This is something that also bothers me. People always frame prosperity/welfare as needing to find a well-paying 9-to-5 job, but is it really necessary for people to work so much? 100 years ago it was common for a single person to support two adults and several children on his own, but now it's common for two parents to work full-time and still feel squeezed. Standards of living have increased, of course, and materialism also plays a big factor, but the whole culture seems wrong. It's probably also due in large part to the government uselessly consuming so much of the economy.

Especially with increasing automation, people are going to have to spend more time on free-form, entrepreneurial sorts of things, and that's good. There's no need to force people into soul-sucking 9-to-5 jobs. Already, I suspect that if you're earning less than $30k/year in the US, then you could probably make more money by becoming an independent contractor of some sort, even if you're completely unskilled.

I fear that governments will create near-pointless 9-to-5 jobs as a form of welfare (like eg. the New Deal CCC) in order to guarantee a "living wage", which would be just unbelievably stupid. Just send people a check and the vast majority of them will on their own do much more useful and fulfilling work.

Just a heads up. The Ontario pilot program is being scrapped early by the incoming provincial government.

This program was part of my basis for why politicians will be the downfall of a reasonable test or Implementation.

Don't worry though they are pushing to bring back "buck a beer"... or to  non Canadians 1 dollar beer.

If we ever get to using UBI I hope it's some sort of blockchain system where every detail of expenses are tracked and the gov't can block certain purchases or impose limits or outright cut off the money if it's being wasted.

You have to understand that the welfare fraud which is present now is probably a lot more prevalent then it could be if UBI is present. Because with the current welfare system, if you fake your income levels (or something along these lines) you're going to be allowed to get welfare.

UBI is a system which gives to all (maybe capped out a certain point, but still) and avoids the tediousness of having to screen mass amounts of people.

Following a tax credit model, the Ontario Basic Income Pilot will ensure that participants receive up to:

$16,989 per year for a single person, less 50% of any earned income
$24,027 per year for a couple, less 50% of any earned income
People with a disability will also receive up to $500 per month on top.

UBI is a good idea for government to use on us. I say this from a personal advantage.

Most folks out there will be reduced to poverty (or greater poverty, if they are in poverty, already) with UBI. But because I know how to create multiple persons that all have my name (not that other people can't do this), and since I know how to assign the SSN (Social Security Number) from my SS person to other of my persons so that they can use it as well, and since I know how to benefit off all my persons, and legally protect myself from government officials who think I am doing something illegal (which I am not), I know how to make way more money (or live without it) than the simple UBI amounts.

So, UBI is a good thing for me. It takes property (in the form of money) from the people, and funnels some of it to me.

The difference between us debating on here, and governments is that the people in government need their constituents votes in order to stay in power while I'm just a guy on the internet. I can say the truth, and what I think should be done to fix systems.

Politicans must say what is best for them to stay in power, and I guess they've assumed that not supporting UBI is one of those things -- sadly.

People against UBI are truly evil people.  UBI will drastically lower the crime rates and impove mental health for everyone.

We are supposedly more advanced than ever before but the modern human works much more than a hunter gather ever had to.

The vast majority of new wealth created goes straight to the top, the wealth inequality in this world is disturbing, 4 people own more than the entire bottom half of the popuatlion.

NO ONE IS SELF MADE, every wealthy person relies on this society and other people, without other people they wouldn't have wealth.

Every Fucking piece of land on this earth is "owned" what a joke, you can't even live in freedom if you want.

Support UBI

That right there sounds prone to abuse and unfairness if applied to any significant extent outside of a limited experiment. Expect shitloads of "unmarried" or suddenly "divorced" couples claiming $13k each. Kids need to eat and go to school and can't earn for themselves.

The only way this could possibly work at least to some extent as a replacement for welfare without its accompanying bureaucracy is if it's straight $13k for everyone, not dependent on marital status or age limitations, but you would still need some government involvement to make sure that e.g. kids are not starving and people with disabilities or other issues have a fair chance. Unless we're disregarding all that as part of the whole welfare system, in which case we might as well cut the UBI off at the age of 65 and let them old-timers fend for themselves.

Of course, there are a lot of things that must go into consideration, I don't know on the exact cost of living differences (based on studies) but I think that this would have to be much more fleshed out then giving everyone 13,000 a year and calling it a day. I do think there must be cost of living differences but on average what this SHOULD account for $13,000 for each American citizen -- this is what it would average out to with the differences in cost of living.

I'll try to get back with a little write-up on healthcare and stuff along those lines, thanks all for being apart of this conversation.

I think UBI would go along way in replacing the welfare system in any country. The amount of waste the bureaucracy that multiple levels of multiple organisations bring to the current system does significantly more harm than good. One benefit I see for individuals in the current system is removing the stigma behind receiving/applying for benefits; as everyone would be receiving this.
Beyond that the UBI provides opportunity if you know you have a certain amount coming to you regardless with no stalled wait period or chance of denial, you can take risks.

• You can accept that new position without the fear it may not work out
• You can make plans for upgrading in post-secondary
• Maybe you know feel you have more disposable income to inject back into the economy
• Start-up a business, knowing you have something backing you for a while

However, I only consider it acceptable if it replaces all other welfare, including heath-care-related welfare, and I suspect that this will never be politically possible. I'd also like it to result in an elimination of all work-related regulations such as minimum wage, since with UBI there should be no excuse that people are being forced to work and therefore the government needs to protect them.

Before I respond to you Glum, I do want to let you know that it is kind of frowned upon to quote an entire post when you're responding to me -- all it creates is more of an annoyance when people are reading through responses. I know you're new to the forum, so this is just for next time and so you don't bother anyone!

Exactly. I think that these limits do nothing but make people double think working hard if you remove these limits and just give EVERYONE benefits -- then you're going to enter a world which is more productive as they have the reason to be more productive. As they're not going to lose out if they attempt to progress.

As theymos quoted before, 13,000 per year would be cheaper than all of the current welfare systems which are present in the United States. So it's not like we're going to be digging further into debt.

This is going to be a long one, and I want people to be involved with this issue so I can hear all sides of the argument.

In the recent years, there has been a push from the right and the left to introduce a Universal Basic Income (UBI) -- which in short, is a set amount of income (pegged to inflation) which is provided to you if you're a US citizen. This money is given to you with no strings attached. I'm going to use an example and say that every American is given $10,000 a year regardless of the income that they have their marital status, and so on.

This in and so of itself removes the cliff dive which is apart of the welfare system we have now. As the welfare system, we have now may give a large number of benefits to someone who makes under $35,000 -- but won't give a dime to someone who is married and makes $36,000 a year. This practically means that the current system does not incentivize growth, it incentivizes you to stay under the imposed income (and other barriers) to get your benefits.

This new UBI system would give you money either way and then you'd be allowed to go work as hard as you want or as little as you want. I think (alongside some economists) that this is going to spur growth as it incentivizes people to go ahead and work hard to continue to succeed as they aren't held down by welfare limits.

I also want to say that with this system, some conservatives and libertarians think that the entire welfare system should be removed -- which includes, Medicare, Medicaid, and then the various federal and state programs which go alongside with it. To them (which I agree with), this plan is a substitute for every single other program that is currently present in the US relating to welfare. I'm not going to go into detail about what the left thinks the right thing to do with UBI is, but I do think they want to remove some programs and then add this on to the current welfare system -- but I think some of the liberal-leaning people who post here can chime in with that side of things.

I do want to stress that I don't know if $10,000 per year is the right number, it may be different based on research. I was JUST using an example.

I do think that UBI can work as a way to remove the hundreds of state and federal programs which aren't necessary when the benefits can come from one central source -- which only has to vet if you're a US citizen or not -- This is a way to remove the massive bureaucracy, and then introduce a program which will have the same effect to the people who need welfare.

At least it's no longer seen as a criminal hard drug in many western countries and it go forward every day with legalizing and new informations.

So do you smoke weed? How long and how much?
How do you think your consume is taking a part in your daily life?

 

As best I can determine, the closest thing we have to 'actual leaders' at this time are heirs to dynastic fortunes, most of which are built on exploitation of the modern debt-backed monetary systems.  Some are intelligent and most are _very_ highly trained, but 'regression to the mean' takes it's toll.  Inbreeding is sometimes a factor as well such was clearly evident in the European monarchies.  These issues are more easily hidden now.

The obvious solution to the aforementioned problems is to retain promising people who are both highly intelligent AND have other psychological profile features which are useful.  Guys like Jacob Schiff, Henry Kissinger, and Zbigniew Brzezinski for instance.

Most of the 'Scientists and Engineers' working on modern projects for the 'leaders' are among the highest in terms of native intellect, but at a third wrung or below on the power structure.  Unfortunately for them, when their tasks have been accomplished they turn into a liability in the eyes of the real leaders.  In some ways they are analogous to the military leaders of times past.

I think you may have gotten my comments confused with someone elses'.  I also did not really seek to answer a question of yours.  Mostly just to present my view on the realities of technology and society to contrast it with the standard marketing fluff.

Truthstreammedia did a little piece which is very eye-opening on where one of the leading technology corporations is wishing to take 'the hive'.  They are not even trying to hide things at this point.  Well worth watching:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ekkwAyNf1w

In a bee hive, the 99.99% have a 'good life' and are perfectly happy doing their thing.  It may be collecting as much pollen as they can in the three weeks they have to live.  Or it may be a suicide attack on a threat to the hive.  Or joining a mass swarm in hopes of helping a new leader to exploit another resource even if 9 times out of ten the operation will be a failure and they will all die.

The .01% sit in the middle of the hive and control the activities through 'information' (transferred chemically through pheromones in this case.)  They receive information from the hive in the same manner in order to make 'better' decisions.

Some highly intelligent people cannot help but be enchanted by the thought of the power of sitting at the center of the hive and directing it's activities.  Perhaps most such people.  Most of them will be convinced that when they get such power they will use it for good.  Unfortunately most will find that they simply built a system for someone else to control.

Most dictatorships eventually fall due to a reaction of the people.  A 'scientific dictatorship' (aka 'technocracy') seeks to cut off some of the avenues for failure which have vexed past dictatorships.  This through extremely fine-grained monitoring and control of every aspect of every individual's life.

Those funding the 'technocracy' which is half-way in place already are largely the very people who mastered the previous dictatorship which was based on control of debt-based money.  They plan to continue to sit right where they are at on top of the pyramid, but be able to sleep better at night knowing that a toppling is even less possible than before.

BTW, could these debt-based monetary system leaders have created peace and comfort to the impoverished masses?  I say 'yes', they probably could have.  Did they?  I say 'no'.  For the most part they created war, misery, and hopelessness in order to increase their own wealth and power.  I see no reason why they would change their tune if/when they sat atop a technocracy.  The 'illuminated' mind does not tend to see value in such things.  The 'scientists and engineers' who work on these technocracy systems will NOT be the ones making the decisions as is commonly marketed.  In fact they will be a weak link in the system due to their knowledge and capabilities and will probably be in some danger.

The developed world has tame poverty to a reasonable extent via the instrumentality of technology.If you watch the difference between old stone age and new stone age,you will know is technology.All the sectors starting from agricultural,financial,industrial and educational tor you will see that technology has brought a lot of calculated transformation to the extent that technology triggered high productivity meaning what 100 men could do in one month, with technology,it will be done in a day.

As far as I can tell Bill Gates is among the most evil men to have ever lived.  Hard-core eugenicist from a family of the same (his father headed up planned parenthood who's roots trace right back to the early 20th century eugenicists who changed their marketing once the Nazis gave the movement a bad name.)

Gates is a cheap fucker to.  He'll happily sterilize and cut the branches off the trees of 'useless eater' family lines so his class can more safely make more money, but won't then shoulder the burden of taking care of people who have no support when they get old because they were covertly sterilized and have no children to take care of them.

Gates and people like him want the population to be about 1/10 of what it is now.  And they want to make sure that people like themselves maintain an advantage over the remaining population so that they can properly 'manage' the planet.

Gates has enough money to buy the best PR which works wonders on the weak of mind...as evidenced by posts like yours.

Technologies like virtual and augmented realities create experiences which can help generate empathy. Why? Because these experiences enable us humans to live in the shoes of others. Makes sense, right? This can foster understanding and compassion among leaders and policymakers, helping solve issues such as civil rights, social welfare and immigration, and therefore can be a solution to growth and equality.
What do you think?