Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I used to work 100 hours a week, when I was younger. I tried going to college but they kicked me out for falling asleep in class. With all the hours I worked all I had to show for it was a motorcycle. If you aren't rewarded for working hard, why work hard.Good topic.
Switzerland toyed with UI. It was voted down, but they did the calculations.
By eliminating all social programs, it would have saved the country money. In US dollars, it would be (if I remember correctly) $1,600 a month for every adult, and it could solve a lot of problems we have today.
Most would not be able to live on $1,600 a month, but some could. It would create a demand for workers because of people leaving the work force. Supply and demand dictates the less supply, the higher the price, so pay increases would certainly be on the way.
For those that want to continue to work, that $1,600 could go towards purchasing a health care plan. Another problem is college expenses. If the parents used their $1,600 for their children's college, that's a problem solved as well, because between the parents and the adult student, there is more than enough money to cover all college expenses. But even if a loan were needed, the adult student getting his or her $1,600 a month could cover dorm costs.
Welfare is a huge problem in our country. For instance I get so pissed off because I live in the suburbs, and I have HUD people living right next door. There is no equity when I have to go to work everyday to live here, and they just move in living on my tax dollars. UI would eliminate that because there would be no HUD. They would have to move somewhere else, and I could finally get some sleep at night.
Our social programs reward people for having kids they can't afford. That wouldn't happen with UI. If you can feed your family on that, fine. But raising kids is expensive, and more poor people would practice birth control. Less poor people is always a good thing because the apple usually doesn't fall far from the tree.
So often you read or hear of people complaining of food stamps. What we see these lowlifes buy in the store sickens us. UI would eliminate that because there would no longer be food stamps. Buy whatever you like in the store, because it's coming out of your $1,600 a month.
Housing, housing prices, rents are all increasing faster than income. If you continue to work, you could use your stipend to pay off your mortgage much faster. That's a hell of a lot of money you could save in interest rates.
So UI is a great idea. I would love to see it. While there are some disadvantages, there are ten times more advantages. It would eliminate the jealousy of people on social programs, it would reduce poverty, it would teach responsibility, and it would solve many financial problems most Americans currently deal with. The best part? It would be cheaper in the long run for our government.
If you crunch the numbers in the US, i'm guessing it is nowhere close to being paid by the elimination of welfare programs. Especially when more people drop out of the work force. Where is the money going to come from? How does encouraging able bodied people not to work teach responsibility? If welfare is a bomb, then increasing the amount of people who don't work is an atom bomb. The problem would just grow exponentially. The only way I can see universal income working is towards the very end with the complete elimination of a workforce. Sadly, that is fast approaching. The whole thing seems perverse. It relies on production increasing without a workforce. That just doesn't sound right.
To be honest, I don't know if there is much we can do about that. I believe Americans had the same concerns about the horse breeders, the horse shoe people, the vets when we came out with cars. I'm sure the same concern took place when we replaced the ice man with the refrigerator. Or perhaps natural gas furnaces that replaced the coal men. Convenient stores that replaced the milk man, chips man, juice man. The backhoe that replaced ditch diggers.
What do we do to halt progress, and do we really want to halt it?
But as a professional driver for the last few decades, I can assure you that you won't be seeing manless semi's anytime in the near future. The only vehicles they have now cost nearly a million dollars, and you still need a licensed driver in case the unit stops. A computer cannot navigate main roads or side streets. It can't calculate turns or give emergency vehicles right of way. It can't listen to directions by a road crew worker in construction zones. A computer will never be able to back a trailer into a dock. It just isn't feasible.
It takes more than just driving to safely pilot a tractor-trailer. You need instinct and experience. For instance when I see an asshole on the highway weaving in and out of traffic, I have to back down if he gets near me because he's liable to cutoff my safety distance and hit the brakes. A computer could never calculate assholes. If I hear something fall over in the trailer, I have the ability to stop and see what happened and correct the problem. A manless truck would keep on going which would be dangerous because at times, we haul carts that are on wheels. A cart that broke free of load locks or straps could easily bust through the back doors of the trailer. And even if there was some miraculous way to address those concerns, there is an insurance issue to consider. Insurance premiums are huge for trucks unlike cars. Insurance would be unaffordable for a manless truck. But I digress:
We are not just talking about the elimination of welfare programs, but all social programs. That means no Social Security, no Medicare, No VA. Medicaid has many states in the red and costs keep rising. Even with our economy, we spend over 74 billion dollars a year on food stamps alone. Unemployment? Another program that would be eliminated.
I don't have the ability or time to run all the numbers, but I think there are too many benefits to UI to not consider it. Plus the best part is it would disable the Democrats talking points because we would create our own welfare programs based on our individual needs.
Yeah the benefits are nice, but damn we're talking about giving free money to some 160 million adults aren't we? We're talking a shit load of money here, a couple thousand a month isn't going to do it if all the social programs are gone. There's not going to be enough discretionary money around to keep our economy going and growing.
Actually I believe there would be more. Think of it: what do the poor contribute to society? Nothing really. Now imagine if the poor found real rewards for working! Eventually we would have more people contributing to the tax base.
Working more hours for a week or two hurts you in the long run because your benefits get cut permanently.3. The basic income would not be a disincentive to work, because getting a job would not cut your basic income, the way getting a job under the current system can cut income based assistance programs.
I work with companies that use temp services. When things get busy, they ask their temps to work more hours. In most cases they refuse. Why? Because more income would cut into their food stamp allowance.
So once people are on these programs, it's a deterrent to work. With UI, there would be no programs to deduct from, and those people could live a better life because of working more hours.
I'm trying to get disability. I fall asleep at work. I have anger management issues. And I have anxiety issues. But because sometimes I can appear to be normal they don't want to give me disability to cover me for the times I don't.
Anyhow, if it was a permanent increase in time worked then the cuts to benefits would be easier to handle.
Maybe he's bi-polar.Pretty much true. They might begin to care when the serial killers start visiting the corporations instead of the local schools.Republicans only care about donors and Democrats only care about illegal immigrants low wage slaves.They won't be begging the government. Either the government will institute some sort of a program to do it because they will understand the catastrophic outcome if they don't, or they won't do anything about it and let the shit hit the fan. The owners of the means of production won't like that, I guarantee.
Corporations have security people. With guns. And I kinda think the Dems care a lot about donors too, just as much as the Repubs do. But let's be honest, both parties have their constituents which they cater to.
It's interesting to consider abandoning every social program in favor of a UBI, but it ain't going to happen cuz there's too many people getting gov't money in one fashion or another that are going to be less well off if all they get is somewhere between $1000 - $2000 a month. Won't be anybody making millions and billions of income, everything will be socialized and gov't run. And I don't think they're going to be paying their fair share either. So, there'll be a bunch of people on the bottom end of the economic ladder getting a small boost, but at the expense of everyone else who will take it in the shorts. Except of course the well-connected. Democracy will be a thing of the past, you will still get to vote but you'll only have one choice.
I feel like I'm taking it in the shorts as it is. I feel that way when I see food stamp people at my grocery store, I feel that way when I see my HUD next door neighbors--especially when they throw their BBQ parties for 30 people, I feel that way when I see my neighbor three doors down drunk at 10:00am walking to the gas station to get more beer, and he's on disability; I don't know how, he's never held a full time job for more than three weeks in his life.
I can't keep a job for long. Sooner or later it gets the best of me and I either quit or get fired.
Good topic.
Switzerland toyed with UI. It was voted down, but they did the calculations.
By eliminating all social programs, it would have saved the country money. In US dollars, it would be (if I remember correctly) $1,600 a month for every adult, and it could solve a lot of problems we have today.
Most would not be able to live on $1,600 a month, but some could. It would create a demand for workers because of people leaving the work force. Supply and demand dictates the less supply, the higher the price, so pay increases would certainly be on the way.
For those that want to continue to work, that $1,600 could go towards purchasing a health care plan. Another problem is college expenses. If the parents used their $1,600 for their children's college, that's a problem solved as well, because between the parents and the adult student, there is more than enough money to cover all college expenses. But even if a loan were needed, the adult student getting his or her $1,600 a month could cover dorm costs.
Welfare is a huge problem in our country. For instance I get so pissed off because I live in the suburbs, and I have HUD people living right next door. There is no equity when I have to go to work everyday to live here, and they just move in living on my tax dollars. UI would eliminate that because there would be no HUD. They would have to move somewhere else, and I could finally get some sleep at night.
Our social programs reward people for having kids they can't afford. That wouldn't happen with UI. If you can feed your family on that, fine. But raising kids is expensive, and more poor people would practice birth control. Less poor people is always a good thing because the apple usually doesn't fall far from the tree.
So often you read or hear of people complaining of food stamps. What we see these lowlifes buy in the store sickens us. UI would eliminate that because there would no longer be food stamps. Buy whatever you like in the store, because it's coming out of your $1,600 a month.
Housing, housing prices, rents are all increasing faster than income. If you continue to work, you could use your stipend to pay off your mortgage much faster. That's a hell of a lot of money you could save in interest rates.
So UI is a great idea. I would love to see it. While there are some disadvantages, there are ten times more advantages. It would eliminate the jealousy of people on social programs, it would reduce poverty, it would teach responsibility, and it would solve many financial problems most Americans currently deal with. The best part? It would be cheaper in the long run for our government.
If you crunch the numbers in the US, i'm guessing it is nowhere close to being paid by the elimination of welfare programs. Especially when more people drop out of the work force. Where is the money going to come from? How does encouraging able bodied people not to work teach responsibility? If welfare is a bomb, then increasing the amount of people who don't work is an atom bomb. The problem would just grow exponentially. The only way I can see universal income working is towards the very end with the complete elimination of a workforce. Sadly, that is fast approaching. The whole thing seems perverse. It relies on production increasing without a workforce. That just doesn't sound right.
To be honest, I don't know if there is much we can do about that. I believe Americans had the same concerns about the horse breeders, the horse shoe people, the vets when we came out with cars. I'm sure the same concern took place when we replaced the ice man with the refrigerator. Or perhaps natural gas furnaces that replaced the coal men. Convenient stores that replaced the milk man, chips man, juice man. The backhoe that replaced ditch diggers.
What do we do to halt progress, and do we really want to halt it?
But as a professional driver for the last few decades, I can assure you that you won't be seeing manless semi's anytime in the near future. The only vehicles they have now cost nearly a million dollars, and you still need a licensed driver in case the unit stops. A computer cannot navigate main roads or side streets. It can't calculate turns or give emergency vehicles right of way. It can't listen to directions by a road crew worker in construction zones. A computer will never be able to back a trailer into a dock. It just isn't feasible.
It takes more than just driving to safely pilot a tractor-trailer. You need instinct and experience. For instance when I see an asshole on the highway weaving in and out of traffic, I have to back down if he gets near me because he's liable to cutoff my safety distance and hit the brakes. A computer could never calculate assholes. If I hear something fall over in the trailer, I have the ability to stop and see what happened and correct the problem. A manless truck would keep on going which would be dangerous because at times, we haul carts that are on wheels. A cart that broke free of load locks or straps could easily bust through the back doors of the trailer. And even if there was some miraculous way to address those concerns, there is an insurance issue to consider. Insurance premiums are huge for trucks unlike cars. Insurance would be unaffordable for a manless truck. But I digress:
We are not just talking about the elimination of welfare programs, but all social programs. That means no Social Security, no Medicare, No VA. Medicaid has many states in the red and costs keep rising. Even with our economy, we spend over 74 billion dollars a year on food stamps alone. Unemployment? Another program that would be eliminated.
I don't have the ability or time to run all the numbers, but I think there are too many benefits to UI to not consider it. Plus the best part is it would disable the Democrats talking points because we would create our own welfare programs based on our individual needs.
Yeah the benefits are nice, but damn we're talking about giving free money to some 160 million adults aren't we? We're talking a shit load of money here, a couple thousand a month isn't going to do it if all the social programs are gone. There's not going to be enough discretionary money around to keep our economy going and growing.
Actually I believe there would be more. Think of it: what do the poor contribute to society? Nothing really. Now imagine if the poor found real rewards for working! Eventually we would have more people contributing to the tax base.
I thought the presumption in the OP was nobody or almost nobody would be working as the robots would be pretty much doing everything.
Living is not enough of a reward for working. Living and having nothing left over except work, living to work, would make me wish I was dead. You need to have something to look forward to at the end of the work day.I used to work 100 hours a week, when I was younger. I tried going to college but they kicked me out for falling asleep in class. With all the hours I worked all I had to show for it was a motorcycle. If you aren't rewarded for working hard, why work hard.If you crunch the numbers in the US, i'm guessing it is nowhere close to being paid by the elimination of welfare programs. Especially when more people drop out of the work force. Where is the money going to come from? How does encouraging able bodied people not to work teach responsibility? If welfare is a bomb, then increasing the amount of people who don't work is an atom bomb. The problem would just grow exponentially. The only way I can see universal income working is towards the very end with the complete elimination of a workforce. Sadly, that is fast approaching. The whole thing seems perverse. It relies on production increasing without a workforce. That just doesn't sound right.
To be honest, I don't know if there is much we can do about that. I believe Americans had the same concerns about the horse breeders, the horse shoe people, the vets when we came out with cars. I'm sure the same concern took place when we replaced the ice man with the refrigerator. Or perhaps natural gas furnaces that replaced the coal men. Convenient stores that replaced the milk man, chips man, juice man. The backhoe that replaced ditch diggers.
What do we do to halt progress, and do we really want to halt it?
But as a professional driver for the last few decades, I can assure you that you won't be seeing manless semi's anytime in the near future. The only vehicles they have now cost nearly a million dollars, and you still need a licensed driver in case the unit stops. A computer cannot navigate main roads or side streets. It can't calculate turns or give emergency vehicles right of way. It can't listen to directions by a road crew worker in construction zones. A computer will never be able to back a trailer into a dock. It just isn't feasible.
It takes more than just driving to safely pilot a tractor-trailer. You need instinct and experience. For instance when I see an asshole on the highway weaving in and out of traffic, I have to back down if he gets near me because he's liable to cutoff my safety distance and hit the brakes. A computer could never calculate assholes. If I hear something fall over in the trailer, I have the ability to stop and see what happened and correct the problem. A manless truck would keep on going which would be dangerous because at times, we haul carts that are on wheels. A cart that broke free of load locks or straps could easily bust through the back doors of the trailer. And even if there was some miraculous way to address those concerns, there is an insurance issue to consider. Insurance premiums are huge for trucks unlike cars. Insurance would be unaffordable for a manless truck. But I digress:
We are not just talking about the elimination of welfare programs, but all social programs. That means no Social Security, no Medicare, No VA. Medicaid has many states in the red and costs keep rising. Even with our economy, we spend over 74 billion dollars a year on food stamps alone. Unemployment? Another program that would be eliminated.
I don't have the ability or time to run all the numbers, but I think there are too many benefits to UI to not consider it. Plus the best part is it would disable the Democrats talking points because we would create our own welfare programs based on our individual needs.
Yeah the benefits are nice, but damn we're talking about giving free money to some 160 million adults aren't we? We're talking a shit load of money here, a couple thousand a month isn't going to do it if all the social programs are gone. There's not going to be enough discretionary money around to keep our economy going and growing.
Actually I believe there would be more. Think of it: what do the poor contribute to society? Nothing really. Now imagine if the poor found real rewards for working! Eventually we would have more people contributing to the tax base.
Everybody is rewarded for working. The problem with our social programs now is you're rewarded for not working.
As my father always used to say, anybody can make money; an idiot can make money. But the successful know how to keep money and make it grow.
I lost my last job because my employer didn't like a comment I made on NBCNEWS.com web site concerning Muslims out breeding non-muslims. on my own time, my own computer at home. Some customer showed it to him.Maybe he's bi-polar.Pretty much true. They might begin to care when the serial killers start visiting the corporations instead of the local schools.Republicans only care about donors and Democrats only care about illegal immigrants low wage slaves.
Corporations have security people. With guns. And I kinda think the Dems care a lot about donors too, just as much as the Repubs do. But let's be honest, both parties have their constituents which they cater to.
It's interesting to consider abandoning every social program in favor of a UBI, but it ain't going to happen cuz there's too many people getting gov't money in one fashion or another that are going to be less well off if all they get is somewhere between $1000 - $2000 a month. Won't be anybody making millions and billions of income, everything will be socialized and gov't run. And I don't think they're going to be paying their fair share either. So, there'll be a bunch of people on the bottom end of the economic ladder getting a small boost, but at the expense of everyone else who will take it in the shorts. Except of course the well-connected. Democracy will be a thing of the past, you will still get to vote but you'll only have one choice.
I feel like I'm taking it in the shorts as it is. I feel that way when I see food stamp people at my grocery store, I feel that way when I see my HUD next door neighbors--especially when they throw their BBQ parties for 30 people, I feel that way when I see my neighbor three doors down drunk at 10:00am walking to the gas station to get more beer, and he's on disability; I don't know how, he's never held a full time job for more than three weeks in his life.
I can't keep a job for long. Sooner or later it gets the best of me and I either quit or get fired.
Are you sure it's because you're bi-polar? I know several people who have it (including one of my tenants) and they've held the same job for many years.
Living is not enough of a reward for working. Living and having nothing left over except work, living to work, would make me wish I was dead. You need to have something to look forward to at the end of the work day.I used to work 100 hours a week, when I was younger. I tried going to college but they kicked me out for falling asleep in class. With all the hours I worked all I had to show for it was a motorcycle. If you aren't rewarded for working hard, why work hard.To be honest, I don't know if there is much we can do about that. I believe Americans had the same concerns about the horse breeders, the horse shoe people, the vets when we came out with cars. I'm sure the same concern took place when we replaced the ice man with the refrigerator. Or perhaps natural gas furnaces that replaced the coal men. Convenient stores that replaced the milk man, chips man, juice man. The backhoe that replaced ditch diggers.
What do we do to halt progress, and do we really want to halt it?
But as a professional driver for the last few decades, I can assure you that you won't be seeing manless semi's anytime in the near future. The only vehicles they have now cost nearly a million dollars, and you still need a licensed driver in case the unit stops. A computer cannot navigate main roads or side streets. It can't calculate turns or give emergency vehicles right of way. It can't listen to directions by a road crew worker in construction zones. A computer will never be able to back a trailer into a dock. It just isn't feasible.
It takes more than just driving to safely pilot a tractor-trailer. You need instinct and experience. For instance when I see an asshole on the highway weaving in and out of traffic, I have to back down if he gets near me because he's liable to cutoff my safety distance and hit the brakes. A computer could never calculate assholes. If I hear something fall over in the trailer, I have the ability to stop and see what happened and correct the problem. A manless truck would keep on going which would be dangerous because at times, we haul carts that are on wheels. A cart that broke free of load locks or straps could easily bust through the back doors of the trailer. And even if there was some miraculous way to address those concerns, there is an insurance issue to consider. Insurance premiums are huge for trucks unlike cars. Insurance would be unaffordable for a manless truck. But I digress:
We are not just talking about the elimination of welfare programs, but all social programs. That means no Social Security, no Medicare, No VA. Medicaid has many states in the red and costs keep rising. Even with our economy, we spend over 74 billion dollars a year on food stamps alone. Unemployment? Another program that would be eliminated.
I don't have the ability or time to run all the numbers, but I think there are too many benefits to UI to not consider it. Plus the best part is it would disable the Democrats talking points because we would create our own welfare programs based on our individual needs.
Yeah the benefits are nice, but damn we're talking about giving free money to some 160 million adults aren't we? We're talking a shit load of money here, a couple thousand a month isn't going to do it if all the social programs are gone. There's not going to be enough discretionary money around to keep our economy going and growing.
Actually I believe there would be more. Think of it: what do the poor contribute to society? Nothing really. Now imagine if the poor found real rewards for working! Eventually we would have more people contributing to the tax base.
Everybody is rewarded for working. The problem with our social programs now is you're rewarded for not working.
As my father always used to say, anybody can make money; an idiot can make money. But the successful know how to keep money and make it grow.
This isn't it -->
yes, but with UI, it would be for everyone, to keep everyone comfortable in poverty so we vote for more socialism.I can't recall the exact quote from Ben Franklin; The worst thing you can do for the poor is to make them comfortable in poverty.
Don't we do that already?
We really are not all that far off. Automation is moving fast and technology helps create even more technology at a faster pace.I'm not going to pretend to understand how this would work dusty so obviously I will not be able to explain it properly, but I will share what little I can:I heard on the radio today, that someone is running for congress on the issue of universal income. I'm sorry that I do not have the name. I do know he wanted to give every adult in Amreica 1000 dollars basic income. I've heard people bring this up a bunch lately, and it makes no sense to me. Wouldn't this mean that many people would just quit their jobs and raise unemployment? It also seems pretty clear that something like this couldn't be paid for. Inflation would also go crazy. Impossible spending, raised unemployment, and inflation for a country that is fast becoming Super Greece. Is there any way this makes sense economically? Is it even possible? I'm not going to laugh it off because I see big trouble coming. I had someone tell me his daughter couldn't find a job, and she was a pharmacist. They are being replaced right and left by robots. Businesses know that after an expensive 7 yr program, that these kids are desperate for work and are low balling them into 50 or 60k salaries. People are rightly concerned about robotic factories and the new kiosks in fast food places, but it is truly horrifying when you think about self driving vehicles replacing truckers. How many truckers do you think there are? That's a lot of people, and once they're replaced, they won't even be able to work at McDonald's. To me, universal income seems silly, but I really am interested in hearing the argument for it. Something inovative has to happen, because the storm is already here and it is going to get worse at an incredible rate.
You have to imagine a world where there is no work for humans but production nevers stops and may in fact increase,
it is all due to AI [artificial intelligence] robots capable of learning and non-stop work and all without pay, if that were the case then the money business saves on salary, buildings, health insurance etc. etc. would be able to fund this type of pay, and this is not something Americans are promoting, nordic countries are thinking 18,000 a year and europe has even drafted some kind of rights for robots with a small hint of human traits in them...I wouldn't condemn this completely without first havig the full scope of it explained to me.
The day when there is no work for humans is a long ways off. I have not seen anything about nordic countries thinking of paying $18,000/yr for UBI but I do believe that Switzerland turned down the idea in one of their referendums. It might make sense at some point in the future but I don't think it'll happen any time soon.
I would disagree completely. Not only will driverless vehicles take over transportation in general over the next decade or two IMO but they will do a FAR better job. A driverless vehicle makes up a TON of productivity because it does not sleep and I guarantee that it very well can take that 'asshole' into account and even more - it can do so faster while considering millions of different possibilities in the time that it takes a person to blink. Backing up will be a simple task - I do not see why you think that a computer could not take basic physics into account to back a trailer up. That is an extremely simple task for a machine and many machines do far more precise movements with much more complex maneuvers. There are many other tasks that are far more complected than that.But as a professional driver for the last few decades, I can assure you that you won't be seeing manless semi's anytime in the near future. The only vehicles they have now cost nearly a million dollars, and you still need a licensed driver in case the unit stops. A computer cannot navigate main roads or side streets. It can't calculate turns or give emergency vehicles right of way. It can't listen to directions by a road crew worker in construction zones. A computer will never be able to back a trailer into a dock. It just isn't feasible.
It takes more than just driving to safely pilot a tractor-trailer. You need instinct and experience. For instance when I see an asshole on the highway weaving in and out of traffic, I have to back down if he gets near me because he's liable to cutoff my safety distance and hit the brakes. A computer could never calculate assholes. If I hear something fall over in the trailer, I have the ability to stop and see what happened and correct the problem. A manless truck would keep on going which would be dangerous because at times, we haul carts that are on wheels. A cart that broke free of load locks or straps could easily bust through the back doors of the trailer. And even if there was some miraculous way to address those concerns, there is an insurance issue to consider. Insurance premiums are huge for trucks unlike cars. Insurance would be unaffordable for a manless truck. But I digress:
Nope - not safe either:I've got to admit, I've never taken automation to the point of no human production. I always thought of universal income as some kind of bandaid for a struggling work force. I never thought there wouldn't be a workforce. In a strange way it makes a kind of sense if people no longer have any production. I'm trying to think of a job that can't be replaced by a robot, and there can't be that many. I'm not sure it's as far off as we'd think. Self driving vehicles would be a huge next step of eliminating a human work force. I have a hard time seeing how the transition would work from proud self employed people to what exactly? I have a feeling quite a few eggs will be broken before humans workers are eliminated. The dems will get their dream of a completely government run society. They will completely control every aspect of a person's life as well as the future direction of society. The individual would be even more powerless than they are now.
You are right there are not many jobs that cannot be replaced with automation. My wife is an RN and my daughter is in nursing school and I would say their jobs are automation proof. I am a data analyst and I feel safe for the foreseeable future, while programs do most of the number crunching, there is still a need for human intuition to turn the data into usable information.
Yes, you have been up to long.np, I looked it up for youmind proving that with links.where will the money come from; from millionaires that didn't make it to billionaire puppet master.I heard on the radio today, that someone is running for congress on the issue of universal income. I'm sorry that I do not have the name. I do know he wanted to give every adult in Amreica 1000 dollars basic income. I've heard people bring this up a bunch lately, and it makes no sense to me. Wouldn't this mean that many people would just quit their jobs and raise unemployment? It also seems pretty clear that something like this couldn't be paid for. Inflation would also go crazy. Impossible spending, raised unemployment, and inflation for a country that is fast becoming Super Greece. Is there any way this makes sense economically? Is it even possible? I'm not going to laugh it off because I see big trouble coming. I had someone tell me his daughter couldn't find a job, and she was a pharmacist. They are being replaced right and left by robots. Businesses know that after an expensive 7 yr program, that these kids are desperate for work and are low balling them into 50 or 60k salaries. People are rightly concerned about robotic factories and the new kiosks in fast food places, but it is truly horrifying when you think about self driving vehicles replacing truckers. How many truckers do you think there are? That's a lot of people, and once they're replaced, they won't even be able to work at McDonald's. To me, universal income seems silly, but I really am interested in hearing the argument for it. Something inovative has to happen, because the storm is already here and it is going to get worse at an incredible rate.
I can't recall the exact quote from Ben Franklin; The worst thing you can do for the poor is to make them comfortable in poverty.
It's all about making us subjects. The left thinks it's some kind of freedom, but it's just slavery w/o actual chains and whips
If you replaced all Fed Welfare with a UI it would save the Fed Govt $639,600,000,000.00 per year.
and then explain why I get my money taken from me, just to have a portion of it returned. I'll let you skip over the cost of taking my money and giving it back to me.
Oh, shit. Sorry. That is what I get for doing math before my coffee. I forgot to multiply the monthly number by 12.
Ok, I am an idiot, sorry.
How much does the government spend on welfare?
It shows up in this recent report from the Cato Institute, which argues that the federal government spends $668 billion dollars per year on 126 different welfare programs (spending by the state and local governments push that figure up to $1 trillion per year).
No, we don’t spend $1 trillion on welfare each year - …
www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/01/12/no-we-dont-spend-1-trillion-on-welfare-each-year/
There are 330 million Americans, lets say 240 million are adults (just under 75%)
that means you would have to collect and send 240 trillion, each month or 2.88 Quadrillion a year.
maybe I have been up to long, but my math looks solid.
Nope - not safe either:I've got to admit, I've never taken automation to the point of no human production. I always thought of universal income as some kind of bandaid for a struggling work force. I never thought there wouldn't be a workforce. In a strange way it makes a kind of sense if people no longer have any production. I'm trying to think of a job that can't be replaced by a robot, and there can't be that many. I'm not sure it's as far off as we'd think. Self driving vehicles would be a huge next step of eliminating a human work force. I have a hard time seeing how the transition would work from proud self employed people to what exactly? I have a feeling quite a few eggs will be broken before humans workers are eliminated. The dems will get their dream of a completely government run society. They will completely control every aspect of a person's life as well as the future direction of society. The individual would be even more powerless than they are now.
You are right there are not many jobs that cannot be replaced with automation. My wife is an RN and my daughter is in nursing school and I would say their jobs are automation proof. I am a data analyst and I feel safe for the foreseeable future, while programs do most of the number crunching, there is still a need for human intuition to turn the data into usable information.
https://io9.gizmodo.com/5983991/com...diagnosing-and-treating-patients-than-doctors
Computers may very well be more effective in healthcare fields than people ever could be - particularly considering that they will have real time access to ALL the available data and new research - an impossible task for a person.
At least artists and song writers will be safe.
A New AI Can Write Music as Well as a Human Composer
Shit, I guess they are not safe either. This link includes a song written entirely by a computer - and it is pretty damn good.
Artificially intelligent painters invent new styles of art
Another AI that creates art though these 2 AI's work together to create art that falls outside standard art classifications. IOW, creates a new style.
In short, we have reached a technological point where AI's are able to take over traditionally complex and creative tasks. That is a MASSIVE change in how mankind has always stood over technological solutions.
While I don't see these AI's replacing people utterly in the near future it is going to allow one person to take the place of a dozen in these fields making employment rather unnecessary for almost any field in a meaningful way.
I would disagree completely. Not only will driverless vehicles take over transportation in general over the next decade or two IMO but they will do a FAR better job. A driverless vehicle makes up a TON of productivity because it does not sleep and I guarantee that it very well can take that 'asshole' into account and even more - it can do so faster while considering millions of different possibilities in the time that it takes a person to blink. Backing up will be a simple task - I do not see why you think that a computer could not take basic physics into account to back a trailer up. That is an extremely simple task for a machine and many machines do far more precise movements with much more complex maneuvers. There are many other tasks that are far more complected than that.But as a professional driver for the last few decades, I can assure you that you won't be seeing manless semi's anytime in the near future. The only vehicles they have now cost nearly a million dollars, and you still need a licensed driver in case the unit stops. A computer cannot navigate main roads or side streets. It can't calculate turns or give emergency vehicles right of way. It can't listen to directions by a road crew worker in construction zones. A computer will never be able to back a trailer into a dock. It just isn't feasible.
It takes more than just driving to safely pilot a tractor-trailer. You need instinct and experience. For instance when I see an asshole on the highway weaving in and out of traffic, I have to back down if he gets near me because he's liable to cutoff my safety distance and hit the brakes. A computer could never calculate assholes. If I hear something fall over in the trailer, I have the ability to stop and see what happened and correct the problem. A manless truck would keep on going which would be dangerous because at times, we haul carts that are on wheels. A cart that broke free of load locks or straps could easily bust through the back doors of the trailer. And even if there was some miraculous way to address those concerns, there is an insurance issue to consider. Insurance premiums are huge for trucks unlike cars. Insurance would be unaffordable for a manless truck. But I digress:
They certainly do not cost a million each and, more importantly, THEY ARE ALREADY HERE in a commercial capacity:
Google's Waymo is launching competely driverless taxis this year
Every major automaker is unveiling a concept car this year as well that literally has no controls. No steering wheel or pedals to speak of.
The reason that drivers are required so far is not because of the technological barriers - google has already proven the concept by driving millions of miles with a single fender bender - but because regulation is always slow to respond to quickly moving industries. Now that the law is getting on board, you will see things move faster and the tech will become cheaper as it grows.
I wouldn't get too complacent. Self driving vehicles will be twice as good in a year, four times as good in two years, eight times as good in three years...I would disagree completely. Not only will driverless vehicles take over transportation in general over the next decade or two IMO but they will do a FAR better job. A driverless vehicle makes up a TON of productivity because it does not sleep and I guarantee that it very well can take that 'asshole' into account and even more - it can do so faster while considering millions of different possibilities in the time that it takes a person to blink. Backing up will be a simple task - I do not see why you think that a computer could not take basic physics into account to back a trailer up. That is an extremely simple task for a machine and many machines do far more precise movements with much more complex maneuvers. There are many other tasks that are far more complected than that.But as a professional driver for the last few decades, I can assure you that you won't be seeing manless semi's anytime in the near future. The only vehicles they have now cost nearly a million dollars, and you still need a licensed driver in case the unit stops. A computer cannot navigate main roads or side streets. It can't calculate turns or give emergency vehicles right of way. It can't listen to directions by a road crew worker in construction zones. A computer will never be able to back a trailer into a dock. It just isn't feasible.
It takes more than just driving to safely pilot a tractor-trailer. You need instinct and experience. For instance when I see an asshole on the highway weaving in and out of traffic, I have to back down if he gets near me because he's liable to cutoff my safety distance and hit the brakes. A computer could never calculate assholes. If I hear something fall over in the trailer, I have the ability to stop and see what happened and correct the problem. A manless truck would keep on going which would be dangerous because at times, we haul carts that are on wheels. A cart that broke free of load locks or straps could easily bust through the back doors of the trailer. And even if there was some miraculous way to address those concerns, there is an insurance issue to consider. Insurance premiums are huge for trucks unlike cars. Insurance would be unaffordable for a manless truck. But I digress:
They certainly do not cost a million each and, more importantly, THEY ARE ALREADY HERE in a commercial capacity:
Google's Waymo is launching competely driverless taxis this year
Every major automaker is unveiling a concept car this year as well that literally has no controls. No steering wheel or pedals to speak of.
The reason that drivers are required so far is not because of the technological barriers - google has already proven the concept by driving millions of miles with a single fender bender - but because regulation is always slow to respond to quickly moving industries. Now that the law is getting on board, you will see things move faster and the tech will become cheaper as it grows.
But it's not going to happen in our lifetime, trust me.
Driverless vehicles have been on the table for over two decades, yet when put to the real test, they fail all the time.
But even if they ever could perfect the driverless cars, it would easily take at least another 20 years for trucks to follow.
Uber suspends self-driving car program after Arizona crash
Here's what happens when a self-driving Uber fails
It reminds me when I got my first computer and I bought a dummy's book. The author advised never buy new software for your computer. Don't buy version 4.0, because 4.0 doesn't have the bugs worked out yet. Wait a while for version 4.2 or 4.4 to come out, because those are the versions with the necessary adjustments and repairs.
Software works great when you pass it around to a few thousand people. When you pass it out to millions, that's when the problems arise.
So even when cars (or trucks) come out, we won't know the results until millions of people have them. In the meantime, trucks can cause serious damage and multiple deaths in a severe accident. The insurance to cover those vehicles will probably cost more than laying off ten drivers.
as more jobs get automated, but still some people are working, I see real, serious, no fucking around, problems.I am tirednp, I looked it up for youOh, shit. Sorry. That is what I get for doing math before my coffee. I forgot to multiply the monthly number by 12.
Ok, I am an idiot, sorry.
How much does the government spend on welfare?
It shows up in this recent report from the Cato Institute, which argues that the federal government spends $668 billion dollars per year on 126 different welfare programs (spending by the state and local governments push that figure up to $1 trillion per year).
No, we don’t spend $1 trillion on welfare each year - …
www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/01/12/no-we-dont-spend-1-trillion-on-welfare-each-year/
There are 330 million Americans, lets say 240 million are adults (just under 75%)
that means you would have to collect and send 240 trillion, each month or 2.88 Quadrillion a year.
maybe I have been up to long, but my math looks solid.
https://www.budget.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/CRS Report - Welfare Spending The Largest Item In The Federal Budget.pdf
View attachment 177861
240,000,000 x $1600 = $390,400,000,000. per month. Where did the 240 trillion per month come from?
2.4 Trillion and then 288 trillion a year
still higher than either of us could find out about welfare.
Very much so. My initial assessment was for a month and I forgot to multiple times 12 for the whole year.
Do not really see any way to make it work in a country as large as the US, which could be a problem in the future.
and I don't think it's more than 20 years away.
as more jobs get automated, but still some people are working, I see real, serious, no fucking around, problems.I am tirednp, I looked it up for you
How much does the government spend on welfare?
It shows up in this recent report from the Cato Institute, which argues that the federal government spends $668 billion dollars per year on 126 different welfare programs (spending by the state and local governments push that figure up to $1 trillion per year).
No, we don’t spend $1 trillion on welfare each year - …
www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/01/12/no-we-dont-spend-1-trillion-on-welfare-each-year/
There are 330 million Americans, lets say 240 million are adults (just under 75%)
that means you would have to collect and send 240 trillion, each month or 2.88 Quadrillion a year.
maybe I have been up to long, but my math looks solid.
https://www.budget.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/CRS Report - Welfare Spending The Largest Item In The Federal Budget.pdf
View attachment 177861
240,000,000 x $1600 = $390,400,000,000. per month. Where did the 240 trillion per month come from?
2.4 Trillion and then 288 trillion a year
still higher than either of us could find out about welfare.
Very much so. My initial assessment was for a month and I forgot to multiple times 12 for the whole year.
Do not really see any way to make it work in a country as large as the US, which could be a problem in the future.
and I don't think it's more than 20 years away.
I good reason to continue to bring in millions of legal and illegal people into a population that is going to have a serious job problem in a few short years.
By the turn of the next century, all production and distribution will be accomplished by robots. Humans in these highly developed areas will need no jobs or income because everything you want will be free. We will find it amazing how little people actually want when they can have anything they want at any time they want it.
as more jobs get automated, but still some people are working, I see real, serious, no fucking around, problems.I am tiredhttps://www.budget.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/CRS Report - Welfare Spending The Largest Item In The Federal Budget.pdf
View attachment 177861
240,000,000 x $1600 = $390,400,000,000. per month. Where did the 240 trillion per month come from?
2.4 Trillion and then 288 trillion a year
still higher than either of us could find out about welfare.
Very much so. My initial assessment was for a month and I forgot to multiple times 12 for the whole year.
Do not really see any way to make it work in a country as large as the US, which could be a problem in the future.
and I don't think it's more than 20 years away.
I good reason to continue to bring in millions of legal and illegal people into a population that is going to have a serious job problem in a few short years.
By the turn of the next century, all production and distribution will be accomplished by robots. Humans in these highly developed areas will need no jobs or income because everything you want will be free. We will find it amazing how little people actually want when they can have anything they want at any time they want it.
I think we're going to have to attack the problem of unemployment by making it much cheaper to live, and that is the upside to replacing humans with robots. Things like food, shelter, Heating/AC, transportation, clothing, etc. will be so much cheaper, partly due to less human labor costs and possibly cheaper materials and energy. Maybe instead of a 40 hour work week it gets reduced to 20 or whatever; maybe people get the first $1600 in exchange for 12 hours of labor doing something and then after that you can earn more money for more work. Spitballing here, it's going to take some time to get to that situation from where we are now and some things are going to have to change: our education system, health care, law enforcement, housing. We won't be making houses out of wood, we'll be using other products that are cheaper and more fire resistant; won't be any more gas powered vehicles either, some other form of energy will be employed.
I wouldn't get too complacent. Self driving vehicles will be twice as good in a year, four times as good in two years, eight times as good in three years...I would disagree completely. Not only will driverless vehicles take over transportation in general over the next decade or two IMO but they will do a FAR better job. A driverless vehicle makes up a TON of productivity because it does not sleep and I guarantee that it very well can take that 'asshole' into account and even more - it can do so faster while considering millions of different possibilities in the time that it takes a person to blink. Backing up will be a simple task - I do not see why you think that a computer could not take basic physics into account to back a trailer up. That is an extremely simple task for a machine and many machines do far more precise movements with much more complex maneuvers. There are many other tasks that are far more complected than that.But as a professional driver for the last few decades, I can assure you that you won't be seeing manless semi's anytime in the near future. The only vehicles they have now cost nearly a million dollars, and you still need a licensed driver in case the unit stops. A computer cannot navigate main roads or side streets. It can't calculate turns or give emergency vehicles right of way. It can't listen to directions by a road crew worker in construction zones. A computer will never be able to back a trailer into a dock. It just isn't feasible.
It takes more than just driving to safely pilot a tractor-trailer. You need instinct and experience. For instance when I see an asshole on the highway weaving in and out of traffic, I have to back down if he gets near me because he's liable to cutoff my safety distance and hit the brakes. A computer could never calculate assholes. If I hear something fall over in the trailer, I have the ability to stop and see what happened and correct the problem. A manless truck would keep on going which would be dangerous because at times, we haul carts that are on wheels. A cart that broke free of load locks or straps could easily bust through the back doors of the trailer. And even if there was some miraculous way to address those concerns, there is an insurance issue to consider. Insurance premiums are huge for trucks unlike cars. Insurance would be unaffordable for a manless truck. But I digress:
They certainly do not cost a million each and, more importantly, THEY ARE ALREADY HERE in a commercial capacity:
Google's Waymo is launching competely driverless taxis this year
Every major automaker is unveiling a concept car this year as well that literally has no controls. No steering wheel or pedals to speak of.
The reason that drivers are required so far is not because of the technological barriers - google has already proven the concept by driving millions of miles with a single fender bender - but because regulation is always slow to respond to quickly moving industries. Now that the law is getting on board, you will see things move faster and the tech will become cheaper as it grows.
But it's not going to happen in our lifetime, trust me.
Driverless vehicles have been on the table for over two decades, yet when put to the real test, they fail all the time.
But even if they ever could perfect the driverless cars, it would easily take at least another 20 years for trucks to follow.
Uber suspends self-driving car program after Arizona crash
Here's what happens when a self-driving Uber fails
It reminds me when I got my first computer and I bought a dummy's book. The author advised never buy new software for your computer. Don't buy version 4.0, because 4.0 doesn't have the bugs worked out yet. Wait a while for version 4.2 or 4.4 to come out, because those are the versions with the necessary adjustments and repairs.
Software works great when you pass it around to a few thousand people. When you pass it out to millions, that's when the problems arise.
So even when cars (or trucks) come out, we won't know the results until millions of people have them. In the meantime, trucks can cause serious damage and multiple deaths in a severe accident. The insurance to cover those vehicles will probably cost more than laying off ten drivers.
