CDZ Why not have a 'Universal Basic Income' to replace welfare?

[koshergrl]

Welfare for everybody, nobody works, everybody starves.

Sounds great.

Sarcasm noted, but there is no reason to believe that anyone would have to starve.

With an android operated farming system, and the ability to produce what we need for ourselves, why would anyone starve?

 

[JimBowie1958]

How much land is required to house and feed the worlds population based on the density of various cities.

 

[koshergrl]

How much land is required to house and feed the worlds population based on the density of various cities.

 

[JimBowie1958]

How much land is required to house and feed the worlds population based on the density of various cities.

Food production is not the problem. The problem is 1. politics, 2. distribution, 3. spoilage.

Always has been but it will get fixed when everyone can grow pretty much what they need.

 

[Mac1958]

I like this idea as it will smooth out the transition from a wage based economy to a new technologically based barter economy that will arrive within 30 years if not much sooner.

Hey Jim, interesting piece here: A Guaranteed Income for Every American
.

 

[JimBowie1958]

I like this idea as it will smooth out the transition from a wage based economy to a new technologically based barter economy that will arrive within 30 years if not much sooner.

Hey Jim, interesting piece here: A Guaranteed Income for Every American
.

Wow, very interesting. The author hits on $10k as an annual grant amount as well, but he also gives an allowance for medical insurance.

We have to do something to assure the public of being able to get an income and avert mass chaos as jobs dry up. We also have to start treating jobs as a national resources and stop giving them away to black market labor suppliers and exporting them via multinational corporations.

 

[Mac1958]

I like this idea as it will smooth out the transition from a wage based economy to a new technologically based barter economy that will arrive within 30 years if not much sooner.

Hey Jim, interesting piece here: A Guaranteed Income for Every American
.

Wow, very interesting. The author hits on $10k as an annual grant amount as well, but he also gives an allowance for medical insurance.

We have to do something to assure the public of being able to get an income and avert mass chaos as jobs dry up. We also have to start treating jobs as a national resources and stop giving them away to black market labor suppliers and exporting them via multinational corporations.

This whole topic is an entirely new paradigm. But we've advanced to the point now where we really need to start looking at this differently.

The whole point of technology was to make our lives easier. Okay, here it is, but we clearly didn't anticipate the negative ramifications.
.

 

[JimBowie1958]

This whole topic is an entirely new paradigm. But we've advanced to the point now where we really need to start looking at this differently.

The whole point of technology was to make our lives easier. Okay, here it is, but we clearly didn't anticipate the negative ramifications.
.

Some deeper thinkers anticipated this back in the 1990s.

We have to begin discussing the topic and looking at various countries that have already begun to implement some of these programs and see what led to their failures and successes, then let each state react in its own way and have a 50 state set of experiments so that we have tested tried and true approaches by the time the real crunch hits.

 

[JimBowie1958]

I like this idea as it will smooth out the transition from a wage based economy to a new technologically based barter economy that will arrive within 30 years if not much sooner.

Hey Jim, interesting piece here: A Guaranteed Income for Every American
.

Wow, very interesting. The author hits on $10k as an annual grant amount as well, but he also gives an allowance for medical insurance.

We have to do something to assure the public of being able to get an income and avert mass chaos as jobs dry up. We also have to start treating jobs as a national resources and stop giving them away to black market labor suppliers and exporting them via multinational corporations.

This whole topic is an entirely new paradigm. But we've advanced to the point now where we really need to start looking at this differently.

The whole point of technology was to make our lives easier. Okay, here it is, but we clearly didn't anticipate the negative ramifications.
.

From that article:
An Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development study concluded that 9% of American jobs are at risk. Two Oxford scholars estimate that as many as 47% of American jobs are at risk.

They are seriously underestimating the jobs lost when these tech advances reach full maturity. I am thinking it will be closer to the 85% of jobs that slaves were able to do in the antebellum South.

Or consider the unemployed young man who fathers a child. Today, society is unable to make him shoulder responsibility. Under a UBI, a judge could order part of his monthly grant to be extracted for child support before he ever sees it. The lesson wouldn’t be lost on his male friends.

This will not be necessary as the child will also get a grant for themselves and no child support will be necessary.

 

[320 Years of History]

I like this idea as it will smooth out the transition from a wage based economy to a new technologically based barter economy that will arrive within 30 years if not much sooner.

Hey Jim, interesting piece here: A Guaranteed Income for Every American
.

Wow, very interesting. The author hits on $10k as an annual grant amount as well, but he also gives an allowance for medical insurance.

We have to do something to assure the public of being able to get an income and avert mass chaos as jobs dry up. We also have to start treating jobs as a national resources and stop giving them away to black market labor suppliers and exporting them via multinational corporations.

Blue:
We, the United States, have been doing that "something" that is more than adequately capable of averting mass chaos: providing a solid education so that U.S. citizens can look at the economic landscape and rationally discern what it is they should and should not do. But, we, as a nation, can only go so far; we can "lead the horses to water," but we cannot make them drink.

I'm sure some here might think "the drink" is the politically spiked "kool-aid." It is not. It is merely the knowledge one acquires from having a genuinely curious mind and taking advantage of it. It's going to school and receiving the information presented there and supplementing it with one's own critical investigations, not with circumstantial and purely anecdotal observations.

For Christ's sake, the modern era has, at least since the mid-1980s been called "The Information Age." The implications of that moniker aren't hard to imagine. Quite simply, the key to success in the Information Age is possessing, making sense of, and using information to achieve outcomes that are valued by society. Our mental abilities, not our physical abilities, will, for most folks, be the key determinant of success and the extent to which they enjoy it.

The information is there for the taking. The question is, "Why aren't folks getting off their duffs and taking it and making something of it?" All that's changed is that in the Information Age one must make something out of information not out of bricks and blocks of metal. Did anyone in the so-called "good old days" give away the keys to success, those bricks and ingots as information is freely given these days? I don't think so.

This whole topic is an entirely new paradigm. But we've advanced to the point now where we really need to start looking at this differently.

The whole point of technology was to make our lives easier. Okay, here it is, but we clearly didn't anticipate the negative ramifications.
.

Red:
My gut suggests to me that you and I probably agree with the themes in your post. That said, I'm not sure whether you and I concur (or don't) on a few of your remarks' tacit components.

• "We" -- Who is "we?"
• "This" -- What "this?"
• "Looking at this differently" -- I'd argue that literally millions of folks have looked at "this" quite as they should have done and having done so, and those folks are thriving. It's the folks who have, quite simply, failed to look at "this" in any rational way, who've failed to see it not as something to combat and criticize, but as something they must embrace and build upon.
  
  So if the different way of looking at "it" means looking at "it" as one should have from the get-go, I agree with you.
• "Didn't anticipate the negative ramifications" -- Who didn't? The folks who were looking at "it" carefully did. And they're succeeding. The folks who looked at "it" and said, "Okay. I am going to have to learn some new skills or I'll be left behind," did. And they are thriving.
  
  The folks who looked at "it" and threw up their hands in apathy and dejection, those folks didn't anticipate the negative ramifications. And they are not succeeding and thriving. And how could they have? By what rational measure might one have even remotely expected them to? One cannot anticipate so much as whether rain will come into the house if one doesn't at least look outside.

So even as I agree with the general themes, I don't know whether we agree on the tactical solution approaches. I say that we, as a nation, have the obligation to provide the tools folks need to see what's one the horizon, but it's each individual's responsibility to use those tools to actually see what's coming and what's here. But I'm okay with leaving behind the folks who fail to do exactly that when there's no overriding reason why they could not and did not.

People want their freedom, and I'm keen to give it to them in spades, so much so that they are even free to ignore "the writing on the wall." By the same token, however, seeing and knowing they've ignored the portents, they need not appeal with vitriolic invective for a solution, and the folks who did read that "writing" have no obligation, IMO, to now make up for their countrymen's past demonstrations of glib ignorance. The folks who didn't earlier anticipate the downsides of the Information Age, now as before, have the solution in their head, if they'd start using it to solve their own problem instead of blaming everyone else for their losses, they'd find themselves once again succeeding.

 

[JimBowie1958]

I like this idea as it will smooth out the transition from a wage based economy to a new technologically based barter economy that will arrive within 30 years if not much sooner.

Hey Jim, interesting piece here: A Guaranteed Income for Every American
.

Wow, very interesting. The author hits on $10k as an annual grant amount as well, but he also gives an allowance for medical insurance.

We have to do something to assure the public of being able to get an income and avert mass chaos as jobs dry up. We also have to start treating jobs as a national resources and stop giving them away to black market labor suppliers and exporting them via multinational corporations.

Blue:
We, the United States, have been doing that "something" that is more than adequately capable of averting mass chaos: providing a solid education so that U.S. citizens can look at the economic landscape and rationally discern what it is they should and should not do. But, we, as a nation, can only go so far; we can "lead the horses to water," but we cannot make them drink.

I'm sure some here might think "the drink" is the politically spiked "kool-aid." It is not. It is merely the knowledge one acquires from having a genuinely curious mind and taking advantage of it. It's going to school and receiving the information presented there and supplementing it with one's own critical investigations, not with circumstantial and purely anecdotal observations.

For Christ's sake, the modern era has, at least since the mid-1980s been called "The Information Age." The implications of that moniker aren't hard to imagine. Quite simply, the key to success in the Information Age is possessing, making sense of, and using information to achieve outcomes that are valued by society. Our mental abilities, not our physical abilities, will, for most folks, be the key determinant of success and the extent to which they enjoy it.

The information is there for the taking. The question is, "Why aren't folks getting off their duffs and taking it and making something of it?" All that's changed is that in the Information Age one must make something out of information not out of bricks and blocks of metal. Did anyone in the so-called "good old days" give away the keys to success, those bricks and ingots as information is freely given these days? I don't think so.

This whole topic is an entirely new paradigm. But we've advanced to the point now where we really need to start looking at this differently.

The whole point of technology was to make our lives easier. Okay, here it is, but we clearly didn't anticipate the negative ramifications.
.

Red:
My gut suggests to me that you and I probably agree with the themes in your post. That said, I'm not sure whether you and I concur (or don't) on a few of your remarks' tacit components.

• "We" -- Who is "we?"
• "This" -- What "this?"
• "Looking at this differently" -- I'd argue that literally millions of folks have looked at "this" quite as they should have done and having done so, and those folks are thriving. It's the folks who have, quite simply, failed to look at "this" in any rational way, who've failed to see it not as something to combat and criticize, but as something they must embrace and build upon.
  
  So if the different way of looking at "it" means looking at "it" as one should have from the get-go, I agree with you.
• "Didn't anticipate the negative ramifications" -- Who didn't? The folks who were looking at "it" carefully did. And they're succeeding. The folks who looked at "it" and said, "Okay. I am going to have to learn some new skills or I'll be left behind," did. And they are thriving.
  
  The folks who looked at "it" and threw up their hands in apathy and dejection, those folks didn't anticipate the negative ramifications. And they are not succeeding and thriving. And how could they have? By what rational measure might one have even remotely expected them to? One cannot anticipate so much as whether rain will come into the house if one doesn't at least look outside.

So even as I agree with the general themes, I don't know whether we agree on the tactical solution approaches. I say that we, as a nation, have the obligation to provide the tools folks need to see what's one the horizon, but it's each individual's responsibility to use those tools to actually see what's coming and what's here. But I'm okay with leaving behind the folks who fail to do exactly that when there's no overriding reason why they could not and did not.

People want their freedom, and I'm keen to give it to them in spades, so much so that they are even free to ignore "the writing on the wall." By the same token, however, seeing and knowing they've ignored the portents, they need not appeal with vitriolic invective for a solution, and the folks who did read that "writing" have no obligation, IMO, to now make up for their countrymen's past demonstrations of glib ignorance. The folks who didn't earlier anticipate the downsides of the Information Age, now as before, have the solution in their head, if they'd start using it to solve their own problem instead of blaming everyone else for their losses, they'd find themselves once again succeeding.

We have moved past the Information Age into the Robotic Age, and the coming Strong AI will be capable of doing EVERY job from legal analysis to speech therapy to social worker to medical doctor.

There will be NO JOBS unaffected.

Jobs will be very scarce and limited to the type where a significant number of people want a real person and not a machine and there will be tons of people competing for those jobs.

 

[320 Years of History]

I like this idea as it will smooth out the transition from a wage based economy to a new technologically based barter economy that will arrive within 30 years if not much sooner.

Hey Jim, interesting piece here: A Guaranteed Income for Every American
.

Wow, very interesting. The author hits on $10k as an annual grant amount as well, but he also gives an allowance for medical insurance.

We have to do something to assure the public of being able to get an income and avert mass chaos as jobs dry up. We also have to start treating jobs as a national resources and stop giving them away to black market labor suppliers and exporting them via multinational corporations.

Blue:
We, the United States, have been doing that "something" that is more than adequately capable of averting mass chaos: providing a solid education so that U.S. citizens can look at the economic landscape and rationally discern what it is they should and should not do. But, we, as a nation, can only go so far; we can "lead the horses to water," but we cannot make them drink.

I'm sure some here might think "the drink" is the politically spiked "kool-aid." It is not. It is merely the knowledge one acquires from having a genuinely curious mind and taking advantage of it. It's going to school and receiving the information presented there and supplementing it with one's own critical investigations, not with circumstantial and purely anecdotal observations.

For Christ's sake, the modern era has, at least since the mid-1980s been called "The Information Age." The implications of that moniker aren't hard to imagine. Quite simply, the key to success in the Information Age is possessing, making sense of, and using information to achieve outcomes that are valued by society. Our mental abilities, not our physical abilities, will, for most folks, be the key determinant of success and the extent to which they enjoy it.

The information is there for the taking. The question is, "Why aren't folks getting off their duffs and taking it and making something of it?" All that's changed is that in the Information Age one must make something out of information not out of bricks and blocks of metal. Did anyone in the so-called "good old days" give away the keys to success, those bricks and ingots as information is freely given these days? I don't think so.

This whole topic is an entirely new paradigm. But we've advanced to the point now where we really need to start looking at this differently.

The whole point of technology was to make our lives easier. Okay, here it is, but we clearly didn't anticipate the negative ramifications.
.

Red:
My gut suggests to me that you and I probably agree with the themes in your post. That said, I'm not sure whether you and I concur (or don't) on a few of your remarks' tacit components.

• "We" -- Who is "we?"
• "This" -- What "this?"
• "Looking at this differently" -- I'd argue that literally millions of folks have looked at "this" quite as they should have done and having done so, and those folks are thriving. It's the folks who have, quite simply, failed to look at "this" in any rational way, who've failed to see it not as something to combat and criticize, but as something they must embrace and build upon.
  
  So if the different way of looking at "it" means looking at "it" as one should have from the get-go, I agree with you.
• "Didn't anticipate the negative ramifications" -- Who didn't? The folks who were looking at "it" carefully did. And they're succeeding. The folks who looked at "it" and said, "Okay. I am going to have to learn some new skills or I'll be left behind," did. And they are thriving.
  
  The folks who looked at "it" and threw up their hands in apathy and dejection, those folks didn't anticipate the negative ramifications. And they are not succeeding and thriving. And how could they have? By what rational measure might one have even remotely expected them to? One cannot anticipate so much as whether rain will come into the house if one doesn't at least look outside.

So even as I agree with the general themes, I don't know whether we agree on the tactical solution approaches. I say that we, as a nation, have the obligation to provide the tools folks need to see what's one the horizon, but it's each individual's responsibility to use those tools to actually see what's coming and what's here. But I'm okay with leaving behind the folks who fail to do exactly that when there's no overriding reason why they could not and did not.

People want their freedom, and I'm keen to give it to them in spades, so much so that they are even free to ignore "the writing on the wall." By the same token, however, seeing and knowing they've ignored the portents, they need not appeal with vitriolic invective for a solution, and the folks who did read that "writing" have no obligation, IMO, to now make up for their countrymen's past demonstrations of glib ignorance. The folks who didn't earlier anticipate the downsides of the Information Age, now as before, have the solution in their head, if they'd start using it to solve their own problem instead of blaming everyone else for their losses, they'd find themselves once again succeeding.

We have moved past the Information Age into the Robotic Age, and the coming Strong AI will be capable of doing EVERY job from legal analysis to speech therapy to social worker to medical doctor.

There will be NO JOBS unaffected.

Jobs will be very scarce and limited to the type where a significant number of people want a real person and not a machine and there will be tons of people competing for those jobs.

Okay. Fine, the Information Age has evolved into the Robotic Age. What individuals must do to find success is no different. It's still reading the writing on the wall. All that's changed is that the words on the wall differ. Not reading them will produce the same outcome -- failure and dissatisfaction -- as it always has. The tools one needs to read and fully comprehend the words are no different now than they always have been.

My central message is no different. Read the writing on the wall and heed it instead of complaining about it being the writing that is there.

 

[Wilbur Right]

But I'm okay with leaving behind the folks who fail to do exactly that when there's no overriding reason why they could not and did not.

What would you suggest doing with those folks who are being left behind?

 

[320 Years of History]

But I'm okay with leaving behind the folks who fail to do exactly that when there's no overriding reason why they could not and did not.

What would you suggest doing with those folks who are being left behind?

The one's for whom there is truly no external factor that caused them to disregard the efforts to bring them along...leave them behind and never look back. What else is there to do? Should I advocate for the rest of us remaining at the foot of the gangplank with them? I will not.

Our society tried to bring them along. They refused our offering. They were free to do so, and so they did. Society tried to include them; it failed. Society must own the fact that it cannot and did not succeed in bringing everyone on the journey, but now it must move on, sadly, without them.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Swiss have a vote and UBI got 20%of vote, which is encouraging under the circumstances.

They have open borders and many feared it would be an immigrationmagnet.

Why the Swiss voted 'No' to a guaranteed basic income

 

[Wilbur Right]

With an android operated farming system, and the ability to produce what we need for ourselves, why would anyone starve?

Soylent Green anyone?

 

[JimBowie1958]

Soylent Green anyone?

No, I am talking about hydroponic vertical farms that only need about a third of an acre to grow enough vegetables in green houses to feed a family of four for a year.

4 Commercial Vertical Farms Worth Your Attention | PowerHouse Hydroponics

The Urban Farmer.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

Swiss have a vote and UBI got 20%of vote, which is encouraging under the circumstances.

They have open borders and many feared it would be an immigrationmagnet.

Why the Swiss voted 'No' to a guaranteed basic income

A UBI combined with an open border policy would be a disaster

 

[JimBowie1958]

Swiss have a vote and UBI got 20%of vote, which is encouraging under the circumstances.

They have open borders and many feared it would be an immigrationmagnet.

Why the Swiss voted 'No' to a guaranteed basic income

A UBI combined with an open border policy would be a disaster

Yeah, that is why we can only implement this as part of an international trading system that limits the flow of human labor across borders.

 

[320 Years of History]

I am talking about hydroponic vertical farms

I infer from the name one of my mentorees uses for it, "dro," that pot grows quite well hydroponically. From the smell of the smoke wafting through the hallways in his building, I can tell that "dro" is damn good weed. LOL

If hydroponic food vegetable farms are as effective for staple crops as they are for pot, I'm all for them.