
Ontario announces that it will begin a basic income trial in 2016 - evo_9
http://www.sciencealert.com/a-canadian-province-is-about-start-giving-everyone-a-universal-basic-income
======
CydeWeys
Can someone explain to me why universal basic income seems to be more popular
than negative income taxes these days? To use some examples I'm picking out of
my hat:

1\. Universal basic income: Everyone gets $10K per year.

2\. Negative income tax: Everyone gets $15K per year, phased out linearly
across an income of $60K (i.e. if you earn $0 you get $15K, if you earn $20K
you get $10K, if you earn $40K you get $5K, and if you earn $60K then the
negative income tax is fully phased out).

Why is 1 preferable to 2? Is it just that it's less susceptible to tax fraud?
Note that the amount that an unemployed person gets in UBI is less, because
the same amount of money is being distributed to more people, even
millionaires.

~~~
Chathamization
There's no reason why the amount going to poor people under UBI should be
less. Money goes out to more people (everyone), but the higher brackets would
pay more, so it'd be a wash. IE, the millionaires get an extra $10,000 a month
than they would with a negative income tax, but end up having to pay an extra
$10,000 a month than they would with a negative income tax.

As for why UBI is preferable, let's look at some situations. If a person gets
fired in May and needs the extra income, with the UIB it would be coming in
already and they wouldn't need to worry about anything. With a negative income
tax they would probably need to apply to some government agency, at which
point they would either start sending the person payments whenever they get a
chance to review the application (which could take weeks or months), or they
deny the application for one reason or another and the person has to
appeal/send more evidence and try to navigate a bureaucratic maze while
they're running out of money.

Or a person is self-employed, and at the beginning of the year they believe
they will make too much to get the income, then mid-way through the year their
business slows to the point where they start going through the bureaucratic
hell of the previous person, and then after a few months some new clients come
in and they start trying to navigate the bureaucracy again to update the
agency without a penalty.

I don't know if you've ever applied for benefits like these, but very often
things turn into a mess, and you're spending weeks calling different offices
and waiting for thing to go through, at which point your eligibility changes
and you have to start over again. UBI doesn't eliminate all issues, but it's
simpler in the same way that sending your kid to the local public school is
simpler than trying to get support using the FAFSA.

Also, with the checks going out to everyone it's going to be hard to get rid
of something like that (look at Social Security for an example of this).

~~~
keithpeter
UK: this is an attractive part of the basic income proposition.

I think such a scheme might also promote risk-taking in employment in the
sense that people might be motivated to try stuff they would not normally try
e.g. setting up their own micro-business or working on temporary contracts.

Now, the OA is talking about a _pilot_. How do those work? How do you decide
to ring fence the residents in the region you are trying it in? Why could not
I just move over there for a couple of years during the pilot?

~~~
anexprogrammer
I agree. It should have been done, and the benefits system mostly abolished,
decades ago.

Given the organisation of welfare in the UK it is so very, very easy to fall
through the gaps. It's designed for the world of the 1930s-70s. There's no
point in a safety net unless it's reliable, and it clearly isn't.

If you had a simple 9-5 job and been made redundant, with P45, the system
seems to cope. If you are self-employed, an ex-busines owner, or juggling
multiple, possibly zero hour, contracts the system breaks utterly. Claiming
seems to be an entirely manual process with various people employed to
validate, check and ask questions, so it is very expensive to do.

If you knew you were getting that £100 (or whatever) a week, every week
regardless, you'd risk the uncertain project, or even the second attempt,
learning from your mistakes. The system right now puts you off ever trying
anything not 9-5 again, because you'll know it'll be months to get any help
out of them.

Of course, like talk of simplifying the tax system, I am not optimistic it
will ever happen. Or it will be an ineffective token gesture that solves
nothing.

------
elcapitan
While I can understand the benefits of basic income, it still bugs me that
this might massively undermine democracy and turn out to be a point of no
return for a society. Once every single voter has an incentive to vote for
politicians that promise increases of their basic income, each election will
turn into a competition on increasing that type of spending. It's basically a
massive redistribution scheme. This is different from welfare systems, which
only support a small number of people who actually need it.

~~~
kaeluka
How is that different from any democracy? People are incentivised to vote for
people who promise lower taxes.

Edit: or better infrastructure, ...

~~~
ghostwriter
It's different fundamentally. Lower taxes do not automatically guarantee you
better income, but they do guarantee that the result of your work remains for
you at your disposal in a larger extent. But the value still has to be
produced by yourself, not the government that takes it from others.

~~~
kaeluka
Granted, lower taxes are different. Better infrastructure, more child support,
... still are the same problem, IMO. Yet, the system -- somehow -- works.

FWIW, that's the reason I'm in Churchill's camp: "It has been said that
democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been
tried."

Democracy relies on politicians believing what they say. It is easily gamed.
Yet I have no better alternative.

Challenge my view :)

------
thedevil
This basic income idea has been popping up a lot lately. And there's some
merit to it, but there's some major problems too.

The biggest problem I see is giving people cash. Why not instead give each
adult a voucher for housing (just barely adequate for cheap housing) and each
person $5/day food stamps (or something similar), regardless of income.

Everyone gets a lower stress level this way. The risk of being homeless or
hungry go to near zero. It doesn't matter if you're unemployable, or starting
a business, or between jobs. You know you're going to be okay.

While giving people cash seems to have the same effect, it doesn't. At least
here in the US, money problems are (mostly) a money-management problem. Many
people use any cash they get to pay for whatever seems the most pressing at
the moment - whether it's rent or a big screen TV. People buy the TV when they
have money and rent isn't due yet, then have a little unexpected expense and
can't pay rent. The stress level hurts them, hurts their families, causes
increased expenses (e.g. payday loan).

My parents were like this, in six-figure-income years and in dead-broke years.
It hurt us quite a bit. And "loaning" them money NEVER helped - they'd pay the
mortgage today and then buy the TV when the next payday came in. And there's
LOTS of people like this, which is why there's a payday loan on every corner.

Now, we've taken care of my mom by covering her housing and utilities
directly. And her stress level is down a lot. It works great. This would have
also helped me a lot when I was a student. And it means more startups - since
all startups would be "ramen profitable" by default. And in the US, we could
fund this with about a 10% tax (probably less if we took some funds out of SS,
disability, section 8, etc.).

~~~
sdenton4
Take a look at GiveDirectly, which focuses on direct cash payments to the poor
instead of traditional centrally planned aid actions.
[https://www.givedirectly.org/](https://www.givedirectly.org/)

One of their early findings was that people in Kenya in thatched roof homes
used their money to get tin roofs, an intervention that was on nobody's radar,
and greatly improved quality of life.

People are in poverty /by definition/ because they don't have money, and are
generally painfully aware of what their biggest challenges are.

~~~
thedevil
1) A housing voucher would cover analogous issues in the US.

2) Being poor in a poor country is very different from being poor in a rich
country.

3) I don't know the details of the program, but it likely involved different
amounts of accountability and social influences than a basic income.

~~~
DougWebb
"I don't know anything about what you're talking about, but I'm going to
assume it supports my point of view."

~~~
thedevil
"One of your concerns isn't backed up so I'm going to ignore your other points
and troll"

------
allengeorge
The linked budget announcement says simply that the government will _begin
consultations_ on how best to test and implement a Basic Invome scheme in
2016, not that it'll actually trial it this year. Not that a trial will begin
his year. And, given the so-so response towards Ontario's supplemental pension
plan, I wouldn't take support for this scheme as a given.

------
d0m
I'm from Montreal where there's already income to families not making enough
money. This is great but obviously some people abuse the system and use it to
drink beer all day so some Montrealers don't like the idea of using their
taxes to give them money.

But one very important point that people don't know is that giving basic
income like that, even if abused, reduce criminality. When you have no money
and are desperate, you're more likely to start doing illegal actions.
Economically speaking, when you start thinking about the cost of more
criminality, you realize that it's a pretty good deal to give basic income.

Not everyone here agrees with what I just said - most people don't even know
that - but I think that in itself is a great reason.

------
mladenkovacevic
I have nothing against basic income as long as there are incentives and
opportunities to motivate people to do better for themselves either
financially or creatively.

As an Ontario resident it'll be interesting to see if this goes into effect
and what the long term results are.

Can we get another province to try a libertarian approach and we can compare
notes in about 25 to 50 years?

~~~
deelowe
Basic income is supported by the libertarian party.
[http://www.libertarianism.org/columns/libertarian-case-
basic...](http://www.libertarianism.org/columns/libertarian-case-basic-income)

~~~
paulddraper
It's controversial: [http://reason.com/blog/2014/08/04/libertarians-on-basic-
inco...](http://reason.com/blog/2014/08/04/libertarians-on-basic-income-
guarantee)

The case for it is basically that we should choose something terrible over
something awful.

~~~
aninhumer
I think there are also quite a few libertarians who recognise the necessity of
wealth redistribution as a guard against creeping inequality, and would prefer
that it be done in a market compatible way, instead of via government
services.

~~~
paulddraper
> quite a few libertarians who recognise the necessity of wealth
> redistribution as a guard against creeping inequality

Forced wealth redistribution is antithesis of libertarianism.

If it's not, I have been calling myself a libertarian incorrectly.

~~~
aninhumer
That depends whether you think the point of libertarianism is preferring
market solutions to economic problems, or the protection of pure property
rights.

The latter is perhaps more ideologically pure, but I think the former tends to
lead to much more sensible arguments.

~~~
paulddraper
Property rights, social liberties, etc.

I don't even know what to call the first thing you mentioned. "preferring
market solutions to economic problems" Capitalism?

~~~
aninhumer
Well I realise I'm biased, but the libertarians I respect tend more towards
"market freedom as the null hypothesis" rather than the ideological extremes
that lead to rhetorical nonsense like "tax is theft" and "property rights can
be derived from non-aggression", or my personal favourite "violent coercion is
bad (unless it's used to enforce property rights, that doesn't count)".

~~~
paulddraper
> tax is theft

The Supreme Court stated this "rhetorical nonsense" even more strongly: "the
power to tax is the power to _destroy_ ".

> property rights can be derived from non-aggression

> violent coercion is bad (unless it's used to enforce property rights, that
> doesn't count)

Property rights aren't a consequence of non-aggression, so much as non-
aggression is scoped by the extent of property rights.

[https://mises.org/library/what-
libertarianism](https://mises.org/library/what-libertarianism)

"...what aggression is depends on what our (property) rights are...One cannot
identify an act of aggression without implicitly assigning a corresponding
property right to the victim."

For example, driving a car can be aggression, depending on whether I have
property rights to that car or not.

~~~
aninhumer
> "the power to tax is the power to destroy".

I'd need to see the context, but this seems even more ridiculous than calling
tax theft. Taxation just moves things around, it doesn't destroy anything. (It
might cause destruction due to inefficiency, but that's a separate argument.)

>Property rights aren't a consequence of non-aggression, so much as non-
aggression is scoped by the extent of property rights.

Well this is more consistent, but I still consider that a fairly ridiculous
definition of aggression. Most people would consider aggression to mean actual
violence (or threats thereof) and nothing else. Using resources outside the
constraints of society's property system (i.e. theft) might be considered
immoral, but I wouldn't call that aggression.

Defining aggression to include theft just seems like a rhetorical trick to
avoid explaining the immorality of theft itself (if it's called aggression it
must be bad right?)

------
nokya
We will be voting to implement the same mechanism in Switzerland in next June.
Fear campaigns by right-wing parties are intensifying.

~~~
zo1
You call it "Fear campaigns", others would call it "participating in the
democratic process".

~~~
k-mcgrady
Not sure about the specific situation to parent is referring to but there is a
difference. Take the UK referendum to leave the EU. There are valid points on
both sides but when MP's start saying that leaving/staying makes it more
likely we'll be attacked by terrorists I would consider that a fear campaign.
It's a completely hypothetical point and only spoken to scare people into
agreeing with you.

~~~
nickff
Both sides of almost every political debate use fear to try to get their way.
Anti-encryption folks talk about the parade of horribles that private
communications could enable, anti-gun people talk about school shootings, pro-
army/navy/air force groups talk up terrorists and foreign enemies, pro-social
program partisans pretend that the rich make money by abusing the poor.

There is unfortunately nothing new, unique, or particular about a group using
fear to persuade or dissuade people from supporting a measure.

~~~
malka
Fear as always been a great motivational tool. I'm pretty sure in Rome, they
told thing like "if xxx happens, barbarians will be at the door of Rome"

~~~
nickff
Cicero famously argued that if Rome 'gave away' Campagnia, they would lose
their 'granary for times of war'.

------
manishsharan
Given the fact that the Canadian economy isn't doing well and the government
is running deficits, how are we going to pay for this ? What are we going to
cut ? What taxes are we going to increase? Given the fact that value of CAD
has dropped significantly which has led to increased food prices, how will
this not hurt the working poor and the middle class ?

~~~
smaddox
If the economy isn't doing well, then the government SHOULD be running a
deficit. If they run a surplus, then they're depressing the economy even more.

Also, running a deficit by providing services (universal income included), is
far better for the working poor and middle class than Quantitative Easing
(i.e. jacking up asset prices, which predominantly benefits the rich).

Universal income is essentially the same as Steve Keen's suggestion of a
modern debt jubilee, in which the level of private debt is returned to
reasonable levels by expanding the money supply and paying down privately held
debt. This would reset the clock, so to speak, allowing economic growth to
continue. Whether such a policy makes ecological sense is, of course, a
separate issue.

Edit: clarified "paying down privately held debt"

------
shurcooL
I wonder how many people would use this as on opportunity to be able to spend
more time working on open source.

~~~
kethinov
I've wondered this as well.

One of the greatest inequities of today's startup experience is the fact that
the vast majority of startup founders are already affluent and are basically
immune to risk. UBI would allow people to do entrepreneurship with no risk.

They still wouldn't have all the same business opportunities (because
obviously plenty of businesses require actual startup capital just go get
going, not just people's time), but I think this would help a lot with
smoothing over the inequality of opportunity that results from this.

------
avz
The often raised argument in defense of UBI is the automation of production.

Well, work isn't just about producing goods. We work to solve problems. And
there are plenty of problems and challenges that machines won't solve for us
ranging from cancer and dementia to clean energy to global warming. Not to
mention some nice-to-haves for the long-term like space colonization, life
extension or nanotechnology.

Saying that humans should not need to work is like saying this is it. We're
done here. This is the world we want.

~~~
Chinjut
Work on whatever you want to work on. If you're interested in nanotechnology,
by all means, go work on it. But why should we design the world to force
others to labor in ways they'd rather not under threat of destitution
(starvation, homelessness, etc.), if we could instead allow people freedom
from this bondage?

The way the world works now is that the wealthy are free to spend their time
however they like, and the poor are forced to work on the projects the wealthy
want worked on, regardless of their own interests, just to stay alive. Is this
it? Are we done here? Is this the world we want?

~~~
vzcx
You know what? You're right. I'm tired of doing boring work for lazy rich
folks. My basic needs should be taken care of and I should be free to live my
life pursuing whatever whims or flights of fancy might make themselves
manifest in my mind.

But why wait for our professional policy makers to bring basic income into
reality? We can make it happen right here, right now. We'll free all the wage
slaves from the bondage of their forced labor, one at time, and starting with
me.

Here's an opportunity to act upon your principles and bring the world you want
into being.

Send your donations to the following bitcoin address:

1NPgtWa3bR9iKzWdSm9HsTuXhLLDLvTesa

~~~
bmer
Your comment is exactly the sort that would fit in well on reddit, but sticks
out like a sore thumb on HN. Why? Well, because after taking the 40 seconds to
read your entire message, I realized that it was nothing but sarcasm through
and through.

In short, you added nothing to the discussion, apart from disrespecting the
participants (which is what 100% sarcasm is).

~~~
JWLong
The fact that his retort is sarcastic, does not mean that he does not have a
point. His point is that someone will be subsidizing his existence, and
pointing out that nobody would want to do it, if they were faced with that
reality, directly.

~~~
aninhumer
This is a silly false comparison.

No, I'm not willing to implement one tiny wealth transfer that could
conceivably be part of a Basic Income scheme. That would be stupid.

However, if it were possible to magically enter into a voluntary but binding
pact with a large enough group of people to make Basic Income work, then I
absolutely would do it even if it would mean lower income for me.

------
ZoeZoeBee
The title of the article is completely misleading.

[http://www.fin.gov.on.ca/en/budget/ontariobudgets/2016/ch1e....](http://www.fin.gov.on.ca/en/budget/ontariobudgets/2016/ch1e.html)

From the Budget: >One area of research that will inform the path to
comprehensive reform will be the evaluation of a Basic Income pilot. The pilot
project will test a growing view at home and abroad that a basic income could
build on the success of minimum wage policies and increases in child benefits
by providing more consistent and predictable support in the context of today’s
dynamic labour market. The pilot would also test whether a basic income would
provide a more efficient way of delivering income support, strengthen the
attachment to the labour force, and achieve savings in other areas, such as
health care and housing supports. The government will work with communities,
researchers and other stakeholders in 2016 to determine how best to design and
implement a Basic Income pilot.

I find it quite interesting they are presupposing a Universal Basic Income,
will strengthen attachment to the labor force instead of decreasing it. Human
Nature suggests other wise.

------
marcoperaza
I think there's a real opportunity for a grand compromise between the left and
right here. If a basic income/negative income tax is bundled with abolishing
most or all other government handouts and retirement plans, small government
minded people like myself could get behind it.

One thing I worry about is that this could cause massive inflation and a
recession (stagflation) as people drop out of low-wage work in droves. What
percent of society will decide to live on solely the basic income if it's high
enough to pay for basic expenses? Work is virtuous and builds character. Idle
hands are the devil's playthings.

And what would it do to our democracy if a huge portion of the population is
living on someone else's dime and not even trying to join the workforce. Isn't
it fair to call them children? What insight could they possibly have in the
democratic process except to vote their own immediate monetary interests? I
believe in universal suffrage, which is why this is a conundrum for me.

~~~
chillwaves
> Work is virtuous and builds character. Idle hands are the devil's
> playthings.

The only difference is people will get to work for themselves, not for others.
Re: the overall tone, I already have two parents and do not need another.

~~~
marcoperaza
A basic income will never and should never happen if its supporters are
unwilling to face up to its challenges. Play this offense-taking politics with
it and you won't convince anyone. And you'll lose the trust of any
libertarians and conservatives who are already in favor of it.

------
shitgoose
Being already over 300 billion CAD in debt, it only make sense for Ontario to
spend a bit more. Looks like Ontario government gave up hopes to repay the
debt, so who cares - a basic income more, a basic income less...

------
Pxtl
A challenge with Ontario is that the province is already on hard financial
times and the current government is politically beholden to the bureaucracy.
The financial idea of mincome is that the government can shut down a bunch of
over-managed social programs in favour of a unified simple payment direct to
the residents...

...but there's not political will to shrink the government complexity and
capture this savings, which means mincome in Ontario is the fiscal policy
equivalent of this xkcd comic:

[https://m.xkcd.com/927/](https://m.xkcd.com/927/)

------
hippich
Simple question - in ideal world where UBI replaces welfare system, what
happens to person, who takes UBI check, spend it all in casino and next day is
due day for rent, health insurance, no food in refrigerator, etc?

~~~
mattmanser
You can flip that on its head and ask the same question about an employee who
blows all their paycheck in a casino.

It's just an utterly pointless what-if. In all seriousness, how many people do
you think will actually go and spend it all in a casino? 0.01%? 0.001%? What's
the point of asking a question about the 0.001% of people with such a bad
gambling habit that they'd immediately spend all their money in a casino. It
should be utterly irrelevant to the discussion.

It's a different problem. Some people will muck up their lives. UBI won't
solve that.

Some people will still get hit by a car, some people will still have mental
health problems and some people will still get pregnant at 14. UBI won't solve
that. Some people will still get hooked on heroin. UBI won't solve that. Some
people will get struck by lightning and need emergency treatment. UBI won't
solve that.

It won't be the only social welfare program needed. There are some people who
through accident or poor choices will still need extra help.

~~~
avar

        > It won't be the only social welfare program needed. There are
        > some people who through accident or poor choices will still need
        > extra help.
    

Whenever UBI comes up some proponents of it support it largely on the notion
that it could actually save money by abolishing the bureaucratic social
welfare we have today.

Lots of comments here are pointing out something to that effect.

Which makes OPs question less absurd, because it goes to 1) How many selective
welfare programs should still remain? 2) If #1 is large enough does the "but
it can replace existing welfare programs" argument for UBI make sense?

~~~
Al-Khwarizmi
I think the answer to that is quite simple and clear-cut. It can replace all
the existing welfare programs that focus on material needs. It cannot replace
programs that focus on other problems (for example drug addiction, mental
illness, etc.) as those don't go away by throwing money at them. Note,
however, than the latter have way less bureaucracy associated. Bureaucracy in
welfare is almost always associated with fraud prevention from people who want
to game the system to get money that they shouldn't get.

------
vamur
Basic income should be done like in the Expanse (e.g only for those with
no/minimal income) and it should be dynamic - percentage based on the current
economy size. It should also be spent only on domestic products to stimulate
local economy. Otherwise, it will be another Ponzi scheme like the current
pension systems.

Which would be a shame since it's a good idea and necessary due to
technological advances.

~~~
dublinben
A basic income that isn't universal isn't basic income. The entire point is
that everyone in society receives the same minimal amount, regardless of what
other income they might receive. The reduces bureaucratic complexity and
problems like the welfare trap.

~~~
vamur
No, the point should be to provide a safety net while not creating a Ponzi
scheme or forcing working population into welfare.

~~~
wallacoloo
That may be a valid approach. The parent comment is merely pointing out that
your proposal is technically distinct from "basic income", and therefore
should be labeled appropriately.

------
refurb
I wonder if "payday loan" companies would jump all over basic income? "Can't
wait for your next month's basic income check? We'll get you CASH right now
for only a small fee.* We're here to help you!"

*Annual interest rate of 1200%

~~~
aninhumer
I think the solution to this is not to legally enforce debt collection of
Basic Income, so it's impossible to be forced into poverty by debt.

IMO the core purpose of Basic Income is to provide a baseline standard of
living, so this solution fits well with that ideal.

This would, however, increase the risk to creditors across the board (since
the worst penalty for defaulting is living on Basic Income) but I don't think
that's necessarily a bad thing.

------
johnny_kinds
The issue with basic income is in the long-term. When more and more
generations of people start to depend on it (I've seen it with welfare in my
hometown), it becomes a crutch and will stifle their future success.

Eventually, there won't be enough people giving back into the system and the
whole thing will collapse. Before this happens, taxes will continue to be
raised in people in lower income brackets.

The politicians love it though. It creates an instant voter base. Why would a
person, receiving free money, vote for someone that will take it away?

Because of things like this, I wish we had laws in place that all voters had
to at least 1) work some sort of job (it doesn't matter what it is) and 2)
proof they paid income taxes.

~~~
bcook
If a majority of a society wants only to barely survive, rather than improve
themselves and/or humanity, that is a problem itself. I see little reason to
let _anyone_ suffer, regardless of that fact that they may have "earned" their
suffering.

Do you have any modern, long-term examples of basic income failing?

~~~
ambicapter
> If a majority of a society wants only to barely survive, rather than improve
> themselves and/or humanity, that is a problem itself.

That's one way of looking at it. Another way is that advances in technology
have made it such that there is a 1% of individuals who progress so fast that
they make the rest look like they're at a standstill by comparison, regardless
of how hard they try.

~~~
bcook
I don't think OP was referring to people who are trying but cannot succeed. I
think he was saying that basic income encourages a society to rely upon the
government and forget about putting any effort in to trying to succeed.

~~~
Retra
If you're poor, you're already relying on the government, and have no means to
apply any more effort.

~~~
bcook
The poor are incapable of rising above their current conditions?

~~~
Retra
If they were, why would they be poor?

------
guylepage3
Definitely excited to see this trial take place.

------
foota
Looks like someone beat YC to it :)

------
sageikosa
In social science, society is the guinea pig.

~~~
nickff
I agree with the sentiment, but am somewhat more pessimistic, and would say
that the more usual case is:

 _' In social science, the people are the guinea pigs.'_

and disturbingly often:

 _' In social programs, the poor are the guinea pigs.'_

------
eliteraspberrie
For context, Ontario has no natural resources. We have always been an export
economy. With globalization and automation, manufacturing is mostly gone, and
it's creating social problems. We have a fundamentally different view of the
role of government here, we believe government should promote quality of life
and happiness. Yes it is socialism and we don't apologize.

~~~
GFK_of_xmaspast
Isn't Ontario full of logged forests and mines? Not to mention hydro power?
(as documented here:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qjLBXb1kgMo](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qjLBXb1kgMo))

~~~
giarc
Also full of minerals (nickel, copper etc). I'm not sure how productive the
mines are anymore but Ontario has areas names Nickel Belt, Copperclif, Nickel
Centre.

------
ra1n85
Basic income seems to come from the right place from people that support it.

I do think it's misguided benevolence, though. I hope that largely removing
adversity and creating dependence aren't viewed as trivial changes here.
People need to be challenged. We need to consider the more subtle
ramifications of this. Humans have always labored. Work is in our blood.

~~~
georgemcbay
I don't view it as benevolence so much as one of the few realistic solutions
to the issue of increasing automation resulting in having way more people than
we need to produce the needed goods for that same population.

The options are either embracing some form of socialism or violent, society-
ending revolt.

I'd much prefer the former to the latter.

~~~
ra1n85
I agree that a lot of forms of employment will eventually be automated.

I'm more optimistic, however. I think labor will just evolve, just as it's
done with every corresponding evolution in technology.

~~~
gnaritas
> I think labor will just evolve

Then you're missing the point, there is not an endless amount of low skilled
labor to do and machines will take over all of those roles, even the new ones.
People aren't going to suddenly all be able to handle high skilled jobs.

~~~
ra1n85
I imagine they said something similar about ditch diggers and buggy drivers
when the combustion engine came along.

There is a strong relationship between improvements in technology and
improvements in human development. All boats rise with the tide.

~~~
gnaritas
What happened in the past is not an indication of what will happen in the
future, past automation was trivial and small compared to the automation
happening today. To continue to bury your head in the sand and proclaim "there
will be new jobs" is utterly missing the point being made, no, there will not
be a continual supply of new jobs to replace the old ones. Low skill jobs are
going away permanently, not just shifted to new fields like in the past. The
effect of machines on the economy (industrial revolution) is not going to be
the same as the effect of intelligent machines on the economy; the past
doesn't predict the future, it only occasionally rhymes with it. Intelligent
machines aren't going to create enough new jobs to replace the ones they
destroy, by design.

~~~
chillwaves
> What happened in the past is not an indication of what will happen in the
> future,

The definition of change.. but some people seem to believe change does not
exist. Is it possible to reach such a person/

