Game Theory of UBI

Submitted by shmoculus t3_zztarn in singularity

Assuming increased automation through advances in AI over the next couple of decades, the general view here is that a UBI will become necessary and is likely to be implemented.

Is the assumption that coporations running AI will have to pay taxes to support the population? Assuming corporations continue to behave the way they do now, would they not simply relocate to where they don't have to pay so much tax?

Does anyone know what the actual feasibility of UBI is given that we don't have a unified world government and localities are always trying to entice businesses with lower taxes?

Is the assumption that AI and production will be managed by the state instead?

25

Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

AndromedaAnimated t1_j2dh20r wrote

Very good questions!

My prediction is that UBI will not be implemented world-wide instantly. Europe will probably try to do it first as there is already some intent present to implement it in politics. The stress here is on TRY. Not on it being successful.

Why am I a bit pessimistic on it? Because I have been watching the political debate about Bürgergeld (a low-grade version of UBI) going on in Germany and seen the idea being torn to shreds by the PUBLIC opinion itself due to resentment, jealousy, scarcity politics and misunderstood Christian values (misunderstood, I say, not actual real Christian values!!!). Even my most leftist friends are against it mostly.

UBI is a big political change that needs a change in morals/ethics first.

As long as „working“ is conflated with „being a good person“, people will oppose UBI morally.

29

Tip_Odde t1_j2eo2ed wrote

Each generation sees working being tied to your being a good person less and less.

8

ElvinRath t1_j2dxk5t wrote

It's not that much about morals or ethics as it is about work being needed or not.

​

Lot's of people like to day that poverty is a political choice because if we split the wealth there would be no poverty. It doesn't work that way. Now, I'm not saying that we couldn't have a better / more fair / world with less poverty.

But wealth itself doesn't mean much. Wealth is usually representative of control over production means, and if you try to use that wealth from ownership of production means into consuption, it's value is much less.

​

And right now, if people don't work, there is no production. Just imagine what would happend if no human works. One year later, (almost) everybody dies.

The day that you can imagine that if no humans work (or 90% of them don't work) one year later everything is still good (and better) , that's when we can talk about UBI and no one will oppose it.

I'm also not saying that you can't have some kind of social protection.
In my country there is already a "minimum mensual income" program. It's quite low, but it already covers around 6% of the active population (People with age to work). It is expected to cover about 8% soon.

Even with that it's a bit of a problem, and some people say it discourages employment, because people it takes time to ask for it, and if you get it and you get a job, and then loose it, you have to ask for it again.. It could be organized a lot better, but well, it's something. There is also people against it becase they say that given that you can take that for doing nothing, it's starting to become harder to get people to accept low wage jobs... Well, as I said this minimum income is quite low so the effect is also quite low.

7

AndromedaAnimated t1_j2e7n8a wrote

I would want to work (in my profession which I love, not necessarily in my current well-paid but morally questionable - in my opinion right now - job, and that is why I plan to return to academia instead of continuing doing what I do now; sometimes people need time to realise they are fighting for the wrong side and I needed lots of time for that sadly).

The work we shouldn’t want to be necessary is exploitative and underpaid work. I am not arguing that laziness is the way to go.

Humans are curious and creative creatures. Imagine a world where all menial and physically or mentally damaging work could be done by robots (non-sentient ones) and planned and supervised by humans or AI. A world where humans could pursue their creative endeavours, use their brains to plan and supervise or care for other humans or contribute to research as work. Wouldn’t that be a good world?

7

ElvinRath t1_j2e8und wrote

Yes, and I hope to see it someday, but we don't have the tech to have that job. For now...

​

I'm not speaking against UBI, automation, or against "people not working", I'm saying that it isn't possible right now, and that's not about ethics or moral, it's just that the technology is not yet there.

4

AndromedaAnimated t1_j2e9dsc wrote

I see! Yes, your argument is valid in this case. You are not one of those who see amorality in wanting to establish UBI. I am glad to read that. Thank you!

1

SoulGuardian55 t1_j2en2kr wrote

What you and other people described on this sub as whole is technically socialism (maybe just around the corner of communism), where people flesh out our inner potential, pushing our society to new heights.

1

SoylentRox t1_j2f7o9e wrote

Why is your threshold 90%?

One reasonable way it could happen is that gradually AI and robotics starts to replace everyone in generally the easier jobs to learn.

So working in mines, as assembly workers in factories, as vehicle drivers, as warehouse pickers..these jobs will go first.

There are still plenty of jobs but they all require education/talent/physical characteristics. There's plenty of doctors - though they use AI to help them they still oversee it - and therapists. There are more SWEs than ever but you have to pass a test of talent to get the job. There are obviously many sex workers and webcam models but you have to be young and hot.

It's totally reasonable that it might be 10-50% of the population who are not employable for a period of time, until AI get substantially better.

3

SoylentRox t1_j2f5461 wrote

Surely people will change their tunes when there's no jobs available, right?

I don't know how it is in Germany, but in the USA, the combination of early retirements partly driven by covid, and generational differences in the number of children have reduced the number of workers. There's pretty much a labor shortage in every industry. Anyone without a criminal record or major disability can probably easily get a job. (I won't say this is necessarily true nationwide but in high and medium living cost areas it is)

4

AndromedaAnimated t1_j2fdp4v wrote

It’s the same here. Employee search notices everywhere. But the people in the workforce AND the employers still pretend like it’s the jobs that are scarce and not the workers and the wages have not improved much beside the government-imposed minimum wage policy. It’s still hard to get a well-paid job and people are still being treated badly in their work environment. It’s the mind that needs to change. The market will follow.

3

TheSecretAgenda t1_j2dzt8x wrote

Certainly, businesses that provide goods and services to average people are going to be in favor of a UBI, Wal-Mart and McDonald's for example. Now if you are an extractor of basic materials like Anaconda Copper or a defense contractor then you might be a little less inclined to pay more tax for a UBI.

Currently, consumption by average people is 70% of U.S. GDP. The wealthy might be able to survive the collapse of 70% of the U.S. economy but, I don't think the wealthy find the idea of sitting in a fortress surrounded by armed guards all that appealing. Of course, there are places in the world where the wealthy do live exactly like that.

However, it plays out, it will be a bloody struggle.

14

1810v t1_j2dkcbi wrote

I believe that AI is incredibly deflationary. So many things will become cheap or almost free. It would make more sense for governments to guarantee housing & food (rather than provide money) because governments could do so with very little cost by using some combination of robotics and AI. I believe a large portion of housing in the future will be “owned” by the government and provided to people for their lifetime.

I think that a market for goods and services will still exist, but it will be a luxury market, while your necessities are provided for you through some form of non-profit government agency that deploys AI to keep society stable.

8

hawkinomics t1_j2dymfx wrote

This is closest to the right answer. Basics will become almost free and what cannot be made plentiful will rise in relative cost. Unless people choose to live entirely outside the physical world there will still be scarcity in where to live, travel, etc. Humans will still use real or created scarcity to derive status no matter where they are.

7

TheTomatoBoy9 t1_j2ebapo wrote

Fundamentally, things will never become cheaper than the cost of the energy it takes to make them, even with full automation

1

Surur t1_j2ew06z wrote

With solar energy, prices often go negative and some companies get paid to use energy.

There is an idea that we would create 7x as much solar capacity as we need, for reliability reasons, and then have massive amounts of waste energy on many days.

4

1810v t1_j2ecl1d wrote

With the potential for fusion energy, this could radically change the cost of energy in the next few decades.

1

TheTomatoBoy9 t1_j2eefax wrote

True enough. But even if (or when) it becomes economically viable, it will take decades to implement it at scale. So what happens during this transition?

An ideal scenario would be easily accessible energy through fusion, and then the AI replacement. But for now it looks like the reverse scenario is happening. Which I'm not too optimistic about.

1

xt-89 t1_j2ezvam wrote

There’s also renewables. When the entire supply chain for wind mills or solar panels become fully automated, energy prices will quickly trend to zero without any new technology beyond AI. Even if you are concerned about rare earth minerals there’s undersea mining that would become more reasonable at that point in time

3

enilea t1_j2fgf37 wrote

I doubt fusion will become an option that soon. Maybe a few decades to make it a viable source of energy, but then a few more decades for widespread implementation. So not soon enough before most jobs have been automated.

1

ElvinRath t1_j2e12b8 wrote

Well the thing is that I think that corporations that behave the way they do now will lose its sense in a world without UBI that doesn't need human labour.

I mean, think about it. Those corporations produce things for consumers.
In a world where human labour isn't needed, only those who control the means of production have any income.

​

Now, you can imagine (keeping things simple) 2 worlds here:

​

1º- Is the one you suggest. Corporations manage to avoid taxes and to keep a "Only profit" approach. Consumers accept that, countries accept that.

What would happend? Well, most of those corporations woud have to stop their production anyway, because there will be no one to buy their products and services. Only the owners of other corporations will have an income, some the owners of the corporations would produce for themselves. Does that world make sense to you?

​

2º- As human labour dissapear from the world, states begin to raise taxes little by little. Tax increase has to be lower than productivity increases from technology to not slow down technological progress.

Corporations that try to avoid taxes get taxed anyway in the form of import taxes and indirect taxes over prices... Or lose access to the markets of some countries and in the long turn, dissapear because of that. Remember that all that production only makes sense if there is someone to consume it. Of course, producing only makes sense if you want the income of that people.

Countries don't want chaos so to avoid riots, as unenployment raises they increase the money on social support programs. Those programs, eventually, become UBI.

This is gradual. Little by little, it allows everybody to win in the long term:

-Countries will keep existing and (mostly) in control, and with their income they will also be owners of quite a lot of the means of production

-Corporations (and capital owners) will keep being richer than most people

-"Normal people" will keep existing and their living standard will keep improving as a consecuence of the productivity increase

​

Also, another good thing about this scenario, is that money would keep being a good indicator of what is and what is not beneficial, which is probably better than any centralized option to decide.

Now, there will be people who will be in a tought spot. As unenployment raises the first years, some the social programs will lag behind. Some jobs will dissapear, and in the begining people will be expected to find other jobs. Some will, and others not.

That people will probably suffer in the short term... But that has always happend.

​

The thing is that I think that the world evolution will be more similar to this second scenario than to the first.

​

Or at least is what I think, I could be wrong and maybe we will all die a horrible death :D

7

Technical-Berry8471 t1_j2dowav wrote

Effectively we would have a world in which everyone is retired. Some would continue to work out of interest, a large part of that work being part-time and voluntary, or focused on arts and crafts. Just like retired people, myself included do now. It will take time for people to readjust. But it will happen.

6

TheTomatoBoy9 t1_j2edvyh wrote

I have a couple of issues with the concept of UBI in a heavily automated world where we see high levels of chronic unemployment (I.e. 20-30%).

The concept of UBI is one of BASIC income, but that assumes we will accept a world where a very large contingent of the population will forever live barely above survival/poverty wage if they are chronically unemployed.

I can't see that type of society as a healthy one. Realistically, what is the likelihood that a UBI implemented at the national level (pretty sure we are faaaaaaar away from any international agreement of UBI) would be much higher than welfare?

But that's also the catch with companies and seeking profits. It's one thing to be the only innovative company on the block which allows you to cut your personnel requirements and increase profit margins. But when it's all the companies that reach that level of automation, creating a macro environment of unemployment, you are effectively fucking up the purchasing power of the very population you depend on to buy your products.

A UBI will most certainly not match the median income. Meaning companies might see profit margins increase in the short term, but there's obviously going to be an inflection point where the level of unemployment will have a negative effect on buying power.

UBI is often touted as this magic pill 💊 but I can't see a healthy world where it is the solution as long as that income isn't covering all basic needs++.

And all of this is ignoring international dynamics. If a UBI was implemented equally today... it would be extremely low. The gdp per capita for the whole planet is something like $12k. AI would need to become incredibly productive to either create enough deflation and basically erase scarcity to allow a UBI to give good enough living conditions.

That might happen in the long term, but what about the transition period? Will we have to endure decades of extreme poverty and civil unrest because even an UBI would create massive inequalities?

2

Surur t1_j2dh6tz wrote

> Is the assumption that AI and production will be managed by the state instead?

This actually makes a lot more sense financially. Instead of money, the government can supply the basics of living (food, water, heat and homes, healthcare), a small stipend, and everyone who wants more will need to find some opportunity (if available).

I don't see how people could live in relative luxury on UBI, as the tax burden would be too high.

On the other hand automation and AI may allow even people on UBI to enjoy a great quality of life - imagine each person having a personal robot at their beck and call for example.

1

Economy_Variation365 t1_j2dkrd9 wrote

You wrote two exactly contradictory things, one right after the other. You don't see how luxurious living on UBI would be possible. Yet people on UBI could have a high standard of living, thanks to AI and robotics.

This second point is what we need to keep in mind: advanced robotics will lower the costs of goods and services, making it feasible for everyone to enjoy a decent lifestyle.

2

Surur t1_j2dn16j wrote

> advanced robotics will lower the costs of goods and services, making it feasible for everyone to enjoy a decent lifestyle.

It's what we hope for. But in terms of initial implementation, it would only be acceptable (to workers, as u/AndromedaAnimated notes here) if it's clearly inferior to working.

I guess we saw a bit of UBI during the pandemic when people were paid to stay at home, but unfortunately I worked in an essential service so I had to go to work every day. I guess the main benefit was that the roads were very clear lol.

3

makepossible t1_j2dn3hq wrote

I’m thinking something like a shadow-economy / currency emerging over time that’s opt-in. Businesses that want to tap into that economy can, but then must play by the taxation rules.

UBI exists for that economy and as it becomes increasingly competitive due to powerful AI driving the businesses themselves, it eventually matches the power of the old economy.

It would be a nation-agnostic economy that just sort of emerges and eats everything.

1

MootFile t1_j2drqqs wrote

We are still trying to apply the rules of a pre-industrial society to our advanced technological mechanism. The concept of money is antiquated. We can go past the concept of UBI once we remove the monetary system.

Government by science, social control through the power of technique!

The pathway of a world government was thought up by H.G. Wells.

The New World Order

The Shape of Things To Come

Another plan of technique was purpose by Thorstein Veblen

The Engineers and the Price System

1

amulpatel t1_j2e32zy wrote

This.

A new form of human flourishing New ways of mass communication cooperation and coordination system’s underpinned by blockchains

New ways to envision class mobility and instill desire amongst the humans

1

poordly t1_j2e8cwj wrote

There will always be jobs shy of radical abundance.

And with radical abundance, there will be no need for UBI.

So chill out. You'll be okay.

1

FranciscoJ1618 t1_j2er30g wrote

I asked the exact same thing and my post got flooded by downvotes and accusations of being a bot.

I summary, in game theory terms this is like the prisoners dilemma game. Everybody acting in a selfish way ends up being the worst scenario for everybody. UBI will never be implemented as there will be no motivation to do it or if it is implemented it will be terrible for people to depend on other's productivity to live. That gives a complete power over your life to the one that feeds you. Similar to any communist regime.

0

TheDavidMichaels t1_j2dhr0t wrote

UBI will never happen. only lazy kids want it.

−10

coumineol t1_j2dim43 wrote

Take another look at which subreddit you're on.

4