Automation, in the case of UBI, would mean that the productivity gain would translate into less hour worked, with a minimum guaranteed revenue every month/year.
The reality is that automation efficiency is going straight into capitalists pockets. And people having a bigger workload for the same amount of money as before.
Without a societal shift, automation is not for the benefits of the general populace.
Automation, in the case of UBI, would mean that the productivity gain would translate into less hour worked, with a minimum guaranteed revenue every month/year.
That is a typical answer I get to my question. It fully contains the philosophy that automation gains will somehow be funneled into state coffers or UBI initiatives but its completely missing in any substance about how that translates into reality.
The reality is that automation efficiency is going straight into capitalists pockets. And people having a bigger workload for the same amount of money as before.
I gave an example with Jim above. At the end, Jim is out of work, and the organization has gained money because they aren’t paying Jim, and their automation is doing the work now. Does your actual implementation of your philosophy attempt to tax or clawback some of what Jim was being paid? If so, how and against what metrics? Alternatively, do you propose that what pays the UBI is completely divorced from what the organization earns or pays?
Capitalism as it is applied today is incompatible with any kind of increase in quality of life for the general population and any efficiency gain is pocketed by the richs, and the different branches of the government are captured in pretty much every country in the world.
In a fairer world, companies would be highly taxed. To reduce the taxation burden, companies would need to invest in R&D, employees compensation and community building/support, which would include a UBI of some sort. Companies could still generate profit, but not in the absurd amount that we are seeing today.
In that context, automation would be a no brainer.
But I genuinely believe that UBI or anything similar will not happen in my lifetime because rich people’s influence is too strong and the common person will vote against their interests because of the constant barrage of propaganda.
I appreciate you taking about some general approaches you would like to see for your vision of UBI, but I’m still not seeing much actual application of what would happen for Jim, or his prior employer.
To talk specifics I’m seeing we could do it from one of two periods of time:
UBI is just being implemented so its all new to everyone
UBI has been fulling implemented
Each will have their own challenges and problems, so I want you to choose the best situation for your scenario. I’m trying to set you up for success in this conversation, because I want it to work too. However, I have yet to see a complete picture which I can see working.
I’m guessing you’d like to work through this scenario in an example where your version of UBI is fully implemented and how it works for Jim in that siutation. Can we go from there?
I have a different idea. The government should provide a jobs guarantee. There are plenty of things that need to be fixed in this country, and Jim can apply whatever skills he has to fixing some of them.
That would be a separate approach apart from mitigation against automation as @[email protected] suggested. Its also separate from the UBI approach that [email protected] suggested. This third approach of a government jobs guarantee could certainly dive into, but that doesn’t address the two other incomplete approaches provided so far.
Automation, in the case of UBI, would mean that the productivity gain would translate into less hour worked, with a minimum guaranteed revenue every month/year.
The reality is that automation efficiency is going straight into capitalists pockets. And people having a bigger workload for the same amount of money as before.
Without a societal shift, automation is not for the benefits of the general populace.
That is a typical answer I get to my question. It fully contains the philosophy that automation gains will somehow be funneled into state coffers or UBI initiatives but its completely missing in any substance about how that translates into reality.
I gave an example with Jim above. At the end, Jim is out of work, and the organization has gained money because they aren’t paying Jim, and their automation is doing the work now. Does your actual implementation of your philosophy attempt to tax or clawback some of what Jim was being paid? If so, how and against what metrics? Alternatively, do you propose that what pays the UBI is completely divorced from what the organization earns or pays?
I wasn’t the original OP.
Capitalism as it is applied today is incompatible with any kind of increase in quality of life for the general population and any efficiency gain is pocketed by the richs, and the different branches of the government are captured in pretty much every country in the world.
In a fairer world, companies would be highly taxed. To reduce the taxation burden, companies would need to invest in R&D, employees compensation and community building/support, which would include a UBI of some sort. Companies could still generate profit, but not in the absurd amount that we are seeing today.
In that context, automation would be a no brainer.
But I genuinely believe that UBI or anything similar will not happen in my lifetime because rich people’s influence is too strong and the common person will vote against their interests because of the constant barrage of propaganda.
I appreciate you taking about some general approaches you would like to see for your vision of UBI, but I’m still not seeing much actual application of what would happen for Jim, or his prior employer.
To talk specifics I’m seeing we could do it from one of two periods of time:
Each will have their own challenges and problems, so I want you to choose the best situation for your scenario. I’m trying to set you up for success in this conversation, because I want it to work too. However, I have yet to see a complete picture which I can see working.
I’m guessing you’d like to work through this scenario in an example where your version of UBI is fully implemented and how it works for Jim in that siutation. Can we go from there?
I have a different idea. The government should provide a jobs guarantee. There are plenty of things that need to be fixed in this country, and Jim can apply whatever skills he has to fixing some of them.
That would be a separate approach apart from mitigation against automation as @[email protected] suggested. Its also separate from the UBI approach that [email protected] suggested. This third approach of a government jobs guarantee could certainly dive into, but that doesn’t address the two other incomplete approaches provided so far.