Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Artanthos t1_jd9qphg wrote

Reply to comment by Surur in AI democratization => urban or rural exodus ? by IntroVertu

Alternatively, UBI could be in the form of goods, not money.

People could be moved into massive dormitories, eat in cafeterias, and be issued basic clothing.

Population would then be centered within these dormitories and be very high density while being much more cost efficient for the government.

1

Surur t1_jd9wkjt wrote

That would not be UBI, though, would it?

UBI is universal basic income, which people would get irrespective of their needs. If you don't need your version, why would you need a dormitory bed and government cheese?

1

Artanthos t1_jdauvvo wrote

I highly doubt the government is just going to start handing out cash.

It's not how welfare is handled today, and today's welfare programs will be the model any future benefits are based off of. With the realization that there will be a very strong incentive to find cost savings as the scale and scope increases.

Today's welfare systems uses food stamps (EBT), WIC, subsidized housing (I've seen as low as $25/month, all utilities included), and even clothing vouchers for kids going to school.

The natural progression for cost saving is not giving cash instead of necessities, it's using economies of scale. The military provides models for cheaply housing and feeding large numbers of people, and I believe that is the direction government will move to save money.

1

Surur t1_jdbs42k wrote

Sure, but there is quite a bit of momentum behind the UBI movement, so if mass unemployment via AI comes, it seems likely it is UBI we will get.

1

Artanthos t1_jdco00z wrote

No.

The people who would be expected to pay for it are the same people you expect to enact it.

Try looking at it from the perspective of the people you expect to pay for it, then ask yourself what they are likely to do.

1

Surur t1_jdcpmee wrote

So I'm reasonably high earning, and a pretty big chunk of my money already goes on taxes. If you earn around the median wage you actually net negative when it comes to taxes paid vs benefits received. The well-off already pay the majority of taxes.

So say we get AGI in 2024, and companies start laying off people en masse in 2025, and unemployment is steadily increasing.

The people who make the decision on how to manage this are the politicians, and they rely on votes. So the first they will do (in Europe) is probably to put a moratorium on people being laid off because they have been replaced by AI.

Meanwhile unemployment will continue to increase, just a bit more slowly.

As the situation develops and companies complain that they are not being allowed to be as productive as they could be due to regulation (actually a common situation for any safety regulation for example) there will come a need for resolution.

Since 2024 everyone would have been discussion UBI, and the groundswell for this will increase. There will be marches for UBI in the street, and talking heads will raise it constantly on the TV.

So eventually the government agrees to implement a UBI tax on companies based on their revenue and pay a living wage stipend to everyone. Because everyone gets money there would be broad support from the populace.

Companies are allowed to freeze hiring and slowly empty out their offices, but maintain their revenue, and then we have UBI.

1

Artanthos t1_jdcumm1 wrote

Your arguments apply equally to health care, social security, Medicare/Medicaid, etc.

A lot of these programs are already underfunded to the point that they are expected to collapse in the next decade.

These are programs that are aimed squarely at helping the lower and middle classes.

And all is takes is the mention of raising taxes to change election outcomes.

1

Surur t1_jdd09e8 wrote

> Your arguments apply equally to health care, social security, Medicare/Medicaid, etc

Well, I live in a high-tax, high-benefit country.

1