Ask Lemmy

no lol.

have you ever met a rich person? like a real rich person? they're arrogant and snobby and think the rest of us have no right to exist. there's a reason there's this massive push to implement AI. part of it is to save money but the other part of it is that they legit think that we're all lesser and AI replacing call centers and fast food jobs will hasten our departure.

we'll all end up being thrown in a volcano before they implement UBI.

i'd say asia has more of a chance in the long run just because social responsibility is part of culture and that can often act as an antidote to the worst parts of capitalism. south korea can be gross but at least they throw their corrupt leaders in jail...

no chance of this happening in the states.

To be honest I'm not fan of UBI. I'm more fond of redistribution of work.

If there's less things to do due to automatization let's just all work less hours with full income.

It will never happen.

Not because it is a bad idea; it is an AWESOME idea. Work used to be something you do for the collectivity; you do something for the group, in exchange of something from the group. Today, a work is a mean to earn money, regardless of the collectivity. We do meaningless jobs, which often gives nothing to the collectivity, just because we have a rent to pay, we want vacations and a new car. A universal basic income would completely break this; I would work to bring something to the group, not to reach a stupid objective for the company.

However, there is a fringe of people which will not gain anything from this, even lose leverage and power over the masses: the 1%, the millionaires and billionaires. They will do whatever they can to kill it, saying only freeloaders and foreigners will benefits from it. And the masses will vote against it, and it will be a big victory for capitalism. Until global warming accelerate, we will have nothing to eat anymore and earth will be inhospitable for humans. The end.

I think it's absolutely necessary as stop-gap on the way to a truly post-scarcity society where money is irrelevant, but highly unlikely because greedy cunts run everything.

No, not without sacrificing a welfare program or something else.

Because it'll be a hard sell to have UBI on top of WIC, SNAP, SSI, Unemployment and other welfare. Something would have to go.

UBI has to have a lot of folks wanting it and theres contingents that would rather starve then see those people get a thin dime, with "those people" having various meanings. Then there's the temporarily embarassed millionaires, and of course the Fox news crew who think socio-commu-trans folk are going to dye their kids hair blue and make them worship Satan.

I think that it will start as an universal basic income but that it will evolve into universal basic products and services. Basic stuff you don't have to pay for, like for example food and public transport and in time expand to shelter, all levels of education, etc. To the point of covering all the basic needs.

We need to tax the wealthy fucks first. The hyperclass has too much wealth that is just sitting around doing nothing but influencing the world negatively. With the existing wealth inequality, UBI won't even be financed.

#TaxWealth #TaxWealthNotWork

Probably, unless we backslide into Dune-esque feudalism, destroy ourselves, or both.

What we have right now is "democracy and equality before the law, but also your wealth at birth determines your access to everything". That seems more like a transition state, and less like a stable and self-perpetuating way of organising things. Plus, gen Z is eventually going to generate world leaders of it's own, and within that group, the basic idea of abolishing class is already really popular.

A different kind of program could do the same job of keeping people from falling off the bottom of the wealth spectrum. But, UBI is simple and thorough and beloved by policy wonks everywhere. It's not going to be whatever ill-defined USSR imitation thing Lemmy would prefer, for a number of reasons, starting with it's just so ill-defined.

but given the layoffs happening and massive amount of unemployment

Since we're talking about the world, it's worth pointing out that's mainly the US. Canada has been doing fine (obviously things are going to be rockier ahead). The rest of the world is going to be a mixed bag, but at the very least Ukraine isn't going to have a shortage of empty positions.

I don't think so.

No UBI proponent has given me a convincing argument that ~~inflation~~ greedy bastards won't eventually increase prices to the extent that the extra money would be effectively wiped out. Which would be especially bad because people often propose UBI as a replacement for welfare - so those on a benefit get what little spending power they have eliminated, and only those with jobs can absorb the increased costs.

Also, governments don't tend to go around handing out money (well, to those who actually need it) willy-nilly. Most social welfare/workers' rights gains in the 20th century were because western governments were afraid that the October Revolution might give their citizens ideas. As of now, there's no longer threat of an alternative to Capitalism.

When the whole world is converted into a factory to produce luxuries for the wealthy, and community is a far-off relic of the past, the laborers will be provided with basic subsistence, just enough to keep them alive and able to work. Or they'll be replaced with automation. Whichever is cheaper.

We're 30% there already, between long term unemployed and people on social security. I support more. Human rights include food, shelter, healthcare, but not everyone has figured that out yet.

I really like UBI and think it would work wonderfully if it was somehow actually implemented without major bullshit. But I'm not sure it's even possible to implement, because it would make it next to impossible to exploit and control people, which would be really bad for corporate profits. I'm skeptical that capitalist democracy is strong enough to overcome that, I think maybe the way it works is more of a negotiation of power between the factions that actually hold leverage over things, and that it is impossible for that to result in prioritizing the interests of those without leverage, which UBI recipients would ostensibly be. If it looks like everyone is going to vote for UBI despite the best available propaganda against it, maybe the powers that be will just agree amongst themselves that they don't really depend on that group of voters in any critical way, so they'll just shut down or falsify voting and enforce their will with automated violence, because they prioritize maintaining control.

So probably what's needed as a prelude to direct government relief from exploitation is generally increased negotiating power for every person, which won't be a top-down thing for the most part.

No, Americans are hateful people who cannot stand to even see a poor person buy soda with SNAP benefits. They will ensure that those displaced by AI end up begging in the street before receiving a penny from the government.

Well, if things progress as they do, the end state is either feudalism/slavery at one extreme, UBI or something like communism at the other. It will also vary by state, but I would expect oligarchs to want more (even if there is no other endgame) and war (state, corporate, both, or the corps and states cease to be distinct) to follow. Does that ever end in a united earth? I doubt it.