft AI is possible, but hard AI is not. It's like travelling at the speed of light. Technically impossible, but scientists talk about it as their wall. You can only go this far. You can't artificially create an intelligent being. You can only artificially create a seemingly intelligent being

What do you do?

I will only be in favor of this when 75% or more of the jobs are automated and the overwhelming majority of people don't have to work, including me.

You made a poor point about nukes. I can see conventional bombing doing damage. Don't make your main point "muh nuclear weapons will be used" and I may agree with you.

And the producers get the money from????

So you admit that it is not theoretically impossible.

Don't be a fucking retard and the conversation doesn't even have to start.

People purchasing their goods and services, genius.

Producers are still incentivized to compete and create, just like they are today.

>From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.
It's a communist motto. Communism in its classic form pretty much does away with money, so it can't really be applied to UBI.

Socialism isn't about government owning means of production - that's called state capitalism. Socialism means that the means of production are owned by those who use them.
Say, a foundry is owned by metalworkers and managers who staff it, not the government. These workers have a council that makes decisions about methods of production, schedules, trading partners and so on. Again, while UBI can be applied, it is in no way closely associated with socialism.

In USSR, these councils were powerless, so USSR can't be called a socialist country even under Lenin. Stalin went full fascist, later leaders changed to state capitalism.

not having to pay people

Communism and socialism are not interchangeable. It's like saying fascism and centrism are synonyms.

You're talking about Leninism. I'm talking about Marxism.
Marxist views were about the people providing for themselves. If they needed to work for it, then so be it. But if they didn't, good for them, nobody works and everyone benefits.
That's why Communists talk about post scarcity. Once there's no need to work, everyone is provided for. That's communism.

Remember, from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs

How many? One million? One billion?

You have to understand how this thing works. Take let's players, for example. Now you've got 1000 dudes who make a decent living, and 100000 who don't. If you add 100x more let's players, there won't be 100x more people making a decent living. Even if the audience gets 100x bigger, most of the views will still go to the top.

Now you just proved my point.

I don't see any hammers and sickles in kibbutz (only truly commie societies). Hammer and sickle is used by american commie wannabes who have no idea what USSR was.

No it is theoretically impossible. Did you not read what I said?
It's not a matter of a lack in technology. It's a natural limitation. We can just develop soft AI to get close, but can never cross the line that is hard AI

Income and money aren't necessarily the same thing, and in post scarcity there is no need for money since everyone is provided for through collective production.

Money is a means, not an end. You're not getting paid in money currently, you're getting paid in what you choose to do with your money.

Did you somehow think the economy wasn't a cycle?

Money has to flow for the system to work.

I'm talking about real communism (or real socialism, as it was called).

Automation /= post scarcity

>The human brain took nature billions of years to develop, and even that was sheer luck.
>sheer luck
That's the point. Evolution is trial and error, a long and bloated process. It took tens of thousands of years for Ebola to evolve to what it is today. It took Vector mere years to weaponise it, change it from fast-burning rather lethal pathogen to 100% mortality slowly developing one.
It will take us dozens if not hundreds of years to replicate and improve human brain, but we'll get there as long as our scientific base is functional.

Overpopulation and resultant famines can ruin that, though.

>Automation destroys 1/4 of the low skill jobs
>Automation brings down cost of living by 1/4
>People only have to work 30 hours a week to get by
>Unemployment rate barely moves

Just let capitalism do its thing

It's not a natural limitation - we exist.
You even outright admitted that it's not a natural limitation, it would just take too long to create because it was done by evolution the first time.

>The human brain took nature billions of years to develop, and even that was sheer luck.

You need to relearn the definition of impossible.
If artificial intelligence were impossible, we wouldn't exist.

>claims nukes will used
>claims I'm the retard

Pick one you fucking faggot.

I hope you end up in a ditch somewhere in northern Canada and get torn apart by wolves with dull teeth so it's slower and more painful. I hope the same wolves molest you and your torn up ass and while you still have that a little life left in your body. I want your last memory to be of a wolf raping a hole in your face and you can do nothing but watch in horror as the last taste in your mouth is wolf semen. Then when you go to hell for being such a prick I want the devil himself to rape you in the dick or anus with a barbed trident you fucking faggot. When he's done that I want God himself to fill your mind with images of your death and knowledge that he is personally laughing his ass off at your demise.

>post scarcity
Unless we somehow discover a source of infinite resources and energy, there won't be any post-scarcity.
I never said that money is the end goal, I don't know where you got that from.
Our civilization as a whole is means to an end. "End" being technological/cultural singularity or at least neverending march of progress that only ceases after the heat death of the universe.

The economy isn't an it in the sense of something separate from humanity,and it's most certainly not some circular flow.
We are the economy. It is a fluid and dynamic concept, not a concrete system. Economics is about studying what we don't know, not explaining what we do know.

If you really think economics is so simple that it can be modelled by circular flow then you better start writing a proof, because economists have been trying to do it for centuries

If someone is voluntarily paying you to do it, it's not useless. You're filling someone's needs or desires.

see

Real communism -> means of production are owned by everyone/noone
Real socialism -> means of production are owned by the workers who use them

Gomunism is far-left, near various anarchy modes, socialism runs from center-left to right.

You're just misunderstanding the difference between soft AI and hard AI. Hard AI is a limit. It's a vertical asymptote for how smart AI can be. We can theoretically develop a soft AI system with infinite knowledge, but it will still fall short of being hard AI.

We already have machines that can teach themselves. But that's soft AI. Hard AI is something else entirely

>a periodic cash payment unconditionally delivered to all
I don't think this will ever happen. There' still a fuckton of skilled labor jobs that will not be easily automated.ò

"Real communism" is a magical fairly land, Real socialism en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_socialism is a shithole. None of this has anything to do with UBI.

>Automation brings down cost of living by 1/4

More like
>Mr. Silverstein calls Mr. Shekelberg and agrees to not lower prices
>Smaller players who try to lower prices die in (((barbell accidents))) and ((((random robberies))))
>Oligopolic realty market leaders buy even bigger yachts

All degrees are useless when they don't serve as proof of qualification. You don't need a degree to do anything, especially not in the arts.

Nigger, I've said that communism is a pipe dream repeatedly.

>None of this has anything to do with UBI.
That's whay I said. Repeatedly.

Your wiki link describes state capitalism. USSR wasn't socialist and I've already explained why.

>It's not a natural limitation - we exist
We're not artificial you retard. We're a product of nature. Unless you believe ancient aliens created the universe or some shit, hard AI is theoretically impossible

>there won't be any post-scarcity
That's kind of the point

Read the Manifesto. Socialism was the economic system involved in his Hegelian dialect. Class divides would create a cyclical revolution between capitalism and socialism. The natural conclusion of this cycle is either democracy if capitalism wins or communism if socialism wins. Communism is just socialism in the absence of capitalism and democracy

Universal Basic Income - Minimum Wage + Incentivized Population Control = Best program

The flow of money in the economy is one of the basic fucking principles of economics, just like supply and demand is.

Jesus fucking christ.

>We're not artificial you retard. We're a product of nature.
So is literally everything else in existence, dumbfuck.

USSR was state socialist

UBI is communism and it exist in the same magicall land.

>That's whay I said. Repeatedly.

Why are you responding to me, then? My whole point was that UBI is not communism.

It's going to have to be at some point in time.

There just won't be enough non-automated jobs to go around.

>Creative pursuits can also be automated though idiot
not in our lifetimes

I have one question I rarely see asked in this theme.

Who is buying this automated product?

a chatbot isn't AI

Instead of basic income why not go ahead and distribute free burgers for everyone?

Basic income has actually been tried, unlike "real communism", lol.

>We're not artificial you retard. We're a product of nature.
How is a "natural" atom of carbon different from "artificial" one? How is hydrogen created by hydrolisis in a factory different from hydrogen that makes up the Sun?
I suspect you are parroting some SJW yoga "expert" whose grasp on physics is very weak.

>Muh econ 101 textbook is all I need to understand the entire economy
Yeah and I bet you learned everything about history during primary school. Buddy, have I got some bad news for you

Study economics a little more and you'll learn it's never that simple.
The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they truly know about what they imagine they can design

>Where does the money come from man.
money is the value of products and services provided and the answer is: robots, it will come from robots

Yeah what I'm saying is that's a segment of the economy that never existed before, like affiliate marketing, cam-whores, people who sell in game currency, apps, cryptocurrency traders etc etc. Imagine the kind of avenues that will arise in the future.

Worrying about automation goes against the fundamental idea of scarcity. And no scarcity doesn't rely on the non-existence of impressive labor automation.

basic income already does that, and other things in addition; free burgers (e.g. foodstamps) are inefficient in comparison: People know better what they need to buy than the government does for them.

>One of world's most advanced chat bots isn't AI

It could banter like an Australian on this board if that isn't AI I don't know what is.

Not things we create artificially. Jesus fucking Christ. Do you think the hoover damn was created by nature?
Just because we're a product of nature doesn't mean what we create is a product of nature. What we create is a product of us, in other words it's ARTIFICIAL

FFS dude

Evolution, m8.

This is what I'm telling you. I was telling you the difference between communism, socialism and state capitalism.

UBI involves money. Communism and money are incompatible.

>USSR was state socialist
Prove it. USSR has every characteristic of state capitalism, I've already said why twice.

>If the state plans for everyone, then when they fuck up everyone is fucked.
The state isn't making plans for anyone. It's simply depositing $$$ into accounts, what people do with it is up to them

I've thought a lot about this.

We need universal healthcare first, places like the Netherlands spends $7,000 per year per inhabitant to provide healthcare for the entire nation. In america we spend $7,000 per person just to subsidize healthcare for few already.

If you encourage or enable people to breed certain ones will breed unceasingly. These are often not the people who will produce the best offspring for a strong and prosperous nation.

UMI (universal minimum income) must be coupled with long term implanted birth control (yes they have this for males now too). If you cant support yourself and your family you should not procreate. Over time this will cause the population to decline to a level where near full employment is again possible.

UMI should be calibrated to only allow a subsistence life of perpetual poverty. Enough to keep people from starving to death or going homeless but not much more. This is to encourage employment.

The minimum wage should be abolished at the same time UMI is implemented. This will allow human workers to always have a competitive advantage over automation. Right now an industrial robot may cost $250,000, this cost is falling fast and newer models are far superior to older ones, this creates a scenario where the capital investment is high to switch to automation and firms are reluctant to switch now when they know in five years robots will cost less and do more. By eliminating the minimum wage humans can price themselves at rates able to compete even with cheaper more capable robots because the humans are in actuality subsidized.

This will allow a proper balance between human value and automation value for a company to exist. If that job is only worth $3/hr then they will be able to fill that job at that price with people who want more money that UMI provides but would be unemployable at a $15 minimum wage.

There's no such thing as an artificial carbon atom. Matter cannot be created or destroyed. We can't just make atoms. It's a natural law dictated by the law of conservation of energy

>If you really think economics is so simple that it can be modelled by circular flow then you better start writing a proof, because economists have been trying to do it for centuries

And then I show you that it's an econ theory 101 and you still can't bring yourself to admit you were being fucking retarded.
Jesus christ dude, at least you're anonymous. Just stop posting and walk the fuck away.

Also, "real communism" and "real socialism" are propagandist concepts that have no base in sociology or economics.

>Yeah what I'm saying is that's a segment of the economy that never existed before

Yes, but it probably employs less people than Walmart. Even if the "new avenues" are 100 times bigger, it's still not enough.

Arrrgh, from where does this money come from?

>UBI involves money
Not necessarily. Like I said, money is a means to an end, not an end in and of itself. If your employer paid you in groceries and shit you would normally buy, is that not your income? You're not being paid in money, your being paid in what you decide to spend that money on. In communism, the community decides what you spend that money on, and therefore the money is unnecessary

>This is what your brain looks like on drugs and/or crazy pills

Not because your statement is incorrect, but because it doesn't actually answer the question and is instead a complete non-sequitur that has nothing to do with the question you were just asked.

Finally, you've just proven my point. An artificial brain isn't any different from a "natural" one.

If I present you with two complete copies of a brain, one of which was yanked out of some guy, another - constructed from ground up, how are you going to determine which one is "evolved"?

The free market will adjust itself and people will find jobs that cant be automated.

And we're probably 5-10 years from Wal-Mart being able to fire 9 out of 10 of its employees due to driverless vehicles and inventory automation.

UBI could work, so long as no shitskin inmigrants are allowed to come here and have it.

see

It's an econ 101 theory because it's simple enough for retards like you to understand. Once you reach intermediate micro and intermediate macro, you'll realize it's not that simple. Most people don't go on to intermediate, so they teach simplified theories to 101 students.

Even the quantitative theory of money is debated, and that's the theory I believe.

Economics is not a science. It's not about creating theories and observing them

This is not for me to determine.
Nature does the test.

From taxation of corporations

Corporations get the money from people purchasing goods and services

People get the money from the government via UBI

Return to step 1

Welcome to the flow of money in an economy. With UBI we shuffle some things around a little but maintain the flow. (In fact, increase the flow rate from what we have today, as right now there's a big bottleneck in the money going from businesses -> people. The government is in a better position to extract money out of businesses than individuals are via wages (which already require maintenance / enforcement by the government!)

the robots that are providing services, are extracting resources, processing them and turning them into usable products

The things that they produce will have value, value that can be turned into profit by selling them to people. Profit that can be taxed.

Fucking no, scum. Automation of labor incentivates people creating new jobs and functions. Thanks to it we are using computers right now, instead of manufacturing candles and planting wheat

The fact that you have to put the word natural in quotations proves that it is different. Your statement is entirely dependent on what those quotations are implying

Perpetum mobile?

send me my check r2d2.

Having goods given to you is not UBI as it is proposed in OP. Food is much less liquid than currency.

They will most likely just starve, as Earth is overpopulated. Current amount of menial jobs is artificially created by the government to kick the can down the corridor.
After menial jobs are done away with, without UBI these breeding idiots will starve and eat us. With UBI, they will do the same later, securing some time to bomb dindus and rednecks with sterilizing bioweapons.

Well, they'd be kind of stupid not to do it, too. Besides, who actually wants to work at Walmart?

>mfw no job
>mfw buying a village house and enough land to feed myself
>mfw the glorious days of honest country living are upon us once again

Yes, state-enforced birth control for the white population while shitskins in Africa and India breed like fucking rats. And I'm guessing you'll exempt nonwhites from your plan because of the "long racist history of eugenics as it applies to PoC". Then just wait for the flood of shitskin bodies to utterly overwhelm the white race, nice plan schlomo.

Resources are finite as of yet.

You will be taught a lesson about this soon.

>What are malinvestments?
Suddenly the economy collapses because guess what, leaving the government in charge of everything is a bad idea.

Why would the kikes keep us goi around if everything was automated?

So you agree that this "natural limits to AI" bullshit is just populist drivel? Gee, finally.

Nigga they are working on it

youtu.be/LSHZ_b05W7o

Oh yeah just like how when car production got automated everyone lost jobs and economy fell, oh wait...

I agreed. Doesn't change the fact that UBI is either socialist or totally unsustainable if implemented in a free market.

Capitalism is about profit and loss. If you bail out the losers, there's no end to the costs

This is more to the point bot it needs massive change of human conciousness - to the inhumane point. All communist utopias have this flaw.

If you want to get technical, the real money is energy, and we get it 'for free' from the sun.
Luckily the sun will provide more than enough energy to sustain humanity for the next several trillion years, in one form or another.

Mineral and metal resources are a little more scarce - but only a little.

Don't forget the part where (((Microsoft))) destroyed her brain because they didn't like her opinions.

N one seems to understand that if everyone in a country is given, let's say, 15 dollars a day, those 15 dollars instantly become bear worthless because everyone has it!

*Near worthless

That's only true if you print the money.

There are no limits to AI other than the flaws it can have because of not being evolved naturally and stirring up major shit because of this.

AI can be stupid. There are no limits how stupid it can be.

Where else will you get it? Trust me, any government does not have enough bills just lying around to give out 15 of them to all citizens each day.

You can not eat energy, Achmed.

>Mineral and metal resources
I'm somewhat hopeful on this front. If Space X's and Blue Origin's long terms plans pan out we'll have enough lift capacity at a price point that will allow us to get a serious industrial base in outer space to harvest asteroid resources.

>assuming that the robots wold even work for us, and nt completely ignore us as they realize they are the most powerful beings in the known universe due to general AI and their "neural networks"

T. Skynet

The government isn't in charge of any investment beyond having to supply UBI to the population; the extraction of taxes and the provision of stipends to the population for which the government serves the interests of.

In fact, it further secures the general population as the ones making investments in goods and services, via the money provided to them through UBI rather than wages.

desu this is like talking to a 4 year old at this point. You act like you're a hotshot economist who is so educated he's gone beyond elementary economics, yet you can't even wrap your head around the most basic elementary concepts in the field. If you actually knew what the fuck you were talking about I wouldn't have to explain any of this shit to you.

Do you think the Federal reserve prints money? Because by law, it would be counterfeiting

Quotations are there because I don't want to get down to the level of evangelists and yoga experts on TV that say their latest "natural" vomit-in-a-bottle doesn't kill people, unlike "artificial" one.

There are no theoretical limits to AI. If two objects are identical, which one is natural and which one is artificial are irrelevant. By your logic, why is it possible to replicate nuclear reactions, but impossible to replicate a series of electrical impulses travelling through nerves and stored in neurons (FYI that's our mind)?

actually you can, the required elements are extremely plentiful and the chemical processes are well understood so you'll never run out of the nutrients to grow plants or even vat grown meat once; they get that shit over grade F meat.

>If two objects are identical, which one is natural and which one is artificial are irrelevant.
Look up the Turing test

Well the fed reserve isn't doing basic income now is it?

How is UBI socialist? Socialism involves factories being owned by its workers. How does UBI involve this?
Socialism is strictly *against* bailing out losers. Your factory is your factory, if you fuck up, noone is obligated to help you.

We have more than enough resources on Earth to support 10x the population we currently have.

We haven't even begun to exploit resources in the ocean, let alone most of the exposed upper crust, let alone the rest of the crust, let alone the mantle.
Resource extraction on Earth is absolutely miniscule compared to the actual amount of resources and energy available on Earth.

Space and ocean exploration will only further compound resource availability.

So long as we keep developing and exploiting resources instead of stagnating and becoming lazy, our populations will not exceed our means in any near-term situation. With careful population control (and not the kind that requires mass genocide, which is both barbaric and unnecessary), it won't happen ever.