F*** WORK

[Zlaxer]

I think this is going to hit much harder than you think. McCorporation will replace all front line workers with machines - competitors of McCorp. copycat them....unemployed starts to rise over 3-5 yrs....pretty soon populist poloticians are trying to pass laws limiting the amount of automation allowed - McCorp. and Co. challenge in coruts....average joe becomes ward of the state - everyone miserable.

You probably think that because you haven't considered how these corporations and retailers will be affected by the imagined mass unemployment you envision. The story always seems to go "Then EVERYONE is unemployed because EVERYTHING is automated!!!" . . . but the story never explains who is buying everything, when everyone is unemployed.

the 0.1% will own the land, the machines, and the resource rights (outright). They make just what they need and what their 0.1% friends will trade for. Why waste energy on the proles?

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

but the story never explains who is buying everything, when everyone is unemployed.

I think that is exactly what has people concerned. What is the tipping point for consumers falling out of the market really impacting consumer capitalism? Is there one?

Granted, arguing that it is more likely that the problem (if there actually is one) will solve itself than our bumbling government being able to solve it is pretty convincing.

[DBTrek]

the 0.1% will own the land, the machines, and the resource rights (outright). They make just what they need and what their 0.1% friends will trade for. Why waste energy on the proles?

How does UBI avert any of that? If that dystopian future were actually the case, UBI would simply be a stopgap that put everyone onto a single-point-of-failure system that buys the elites the time they need to consolidate everything. Then, thanks to a nation of isolated, self-absorbed, unskilled citizens completely dependent on UBI, you let the system fail.

Even in your own hypothetical dystopia UBI sounds like a really bad idea.

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

I'd really like to read that, but it has to work it's way up the ol' master list.

That being said, it doesn't take much to prove that isolation has a negative impact on humans. Maybe we should stop constantly reminding people who find themselves in need of government assistance how slothful, unproductive, and worthless they are. Can be rather... isolating.

You think it's negative now, you should read about how tribes used to treat their able-bodied but nonproductive members.

They asked them what was bumming them out so much, and then they all tripped balls and invented gods together? I really hope it is that.

Wait... don't spoil it for me, I'll get the book.

[Zlaxer]

the 0.1% will own the land, the machines, and the resource rights (outright). They make just what they need and what their 0.1% friends will trade for. Why waste energy on the proles?

How does UBI avert any of that? If that dystopian future were actually the case, UBI would simply be a stopgap that put everyone onto a single-point-of-failure system that buys the elites the time they need to consolidate everything. Then, thanks to a nation of isolated, self-absorbed, unskilled citizens completely dependent on UBI, you let the system fail.

Even in your own hypothetical dystopia UBI sounds like a really bad idea.

UBI is what keeps the proles from picking up their pitchforks....also, I would like to think the 0.1% gas [img]some[/img] compassion for their fellow man.

[SuburbanFarmer]

the 0.1% will own the land, the machines, and the resource rights (outright). They make just what they need and what their 0.1% friends will trade for. Why waste energy on the proles?

How does UBI avert any of that? If that dystopian future were actually the case, UBI would simply be a stopgap that put everyone onto a single-point-of-failure system that buys the elites the time they need to consolidate everything. Then, thanks to a nation of isolated, self-absorbed, unskilled citizens completely dependent on UBI, you let the system fail.

Even in your own hypothetical dystopia UBI sounds like a really bad idea.

UBI is what keeps the proles from picking up their pitchforks....also, I would like to think the 0.1% gas [img]some[/img] compassion for their fellow man.

Fuck no they don't. But they'll do it anyway, out of self-preservation.

[DBTrek]

UBI is what keeps the proles from picking up their pitchforks.

It also makes them dependent on a single-point-of-failure system over which they have no control, facilitates isolation on levels never before seen, and removes any incentive for obtaining skills from the populace. Meaning in two generations they won't know what a pitchfork is, much less how to pick one up and do anything with it. Added bonus, they won't really know anyone to "mob" with when it's their turn to go.

Bad idea.

[BjornP]

the 0.1% will own the land, the machines, and the resource rights (outright). They make just what they need and what their 0.1% friends will trade for. Why waste energy on the proles?

How does UBI avert any of that? If that dystopian future were actually the case, UBI would simply be a stopgap that put everyone onto a single-point-of-failure system that buys the elites the time they need to consolidate everything. Then, thanks to a nation of isolated, self-absorbed, unskilled citizens completely dependent on UBI, you let the system fail.

Even in your own hypothetical dystopia UBI sounds like a really bad idea.

UBI is what keeps the proles from picking up their pitchforks....also, I would like to think the 0.1% gas [img]some[/img] compassion for their fellow man.

You don't think a welfare system that aims to make citizens proud, make them see themselves as people who can accomplish things with a little help and a nudge them toward independence, is a citizenship less likely to pick up pitchforks? Does a government that simply gives you a check, but otherwise doesn't really give a shit about you and what you do with your life for the rest of your life, a government - hell a society - that you would feel any sort of allegience, kinship, loyalty or respect for? It seems like a government more deeply seperated from that whole "for/by/of the people" aspect of the US.

[Fife]

If you read Tribe by Sebastian Junger I suspect it will open your eyes to the detrimental effects of creating a society of isolated, non-productive, people. It negatively impacts human psychology, functional social structure, empathy, and results in soaring suicide rates and mental illness.

Lots of bad juju in making human beings expensive pets of the state.
Lots of bad juju in curtailing people's ability to contribute back to their society.
Lots of bad juju in facilitating and promoting isolation.

True true dat. Let's go back to some simple points I made as an actual argument, two months ago. viewtopic.php?p=67968#p67968

UBI fanbois, here's a quick and easy to understand argument you can attack, point-by-point. Have at it, brohams.

Also, to re-state, I think the threat of moral injury is the greatest risk. The state-based "solution" to the "problem" is going to lead to poverty, pain, and death.

+1 (except for the UBI part; and any coercive profit-sharing as ersatz minimum wage)

Very (small-l) libertarian (gasp).

:goteam:

What's your solution to automation if not ubi?

There are a number of "solutions," I suppose. I'll take the Zen approach of doing nothing over a UBI any old day, just because UBI is easy for me to scrap.

First, what is the legal authority for UBI? Seems like a simply academic discussion unless there is some IRL legitimate way to implement such a program.

Second, the Luddite reflexive position regarding automation is contrary to history and observable human behavior. Automation creates more products, not more leisure time. As much as starry-eyed dreamers have loved to wax poetic about grown ups sitting around singing folk songs all day for centuries, it turns out people would rather have pick-up trucks, cheeseburgers, clean drinking water, computers, iPhones, and medication.

Third, is working a moral burden? (what's wrong with requiring people to work for their supper rather than raiding your fridge?) And is an unconditional income something that able-bodied people morally deserve?

I think the threat of moral injury is the greatest risk. Economically, I don't know that much would change, at the bottom line. But I don't see taking Generation Z and turning it into a nation of video gamers 24/7 is doing them much of a favor. (Also, want to see what REAL income inequality looks like? Just wait until there is a default UBI.)

[Zlaxer]

Does a government that simply gives you a check, but otherwise doesn't really give a shit about you and what you do with your life for the rest of your life, a government - hell a society...

Yes - what's better - a little bit of chemo or a lot of chemo? - the less a government interacts with the individual the better. And a government should not be a "society."


Silly Europeans and their infatuation with government.