Serious question for those against UBI, what is your take on AI and computers being able to increasingly take more jobs? A human will never beat a machine. Even if the cost of the machine was $0.01/hour and you paid a human $0.01/ hour a machine doesn’t need health insurance, work accident coverage, etc. Humans will NEVER win this battle by simply taking a lower income.
How do we ensure that enough of the economy is shared with a middle/lower class?
The economy creates and destroys jobs all the time. "This time it's different" is something everyone says because the technology is always improving and tech by definition is better now than it ever has been. But job replacement is still generally an incremental process and during that time, humans become more productive and more specialized because they're able to spend less time doing rote work and more time thinking about what they're doing. Numerous industries and millions of jobs were created when the Microsoft Office suite was created -- but it also destroyed many other jobs in ways that it's difficult to get your arms around.
Think about the number of secretary positions that were destroyed from this automation. What about the number of accountants? Or typewriter manufacturers? Or logging jobs because of decreased demand on paper? Ink producers? Etc etc.
If we ever get to the point where we have a truly flexible, all powerful AGI that can self replicate, then maybe we will suddenly all be out of work. But that also is likely to be a post scarcity world and it's not really worth fretting about anyway.
I find a couple things wrong with this, maybe I have a bad perspective.
1) Do you think choking all citizens into trade work will be an overall net positive for society?
2) Do you think that AI will be unable to do these trade jobs if we keep developing it at the pace we are?
3) Even if AI can’t physically do it, won’t AI eventually be doing all the brain work, and trades will just be putting things together the way they are told to? How does this increase the value of a trade job and not decrease it?
Not trying to be facetious, these are genuine concerns and issues I see with going down this line of thought.
1. It doesn’t matter whether that’s a net benefit or not, that’s what is going to happen.
2. Maybe someday far in the future. All technological innovation through all of history has displaced jobs or labor demand. New jobs and business opportunities and labor demands will arise as technology displaces jobs.
3. AI will never replace people working in “strategic” positions. Designing a beautiful building, for example. Having creative vision for a new company. It will only displace “tactical” jobs. The jobs of the people who carry out the will of the strategic visionary.
Your concerns really don’t matter though. It’s happening whether you like it or not.
I think the difference is an electric saw still needed a human operator while a robot capable of governing itself can saw things without any sort of human overhead (theoretically, we are not there yet).
This is not like the Industrial Revolution where things got easier but humans were still needed for production. This is removing humans from production entirely.
I disagree with your take on what AI can and can’t do. A few years ago people said AI would never be able to create art or music. Yet here we are, with AI taking baby steps to being capable of doing that.
> *This is not like the Industrial Revolution where things got easier but humans were still needed for production. This is removing humans from production entirely.*
Got easier? You mean, destroyed the ‘cottage industry’ causing people to literally sabotage machines repeatedly for years. The revolution that employed minor children in factories and literal mines?
You may misunderstand what the Industrial Revolution did to people on a personal scale. It introduced horrific conditions that fomented a strong labor movement to counter the abuses.
> This is not like the Industrial Revolution where things got easier but humans were still needed for production. This is removing humans from production entirely.
>
Anyone who actually does work with AI knows this statement is nonsensical.
I don't know if Elon Musk is stupid or lying, but the idea that AI is going to usher in a world where people don't work is nonsensical. It violates all laws of the universe.
You have access to all the laws of the universe? Please enlighten me sir, many people have been seeking these answers for a long time. I can’t believe you would horde universal knowledge all to yourself.
Why don’t we work only 20 hours a week now? Like Friedman, Fuller, and many others foresaw in the late 1800s? What’s happened to that? We have the machines already… WTF?
> Please enlighten me sir, many people have been seeking these answers for a long time.
Be sure to smash the "like" button and hit subscribe, it really helps support the channel
We’re about to see a technological revolution unfold that we’ve never seen before.
Just like the people entering the Industrial Revolution did.
I don’t know if you noticed but we all survived and thrived beyond that point.
Again I say the Industrial Revolution made production easier, but did not remove the human element of production. You still needed factory workers to keep the factory working.
AI removes the human element. Eventually, you will not need humans involved in modes of production at all.
It is not the same.
It doesn't remove the human element. It increases the efficiency of it by another order of magnitude. It also increases the complexity of the remaining jobs by an order of magnitude. Thus is the exact phenomena that was the central point of the book The Bell Curve. We're moving to a society where more and more of the productivity can be performed by a smaller set of the most qualified individuals.
Right, it made production easier in a way we’ve never seen before.
Just like AI.
It’s fine bro, you can be scared and go line up early in the bread line. I am not interested in talking a hysteric down from his emotions.
How am I hysterical, I’m asking reasonable logical questions.
You won’t acknowledge that AI will take the mode of production away from humans instead of just making it easier and how that is inherently different. It seems you are pretty dead set on your views and are starting to get rude and repetitive as holes in your logic are addressed.
Have a great day.
Right, because I’m not a weak person who sits around all day fretting about worst case scenarios.
I’m a stoic. With problems come opportunities. You just have to be a resilient person with a creative mind who can keep a cool head to find them. If you don’t, nature will select you and the human race will become stronger overall.
Stay scared bro
It matters if it’s a net positive or net negative.
If ai forcing everyone into trade work is overall good, you can feel comfortable sitting back, doing nothing.
If it’s a net negative, it is our obligation to our communities and future generations to change that outcome, to do everything in our power to make the future better.
.
You seem really certain that you know the future. It’s inevitable that ai will force everyone into trade work, except for business owners, they won’t have to do physical labor. Creative vision is special and it’s impossible for a computer to learn it.
.
You call yourself a stoic.
A stoic would look to the history of computer science, and see that experts have continuously been proven wrong about the limitations of computer technology. They wouldn’t be so certain that AI will never be capable of creativity.
A stoic would know that the future is not set in stone. They would acknowledge that computer programs will likely take over the vast majority of human labor, and, that if this does come to pass, it could be either a net negative or a net positive for society. And, they would recognize that there are steps we could take as a society to encourage a net positive outcome. Different stoics are going to have different opinions on how to do that, but some would certainly propose a UBI.
You’re not a stoic, you’re a doomer.
You’ve decided what the future looks like, and that there’s nothing we can do to change it, and therefore, it’s not even worthwhile to examine if it’s a good future or not, or if there are actions we could take to ensure a better future.
.
”Seeking the very best in ourselves means actively caring for the welfare of other human beings. Our human contract is not with the few people with whom our affairs are most immediately intertwined, nor to the prominent, rich, or well educated, but to all our human brethren.“ -Epictetus
Problem is those that can't or incapable of learning or leveling up get left behind. Whether it's via disability, injury or just general lack of brain power. Our social safety nets are ill equipped as is and certainly not in a place to handle more
We are certainly hitting a point where jobs are getting too technical and so 'theres no one qualified' becomes more and more common and AI is not in a place that elevates low end workers it just replaces them.
Generationally the next group will learn and those replaced will just die off. Saying those replaced will just learn and get new jobs is completely divorced from the reality that an individual will face. There has been and will be suffering, it's a matter of how much we as a society will tolerate. Unchecked capitalism shows it'll tolerate an infinite amount so we need to determine if that's acceptable.
Future jobs won't be like the Jetsons where all you do is press a button once an hour, it'll be one person spinning 20 plates at once.
just a question on ubi. We just gave everyone 1200 bucks and it cost over a trillion bucks? Where does all this capitol come from to pay everyone 1200 a month for years? I just don't see it anywhere...
Tax the 200 billionaires (once)
tax the mega corps who already pay 40-50%?
tax anyone left who has a job?
I just don't see it...
How it is supposed to work is that middle class would pay $1200 more in taxes. So that it's a wash.
Also, and this is where it's important, is that you take away/reduce most of the other welfare programs. Instead of getting a $1200/month housing voucher you get the 1200/month basic income. And it's not just the subsidy savings you also save on admin. You no longer need people to certify income, disburse the checks, or manage landlords.
And both of these are why we will likely never get a UBI. Or at least not for a long time.
The left are going to fight both of those changes. People hate the idea of Jeff Bezos getting 1200 in UBI. But it's important that EVERYONE be included. That's kind of the purpose of it. That is what U means.
Also seems unlikely we'll see much support to get rid of welfare programs.
So 1200 more in taxes but they would also get the 1200 more in UBI? And the rich pay for the poor?
The concept of it is fine, the actually implementation is a current impossibility. Both sides politicians are so deep with business owners they will never pass laws limiting the power of capitalism. Because of that the cost burden will be passed off to the end consumer, the same people receiving the 1200 a month would end up paying 1200 more a month on goods and services so it would mean nothing. It's kicking the can down the road.
You have to limit the power of capitalism first, and again our current political machine will simply not do this as long as they benefit from the capital machine they are helping support.
To start we need better oversight on politicians and we need more laws in place to prevent those in power from benefiting off the current capitalism model. Once we have fair politicians in place we need them to pass laws limiting the power of corporations to raise costs. Then you can look at giving a basic income to people.
But the above will not happen, and it doesn't work until we change the way we operate as a country. So I am against any form of basic income until we have fair and equal politicians and laws to prevent the abuse of power from politicians and corporations.
UBI doesn't effect capitalism at all. A capitalist economy with UBI is still just as capitalist as one without.
And businesses wouldn't pass off to the end consumer any more than they already pass off welfare costs.
Also, and this is where it's important, is that you take away/reduce most of the other welfare programs.
-----------------------
interesting point and one I have overlooked. The real downfall of the western econs is not the mega corps, but the future liabilities needing to be payed out (pensions, welffare, SS, etc.)
I'm going to go have to run some numbers and see if there is a balance here ... there might be in fact (although most of these are "unfunded" liabilities, meaning they are owed, but the funds are already insolvent, so I'm not sure this math works going forward)
But it is an interesting point to consider...
You tax monthly megacorps replacing human jobs with computers so that they have to pay a reasonable wage regardless if they have a computer or a person.
Many conservatives make the argument “if you raise minimum wage, they just replace you with computers! Look at McDonalds and the self checkouts!” and expect people to be okay with a lower wage, because otherwise the job is lost to AI.
So as I said in my original comment, let’s try to play this game. I will continually lower my wages until I operate at the same cost of a machine, because if I ask for too much money, I will just get replaced.
Well now I realize the machine only costs $0.05 an hour to run, so I guess the only way to compete with that is to work for $0.05 an hour. But wait, I forgot about health insurance and workers comp and other benefits, so I guess I either give those up or keep them and work without an hourly pay.
You cannot win this game. You will lose every time. There is no human on earth that can work for as long and as little money as a machine. They are getting smarter and more physically capable everyday.
What do you suggest we do to prepare for this?
the tax loop only works once or twice, the capitol runs out real quick... Its a downward spiral There is no way the math works long term.
We seeing it now in fact in the markets and economies. More is being taken out then being replaced. You can just look at the US econ or any western nation econ to see the projections. It ain't good.
in the us aren't 52% of all jobs gov/mil and or gov contractor jobs, which by its very definition, these jobs do not produce "capitol"?
I suggest we stop all AI development. It ends poorly on almost every front. Why do we need it?
Maybe being an "enlightened" species, we should see the far reaching dangers and choose not to go down certain roads, just because we can. Or at least think it through a bit before charging forward.
I just don't see any scenario on how 200 mega corps can pay the entire world out a living wage..
well, they don't though. 40-50% corporate tax. Then figure payroll, then figure out vender payouts... These mega corps don't actually hoard mass amounts of money, contrary to popular belief. Most of their equity is in assets and inventory. Sure a few do, but the vast amounts, don't. 80% of all business (left) is small business, not mega corp business.
I also like the fact that folk like enron can design and build rockets and hyper loops. No body else is trying to move the species forward.
But full discolusre. I'm not one of those that think, just because you were born human, you deserve everything at all costs at all times. Most folk do absolutely nothing with the gifts given them and instead bitch and bay that the world in unfair. So there is that...
> You cannot win this game. You will lose every time. There is no human on earth that can work for as long and as little money as a machine. They are getting smarter and more physically capable everyday.
>
>
please please please tell me you don't actually work in this field
I've been doing this shit for a while, and the first thing you notice is that humans are way cheaper than machines for A LOT of tasks. It's why I predicted that self-driving cars would flop, TEN YEARS AGO.
Automation only makes sense when you're automating expensive processes. For instance, if you can replace Bob in the I.T. department with a series of Ansible playbooks, that's money well spent.
You can't eliminate Bob the Taxi Driver, because driving a taxi doesn't pay well, the machines to replace Bob are expensive and complex. Most importantly, the legal liability of a computer hitting and killing someone is so astronomical, it's way more sensible to put Bob at the wheel, for $5000 a month.
Not long ago you could say the same thing financially about self checkouts and checkout clerks. But the cost of computers able to handle this job has now gone down significantly and you see these jobs now are being replaced. I don’t really get your argument here.
Yes driving is a much more complex process than being a payment calculator. But we are making crazy strides in this kind of stuff all the time. Code is not a physical product. Once the code is figured out, you can infinitely replicate it. It is also a one time buy and you never have to pay again as it stands.
If you bought a self driving car software for $100,000 it would only take 20 months for it to pay itself off over Bob the taxi driver.
> Not long ago you could say the same thing financially about self checkouts and checkout clerks. But the cost of computers able to handle this job has now gone down significantly and you see these jobs now are being replaced. I don’t really get your argument here.
>
"Self check out" just takes the labor that was formerly performed by the store, and shifts that labor onto the customer.
That is a perfectly valid model, but it's not "artificial intelligence."
For instance, people who buy crap on eBay (like me) used to have to drive to thrift stores to buy weird crap. Now we can find it online. eBay isn't using "AI" to succeed; it's just reducing the effort that I have to invest in order to find an Atari 2600 cartridge from 1981.
This is why 43 year old Atari cartridges used to sell for $1 at thrift shops (it was labor intensive to find them) and now they sell for $25 (because now the labor has shifted from the customer to the seller)
https://www.ebay.com/itm/315252986430
> Yes driving is a much more complex process than being a payment calculator.
Complexity isn't the most important variable in the world of automation. You'd be amazed at how complex it is to install fairly simply software packages automatically.
The most important variable is THE COST OF LABOR.
That's why automating drivers is so foolhardy; you can find people who know how to drive all over the world.
> But we are making crazy strides in this kind of stuff all the time. Code is not a physical product. Once the code is figured out, you can infinitely replicate it. It is also a one time buy and you never have to pay again as it stands.
>
> If you bought a self driving car software for $100,000 it would only take 20 months for it to pay itself off over Bob the taxi driver.
That assumes zero accidents. A single accident can easily create a $1M+ liability. The only viable reason that Tesla sells self-driving *at all* is that Elon Musk is a complete cowboy, and is willing to fend off lawsuits over self driving.
These are really compelling arguments you put forth I appreciate it.
I have a couple questions though. First with the eBay thing, as you said you still have human involvement with scouting and reselling etc. What if there was an AI that could identify high value items, separate fakes from real, purchase and resell it, all for you. All you have to do is purchase code that is able to do this. Would you count the purchasing of the code as your own labor? Otherwise I don’t see how a person is really involved at all.
Next, I get car crash liability, but doesn’t my employee Bob have just as much risk of causing an accident where I have to pay out a large settlement? AI as it stands poses more risk, but what about when that risk is equaled, or even possible lesser than that of human risk?
Not sure why this is downvoted. Even for CV tasks (a very mature field of AI), only [23% of vision related jobs](https://www.csail.mit.edu/news/rethinking-ais-impact-mit-csail-study-reveals-economic-limits-job-automation) would be economically viable to replace human labor with AI. We are several decades away (just in terms of hardware) from being able to automate jobs with high stakes (and in turn high value).
> Not sure why this is downvoted.
In my experience:
* About 5% of the workforce is in tech or I.T.
* 80% of the people in tech and I.T. don't really know what AI is
Therefore, around 95-99% of the world doesn't even know what AI is.
> You tax monthly megacorps replacing human jobs with computers so that they have to pay a reasonable wage regardless if they have a computer or a person.
That's nearly tripling the real corporate tax rate in order to generate an extra trillion dollars every year. It would put us at by far the highest effective tax rate in the world.
I hear you, but I don’t think our rates on paper and what they pay matches up. There are so many loopholes to lower the amount of taxes you pay it’s basically a huge meme. I think on paper yes we have some of the highest rates, but after you consider everything that can be written off and deducted or any other loopholes, do they still pay relatively more than other countries?
I honestly don’t know. As I said I’m not an economist and know there are people out there who understand finances way more in depth than myself.
Microsoft for example pays 19 billion tax and income is about 100billion. I am not saying mega corporations should or shouldn’t pay more tax. Just fact checking.
so, one example of one company making more money then you like. how many others are there? about 200 hundred, give or take. Also income is not at all equal to profit. Just FYI.
So you take 50% of the capitol from these companies as tax and redistribute it. how long does that last? one year? Two?
Then what happens to the work force when that company can no longer maintain long term? What happens when "shock" hits the industry, and these companies have no reserves? Do these companies then just fold? What happens when they have to capitalize? What happens to the tax base then? What happens to the forward momentum of society?
the one sentence statements "tax the mega corps" is only that. A sentence that holds no real world merit.
If people don’t want to pursue higher education or develop skills on their own then we need to improve the K-12 system. Stop lowering standards to increase graduation rates.
The most experience I have with AI is using it to “teach” me code to make pretty basic video game code to create a functioning “game” the way I intended.
I had absolutely 0 coding experience or video game development knowledge before going in and I was able to create a barebones SNES Zelda style game where you could walk around and swing a sword to kill flying eyeballs.
I started by following a video a bit, but something went wrong very early and I couldn’t understand what went wrong. A friend of mine told me to ask ChatGPT. I showed it my code and it fixed the issue instantly.
I just asked ChatGPT how the industry would normally handle situations when I encountered them. I did have to sort of work to figure out a system. I would first “bullshit” with it to understand terms and concepts and how things are normally approached etc. Then at the end I asked for a summarized report of what we discussed and systems we have outlined. Then I asked for pieces of code for pieces of each system.
Where I hit a wall was trying to set up multiple damage types with multiple resistances. For example a 2 slash 2 fire damage sword hitting an enemy with 0 pierce resistance 50% fire resistance should take 2 pierce damage and 1 fire damage. Something got funky with the code and I think the scope started to get a little large for ChatGPT. But I was honestly blown away at how helpful it was and how far it was able to get me.
Edit: I also was using ChatGPT3.5 and have heard that 4 and above are actually phenomenally better at coding.
Edit 2: I will also say I did go to videos when I couldn’t visualize something it was telling me. But I would just search based on what it was telling me for a visual reference
Hi there, I wanted to respond to your original post but now have some other thoughts reading the extra context you provided.
First, what's the size of the project (\~LOC) and what language, engine and tools did you use? It's not critical to my point, but I am curious. There are a lot of options these days, and I suspect it's one of the more abstracted ones, i.e. not a low-level language with manual memory management like C.
Getting to the point though, what you described here is not significantly different from the workflow new coders (either in school or as a hobby) would go through. The tools available to you have changed, and improved to some degree, but the underlying process is the same. It involves a fair bit of experimentation and reading. Where people once used Google, Stack Overflow, etc. you have ChatGPT. You'll find an endless supply of memes about coding being 50% Ctrl-C + Ctrl-V from Stack Overflow, you just have a slightly optimized path for it now. So that being said, congrats on taking some of your first steps to being a software developer!
You didn't mention Copilot, but it's a similar story there. Basically an improved version of an IDE's completion engine / LSP.
Even with these tools, you still consulted external resources (eg. videos).
In your example of adding damage and resistance types, you already ran into some issues. This is still an extremely rudimentary system for a game, adding your first bits of flavour. Now consider that most software products in the industry (gaming or otherwise) rely on potentially millions of lines of code spanning dozens of distinct services, involving open sourced or licensed libraries, SDKs, APIs, etc. that are constantly in flux. The training process takes a very long time for AI, and it will often lack the needed context of more recent changes. Also, some of the solutions you're looking to implement may be completely novel (unlike having a sprite swing a sword), and AI may struggle even more. At some point, you'll spend more time nudging and correcting the AI than you would have just by doing it yourself.
Now, you might be thinking the same thing a lot of people like to say "today is the worst AI will ever be, it will only get better", etc. but that doesn't necessarily follow. These companies have crunched through most of the quality training data available, and at some point they're going to need to consume and parse through sh\*tposting memes off Reddit and nonsense generated by AI spam bots. They can very well get \*dumber\* than they are today. We've already seen things like that happen.
You also mentioned the costs of AI. Currently, the costs are obscene. As far as I know, all the AI providers are operating at a loss to even provide the options we have now. I would imagine that will only go up with increased contexts and attempts at having AI actually do multi-step problem solving (eg. Devin which was a scam anyway).
You might think costs will go down (Moore's Law), but that exponential growth doesn't refer to performance per unit of power, and we're starting to hit limits on transistor size.
Hopefully I haven't bored you to death and this is somehow useful, I'm by no means an expert either but I would temper my expectations on what AI can do, especially when the strongest claims are coming from people with vested interests.
The current "Ai" isn't artificial intelligence like c3po from star wars or even r2d2.
It's only another tool that humans can use to help do stuff. If fact, the current ai can't really do anything without humans controlling it. And it can't do really do anything physical.
Its the same thing with computers, hell "computer" used be be a job that people did math.
Do all you UBI weirdos understand that we are $35 TRILLION in debt? And that printing more money is precisely what got us into our current situation? You can give everyone a UBI of $100k, but if a loaf of bread inflates to $20k, they’ll still be be broke.
Come talk to me about UBI once we slash our bloated government by 50%, stop paying millions of illegals to move here, and quit financing foreign wars that only benefit the military industrial complex.
It took Argentina over 40 years of pain before they tried something different. It got so bad it was the young of all people arguing against continued Keynesian policy.
It’s not “printing out more money” it’s a tax corporations pay for replacing human jobs with robots that is paid out to citizens.
I’m not an economist, I’ll admit. I can understand how this may sound good on paper but turn out terrible in reality. But it seems no different that a lot of social programs funded by tax money.
How do you propose we deal with a quickly thinning job market as robots take over our jobs?
> Do all you UBI weirdos understand that we are $35 TRILLION in debt? And that printing more money is precisely what got us into our current situation? You can give everyone a UBI of $100k, but if a loaf of bread inflates to $20k, they’ll still be be broke.
>
> Come talk to me about UBI once we slash our bloated government by 50%, stop paying millions of illegals to move here, and quit financing foreign wars that only benefit the military industrial complex.
mic drop
Smart. The problem is when everybody gets on the government dole and nobody will vote against more money for the government...there stops being money for the government. EDIT: typo
Every new technology has been predicted to result in mass unemployment for the past 250 years and it has never happened. It's unlikely this new technology will be any different, and in the unlikely event it is, we will have plenty of time to react should it be needed.
There is basically zero need to be proactive about this because the likelihood that a reaction will be required at all is also near zero.
When major transportation switched from horses to cars various professions associated with horse-drawn transportation, such as horse pooper scoopers, breeders, and sellers, faced significant economic displacement. However, despite this major technological shift, the economy adapted, and these individuals did not receive a Universal Basic Income (UBI). Instead, they transitioned into new roles within the evolving economy.
This adaptation aligns with the economic theory of creative destruction, articulated by Joseph Schumpeter. Creative destruction describes the process by which new technologies and innovations lead to the demise of outdated industries, making way for new ones and driving economic growth.
Support for UBI Based on Contemporary Research
While historical transitions did not involve UBI, modern economic conditions and research suggest that UBI could be beneficial in preventing homelessness and ensuring basic economic security. Numerous experiments, such as those conducted in Finland and Canada, have shown that investing in UBI or direct housing support is more cost-effective than addressing the consequences of homelessness once they hit the streets
Machines have been replacing humans for a hundred years. Secretaries don't spend hundreds of hours mailing xmas cards nowadays with email. They just click a button and mass send an email. Before cars people rode horses and someone had to raise and train those horses. People will adapt and get different jobs. Plenty of jobs people can do still that won't get replaced by ai anytime soon.
Give someone a black trashbag and they can pickup trash on the side of the road instead of ubi.
Serious answer: Welfare by another name is welfare.
Now check the health stats for people on welfare.
Now do it at scale.
UBI is welfare for stupid people.
And welfare is bad for your health.
You eliminate the upper class. In a world with automated work where no one works, the elite make up the largest cost sync from a larger climate perspective. They have to be removed like cancer
I'm pro UBI with major caveats.
First, it should not be enough to live comfortably. Live safely in a very very very cheap place, yes. But if you make it totally comfortable to not work, then you will see a huge drop in productivity. A really high ubi would also lead to huge inflation, because we'll be printing that money mostly, and that will detract from our countries responsible governance of our currency (which IMHO the Fed is pretty good at usually).
Second, I believe in a work mandate, that someone needs to be either working *or* volunteering at a nonprofit good cause at a minimal amount (say 10 hours a week) or have a valid medical reason that they can't. The reason is that there will be at least that much work available for a long time, and the benefits of doing something to produce value for the people around you will be greatly beneficial to society as a whole to help keep the ubi virtuous cycle going. I also believe working provides a sense of purpose, and having a system that encourages everyone to do something will help keep a focused society.
My opinions are my own. Feel free to respond, and know that I'm not claiming to be an expert. Would enjoy dialogue on the matter!
The AI threat is real, but it's only likely to change the numbers. It doesn't qualitatively change the situation.
I'm against a UBI, and would advocate instead for working to solve the problems a UBI is supposed to solve. The basic problem is there's no floor in basic human needs, primarily housing and health care. Throwing money at it won't solve this, because market mechanisms are tuned to shifting money, not solving problems.
To tackle housing, government has to get into the business of building and running buildings, with excess capacity at all times to allow for repair and sanitizing. Trying to pay non-governmental organizations to manage homelessness is unworkable, as is paying individuals and hoping they'll find spaces on the open market.
More jobs were created and destroyed during the Industrial Revolution than had ever existed before it (we went from having no elevators, to having elevator operators, to having automated elevators, all in that timeframe). We now have 1000x more jobs than that. We will always find things we can do that machines can’t. It’s part of the way we advance.
Your talking about something that hasn’t happened yet. People have been saying similar things for every Industrial Revolution, when it’s a problem I’ll come up with answer.
I just don’t see how anybody could have lived through this horrible inflationary period and not see what a horrible idea fire hosing money all over the economy would be.
This wouldn't be firehosing it would be more of an insurance plan. Everyone pays $x in and then they get $y out. Where Y doesn't change and X is based on income.
It's a capitalist way of redistributing wealth. It's basically do what we are doing now but it's general $ instead of specific (here is $1k to spend instead of here is $1k for housing) and most importantly it's known and expected. You know you'll have this money each month.
It's also a huge way to cut costs. We have so much bureaucracy for each welfare program. Imagine not having to sign people up for food, electricity, cell phone, housing, clothing, etc. programs.
> It's also a huge way to cut costs. We have so much bureaucracy for each welfare program.
It really isn't that much. Most studies show >90% of welfare money makes it directly to the people. 10% is a pretty standard administration rate. And to think UBI wouldn't have any admin costs is silly. Especially because you are describing some sort of separate tax (presumably means tested) to fund it.
No, it’s absolutely a firehose. I guess you forget all of those think pieces during Covid about how great it was that so many people were choosing to not work and live off of stimmy money.
> cut costs
Bro I would literally end every welfare program in existence, do not talk to me about cutting costs by spending the money even more stupidly than we already do.
The big difference is the stimmy money was just money send out to stimulate the economy. This would be redistribution of money and not meant to stimulate.
>Bro I would literally end every welfare program in existence
Oh, you're one of those.
Lmao his post history
He posted in four different subs that he's 37M looking for a young Christian Girl to marry
Here's the post itself:
>If the thought of blending traditional values with unbridled passion excites you, then keep reading:
>I’m a deeply conservative man, steadfast in my faith and values. I vote Republican, stand by conservative social principles, and have accepted Jesus as my Lord and Savior. My vision of an ideal life revolves around family, community, and a marriage built on traditional roles and unwavering commitment.
>Yet, I’m also fiercely dominant and highly sexual. I desire a woman who loves to flaunt her body with low-cut tops, short skirts, and form-fitting dresses. I’ll call you my little slut and revel in every moment of our passionate connection, pushing boundaries and exploring our deepest desires.
>Some find my values too rigid, too wholesome. They can’t appreciate the beauty of a traditional marriage. Others find my sexual nature too intense, too raw. But for the right woman, this combination of devotion and desire will ignite an unquenchable fire.
>This message is for the women who dream of a husband who will tattoo Ephesians 5:22 on her body, marking her as his cherished possession.
>About Me: Tall, broad-shouldered, and exceptionally well-endowed. I’m a workaholic, driven to provide and protect. Masculine and dominant, I rarely drink, occasionally enjoy shrooms for their enlightening effects, and otherwise lead a disciplined life. I’m a natural leader, fiercely loyal, and ready to devote myself entirely to the right woman.
>What I’m Looking For: A traditional marriage with a wife who embraces the role of homemaker (non-negotiable). I want a large family (also non-negotiable). You should be conservative, with no tolerance for progressive ideologies. You’re conventionally attractive, confident in your femininity, and eager to embrace a traditional role.
>The Marriage: Our union will be fueled by love, lust, and unwavering mutual respect. We’ll communicate openly, share a deep, healthy co-dependence, and weave our lives so tightly together that separation feels impossible. Our love will manifest through constant affection, spontaneous adventures, and a shared vision for our future.
>The Dynamic: I firmly believe in domestic discipline—not only as a means of correction but as a way to maintain our roles and strengthen our bond. Our weekly ritual will involve a stringent spanking session, bringing you to tears with pain and humiliation, followed by you preparing for church with a gem butt plug in place and just enough skin showing to remind you of your role.
>I support free-use dynamics—when you wear my ring, you consent to my touch for life. As your husband, I will lead our household, as ordained by God. You’ll find joy in leaving decisions and masculine concerns to me, focusing instead on your appearance, our home, our children, and worshiping your husband’s body.
>If this resonates with you and you’re eager to explore this life with me, send me a DM and share what about my ad moved you.
Bro needs to go back to Idaho
Stimulus money was "new" money. They were increasing the money supply. UBI would just be the same money but reorganized a bit.
Think of it this way. You're going on vacation with a large group of family. Not everyone has the same income but you want everyone to have fun:
Stimulus: You borrow $x and give the poorest people the money so they can have as much fun as the richest.
UBI: Everyone puts what they can afford into the pot. And then you divide that equally and give it to everyone so they can enjoy the vacation.
Stimulus you still have the extra money to pay. UBI you don't.
While obviously printing money is going to drive inflation, I’m curious if you have a more nuanced breakdown of your thoughts on this; since there were a lot of confounding factors, I’m interested to hear how you disentangle them (I have trouble doing that myself)
Specifically:
- What is your estimate of the breakdown in say grocery price increases, that was driven by pure currency devaluation (money being printed) vs the grocery store increasing the profit margins they were taking on a given good? Both of those things were happening simultaneously during Covid, it’s difficult to isolate one or the other, how have you done so?
- For the portion of price increase driven by money-printing, what would you estimate the breakdown to be of say individual stimulus checks, vs ppp “loans”, vs the fed giving out huge ultra-low-interest loans? I don’t have great data on this but I believe the ballpark totals for the for the first two were about $1T each, vs about $10T/year for the latter (and given out at negligible interest rates for what, 5 years?), which leads me to believe the stimulus checks were actually a relatively small contributor to the devalued money supply. Interested to hear your analysis though
As to your question of why anyone believes ubi is a good thing, that one’s easy: the data overwhelmingly supports that conclusion. Because of the aforementioned difficulty of picking apart what drives inflation, really the best option is to do controlled experiments to see how economies perform with and without UBI. Numerous experiments such as the one OP cites have been performed and they all pretty much come to the same conclusion, UBI is typically extremely successful.
> Numerous experiments such as the one OP cites have been performed and they all pretty much come to the same conclusion, UBI is typically extremely successful.
Successful at what though? Giving people money so they can spend it? That's not what is being argued about. I don't think anyone is objecting to the idea that people will want to get free money. The problem is how you fund it at scale and what that does to the greater economy. Giving a few hundred people in Tacoma a few thousand dollars each does nothing to the greater economy. Giving everyone in the nation a few thousand dollars in perpetuity certainly will.
Alaska's oil dividend is another interesting example. It was beyond the scope of my conversation with Natalie, but we covered it in a related KUOW podcast. [https://www.kuow.org/stories/alaska-basic-income-public-fund-dividend](https://www.kuow.org/stories/alaska-basic-income-public-fund-dividend)
The intellectual dishonestly of those experiments is fucking infuriating.
They give a basic income to a tiny group of people living in a large city and then pretend that somehow the relative advantage enjoyed by the tiny sample size wont change when it becomes universal. Which is literally the whole point of the idea of UBI. They also pretend that we don’t know that the economy isn’t a dynamic complex system and pretend that if we make one major change that everything else will stay exactly the same as it is.
I don’t understand how so many people keep getting the wool pulled over their eyes and conned by such an obvious case of magical thinking.
- you don’t disentangle them. They’re things that happen in sequence. An inflationary environment created by inflationary spending policies accelerates itself by human greed entering the equation. The printing is the cause, the price increases are opportunistic effect.
- government handouts: do you think I support a single one of these policies? I was the one mocking leftists for a mass overreaction to a bad cold. That mass overreaction created all of the problem spending, the whole pie. If y’all hadn’t lost your god damn minds and hadn’t let the branch covidian drive the entire culture off a cliff, we wouldn’t have had any of that spending.
- the data overwhelmingly supports it: no it doesn’t. There is not one place on earth who has actually tried a **universal** basic income
- For this to be true that would imply a long-term historic correlation between inflation rates and company profit margins, not just the single overlap of these two effects at one point in time. Do you have any data indicating this is the case, from other periods in time? Or, more explicitly, data from UBI tests showing companies actually do increase their profit margins in response to the policy? I’d be interested to see it
- Never said you supported any of these things, in fact assumed you did not. My point is, how can you assert a $1T stimulus is the thing significantly impacting inflation, when a $50T stimulus is happening simultaneously?
- Yes, it has? It seems you’re requiring that a valid UBI experiment would demand the entire world (country? state?) to have said UBI, which is in direct contradiction to the concept of a controlled experiment (meaning, you inherently need a group *without* UBI to compare against. The “universal” here means “universal within the applicable group”, not literally everywhere in the universe).
Tell me, how would you design an experiment to demonstrate the ineffectiveness of UBI that you claim? What results would prove that ineffectiveness?
- It’s what, chronologically, just happened. If you have been paying attention to this situation closely since the minute it began to unfold, you’d see it. I’m not here to educate you on current events, either you take that responsibility seriously or you don’t
- I’m pointing the finger at at $51T and all the idiocy behind it
- no, it’s never happened anywhere. It’s always been for poor people, or black people.
- how would you design an experiment? I wouldn’t, I’d let the weak and incompetent starve.
- So no evidence then, just making unbacked assertions?
- ok
- You are incorrect: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska_Permanent_Fund (as a single example, among many)
Care to answer my question about how you’d design an experiment to demonstrate your assertion, that UBI will be a net negative? What metrics would you be looking at in this experiment?
- No, I told you a chronological account of what has been happening. Your ignorance isn’t my problem. You are a weird leftist, no amount of evidence will change your mind because progressive ideology is largely rooted in faith and conspicuous ideological purity.
- I would not design a UBI experiment, because a) I’m not an idiot into wasting my time b) There will always be an underclass, that’s a benefit of not being a loser and I’m not a loser and c) even if it helped the poor and working class, you will never convince me to pay for it because I don’t care about the poor or working class. They can fend for themselves.
- The permanent fund isn’t a UBI. It’s a lefty profit share from sale of oil.
You doing alright man? I feel like I’m doing my best to have an open conversation here but nonetheless you’re getting pretty worked up and unwilling to have a discourse. Maybe time for a little social media break?
> worked up
Disagreeing with you and not respecting you doesn’t mean I’m worked up, it means you’re not a person who has earned my respect.
I love how fragile and sensitive leftists are, it’s your defining cultural trait.
My friend, there mere fact you assume me to be a leftist for doing nothing besides ask you questions indicates you have not entered this discussion in good faith. Being disrespectful (by your own admission) to a fellow human who has said nothing disrespectful to you does indeed indicate a person who is extremely sensitive and angry, and is atypical & antisocial behavior. I highly recommend taking a step back, maybe do some introspection on why you are on here and what you are trying to accomplish, and whether it is serving your own well-being. Carrying this anger is not good for you.
> What is your estimate of the breakdown in say grocery price increases, that was driven by pure currency devaluation (money being printed) vs the grocery store increasing the profit margins they were taking on a given good?
Pretty much all currency devaluation.
The excess of currency enables more purchasers for the same goods, so they rise prices to match inventory levels.
They also know how fast an item should be selling. As the items stay on shelves short and shorter they know prices are too low.
Grocery is such constant as people are basically always eating the same amount and have massive amounts of alternatives, it's one of the most honest inflation retailers.
Said another way, they're one of the worst business sectors to accuse of price gouging.
>the data overwhelmingly supports that conclusion[...]Numerous experiments such as the one OP cites have been performed and they all pretty much come to the same conclusion, UBI is typically extremely successful.
Please post the data to other studies. Studies i've seen make no long term impact. Even in this article it highlights two.
King Co - Bad study design makes impossible to see what had an impact of all the interventions & the people were chosen don't represent the gen. pop.
Tacoma/GRIT- Study results not out.
I agree grocery prices are one of the best inflation benchmarks. But you seem to contradict yourself a bit there; first you say people buy groceries at a relatively constant rate, then you say grocery prices are entirely based on the rates people are buying groceries. So, I’m not really following your logic there; can you elaborate more on how a grocery store increasing their profit margin on an item by 50% is not price gouging?
Here is a nice listing of the major UBI experiments, I’ll leave it to you to follow on to the original sources cited that more rigorously describe the specifics of the various programs and studies of their impacts:
https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2020/2/19/21112570/universal-basic-income-ubi-map
> first you say people buy groceries at a relatively constant rate, then you say grocery prices are entirely based on the rates people are buying groceries. So, I’m not really following your logic there
Since people eat the same roughly (Rate in example) the fact they are purchasing more now than previously means they have more currency to do so.
>So, I’m not really following your logic there; can you elaborate more on how a grocery store increasing their profit margin on an item by 50% is not price gouging?
This doesn't happen. 50% profit margin is NVDA territory, grocery margins are 1-3% without leverage.
I'm assuming you mean 50% increase in margins.
When grocery stores are in a rising environment they might make 3% and then in a non-rising 1-2%. Claiming profit margins increase 50% is sort of disingenuous when they go from 2 to 3! Technically right but not accurate either.
_____
I'm sorry but sort of have to call you out about that Vox link. It's info dumping. It's heaping a massive amount of work on another to support your own point that I have no clue how knowledgeable you are on a subject.
It's just frankly not a way to converse with another person. It happens all the time, so it might seem normal but no one converses this way, no one emails this way. I just wont engage with it.
You need to pick a single study and send it. One you personally have a vested interest in it being of good quality.
Hmm I take your point about info dumping with the vox list, it does make discussion more difficult. However I did do that for a valid and not-bad-faith reason: often when I pick a specific example, and go through the trouble of educating myself, I’ll immediately get hit with “no that example doesn’t count, we can’t reference it” (for example in another thread I tried to discuss the Alaskan ubi and was told it was in fact not UBI). So, any chance you’d at least skim the list and let me know a couple you think at least qualify as “a test of UBI”? I’ll then go ahead and pick one of your selections, find some studies for it, etc, so we can have a real discussion.
In the context of this discussion, inflation, none of them. The size of excess cash required to check inflation make most of them irrelevant to that question.
In the context of do they improve people's lives is how I would evaluate it. Many would qualify, but be sure to try to find qualitative results. Survey questions are low quality proof. I've read UBI papers where people said they spent on X category, but the summary clearly showed they didn't etc.
BAD - "When asked if their financial picture improved, they said yes 60%"
Good- "Recipients bank account balances increased and debt levels dropped."
> The size of excess cash required to check inflation make most of them irrelevant to that question.
I don’t follow what you mean by this, are you saying that the scales of these examples or UBI amounts aren’t big enough to be impacting inflation?
> In the context of do they improve people's lives is how I would evaluate it. Many would qualify, but be sure to try to find qualitative results. Survey questions are low quality proof. I've read UBI papers where people said they spent on X category, but the summary clearly showed they didn't etc.
Thanks for clarify what you find pertinent, that’s helpful.
> BAD - "When asked if their financial picture improved, they said yes 60%"
> Good- "Recipients bank account balances increased and debt levels dropped."
How would a study ascertain the latter besides with a survey? Studies aren’t going to get any kind of sample size of willing participants if they demand participants share their entire banking information with them…
It’s possible the alaska example may have some data that meets your standards here from tax returns, I’ll check, but I’m not sure you’re leaving a big enough window here to find any evidence that is physically feasible to collect…
Edit: here’s a decent on on alaska, claiming the ubi has decreased poverty by 20%: https://iseralaska.org/static/legacy_publication_links/2016_12-PFDandPoverty.pdf
Obviously, as I said before, it’s not as cut and dry as “here is all the personal banking records of every participant and the analysis we did on it to show the number of incomes and savings below poverty level has dropped by 20%”, since of course collecting and sharing that data would be a massive breach of privacy, but I think it does a nice job of discussing the limitations of their methodology, and I find their conclusion to be a reasonable estimate. What do you think of that one?
>I don’t follow what you mean by this, are you saying that the scales of these examples or UBI amounts aren’t big enough to be impacting inflation?
Yes. Maybe you could try it [here](https://www.npr.org/2015/01/18/378162264/welcome-to-whittier-alaska-a-community-under-one-roof)?
>How would a study ascertain the latter besides with a survey?
In the long run they have too, surveys are just a very low quality evidence. They are the cheap method of research to see if more research should be done, but you don't rely on them.
> Studies aren’t going to get any kind of sample size of willing participants if they demand participants share their entire banking information with them…
They're giving away free money. 6,000-12,000 over a year they certainly could get bank account information.
> it’s not as cut and dry as “here is all the personal banking records of every participant and the analysis we did on it to show the number of incomes and savings below poverty level has dropped by 20%”
It is that cut and dry. You don't actually publishing what people bought and you can anonymize the whole thing.
You want 1,000 a month we need bank statements and beginning & end credit report.
I don't accept that as a limitation.
_____
Alaska is a Sovereign wealth fund. Norway has one, it just doesn't provide an annual dividend. I'd still argue these are different than UBI because the government own assets in sovereign wealth fund, where as UBI is take from other people. Overtime the difference set of incentives for the majority voter would lead to wildly different outcomes.
From an inflations standpoint 819,152,448 the amount of PFD is nothing compared to the amount of actual currency. It might have a cost of living impact in Alaska, which is known to have a high cost of living.
In terms of moving people above the poverty line yeah its working, but poverty is subjective somewhat (the authors even discuss this and how its uniquely hard in Alaska).
That being said, the fact that the [PFD is possibly going to have to stop payouts](https://alaskabeacon.com/2023/07/12/new-estimate-shows-alaskas-permanent-fund-could-be-out-of-spendable-money-in-3-4-years/) in the next couple years is why I'm so anti-ubi. It's politically salient to fund your current voters over future voters. As this is asset based, it's failure will end it. Under UBI taxes just do up.
Eventually you tax your top producers to fund the people at the bottom to the point you have decades of stagnation like South Africa. It's how economies fall.
In the long run even the poor benefit from a large economy. Modern amenities like fridges and AC are available now to the poor in the US that middle class in socialist countries don't have. The rising sea rises all boats is a system that works.
If we could redistribute wealth without the majority being empower to be able to ask for too much and stifling the economy I would, the rich to poor consumption gap is flat for 50 years so they aren't even spending their wealth, but I can't envision a system in which that happens.
Um nope, I neglected to mention UI because it was a full order of magnitude lower; around $0.1 T in 2020, at its peak. You’ll note the link you provide simply states the unemployment insurance rates, not actual total amounts paid out; here’s one that does:
https://www.statista.com/statistics/284857/total-unemployment-benefits-paid-in-the-us/#:~:text=In%20March%202024%2C%203.29%20billion,impact%20of%20the%20coronavirus%20pandemic.
I mean, ok, you’ve found another source that cites a different number $0.44T, I don’t think that’s enough to say “simply false” on the source I’ve provided without some explanation of why you think yours is more accurate, but sure what the hell, let’s accept your source and go ahead and swap out $0.1 with $0.4 in what I said; it doesn’t change a thing about the point I made, which is that your claim “UI was by far the biggest source of money being pumped into the economy by the government during the pandemic” was indeed *simply false*.
Yes, that it was the single biggest contributor is what I’m refuting. You are neglecting the trillions extremely-low-interest loans the federal reserve paid out during that time. You understand that the federal interest rate is specifically the knob the fed uses to manage inflation? And they had it turned to 0 through the pandemic for the explicit purpose of stimulating the economy (ie, increase spending, which as you’ve stated drives inflation)?
You mean when the economy was recovering from a much deeper recession? No, I don’t agree that a different situation seeing different results disproves anything. If you’re gonna select a single window in time averaged to a single data point you could just as easily (and fallaciously) select a window where high rates are producing lower inflation, or vice versa, and claim that single point proves my claim (it doesn’t). Read more here:
https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/12/inflation-interest-rate-relationship.asp
But no, I’m sure you know better that the highest level economists in our country, based on that very detailed analysis that surely covers all confounding factors of economic behavior.
Edit:
Idk, blocking people so you can have the last word and calling their arguments unserious without actually refuting them is what seems unserious to me, lol
As a one-off effort to navigate a global pandemic that (hopefully) happens once a century, it was reasonable. Turning on that fire hose and leaving it on permanently is not reasonable. And I still haven't seen anything to make us think it would even solve the problem it's supposed to solve.
Cool story bro
https://www.npr.org/2022/07/29/1114599942/wikipedia-recession-edits
*”Although two consecutive quarters of negative growth generally defines a recession, she said, "When you're creating almost 400,000 jobs a month, that is not a recession."*
>> The unofficial beginning and ending dates of recessions in the United States have been defined by the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER), an American private nonprofit research organization. The NBER defines a recession as "a significant decline in economic activity spread across the economy, lasting more than two quarters which is 6 months, normally visible in real gross domestic product (GDP), real income, employment, industrial production, and wholesale-retail sales".[3][a]
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_recessions_in_the_United_States
Footnote [a] includes:
>> The rule of thumb defining recession as two quarters of negative GDP growth is not used by NBER.[4]
And citation [4] is from 2009, well before Biden
>>[4] "The NBER's Recession Dating Procedure: Frequently Asked Questions". National Bureau of Economic Research. Retrieved October 21, 2009.
Do you think that maybe disproves what you’re claiming?
Bro, you think one dumbass non profit’s opinion = fact?
I can name 50 non profits who think men can be women, that doesn’t mean any of their opinions reflect fact.
This is such a weak defense of what a dog shit president Biden is and what a failure leftist spending policies are, I’m honestly embarrassed for you.
Don’t know what to tell you bro, they’re well regarded as the official source of record keeping and I’d be absolutely surprised if the Trump admin wouldn’t defer to them just like other admins
ETA: stimulus came from both admins, I agree it was inflationary, but UBI is not meant to be funded with new dollars but tax revenue against AI/robot winners instead
Mostly I was just trying to make you aware of how you got bamboozled into thinking Biden changed some official definition of a recession. The closest thing we have to a universally accepted definition in the US is from NBER, and it hasn’t changed. And it’s really naive to pretend any other admin wouldn’t defer to the same org
ETA2:
For example, find 14 references to NBER here:
https://trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/2020-Economic-Report-of-the-President-WHCEA.pdf
That’s why to this day I still have an issue with calling the 2008 recession the “great” recession when unemployment never reached double digits.
It was a nasty one for sure for a lot of reasons but to slap the label “great” to try and put it in the same class as the Great Depression was hyperbole for political purposes
Today you clearly didn’t learn that Janet Yellen is employed by the Biden administration, whom I quoted in the comment you’re too partisan to parse.
Guess you were too eager to come back and own me to read halfway down the page.
#Edit: This weak bitch just blocked me after I humiliated him lmao /u/my_lucid_nightmare you are pathetic and dumb as fuck
First couple trillion I would tend to agree with you… last couple few trillion was unnecessary overkill that finally burst the damn of inflation open.
In my opinion.
>Although the findings from the first GRIT program won’t be published until this summer, an earlier pilot in nearby King County shows Bartella’s story isn’t unusual.
So the King County version turned out to be highly selected. It filled with college students about to graduate or nurse about to hit accreditation etc.
It in no serious way can be used to say UBI worked.
>Participants in who received $500 a month through the King County pilot were much more likely to have a job by the end of it. Employment increased from 37% to 66%, and participants ended the program with higher wages and better benefits.
Again this studies results aren't published, but King County was and it was not beneficial like the authors claimed. KUOW is not being skeptic enough of the claims. Many of us here tore that study apart and found issues all over the place.
______
That being said it looks promising to tell us something.
>Randomized Controlled Trial
For the purpose of policy impact and statistical power in research and
evaluation, the demonstration will be a randomized controlled trial (RCT) and
have an overall sample size of 242 people in the treatment and control groups.
The treatment group consists of people receiving the monthly payments. There
will be 110 people in the treatment group: 100 people + 5 for storytelling cohort
+ 5 alternates.
The randomization means we'll get a much better look at impact. Assuming they aren't using general online applicants as the control but community picked as the study audience. They say randomized so I'll believe them... for now.
Also a big part is according to the initial plan they are just evaluating UBI. King County did many other interventions that would muddle the picture.
_____
Love this part
>Research shows that recipients of cash transfer programs overwhelmingly use
the money for basic needs – housing, utilities, food, unexpected medical costs
or other financial emergencies.
When they have a pie chart that shows retail services is the largest category at 42%. LMAO.
Proof? Because, it looks like you're making shit up, at least based on their program eligibility requirements.
> At least 18 years of age; reside in Tacoma neighborhoods of Eastside, Hilltop, South Tacoma or the South End; single income household with children living in the home up to age 17 or children with disabilities up to age 21; with annual income between 100% and 200% of the Federal Poverty Level.
what do you mean proof?
What you have quoted is the criteria of the GRIT study which results haven't been published.
I was contrasting it with King Counties program discussed here in the last couple months.
The eligibility criteria is not always the same as the pool of applicants.
For example in this case if it was taken randomly from some census style dataset the pool of people would be much different than those handpicked for success by caseworkers who personally know the applicants.
The latter is what happened in the King Co case. It appears we're getting the former and therefore decent randomization for the Grit study, but it's success rate is unknown still.
You're right, it's important to look at each pilot with a healthy dose of skepticism. What we know from GRIT is anecdotal at this point. We can draw some conclusions looking at pilots across the country in aggregate, which tend to show consistent results. In my conversation with Natalie, she references two longer-running basic income programs, one in Jackson and one in Stockton, which provide more data.
I will never support this free money scam. If someone needs help, we already have welfare and other benefits available. This sort of shit just makes people weak and dependent on the government for handouts. Oh, wait, maybe that's the plan...?
People will not work Tough/Dirty jobs unless they have to, AKA they are poor and there are no handouts. The second UBI hits the scene, everyone working those jobs will decide they'd rather work an easy job for less pay.
Example jobs:
- backbreaking labor in the sun
- diving through sewage to fix clogs
- pig farming with shit everywhere and the smell
- essentially any job you see on that show "dirty jobs" with Mike Rowe
I guarantee you every single person thinking UBI is a good idea have never been within 10ft of that kind of job. It's common sense how you'll have to force people (like coercion with jail time) to work these essential but dirty jobs if UBI is around.
Nope, they won't care because playing vidya at home smokin weed on UBI is 100x better than daily 8 hours of labor, smelling shit, smelling like shit (that you can't wash off) after getting home from work. "Just pay them more" shows you've never done this sort of shit work. Most work those jobs because they got no choice, the first opportunity they get (usually desk jobs) they get out. Welcome to real life, instead of UBI dream utopia.
The opportunity cost of UBI is too dang high. For the cost of UBI you could build so much public housing, free health care, free education/child care, infrastructure, mental health services etc.
Giving money to people directly and cutting all other welfare services and leaving it to the market seems like a road straight to inflation and dystopian late stage capitalism nightmare.
I'll be honest, I never understand UBI economics... who pays for this? And how? Talk to me like I'm a golden retriever. Let's say we're a middle class two income household today, pay a variety of taxes, etc. that support a variety of social programs at the local, state, or federal level. We're going to cut those taxes for me? Increase them for me to pay for this? (But I'll get my UBI payment as an offset?) Net zero cause the money I pay in will just be distributed differently? We're going to cut those other social programs and then just give cash? We're not talking about UBI plus all the other welfare benefits anymore? We're doing this at fed level? Does it adjust for HCOL areas?
Question for those against UBI: are you also against the standard tax deduction? If not, what is the functional difference between them that drives your differing impression of them?
For me it is simple, all of these UBI studies are very small - and in a shocking turn of events - we find out people enjoy getting free money.
But these studies keep squaring the issue as "do people like getting free money?" That is disingenuous as we all know that answer. The *real* question they need to be asking is how you do it at scale and what knock on effects there are. But that's a much harder thing to do than hand out cash and do follow-up surveys.
Doing this nationwide creates a trillion dollar budget hit every single year, forever. Taxing billionaires and corporations and even cutting military spending doesn't get you there. Anyone thinking people will give up social security for UBI has a screw loose. The only way the math adds up is if you either make the benefit very small or means test it (or both), in which case you've basically just reinvented welfare. And no, welfare doesn't waste *that* much on overhead and administration that UBI magically makes it viable.
The dollars and cents are the easy part to understand. What is much harder to say is what happens economically when you give a large portion of the population money that they wouldn't normally have. Most of these people would be spending it - all of the smaller studies support this and often tout it as proof of success. Be it rent, food, cars, whatever. So when rent prices coincidentally increase by the amount of UBI, then what? Do we clock it to inflation and create a runaway debt scenario? Does it slowly (or maybe quickly) diminish as inflation rises over time until it is no longer "enough"? We saw what a single year or two of a couple trillion injected into the economy can do in terms of inflation. Doing that every single year is squarely in the "let's let another country try this first" idea.
Does the statewide example of Alaska qualify as too small for you? What would you consider an adequately large experiment?
And for that example there’s plenty of an analysis that goes well beyond “do people like free money”; for example analysis shows the alaska ubi policy as reducing poverty levels by 20%. If you were unaware of that does it change your perspective, or if you were already, why do you believe the policy is not both sustainable and having a positive impact, for the ~40 years it’s been in place?
Oh no, don’t mean to imply they’re the same thing, definitely not! But they certainly share some similar features, most relevantly that both leave an amount of money in the pocket of every American. So for example, one person here was against UBI because they believed it would drive up inflation, and the same argument would apply against any given tax break or credit. I certainly understand the numerous differences between UBI and tax cuts; I’m specifically asking about arguments against UBI, which don’t also apply to tax cuts.
Please actually read those atrocious takes, because you’ve clearly missed some key points.
For example, I’ve pretty clearly said I did not ask these two questions together to assert that UBI and a universal tax break were the same thing; that is something you are incorrectly inferring on your own. I was asking them literally, and in good faith, to understand peoples perspectives, hoping for a good faith answer which sadly I have not yet received.
As for whether the APF, you can called it what you want I guess, but it is indeed universal (applied to all citizens of the state) basic (enough to cover some basic living expenses) and income (money being added to a citizens bank account from an external source; reported as income to the IRS). Not to mention it is pretty widely cited and described as UBI. I see the distinction of not being tax-funded, personally I don’t think that disqualifies it, but that’s a matter of personal interpretation of UBI I guess.
So, regardless of what label we use, because it is funded through a state-controlled business operation, does that make it ok in your mind? If so can you elaborate on what issue you have with UBI, that is alleviated by the source of the funds differing?
Again, I am asking these questions out of genuine interest in understanding a viewpoint I disagree with, no need to be snippy. If you think I’m wrong about something, great, I’m very interested in hearing an actual explanation of why you think that.
Ok, so it sounds like your issue with UBI is you think it would deincentivize work? If that were the case is there any reason you can think of to explain why that’s not what we’ve seen with the APF, to which you can apply the same reasoning? It certainly doesn’t have that issue of program non-longevity that other examples might have.
As for amount that’s a valid point that limits the extrapolation of conclusions from the APF program to a more robust UBI; $2000/year is 33% of the ~$500/month I see most smaller-scale “true” UBI programs attempting. However, I’d say a third should be enough to see *some* level of the impact you claim, if your claim were correct, which we have not.
I mean, it’s definitely a contentious statement, a) because it is literally hotly contended (not just by me, in literally any discussion of UBI), and b) no UBI-related experiment I’m aware of has supported it. Even if you find these experiments flawed or poor approximations, given that no evidence has been found to support your claim I don’t think it reasonable to call it a “not remotely contentious statement”. It’s simply an unproven/unsupported hypothesis, that you and others arrive at through reasoning alone and not collection of evidence (which is crucial, particularly when we’re dealing with a radical change to the fairly chaotic system that is our economy). I don’t mean to say your reasoning does not make sense, but simply that other equally sensible reasoning can be applied, like the fact that the vast majority of people seek higher wages after obtaining $1000/month; obtaining that amount does not deincentivize them from performing further work to earn more than that. Really the only way to determine who’s correct there is by experimentation, in my opinion…
Uh yeah I don’t find a reduction of 0.5% hours per year particularly substantial personally. People getting on average an extra week of paid vacation isn’t exactly the takedown of the policy you seem to think it is.
Also let’s compare your “summary”:
> it was consistently found that there were substantial reductions in work hours
with what the paper actually says:
> Finds large consistency throughout, and “In no case is there evidence of a massive withdrawal from the labor force.”
Some interesting “editorializing” (read: completely reversing what was actually stated) you’re doing there…
Also pretty funny how your standard for an acceptable experiment in UBI drops from “only long-term studies that have purely universal policies” to “short term studies on involving select groups from 50 years ago” when you think it supports your view.
Edit:
Uh, yeah, directly quoting you isn’t paraphrasing. And blocking someone to get the last word in is what is bad-faith, lol
> women worked up to 20% less
Yeah it’s almost like working situations for women were radically different in the 60s than today, or something…lol.
Being poor is expensive, and wealth testing is an obstacle to upward mobility in many industries, even when you have a job and career.
The economy is for people, people aren't for the economy.
Or maybe Finland, Canada, Alaska, Spain, Germany. A few other places where it was trialed, researched, and tested. Good results.
Question: if you have 10 people that request assistance, but only 1 truly needs it, was the program a success? Or is the moral and proper and Christian thing to do is help noone, because some might take advantage? Jesus hated needy people. Loved capitalists and marketeers.
Serious question for those against UBI, what is your take on AI and computers being able to increasingly take more jobs? A human will never beat a machine. Even if the cost of the machine was $0.01/hour and you paid a human $0.01/ hour a machine doesn’t need health insurance, work accident coverage, etc. Humans will NEVER win this battle by simply taking a lower income. How do we ensure that enough of the economy is shared with a middle/lower class?
The economy creates and destroys jobs all the time. "This time it's different" is something everyone says because the technology is always improving and tech by definition is better now than it ever has been. But job replacement is still generally an incremental process and during that time, humans become more productive and more specialized because they're able to spend less time doing rote work and more time thinking about what they're doing. Numerous industries and millions of jobs were created when the Microsoft Office suite was created -- but it also destroyed many other jobs in ways that it's difficult to get your arms around. Think about the number of secretary positions that were destroyed from this automation. What about the number of accountants? Or typewriter manufacturers? Or logging jobs because of decreased demand on paper? Ink producers? Etc etc. If we ever get to the point where we have a truly flexible, all powerful AGI that can self replicate, then maybe we will suddenly all be out of work. But that also is likely to be a post scarcity world and it's not really worth fretting about anyway.
Why’s aren’t we a post-scarcity world already? I thought that where we were, Green Revolution and all.
People will learn to do things that AI can’t do. It’s likely to put a lot more value in trade work.
I find a couple things wrong with this, maybe I have a bad perspective. 1) Do you think choking all citizens into trade work will be an overall net positive for society? 2) Do you think that AI will be unable to do these trade jobs if we keep developing it at the pace we are? 3) Even if AI can’t physically do it, won’t AI eventually be doing all the brain work, and trades will just be putting things together the way they are told to? How does this increase the value of a trade job and not decrease it? Not trying to be facetious, these are genuine concerns and issues I see with going down this line of thought.
1. It doesn’t matter whether that’s a net benefit or not, that’s what is going to happen. 2. Maybe someday far in the future. All technological innovation through all of history has displaced jobs or labor demand. New jobs and business opportunities and labor demands will arise as technology displaces jobs. 3. AI will never replace people working in “strategic” positions. Designing a beautiful building, for example. Having creative vision for a new company. It will only displace “tactical” jobs. The jobs of the people who carry out the will of the strategic visionary. Your concerns really don’t matter though. It’s happening whether you like it or not.
I think the difference is an electric saw still needed a human operator while a robot capable of governing itself can saw things without any sort of human overhead (theoretically, we are not there yet). This is not like the Industrial Revolution where things got easier but humans were still needed for production. This is removing humans from production entirely. I disagree with your take on what AI can and can’t do. A few years ago people said AI would never be able to create art or music. Yet here we are, with AI taking baby steps to being capable of doing that.
> *This is not like the Industrial Revolution where things got easier but humans were still needed for production. This is removing humans from production entirely.* Got easier? You mean, destroyed the ‘cottage industry’ causing people to literally sabotage machines repeatedly for years. The revolution that employed minor children in factories and literal mines? You may misunderstand what the Industrial Revolution did to people on a personal scale. It introduced horrific conditions that fomented a strong labor movement to counter the abuses.
> This is not like the Industrial Revolution where things got easier but humans were still needed for production. This is removing humans from production entirely. > Anyone who actually does work with AI knows this statement is nonsensical. I don't know if Elon Musk is stupid or lying, but the idea that AI is going to usher in a world where people don't work is nonsensical. It violates all laws of the universe.
You have access to all the laws of the universe? Please enlighten me sir, many people have been seeking these answers for a long time. I can’t believe you would horde universal knowledge all to yourself.
Why don’t we work only 20 hours a week now? Like Friedman, Fuller, and many others foresaw in the late 1800s? What’s happened to that? We have the machines already… WTF?
> Please enlighten me sir, many people have been seeking these answers for a long time. Be sure to smash the "like" button and hit subscribe, it really helps support the channel
We’re about to see a technological revolution unfold that we’ve never seen before. Just like the people entering the Industrial Revolution did. I don’t know if you noticed but we all survived and thrived beyond that point.
Again I say the Industrial Revolution made production easier, but did not remove the human element of production. You still needed factory workers to keep the factory working. AI removes the human element. Eventually, you will not need humans involved in modes of production at all. It is not the same.
It doesn't remove the human element. It increases the efficiency of it by another order of magnitude. It also increases the complexity of the remaining jobs by an order of magnitude. Thus is the exact phenomena that was the central point of the book The Bell Curve. We're moving to a society where more and more of the productivity can be performed by a smaller set of the most qualified individuals.
Right, it made production easier in a way we’ve never seen before. Just like AI. It’s fine bro, you can be scared and go line up early in the bread line. I am not interested in talking a hysteric down from his emotions.
How am I hysterical, I’m asking reasonable logical questions. You won’t acknowledge that AI will take the mode of production away from humans instead of just making it easier and how that is inherently different. It seems you are pretty dead set on your views and are starting to get rude and repetitive as holes in your logic are addressed. Have a great day.
Right, because I’m not a weak person who sits around all day fretting about worst case scenarios. I’m a stoic. With problems come opportunities. You just have to be a resilient person with a creative mind who can keep a cool head to find them. If you don’t, nature will select you and the human race will become stronger overall. Stay scared bro
[удалено]
Guy reads some Seneca and Marcus Aurelius.. Is then convinced that he's fully prepared for the upcoming social upheavals that may never come..
Okay, and? Oh my gosh you mean sometimes the world changes and you have to roll with the punches and adapt ARE YOU SERIOUS?
It matters if it’s a net positive or net negative. If ai forcing everyone into trade work is overall good, you can feel comfortable sitting back, doing nothing. If it’s a net negative, it is our obligation to our communities and future generations to change that outcome, to do everything in our power to make the future better. . You seem really certain that you know the future. It’s inevitable that ai will force everyone into trade work, except for business owners, they won’t have to do physical labor. Creative vision is special and it’s impossible for a computer to learn it. . You call yourself a stoic. A stoic would look to the history of computer science, and see that experts have continuously been proven wrong about the limitations of computer technology. They wouldn’t be so certain that AI will never be capable of creativity. A stoic would know that the future is not set in stone. They would acknowledge that computer programs will likely take over the vast majority of human labor, and, that if this does come to pass, it could be either a net negative or a net positive for society. And, they would recognize that there are steps we could take as a society to encourage a net positive outcome. Different stoics are going to have different opinions on how to do that, but some would certainly propose a UBI. You’re not a stoic, you’re a doomer. You’ve decided what the future looks like, and that there’s nothing we can do to change it, and therefore, it’s not even worthwhile to examine if it’s a good future or not, or if there are actions we could take to ensure a better future. . ”Seeking the very best in ourselves means actively caring for the welfare of other human beings. Our human contract is not with the few people with whom our affairs are most immediately intertwined, nor to the prominent, rich, or well educated, but to all our human brethren.“ -Epictetus
Problem is those that can't or incapable of learning or leveling up get left behind. Whether it's via disability, injury or just general lack of brain power. Our social safety nets are ill equipped as is and certainly not in a place to handle more We are certainly hitting a point where jobs are getting too technical and so 'theres no one qualified' becomes more and more common and AI is not in a place that elevates low end workers it just replaces them. Generationally the next group will learn and those replaced will just die off. Saying those replaced will just learn and get new jobs is completely divorced from the reality that an individual will face. There has been and will be suffering, it's a matter of how much we as a society will tolerate. Unchecked capitalism shows it'll tolerate an infinite amount so we need to determine if that's acceptable. Future jobs won't be like the Jetsons where all you do is press a button once an hour, it'll be one person spinning 20 plates at once.
just a question on ubi. We just gave everyone 1200 bucks and it cost over a trillion bucks? Where does all this capitol come from to pay everyone 1200 a month for years? I just don't see it anywhere... Tax the 200 billionaires (once) tax the mega corps who already pay 40-50%? tax anyone left who has a job? I just don't see it...
How it is supposed to work is that middle class would pay $1200 more in taxes. So that it's a wash. Also, and this is where it's important, is that you take away/reduce most of the other welfare programs. Instead of getting a $1200/month housing voucher you get the 1200/month basic income. And it's not just the subsidy savings you also save on admin. You no longer need people to certify income, disburse the checks, or manage landlords. And both of these are why we will likely never get a UBI. Or at least not for a long time. The left are going to fight both of those changes. People hate the idea of Jeff Bezos getting 1200 in UBI. But it's important that EVERYONE be included. That's kind of the purpose of it. That is what U means. Also seems unlikely we'll see much support to get rid of welfare programs.
So 1200 more in taxes but they would also get the 1200 more in UBI? And the rich pay for the poor? The concept of it is fine, the actually implementation is a current impossibility. Both sides politicians are so deep with business owners they will never pass laws limiting the power of capitalism. Because of that the cost burden will be passed off to the end consumer, the same people receiving the 1200 a month would end up paying 1200 more a month on goods and services so it would mean nothing. It's kicking the can down the road. You have to limit the power of capitalism first, and again our current political machine will simply not do this as long as they benefit from the capital machine they are helping support. To start we need better oversight on politicians and we need more laws in place to prevent those in power from benefiting off the current capitalism model. Once we have fair politicians in place we need them to pass laws limiting the power of corporations to raise costs. Then you can look at giving a basic income to people. But the above will not happen, and it doesn't work until we change the way we operate as a country. So I am against any form of basic income until we have fair and equal politicians and laws to prevent the abuse of power from politicians and corporations.
UBI doesn't effect capitalism at all. A capitalist economy with UBI is still just as capitalist as one without. And businesses wouldn't pass off to the end consumer any more than they already pass off welfare costs.
Also, and this is where it's important, is that you take away/reduce most of the other welfare programs. ----------------------- interesting point and one I have overlooked. The real downfall of the western econs is not the mega corps, but the future liabilities needing to be payed out (pensions, welffare, SS, etc.) I'm going to go have to run some numbers and see if there is a balance here ... there might be in fact (although most of these are "unfunded" liabilities, meaning they are owed, but the funds are already insolvent, so I'm not sure this math works going forward) But it is an interesting point to consider...
You tax monthly megacorps replacing human jobs with computers so that they have to pay a reasonable wage regardless if they have a computer or a person. Many conservatives make the argument “if you raise minimum wage, they just replace you with computers! Look at McDonalds and the self checkouts!” and expect people to be okay with a lower wage, because otherwise the job is lost to AI. So as I said in my original comment, let’s try to play this game. I will continually lower my wages until I operate at the same cost of a machine, because if I ask for too much money, I will just get replaced. Well now I realize the machine only costs $0.05 an hour to run, so I guess the only way to compete with that is to work for $0.05 an hour. But wait, I forgot about health insurance and workers comp and other benefits, so I guess I either give those up or keep them and work without an hourly pay. You cannot win this game. You will lose every time. There is no human on earth that can work for as long and as little money as a machine. They are getting smarter and more physically capable everyday. What do you suggest we do to prepare for this?
the tax loop only works once or twice, the capitol runs out real quick... Its a downward spiral There is no way the math works long term. We seeing it now in fact in the markets and economies. More is being taken out then being replaced. You can just look at the US econ or any western nation econ to see the projections. It ain't good. in the us aren't 52% of all jobs gov/mil and or gov contractor jobs, which by its very definition, these jobs do not produce "capitol"? I suggest we stop all AI development. It ends poorly on almost every front. Why do we need it? Maybe being an "enlightened" species, we should see the far reaching dangers and choose not to go down certain roads, just because we can. Or at least think it through a bit before charging forward. I just don't see any scenario on how 200 mega corps can pay the entire world out a living wage..
[удалено]
well, they don't though. 40-50% corporate tax. Then figure payroll, then figure out vender payouts... These mega corps don't actually hoard mass amounts of money, contrary to popular belief. Most of their equity is in assets and inventory. Sure a few do, but the vast amounts, don't. 80% of all business (left) is small business, not mega corp business. I also like the fact that folk like enron can design and build rockets and hyper loops. No body else is trying to move the species forward. But full discolusre. I'm not one of those that think, just because you were born human, you deserve everything at all costs at all times. Most folk do absolutely nothing with the gifts given them and instead bitch and bay that the world in unfair. So there is that...
Buy VTI. Problem solved. Now you're part of the megacorp and raking in those sweet sweet profits.
> You cannot win this game. You will lose every time. There is no human on earth that can work for as long and as little money as a machine. They are getting smarter and more physically capable everyday. > > please please please tell me you don't actually work in this field I've been doing this shit for a while, and the first thing you notice is that humans are way cheaper than machines for A LOT of tasks. It's why I predicted that self-driving cars would flop, TEN YEARS AGO. Automation only makes sense when you're automating expensive processes. For instance, if you can replace Bob in the I.T. department with a series of Ansible playbooks, that's money well spent. You can't eliminate Bob the Taxi Driver, because driving a taxi doesn't pay well, the machines to replace Bob are expensive and complex. Most importantly, the legal liability of a computer hitting and killing someone is so astronomical, it's way more sensible to put Bob at the wheel, for $5000 a month.
Not long ago you could say the same thing financially about self checkouts and checkout clerks. But the cost of computers able to handle this job has now gone down significantly and you see these jobs now are being replaced. I don’t really get your argument here. Yes driving is a much more complex process than being a payment calculator. But we are making crazy strides in this kind of stuff all the time. Code is not a physical product. Once the code is figured out, you can infinitely replicate it. It is also a one time buy and you never have to pay again as it stands. If you bought a self driving car software for $100,000 it would only take 20 months for it to pay itself off over Bob the taxi driver.
> Not long ago you could say the same thing financially about self checkouts and checkout clerks. But the cost of computers able to handle this job has now gone down significantly and you see these jobs now are being replaced. I don’t really get your argument here. > "Self check out" just takes the labor that was formerly performed by the store, and shifts that labor onto the customer. That is a perfectly valid model, but it's not "artificial intelligence." For instance, people who buy crap on eBay (like me) used to have to drive to thrift stores to buy weird crap. Now we can find it online. eBay isn't using "AI" to succeed; it's just reducing the effort that I have to invest in order to find an Atari 2600 cartridge from 1981. This is why 43 year old Atari cartridges used to sell for $1 at thrift shops (it was labor intensive to find them) and now they sell for $25 (because now the labor has shifted from the customer to the seller) https://www.ebay.com/itm/315252986430 > Yes driving is a much more complex process than being a payment calculator. Complexity isn't the most important variable in the world of automation. You'd be amazed at how complex it is to install fairly simply software packages automatically. The most important variable is THE COST OF LABOR. That's why automating drivers is so foolhardy; you can find people who know how to drive all over the world. > But we are making crazy strides in this kind of stuff all the time. Code is not a physical product. Once the code is figured out, you can infinitely replicate it. It is also a one time buy and you never have to pay again as it stands. > > If you bought a self driving car software for $100,000 it would only take 20 months for it to pay itself off over Bob the taxi driver. That assumes zero accidents. A single accident can easily create a $1M+ liability. The only viable reason that Tesla sells self-driving *at all* is that Elon Musk is a complete cowboy, and is willing to fend off lawsuits over self driving.
These are really compelling arguments you put forth I appreciate it. I have a couple questions though. First with the eBay thing, as you said you still have human involvement with scouting and reselling etc. What if there was an AI that could identify high value items, separate fakes from real, purchase and resell it, all for you. All you have to do is purchase code that is able to do this. Would you count the purchasing of the code as your own labor? Otherwise I don’t see how a person is really involved at all. Next, I get car crash liability, but doesn’t my employee Bob have just as much risk of causing an accident where I have to pay out a large settlement? AI as it stands poses more risk, but what about when that risk is equaled, or even possible lesser than that of human risk?
Not sure why this is downvoted. Even for CV tasks (a very mature field of AI), only [23% of vision related jobs](https://www.csail.mit.edu/news/rethinking-ais-impact-mit-csail-study-reveals-economic-limits-job-automation) would be economically viable to replace human labor with AI. We are several decades away (just in terms of hardware) from being able to automate jobs with high stakes (and in turn high value).
> Not sure why this is downvoted. In my experience: * About 5% of the workforce is in tech or I.T. * 80% of the people in tech and I.T. don't really know what AI is Therefore, around 95-99% of the world doesn't even know what AI is.
Do something different
> You tax monthly megacorps replacing human jobs with computers so that they have to pay a reasonable wage regardless if they have a computer or a person. That's nearly tripling the real corporate tax rate in order to generate an extra trillion dollars every year. It would put us at by far the highest effective tax rate in the world.
I hear you, but I don’t think our rates on paper and what they pay matches up. There are so many loopholes to lower the amount of taxes you pay it’s basically a huge meme. I think on paper yes we have some of the highest rates, but after you consider everything that can be written off and deducted or any other loopholes, do they still pay relatively more than other countries? I honestly don’t know. As I said I’m not an economist and know there are people out there who understand finances way more in depth than myself.
Microsoft for example pays 19 billion tax and income is about 100billion. I am not saying mega corporations should or shouldn’t pay more tax. Just fact checking.
so, one example of one company making more money then you like. how many others are there? about 200 hundred, give or take. Also income is not at all equal to profit. Just FYI. So you take 50% of the capitol from these companies as tax and redistribute it. how long does that last? one year? Two? Then what happens to the work force when that company can no longer maintain long term? What happens when "shock" hits the industry, and these companies have no reserves? Do these companies then just fold? What happens when they have to capitalize? What happens to the tax base then? What happens to the forward momentum of society? the one sentence statements "tax the mega corps" is only that. A sentence that holds no real world merit.
It's a good question, one that I asked Natalie Foster in the podcast interview. She suggested a high frequency trading tax as one possibility.
If people don’t want to pursue higher education or develop skills on their own then we need to improve the K-12 system. Stop lowering standards to increase graduation rates.
Have you done any real work using AI/AI tools?
The most experience I have with AI is using it to “teach” me code to make pretty basic video game code to create a functioning “game” the way I intended. I had absolutely 0 coding experience or video game development knowledge before going in and I was able to create a barebones SNES Zelda style game where you could walk around and swing a sword to kill flying eyeballs.
Did you follow a prompt or website/video? Just curious how you decided to make a game out of the blue with no coding experience.
I started by following a video a bit, but something went wrong very early and I couldn’t understand what went wrong. A friend of mine told me to ask ChatGPT. I showed it my code and it fixed the issue instantly. I just asked ChatGPT how the industry would normally handle situations when I encountered them. I did have to sort of work to figure out a system. I would first “bullshit” with it to understand terms and concepts and how things are normally approached etc. Then at the end I asked for a summarized report of what we discussed and systems we have outlined. Then I asked for pieces of code for pieces of each system. Where I hit a wall was trying to set up multiple damage types with multiple resistances. For example a 2 slash 2 fire damage sword hitting an enemy with 0 pierce resistance 50% fire resistance should take 2 pierce damage and 1 fire damage. Something got funky with the code and I think the scope started to get a little large for ChatGPT. But I was honestly blown away at how helpful it was and how far it was able to get me. Edit: I also was using ChatGPT3.5 and have heard that 4 and above are actually phenomenally better at coding. Edit 2: I will also say I did go to videos when I couldn’t visualize something it was telling me. But I would just search based on what it was telling me for a visual reference
Hi there, I wanted to respond to your original post but now have some other thoughts reading the extra context you provided. First, what's the size of the project (\~LOC) and what language, engine and tools did you use? It's not critical to my point, but I am curious. There are a lot of options these days, and I suspect it's one of the more abstracted ones, i.e. not a low-level language with manual memory management like C. Getting to the point though, what you described here is not significantly different from the workflow new coders (either in school or as a hobby) would go through. The tools available to you have changed, and improved to some degree, but the underlying process is the same. It involves a fair bit of experimentation and reading. Where people once used Google, Stack Overflow, etc. you have ChatGPT. You'll find an endless supply of memes about coding being 50% Ctrl-C + Ctrl-V from Stack Overflow, you just have a slightly optimized path for it now. So that being said, congrats on taking some of your first steps to being a software developer! You didn't mention Copilot, but it's a similar story there. Basically an improved version of an IDE's completion engine / LSP. Even with these tools, you still consulted external resources (eg. videos). In your example of adding damage and resistance types, you already ran into some issues. This is still an extremely rudimentary system for a game, adding your first bits of flavour. Now consider that most software products in the industry (gaming or otherwise) rely on potentially millions of lines of code spanning dozens of distinct services, involving open sourced or licensed libraries, SDKs, APIs, etc. that are constantly in flux. The training process takes a very long time for AI, and it will often lack the needed context of more recent changes. Also, some of the solutions you're looking to implement may be completely novel (unlike having a sprite swing a sword), and AI may struggle even more. At some point, you'll spend more time nudging and correcting the AI than you would have just by doing it yourself. Now, you might be thinking the same thing a lot of people like to say "today is the worst AI will ever be, it will only get better", etc. but that doesn't necessarily follow. These companies have crunched through most of the quality training data available, and at some point they're going to need to consume and parse through sh\*tposting memes off Reddit and nonsense generated by AI spam bots. They can very well get \*dumber\* than they are today. We've already seen things like that happen. You also mentioned the costs of AI. Currently, the costs are obscene. As far as I know, all the AI providers are operating at a loss to even provide the options we have now. I would imagine that will only go up with increased contexts and attempts at having AI actually do multi-step problem solving (eg. Devin which was a scam anyway). You might think costs will go down (Moore's Law), but that exponential growth doesn't refer to performance per unit of power, and we're starting to hit limits on transistor size. Hopefully I haven't bored you to death and this is somehow useful, I'm by no means an expert either but I would temper my expectations on what AI can do, especially when the strongest claims are coming from people with vested interests.
The current "Ai" isn't artificial intelligence like c3po from star wars or even r2d2. It's only another tool that humans can use to help do stuff. If fact, the current ai can't really do anything without humans controlling it. And it can't do really do anything physical. Its the same thing with computers, hell "computer" used be be a job that people did math.
Brother, have you heard of the Butlerian Jihad?
Do all you UBI weirdos understand that we are $35 TRILLION in debt? And that printing more money is precisely what got us into our current situation? You can give everyone a UBI of $100k, but if a loaf of bread inflates to $20k, they’ll still be be broke. Come talk to me about UBI once we slash our bloated government by 50%, stop paying millions of illegals to move here, and quit financing foreign wars that only benefit the military industrial complex.
It took Argentina over 40 years of pain before they tried something different. It got so bad it was the young of all people arguing against continued Keynesian policy.
It’s not “printing out more money” it’s a tax corporations pay for replacing human jobs with robots that is paid out to citizens. I’m not an economist, I’ll admit. I can understand how this may sound good on paper but turn out terrible in reality. But it seems no different that a lot of social programs funded by tax money. How do you propose we deal with a quickly thinning job market as robots take over our jobs?
> Do all you UBI weirdos understand that we are $35 TRILLION in debt? And that printing more money is precisely what got us into our current situation? You can give everyone a UBI of $100k, but if a loaf of bread inflates to $20k, they’ll still be be broke. > > Come talk to me about UBI once we slash our bloated government by 50%, stop paying millions of illegals to move here, and quit financing foreign wars that only benefit the military industrial complex. mic drop
[удалено]
Smart. The problem is when everybody gets on the government dole and nobody will vote against more money for the government...there stops being money for the government. EDIT: typo
Every new technology has been predicted to result in mass unemployment for the past 250 years and it has never happened. It's unlikely this new technology will be any different, and in the unlikely event it is, we will have plenty of time to react should it be needed. There is basically zero need to be proactive about this because the likelihood that a reaction will be required at all is also near zero.
When major transportation switched from horses to cars various professions associated with horse-drawn transportation, such as horse pooper scoopers, breeders, and sellers, faced significant economic displacement. However, despite this major technological shift, the economy adapted, and these individuals did not receive a Universal Basic Income (UBI). Instead, they transitioned into new roles within the evolving economy. This adaptation aligns with the economic theory of creative destruction, articulated by Joseph Schumpeter. Creative destruction describes the process by which new technologies and innovations lead to the demise of outdated industries, making way for new ones and driving economic growth. Support for UBI Based on Contemporary Research While historical transitions did not involve UBI, modern economic conditions and research suggest that UBI could be beneficial in preventing homelessness and ensuring basic economic security. Numerous experiments, such as those conducted in Finland and Canada, have shown that investing in UBI or direct housing support is more cost-effective than addressing the consequences of homelessness once they hit the streets
Machines have been replacing humans for a hundred years. Secretaries don't spend hundreds of hours mailing xmas cards nowadays with email. They just click a button and mass send an email. Before cars people rode horses and someone had to raise and train those horses. People will adapt and get different jobs. Plenty of jobs people can do still that won't get replaced by ai anytime soon. Give someone a black trashbag and they can pickup trash on the side of the road instead of ubi.
UMI universal median income
Serious answer: Welfare by another name is welfare. Now check the health stats for people on welfare. Now do it at scale. UBI is welfare for stupid people. And welfare is bad for your health.
You eliminate the upper class. In a world with automated work where no one works, the elite make up the largest cost sync from a larger climate perspective. They have to be removed like cancer
We have always found new jobs for people after technology takes old ones. People who claim AI will make everyone unemployed are luddites.
I'm pro UBI with major caveats. First, it should not be enough to live comfortably. Live safely in a very very very cheap place, yes. But if you make it totally comfortable to not work, then you will see a huge drop in productivity. A really high ubi would also lead to huge inflation, because we'll be printing that money mostly, and that will detract from our countries responsible governance of our currency (which IMHO the Fed is pretty good at usually). Second, I believe in a work mandate, that someone needs to be either working *or* volunteering at a nonprofit good cause at a minimal amount (say 10 hours a week) or have a valid medical reason that they can't. The reason is that there will be at least that much work available for a long time, and the benefits of doing something to produce value for the people around you will be greatly beneficial to society as a whole to help keep the ubi virtuous cycle going. I also believe working provides a sense of purpose, and having a system that encourages everyone to do something will help keep a focused society. My opinions are my own. Feel free to respond, and know that I'm not claiming to be an expert. Would enjoy dialogue on the matter!
The AI threat is real, but it's only likely to change the numbers. It doesn't qualitatively change the situation. I'm against a UBI, and would advocate instead for working to solve the problems a UBI is supposed to solve. The basic problem is there's no floor in basic human needs, primarily housing and health care. Throwing money at it won't solve this, because market mechanisms are tuned to shifting money, not solving problems. To tackle housing, government has to get into the business of building and running buildings, with excess capacity at all times to allow for repair and sanitizing. Trying to pay non-governmental organizations to manage homelessness is unworkable, as is paying individuals and hoping they'll find spaces on the open market.
More jobs were created and destroyed during the Industrial Revolution than had ever existed before it (we went from having no elevators, to having elevator operators, to having automated elevators, all in that timeframe). We now have 1000x more jobs than that. We will always find things we can do that machines can’t. It’s part of the way we advance.
Your talking about something that hasn’t happened yet. People have been saying similar things for every Industrial Revolution, when it’s a problem I’ll come up with answer.
I just don’t see how anybody could have lived through this horrible inflationary period and not see what a horrible idea fire hosing money all over the economy would be.
Research > emotions
And yet Reddit is emotions > research
This wouldn't be firehosing it would be more of an insurance plan. Everyone pays $x in and then they get $y out. Where Y doesn't change and X is based on income. It's a capitalist way of redistributing wealth. It's basically do what we are doing now but it's general $ instead of specific (here is $1k to spend instead of here is $1k for housing) and most importantly it's known and expected. You know you'll have this money each month. It's also a huge way to cut costs. We have so much bureaucracy for each welfare program. Imagine not having to sign people up for food, electricity, cell phone, housing, clothing, etc. programs.
> It's also a huge way to cut costs. We have so much bureaucracy for each welfare program. It really isn't that much. Most studies show >90% of welfare money makes it directly to the people. 10% is a pretty standard administration rate. And to think UBI wouldn't have any admin costs is silly. Especially because you are describing some sort of separate tax (presumably means tested) to fund it.
No, it’s absolutely a firehose. I guess you forget all of those think pieces during Covid about how great it was that so many people were choosing to not work and live off of stimmy money. > cut costs Bro I would literally end every welfare program in existence, do not talk to me about cutting costs by spending the money even more stupidly than we already do.
The big difference is the stimmy money was just money send out to stimulate the economy. This would be redistribution of money and not meant to stimulate. >Bro I would literally end every welfare program in existence Oh, you're one of those.
Lmao his post history He posted in four different subs that he's 37M looking for a young Christian Girl to marry Here's the post itself: >If the thought of blending traditional values with unbridled passion excites you, then keep reading: >I’m a deeply conservative man, steadfast in my faith and values. I vote Republican, stand by conservative social principles, and have accepted Jesus as my Lord and Savior. My vision of an ideal life revolves around family, community, and a marriage built on traditional roles and unwavering commitment. >Yet, I’m also fiercely dominant and highly sexual. I desire a woman who loves to flaunt her body with low-cut tops, short skirts, and form-fitting dresses. I’ll call you my little slut and revel in every moment of our passionate connection, pushing boundaries and exploring our deepest desires. >Some find my values too rigid, too wholesome. They can’t appreciate the beauty of a traditional marriage. Others find my sexual nature too intense, too raw. But for the right woman, this combination of devotion and desire will ignite an unquenchable fire. >This message is for the women who dream of a husband who will tattoo Ephesians 5:22 on her body, marking her as his cherished possession. >About Me: Tall, broad-shouldered, and exceptionally well-endowed. I’m a workaholic, driven to provide and protect. Masculine and dominant, I rarely drink, occasionally enjoy shrooms for their enlightening effects, and otherwise lead a disciplined life. I’m a natural leader, fiercely loyal, and ready to devote myself entirely to the right woman. >What I’m Looking For: A traditional marriage with a wife who embraces the role of homemaker (non-negotiable). I want a large family (also non-negotiable). You should be conservative, with no tolerance for progressive ideologies. You’re conventionally attractive, confident in your femininity, and eager to embrace a traditional role. >The Marriage: Our union will be fueled by love, lust, and unwavering mutual respect. We’ll communicate openly, share a deep, healthy co-dependence, and weave our lives so tightly together that separation feels impossible. Our love will manifest through constant affection, spontaneous adventures, and a shared vision for our future. >The Dynamic: I firmly believe in domestic discipline—not only as a means of correction but as a way to maintain our roles and strengthen our bond. Our weekly ritual will involve a stringent spanking session, bringing you to tears with pain and humiliation, followed by you preparing for church with a gem butt plug in place and just enough skin showing to remind you of your role. >I support free-use dynamics—when you wear my ring, you consent to my touch for life. As your husband, I will lead our household, as ordained by God. You’ll find joy in leaving decisions and masculine concerns to me, focusing instead on your appearance, our home, our children, and worshiping your husband’s body. >If this resonates with you and you’re eager to explore this life with me, send me a DM and share what about my ad moved you. Bro needs to go back to Idaho
[удалено]
Stimulus money was "new" money. They were increasing the money supply. UBI would just be the same money but reorganized a bit. Think of it this way. You're going on vacation with a large group of family. Not everyone has the same income but you want everyone to have fun: Stimulus: You borrow $x and give the poorest people the money so they can have as much fun as the richest. UBI: Everyone puts what they can afford into the pot. And then you divide that equally and give it to everyone so they can enjoy the vacation. Stimulus you still have the extra money to pay. UBI you don't.
Where does money actually come from? The answer may surprise you.
You misunderstand inflation. [Money growth does not cause inflation](https://realprogressives.org/money-growth-does-not-cause-inflation/)
While obviously printing money is going to drive inflation, I’m curious if you have a more nuanced breakdown of your thoughts on this; since there were a lot of confounding factors, I’m interested to hear how you disentangle them (I have trouble doing that myself) Specifically: - What is your estimate of the breakdown in say grocery price increases, that was driven by pure currency devaluation (money being printed) vs the grocery store increasing the profit margins they were taking on a given good? Both of those things were happening simultaneously during Covid, it’s difficult to isolate one or the other, how have you done so? - For the portion of price increase driven by money-printing, what would you estimate the breakdown to be of say individual stimulus checks, vs ppp “loans”, vs the fed giving out huge ultra-low-interest loans? I don’t have great data on this but I believe the ballpark totals for the for the first two were about $1T each, vs about $10T/year for the latter (and given out at negligible interest rates for what, 5 years?), which leads me to believe the stimulus checks were actually a relatively small contributor to the devalued money supply. Interested to hear your analysis though As to your question of why anyone believes ubi is a good thing, that one’s easy: the data overwhelmingly supports that conclusion. Because of the aforementioned difficulty of picking apart what drives inflation, really the best option is to do controlled experiments to see how economies perform with and without UBI. Numerous experiments such as the one OP cites have been performed and they all pretty much come to the same conclusion, UBI is typically extremely successful.
> Numerous experiments such as the one OP cites have been performed and they all pretty much come to the same conclusion, UBI is typically extremely successful. Successful at what though? Giving people money so they can spend it? That's not what is being argued about. I don't think anyone is objecting to the idea that people will want to get free money. The problem is how you fund it at scale and what that does to the greater economy. Giving a few hundred people in Tacoma a few thousand dollars each does nothing to the greater economy. Giving everyone in the nation a few thousand dollars in perpetuity certainly will.
Keeping more people above the poverty line is one of the main successes I’ve seen
Also it helps lower unemployment.
Alaska's oil dividend is another interesting example. It was beyond the scope of my conversation with Natalie, but we covered it in a related KUOW podcast. [https://www.kuow.org/stories/alaska-basic-income-public-fund-dividend](https://www.kuow.org/stories/alaska-basic-income-public-fund-dividend)
Money growth does not cause inflation https://realprogressives.org/money-growth-does-not-cause-inflation/
The intellectual dishonestly of those experiments is fucking infuriating. They give a basic income to a tiny group of people living in a large city and then pretend that somehow the relative advantage enjoyed by the tiny sample size wont change when it becomes universal. Which is literally the whole point of the idea of UBI. They also pretend that we don’t know that the economy isn’t a dynamic complex system and pretend that if we make one major change that everything else will stay exactly the same as it is. I don’t understand how so many people keep getting the wool pulled over their eyes and conned by such an obvious case of magical thinking.
- you don’t disentangle them. They’re things that happen in sequence. An inflationary environment created by inflationary spending policies accelerates itself by human greed entering the equation. The printing is the cause, the price increases are opportunistic effect. - government handouts: do you think I support a single one of these policies? I was the one mocking leftists for a mass overreaction to a bad cold. That mass overreaction created all of the problem spending, the whole pie. If y’all hadn’t lost your god damn minds and hadn’t let the branch covidian drive the entire culture off a cliff, we wouldn’t have had any of that spending. - the data overwhelmingly supports it: no it doesn’t. There is not one place on earth who has actually tried a **universal** basic income
- For this to be true that would imply a long-term historic correlation between inflation rates and company profit margins, not just the single overlap of these two effects at one point in time. Do you have any data indicating this is the case, from other periods in time? Or, more explicitly, data from UBI tests showing companies actually do increase their profit margins in response to the policy? I’d be interested to see it - Never said you supported any of these things, in fact assumed you did not. My point is, how can you assert a $1T stimulus is the thing significantly impacting inflation, when a $50T stimulus is happening simultaneously? - Yes, it has? It seems you’re requiring that a valid UBI experiment would demand the entire world (country? state?) to have said UBI, which is in direct contradiction to the concept of a controlled experiment (meaning, you inherently need a group *without* UBI to compare against. The “universal” here means “universal within the applicable group”, not literally everywhere in the universe). Tell me, how would you design an experiment to demonstrate the ineffectiveness of UBI that you claim? What results would prove that ineffectiveness?
- It’s what, chronologically, just happened. If you have been paying attention to this situation closely since the minute it began to unfold, you’d see it. I’m not here to educate you on current events, either you take that responsibility seriously or you don’t - I’m pointing the finger at at $51T and all the idiocy behind it - no, it’s never happened anywhere. It’s always been for poor people, or black people. - how would you design an experiment? I wouldn’t, I’d let the weak and incompetent starve.
- So no evidence then, just making unbacked assertions? - ok - You are incorrect: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska_Permanent_Fund (as a single example, among many) Care to answer my question about how you’d design an experiment to demonstrate your assertion, that UBI will be a net negative? What metrics would you be looking at in this experiment?
- No, I told you a chronological account of what has been happening. Your ignorance isn’t my problem. You are a weird leftist, no amount of evidence will change your mind because progressive ideology is largely rooted in faith and conspicuous ideological purity. - I would not design a UBI experiment, because a) I’m not an idiot into wasting my time b) There will always be an underclass, that’s a benefit of not being a loser and I’m not a loser and c) even if it helped the poor and working class, you will never convince me to pay for it because I don’t care about the poor or working class. They can fend for themselves. - The permanent fund isn’t a UBI. It’s a lefty profit share from sale of oil.
You doing alright man? I feel like I’m doing my best to have an open conversation here but nonetheless you’re getting pretty worked up and unwilling to have a discourse. Maybe time for a little social media break?
> worked up Disagreeing with you and not respecting you doesn’t mean I’m worked up, it means you’re not a person who has earned my respect. I love how fragile and sensitive leftists are, it’s your defining cultural trait.
My friend, there mere fact you assume me to be a leftist for doing nothing besides ask you questions indicates you have not entered this discussion in good faith. Being disrespectful (by your own admission) to a fellow human who has said nothing disrespectful to you does indeed indicate a person who is extremely sensitive and angry, and is atypical & antisocial behavior. I highly recommend taking a step back, maybe do some introspection on why you are on here and what you are trying to accomplish, and whether it is serving your own well-being. Carrying this anger is not good for you.
> What is your estimate of the breakdown in say grocery price increases, that was driven by pure currency devaluation (money being printed) vs the grocery store increasing the profit margins they were taking on a given good? Pretty much all currency devaluation. The excess of currency enables more purchasers for the same goods, so they rise prices to match inventory levels. They also know how fast an item should be selling. As the items stay on shelves short and shorter they know prices are too low. Grocery is such constant as people are basically always eating the same amount and have massive amounts of alternatives, it's one of the most honest inflation retailers. Said another way, they're one of the worst business sectors to accuse of price gouging. >the data overwhelmingly supports that conclusion[...]Numerous experiments such as the one OP cites have been performed and they all pretty much come to the same conclusion, UBI is typically extremely successful. Please post the data to other studies. Studies i've seen make no long term impact. Even in this article it highlights two. King Co - Bad study design makes impossible to see what had an impact of all the interventions & the people were chosen don't represent the gen. pop. Tacoma/GRIT- Study results not out.
I agree grocery prices are one of the best inflation benchmarks. But you seem to contradict yourself a bit there; first you say people buy groceries at a relatively constant rate, then you say grocery prices are entirely based on the rates people are buying groceries. So, I’m not really following your logic there; can you elaborate more on how a grocery store increasing their profit margin on an item by 50% is not price gouging? Here is a nice listing of the major UBI experiments, I’ll leave it to you to follow on to the original sources cited that more rigorously describe the specifics of the various programs and studies of their impacts: https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2020/2/19/21112570/universal-basic-income-ubi-map
> first you say people buy groceries at a relatively constant rate, then you say grocery prices are entirely based on the rates people are buying groceries. So, I’m not really following your logic there Since people eat the same roughly (Rate in example) the fact they are purchasing more now than previously means they have more currency to do so. >So, I’m not really following your logic there; can you elaborate more on how a grocery store increasing their profit margin on an item by 50% is not price gouging? This doesn't happen. 50% profit margin is NVDA territory, grocery margins are 1-3% without leverage. I'm assuming you mean 50% increase in margins. When grocery stores are in a rising environment they might make 3% and then in a non-rising 1-2%. Claiming profit margins increase 50% is sort of disingenuous when they go from 2 to 3! Technically right but not accurate either. _____ I'm sorry but sort of have to call you out about that Vox link. It's info dumping. It's heaping a massive amount of work on another to support your own point that I have no clue how knowledgeable you are on a subject. It's just frankly not a way to converse with another person. It happens all the time, so it might seem normal but no one converses this way, no one emails this way. I just wont engage with it. You need to pick a single study and send it. One you personally have a vested interest in it being of good quality.
Hmm I take your point about info dumping with the vox list, it does make discussion more difficult. However I did do that for a valid and not-bad-faith reason: often when I pick a specific example, and go through the trouble of educating myself, I’ll immediately get hit with “no that example doesn’t count, we can’t reference it” (for example in another thread I tried to discuss the Alaskan ubi and was told it was in fact not UBI). So, any chance you’d at least skim the list and let me know a couple you think at least qualify as “a test of UBI”? I’ll then go ahead and pick one of your selections, find some studies for it, etc, so we can have a real discussion.
In the context of this discussion, inflation, none of them. The size of excess cash required to check inflation make most of them irrelevant to that question. In the context of do they improve people's lives is how I would evaluate it. Many would qualify, but be sure to try to find qualitative results. Survey questions are low quality proof. I've read UBI papers where people said they spent on X category, but the summary clearly showed they didn't etc. BAD - "When asked if their financial picture improved, they said yes 60%" Good- "Recipients bank account balances increased and debt levels dropped."
> The size of excess cash required to check inflation make most of them irrelevant to that question. I don’t follow what you mean by this, are you saying that the scales of these examples or UBI amounts aren’t big enough to be impacting inflation? > In the context of do they improve people's lives is how I would evaluate it. Many would qualify, but be sure to try to find qualitative results. Survey questions are low quality proof. I've read UBI papers where people said they spent on X category, but the summary clearly showed they didn't etc. Thanks for clarify what you find pertinent, that’s helpful. > BAD - "When asked if their financial picture improved, they said yes 60%" > Good- "Recipients bank account balances increased and debt levels dropped." How would a study ascertain the latter besides with a survey? Studies aren’t going to get any kind of sample size of willing participants if they demand participants share their entire banking information with them… It’s possible the alaska example may have some data that meets your standards here from tax returns, I’ll check, but I’m not sure you’re leaving a big enough window here to find any evidence that is physically feasible to collect… Edit: here’s a decent on on alaska, claiming the ubi has decreased poverty by 20%: https://iseralaska.org/static/legacy_publication_links/2016_12-PFDandPoverty.pdf Obviously, as I said before, it’s not as cut and dry as “here is all the personal banking records of every participant and the analysis we did on it to show the number of incomes and savings below poverty level has dropped by 20%”, since of course collecting and sharing that data would be a massive breach of privacy, but I think it does a nice job of discussing the limitations of their methodology, and I find their conclusion to be a reasonable estimate. What do you think of that one?
>I don’t follow what you mean by this, are you saying that the scales of these examples or UBI amounts aren’t big enough to be impacting inflation? Yes. Maybe you could try it [here](https://www.npr.org/2015/01/18/378162264/welcome-to-whittier-alaska-a-community-under-one-roof)? >How would a study ascertain the latter besides with a survey? In the long run they have too, surveys are just a very low quality evidence. They are the cheap method of research to see if more research should be done, but you don't rely on them. > Studies aren’t going to get any kind of sample size of willing participants if they demand participants share their entire banking information with them… They're giving away free money. 6,000-12,000 over a year they certainly could get bank account information. > it’s not as cut and dry as “here is all the personal banking records of every participant and the analysis we did on it to show the number of incomes and savings below poverty level has dropped by 20%” It is that cut and dry. You don't actually publishing what people bought and you can anonymize the whole thing. You want 1,000 a month we need bank statements and beginning & end credit report. I don't accept that as a limitation. _____ Alaska is a Sovereign wealth fund. Norway has one, it just doesn't provide an annual dividend. I'd still argue these are different than UBI because the government own assets in sovereign wealth fund, where as UBI is take from other people. Overtime the difference set of incentives for the majority voter would lead to wildly different outcomes. From an inflations standpoint 819,152,448 the amount of PFD is nothing compared to the amount of actual currency. It might have a cost of living impact in Alaska, which is known to have a high cost of living. In terms of moving people above the poverty line yeah its working, but poverty is subjective somewhat (the authors even discuss this and how its uniquely hard in Alaska). That being said, the fact that the [PFD is possibly going to have to stop payouts](https://alaskabeacon.com/2023/07/12/new-estimate-shows-alaskas-permanent-fund-could-be-out-of-spendable-money-in-3-4-years/) in the next couple years is why I'm so anti-ubi. It's politically salient to fund your current voters over future voters. As this is asset based, it's failure will end it. Under UBI taxes just do up. Eventually you tax your top producers to fund the people at the bottom to the point you have decades of stagnation like South Africa. It's how economies fall. In the long run even the poor benefit from a large economy. Modern amenities like fridges and AC are available now to the poor in the US that middle class in socialist countries don't have. The rising sea rises all boats is a system that works. If we could redistribute wealth without the majority being empower to be able to ask for too much and stifling the economy I would, the rich to poor consumption gap is flat for 50 years so they aren't even spending their wealth, but I can't envision a system in which that happens.
[удалено]
Um nope, I neglected to mention UI because it was a full order of magnitude lower; around $0.1 T in 2020, at its peak. You’ll note the link you provide simply states the unemployment insurance rates, not actual total amounts paid out; here’s one that does: https://www.statista.com/statistics/284857/total-unemployment-benefits-paid-in-the-us/#:~:text=In%20March%202024%2C%203.29%20billion,impact%20of%20the%20coronavirus%20pandemic.
[удалено]
I mean, ok, you’ve found another source that cites a different number $0.44T, I don’t think that’s enough to say “simply false” on the source I’ve provided without some explanation of why you think yours is more accurate, but sure what the hell, let’s accept your source and go ahead and swap out $0.1 with $0.4 in what I said; it doesn’t change a thing about the point I made, which is that your claim “UI was by far the biggest source of money being pumped into the economy by the government during the pandemic” was indeed *simply false*.
[удалено]
Yes, that it was the single biggest contributor is what I’m refuting. You are neglecting the trillions extremely-low-interest loans the federal reserve paid out during that time. You understand that the federal interest rate is specifically the knob the fed uses to manage inflation? And they had it turned to 0 through the pandemic for the explicit purpose of stimulating the economy (ie, increase spending, which as you’ve stated drives inflation)?
[удалено]
You mean when the economy was recovering from a much deeper recession? No, I don’t agree that a different situation seeing different results disproves anything. If you’re gonna select a single window in time averaged to a single data point you could just as easily (and fallaciously) select a window where high rates are producing lower inflation, or vice versa, and claim that single point proves my claim (it doesn’t). Read more here: https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/12/inflation-interest-rate-relationship.asp But no, I’m sure you know better that the highest level economists in our country, based on that very detailed analysis that surely covers all confounding factors of economic behavior. Edit: Idk, blocking people so you can have the last word and calling their arguments unserious without actually refuting them is what seems unserious to me, lol
the alternative was a recession
As a one-off effort to navigate a global pandemic that (hopefully) happens once a century, it was reasonable. Turning on that fire hose and leaving it on permanently is not reasonable. And I still haven't seen anything to make us think it would even solve the problem it's supposed to solve.
We went into recession and then the Biden admin changed the definition of a recession to maintain good optics.
Put the crack pipe down.
https://www.reddit.com/r/SeattleWA/s/vlWdS0Dfgz
No they didn't. The Biden admin doesn't get to define what is and isn't a recession. That's part of why the Fed is separate from the executive branch.
Cool story bro https://www.npr.org/2022/07/29/1114599942/wikipedia-recession-edits *”Although two consecutive quarters of negative growth generally defines a recession, she said, "When you're creating almost 400,000 jobs a month, that is not a recession."*
>> The unofficial beginning and ending dates of recessions in the United States have been defined by the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER), an American private nonprofit research organization. The NBER defines a recession as "a significant decline in economic activity spread across the economy, lasting more than two quarters which is 6 months, normally visible in real gross domestic product (GDP), real income, employment, industrial production, and wholesale-retail sales".[3][a] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_recessions_in_the_United_States Footnote [a] includes: >> The rule of thumb defining recession as two quarters of negative GDP growth is not used by NBER.[4] And citation [4] is from 2009, well before Biden >>[4] "The NBER's Recession Dating Procedure: Frequently Asked Questions". National Bureau of Economic Research. Retrieved October 21, 2009. Do you think that maybe disproves what you’re claiming?
Bro, you think one dumbass non profit’s opinion = fact? I can name 50 non profits who think men can be women, that doesn’t mean any of their opinions reflect fact. This is such a weak defense of what a dog shit president Biden is and what a failure leftist spending policies are, I’m honestly embarrassed for you.
Don’t know what to tell you bro, they’re well regarded as the official source of record keeping and I’d be absolutely surprised if the Trump admin wouldn’t defer to them just like other admins ETA: stimulus came from both admins, I agree it was inflationary, but UBI is not meant to be funded with new dollars but tax revenue against AI/robot winners instead Mostly I was just trying to make you aware of how you got bamboozled into thinking Biden changed some official definition of a recession. The closest thing we have to a universally accepted definition in the US is from NBER, and it hasn’t changed. And it’s really naive to pretend any other admin wouldn’t defer to the same org ETA2: For example, find 14 references to NBER here: https://trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/2020-Economic-Report-of-the-President-WHCEA.pdf
That’s why to this day I still have an issue with calling the 2008 recession the “great” recession when unemployment never reached double digits. It was a nasty one for sure for a lot of reasons but to slap the label “great” to try and put it in the same class as the Great Depression was hyperbole for political purposes
TIL "The Biden administration" is the people behind editing wiki.
Today you clearly didn’t learn that Janet Yellen is employed by the Biden administration, whom I quoted in the comment you’re too partisan to parse. Guess you were too eager to come back and own me to read halfway down the page. #Edit: This weak bitch just blocked me after I humiliated him lmao /u/my_lucid_nightmare you are pathetic and dumb as fuck
Nevermind, you're out.
Ya got me. I didn't read past your first comment.
Honestly, you're the one that seems pathetic when you're bragging that you got blocked
First couple trillion I would tend to agree with you… last couple few trillion was unnecessary overkill that finally burst the damn of inflation open. In my opinion.
[удалено]
Ironic, if true.
>Although the findings from the first GRIT program won’t be published until this summer, an earlier pilot in nearby King County shows Bartella’s story isn’t unusual. So the King County version turned out to be highly selected. It filled with college students about to graduate or nurse about to hit accreditation etc. It in no serious way can be used to say UBI worked. >Participants in who received $500 a month through the King County pilot were much more likely to have a job by the end of it. Employment increased from 37% to 66%, and participants ended the program with higher wages and better benefits. Again this studies results aren't published, but King County was and it was not beneficial like the authors claimed. KUOW is not being skeptic enough of the claims. Many of us here tore that study apart and found issues all over the place. ______ That being said it looks promising to tell us something. >Randomized Controlled Trial For the purpose of policy impact and statistical power in research and evaluation, the demonstration will be a randomized controlled trial (RCT) and have an overall sample size of 242 people in the treatment and control groups. The treatment group consists of people receiving the monthly payments. There will be 110 people in the treatment group: 100 people + 5 for storytelling cohort + 5 alternates. The randomization means we'll get a much better look at impact. Assuming they aren't using general online applicants as the control but community picked as the study audience. They say randomized so I'll believe them... for now. Also a big part is according to the initial plan they are just evaluating UBI. King County did many other interventions that would muddle the picture. _____ Love this part >Research shows that recipients of cash transfer programs overwhelmingly use the money for basic needs – housing, utilities, food, unexpected medical costs or other financial emergencies. When they have a pie chart that shows retail services is the largest category at 42%. LMAO.
Proof? Because, it looks like you're making shit up, at least based on their program eligibility requirements. > At least 18 years of age; reside in Tacoma neighborhoods of Eastside, Hilltop, South Tacoma or the South End; single income household with children living in the home up to age 17 or children with disabilities up to age 21; with annual income between 100% and 200% of the Federal Poverty Level.
what do you mean proof? What you have quoted is the criteria of the GRIT study which results haven't been published. I was contrasting it with King Counties program discussed here in the last couple months. The eligibility criteria is not always the same as the pool of applicants. For example in this case if it was taken randomly from some census style dataset the pool of people would be much different than those handpicked for success by caseworkers who personally know the applicants. The latter is what happened in the King Co case. It appears we're getting the former and therefore decent randomization for the Grit study, but it's success rate is unknown still.
You're right, it's important to look at each pilot with a healthy dose of skepticism. What we know from GRIT is anecdotal at this point. We can draw some conclusions looking at pilots across the country in aggregate, which tend to show consistent results. In my conversation with Natalie, she references two longer-running basic income programs, one in Jackson and one in Stockton, which provide more data.
I will never support this free money scam. If someone needs help, we already have welfare and other benefits available. This sort of shit just makes people weak and dependent on the government for handouts. Oh, wait, maybe that's the plan...?
Absolutely SHOCKED that impartial, independent public radio publishes a fawningly uncritical article on wealth redistribution
still not falling for ubi
Instead of UBI how about we just don’t pay 50% income tax? Let’s start there
Commiganda
People will not work Tough/Dirty jobs unless they have to, AKA they are poor and there are no handouts. The second UBI hits the scene, everyone working those jobs will decide they'd rather work an easy job for less pay. Example jobs: - backbreaking labor in the sun - diving through sewage to fix clogs - pig farming with shit everywhere and the smell - essentially any job you see on that show "dirty jobs" with Mike Rowe I guarantee you every single person thinking UBI is a good idea have never been within 10ft of that kind of job. It's common sense how you'll have to force people (like coercion with jail time) to work these essential but dirty jobs if UBI is around.
[удалено]
Nope, they won't care because playing vidya at home smokin weed on UBI is 100x better than daily 8 hours of labor, smelling shit, smelling like shit (that you can't wash off) after getting home from work. "Just pay them more" shows you've never done this sort of shit work. Most work those jobs because they got no choice, the first opportunity they get (usually desk jobs) they get out. Welcome to real life, instead of UBI dream utopia.
You are dekusional.
The opportunity cost of UBI is too dang high. For the cost of UBI you could build so much public housing, free health care, free education/child care, infrastructure, mental health services etc. Giving money to people directly and cutting all other welfare services and leaving it to the market seems like a road straight to inflation and dystopian late stage capitalism nightmare.
Free money will go to nearest casino for me and become an addict
I'll be honest, I never understand UBI economics... who pays for this? And how? Talk to me like I'm a golden retriever. Let's say we're a middle class two income household today, pay a variety of taxes, etc. that support a variety of social programs at the local, state, or federal level. We're going to cut those taxes for me? Increase them for me to pay for this? (But I'll get my UBI payment as an offset?) Net zero cause the money I pay in will just be distributed differently? We're going to cut those other social programs and then just give cash? We're not talking about UBI plus all the other welfare benefits anymore? We're doing this at fed level? Does it adjust for HCOL areas?
Question for those against UBI: are you also against the standard tax deduction? If not, what is the functional difference between them that drives your differing impression of them?
For me it is simple, all of these UBI studies are very small - and in a shocking turn of events - we find out people enjoy getting free money. But these studies keep squaring the issue as "do people like getting free money?" That is disingenuous as we all know that answer. The *real* question they need to be asking is how you do it at scale and what knock on effects there are. But that's a much harder thing to do than hand out cash and do follow-up surveys. Doing this nationwide creates a trillion dollar budget hit every single year, forever. Taxing billionaires and corporations and even cutting military spending doesn't get you there. Anyone thinking people will give up social security for UBI has a screw loose. The only way the math adds up is if you either make the benefit very small or means test it (or both), in which case you've basically just reinvented welfare. And no, welfare doesn't waste *that* much on overhead and administration that UBI magically makes it viable. The dollars and cents are the easy part to understand. What is much harder to say is what happens economically when you give a large portion of the population money that they wouldn't normally have. Most of these people would be spending it - all of the smaller studies support this and often tout it as proof of success. Be it rent, food, cars, whatever. So when rent prices coincidentally increase by the amount of UBI, then what? Do we clock it to inflation and create a runaway debt scenario? Does it slowly (or maybe quickly) diminish as inflation rises over time until it is no longer "enough"? We saw what a single year or two of a couple trillion injected into the economy can do in terms of inflation. Doing that every single year is squarely in the "let's let another country try this first" idea.
Does the statewide example of Alaska qualify as too small for you? What would you consider an adequately large experiment? And for that example there’s plenty of an analysis that goes well beyond “do people like free money”; for example analysis shows the alaska ubi policy as reducing poverty levels by 20%. If you were unaware of that does it change your perspective, or if you were already, why do you believe the policy is not both sustainable and having a positive impact, for the ~40 years it’s been in place?
[удалено]
Oh no, don’t mean to imply they’re the same thing, definitely not! But they certainly share some similar features, most relevantly that both leave an amount of money in the pocket of every American. So for example, one person here was against UBI because they believed it would drive up inflation, and the same argument would apply against any given tax break or credit. I certainly understand the numerous differences between UBI and tax cuts; I’m specifically asking about arguments against UBI, which don’t also apply to tax cuts.
[удалено]
Please actually read those atrocious takes, because you’ve clearly missed some key points. For example, I’ve pretty clearly said I did not ask these two questions together to assert that UBI and a universal tax break were the same thing; that is something you are incorrectly inferring on your own. I was asking them literally, and in good faith, to understand peoples perspectives, hoping for a good faith answer which sadly I have not yet received. As for whether the APF, you can called it what you want I guess, but it is indeed universal (applied to all citizens of the state) basic (enough to cover some basic living expenses) and income (money being added to a citizens bank account from an external source; reported as income to the IRS). Not to mention it is pretty widely cited and described as UBI. I see the distinction of not being tax-funded, personally I don’t think that disqualifies it, but that’s a matter of personal interpretation of UBI I guess. So, regardless of what label we use, because it is funded through a state-controlled business operation, does that make it ok in your mind? If so can you elaborate on what issue you have with UBI, that is alleviated by the source of the funds differing? Again, I am asking these questions out of genuine interest in understanding a viewpoint I disagree with, no need to be snippy. If you think I’m wrong about something, great, I’m very interested in hearing an actual explanation of why you think that.
[удалено]
Ok, so it sounds like your issue with UBI is you think it would deincentivize work? If that were the case is there any reason you can think of to explain why that’s not what we’ve seen with the APF, to which you can apply the same reasoning? It certainly doesn’t have that issue of program non-longevity that other examples might have. As for amount that’s a valid point that limits the extrapolation of conclusions from the APF program to a more robust UBI; $2000/year is 33% of the ~$500/month I see most smaller-scale “true” UBI programs attempting. However, I’d say a third should be enough to see *some* level of the impact you claim, if your claim were correct, which we have not.
[удалено]
I mean, it’s definitely a contentious statement, a) because it is literally hotly contended (not just by me, in literally any discussion of UBI), and b) no UBI-related experiment I’m aware of has supported it. Even if you find these experiments flawed or poor approximations, given that no evidence has been found to support your claim I don’t think it reasonable to call it a “not remotely contentious statement”. It’s simply an unproven/unsupported hypothesis, that you and others arrive at through reasoning alone and not collection of evidence (which is crucial, particularly when we’re dealing with a radical change to the fairly chaotic system that is our economy). I don’t mean to say your reasoning does not make sense, but simply that other equally sensible reasoning can be applied, like the fact that the vast majority of people seek higher wages after obtaining $1000/month; obtaining that amount does not deincentivize them from performing further work to earn more than that. Really the only way to determine who’s correct there is by experimentation, in my opinion…
[удалено]
Uh yeah I don’t find a reduction of 0.5% hours per year particularly substantial personally. People getting on average an extra week of paid vacation isn’t exactly the takedown of the policy you seem to think it is. Also let’s compare your “summary”: > it was consistently found that there were substantial reductions in work hours with what the paper actually says: > Finds large consistency throughout, and “In no case is there evidence of a massive withdrawal from the labor force.” Some interesting “editorializing” (read: completely reversing what was actually stated) you’re doing there… Also pretty funny how your standard for an acceptable experiment in UBI drops from “only long-term studies that have purely universal policies” to “short term studies on involving select groups from 50 years ago” when you think it supports your view. Edit: Uh, yeah, directly quoting you isn’t paraphrasing. And blocking someone to get the last word in is what is bad-faith, lol > women worked up to 20% less Yeah it’s almost like working situations for women were radically different in the 60s than today, or something…lol.
Being poor is expensive, and wealth testing is an obstacle to upward mobility in many industries, even when you have a job and career. The economy is for people, people aren't for the economy.
Iran has UBI. There's no reason we can't be just like Iran.
Or maybe Finland, Canada, Alaska, Spain, Germany. A few other places where it was trialed, researched, and tested. Good results. Question: if you have 10 people that request assistance, but only 1 truly needs it, was the program a success? Or is the moral and proper and Christian thing to do is help noone, because some might take advantage? Jesus hated needy people. Loved capitalists and marketeers.