Your opinion of UBI/NIT?

I speak of the concept, not necessarily any one plan.

 

They're nice enough letters. I can't say that I prefer them to other letters, though.

The slash is nice, too.

 

Universal Basic Income and .... ?

 

Negative Income Tax

 

I don't know enough about them to make a decision even after reading this: http://www.scottsantens.com/negativ...s-them-the-same-and-what-makes-them-different

Obviously there is some big picture stuff involved.

 

The most fundamental premise (promoted by socialists and capitalists alike) is that automation will eventually create a situation where people are unemployed not due to laziness or a contracting economy but becuase humans are simply obsolete and prohibitively expensive. At this point you either have some sort of no labor income or rioting poor people. Whether a UBI or NIT and how to manage it without bankrupting the state is the real debate.

 

Interesting question you ask. It's not really a left-right question because more and more automation is coming. Let me ask you a question .... If automation takes over more and more jobs, and people get more and more obsolete to do work, work and production gets done more cheaply without human workers. But what good is that if people don't have money to spend because they don't have a job? Production can only happen at the level of demand. If people don't have money because a machine is doing the job, then the owners of the machines have to stop production because the demand dries up because people don't have money to buy whatever it is the machine is making or doing. And if the owners of the machines stop producing, they lose. And so it seems that everybody loses - the unemployed people and the owners of the machines.

And so, something would have to change. There is no choice. People must have money to spend. If they don't, it doesn't matter how efficient the machine is because without demand for the product or service, the machine does no good to anybody.

 

here's an idea, keep your naughty bits in your pants or wrapped if you can't afford a kid, graduate from high school, stay away from drugs and the low-lifes who partake, learn a profession or trade, and don't spend every penny you make on useless crap.

 

Thus the UBI. A universal basic income becomes required when the current system of production/consummation eliminates the payroll system. Socialism and communal living are inevitable in this case.

 

And that helps when robots take all the jobs how?

 

robots aren't going to take all the jerbs

 

Automation can take most of the jobs that humans do eventually. Owners of production will out of greed try to get as much from their industries as they can and remove workers as they can without considering the long term ramifications. Business men for the most part think only in terms of profit. Of course there will be a tipping point where income declines to the point of impacting those very same businesses. At that point are they going to make their products more expensive by hiring back and retooling their production to be less efficient or will they demand action from the government? I think they will refuse to go backwards (since it would take a combined effort of a majority of business owners) and will instead go to the government for a solution. That is when we will come to a true crossroads where capitalism will need to evolve or something new will have to appear.

The other economic systems will not work communism requires there to be jobs. It is hard to claim everyone will be employed and the people will control the means of production when production is done by none people. Capitalism will only work as long as people have income and not just enough to survive but extra income to invest. So far I have not seen any good solution brought up. UBI is not the answer because how does a person go beyond that UBI if machines have taken all the jobs? That basic income has no potential for growth, so in a way it would become a kind of benevolent slavery.

 

On the service this all makes sense but lets delve into some of it.

Phase one would require nationalizing at least a portion of those industries and as such we will be competing against private owners. Either the private owners will begin to lose to the government and go out of business or the government will not be able to compete causing even more losses that would have to be subsidized. Either way tax revenue will go down or be allocated to maintain which in a way is the same thing since we would be taking money from the same people the rich. This situation could go multiple ways but I think the most likely would be a shrinking of competition as small companies get gobbled up by big in order to compete with the government who does not care about profit. In the end either the government would lose so much money that they would have to stop, taxes would get so high that business owners would have to quit, or businesses would become so large that they would have the funds to influence the politicians to end or coop the whole thing.

Phase Two The first part makes perfect sense lowering the workweek. Where we will have issues is the more benefits when paid for by increased productivity. Increased productivity does not necessarily turn into lower costs on goods. Also if the goods are not necessities, where would the common person get the disposable income? UBI would normally be in an amount for necessities, would we be increasing it to a point beyond that for luxuries? If so what would be the incentive to work even when capable? But all in all this is a transitional phase that fits into the first phase.

Phase Three At this point all the people that are not owners of those machines are either not employed or are in the service industry. That is unless they have the talent or intellect for higher pursuits. So you would have a server class of people and a intellectual/artist class that can still produce in the new world. Because only the artist and the scientist will be able to create in a meaningful way and only those already rich will have the means of production unless the government controls the new product. Now of course we would hope no one would make the people take these service jobs but if they refuse they will still have the UBI. So you would have a choice if you do not have the intellect, creativity, or initial cash work in a service job or not work and thus not contribute.

Phase Four This is the truly scary part and is insidious because how could this Nirvana be bad? Because consider in this world of luxury the high intellect and ultra creative will most likely have a renaissance. But what is the point of the common person or even the low intellect person? Their true purpose at that point will be procreation and who is to say that we will even need the exchanging of bodily fluids for that in the future? If you do not give a person purpose they will often turn to their basest impulses. As such the government will have to influence those impulses. In fact that is the whole story of your scenario.

Government will have to step in and provide the basic necessities of life for its citizens. Every phase will include more and more dependence of more of the population on the government to provide the necessities of life. Until at the end all of the production will be controlled by the government. This is a fine situation as long as two things are maintained. One that the government is efficient and corruption is low. Two that the government is actually benevolent to all people in the same way. Unfortunately as has been shown the larger a government is the less efficient it is and the more opportunity for graft exists. Also what is benevolent to one person can and often does turn into tyranny for another. This places a huge problem before the people if the government is not efficient, uncorrupt, and benevolent what can you do? Because now the government is the one providing literally everything. Not to mention your most gifted members of society are the ones that benefit the most from the status que. Which leaches potential leaders from any sort of response. Basically what I am saying is your proposed system has a high potential of turning a majority of the people into very pampered slaves.

Sorry for the length.

 

Most likely would be Oligarchy and eventual Communism.

 

Communism would not work because the means of production is no longer being done by the worker. That system of economics is just to archaic for that type of world.

 

While this is accurate in the traditional definition of Communism, it is but a small piece of the system and would of course be revised as required. I am not condoning it but simply expressing the requested opinion.

 

Socialism won't be possible (though it'll last longer than capitalism). Communism on the other hand is a stateless, classless money free society. I have my doubts about it's viability as a social order but a free labor workforce that produces EVERYTHING and can give it away for nothing (becuase they're not being paid anything) is absolutely a system in which a stateless, money free society can exist. It's that classless bit that makes me question communism, on the economic side it's all playing out exactly as Marx said it would.