You must log in or register to comment.

scpDZA t1_jbpu3vl wrote

After the pandemic I can tell you with certainty I will be doing something to keep myself busy. To me that is work, it might not be very profitable but with ubi that won't matter!


AZCounselor t1_jbqpnvd wrote

How do you figure it won’t matter? UBI, if it ends up happening, will barely keep you off the streets.


Trash_Gobbo_UwU t1_jbte8w1 wrote

I worked through the whole pandemic (non-stop, perks of management 🙃) but am stuck at home now due to an injury. This is my first time being “off work” for almost a decade—I can’t imagine not doing something productive with my time. I’d go completely bonkers.


[deleted] t1_jbq0ba9 wrote

I think a Universal Basic Income is just that - basic income. Lots of people are still going to want more: prestige from esteemed jobs, stature in their communities, feelings of professional accomplishment, ownership over their own businesses and labor, they'll want nicer cars, bigger boobs and better homes, academic choices for their children, vacations, clothes, security, nose jobs, etc etc.

A UBI can give people a small safety net.

$250 a month can mean the difference between rent or homelessness, paying a car note that's essential to getting to a job, being able to clothe your growing children. For others, it can mean a monthly membership write off to an Equinox gym. At the end of the day, I think people will want to work, it'll just give everyone a little bit more of a breathing room.


UncommercializedKat t1_jbsyx1d wrote

Yeah, arguing that nobody will want to work if UBI is enacted is like saying that nobody would spend a decade in college to become a doctor when you could be a janitor instead. People will always want more money and to have a job they are passionate about and gives them a sense of fulfillment.


czk_21 t1_jbumz8i wrote

the main argument for UBI is not really about wanting/not wanting to work but about not being able to- because AI can do whatever you would at much higher efficiency and it will not need lot of human coworkers, in other words there wont be enough work offered to meet the demand


UncommercializedKat t1_jbvhp7v wrote

I think people in the future might assign a value to a human-made work higher than than that of an AI work which will be nearly free. I think there will be plenty of work for those who want to work and we will have plenty of leisure time as well. I know that many years ago people thought electricity/steam engines would replace work and people would be unemployed but they didn't realize how much more complex the world could become and how many new jobs would be invented. At some point, all needs and wants will be automatically met and technology won't be able to advance any further but at that point we won't need money either.


czk_21 t1_jbx98rt wrote

there wont be new jobs at least not to the extent to replace old ones

why would you value human work more when AI can do it 1000+x better and 1000+x cheaper...I mean in context of hiring someone, you could value human art more for example for "authenticity" not that it would be better


DanFlashesSales t1_jc0tuvq wrote

>I think people in the future might assign a value to a human-made work higher than than that of an AI work which will be nearly free.

Hopefully at some point in the future humans will move beyond market economics so the whole question would be irrelevant.


Lyle_rachir t1_jbq6779 wrote

This so much this. So long as rent doesn't go up because of the ubi. This is exactly what should happen


mattp198723 t1_jbt8ax1 wrote

UBI with out of control inflation makes perfect sense for the braindead robots in society.


crunchycrispy t1_jbuocwd wrote

all valid points but i really hope it wouldn’t just be $250. that would fail to make the kind of difference it ought to. it should be minimum $1k a month but ideally more like $2k.


Takahashi_Raya t1_jctc5do wrote

a universal basic income would be around what is needed to live of. so if 250 a month is the cost you'd have then and there in a system with ubi. to survive a full month without having to live like an underpaid poor person.

so if 250 covers: food, housing, gas, electricity, internet(it's pretty much needed to do anything like a job so yeah it counts), and schooling then 250 is plenty.


crunchycrispy t1_jcvqc58 wrote

yeah that is nowhere near enough to live off of in the US. where do you possibly live?


Takahashi_Raya t1_jcvrfcq wrote

I think you are missing the point. I said if 250 is enough then it is enough I'm not aiming at a specific country with this. the 250 you should see is the bare minimum for whatever place a UBI is installed for. you can't really hang a price on it since it's dictated by the current prices of services.


crunchycrispy t1_jcwr8dx wrote

not sure how what you’re saying is relevant. my point was about the cost of living, and your point is the equivalent of saying “well if rent is $1 then that’s what it should be”


Takahashi_Raya t1_jcx65fc wrote

No im saying ubi adjusts to wathever the bare cost of living is and somehow you dint see that.


crunchycrispy t1_jcx6z6a wrote

i said $250 doesn’t cover that and your grand point is “but if $250 did cover that then it would be good”. by that logic yeah a UBI of $0.50 would be enough if $0.50 was worth $1500. not exactly contributing much


Takahashi_Raya t1_jcxkpde wrote

No you dont understand it apparently let me make it clear to you "a UBI system only works when the income you get covers your basic living costs" this means if 250 or 250.000 covers the basic living expenses that is the amount you get. You cant hang a price point on ubi right now because it adjusts based on the cost of everything.

Your argument of "that doesnt cover it" is honestly just dumb.


crunchycrispy t1_jcyq6wa wrote

you just said the exact same thing i said.

i understand your argument “if 250 covers basic living expenses that should be the amount”. my original point was that there is no world where 250 covers basic living expenses. do you understand? it’s really simple. i’m saying the same thing you are, i’m just using real world numbers and you keep acting like we live in 1942.


Takahashi_Raya t1_jcyqftq wrote

your real-world numbers are not realistic either. I was using 250 as an example I could have used anything else.


crunchycrispy t1_jd0eemx wrote

they are absolutely realistic where i live. where do you live?


Takahashi_Raya t1_jd0gp61 wrote

The Netherlands but that's not the point. it feels like I'm talking to a wall who doesn't understand the basic concept of UBI since all you are focusing on is the amount you'd need specifically for your place of residence which isn't the point of UBI. we are just going in circle's and frankly, I'm not in the mood for this stupidity going further. I'm ending this convo here.


crunchycrispy t1_jd13zu0 wrote

i am truly baffled as to why you felt the need to make this point that i was already making in the first place. i was simply saying that $250 was not enough to achieve UBI’s goals where I live, and here you are tying yourself in knots with anger saying “well the UBI should be whatever amount achieves it’s goals”. I can’t tell if this is a language barrier or not but you’re truly not making any point that contradicts what I’m saying.


LoxodonSniper t1_jbtaub0 wrote

Bare minimum for me to be able to actually save money and have a life would be $1000


Crezelle t1_jbuqdqn wrote

This. I have what I need but I still work to buy what I want


mediocre_mitten t1_jbqbalr wrote

>it'll just give everyone a little bit more of a breathing room

"Sir, I'm going to have to revoke your breathing rights. You are two months behind on your mandatory $250 monthly breathable air fees. Now back to your daily stressful life!"


isleepinahammock t1_jbqo1g2 wrote

You joke, but this is actually a very plausible scenario towards the end of the century. If we don't get our emissions under control, by 2100, the CO2 level could be 800-1000 ppm. Levels 1000 and above start to have increasing effects on human beings. Above 1000, it will start to feel like being in a stuffy room, even while outside. Prolonged time in elevated CO2 environments like this actually has a measurable effect on human cognition.

But we know how to remove CO2 from a space, it just takes energy. And if people realize they can get noticeable performance and cognitive improvements by installing CO2 scrubbers inside buildings, they eventually will. People will do this for their homes, and companies at the point they become worth the cost. Currently, companies consider CO2 management for facilities like factories. They may add extra ventilation to make sure they don't exceed certain CO2 values. But if the whole atmosphere is at these levels, the only way to lower CO2 indoors will be to install CO2 scrubbers as part of the building's HVAC system.

Which means, yes, you could in theory have a service that rented out CO2 scrubbers for offices, schools, or private homes. If you failed to pay the bill to the CO2 scrubber company, you would have your scrubber repossessed. Or, alternately, the "scrubber" might use materials that chemically absorb CO2, and a technician stops by once and awhile to swap a cartridge out. That cartridge would then be recharged and the material recycled in a plant somewhere. In that case, if you don't pay the bill, your cartridge deliveries cease, and your indoor air quickly becomes as CO2-filled as the atmosphere outside.

So yes, in the future, you could literally have your access to fresh air cut off. If the atmosphere itself is so contaminated that it can't be comfortably breathed, people would seek to ameliorate this by moving to airtight, CO2-conditioned indoor spaces.

Oh, and here's a final bit of fun. In such a world, homes might have airlocks! Imagine a weird airlock that doesn't require you to wear a space suit. You don't want to have to open the front door and let all that CO2 in. Instead, you have a small room you enter. To leave, you first enter the airlock. The air inside the airlock is filled with low-CO2 air. The inner door closes, and the air inside is pumped down to a low, but still livable pressure. Maybe it pumps the air down to the equivalent of, say, a 15,000 ft elevation. The air removed from the airlock is pumped into the house. Then, the airlock is repressurized, but this time with air from the outside. The outer door opens. You leave. The outer door closes, and the airlock lowers its pressure again, shoving the surplus air outside. Finally, the airlock is repressurized, this time with air from the house. The inner door opens, and the cycle is complete. Reverse for someone entering the house. Essentially, a home airlock would serve as a means of preserving low-CO2 air. (A dedicated mudroom would also perform a similar function, though a mechanical airlock system would be much more efficient.)


hoppergrass127 t1_jbsatup wrote

Well this was an awesome comment. Thank you for the realistic dystopian imagery, but it hurts a little too much


mediocre_mitten t1_jbsrswo wrote

Well, that was disturbing. Totally doable and most likely will happen sometime in the future, especially so since the natural CO2 scrubbers of Earth (Amazon & congo rainforest come to mind) are being deforested for $$$ gain.

Always love to quote the late great George Carlin: "The Earth is fine, the people are fucked, but the earth will be fine."


johntwoods t1_jbprw5x wrote

Human beings weren't meant to toil away in the sugar mines of the wealthy. It is just that the world has gotten so used to it that any time one deviates from that role, they are "lazy".

Human beings shouldn't 'work' jobs that are able to be automated.


iJayZen t1_jbr0rkv wrote

The key is able. Someone has to built out this infrastructure. And don't think that a new pseudo religion won't take over. No free lunch my friends...


fartiestpoopfart t1_jbpoymd wrote

i would stop working in IT, that's for sure.

allowing people the freedom to work on things they are passionate about without risking poverty would be great. sometimes people don't find out what they REALLY want to do until much later in life. being forced to stick with a career that you eventually come to hate solely because you need the money it provides to survive sucks.


cybercuzco t1_jbpnzp2 wrote

No. We’ll just work on things we enjoy instead of things we have to. Beyond that it’s not like UBI is going to provide lifestyles of the rich and the famous. It should be enough to provide food, shelter and clothing with a little left over. If you want more than that you’ll need to work.


Test19s t1_jbpxx7n wrote

We literally don’t have the resources for post-scarcity, at least not without turning the planet into Coruscant. What’s more likely is that we’ll have more security and work fewer hours per week, with much higher levels of self-employment or small businesses. The “Norman Rockwell with autonomous vehicles sprinkled in” future is my hope, and the kids who grew up on Transformers: Rescue Bots are already conditioned for it.


Recent_Pineapple_108 t1_jbqt554 wrote

Explain to me why you're entitled to the labor of the people who will supply said food, shelter and clothing?


synect t1_jbrhaph wrote

the world we’ve been born into has already been bought up prior to our arrival and with that fact comes the circumstance that those with established ownership rights lording over our shared reality must ask all the new borns to recognize property rights that will necessarily infringe those new borns’ freedoms to otherwise enjoy whatsoever they might like to make use of.

well a willingness to recognize property rights of others who have claimed dominion over the fruits of the land comes at a price - what we might call a universal basic income, or thomas paine would have referred to as a citizen’s dividend.

such a baseline social entitlement is even more appropriate in a modern world where much of the ‘labor’ comes from energy sourced from dead organic matter ie fossil fuels


Recent_Pineapple_108 t1_jbrnb0n wrote

Again, why are you entitled to the labor of other people?


crunchycrispy t1_jbuok35 wrote

under UBI those laborers are entitled to the exact same amount. nobody is taking anything from anyone else. it’s a dividend from the economic system we vote for as a society.


synect t1_jbt7rk6 wrote

i guess what i’m saying is the other people’s labor isn’t the source of another’s entitlement, per se.

other people’s labor may contribute to material value of shared resources, but that labor doesn’t exist in a vacuum, and a little labor won’t eclipse the sun

just because the labor of other people may touch upon the bounty of our material world, to varying degrees, there are always other factors at play and society may not have relinquished more ancient claims from which all beautiful babies’ entitlement to UBI could be said to derive.


Recent_Pineapple_108 t1_jbtbsu7 wrote

So what if everyone decides they don't want to contribute labor?


synect t1_jbvfqhj wrote

not sure exactly what you have in mind by “contribute labor” …

supposing you mean no one does anything to sustain life for himself/herself or others …

guess all the beautiful babies would be doomed to going feral and humankind wouldn’t last too long. we’re social creatures, ya know.


Recent_Pineapple_108 t1_jbvlg7r wrote

"Contribute labor" as in "put something into the system that you are taking resources from"


synect t1_jbvpyu5 wrote

hard to say. i really don't know what you have in mind.

but if for some reason each human decided he/she would break ties with all other humans and keep to himself/herself to keep from putting something into "the system," i guess we might find examples of some fishermen eating well for a time, depending on their whereabouts (if they can labor for themselves in their environment within your hypothetical), but humankind wouldn't last too long.

is that what you're asking? if you have other ideas in mind and want to paint a picture, by all means. but can we agree first that humans are social creatures?


Abraxas_1134 t1_jbpv6cw wrote

No. It’ll give you a chance to pursue your own career that’s not financially driven. If you’ve always wanted to be a writer, go for it.


berlinparisexpress OP t1_jbpls9x wrote

Just interested in everyone's thought on the topic.

I've been thinking about this on the way to work lately and I just don't think anyone hates working per se - they hate selling their time and obeying to arbitrary orders. Giving a hand to move a friend's home is often super fun and rewarding - why? It's shared work on a voluntary basis that feels super useful with a clear goal that is achievable by cooperation.

So yeah, I would definitely still work on a UBI, but I would definitely think about work differently, ands I think this is what universal income is all about. I might work more locally, take more risks or be more involved in causes I truly care about. I don't like feeling useless and I don't think most people would become lazy because they suddenly earn a guaranteed 700$ a month.

What are your thoughts on the matter? What would you do with a guaranteed income every month, no matter your situation?


Jasrek t1_jbsftza wrote

If my basic needs and wants were met, I would absolutely stop working. I'm hoping to retire in about 6-7 years and then never work again. Some people in my same situation are already talking about how they'll get another job to 'keep busy'.

I'll keep busy, but I'm not going to work. I can be plenty busy by reading, playing video games, watching Netflix, spending time with pets, and sleeping in on weekdays.

That's exactly what I would do with a guaranteed income that covers my basic needs. Now, $700 a month would not be that. That honestly would not really change my life at all, though I know it would for many people.

But it wouldn't erase my need to work in order to support myself financially, even though I have no inherent interest nor desire to work.


ObscureName22 t1_jbtdyx6 wrote

I think it’s naive to assume everyone would keep working at the level needed to maintain our society. The article mentioned it, but didn’t offer any good solutions to the “menial, but necessary” jobs problem as they put it. Their suggestion was that employers would have to offer extra benefits to get employees to work more.

The issue is that in my experience people are never going to work more than they have to. All those low-paying jobs that most don’t like doing affect my day-to-day life many times more than the ones with free thought which people would be more drawn towards if they didn’t have to worry about their finances due to a universal wage. Not everyone may hate their jobs but there are many jobs that no one would do without a good incentive. I think most people underestimate how much those employees are needed as well.

One day technology may take away so many jobs that we will be forced to pay a universal wage so people can survive. Until then I think it goes without saying that supplementing people’s income will cause at least some, if not a lot of menial laborers to work less which will directly impact our society.


Jasrek t1_jbwa2sg wrote

> The article mentioned it, but didn’t offer any good solutions to the “menial, but necessary” jobs problem as they put it.



AllGodsRTricksters t1_jc0c00d wrote

The pandemic showed us that a lot of work is essential, but not a lot of it has pay that reflects that.

Pay menial but necessary labour at a rate that recognizes its value.


Beat-the-heat t1_jc1uyx3 wrote

Generally speaking the top 40-50% of income earners will pay almost all income tax; UBI would need a massive tax increase, more likely the state becomes less democratic as the middle class sides with the rich to avoid the tax burden.


Fairstrife_Deception t1_jbpqz8d wrote

With universal income, I will work better, doing something I love.Being able to afford rent and food (basic need) what ever happen is a mental tranquility that would give my brain the capacity to exit my bullshit job and doing something actually productive.

I could even go plant a several thousand of tree if I want, without risking everything and become homeless and inevitably throwing myself under a bridge, because it's extremely difficult to re-enter in society when you are homeless.


No_Love_1353 t1_jbqvbgl wrote

In all likelihood many would leave the workforce given the chance at “universal income”; however the question becomes then, will those that stay in the workforce be valuable enough to keep systems and markets running?


UncommercializedKat t1_jbszz8c wrote

This is my question as well. In order for us to keep consuming like we do now, we have to keep producing at the same level. If a lot of people work less, (or if people begin to consume more but work the same) then how are those goods/services provided?


czk_21 t1_jbuntyc wrote

> then how are those goods/services provided?

automated production can grossly outproduce what we do, heck it already does, just look at agriculture and manufacturing, automation can easily provide all basic needs


Strict_Jacket3648 t1_jbposg0 wrote

U.B.I is inevitable and studies have shown it helps to create work, just not the work the super rich use you for, more of the creative stuff, anytime the super rich spend millions trying to convince people it's a bad idea the more you know it is something we should have. A.I will be taking almost all forms of work away from us, it's about time as a species we begin to look at our future it's either star trek or mad max...U.B.I. is star trek and True A.I. is the cure, we have enough resources for all if we could keep the 1% from hording it and taking advantage of workers.


tswiftdeepcuts t1_jbs23pe wrote

Why would they keep us around, keep letting us reproduce, pay us for existing, if AI can do all the work and they literally don’t need us??

Why would they just go hide in their bunkers, release some sort of bio or chemical weapon, get the population down to a very small amount, disperse us around the globe to whatever cities they may want humans in, and then pat themselves on the back for solving climate change while they go back to living their lives of luxury with AI doing all the things they once needed us for?

What incentive do they have to give us UBI if AI can replace almost all of us? Why do people think that the super rich are going to take care of us once we’re no longer useful?


Strict_Jacket3648 t1_jbtheos wrote

So you think Mad Max....I hope your wrong I hope for star trek. True A.I. if it ever happens it will eliminate the need more money which would eliminate billionaires that could and for sure would do what you propose. Unfortunately or fortunately depending on your outlook we don't have a choice, the future don't care about what you or me think it's coming I hope that since we outnumber the 1% we will be the winners.


GoodbyeCOI t1_jbqad2r wrote

The funny thing is that the rich actually support UBI...look at what the World Economic Forum says about it.

COVID was the trial run and mistakes were made...lessons were learned. They want UBI tied to social credit scores, vaccine passes, and other methods to keep people in line.

I basically think what it'll boil down to are three classes of people:

-The wealthy that don't need UBI so they can fly wherever, eat whatever, and not have to abide by all the rules because they're rich.

-The compliant who conform to whatever is required to get UBI which could mean many things...all tracked by social credit score.

-Luddites on the fringes of society that don't want UBI or the rules that come with it so they basically come together as a commune (travelling gypsies) as the state chases them down to track and monitor everything they do.


No-Wallaby-5568 t1_jbrqu1k wrote

Obviously not because someone has to pay the taxes to pay for UBI.


HumanJenoM t1_jbutljk wrote

No, with UBI you will work twice as hard as now. Cuba has UBI, but it doesn't even buy food for a month. Cubans need side hustles to thrive.


andylikescandy t1_jbpyhsc wrote

No, but that one kid in the class will get the opportunity to dedicate their life to exploring what it means and how "to BE a firetruck".


Thick_Respond947 t1_jbqlcp5 wrote

Stop working? God no, we'd be much happier working because we're chasing pleasures not a paycheque


Yearofthehoneybadger t1_jbro2kz wrote

I would still work, but maybe a little less and not exhaust myself week after week just to pay the bills and never get ahead.


PotentialSpend8532 t1_jbrubg6 wrote

I don't think so, I think the idea of work, and leisure will get more blended though. Personally, I have always wanted to go into construction, wood working; and overall working and making things with my hands. That is simply what I want to do. However, instead of needing to do this full time, I could do this as more of a hobby, where I determine the amount I want to work, instead of the $ that I need in order to survive.

Thus, it gives us the one thing money can't buy. Time. I get time to do whatever I want. I could spend this with the extra income I have to go to school for something else, hangout more with friends and family, learn another skill, and so much more. It gives us so much more freedom in our lives to have our basic needs guaranteed because we are a human.

I look forward to this day.


kasey1951 t1_jbpm044 wrote

No. Basic income won't cover the costs of living. Maybe it might prevent someone from falling into poverty, but barely.


berlinparisexpress OP t1_jbpnak5 wrote

>Maybe it might prevent someone from falling into poverty, but barely.

So it's probably worth it!


GoodbyeCOI t1_jbpzbdk wrote

You're on target more than most probably realize. We would be better off with treating healthcare as a public good. People often go into poverty when they get sick in America.

Without fixing healthcare people would have to responsibility use UBI as a savings tool for medical emergencies or any other emergency that can result in financial problems and poverty.

People also forget that UBI is essentially printing increase in the money supply equals inflation. We are already seeing what that is like...

I think universal health care is a better idea.

I would be an entrepreneur if my healthcare wasn't tied to my job. If you can still wind up in poverty with outrageous healthcare and housing inflation what good is UBI?


FuturologyBot t1_jbpq4ti wrote

The following submission statement was provided by /u/berlinparisexpress:

Just interested in everyone's thought on the topic.

I've been thinking about this on the way to work lately and I just don't think anyone hates working per se - they hate selling their time and obeying to arbitrary orders. Giving a hand to move a friend's home is often super fun and rewarding - why? It's shared work on a voluntary basis that feels super useful with a clear goal that is achievable by cooperation.

So yeah, I would definitely still work on a UBI, but I would definitely think about work differently, ands I think this is what universal income is all about. I might work more locally, take more risks or be more involved in causes I truly care about. I don't like feeling useless and I don't think most people would become lazy because they suddenly earn a guaranteed 700$ a month.

What are your thoughts on the matter? What would you do with a guaranteed income every month, no matter your situation?

Please reply to OP's comment here:


TheSensibleTurk t1_jbpulqv wrote

I wouldn't. I'd want to make 4x - 5x the amount of the UBI.

Nothing feels as good as investing %80 or your disposable income into QQQ or SPY. I'm 30 now. If the nasdaq 100 returns just 5 percent annualized over the next 15 years, my portfolio will be around 5-6M USD, and not even considering things like dollar cost averaging or playing with a bit of safe margin.

That's the beautiful thing about American capitalism. Invest enough and the economy itself makes money for you. For all those jokes about billionaires not even knowing you exists, you can ride their coattails to multimillionaire status.


[deleted] t1_jbpzjc6 wrote



TheSensibleTurk t1_jbq04f2 wrote

Yep. The stock market is more democratic and accessible than ever, and you don't need to be a pro or pay any managers thanks it index ETFs.


[deleted] t1_jbq0puy wrote



KnightOfNothing t1_jbqi2jv wrote

this little conversation between you two reads like an ad.


TheSensibleTurk t1_jbsgzl3 wrote

Here's more then:

Historical data of the Nasdaq 100 index

The index returned an average annual return of 15.13% between July 2007 and February 2023 .

That's an empirical fact, not conjecture.


jh937hfiu3hrhv9 t1_jbpv2vw wrote

Idle hands are the devil's workshop.  People would need to take out their own garbage, cook their own food, clean their own house, drive for someone, help at the farm and grocery store.  If nobody works, nobody eats or stays warm and dry.  If people were not required to spend their whole lives at jobs designed for consumerism to feed the rich and exploit the planet, they would have time to work on their own life and help their neighbors.  People work if they need to, that is how financial oppression works.


gonedeep619 t1_jbrkj7m wrote

Automation is coming sooner than you think. All of those things you described could be done by a robot. They already clean your floors and mow your lawn. My car pretty much drives itself on the freeway with minimal input from me.


just-a-dreamer- t1_jbq03wz wrote

UBI won't work under capitalism for sure.

We will see a massive consolidation of real estate properties with AI automation. Even in ancient rome, tje apartment buildings called insulas were owned by just a few rich families.

Rents would be set according to UBI income measures, so if UBI goes up, rents go up. Politicians will get bribed to maintain zoning laws and block new construction.

Only the eradication of capitalism can ensure a proper distribution of the fruits of AI labor.


GoodbyeCOI t1_jbq8ypo wrote

Would you be against social credit scores to obtain UBI?

I think I've identified the elephant in the room which is government control.

Even if you abolish capitalism you still have the state...

I don't think the government is just gonna give free money with no strings attached.

They will tie UBI to things like a social credit score, no unpaid taxes, no warrants, up to date vaccines and health screenings if you want to travel...etc.


just-a-dreamer- t1_jbqbj40 wrote

I see no problem with the principle.

In most countries family benefits are tied to certain requirements like school attendance and health care checks for example. Documented. If you don't meet set obligations, no money for you. That is kind of social credit.

In a job, everybody is required to meet some standards to be compensated. Even in investment and property ownership you cannot behave any way you want, there are consequences.

Eventually, nobody here on earth is truly free, whoever we deal with. Within the democratic process, we wlll set up base rules for UBI also.

Of course people will be pissed that the government tells them what to do. But so does your boss or costumer. Your neighbour, family, business partner, community. It's called life.


GoodbyeCOI t1_jbqd313 wrote

Thank you...there seems to be a misconception with some that it's just gonna be free money with no strings attached.

All that you described is normal now but I can see problems when they dictate what you can eat, how far you can travel (and if you can travel), and what you can say online.

The concern is that if you're rich you won't have to play by those if you can eat a fat steak on a private jet while skipping your latest booster shot because you're scared of side effects.

There's already comedy videos about it

This one is probably most dystopian:

It's fascinating to think what life would be like but tbh I hardly think it'll be that extreme of a dystopia and far from the utopia people imagine.


isleepinahammock t1_jbql9k5 wrote

People would certainly keep working with UBI. The concept is to just ensure a minimum quality of life for everyone. Think enough money for a small studio apartment, a very basic grocery budget, and a small budget for incidentals. Enough that you can always keep a roof over your head and food in your belly. And health care covered by a universal healthcare plan.

The thing is, most people don't actually want to live like that. Most people don't want to live in a studio apartment their whole life. They want space to relax, pursue their hobbies, have space for kids, etc. Living a pure-UBI existence would be pretty spartan. UBI wouldn't be high enough for that, unless we start considering cases of extreme automation where no one really needs to work anymore.


FlyingLeadMonster t1_jbqrhcu wrote

That's just ignorance of the human psichology. Put a guy in a room doing nothing all day... we call it mobbing for a reason.


PocketSixes t1_jbqwq6p wrote

Nope! People don't need to be on the brink of death to have a desire to get ahead.


klaaptrap t1_jbrmclg wrote

When the Athenians found unimaginable wealth as a society they created a golden age. They didn’t have to do it , they were bored enough to do it.humans will do the work they are most suited to if they have no worry for their meals.


jphamlore t1_jbrp1ko wrote

The Athenian golden age only lasted about 18 years?


gaffer57 t1_jbrvi57 wrote

In a mixed capitalist economy, there is no such thing as universal income. There is an old age pension system called social security, but that's for senior citizens who are no longer in the job market. If you are under age 66, your income level is up to you and you alone. If you ever find a universal income, you are living in a utopian fantasy land where unicorns are farting rainbows.


dangflo t1_jbrxjte wrote

some people will and some people wont. If you have no skills or your profession is automated and you can't get into an active occupation then you will probably rely on ubi. For everyone else, life goes on and they continue working and being a class above those on ubi.


mattp198723 t1_jbt87dv wrote

UBI will literally create overweight useless robots who conform to any societal norm that is the new plague.


Crezelle t1_jbuqb3h wrote

I am a lucky person. I don’t get enough on disability to live on my own, but I have family to live with. I still volunteer and work because I would like to work for what I want, as I have what I need covered. I don’t work near 40 hours a week but why do any of us still have to ?


DaCosmicHoop t1_jbw89cg wrote

If the universal income is anything less than infinite money, there will always be work you can do in order to acquire more currency.


KeaboUltra t1_jbyh4qd wrote

Assuming that we do get UBI, I think not. People will always want to fill their time with something, and work would become a choice. After the world is no longer in denial about AI taking every job. work will probably become more social and volunteer oriented. I feel like people might want to employ gig style work for more simple things. It's honestly hard to say what people will be doing as an AI or something might be able to handle it better and more efficiently, but off the top of my head, I can imagine online human surveys and user input might be valuable, any data that can make something better. Reviews might become more valuable and we could see a world extremely similar to that black mirror episode where people's ratings dictated their social status. Could be possible that being a "decent" or "model" person nets you more UBI, in which you get rated for committing good acts, each rating contributes to a rank and entering a new rank or earning a new star = a higher UBI to fuel more luxury spending. Things such as holding a door open for someone or cleaning up your environment would contribute to these things. I know all this sounds pointless but that'll kinda become our existence during the dawn of a competent AI, we'll have nothing to do that we'll literally have to come up with a new way to carry on in society based off what we currently have.


AllGodsRTricksters t1_jc0cx3v wrote

A couple years ago I got a new manager. She did the rounds, getting to know people, doing it right. When my turn came, she asked me what I wanted from my career (besides a paycheck). I said I wanted a job I was in no rush to retire from.

UBI would make life less stressful, but I'm either keeping my job or finding one that's even better.


thepenginsloth t1_jc3npua wrote

So tired of hearing about UBI. Someone somewhere still has to work to provide this. This only promotes apathy and no one will want work. This is why every UBI experiment has failed.


wizardsfartfire t1_jc4zjjz wrote

No, according to all those Republicans, they will keep working just out of principle. So no worries. Let the jackasses carry the load. Just like always


expel-the-jesuits t1_jcp4b88 wrote

And where will the money, to pay the 331.9 million people who live in our country, come from? Money comes from production (making products and selling them) and the government doesn't receive money to give away unless they take it from workers' paychecks and the income of businesses, through taxation, first. If basic income is $250 a month, that means workers and businesses will need to pay out an additional $82,975,000,000 in taxes per month to cover the cost. Large corporations, and the wealthy who own them, have the time, the connections, and the monetary resources to lobby for tax breaks. Add to this, the fact, that our politicians belong to the families who own those same corporations. This is also the same government we will have when we start paying for the new program. And, if they printed the money, it would only result in hyperinflation, collapsing our economy. So, who will they force to foot the bill?


Brian357R t1_jdhpb05 wrote

People would only stop working if they were dumb enough to become dependent on government for their entire income.

Most government schemes create disincentives to work and be independent. It’s not a coincidence when the goal is socialism and communism.


jphamlore t1_jbr1s4x wrote

There is so much work, UBI will instantly be transformed into a form of workfare, mandatory work.

Every person at risk for falling at home for example basically needs a 24/7 caretaker.

Curiously enough, the United States already has something like a UBI for people who can show they cannot work. Look up SSI and SSDI.


Plati23 t1_jbroprb wrote

I would probably go be a line cook and try to become a chef. I realize this probably means I should be doing it now, but unfortunately I can’t afford to take a massive pay cut for 5-10 years.

This is also an example of why UBI works. It encourages people to do what they want to do, not what they need to do.


Aceticon t1_jbshgxn wrote

Every single inventive, artistic and even entrepreneurial person out there who is not the scion of a high middle class or richer family will be free to scratch his or her itch without fear of falling so far that he or she becomes homeless or unable to feed his or her children.

Plenty of people around with lots of want and capability to make things but either those things aren't rewarded with lots of momey by present day society or they're great at doing but not at selling.

I wouldn't at all be surprised if Universal income gives birth to a new Golden Age, assuming the present day "winners" (through the great achievment of popping-out from the right vagina) let it happen.


lareux33 t1_jbtlvpj wrote

Some will. I think most would just pursue their dreams and focus on what makes them happy. It really is amazing the misery we will put up with in order to ensure our dependents and a roof and food.


speedywilfork t1_jbqxrtf wrote

UBI can't work as it will cause MASSIVE inflation, rendering it useless. anything they would do to fix it would just accelerate the inflation until we reached hyperinflation.


kenkc t1_jbsnhfb wrote

If UBI kicks in, it will be because unemployment is reaching catastrophic levels. So UBI may act as a counter to the ensuing deflation.

But in a future where tech has taken away most jobs, tech will also be able to mass produce housing, food and transportation for pennies on today's dollar. Another counter to inflation.


speedywilfork t1_jbu34s9 wrote

>But in a future where tech has taken away most jobs, tech will also be able to mass produce housing, food and transportation for pennies on today's dollar. Another counter to inflation.

tech wont take most jobs. that is a pipe dream. who do you think builds and services the tech that build the houses? and creates the parts to build the tech? and digs up the ore to build the parts? and surveys the land to find the ore to build the parts? and generates the energy to be able to do all of this?

people will rule the world until their is a machine that can be powered by plant life and protein. until then tech will play second fiddle to man. the energy alone to create the future in your head is unobtainium, unless every man, woman, and child is working.

tech is only good at specific tasks. the sooner people realize that the sooner they will understand the role tech will play in the future. which is about the same as the one it plays right now.


IronPheasant t1_jbscd53 wrote

By this kind of logic, everyone having a job or being on social security should be responsible for MASSIVE inflation.

At some point you have to realize we've long since left the ranch when it comes to the labor theory of value. In this world it's somewhere between an energy ration and a magical imaginary number driven up by a combination of rent seeking and speculation.


speedywilfork t1_jbu1sec wrote

>By this kind of logic, everyone having a job or being on social security should be responsible for MASSIVE inflation.

what!? lol. no.

the reason UBI would cause inflation is because it would essentially set a floor for wages and also allow non productive citizens to continue to purchase. this is a recipe for hyperinflation.

so if the UBI minimum wage was set at $15 everyone making under $15 would quit their jobs and simply stay at home. However they would still have the purchasing power they did when they were working.

When all these people quit it would create shortages in the labor market, thus creating shortages in supply, thus causing inflation. this alone would cause inflation, but in order to "fix" the problem companies would have to start paying $30 per hour to incentivize people to work. this would in turn drive the price you pay up, and on top of all that, all the excess money in the system due to people that are now staying home but making money, would shortly lead to hyperinflation.

UBI wont work


FarCut2677 t1_jc4xm7k wrote

Shortages in labor won’t be a thing when robots do all the jobs, the creation of supply will be made by bots


speedywilfork t1_jc6td32 wrote

who makes all of those robots? and who services the robots? and who makes the parts to make the robots? and who mines the ore to make the parts?

hint: it aint robots


mtt534 t1_jbswhix wrote

Money doesn't not mean anything. It's an exchange medium for productivity. It has to come from somewhere. Maybe we'll have a army of slave robots, along with the slave we all need in our Apple factory and cobalt mines in Africa


GoodbyeCOI t1_jbplu3j wrote

Maybe...we're more likely to stop reproducing if anything.

Imagine that being tied to UBI and social credit scores. There's no such thing as a free lunch. You can pretend that people will do creative things for the common good if they didn't have to work but chances are they'll just drink, smoke, and fuck all day.

Brazil has already tied their version of UBI to COVID vaccination compliance. I'm not making any kind of argument or trying to discuss vaccines but just showing the slippery slope of UBI.

It will be used to control and tied to social credit scores...but it'll likely be sold as freedom.

Only the rich who don't need UBI will get the privilege to live outside the rules.


Iffykindofguy t1_jbpm6pe wrote

100% bullshit. People will not just drink smoke and fuck all day. People want a purpose.


berlinparisexpress OP t1_jbpmvg4 wrote

Yeah, this was a weirdly pessimistic take.

Why would people do anything in their free time if that was true? Why do people volunteer to homeless shelters at night after a crushing work day?

Some people might want to drink and smoke all day, but I'm sure they're somehow already doing that. Harm reduction and prevention is the answer - not depriving society as a whole of positive social measures.


GoodbyeCOI t1_jbpoerh wrote

It's not pessimistic it's realistic. It's going to come with strings attached to keep people in line. Economics has always had the free rider problem and you can't pretend it won't be an issue with UBI.

It's every technocrats wet dream because it can give an incentive for societal compliance.

Unless you're wealthy enough not to need it that is...


berlinparisexpress OP t1_jbpopwo wrote

> It's going to come with strings attached to keep people in line.

Unlike the current situation..? I mean, people have to be "in line" with their company to keep a roof over their head.


GoodbyeCOI t1_jbpp2sh wrote

Not if you're an entrepreneur or into modern homestead living.

Knowing people could buy and use drugs with it would you be in favor of mandatory monthly drug testing for illegal substances?

Not talking pot or alcohol where that's legal...hard drugs. This debate already exists with welfare.


Iffykindofguy t1_jbptqm8 wrote

No, its stupid and projecting. Just because youre lazy doesnt mean the rest of us are.


GoodbyeCOI t1_jbpug25 wrote

It's called the free rider problem and it has always been a central concern in the study of economics and public goods.

It's not's a genuine problem in economics that economists have tried to address since forever.

This one too:

Any discussion of UBI has to confront these issues.

I wish I had UBI to relax. I haven't taken PTO since April 1st last year. Way to use adhomenim and contribute nothing of value to a very high level intellectual topic.


Iffykindofguy t1_jbq3llm wrote

Brother all these arguments are just made up from the same group of people. You keep falling for their same shit. I bet you believe their wealth will trickle down one day too! And just because you clocked in for almost a year doesnt mean youre not lazy.


GoodbyeCOI t1_jbq5jv0 wrote

Acting like $700 a month will fix everything in our economic model is foolish.

What good is UBI when people can still go bankrupt when they get sick?

Universal healthcare is a better deal.

Pretending that UBI will unleash some form of utopian society is far too optimistic given the level of economic inequality we are seeing.

You haven't explained why I'm wrong...and in fact you look foolish calling me lazy.

Here's why:

Say I am lazy...what measures will be put in place for people like me who will use UBI to smoke and fuck all day?

People already sell EBT for drug money in an underground economy. Do you think the government (which has already locked us down and tried to force vaccine mandates) will just give me free money without some form of control or regulatory framework to prevent abuse?

Look at the abuse and fraud in the PPP think they're gonna repeat those same mistakes without some form of control like blockchain or a CBDC system that tracks every transaction with the capability to audit and inspect on the level of an electron microscope?

All I'm saying is that UBI will come with strings attached and serious controls to prevent abuse and the free rider problem.

To expect the government to give people free money with no strings attached is asinine...


Iffykindofguy t1_jbq6i78 wrote

Im not reading all that since you started out with nonsense. Stop lying, stop going to extremes to try to make a point, then come back.


GoodbyeCOI t1_jbq6x0x wrote

It's not nonsense. If people sell EBT for drug money outside the system you should expect the government to enforce controls on who gets UBI and how they can use it.

Social credit scores, no outstanding taxes, no warrants...etc.

If you think the government is just gonna give free shit with no strings attached you're fooling yourself.


Iffykindofguy t1_jbqn0kl wrote

Again, where did I say any of that? Just running with so many assumptions


GoodbyeCOI t1_jbpndus wrote

Not everyone...but you're partially right. If you're interested in what motivates people this is good:

It lists purpose but within a capitalist and performance based model.

If people don't have to work they can openly pursue pleasure. It's nice when that means art or sport or something cool but sadly pleasure is purpose for many.

Look at the drug addled streets of Philadelphia or any ghetto.

My argument is that UBI will simply come with strings attached to keep people in line. To get it you'll need all your vaccines and maybe even birth control if you have a bad social credit score and would in turn most likely make a terrible parent.

It's sad but can anyone tell me it ain't true?



Iffykindofguy t1_jbpu0ju wrote

yeah man those drug addicts in the ghetto are doing it for pleasure llololol


bitch get out of here with your childish take on this. Horrible read. Antiscience, outdated info, and capitalist propaganda. Trifecta of stupidity.


GoodbyeCOI t1_jbpvjzx wrote

I actually studied Marxism and this particular economist in depth:

I am very critical of capitalism. We probably share many similar views but can't relate and will never relate due to how emotional you respond.

I come from a family of drug addicts btw. They're all dead or in jail.


Iffykindofguy t1_jbq6eph wrote

I'm sure that was tough, you're going after the wrong enemy. Also where did I say anything about Marxism? So many assumptions.


GoodbyeCOI t1_jbqhlb7 wrote

I'm not going after you or viewing you as the enemy... you just come off like you've got poor communication skills and an abrasive personality ranting about capitalism and calling me a bitch.

Instead of having a civil discussion you jumped straight to ad-homenim and SIGN:

Shame. Insults. Guilt. Need to be right.

I read your comment history telling people to go to therapy and here you are accusing me of projection because I brought up the real possibility of people abusing social welfare benefits like they already do...

Which is why universal healthcare is a better deal than UBI...because that same therapy you think others need would be free if you considered it yourself.

Don't worry...2030 is around the corner. You'll own nothing and you'll be happy.


Iffykindofguy t1_jbqn5i0 wrote

Lol you sweet sweet summer child. Universal healthcare is not a trade off, universal healthcare should have been established decades ago. I dont tell people to go to therapy unless I mean it, you should stop stigmatizing therapy and using it as an insult.


GoodbyeCOI t1_jbqom9w wrote

UBI is pointless if you can still go bankrupt getting sick or hurt in America. Without universal healthcare UBI becomes a socialized emergency savings account assuming people will be responsible with it and won't try and abuse or game the system hence need for controls instead of free shit no strings attached.

After all this time I still have no idea what your views or principles are on the matter...

No stigma of therapy. It helped my anger issues and prevented me from doing things like insulting strangers online to get my point across along with other behavior that results in violence if directed to the wrong person when you can't hide behind a keyboard.

If you get UBI consider martial arts...good investment. Maybe even better than therapy.

Therapy helped me become a responsible, employable adult.

I don't want to ask how old you are but if you're above the age of 25 take a very deep look at how you communicate and ask yourself if anyone would trust or want to be around you based off how you act online. You don't come off as the "golden rule" type but I could be wrong.

No's genuinely concerning that this is the attitude I see all the time with angry young men...disconnected from society who are vulnerable and at risk of radicalization from various movements that prey on them.


Iffykindofguy t1_jbqv8b6 wrote

Yeah, thats why I'm working towards universal healthcare now and hoping for a UBI type program in the future. You pretend you're not angry and insulting but you're just bottling it up and hiding it in passive-aggressive shots. Funnily enough you were right about one thing, we are similar in at least one way. I also wasnt really "employable" until I went to therapy. That has nothing to do with what we're talking about, neither does how I communicate. You're assuming everyone is here to do the same thing you are, youre incorrect.


GoodbyeCOI t1_jbqylud wrote

That's where I learned SIGN...shame, insults, guilt, need to be right. Not insinuating and not my business but it's common with people raised by single moms or moms with psych disorders.

Feels bad saying that as if it's misogyny and dads can't be bad parents either but when men debate it's usually facts, logic, high IQ methods and formal debate tactics. Then when we get disciplined and corrected it's usually a formal process and explanation on how we fucked up instead of going straight to insults and ass whoopings like both moms and dads can do.

My therapist was real with me and said I picked up alot of bad habits from some of the women I was around when growing up who admittedly would always go straight to insults and SIGN. I picked it up and did the same until therapy called it out.

What helped me really communicate ironically was a shit job in a call center after therapy ended and I had to put it into practice along with telling people no and letting things go since people can be dicks over the phone as they are online.

I got passionate on the internet during covid but gotta catch myself from getting mad or being a dick.

I still make mistakes but if you're trying to get both UBI and socialized healthcare consider Europe assuming you're American.

I may still move there if I can find a way to get a certain type of visa...explains the problems they are running into trying to fund UBI so it's definitely something I think about and follow no matter the motivation which is ironically cannabis since I had a license and cannabis business for a while.

Malta was the first EU country to go federally legal. They just need human capital and $$$ if you read that article I wouldn't be surprised if cannabis is the sector they need to fund UBI along with changing regulations for financial firms who are exempt from paying their fair share.

So yeah...if I gotta work so others can smoke and fuck all day on UBI from my corporate taxes I guess I'd be cool with it.


Iffykindofguy t1_jbqzjje wrote

Given what you said about your past if you can get out you should get out, you worked hard and are helping to spread the shift from a society that lets its emotions destroy it to one that manages them. Especially if you plan on having kids. I dont ever want kids so my contribution to society ends with me. I have some unfortunate stuff in my past but the only reason Ive been able to get over them is because society bends over backwards for me because of a combination of where I was born, who I was born to and how I look. Would feel wrong to take that benefit and run since society treats me with such kid gloves anyways. I understand that sounds pretentious to the point of being pathetic but its just how I feel.


GoodbyeCOI t1_jbr29kc wrote

No that's a real thing.

The only time I've heard the kid gloves comment is when people acknowledge their privilege be it white or male or rich or whatever identifier. have a disability and UBI will help you live a more comfortable life. I'm cool with that too. I just don't think people with disabilities are necessarily treated with kid gloves which is very different from legit and legal protected ADA accommodations. It's not kid gloves it's just decency and what society should do for those with legitimate disabilities.

Kid gloves is if you can take it or should learn how to take it if you haven't...some people are just straight up wheelchair bound and paralyzed so any form of kid glove treatment is usually reasonable and well intentioned even if it's something as small as asking for help at the grocery store.

I knew a guy who lost his arm in Iraq...dude whooped ass at pool volleyball. Found out he also is a purple belt jujitsu but I def saw the kid glove treatment you may be speaking of.


FeatheryBallOfFluff t1_jbpueas wrote

Given that musicians and billionaires still do meaningful work, even with all the money in the world, to me is proof that people won't just sit around and smoke all day.

For me personally, that would be hell. Like many people, I'm curious about the world and so helping build new machines, doing research on space, life or computers would still be interesting to me, and probably many others too.


GoodbyeCOI t1_jbpwbbt wrote

Good point. Those people have enough money not to worry about money though. UBI is a concern for the poorest of the poor and decimated middle class.

If the working clas didn't have to bang on a machine in a dangerous factory what would they do?

I obviously don't think everyone will pursue hedonism but I say that because I certainly would.

I'm tired of working hard in a system where hard work isn't always rewarded. Sadly, hard work is all I have to succeed so it's a catch 22.

If I got UBI I'd continue boxing, making cbd products, and perhaps continue to work my normal job where everyone is overworked and underpaid.

I bring up the issues I mention because people already sell their EBT for drugs so it's very likely that UBI will be very regulated and controlled to prevent abuse...think blockchain...citizen credit score...etc.

They'll definitely impose controls on recipients...


msubasic t1_jbqw0o3 wrote

Given how reactionary our society was about welfare recipients. I think you are right that there will be a trade-off for this money that will include a loss of some privacy. There would be a lot of potential for fraud without some good controls.