If automation will take over certain "jobs", then whatever is needed by humans will be produced without anyone doing those "jobs" and people will have all those things without paying for it for very cheap (because if everything is automated, at some point there is nobody to pay to). What do they need this "universal basic income" for?
A few hundred years ago, most people's job was agriculture related. Then, humans discovered fossil fuels and industrial age came about taking away most agricultural jobs. Did it mean that 5% farmers became rich and everyone else needed some "basic income" to survive? Or did food become so cheap that more people started dying of obesity than that of famine?
If all our current needs will be served by automation, we will be free of these menial jobs and exchange something else for money. People are already making money by:
- Playing games live (twitch)
- Drawing a cartoon of someone which looks like a penis (https://www.fiverr.com/tampbomb/penisify-your-friends-and-en...)
- Rubbing your genitals and streaming it live (chaturbate)
- Filming yourself watching a video and uploading that (reaction videos on YouTube)
And this is just the beginning.
Besides, one can't eat money. Let's say we agree to give everyone in the world a million dollars. Does it mean that the amount of food produced and exported to South Sudan somehow magically increase? Or will money lose it's value and everything else will remain mostly as it is?
Am I missing something? Is there any literature which addresses the obvious problems and make reasonable arguments for universal basic income?
> If automation will take over certain "jobs", then whatever is needed by humans will be produced without anyone doing those "jobs" and people will have all those things without paying for it for very cheap (because if everything is automated, at some point there is nobody to pay to).
The flaw with this logic is it ignores greed on the part of the CEO/shareholders/owners of the company that can now manufacture essential goods for next to nothing and likely has enough money to successfully lobby against any legislation against it (and possibly lobby for Mickey Mouse law, patent edition)
I see. So, if there will be these profitable companies which profit from building and maintaining automation technologies, will they be so small that anyone can start their own automation company or be so big that they will require huge investments and go public?
In the first case, many people will be owners of such businesses and many people will profit from it... in the second case, people will buy stock of those companies and will profit from it. So, it seems like the money will be distributed over many people, basically anyone who is willing to invest. So, no universal basic income required.
However, that is not even the main problem of the idea of universal basic income. The main problem is that governments don't have any money to give out to anyone. Governments rely on people's money to operate. So, if people won't have any jobs, they will pay no taxes and governments won't have any money to operate, let alone give it back to people.
If they are going to tax businesses, people won't invest. Also, businesses don't want to pay taxes, so they would rather spend the money in expanding themselves than pay taxes on profits.
The issue with universal basic income is that it will basically cause serious inflation in rental housing and consumer discretionary retail in first tier cities (NYC, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Seattle, etc.) as well as time wasting online entertainment. It will be a massive windfall for owners of these assets and be counter productive.
Instead of universal basic income, a more optimal approach would be to start with:
- Universal Basic Healthcare
- Universal Basic Food Vouchers (based on median cost of food excluding first tier cities)
- Universal Basic Housing Vouchers (based on median rent excluding first tier land constrained cities)
Automation/Robotics/AI can and will drive the prices down for all of the above (with universal healthcare and housing in a first tier land constrained cities being the exceptions).
SamA, YC, Amazon, Silicon Valley and Wall Street can aggressively compete to solve these societal problems with maximum efficiency and distribution capability.
New universal services can be added as Automation/AI/Robotics drives costs down.
A few hundred years ago, most people's job was agriculture related. Then, humans discovered fossil fuels and industrial age came about taking away most agricultural jobs. Did it mean that 5% farmers became rich and everyone else needed some "basic income" to survive? Or did food become so cheap that more people started dying of obesity than that of famine?
If all our current needs will be served by automation, we will be free of these menial jobs and exchange something else for money. People are already making money by:
- Playing games live (twitch) - Drawing a cartoon of someone which looks like a penis (https://www.fiverr.com/tampbomb/penisify-your-friends-and-en...) - Rubbing your genitals and streaming it live (chaturbate) - Filming yourself watching a video and uploading that (reaction videos on YouTube)
And this is just the beginning.
Besides, one can't eat money. Let's say we agree to give everyone in the world a million dollars. Does it mean that the amount of food produced and exported to South Sudan somehow magically increase? Or will money lose it's value and everything else will remain mostly as it is?
Am I missing something? Is there any literature which addresses the obvious problems and make reasonable arguments for universal basic income?