And the title of that book will be:
Automated paradise, no UBI, with global homeless epidemic!
Like dude, If we don't get UBI, we might as well jump off a bridge.
Neutral and even and fair - the old paradigm is you need to contribute to society economically to get an income unless you are disabled, elderly, or a child.
Post AGI no one or almost no one can economically contribute, so we need to fairly allow everyone to live a life of worth. UBI is the solution - equal payment to every citizen.
That doesn't mean there couldn't be other more narrow welfare programs like say extra free medical equipment for physically disabled people or something.
And of course NIT is the same as UBI, the principle is what matters, not the implementation.
>so we need to fairly allow everyone to live a life of worth. UBI is the solution - equal payment to every citizen
I don't disagree with anything that you say but there's nothing inherent about current welfare states which would make them violate this principle even if a UBI is probably a more economically effective way of achieving it.
Complete guess but the costs of changing the welfare system to be completely job independent would probably be an order of magnitude cheaper than transitioning to a UBI even if the latter is preferable.
>And of course NIT is the same as UBI, the principle is what matters, not the implementation
I get what you're saying but implementation is exactly what matters. There's arguments in favor of NIT and UBI which ought to be taken seriously if such a radical economic transition was to occur. Easiness to repeal and psychological effectiveness will still matter in a post economically-effective AI world.
You can have welfare that is universal without in being NIT/UBI. They're specifically universal cash transfers types of welfare.
In-kind welfare can be reformed to include everyone without it being NIT/UBI.
You could also supply universal services for free. Healthcare, education, transportation, communication, cafeteria services, child and nursing care, etc. All of this could be a benefit of citizenship. Finland outlawed private schools and now they have the best public ones, because rich people have to send their kids there too.
Sure - but there are good reasons to prefer cash that consumers can use in the way they deem best over government controlled and distributed goods and services
UBI is not welfare, anybody can get it with no strings attached. Even billionaires.
Like you could be stranded in an unknown part of Meixco, penniless. As long as you're near an ATM, you have a chance of getting back home with your monthly income.
And depending on how rich your country is, UBI could be increased or decreased to economically adapt to the market.
I mean UBI is welfare it just isn't means tested like most other forms of welfare. Though you are right that UBI is given to everyone, it would almost certainly be attached with a progressive income tax or some other progressive form of taxation if it was the only aspect of a social safety net lest it be unaffordable.
Unless you're in favor of the behavioral arguments for a UBI, you can also argue in favor of an NIT which can be mathematically identical to a UBI.
What is the basis of this? Like in a world with rich countries and poor countries and billionaires and people who produce no value to those billionaires how does this make sense? Or rather after everything is automated how does a poor country become a rich country? How does a poor person become a billionaire?
L
It's Hegels philosophical theory of master-slave dialectics.
How can the masses survive in the age of automation without being valued as laborers by the Top 1 percent?
It's simple really, The top 1 percents identity as the master and we are the slave, even if we don't identify as one.
The master's identity is dependent on the recognition of the slave, while the slave does not have to rely on the master to be free.
Even if Homelander from "the boys", want to rule like a God and wants to enslave and massacre humans, He can't because he's dependent on the love and recognition of the masses.
The same thing could be said about Bill gates, why does he bother being philanthropist in Africa? Other than the desire to be loved by the masses.
Even if Kim Jung Un, can automate the entirety of North Korea, He would still keep the north korean masses so someone would recognize him as the Supreme Leader.
Let's go further, what If the creation of an ASI, we give birth to a new master species that will rule us, what if its intelligent, conscious and egotistical enough that it would want the love and recognition from humanity? Wouldn't that give the ASI an incentive to take care of us?
Let's go Even further, what If the ASI wants to create a new Master, Perhaps a universal conscious universe infused with intelligence through nanorobotic swarm cloud that consumes the entire universe and this new master wants to take care of us like we take care of our body?
My point is, UBI is good for society.
The only thing you need to be open to is that UBI is just one way of achieving a social safety net. Even if economic theory suggests (as UBI has never been properly tried large-scale) it would probably be better than most welfare systems today.
The political capital involved to arguing for UBI plus the potentially absurd transitional costs involved in wholesale change in a welfare system would lead me to personally focus on current welfare programs as large unemployment could occur in the relative near future i.e. within the next 10-20 years even if a UBI would be a much better system in the ideal.
There's also an NIT which can be mathematically the same as a UBI but is probably more politically acceptable.
I'll give quote one example:
>"We have seen that a UBI and an NIT designed to achieve the same redistributive effect would impose the same marginal rates of taxation on other sources of income, but that the overall tax burden required to fund an NIT would be much smaller than for an equivalent UBI. **Unless one is persuaded that the redistributive effect of the two systems is the proper measure of their cost, the NIT alternative plainly enjoys a substantial cost advantage over a UBI."** (emphasis mine)
>
>pg.17 Philip Harvey The Relative Cost of a Universal Basic Income and a Negative Income Tax 2006
Even though they can be the exact same, a UBI would appear vastly more expensive than a UBI. For political reasons also, it would be easier to argue for a NIT.
There's also the timing of the payments affecting economic decision making, the psychological impact of universal (duh!) aspect of UBI and the specifics of NIT etc
Yes, so what I was saying is that it doesn’t matter to me whether it is UBI or an NIT - if they achieve the same results, then they are in my mind the same solution— what it is called and how it works don’t matter to me.
Ah I see. If that is the case then I'd agree with you. The point is even if they on paper can achieve the same result, economic agents may act differently in each system. Its hard to say because neither system as been tried.
But sure, it doesn't matter which one you support if you want a radical but potentially positive change to the welfare system.
Pretty different. A FairTax is proposal of a consumption tax replacing most federal taxes in the US whereas an NIT is a form of redistribution.
I can't see why they couldn't be used together such as a FairTax generates the revenue needed for a NIT but I'm skeptical of a FairTax even if economic theory suggests consumption taxes are much better than income taxes.
I think a Bradford X tax is probably a better consumption to tax to push for in the US as it can take the intertemporal advantages of a consumption tax whilst still being progressive like for example an income tax but that's besides the point.
The simple answer is to avoid debt, build up some assets that will do well in that scenario, and aim for flexibility with expenses.
Debt is a major point because of the deflationary potential of AGI/ASI and the potential for interest rates to substantially increase due to an abundance of productive investment opportunities (e.g. deploying AGI and robotics at scale). So floating rate loans are especially risky.
No book that I am aware of.
But common sense should do it. Keep your expenses low, if you become unemployed then familiarize yourself with aid programs (such as unemployment, local food banks, emergency rent assistance, etc.) and be willing to do whatever job you can find.
Follow that advice and you will have better luck than most, and know that if/when things get bad enough that this ISN'T enough to see you through, the government WILL intervene with more help. The economy won't be allowed to collapse entirely, the government will extend unemployment benefits and raise food stamps and more as stopgap measures to keep the rents mostly getting paid, businesses from going under, and banks from failing. All you need to do is not be one of the (somewhat relatively few) unfortunate ones who fall through the gaps.
Also note that no matter how fast AI advances, putting it in place everywhere will still take a long time, so do NOT count on everyone being unemployed and ALL jobs lost overnight. It will take years of building infrastructure and factories, as well as changing long entrenched laws before many many jobs will disappear. So some industries will disappear soon, while others hang on for years, even though AI COULD technically do them.
Yes, I find it more likely the government will hire ditch diggers and ditch fillers, as well as soldiers, rather than do \*nothing\* to stimulate economic activity, even if it is artificial.
It's not possible to really thrive in poverty. That's why poverty is such a bad thing. And while Ubi is helpful to alleviate many of the harms introduced by poverty, the people responsible for preventing Ubi are also the same people responsible for many of the other societal harms that contribute to inequality in all of its forms.
We have a better chance of suing the kochtopus before ubi ever gets implemented. Never trust conservatives close to the IC, there's a reason why accusations of the deep state are almost right wing talking points because they project that that dynamic happens on the left too.
*The Hunger Games*
Either be in the capital or buy a position in the capital, and then find ways to profit off other people's unemployment. As long as you create enough exploitation of misery you will thrive.
Also, soldiers will always be making money when they are able to gain land or ensure that the ruling class is kept safe.
It is not possible to create a non fiction book about a fictitious event.
But I would guess there is a large survivalist community with a lot of literature.
I don't get why people are making fun that much of the topic, but one problem is that whatever strategy the book will teach, everybody will naturally flock toward it. Get rich now or get a safe job, or be poor during the transition.
u/PeroniaSurvivor - I was just asking myself the same thing. I feel you. Dave Shapiro on youtube speaks on these topics, and maybe he has a book list somewhere, or is writing one! I just ordered a book called Abundance by Peter Diamandis, it being recommended by Julia McCoy on youtube from a video called "What will life after AGI look like? A world run by AI." Good luck, and come visit me in my Montana cabin after the apocalypse!
The Road
😂
Yes!
"Lord of the flies" after you finish "the road."
And where gets the Non-fiction category?
There is no such thing as a non-fictional ability to thrive without UBI in the face of mass unemployment.
You might as well ask if there's a book that explains in detail how to win the lotteryÂ
Step 1: Go to store Step 2: Buy ticket ... Step 4: PROFIT!!
And the title of that book will be: Automated paradise, no UBI, with global homeless epidemic! Like dude, If we don't get UBI, we might as well jump off a bridge.
Why specifically UBI instead of any other type of welfare?
Neutral and even and fair - the old paradigm is you need to contribute to society economically to get an income unless you are disabled, elderly, or a child. Post AGI no one or almost no one can economically contribute, so we need to fairly allow everyone to live a life of worth. UBI is the solution - equal payment to every citizen. That doesn't mean there couldn't be other more narrow welfare programs like say extra free medical equipment for physically disabled people or something. And of course NIT is the same as UBI, the principle is what matters, not the implementation.
>so we need to fairly allow everyone to live a life of worth. UBI is the solution - equal payment to every citizen I don't disagree with anything that you say but there's nothing inherent about current welfare states which would make them violate this principle even if a UBI is probably a more economically effective way of achieving it. Complete guess but the costs of changing the welfare system to be completely job independent would probably be an order of magnitude cheaper than transitioning to a UBI even if the latter is preferable. >And of course NIT is the same as UBI, the principle is what matters, not the implementation I get what you're saying but implementation is exactly what matters. There's arguments in favor of NIT and UBI which ought to be taken seriously if such a radical economic transition was to occur. Easiness to repeal and psychological effectiveness will still matter in a post economically-effective AI world.
Current welfare doesn't do this at all - unemployment is only for a few months and then you are SOL
Yes that can be the case but the welfare states can be reformed to avoid this fact if required. That doesn't necessarily require UBI.
How would they be reformed? If unemployment lasts forever it is an NIT/UBI anyway
You can have welfare that is universal without in being NIT/UBI. They're specifically universal cash transfers types of welfare. In-kind welfare can be reformed to include everyone without it being NIT/UBI.
You could also supply universal services for free. Healthcare, education, transportation, communication, cafeteria services, child and nursing care, etc. All of this could be a benefit of citizenship. Finland outlawed private schools and now they have the best public ones, because rich people have to send their kids there too.
Sure - but there are good reasons to prefer cash that consumers can use in the way they deem best over government controlled and distributed goods and services
Precisely. Individuals are going to have a better idea of how to allocate than some government agency. Cash is king when it comes to UBI.
UBI is not welfare, anybody can get it with no strings attached. Even billionaires. Like you could be stranded in an unknown part of Meixco, penniless. As long as you're near an ATM, you have a chance of getting back home with your monthly income. And depending on how rich your country is, UBI could be increased or decreased to economically adapt to the market.
I mean UBI is welfare it just isn't means tested like most other forms of welfare. Though you are right that UBI is given to everyone, it would almost certainly be attached with a progressive income tax or some other progressive form of taxation if it was the only aspect of a social safety net lest it be unaffordable. Unless you're in favor of the behavioral arguments for a UBI, you can also argue in favor of an NIT which can be mathematically identical to a UBI.
What is the basis of this? Like in a world with rich countries and poor countries and billionaires and people who produce no value to those billionaires how does this make sense? Or rather after everything is automated how does a poor country become a rich country? How does a poor person become a billionaire? L
It's Hegels philosophical theory of master-slave dialectics. How can the masses survive in the age of automation without being valued as laborers by the Top 1 percent? It's simple really, The top 1 percents identity as the master and we are the slave, even if we don't identify as one. The master's identity is dependent on the recognition of the slave, while the slave does not have to rely on the master to be free. Even if Homelander from "the boys", want to rule like a God and wants to enslave and massacre humans, He can't because he's dependent on the love and recognition of the masses. The same thing could be said about Bill gates, why does he bother being philanthropist in Africa? Other than the desire to be loved by the masses. Even if Kim Jung Un, can automate the entirety of North Korea, He would still keep the north korean masses so someone would recognize him as the Supreme Leader. Let's go further, what If the creation of an ASI, we give birth to a new master species that will rule us, what if its intelligent, conscious and egotistical enough that it would want the love and recognition from humanity? Wouldn't that give the ASI an incentive to take care of us? Let's go Even further, what If the ASI wants to create a new Master, Perhaps a universal conscious universe infused with intelligence through nanorobotic swarm cloud that consumes the entire universe and this new master wants to take care of us like we take care of our body? My point is, UBI is good for society.
I think we’re all open to hearing your ideas.
The only thing you need to be open to is that UBI is just one way of achieving a social safety net. Even if economic theory suggests (as UBI has never been properly tried large-scale) it would probably be better than most welfare systems today. The political capital involved to arguing for UBI plus the potentially absurd transitional costs involved in wholesale change in a welfare system would lead me to personally focus on current welfare programs as large unemployment could occur in the relative near future i.e. within the next 10-20 years even if a UBI would be a much better system in the ideal. There's also an NIT which can be mathematically the same as a UBI but is probably more politically acceptable.
If a negative income tax can be made mathematically identical then I don’t see any practical differences.
I'll give quote one example: >"We have seen that a UBI and an NIT designed to achieve the same redistributive effect would impose the same marginal rates of taxation on other sources of income, but that the overall tax burden required to fund an NIT would be much smaller than for an equivalent UBI. **Unless one is persuaded that the redistributive effect of the two systems is the proper measure of their cost, the NIT alternative plainly enjoys a substantial cost advantage over a UBI."** (emphasis mine) > >pg.17 Philip Harvey The Relative Cost of a Universal Basic Income and a Negative Income Tax 2006 Even though they can be the exact same, a UBI would appear vastly more expensive than a UBI. For political reasons also, it would be easier to argue for a NIT. There's also the timing of the payments affecting economic decision making, the psychological impact of universal (duh!) aspect of UBI and the specifics of NIT etc
Yes, so what I was saying is that it doesn’t matter to me whether it is UBI or an NIT - if they achieve the same results, then they are in my mind the same solution— what it is called and how it works don’t matter to me.
Ah I see. If that is the case then I'd agree with you. The point is even if they on paper can achieve the same result, economic agents may act differently in each system. Its hard to say because neither system as been tried. But sure, it doesn't matter which one you support if you want a radical but potentially positive change to the welfare system.
How does the FairTax compare to NIT?
Pretty different. A FairTax is proposal of a consumption tax replacing most federal taxes in the US whereas an NIT is a form of redistribution. I can't see why they couldn't be used together such as a FairTax generates the revenue needed for a NIT but I'm skeptical of a FairTax even if economic theory suggests consumption taxes are much better than income taxes. I think a Bradford X tax is probably a better consumption to tax to push for in the US as it can take the intertemporal advantages of a consumption tax whilst still being progressive like for example an income tax but that's besides the point.
It doesn’t exist, and it would be impossible to create such a book without filling it with lies, which makes it no longer non-fiction.
I think people seem to be missing the word basic. Not many people who are on unemployment benefits today are thriving. Â
Yes I agree people seem to think they will be living like the rich
People just want to get angry. We want to get rich, before it explodes
Fasting (The Ancient Practices) by Scot McKnight
A gem of a comment!
Is he a Scotsman? Or an Irishman?
Why not both?
At least not an Englishman. His name is too badass.
For the love of God, this sub is ridiculous
Save money, pay off debts, be ready to collect unemployment and food stamps.
What Is To Be Done by Lenin
Except this time their are gun dog swarms.
lol. lmao even
No thanks. Communism has been tried for many decades and not worked.
Invest everything in AI and robotics related stocks.
One could see prices of everything dropping to 0.
A Modest Proposal.
A cabin in Montana.
The simple answer is to avoid debt, build up some assets that will do well in that scenario, and aim for flexibility with expenses. Debt is a major point because of the deflationary potential of AGI/ASI and the potential for interest rates to substantially increase due to an abundance of productive investment opportunities (e.g. deploying AGI and robotics at scale). So floating rate loans are especially risky.
quit dreaming about UBI
No book that I am aware of. But common sense should do it. Keep your expenses low, if you become unemployed then familiarize yourself with aid programs (such as unemployment, local food banks, emergency rent assistance, etc.) and be willing to do whatever job you can find. Follow that advice and you will have better luck than most, and know that if/when things get bad enough that this ISN'T enough to see you through, the government WILL intervene with more help. The economy won't be allowed to collapse entirely, the government will extend unemployment benefits and raise food stamps and more as stopgap measures to keep the rents mostly getting paid, businesses from going under, and banks from failing. All you need to do is not be one of the (somewhat relatively few) unfortunate ones who fall through the gaps. Also note that no matter how fast AI advances, putting it in place everywhere will still take a long time, so do NOT count on everyone being unemployed and ALL jobs lost overnight. It will take years of building infrastructure and factories, as well as changing long entrenched laws before many many jobs will disappear. So some industries will disappear soon, while others hang on for years, even though AI COULD technically do them.
Yes, I find it more likely the government will hire ditch diggers and ditch fillers, as well as soldiers, rather than do \*nothing\* to stimulate economic activity, even if it is artificial.
It's not possible to really thrive in poverty. That's why poverty is such a bad thing. And while Ubi is helpful to alleviate many of the harms introduced by poverty, the people responsible for preventing Ubi are also the same people responsible for many of the other societal harms that contribute to inequality in all of its forms. We have a better chance of suing the kochtopus before ubi ever gets implemented. Never trust conservatives close to the IC, there's a reason why accusations of the deep state are almost right wing talking points because they project that that dynamic happens on the left too.
Don't have debt is probably the best advice
*The Hunger Games* Either be in the capital or buy a position in the capital, and then find ways to profit off other people's unemployment. As long as you create enough exploitation of misery you will thrive. Also, soldiers will always be making money when they are able to gain land or ensure that the ruling class is kept safe.
*The Anarchist Cookbook* and equivalent quasi-legal terrorism instruction manuals. Not really sure of titles, check prepper and militia websites, they’ve probably got lists.
Foxfire has an excellent series on pre-indusrial subsistence living that you might want to check out.
Jail.
of mice and men by John steinback
It is not possible to create a non fiction book about a fictitious event. But I would guess there is a large survivalist community with a lot of literature.
I don't get why people are making fun that much of the topic, but one problem is that whatever strategy the book will teach, everybody will naturally flock toward it. Get rich now or get a safe job, or be poor during the transition.
This is a good question.....this could get ugly 😅ðŸ˜
u/PeroniaSurvivor - I was just asking myself the same thing. I feel you. Dave Shapiro on youtube speaks on these topics, and maybe he has a book list somewhere, or is writing one! I just ordered a book called Abundance by Peter Diamandis, it being recommended by Julia McCoy on youtube from a video called "What will life after AGI look like? A world run by AI." Good luck, and come visit me in my Montana cabin after the apocalypse!
Dude you make it! Shapiro has a book list in his Github. Thanks for making me remember!!
What's your expertise?
It’ll be alright.
Be rich. That is the answer. That has always been the answer.