It's the only way to put stop to the massive inequality developing around the world. Not sure I would ever see it actually happen.
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-st...-a7757781.html
Printable View
It's the only way to put stop to the massive inequality developing around the world. Not sure I would ever see it actually happen.
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-st...-a7757781.html
I wonder what employment will be like in 20-30 years time as yet more and more jobs become automated? I don't think it's too far fetched to consider that unemployment will be far higher than it ever has been and for people and the economy to survive, some sort of basic income would be a must.Quote:
Originally Posted by Barry Dragon
The more jobs that are replaced by machines/robots/artificial intelligence then the higher the number of non-productive people there will be. We have this situation today with something like 1.6 million people unemployed. If the basic income is set too high and it's not worthwhile for unemployed people to seek work because they get more money or not much less from the state then they won't seek work. Again, this is the reality today for many Britons, especially amongst career baby makers. It's why the benefit cap was brought in and is being steadily reduced.
Universal income means everybody gets a set amount, and then you get wages on top if you work.
absolutely never going to happen, neither is job automation....as soon as they realise people out of work became thinkers and question power structures they'll create more private sector bullshit jobs exactly like they did in the 60's when this came around before.
Anybody ever read the Anthropologist David Graeber, he touches on this subject a lot and with great clarity?
The problem is that if unemployment rises sharply without there being other jobs to replace those lost to automation (proper employment, not shite zero hours contracts or the odd hour part time job here and there), then there might be no choice other than to increase a benefit cap or make sure people have enough money to live. The other choice is mass homelessness and a return to Victorian times.Quote:
Originally Posted by Organ Morgan.
It is bothering that multi corporation do and will continue to cut casts and manpower in the western world ,either move their operation off shore or find a automated e solution to their more menial jobs .
As manpower reduces the taxpayer takes on the burden and like it or not that has to be balanced, you cant just borrow to prop up the benefits budget , you could raise business taxes ,however that would deter investment , and since the Brexit decision thats the last thing we need , businesses already provide add a huge percentage the overall tax take .
Its not an easy one this question,but a good post for discussion ,easier trying to guess whose signing for the city this summer
Then we have two options as I see it. A reverse to the growing wealth divide between the richest and poorest, or increased homelessness and reliance on charitable handouts.Quote:
Originally Posted by life on mars
Is this the article about that well known commie mark zuckerburg calling for it?
You mean commie because of the massive surveillance operation he runs?Quote:
Originally Posted by surge
If I owned a food brand I'd just raise prices if I knew people were being given more disposable income.
Or could a government combat that?.
There be so much money in the system, inflation would be guaranteed wouldn't it?.
So, immediately we have to ask ourselves where the money's coming from for this.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wales-Bales
Secondly, there would still be a disparity between the rich and the poor. We'd just have to redefine what "poor" means
Thirdly, with more disposable income, comes inflation, meaning we'd just be right back where we started.
I think the numbers i seen once for the UK were the equivalent of about 60% of what is currently spent, the other 40% would come from reductions in public services no longer necessary as a result of people having 1000gbp a month (crime and the knock on effect, entrepreneurs would rise, better health, staying in education).Quote:
Originally Posted by TH63
Those advocating it, that i have seen its not necessarily about rich and poor but to give people better life choices (mainly working shitty jobs, better child care, healthy food)
I assume the inflation is the same as what we are doing now with quantitative easing, which hasn't seen massive inflation. Of the places it has been in place it didn't have a huge impact and actually people reinvested their money, see point 1, entrepreneurs. Creating more quality work for people, more tax and a cycle of money.
The 1st thing the UK would need to do though before starting this experiment is legalise weed.
I think most places that tried it showed a success hence why it will never happen.
Our man flint going for the populist vote there :hehe:Quote:
Originally Posted by OurManFlint II
Can you imagine every over 18 year old getting a 1000 a week, what else they going to spend it on :biggrin:Quote:
Originally Posted by TH63
I'd probably spend half of mine on booze and cuban cigars.Quote:
Originally Posted by OurManFlint II
The rest I'd just fritter away probably
(c) George Best