Bitcoin Forum
May 07, 2024, 05:23:44 PM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 27.0 [Torrent]
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Pages: « 1 2 3 [4]  All
  Print  
Author Topic: Universal Basic Income: Ideas on how to make it work?  (Read 665 times)
lixer
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 2506
Merit: 586



View Profile
August 17, 2020, 10:13:58 PM
 #61

This is a good idea, but it’s also an idea that is not going to be easy to implement. Only big countries might afford to be paying every citizen in their country. And moreover they shouldn’t be paying the rich, the target should only be the citizens who are poor. Maybe they can set a limit that will be used for paying citizen; let’s say for example every month they will pay in money into the account citizens that has less than $100,000 or something like that. This will be handled by the arms of the government that is in charge of finance, the central bank and the rest of them.

1715102624
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1715102624

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1715102624
Reply with quote  #2

1715102624
Report to moderator
1715102624
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1715102624

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1715102624
Reply with quote  #2

1715102624
Report to moderator
1715102624
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1715102624

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1715102624
Reply with quote  #2

1715102624
Report to moderator
BitcoinCleanup.com: Learn why Bitcoin isn't bad for the environment
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction.
1715102624
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1715102624

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1715102624
Reply with quote  #2

1715102624
Report to moderator
abhiseshakana
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 2226
Merit: 2229


From Zero to 2 times Self-Made Legendary


View Profile WWW
August 18, 2020, 05:48:47 AM
 #62

Yes, agreed. This is all speculative. There will doubtless be some automation and some new job creation, but we are just estimating the extent. I will also concede that speculation as to what sort of technologies we will have 5 or 10 years down the line has a tendency to be wildly optimistic.
Similarly to yours, my personal experience also relates to these technologies. I have seen a lot of job losses through automation of lower-level technical roles, and the process is accelerating. This has been partially offset by the creation of new higher-level roles, but a considerably smaller number. Appreciate this is anecdotal, but I believe it to be representative of the underlying trend.

Yes, let's (get our robots to) check back in 10 years' time.

This continuous technological development cannot be limited, if it is limited, it can hinder future progress. There are many advantages that can be obtained if we use AI to help us solve problems and complete work appropriately, accurately, and correctly. The presence of technology has the potential to replace some of the existing jobs. However, on the other hand, it can also create many opportunities for business actors to explore new things and innovate to create new job opportunities.

The industrial revolution 4.0, which one of the concentrations is the development of automation, AI, advanced robotic, will bring a great change in the world order. Thus, if the government is too slow to adopt new technologies in the industrial era 4.0, they will fail to improve the services needed to maintain the stability of public services, and the government's reputation will decline.

.
.Duelbits.
█▀▀▀▀▀











█▄▄▄▄▄
TRY OUR
  NEW  UNIQUE
GAMES!
.
..DICE...
███████████████████████████████
███▀▀                     ▀▀███
███    ▄▄▄▄         ▄▄▄▄    ███
███   ██████       ██████   ███
███   ▀████▀       ▀████▀   ███
███                         ███
███                         ███
███                         ███
███   ▄████▄       ▄████▄   ███
███   ██████       ██████   ███
███    ▀▀▀▀         ▀▀▀▀    ███
███▄▄                     ▄▄███
███████████████████████████████
.
.MINES.
███████████████████████████████
████████████████████████▄▀▄████
██████████████▀▄▄▄▀█████▄▀▄████
████████████▀ █████▄▀████ █████
██████████      █████▄▀▀▄██████
███████▀          ▀████████████
█████▀              ▀██████████
█████                ██████████
████▌                ▐█████████
█████                ██████████
██████▄            ▄███████████
████████▄▄      ▄▄█████████████
███████████████████████████████
.
.PLINKO.
███████████████████████████████
█████████▀▀▀       ▀▀▀█████████
██████▀  ▄▄███ ███      ▀██████
█████  ▄▀▀                █████
████  ▀                    ████
███                         ███
███                         ███
███                         ███
████                       ████
█████                     █████
██████▄                 ▄██████
█████████▄▄▄       ▄▄▄█████████
███████████████████████████████
10,000x
MULTIPLIER
NEARLY UP TO
.50%. REWARDS
▀▀▀▀▀█











▄▄▄▄▄█
KnightElite
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 924
Merit: 275


View Profile
August 18, 2020, 08:10:33 AM
 #63

This is a good idea, but it’s also an idea that is not going to be easy to implement. Only big countries might afford to be paying every citizen in their country. And moreover they shouldn’t be paying the rich, the target should only be the citizens who are poor. Maybe they can set a limit that will be used for paying citizen; let’s say for example every month they will pay in money into the account citizens that has less than $100,000 or something like that. This will be handled by the arms of the government that is in charge of finance, the central bank and the rest of them.
I think even the 1st world countries will have a hard time to implement that kind of idea, for me it is good but there are pros and cons. The pros is the government can help the people especially the poorest of the poor who are working hard physically just for them to earn money but there are many cons which are corruption, high budget where the government will sacrifice other things just to afford this kind of project and it will also lead to other people to just become dependable on government. That are the scenarios in my head right now, I know that people will become lazy to work because they know that they will earn passive income from the government.
NotATether (OP)
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1596
Merit: 6730


bitcoincleanup.com / bitmixlist.org


View Profile WWW
August 18, 2020, 07:43:07 PM
Merited by exstasie (1)
 #64

To be honest I'm starting to think we can implement better social welfare programs than UBI, I suggest two different programs for the unemployed and the workers in low tax brackets respectively. The workers program will pay only as much to cover basic benefits. The unemployed program will pay much more money but say half as much as an average job's salary. These amounts are then adjusted for each region or state depending on their standard of living.
I'm not sure about this approach. Wouldn't it disincentivise work?

I admit I had to think this over again for some time, especially the unemployment program of giving away money versus giving them free benefits. Free benefits do not disincentivise work. As for the worker program I now think a better idea is for governments to pay for their insurances instead of them doing it themselves, because a good amount of UBI money given to them will be spent on insurance anyway so why not cover the insurance themselves. It could be planned as the government buying insurance with some funding, maybe SS funding, from the largest insurance companies. It's not like they can go bankrupt and cause the plan to collapse because they keep getting bailouts.

Tax cuts are indeed a good way of erasing unemployment:

How did Donald Trump achieve record low unemployment and record high job creation BTW?

Was it through tax hikes and massive spending programs like UBI. Or simple and affordable tax cuts.

But now we have the problem of how to cover their insurances now that they are working.



About the topic of AI robots wiping out jobs, it's mostly felt by states and municipalities that invest on the infrastructure to sustain all that AI. Some places still have plenty of old-fashioned jobs and look like they're going to stay like that in the foreseeable future. Iowa comes to mind but let's not forget there are other first world countries with their own districts we need to account for Smiley

Government regulations have completely monopolized industry. It has made it next to impossible for regular people to launch startups anymore. We are completely dependent on external seed capital, and having connections who can grease the wheels regarding permitting, licensing, etc. This monopoly dynamic hands entire markets to a small number of large companies, who generally treat their workers like shit and gradually jack up prices on all consumers once the market has been cornered.

There's less money in circulation to hand to real people because more and more of it is being absorbed by corporations as revenue and cash assets. A handful of publishing conglomerates. Same goes for media, telecom, music distributors. Anyone that tries to challenge their businesses gets either acquired by one of the Big 3/4/5 or runs out of money to compete or even operate. Reminds me of when there were dozens of Bell telephone companies a few decades ago instead of the 3 or 4 there are now and in some places there is only one company to choose from!

.
.BLACKJACK ♠ FUN.
█████████
██████████████
████████████
█████████████████
████████████████▄▄
░█████████████▀░▀▀
██████████████████
░██████████████
████████████████
░██████████████
████████████
███████████████░██
██████████
CRYPTO CASINO &
SPORTS BETTING
▄▄███████▄▄
▄███████████████▄
███████████████████
█████████████████████
███████████████████████
█████████████████████████
█████████████████████████
█████████████████████████
███████████████████████
█████████████████████
███████████████████
▀███████████████▀
█████████
.
exstasie
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1806
Merit: 1521


View Profile
August 18, 2020, 08:44:41 PM
 #65

This continuous technological development cannot be limited, if it is limited, it can hinder future progress.

Progress is not the only good to be considered. Ever heard of "gray goo?" Variations on the "robots taking over the earth" scenario?

In my opinion, it's a pretty important thought experiment to ponder when considering the dangers of runaway technology, especially AI. Once you unleash technology, there's no putting the genie back in the bottle.

Quote
Gray goo is a useful construct for considering low-probability, high-impact outcomes from emerging technologies. Thus, it is a useful tool in the ethics of technology. Daniel A. Vallero applied it as a worst-case scenario thought experiment for technologists contemplating possible risks from advancing a technology.[16] This requires that a decision tree or event tree include even extremely low probability events if such events may have an extremely negative and irreversible consequence, i.e. application of the precautionary principle. Dianne Irving admonishes that "any error in science will have a rippling effect".[17] Vallero adapted this reference to chaos theory to emerging technologies, wherein slight permutations of initial conditions can lead to unforeseen and profoundly negative downstream effects, for which the technologist and the new technology's proponents must be held accountable.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gray_goo#Ethics_and_chaos

panganib999
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 1736
Merit: 589


View Profile WWW
August 20, 2020, 07:59:52 PM
 #66

The idea of doing an implementation of the UBI (Universal Basic Income) for the sake of the people most specially at this time of pandemic is really an essential thing to do but the OP was right that there are lots of challenges to be faced on implementing such thing which considerably of course involved financial stability and capacity of the government to provide the people's need since it is the reason why it is called UBI, the main problem to be faced on this is the limited resource which is the funding needed to support the idea because if you would think further, most countries are over populated on which the proportionality of sharing the funds the country have won't be enough to support individuals even if you say so it would be on a household basis.

Why would I say so? It is duly because our country have also done such thing and that concept have really faced a big problem and that involves (1) the filtering of the people who would get the financial aid because we have encountered greedy people applying two person in a household (married individuals) on which clearly state they would gain two financial aid that supposedly only one and the other for the other people's benefit. (2) the implementation or the distribution of the financial aid for it took weeks (1st tranche) and even months (2nd tranche) and that program only lasted for two distributions because of limited funding by the government.

The other thing that the OP was right is such program is prone to corruption that is sadly present even at times like this pandemic on which certain powerful officials make use of their power to obtain money that must be for the people and claim it for their own good sake.
Pages: « 1 2 3 [4]  All
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!