Topic: Universal Basic Income

[Gnurglan]

Your example only works if everyone gets a silly amount though and it also ignores other mechanisms which may prevent prices rises.

If everyone gets £12k UBI then that won’t cause people to rush out and spend spend spend. Some will stop working. Some will work less. It won’t make anyone rich. No one is buying Ferrari’s off the back of it.

Yes it will increase demand for certain goods, which has the ability to see the prices rise for those goods if demand outstrips supply. However it’s likely supply will be fine for the vast majority of everyday items and where it isn’t it will be increased.

You also have to consider that innovation will occur as people have the ability to take risks. As will entrepreneurship. All of which can drive prices down.

If you give UBI to selected groups I agree they will benefit. This group of people would get some extra safety and could buy new things, work less etc. They could take more risk as an effect. They'd win the lottery and they'd like it.

But if the majority of the people gets UBI, I don't think you will see a lasting positive effect. That's when food, electricity etc would go up as I mentioned.

My Ferrari example was extreme for a reason. It shows who would benefit (the early spenders), that anyone late would not have a chance to get the same deal and it shows the effects on savings. In reality the sums (say 12k) would be much smaller but the effects would be there. It wouldn't be seen in the Ferrari store, but in your local shop.

The opposite is what's happened with the wealth gap increase. The rich have become richer. That may well have been seen in that Ferrari store, but not in your local shop. I believe that's why people draw the conclusion we won't have any inflation if we introduce UBI.

[Sudden Death Draft Loser]

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2242937-universal-basic-income-seems-to-improve-employment-and-well-being/?fbclid=IwAR1kDJQI7KDxb4NXuZ0wqia0DRZKVcuBr-8LO_CF8e5r7Az9TBJhzmniD8A

[Gnurglan]

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2242937-universal-basic-income-seems-to-improve-employment-and-well-being/?fbclid=IwAR1kDJQI7KDxb4NXuZ0wqia0DRZKVcuBr-8LO_CF8e5r7Az9TBJhzmniD8A

I think it says something of how more purchasing power improves people's lives, but not much about UBI as a concept. Any person with a normal life would love to get some extra money (UBI). Naturally they are better off than those who don't get any extra. But if everyone gets UBI I think there would be no benefit. For it to mean something it needs to increase your purchasing power.

[CraigDS]

If you give UBI to selected groups I agree they will benefit. This group of people would get some extra safety and could buy new things, work less etc. They could take more risk as an effect. They'd win the lottery and they'd like it.

But if the majority of the people gets UBI, I don't think you will see a lasting positive effect. That's when food, electricity etc would go up as I mentioned.

My Ferrari example was extreme for a reason. It shows who would benefit (the early spenders), that anyone late would not have a chance to get the same deal and it shows the effects on savings. In reality the sums (say 12k) would be much smaller but the effects would be there. It wouldn't be seen in the Ferrari store, but in your local shop.

The opposite is what's happened with the wealth gap increase. The rich have become richer. That may well have been seen in that Ferrari store, but not in your local shop. I believe that's why people draw the conclusion we won't have any inflation if we introduce UBI.

You made the Ferrari example because it only works using an extreme like that - it's a product which is in limited supply which cannot be easily increased (and likely they'd not want to as part of the draw of a super car is their limited supply).

Unless food, electricity, etc. becomes scarce and/or the supply not easily increased then there would not be an increase in prices, and there are (as I explained) many reasons why they may in fact drop.

[Gnurglan]

Unless food, electricity, etc. becomes scarce and/or the supply not easily increased then there would not be an increase in prices, and there are (as I explained) many reasons why they may in fact drop.

It's the increased supply that I doubt. The way I see it no extra food (as an example) is being produced if we just give people more money. It's when you find a better way to produce food that prices will drop. That comes from an increase in productivity. In that case no UBI is needed for anyone to improve purchasing power.

But while I doubt it, let's say prices on food, electricity and other basic needs were to stay flat. People who have been getting by finally get some extra money. What do they do with it? How would this help people become more productive?

[Red-Soldier]

It's the increased supply that I doubt. The way I see it no extra food (as an example) is being produced if we just give people more money. It's when you find a better way to produce food that prices will drop. That comes from an increase in productivity. In that case no UBI is needed for anyone to improve purchasing power.

But while I doubt it, let's say prices on food, electricity and other basic needs were to stay flat. People who have been getting by finally get some extra money. What do they do with it? How would this help people become more productive?

What do you mean productive???

Do you mean happier??? 

Here's a few examples:

Spending less time worrying about just making ends meet, feeding themselves, kids etc.  Paying biils, mortgage/rent.  Feeling more secure in their home.  Being able to spend more time with friends and family, walking, cycling, etc.  Going to the cinema, for a meal, taking up a craft. 

You seem to be well off-sink as to what's important in life.

[Elmo!]

It's the increased supply that I doubt. The way I see it no extra food (as an example) is being produced if we just give people more money. It's when you find a better way to produce food that prices will drop. That comes from an increase in productivity. In that case no UBI is needed for anyone to improve purchasing power.

But while I doubt it, let's say prices on food, electricity and other basic needs were to stay flat. People who have been getting by finally get some extra money. What do they do with it? How would this help people become more productive?

That's missing the point. The main driver for introducing UBI is to maintain society when AI and automation has increased prodcutivity to the point people don't need to be (as) productive themselves.

[Jiminy Cricket]

That's missing the point. The main driver for introducing UBI is to maintain society when AI and automation has increased prodcutivity to the point people don't need to be (as) productive themselves.

Exactly. The expectation is that increased automation and AI will vastly increase productivity. And with that, less work required from the population as a whole. Obviously, we cannot have few people working, earning fortunes and the rest starve. So, we probably should expect fewer people working at any given; those working, working fewer hours; able to take time for education and reeducation; and people more easily able to drift in and our of work according to their needs and what's available.

Of course there are huge unknowns. But the reason why UBI is being considered is because the existing paradigm is probably unsustainable. Something must give - hopefully not in a way which causes damage to too many people.

[Gnurglan]

What do you mean productive???

Do you mean happier??? 

Here's a few examples:

Spending less time worrying about just making ends mate, feeding themselves, kids etc.  Paying biils, mortgage/rent.  Feeling more secure in their home.  Being able to spend more time with friends and family, walking, cycling, etc.  Going to the cinema, for a meal, taking up a craft. 

You seem to be well off-sink as to what's important in life.

Look, my argument is that if everyone gets an extra sum of money it won't improve people's lives. Because prices will adjust. You won't get better purchasing power. I have stated above that if a group of people gets UBI and others don't, then of course those who gets UBI will get an improvement. For them it's like winning some money on the lottery or like getting a pay increase. Such a group would get new opportunities. But if everyone gets the same sum of money it's no longer a benefit.

A better way to improve people's lives is to produce things cheaper. That makes prices go down.

[CraigDS]

You’re totally incorrect about prices though. It just wouldn’t work that way for products which are not in short supply or where production is able to be increased. Food and electricity are certainly not in short supply.

[Gnurglan]

That's missing the point. The main driver for introducing UBI is to maintain society when AI and automation has increased prodcutivity to the point people don't need to be (as) productive themselves.

OK, then we would get the productivity and cheaper prices. What I would argue is that when we see big changes in society people adapt. Go back 200 years and more or less everyone was a farmer. Farmers then got more productive, less people had to produce food and could work elsewhere. So people began to work in factories. Those became more efficient and people moved to the service sector etc. I think we will find new jobs in the future too. It's almost impossible to see where those jobs will appear, but that's always the case.

Personally I think we are likely to get UBI, but the main driver is not AI. It's failing policies resulting in a bigger wealth gap. To paper over this, money needs to be given to the people as well. Like the stimulus checks in the US.

[Gnurglan]

Exactly. The expectation is that increased automation and AI will vastly increase productivity. And with that, less work required from the population as a whole. Obviously, we cannot have few people working, earning fortunes and the rest starve. So, we probably should expect fewer people working at any given; those working, working fewer hours; able to take time for education and reeducation; and people more easily able to drift in and our of work according to their needs and what's available.

Of course there are huge unknowns. But the reason why UBI is being considered is because the existing paradigm is probably unsustainable. Something must give - hopefully not in a way which causes damage to too many people.

We are not there yet with AI. But I am with you that something needs to give and I don't think it will be pleasant. As I have mentioned, I believe UBI will lead to inflation. (If we are talking UBI to the majority of the people.) That inflation will hurt people’s purchasing power. You will have more money in your pocket, but you will be able to buy less for it. It's still a desired scenario for some. Just listen to how inflation is talked about. It's a problem we can't hit the inflation target.

Add the failed policies that have widened the wealth gap. The people need to get their share too. Soon they'll demand it. Add the debt problem. Inflation is a way out. UBI fits with all of it.

[Jiminy Cricket]

We are not there yet with AI. But I am with you that something needs to give and I don't think it will be pleasant. As I have mentioned, I believe UBI will lead to inflation. (If we are talking UBI to the majority of the people.) That inflation will hurt people’s purchasing power. You will have more money in your pocket, but you will be able to buy less for it. It's still a desired scenario for some. Just listen to how inflation is talked about. It's a problem we can't hit the inflation target.

Add the failed policies that have widened the wealth gap. The people need to get their share too. Soon they'll demand it. Add the debt problem. Inflation is a way out. UBI fits with all of it.

There are continuing developments in AI. There is no good reason to suppose that it will slow down anytime soon. How far it will go is more of an open question. But AI being involved in automation and services seems likely - this will vastly increase productivity and and exert large downward pressure on prices.

It is a similar situation with increased automation: much more of it, increasing productivity and driving down prices. Apart from more of it, it will be increasingly controlled by AI. These two things, separately, and more, in tandem, will drive down prices. And if the economics of this are to work, most people will need to be able to buy the products. You see, past industrialisation exerted pressure upon society to develop more equitable societies (in those countries which went through such development). Without large numbers of people able to afford the newly available products, the products would not have been developed and manufactured - they go in tandem - they must! This is something which I rarely see touched upon (if ever). It is the same now and in the near future. Those societies with highly developed manufacturing and automation necessarily develop ways distribute wealth as the other side of the coin.

What I am struggling more to answer for myself is what will happen in the developing world? Especially if we factor in climate change. I am in no doubt the impact of automation (and AI) and climate change upon the world as a whole is resolvable; but I am far, far less sure that there is sufficient will to mitigate against the worst of it.

[Gnurglan]

There are continuing developments in AI. There is no good reason to suppose that it will slow down anytime soon. How far it will go is more of an open question. But AI being involved in automation and services seems likely - this will vastly increase productivity and and exert large downward pressure on prices.

It is a similar situation with increased automation: much more of it, increasing productivity and driving down prices. Apart from more of it, it will be increasingly controlled by AI. These two things, separately, and more, in tandem, will drive down prices. And if the economics of this are to work, most people will need to be able to buy the products. You see, past industrialisation exerted pressure upon society to develop more equitable societies (in those countries which went through such development). Without large numbers of people able to afford the newly available products, the products would not have been developed and manufactured - they go in tandem - they must! This is something which I rarely see touched upon (if ever). It is the same now and in the near future. Those societies with highly developed manufacturing and automation necessarily develop ways distribute wealth as the other side of the coin.

What I am struggling more to answer for myself is what will happen in the developing world? Especially if we factor in climate change. I am in no doubt the impact of automation (and AI) and climate change upon the world as a whole is resolvable; but I am far, far less sure that there is sufficient will to mitigate against the worst of it.

Agree we will see more AI and improvements in productivity are welcome. It's how we advance. It's hard to imagine what the outcome for society will be as AI grows. It's something we will learn to live with. If it's an extreme shift we're facing then I think we'll see something similar as we saw when people were farmers. We got improvements in productivity and society changed and people started working in factories. 80% farmers became 3% farmers in relatively short time. This time we may go down to 3% of the people working in factories, but I believe people will find new sectors to work in. That's how I hope and think people will be able to get an income. We can all try and guess which sectors that will be, but we will probably be more wrong than right.

[Jiminy Cricket]

Agree we will see more AI and improvements in productivity are welcome. It's how we advance. It's hard to imagine what the outcome for society will be as AI grows. It's something we will learn to live with. If it's an extreme shift we're facing then I think we'll see something similar as we saw when people were farmers. We got improvements in productivity and society changed and people started working in factories. 80% farmers became 3% farmers in relatively short time. This time we may go down to 3% of the people working in factories, but I believe people will find new sectors to work in. That's how I hope and think people will be able to get an income. We can all try and guess which sectors that will be, but we will probably be more wrong than right.

What new sectors? AI is largely self-developing. Indeed, the code generated by machine-learning systems is impenetrable. It cannot be debugged. It is expected, feared, or certainly anticipated that AI systems will reach so-called singularity, where they truly develop themselves, at ever accelerating rates, and it will be impossible for humans to track and understand it. There are people here who will be better able to explain it than me.

But the point is, there is little room for humans to oversee AI; nor manage automation (which instead will be managed by AI). Even now, AI is involved in such things as the automated creation of contracts. In what new fields do you foresee people working in such a society?

Now, maybe there are unforeseen things which will come into play to slow or halt this development. But right now, this seems to be where we are heading. I would think the two great limiting factors upon such developments and increased recreation time will be climate change and scarcity of raw materials. Though, climate change might reduce (read, cull) the population, reducing some pressure there.

[Gnurglan]

What new sectors? AI is largely self-developing. Indeed, the code generated by machine-learning systems is impenetrable. It cannot be debugged. It is expected, feared, or certainly anticipated that AI systems will reach so-called singularity, where they truly develop themselves, at ever accelerating rates, and it will be impossible for humans to track and understand it. There are people here who will be better able to explain it than me.

But the point is, there is little room for humans to oversee AI; nor manage automation (which instead will be managed by AI). Even now, AI is involved in such things as the automated creation of contracts. In what new fields do you foresee people working in such a society?

Now, maybe there are unforeseen things which will come into play to slow or halt this development. But right now, this seems to be where we are heading. I would think the two great limiting factors upon such developments and increased recreation time will be climate change and scarcity of raw materials. Though, climate change might reduce (read, cull) the population, reducing some pressure there.

It's hard to say what sectors will give new jobs. But people like to interact with other people. We like to watch football because we don't know what will happen, we get surprised, we get to have a laugh with some friends etc. We like to travel and experience things for ourselves. We like to learn new skills. That tells me we will find ways.

Also, if I look back at my years in various branches of manufacturing, there are so many factors that come into play. People from the outside tend to think a robot could do the job so much quicker. In reality it's been too expensive for even many basic tasks. Things you and I can learn in one minute and then do with our eyes closed if we want to.
I am not saying AI won't be able to help us get better solutions and remove the need for human skills, but the time frame is hard to predict. Big changes tend to take time. The mobile phone was seen as unnecessary for years. Then everyone bought one. Then someone re-invented it and now the original idea (a mobile telephone) may not even be the most important thing with the device. But it’s taken us some decades to get here and for society to adapt.

[Crumble]

People from the outside tend to think a robot could do the job so much quicker. In reality it's been too expensive for even many basic tasks. Things you and I can learn in one minute and then do with our eyes closed if we want to.

The automated car wash is a case in point. For a while, they were springing up everywhere. But now the job is done by armies of people who do it at least as quickly and more efficiently from abandoned filling stations and supermarket car parks, while the remaining carwash machines sit idle.

Just because robots can do something, it doesn't mean that they are the best solution.

Of course when the situation changes and minimum wage car washers are harder to come by because they'd rather do something part-time and indoors to supplement their UBI, car wash machines might come back into vogue again.

[reddebs]

What's Al?

[CraigDS]

What's Al?

Artificial Intelligence.

General gist is that AI (and tech in general) will make automation of a lot of job roles extremely efficient that it no longer makes sense to have human workers.

[reddebs]

Artificial Intelligence.

General gist is that AI (and tech in general) will make automation of a lot of job roles extremely efficient that it no longer makes sense to have human workers.

Thank you.

[ChaChaMooMoo]

How the bloody hell did I not watch this earlier? Andrew Yang talks a lot of sense wrt UBI.

<a href="https://www.youtube.com/v/cTsEzmFamZ8" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" class="bbc_link bbc_flash_disabled new_win">https://www.youtube.com/v/cTsEzmFamZ8</a>

[PaulF]

The automated car wash is a case in point. For a while, they were springing up everywhere. But now the job is done by armies of people who do it at least as quickly and more efficiently from abandoned filling stations and supermarket car parks, while the remaining carwash machines sit idle.

Just because robots can do something, it doesn't mean that they are the best solution.

Of course when the situation changes and minimum wage car washers are harder to come by because they'd rather do something part-time and indoors to supplement their UBI, car wash machines might come back into vogue again.

There's a cash in hand element there too. And the 'fact' that the automated machines damage paintwork.
There must be a next gen car wash around the corner that mimics hand washing .
The problem with that example too is as huge capital expenditure and limited washes.
A machine is probably going to cost £1m , need water and power and maintenance.
At anything like the current car wash price there is a limited pool of cars - especially at night.
Let's say a fiver a wash 12 hrs a day , 365 days a year. That's never a good investment.
If you could guarantee a constant stream of cars 24x7 then maybe it's viable.
Robots are taking over. We might be ok, but I think a lot of our kids will live through an era where lots of jobs disappear.

[PaulF]

I'm still backing the robot barber. Despite everyone disagreeing with me!

[Sudden Death Draft Loser]

Basic income: Wales pilot offers £1,600 a month to care leavers

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-politics-60391462

 

[Nobby Reserve]

Basic income: Wales pilot offers £1,600 a month to care leavers

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-politics-60391462

 

And already a caller into Radio Merseyside this morning was ranting about it.

The crux of his tantrum was: Why should these people get £1,600 a month? His daughter works hard and leaves the house early every morning, and doesn't get that much money. Blah. Blah.

Depressing.

[-Willo-]

And already a caller into Radio Merseyside this morning was ranting about it.

The crux of his tantrum was: Why should these people get £1,600 a month? His daughter works hard and leaves the house early every morning, and doesn't get that much money. Blah. Blah.

Depressing.

Fundamentally most humans don't care if they are suffering, as long as others are suffering with them too.

"My life is shit, so I need to make sure theirs is too".

A lovely example of this is my current job, the accounts department don't get overtime & they constantly complain that others shouldn't get it either so its fair, instead of saying hang on, we should also get it too...

[Joff]

Fundamentally most humans don't care if they are suffering, as long as others are suffering with them too.

"My life is shit, so I need to make sure theirs is too".

A lovely example of this is my current job, the accounts department don't get overtime & they constantly complain that others shouldn't get it either so its fair, instead of saying hang on, we should also get it too...

I'm guilty of this

[PaulF]

I'm instinctively against the idea. But I think if it can be made to work, it could be very effective. We have to accept there will be fraud, but to keep it low level.
Incidentally. Anyone seen Zeb of late?

[PaulF]

--edit--. If ubi is universal. Would we alter minimum wage to take it into account?
And I guess we need to know the aim. It would seem to me to be to make sure nobody is in abject poverty. Maybe it won't /shouldn't affect the vast majority of people. And maybe its purpose is just to. Make sure nobody drowns.

[Crumble]

--edit--. If ubi is universal. Would we alter minimum wage to take it into account?

If UBI is universal, and is enough to survive on, there will no longer be a need for a minimum wage. Or a tax allowance.

[Red-Soldier]

UBI wont work on a funamental level, as it'll just drive up inflation.

However, Universal Basic Services would be very effective, I believe.

[Crumble]

UBI wont work on a funamental level, as it'll just drive up inflation.

Can you show your workings?
When I tried it, I started by assuming a UBI of £350 a week and a flat tax of 50% on every pound of income for everybody, earned or unearned. I found it hard to estimate how many non-jobs would stop being done, and what increases in pay would be needed for all the real jobs that people hate doing. So I gave up. I don't see why it's impossible to find a new balance in the economy though. Economists love doing that sort of thing.

[Elmo!]

UBI wont work on a funamental level, as it'll just drive up inflation.

Only if there is no competition.

[CraigDS]

There have been plenty of research done which suggest inflation won't rise dramatically with UBI, but it definitely hangs on overall fiscal & monetary policies.

[Sudden Death Draft Loser]

“We keep inventing jobs because of this false idea that everybody has to be employed at some kind of drudgery…. He must justify his right to exist.”

https://www.openculture.com/2019/03/buckminster-fuller-on-technology-and-useless-jobs.html

[TepidT2O]

UBI wont work on a funamental level, as it'll just drive up inflation.

However, Universal Basic Services would be very effective, I believe.

Yes, I think I’m with you on this.

However for care leavers for a couple of years, it’s maybe a good way of bridging the disadvantage gap.

I’d pay the same fir any disadvantaged kid whilst they were at university too.

[Commie Bobbie]

And already a caller into Radio Merseyside this morning was ranting about it.

The crux of his tantrum was: Why should these people get £1,600 a month? His daughter works hard and leaves the house early every morning, and doesn't get that much money. Blah. Blah.

Depressing.

Am delighted that this is being trialled out - and it's fitting and appropriate that the first group of people trialling this are a group who haven't been given the best start to life.

Well done, Cymru.

[TSC]

Basic income: Wales pilot offers £1,600 a month to care leavers

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-politics-60391462

 

Well done Wales

[Red-Soldier]

Yes, I think I’m with you on this.

However for care leavers for a couple of years, it’s maybe a good way of bridging the disadvantage gap.

I’d pay the same fir any disadvantaged kid whilst they were at university too.

I agree.

[Mumm-Ra]

I was all for UBI when Andrew Yang was pushing the idea, thought it made perfect sense. But we've had, in the last couple of years in the States, a bit of a preview - billions of Covid relief dollars were dished out to people, and all of a sudden nobody was showing up to work and everything got way more expensive. Still like the idea in theory, it'll be interesting to see how the Wales experiment goes