Technically paid for by the automation itself especially as it does more. Also the comanies would have never got that far to be automated nor many rich wouldn't have gotten nearly as rich if not for the employees, techies, tech, subsidies, infrastructure, consumers. So society helped them and the companies get there, so in a sense, society gets some benefit in return aside from lower costs of things. Besides, it is needed to prevent collapse of the economy as a stimulus.
Also it will need to be more than $500 once BI is completely established and then from that point on, beyond basic as automation and renewables do more and lower costs combined with gradually shorter work weeks to share the work, although initially, a BI means some will take one instead of two full time or part time jobs, so that frees up jobs for people in the short term.
Daniel O'Sullivan, Alexandra Ejen, Francesco D'Amico
Men in their prime working years have left the labor force at an astonishing rate and they may never return if the state of the U.S. job market holds, according to a new report from the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City.
Nope. Big business cannot be trusted to regulate itself. Look at history, slavery, tobacco, leaded petrol. Time and time again they prove to be untrustworthy. UBI is a fantastic idea but not the instead of regulation. We need both
Short answer: This has been tested, and it didn't. It freed people to work harder at all kinds of things that helped society but didn't necessarily involve a paycheque. It also helped people find work or start new careers in some cases. It's ridiculous to keep asking about this when the results are in and we can see them. Implement the damn thing already.
I don't judge one's laziness based on whether or not they work for money or how much they work for money. People who work too much may end up being lazy in their health and fitness, hygiene, self improvement, relationships, being social, household responsibilities, etc. You have a lot of fat ass and dumb ass people who drive a lot or sit in offices a lot and eat a lot of junk.
Laziness is often subjective and there are different kinds and degrees of such a thing. I realize this because I actually make an effort to think critically and not be a status quo simpleton.
Also as automation takes over, who cares if some choose to work less or be lazy in other ways as that isn't hurting me. That is their life and people don't like being told how to live, especially in a so called free country, in the privacy of their own life, but you do have a lot of anti-freedom ideology and people in this country. Recommendations are fine, but not trying to control their life.
Peter Xing, Daniel O'Sullivan, Mon Soe San, Francesco D'Amico, Daryl Smith, Syris Metara
According to all the trials conducted so far, no.
The statement that we become lazy is nonsense. I've worked at a lot of places where I do see lazy people as well.
All those supporting inclusive social protection will be sad to hear that, in the past couple of months, Kyrgyzstan and Mongolia have both lost out to the International Monetary Fund in their struggles to establish universal child benefits. The IMF has obliged both countries to target their schemes....
The online retail giant has built its business model on tax avoidance, and its latest financial filing makes it clear that Amazon continues to be insulated from the nation’s tax system. In 2017, Amazon reported $5.6 billion of U.S. profits and didn’t pay a dime of federal income taxes on it. The...
Universal Basic Services is a good group of policies lumped together under a misleading name - compared to the transformative potential and simplicity of Universal Basic Income it cannot compete in its current form.
The Macao region of China will spend more than 1.2 billion euros this year on public subsidies, including their Wealth Partaking Scheme, which functions as a very low-level form of basic income. As reported by the Xinhua News Agency, the official press agency of the People’s Republic of China, the...
Last week, I wrote an article about Republican policy benefiting the rich at the huge expense of the poor & middle class. The style and format didn't seem perfect for CleanTechnica, so I'm not reposting it here, but I feel compelled to make some of the same points in a different way.
Good, let it, and force a change to the system that will free people from the do or starve, and later labor for income system. It will be necessary as tech becomes more the producer and humans less so while we still need humans as consumers to keep it all going and prevent economic collapse. At a certain point, most material needs for most can be met without labor for resources.
Mon Soe San, Lily Nguyen, Daniel O'Sullivan
Damon Jones, associate professor at the University of Chicago's Harris School of Public Policy, discusses Alaska's universal basic income with Bloomberg's Julie Hyman, Scarlet Fu and Joe Weisenthal on "What'd You Miss?" (Source: Bloomberg)
F**k the labor market.. This shit's got to go.. UBI don't free people from the prostitution for the companies owned by the rel small circle of the owners. If the people start their own companies owned by them, they don't need UBI.. Although it might get us closer to companies owned by the people, we don't have to fight for UBI, but start already with companies owned by the people. But I don't stop you.. We have democracy..
One thing it means is people wouldn't have to be a bitch or slave of the system. Bargaining power in the workforce would increase without the threat of starvation. That = more freedom + well being.
Daniel O'Sullivan, Alexandra Ejen, Francesco D'Amico