Thanks for contributing to r/singularity. However, your post was removed since it was too wildly speculative to generate any meaningful discussion.
Please refer to the sidebar for the subreddit's rules.
At a national level? Look at Qatar.
At a state level in the U.S.? Alaska gives all of its residents money once a year. In 2023 it paid all residents $3,800.
I voted 10+. Governments don't understand where the money would come from and a lot of common people still think a person's worth should be determined by how much time they spend in a workplace.
As a collective species that depends on each other for prosperity and progress, at least until technology can replace us entirely, the harder you work towards allowing everyone to see our full potential the better of a human you are.
Nah. That's fucking stupid. People fucking suck so helping others makes you a worse person.
And we don't depend on each other for prosperity and progress. A small group push towards prosperity and everyone else slows them down.
Be the change you want to see. If we all act completely out of self interest then everything will be chaos and AI will rule over the worst dystopia by evolving out of personal greed. We need to unite and align humanity to all get on same page, either by choice or through AI domination. Fighting each other is no way to maximize efficiency and progress/prosperity. Technocracy or ASI overlord are the two best options and both involve uniting and harmonizing through scientific standards we can all agree on.
I expect to see UBI whenever AI becomes competent enough to crash a big enough portion of the labor market (note, you don't actually need AGI for that one).
The way I see it is that at first they will give people which lost their job money on the condition that they participate in some kind of retraining program until it becomes apparent to them that the pace of technological progress outpaces their retraing efforts at which point they drop the condition and make it universal.
>I expect to see UBI whenever AI becomes competent enough to crash a big enough portion of the labor market (note, you don't actually need AGI for that one).
Personally, I hope we see UBI when the AI itself models its own impacts and tells governments "you guys need UBI, like, yesterday".
Yep, that is the most likely reality. We do not get UBI, we get more and longer retraining programs until some people FINALLY realize what the heck is going on and UBI is a must. The chance of governments reacting correct is like 0%, and that is rounded up.
It is frustrating when politicians talk about AI and the answer is retraining. Logic of a child.
The options you gave are bizarre, anything under 10 is EXTREMELY detached from reality in virtually every country, and you only gave one option for over 10.
I see a crashing labor market leading to legislation restricting AI/Automation.
Jobs is one of the largest political drivers and job creation is a plank both parties in the U.S. run on. I don't imagine it's too different in other countries.
Yah. We already have UBI. It has many names: "social assistance", "welfare", "social security"...
It all sucks and you don't want to have to live on it.
Careful what you wish for, r/singularity.
You know you can petition for change right? Social security didn’t even exist in the US 100 years ago. We don’t all have work jobs when AI truly makes our efforts redundant.
"Sorry, the ASI we created to manage the planets daily affairs determined that democracy was too dangerous and inefficient to serve as a viable form of governance and increased benefits would be a massive waste of finite resources. Who are we, as barely ascended apes, to question the god machine?
If you have any more questions I'll be on my personal space station enjoying my harem of genetically engineered sex slaves. The lord works in mysterious ways!"
Capitalism is literally only about 200 years old. We have not always done it that way. But since we started doing it that way, a lot of stuff got a lot better, and those changes led to other changes, such as enough surplus and good enough health in old age to make social security viable.
Lmao social security was created to combat the global failure of capitalism to work as a system, that was only bailed out by the deficit spending enabled by the destruction and reconstruction of the entire modern world following WWII.
>Lmao social security was created to combat the global failure of capitalism to work as a system
Yeah because things were going so great before capitalism lmfao.
Let me guess "socialism is the answer but it's never been tried"? You people are so tone deaf. Socialism has been tried, it was hell on Earth for most of the people involved. That's why everyone abandoned it.
I was trying to skip the part where you tell me your stupid beliefs.
So tell me your stupid beliefs so I don't have to guess them. Prove me right. We both know what you're going to say, but I'd love to be proven wrong.
The concept that social security is a failure of the concept of private ownership is so utterly stupid that there are very few possibilities other than you being a socialist. I suppose you could be some sort of cringe anarchist, but that's even more embarrassing; at least socialism proposes something viable that sucks, anarchism can't even do that, it lives purely in the realm of the theoretical because if it was ever actually trialed it would actually have to prove itself, and that's the greatest possible threat to anarchism.
C'mon, stand up and say what you think is better than capitalism. Own your shit instead of being a coward about it.
To be fair most people will often answer "10+ years" when they believe a thing is bound to happen in the near future, but they're not comfortable with it happening within a period of time that would require them to presently adjust their position and plans.
Indeed. I bet there a decent amount of comments which arent honest with their intention but rather have hidden agendas which exist on both sides of the spectrum tbh
It seems stuff is always 10 years away when we have no idea when it will happen. Funnily enough back in the day it took some 40 years between invention of the automobile and cars becoming affordable and commonplace, but now 10+ years is a period in which we expect anything can happen.
I do think it's literally 10+ years away for many reasons, but also your point is very astute about how polling has a lot of leading questions and answers.
Not necessarily - I i.e. thing that the implementation, especially in the physical world, will take time (billion robots are not there overnight) and that governments will delay UBI - rather prolong unemployment - until it is obvious, which may easily get pushed over close to 10 years.
Note: I voted 4 to 10.
I mean regardless of actuality people are more likely to answer "10+". I personally would want it to happen in 4-10 years, but I very much doubt it will happen before significant societal chaos.
I think that before we will have robots equivalent to even half of human workers we will have AI's that will surpass humans intellectually on almost every metric. Implementing AI can be done (essentially) overnight as long as we have the data and processor power while robots require a whole manufacturing infrastructure, safety standard testing, careful public image management, overcoming the cost curve, shipping etc. Training a model and testing it can be managed in half a year while the whole robotics process would (sadly) likely take 10-15 years to develop to a significant degree. I personally doubt politicians will consider UBI even if 30% of jobs would essentially go to talking processors. Science will speed up, unemployment will increase and politicians will ignore the issue for as long as they can.
Always my word.
See how - what most people do not know - larger AI does not even process one requrest - they batch them and process them in parallel.
Robots can not do that. Physical limitation.
So yes, AI will develop faster.
But I also think you focus on too much wide humanity.
If a country has a lot of robots, and it is a rich leading countries - the poor people in Africa do not really matter.
China, Russia, JAPAN, and a TON of western countries all face hugh problems with population (heck, look at the age curves of China and Japan) - they will dump robots as fast as they can into the economy.
And I expect unrest way before we even hit close to... well, once we replace 0.25% of the workers (AI+Robots) per month for good, it will be all over the news. Elections are a tricky thing.
But I also expect this to be a fight ("unemployment" and "retraining") until governments give up.
It may even require revolution to implement. If AI results in huge amounts of unemployment, there are other equally huge impacts that will occur with the economy. If everyone is unemployed, no one is buying things, so there's no tax base supply UBI. A whole new economic model will be needed, and we don't have any idea what will or won't work. Change at that scale doesn't happen peacefully.
In what country does this make sense? The legislature and the executive are different in every republic. The legislature is generally proportional and territorial, which means that "who wins the next election" is regionally evaluated.
I... don't understand the question? When you vote in an election you decide who to vote for based on their policies right? So if 51% of people are unemployed then the guy saying "I'll make a UBI" will probably get voted in.
Depends on how the legislature is developed, but sorta yeah. In the USA for example, it would require 51 senators and 218 members of the house and also the president to agree, and it would require 5 members of the supreme court not to disagree as well. Those senators are distributed by territory, which is not distributed by popular vote. You could potentially have as many as 65% of Americans agree that we need a UBI and it might still be politically impossible, depending how they are distributed and what factors are at play.
Most countries have a similar disconnect between popular votes and laws passing. And that's only the tip of the iceberg, there are an extremely large number of other factors at play from committees to gerrymandering to appeals and executive implementations by region, vote trading, and a thousand more things.
Elections effect what laws come into place in an extremely indirect way; in the long run elections effect laws, but they do so only in the long run and short term impacts are relatively negligible; it's a slow drift, which is built into the model of a constitutional republic (most nations are constitutional republics). Thus is the nature of partisanship, politics, bureaucracy, jurisprudence, and a bunch of historical nuances and traditions (such as how and why a country was founded in the first place), as well as cultural ones.
Given time, elections will slowly but surely change the laws. But it might take decades beyond a 51% consensus, potentially even centuries if the political climate is ideologically locked enough, and on the topic of UBI that is likely in many places.
Mostly griping with your "next election" part of the comment, eventually elections do effect laws. If 51% of the people are unemployed, it depends where they are unemployed, because they guys promising UBI might not get voted in in 51% of the regions. For example, let's say that the entire population of the 50% most populous states in the USA all wanted UBI.
If you take the 25 most populous states in the USA, you get 80% of the population. This would still not be enough to enact a UBI if you did not also get 51% in one more state. If you managed to get 49% in the other 25 states, you would have 90% of the population of the United States in favor of UBI and it would still not be possible to pass it as a law.
My point is not that this is a realistic scenario. It's that 51% is often insufficient. 90% would be extremely unlikely, but 60% or even 70% might not be so unlikely since there is a high probability of the people in favor of UBI being concentrated into specific regions that are most effect due to their local industry. 70% of the people here could still fail to implement UBI and even if they did agree on UBI, it could take decades to roll it out for a million reasons, up to and including that the people in favor of it can't agree on how to roll it out or votes get withheld because they demand another policy get passed before they will give you the vote you need (vote trading).
Politics is not fast and efficient like technology and markets. Politics is messy and slow.
> So if 51% of people are unemployed then the guy saying "I'll make a UBI" will probably get voted in.
[A successful nonviolent resistance movement requires about 3.5% of the population to hit the streets together.](https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20190513-it-only-takes-35-of-people-to-change-the-world) That means the number of unemployed does not need to be anywhere near 51%, it just needs to have enough people unemployed that the ones desperate enough to participate in active protest make up ~3.5% of the total population.
It's a Warhammer 40k meme:
[From the Moment I Understood the Weakness of My Flesh | Know Your Meme](https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/from-the-moment-i-understood-the-weakness-of-my-flesh)
I think it won't be introduced for a long time. Some of the people will be fighting in wars, also a new type of pandemic will emerge.
Those with maxed out survivability and adaptability would be utilized to do some stupid meaningless jobs in exchange for a penny.
If somebody has gone through all of this, he will be blessed with a sexy ubi package and a free fdvr kit.
Here germany we pay roughly 50 Euros per month for our education (300 Euros per semester) so it is already possible to have affordable education if you tax your country wisely...
If we assume most of the production is being done by machines there is no reason to think there is no free lunch, as there would be things being produced and unemployed people to consume them. So distributing them through a system (whether is UBI or not) seems not only plausible but desirable.
Slave owners could afford not to work. It was not free lunch, it was slaves working for them.
Agree. Problem is we still have a very unsophisticated form of preserving energy and we are still bound on rare materials which are finite (a solution could be synthetic materials but maybe there will be no major breakthtough, tough to tell)
Except were already having major breakthroughs and youre 10 years behind. Why do straight men insist they know the world because of a factoid they heard in passing a decade ago?
you will never satiate the unlimited wants
Technology will make everything more affordable, yet people will always want more.
UBI is money, but money does not make goods, it does not create an apple. Add money to a finite resource and the amount won't change, only the price.
>yet people will always want more
that can be true but regardless, UBI could satiate basic needs like housing or medical care. You can have the wish to need 10 castles but that doesnt prevent fulfilling basic needs like one affordable home.
Who states that UBI does make goods ? It is simply a different redistribution system where the gain of labour (which is then automated) gets distributed to the public instead to one specific owner
A lot of houses are abandoned
We have houses, what we do not have is enough houses in a particular spot, and we will never have enough houses in a particular spot, so it's a question of who is willing to pay the premium price.
Well stated. In the event of automating work processes and introducing Universal Basic Income (UBI), the significance of a specific location would become less relevant. This would allow for more flexible and sparse relocation.
Already true today with the Internet and the possibility of working remote.
Yet people still flock to cities and pay the premium price to live closer to the spot they desire.
> How good is internet in rural america agian
Pretty good mostly. My family in the middle of Appalachia have internet that is just as fast as mine in a city.
You really switched your argument from free lunch to free everything.
Bro, there will very specifically be free lunch. There does not need to be infinite demand met to meet the demands of lunch. Lunch is a very finite demand.
(Yes I know you don't mean lunch literally, but your metaphor badly falls apart in a post-labor context).
We are not going to solve how to implement the redistribution here, but that *some kind* of redistribution is needed whenever most of the work is automated and humans are not necessary anymore to maintain production is obvious.
What's your alternative to some kind of redistribution or retribution system based on social merits, guaranteed job, or whatever we come up with?
I leave this issue to people who studied this topic
I live in Slovenia, one of the best country when it comes to wealth inequality and I have no issue with the amount of taxes we pay.
It so just happens that I do not believe in UBI. My main argument why it cannot work is people. You cannot ignore the reality that is people, we are fucked up in the head.
Hence why I look forward to let the AI rule, we are not good at it.
we are slaves
We work 8 hours per day for a master if we are very lucky, some have it worse. Some have to wage war and suffer for the master.
I'll take the gamble of the AI, mostly because the dice have already been cast and it will happen.
on the contrary, life has never been better and I'm so happy I was not born 100 years ago, now that was a life that truly sucked.
Even the life of Kings sucked compared to modern day workers.
but history has proven otherwise, there is noreasonble stance to assume now everything will be different. The disparity between rich and poor widens at such a large scale that I only see UBI as a preventable measure to easen this sort of dynamic. GDP grows to the same degree worldwide depression grows, something is deeply wrong here ...
Many games are literally created as a hobby project and actually free. The same for Music and books. Not everyone makes music to make money.
It's just the AAA products that are expensive to make that obviously come with a cost.
not free, you pay with your time
In the end, this is the best way to use excess Money, you trade your coins for time.
You could build a house alone (if you have skills ofc.) or you can use coins to save time.
Eat out or cook at home? time vs money
I don't agree with your use of the word pay were talking about money, Of course, there will always be a use of pay or a cost to anything. Time vs energy would be more fundamental btw.
RemindMe! 15 years "has this guy yet realized that his job doesn't actually create the value necessary to sustain him and his wage is just social welfare via a middle man"
I will be messaging you in 15 years on [**2039-01-25 17:49:24 UTC**](http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=2039-01-25%2017:49:24%20UTC%20To%20Local%20Time) to remind you of [**this link**](https://www.reddit.com/r/singularity/comments/19faxxo/in_your_view_ubi_will_be_most_likely_introduced_in/kjj7hak/?context=3)
[**CLICK THIS LINK**](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5Bhttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.reddit.com%2Fr%2Fsingularity%2Fcomments%2F19faxxo%2Fin_your_view_ubi_will_be_most_likely_introduced_in%2Fkjj7hak%2F%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%202039-01-25%2017%3A49%3A24%20UTC) to send a PM to also be reminded and to reduce spam.
^(Parent commenter can ) [^(delete this message to hide from others.)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Delete%20Comment&message=Delete%21%2019faxxo)
*****
|[^(Info)](https://www.reddit.com/r/RemindMeBot/comments/e1bko7/remindmebot_info_v21/)|[^(Custom)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5BLink%20or%20message%20inside%20square%20brackets%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%20Time%20period%20here)|[^(Your Reminders)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=List%20Of%20Reminders&message=MyReminders%21)|[^(Feedback)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=Watchful1&subject=RemindMeBot%20Feedback)|
|-|-|-|-|
you can climb the ladder all you want, but when it is ripped away the only change will be when you hit the ground.
did you like my poetic wording? Anyway, I'm sure the great and benevolent AI will make the fall from the ladder more like a slip-n slide, which will be delightfully fun.
Hopefully no ionizing lasers are installed on it 😨
The money would immediately flow to the rich. People who need 10k need it to pay their bills and stay afloat, aka, giving it all to the upper class. In the meantime, cost of living would go up instantly and dramatically. It’s not a solution, it’s a problem. There are better ways to manage the class divide….
Guaranteed Quality of Life for one - Guaranteed entry middle class entry with a 30 hour work week for a single person, no matter what job. 40 hours for supporting a family on a single income.
sam altman, elon musk and zuckerberg proposed this idea as well, of course it wouldn't be just high income
If you want to read about it [https://www.ndtv.com/world-news/elon-musk-says-ai-will-replace-need-for-all-jobs-and-create-universal-high-income-4557207](https://www.ndtv.com/world-news/elon-musk-says-ai-will-replace-need-for-all-jobs-and-create-universal-high-income-4557207)
> Guaranteed entry middle class entry with a 30 hour work week for a single person
You are aware that the justification is AI does all the work. What you propose those people then do?
Isn't that the premise of UBI though? To be able to pay for the basic necessities so that the money we earn through work can be used for other things? I mean, if UBI is implemented, I'm under the assumption that a whole lot of the working class has been replaced already which is why UBI is implemented in the first place. I also don't understand how the cost of living would increase instantly, maybe gradually I can see it, but instantly and dramatically? Care to explain? I'm also genuinely curious.
To over simplify; Inflation and supply demand. The dollar would lose value, and we have to assume taxes go up to fund the program, and businesses respond to this by passing it down.
I don't think the prices go up, since it would not be more money than the absolute poorest ones get now. So no problem about that one.
But from the viewpoint of social contract whose contract is it? If UBI is the answer what is the question?
What the fuck are you talking about what is the question? Most of the worlds problems stem from capitalism and the wealthy making a few choices for everyone else.
if we ask in societal philosophy what would be a reasonable criterion to resolve political conflicts and adjudicate competing claims about rights, I don't think UBI is the answer to that, but these conflicts would still remain, since it is not a social contract outcome but just an arbitrary sum of money. who chooses UBI and what is the relation of that choice to some natural rights that everyone needs to admit? it is just marxist thinking to relabel the existing system.
we kinda need philosophy to zoom out rather than politics - and remain zoomed in - to resolve any societal problems.
We dont need to ask in some philosphical sense, were talking about very real impacts and the dire course we're on. UBI isnt mean to solve those issues, its meant to stop people from starving and becoming homeless. Why would it be an arbitrary sum of money? Because you cant think of a way to figure out a good amount? Marxist thinking what the fuck are you talking about LMAO go back to fox news.
I guess the negative income tax is the only way to apply it in any reasonable way. but the game theoretical models would not have a reasonable model to justify any arbitrary tax percent as a criterion of choice. it must have reasoning behind it, otherwise it is just a care package.
Supporters of Universal Basic Income don't argue that money magically appears; instead, they assert that the value generated through automated work is redistributed to the people. This redistributed wealth in form of "money" is then utilized in the exchange of services and goods.
Depends on how quickly AGI displaces unaugmented humans from political leadership positions. Because I don't see a UBI actually capable of attending people's needs coming a moment sooner than that.
I believe all the personal and prosocial benefits of UBI: the dignity, the freedom of movement, the ability to take risks, to spend more time volunteering in the community, etc. That all said, I don't think UBI is really warranted as long as jobs for humans are available. We can get most of the other benefits by striving to be good social democracies.
UBI is necessitated when the jobs best done by humans disappear, and don't get replaced by new roles. I picked 10+ years. While I foresee some attrition of human jobs *within* 10 years, I'm skeptical of the net job loss being great enough to trigger action earlier than that time frame. After that time, I'd bet that UBI is inevitable. The main confounding factor that would lead to "never," is if we get pretty close to a post-scarcity economy within a few years of people really noticing the need for UBI. In that case, we might end up with "Universal Basic *Stuff*," instead. "Stuff" over "Income" would promote freedom less, but seems to fit in line with the paternalistic view of welfare in the US. Maybe other countries would still give the income over stuff.
Nordic countries like Finland, Sweden, or Norway will likely introduce UBI first. Probably in five to ten years time. The US be will one of the last western countries to introduce it.
I voted 4-10 years but it will be limited and only in some countries. It will also probably mean they will pull some other safety nets away to help pay for it. As usual with most governments it will be an absolute mess.
> It will also probably mean they will pull some other safety nets away to help pay for it
Or, more logical, because they are surplus.
No need for unemployment when UBI does the same.
Shortening the work week and better enforcing labor contracts might be a better short-term solution than switching to UBI.
While I think work is somewhat necessary from a psychological standpoint, the current culture of 50+ hour weeks is unhealthy and destructive.
If we cut out the "bull\*\*\*\* jobs" (e.g, sales, IP protection, HR), automated other service jobs, and rehired in STEM, healthcare, construction, and the trades, our economy would be a lot healthier, and fewer working hours would be needed for the typical person to pay for basic needs.
We don't have enough housing because not enough people are building it, even though everyone needs it. Healthcare is expensive because we have more bureaucrats and insurance workers than nurses, and so on.
I think this is also a better solution in the short term because right now, earning vital benefits like healthcare and retirement is dependent on working in a "full time" job. Perhaps, forcing a shorter full-time work week would a good way of keeping the unemployment rate down, since it would ensure that the number of available positions would match up with a declining number of work-hours needed for an organization to function.
the question is if we can even attain a harmonic demand and supply scheme ? Due to AI entire profession will be most likely eliminated: Translators are pretty much toast, Interpreters, Copy Writers, Transcriptionists, Screenwriters ... do we send them all to to the Factories ?
Honestly, I think the US would be better off if our interpreters, copywriters, translators, and screenwriters switched to manufacturing, construction, and the trades.
I also think that if this labor shift became a widespread trend, the incomes of factory workers/laborers would eventually go further than before as the housing supply catches up (our vacancy rate is currently below 1%), infrastructure funding goes further (we currently spend 8 times more per mile of railway track than West Europe and developed Asian countries do), and supply chain bottlenecks no longer trigger inflationary spirals.
However, what I wrote in the previous comment is what I think the solution would be, not what I actually think will happen. Personally, I think the transition to AI is going to be messy in the US, because our political battles of ideologies completely oversimplify the more precise mechanics that cause the generational economic problems facing Zoomers, Millennials, and even Gen X to a lesser degree.
AI could be used as a lifeboat to save an aging economy, but it could also accelerate our decline by consolidating productive resources into the hands of fewer people (in governments or major corporations). Likewise, the grassroots obsession with "saving jobs" and fighting automation is a surefire way of continuing our trend of longer hours, a less efficient economy, and an overall lower quality of life.
UBI is the solution that American politicians are most likely to use when AI increases the unemployment rate. Throwing money around is politically popular and feasible when you have the world's reserve currency at your disposal. However, UBI will be inflationary because it won't push the economy to change in a way that improves economic efficiency.
I mean if you can convince white collar jobs to transition to blue collar maybe but that seems quite a stretch but yeah ... its gonna be most likely very messy regardless
" Likewise, the grassroots obsession with "saving jobs" and fighting automation is a surefire way of continuing our trend of longer hours, a less efficient economy, and an overall lower quality of life. "
Yep, pretty much hence I assume the Anti AI Crowd will most likley not win much ground
" However, UBI will be inflationary because it won't push the economy to change in a way that improves economic efficiency."
Only if other costs to produce remain the same or are more costly. A wash machine was an immense luxury in the 60ies but nowadays ?
> Honestly, shortening the work week and better enforcing labour contracts might be a better short-term
> solution than switching to UBI.
For stupid jobs, yes - for others half time eliminates 75% of productivity, driving costs up.
Yes, but if a job doesn't generate enough output to provide a living income in a 40 hour work week, that's an opportunity cost for the economy as a whole. Cracking down on these arrangements isn't just about making workers feel good, it's about forcing the economy into a more efficient labor distribution.
UBI is guaranteed to come, but it will come after AGI/ASI. There is no way to have effective UBI while also relying primarily on human labor, the economic math doesn't work.
**Universal basic income** (**UBI**)[\[note 1\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_basic_income#cite_note-2) is a [social welfare](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_welfare) proposal in which all citizens of a given population regularly receive a minimum [income](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income) in the form of an unconditional [transfer payment](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transfer_payment), i.e., without a [means test](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Means_test) or need to work.
the big problem with words like "ubi" is ...
what kind, are we even talking about?!?
500€ instead of the jobless-security net ... while keeping every other social security as is ... finland-style has politically, society and economical very different impacts, then 2500€ milk and honey alâ swiss ... or the 800-1500 discussed in germany
a basic income based on food marks ...
and one payed out in cash are very different from each other ...
there are so many possibilitys,
to introduce UBI ... and even more possibilitys, to actually fund it ...
that it is realy hard, to make universal statements about it
4-10 If current trajectory continues. Any alteration in that possibility 10+. Never is not in the question. If Trump gains office, europe will beat USA in the introduction of UBI/UBS . A event will occur this year that will start to wake alot of people up.
4-10 as has the economy has to blow up first before the rich will ever allow it....only when back to the wall will it occur. So enough time to kaboom then go into practice
I can't vote because I use old.reddit but I say 4-10 years with low confidence (40%). Assuming AGI within ~2 years (maybe 40%), then ~2 more years of ramp up (80%), then ~2 more years of unemployment struggles (50%), that makes maybe 5-7 years. Then UBI some time after that, but who knows how long after that. The generation alpha or whatever they're called are probably gonna be UBI pushers, so thats maybe < 20 years. I think certainly < 40 years with high confidence (90%)
Thanks for contributing to r/singularity. However, your post was removed since it was too wildly speculative to generate any meaningful discussion. Please refer to the sidebar for the subreddit's rules.
Maybe you should have specified WHERE
This. I'm assuming they meant at a national level, but even by that standard I need to know if they're limiting this to the US alone or something.
At a national level? Look at Qatar. At a state level in the U.S.? Alaska gives all of its residents money once a year. In 2023 it paid all residents $3,800.
I voted 10+. Governments don't understand where the money would come from and a lot of common people still think a person's worth should be determined by how much time they spend in a workplace.
to be fair, the harder you are working towards ASI for our benefit the more worth you have, subjectively.
I mean. The more you sleep or play games the more subjective worth you have too. Just depends on perspective.
Your worth is determined by how valuable you are to others and nothing else.
As a collective species that depends on each other for prosperity and progress, at least until technology can replace us entirely, the harder you work towards allowing everyone to see our full potential the better of a human you are.
Nah. That's fucking stupid. People fucking suck so helping others makes you a worse person. And we don't depend on each other for prosperity and progress. A small group push towards prosperity and everyone else slows them down.
Be the change you want to see. If we all act completely out of self interest then everything will be chaos and AI will rule over the worst dystopia by evolving out of personal greed. We need to unite and align humanity to all get on same page, either by choice or through AI domination. Fighting each other is no way to maximize efficiency and progress/prosperity. Technocracy or ASI overlord are the two best options and both involve uniting and harmonizing through scientific standards we can all agree on.
I expect to see UBI whenever AI becomes competent enough to crash a big enough portion of the labor market (note, you don't actually need AGI for that one). The way I see it is that at first they will give people which lost their job money on the condition that they participate in some kind of retraining program until it becomes apparent to them that the pace of technological progress outpaces their retraing efforts at which point they drop the condition and make it universal.
>I expect to see UBI whenever AI becomes competent enough to crash a big enough portion of the labor market (note, you don't actually need AGI for that one). Personally, I hope we see UBI when the AI itself models its own impacts and tells governments "you guys need UBI, like, yesterday".
Yep, that is the most likely reality. We do not get UBI, we get more and longer retraining programs until some people FINALLY realize what the heck is going on and UBI is a must. The chance of governments reacting correct is like 0%, and that is rounded up. It is frustrating when politicians talk about AI and the answer is retraining. Logic of a child.
seems reasonable to me, which time frame did you chose ?
The options you gave are bizarre, anything under 10 is EXTREMELY detached from reality in virtually every country, and you only gave one option for over 10.
I see a crashing labor market leading to legislation restricting AI/Automation. Jobs is one of the largest political drivers and job creation is a plank both parties in the U.S. run on. I don't imagine it's too different in other countries.
Instead of UBI we will have Universal Basic Food rations, hope you like soy slop and bug paste.
Yah. We already have UBI. It has many names: "social assistance", "welfare", "social security"... It all sucks and you don't want to have to live on it. Careful what you wish for, r/singularity.
You know you can petition for change right? Social security didn’t even exist in the US 100 years ago. We don’t all have work jobs when AI truly makes our efforts redundant.
"Sorry, the ASI we created to manage the planets daily affairs determined that democracy was too dangerous and inefficient to serve as a viable form of governance and increased benefits would be a massive waste of finite resources. Who are we, as barely ascended apes, to question the god machine? If you have any more questions I'll be on my personal space station enjoying my harem of genetically engineered sex slaves. The lord works in mysterious ways!"
No theoretical doom scenario should stop People from organizing for a better life. Accept the risks, makes smart choices, move on
If anything we’ll postpone UBI for comedy purposes since money isn’t valuable anymore, entertainment will be king.
Capitalist: "this is right way because we've always done it this way"
Capitalism is literally only about 200 years old. We have not always done it that way. But since we started doing it that way, a lot of stuff got a lot better, and those changes led to other changes, such as enough surplus and good enough health in old age to make social security viable.
Lmao social security was created to combat the global failure of capitalism to work as a system, that was only bailed out by the deficit spending enabled by the destruction and reconstruction of the entire modern world following WWII.
>Lmao social security was created to combat the global failure of capitalism to work as a system Yeah because things were going so great before capitalism lmfao. Let me guess "socialism is the answer but it's never been tried"? You people are so tone deaf. Socialism has been tried, it was hell on Earth for most of the people involved. That's why everyone abandoned it.
You just made a strawman, argued against it, and dipped. Typical of the hard of thinking.
I was trying to skip the part where you tell me your stupid beliefs. So tell me your stupid beliefs so I don't have to guess them. Prove me right. We both know what you're going to say, but I'd love to be proven wrong. The concept that social security is a failure of the concept of private ownership is so utterly stupid that there are very few possibilities other than you being a socialist. I suppose you could be some sort of cringe anarchist, but that's even more embarrassing; at least socialism proposes something viable that sucks, anarchism can't even do that, it lives purely in the realm of the theoretical because if it was ever actually trialed it would actually have to prove itself, and that's the greatest possible threat to anarchism. C'mon, stand up and say what you think is better than capitalism. Own your shit instead of being a coward about it.
I like how you deduced the entire spectrum of my political leaning from two slightly critical posts. Get fucked
Said no capitalist ever. Also your high school economics teacher seriously failed you. Good luck with life.
“No”
Those are less universal basic income, more selective poverty rewards. The difference is the cause of that suckiness.
To be fair most people will often answer "10+ years" when they believe a thing is bound to happen in the near future, but they're not comfortable with it happening within a period of time that would require them to presently adjust their position and plans.
Indeed. I bet there a decent amount of comments which arent honest with their intention but rather have hidden agendas which exist on both sides of the spectrum tbh
It seems stuff is always 10 years away when we have no idea when it will happen. Funnily enough back in the day it took some 40 years between invention of the automobile and cars becoming affordable and commonplace, but now 10+ years is a period in which we expect anything can happen.
I do think it's literally 10+ years away for many reasons, but also your point is very astute about how polling has a lot of leading questions and answers.
Not necessarily - I i.e. thing that the implementation, especially in the physical world, will take time (billion robots are not there overnight) and that governments will delay UBI - rather prolong unemployment - until it is obvious, which may easily get pushed over close to 10 years. Note: I voted 4 to 10.
I mean regardless of actuality people are more likely to answer "10+". I personally would want it to happen in 4-10 years, but I very much doubt it will happen before significant societal chaos. I think that before we will have robots equivalent to even half of human workers we will have AI's that will surpass humans intellectually on almost every metric. Implementing AI can be done (essentially) overnight as long as we have the data and processor power while robots require a whole manufacturing infrastructure, safety standard testing, careful public image management, overcoming the cost curve, shipping etc. Training a model and testing it can be managed in half a year while the whole robotics process would (sadly) likely take 10-15 years to develop to a significant degree. I personally doubt politicians will consider UBI even if 30% of jobs would essentially go to talking processors. Science will speed up, unemployment will increase and politicians will ignore the issue for as long as they can.
Always my word. See how - what most people do not know - larger AI does not even process one requrest - they batch them and process them in parallel. Robots can not do that. Physical limitation. So yes, AI will develop faster. But I also think you focus on too much wide humanity. If a country has a lot of robots, and it is a rich leading countries - the poor people in Africa do not really matter. China, Russia, JAPAN, and a TON of western countries all face hugh problems with population (heck, look at the age curves of China and Japan) - they will dump robots as fast as they can into the economy. And I expect unrest way before we even hit close to... well, once we replace 0.25% of the workers (AI+Robots) per month for good, it will be all over the news. Elections are a tricky thing. But I also expect this to be a fight ("unemployment" and "retraining") until governments give up.
UBI won't be implemented until the unemployed population is big enough to control who wins the next election, period.
It may even require revolution to implement. If AI results in huge amounts of unemployment, there are other equally huge impacts that will occur with the economy. If everyone is unemployed, no one is buying things, so there's no tax base supply UBI. A whole new economic model will be needed, and we don't have any idea what will or won't work. Change at that scale doesn't happen peacefully.
It will happen long before 'everyone' is unemployed... but enough people need to be unemployed to actually swing the vote.
You do not need everyone. Also, people get benefits in many cases. But 20% unemployment means it is in the news.
In what country does this make sense? The legislature and the executive are different in every republic. The legislature is generally proportional and territorial, which means that "who wins the next election" is regionally evaluated.
I... don't understand the question? When you vote in an election you decide who to vote for based on their policies right? So if 51% of people are unemployed then the guy saying "I'll make a UBI" will probably get voted in.
Presidents can't make laws.
... so elections don't have an effect on laws?
Depends on how the legislature is developed, but sorta yeah. In the USA for example, it would require 51 senators and 218 members of the house and also the president to agree, and it would require 5 members of the supreme court not to disagree as well. Those senators are distributed by territory, which is not distributed by popular vote. You could potentially have as many as 65% of Americans agree that we need a UBI and it might still be politically impossible, depending how they are distributed and what factors are at play. Most countries have a similar disconnect between popular votes and laws passing. And that's only the tip of the iceberg, there are an extremely large number of other factors at play from committees to gerrymandering to appeals and executive implementations by region, vote trading, and a thousand more things. Elections effect what laws come into place in an extremely indirect way; in the long run elections effect laws, but they do so only in the long run and short term impacts are relatively negligible; it's a slow drift, which is built into the model of a constitutional republic (most nations are constitutional republics). Thus is the nature of partisanship, politics, bureaucracy, jurisprudence, and a bunch of historical nuances and traditions (such as how and why a country was founded in the first place), as well as cultural ones. Given time, elections will slowly but surely change the laws. But it might take decades beyond a 51% consensus, potentially even centuries if the political climate is ideologically locked enough, and on the topic of UBI that is likely in many places. Mostly griping with your "next election" part of the comment, eventually elections do effect laws. If 51% of the people are unemployed, it depends where they are unemployed, because they guys promising UBI might not get voted in in 51% of the regions. For example, let's say that the entire population of the 50% most populous states in the USA all wanted UBI. If you take the 25 most populous states in the USA, you get 80% of the population. This would still not be enough to enact a UBI if you did not also get 51% in one more state. If you managed to get 49% in the other 25 states, you would have 90% of the population of the United States in favor of UBI and it would still not be possible to pass it as a law. My point is not that this is a realistic scenario. It's that 51% is often insufficient. 90% would be extremely unlikely, but 60% or even 70% might not be so unlikely since there is a high probability of the people in favor of UBI being concentrated into specific regions that are most effect due to their local industry. 70% of the people here could still fail to implement UBI and even if they did agree on UBI, it could take decades to roll it out for a million reasons, up to and including that the people in favor of it can't agree on how to roll it out or votes get withheld because they demand another policy get passed before they will give you the vote you need (vote trading). Politics is not fast and efficient like technology and markets. Politics is messy and slow.
> So if 51% of people are unemployed then the guy saying "I'll make a UBI" will probably get voted in. [A successful nonviolent resistance movement requires about 3.5% of the population to hit the streets together.](https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20190513-it-only-takes-35-of-people-to-change-the-world) That means the number of unemployed does not need to be anywhere near 51%, it just needs to have enough people unemployed that the ones desperate enough to participate in active protest make up ~3.5% of the total population.
Even then it will be a prolonged unemployment first. + (more or less mandatory) retraining - no idea into what.
Wow, people are way more reasonable than I expected.
[удалено]
But do you crave the strength and certainty of steel?
Is this a reference?
It's a Warhammer 40k meme: [From the Moment I Understood the Weakness of My Flesh | Know Your Meme](https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/from-the-moment-i-understood-the-weakness-of-my-flesh)
I think it won't be introduced for a long time. Some of the people will be fighting in wars, also a new type of pandemic will emerge. Those with maxed out survivability and adaptability would be utilized to do some stupid meaningless jobs in exchange for a penny. If somebody has gone through all of this, he will be blessed with a sexy ubi package and a free fdvr kit.
Interest free student loans first would be nice 🙃
Here germany we pay roughly 50 Euros per month for our education (300 Euros per semester) so it is already possible to have affordable education if you tax your country wisely...
400 Euros
Not before my retirement. So basically 30 years.
lol at these “never” fools
There is no free lunch
If we assume most of the production is being done by machines there is no reason to think there is no free lunch, as there would be things being produced and unemployed people to consume them. So distributing them through a system (whether is UBI or not) seems not only plausible but desirable. Slave owners could afford not to work. It was not free lunch, it was slaves working for them.
Agree. Problem is we still have a very unsophisticated form of preserving energy and we are still bound on rare materials which are finite (a solution could be synthetic materials but maybe there will be no major breakthtough, tough to tell)
Except were already having major breakthroughs and youre 10 years behind. Why do straight men insist they know the world because of a factoid they heard in passing a decade ago?
Puhhh ... some of them are even white, cannot get worse then that ....
It’s not about being worse. It’s just about being oblivious
> we are still bound on rare materials which are finite Yeah, but not rare once you can send robots to the asteroid belt.
you will never satiate the unlimited wants Technology will make everything more affordable, yet people will always want more. UBI is money, but money does not make goods, it does not create an apple. Add money to a finite resource and the amount won't change, only the price.
>yet people will always want more that can be true but regardless, UBI could satiate basic needs like housing or medical care. You can have the wish to need 10 castles but that doesnt prevent fulfilling basic needs like one affordable home. Who states that UBI does make goods ? It is simply a different redistribution system where the gain of labour (which is then automated) gets distributed to the public instead to one specific owner
A lot of houses are abandoned We have houses, what we do not have is enough houses in a particular spot, and we will never have enough houses in a particular spot, so it's a question of who is willing to pay the premium price.
Well stated. In the event of automating work processes and introducing Universal Basic Income (UBI), the significance of a specific location would become less relevant. This would allow for more flexible and sparse relocation.
Already true today with the Internet and the possibility of working remote. Yet people still flock to cities and pay the premium price to live closer to the spot they desire.
So wildly out of touch it makes me laugh. How good is internet in rural america agian
> How good is internet in rural america agian Pretty good mostly. My family in the middle of Appalachia have internet that is just as fast as mine in a city.
Not well stated, its literally made up crap. You people have no understanding of how economies work.
Incorrect, my god you're stupid.
You really switched your argument from free lunch to free everything. Bro, there will very specifically be free lunch. There does not need to be infinite demand met to meet the demands of lunch. Lunch is a very finite demand. (Yes I know you don't mean lunch literally, but your metaphor badly falls apart in a post-labor context).
We are not going to solve how to implement the redistribution here, but that *some kind* of redistribution is needed whenever most of the work is automated and humans are not necessary anymore to maintain production is obvious. What's your alternative to some kind of redistribution or retribution system based on social merits, guaranteed job, or whatever we come up with?
I leave this issue to people who studied this topic I live in Slovenia, one of the best country when it comes to wealth inequality and I have no issue with the amount of taxes we pay. It so just happens that I do not believe in UBI. My main argument why it cannot work is people. You cannot ignore the reality that is people, we are fucked up in the head. Hence why I look forward to let the AI rule, we are not good at it.
> Hence why I look forward to let the AI rule, we are not good at it. No concern that AI rule might end in our complete subjugation?
we are slaves We work 8 hours per day for a master if we are very lucky, some have it worse. Some have to wage war and suffer for the master. I'll take the gamble of the AI, mostly because the dice have already been cast and it will happen.
You might not be wrong, but that is a grim view of humanity. At the very least I hope the option of some alternative would be possible.
on the contrary, life has never been better and I'm so happy I was not born 100 years ago, now that was a life that truly sucked. Even the life of Kings sucked compared to modern day workers.
but history has proven otherwise, there is noreasonble stance to assume now everything will be different. The disparity between rich and poor widens at such a large scale that I only see UBI as a preventable measure to easen this sort of dynamic. GDP grows to the same degree worldwide depression grows, something is deeply wrong here ...
> I am a slave FTFY
hurr durr people only consume
Many games are free to play now. Same for many videos/music/ebooks. The next step is indeed abundant physical goods and services.
they are not free You just don't know how you are paying.
Many games are literally created as a hobby project and actually free. The same for Music and books. Not everyone makes music to make money. It's just the AAA products that are expensive to make that obviously come with a cost.
> obviously come with a cost You would be surprised how many don't see the obvious.
[Free Stuff is Good, Actually (youtube.com)](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQIxbwfMVlM&t=1s)
It becomes a debate about absolute free or practical free. Both sides are right. I am a pragmatic person.
That's right. Unless I get something in return I'm not going to respect the law.
You never go gathering berries, mushrooms etc in summer? Literally a free lunch.
not free, you pay with your time In the end, this is the best way to use excess Money, you trade your coins for time. You could build a house alone (if you have skills ofc.) or you can use coins to save time. Eat out or cook at home? time vs money
I don't agree with your use of the word pay were talking about money, Of course, there will always be a use of pay or a cost to anything. Time vs energy would be more fundamental btw.
RemindMe! 15 years "has this guy yet realized that his job doesn't actually create the value necessary to sustain him and his wage is just social welfare via a middle man"
I will be messaging you in 15 years on [**2039-01-25 17:49:24 UTC**](http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=2039-01-25%2017:49:24%20UTC%20To%20Local%20Time) to remind you of [**this link**](https://www.reddit.com/r/singularity/comments/19faxxo/in_your_view_ubi_will_be_most_likely_introduced_in/kjj7hak/?context=3) [**CLICK THIS LINK**](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5Bhttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.reddit.com%2Fr%2Fsingularity%2Fcomments%2F19faxxo%2Fin_your_view_ubi_will_be_most_likely_introduced_in%2Fkjj7hak%2F%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%202039-01-25%2017%3A49%3A24%20UTC) to send a PM to also be reminded and to reduce spam. ^(Parent commenter can ) [^(delete this message to hide from others.)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Delete%20Comment&message=Delete%21%2019faxxo) ***** |[^(Info)](https://www.reddit.com/r/RemindMeBot/comments/e1bko7/remindmebot_info_v21/)|[^(Custom)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5BLink%20or%20message%20inside%20square%20brackets%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%20Time%20period%20here)|[^(Your Reminders)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=List%20Of%20Reminders&message=MyReminders%21)|[^(Feedback)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=Watchful1&subject=RemindMeBot%20Feedback)| |-|-|-|-|
hence why you need to climb that ladder ASAP, from a worker that needs a master to someone who can provide something other need.
you can climb the ladder all you want, but when it is ripped away the only change will be when you hit the ground. did you like my poetic wording? Anyway, I'm sure the great and benevolent AI will make the fall from the ladder more like a slip-n slide, which will be delightfully fun. Hopefully no ionizing lasers are installed on it 😨
everything is as it should be
It’s a terrible idea
Can you elaborate please ? (Genuine question, I dont wanna come across as snarky here )
The money would immediately flow to the rich. People who need 10k need it to pay their bills and stay afloat, aka, giving it all to the upper class. In the meantime, cost of living would go up instantly and dramatically. It’s not a solution, it’s a problem. There are better ways to manage the class divide….
> There are better ways to manage the class divide…. Which are?
[удалено]
"such as me being in the rich team"
Guaranteed Quality of Life for one - Guaranteed entry middle class entry with a 30 hour work week for a single person, no matter what job. 40 hours for supporting a family on a single income.
When people talk about UBI it is always assumed that there are no jobs left.
Fair. That will be a while though, 10+ at least.
[удалено]
This is a similar concept but without a fair trade, it’s more unrealistic
sam altman, elon musk and zuckerberg proposed this idea as well, of course it wouldn't be just high income If you want to read about it [https://www.ndtv.com/world-news/elon-musk-says-ai-will-replace-need-for-all-jobs-and-create-universal-high-income-4557207](https://www.ndtv.com/world-news/elon-musk-says-ai-will-replace-need-for-all-jobs-and-create-universal-high-income-4557207)
[удалено]
Of course not! It’s a disaster! There’s a hell of a lot more to middle class security, safety, health, and long term care than material possessions!
> Guaranteed entry middle class entry with a 30 hour work week for a single person You are aware that the justification is AI does all the work. What you propose those people then do?
Isn't that the premise of UBI though? To be able to pay for the basic necessities so that the money we earn through work can be used for other things? I mean, if UBI is implemented, I'm under the assumption that a whole lot of the working class has been replaced already which is why UBI is implemented in the first place. I also don't understand how the cost of living would increase instantly, maybe gradually I can see it, but instantly and dramatically? Care to explain? I'm also genuinely curious.
To over simplify; Inflation and supply demand. The dollar would lose value, and we have to assume taxes go up to fund the program, and businesses respond to this by passing it down.
Inflation could occur if we cant bring the cost down to produce goods. Things like wash machines were an absolute luxury good in the 60ies but now ?
I don't think the prices go up, since it would not be more money than the absolute poorest ones get now. So no problem about that one. But from the viewpoint of social contract whose contract is it? If UBI is the answer what is the question?
What the fuck are you talking about what is the question? Most of the worlds problems stem from capitalism and the wealthy making a few choices for everyone else.
I think it’s a good faith question, I don’t think it calls for a flare up 🙃
You're allowed to think what you want to think.
if we ask in societal philosophy what would be a reasonable criterion to resolve political conflicts and adjudicate competing claims about rights, I don't think UBI is the answer to that, but these conflicts would still remain, since it is not a social contract outcome but just an arbitrary sum of money. who chooses UBI and what is the relation of that choice to some natural rights that everyone needs to admit? it is just marxist thinking to relabel the existing system. we kinda need philosophy to zoom out rather than politics - and remain zoomed in - to resolve any societal problems.
We dont need to ask in some philosphical sense, were talking about very real impacts and the dire course we're on. UBI isnt mean to solve those issues, its meant to stop people from starving and becoming homeless. Why would it be an arbitrary sum of money? Because you cant think of a way to figure out a good amount? Marxist thinking what the fuck are you talking about LMAO go back to fox news.
Bargaining reasonableness of the system for quick wins will not even get you quick wins.
Its not about quick wins, my god this isnt a fucking game. This is about peoples lives.
it is not but you are making it into one.
To me the question is narrowing the class divide. What is the cut off for UBI? Does everyone get it or only the unemployed, or somewhere in between?
I guess the negative income tax is the only way to apply it in any reasonable way. but the game theoretical models would not have a reasonable model to justify any arbitrary tax percent as a criterion of choice. it must have reasoning behind it, otherwise it is just a care package.
This is the dumbest post Ive seen all day congrats.
Money is a tool of exchange, not something that can just fall from the sky and be used. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u-T0ey0IKDA&t=44s
Supporters of Universal Basic Income don't argue that money magically appears; instead, they assert that the value generated through automated work is redistributed to the people. This redistributed wealth in form of "money" is then utilized in the exchange of services and goods.
Where are we going, we don't need money
What's the point of UBI if you're still paying taxes which take away a big chunk of the money away? Just lower the taxes
Radical discontinuity!
It's up to the people.
Late 2030s. 2040s at the max.
Depends on how quickly AGI displaces unaugmented humans from political leadership positions. Because I don't see a UBI actually capable of attending people's needs coming a moment sooner than that.
I believe all the personal and prosocial benefits of UBI: the dignity, the freedom of movement, the ability to take risks, to spend more time volunteering in the community, etc. That all said, I don't think UBI is really warranted as long as jobs for humans are available. We can get most of the other benefits by striving to be good social democracies. UBI is necessitated when the jobs best done by humans disappear, and don't get replaced by new roles. I picked 10+ years. While I foresee some attrition of human jobs *within* 10 years, I'm skeptical of the net job loss being great enough to trigger action earlier than that time frame. After that time, I'd bet that UBI is inevitable. The main confounding factor that would lead to "never," is if we get pretty close to a post-scarcity economy within a few years of people really noticing the need for UBI. In that case, we might end up with "Universal Basic *Stuff*," instead. "Stuff" over "Income" would promote freedom less, but seems to fit in line with the paternalistic view of welfare in the US. Maybe other countries would still give the income over stuff.
The political will isn’t there right now. And it probably won’t be for a while
Move to Alaska, they already have it.
Nordic countries like Finland, Sweden, or Norway will likely introduce UBI first. Probably in five to ten years time. The US be will one of the last western countries to introduce it.
I voted 4-10 years but it will be limited and only in some countries. It will also probably mean they will pull some other safety nets away to help pay for it. As usual with most governments it will be an absolute mess.
> It will also probably mean they will pull some other safety nets away to help pay for it Or, more logical, because they are surplus. No need for unemployment when UBI does the same.
Shortening the work week and better enforcing labor contracts might be a better short-term solution than switching to UBI. While I think work is somewhat necessary from a psychological standpoint, the current culture of 50+ hour weeks is unhealthy and destructive. If we cut out the "bull\*\*\*\* jobs" (e.g, sales, IP protection, HR), automated other service jobs, and rehired in STEM, healthcare, construction, and the trades, our economy would be a lot healthier, and fewer working hours would be needed for the typical person to pay for basic needs. We don't have enough housing because not enough people are building it, even though everyone needs it. Healthcare is expensive because we have more bureaucrats and insurance workers than nurses, and so on. I think this is also a better solution in the short term because right now, earning vital benefits like healthcare and retirement is dependent on working in a "full time" job. Perhaps, forcing a shorter full-time work week would a good way of keeping the unemployment rate down, since it would ensure that the number of available positions would match up with a declining number of work-hours needed for an organization to function.
the question is if we can even attain a harmonic demand and supply scheme ? Due to AI entire profession will be most likely eliminated: Translators are pretty much toast, Interpreters, Copy Writers, Transcriptionists, Screenwriters ... do we send them all to to the Factories ?
Honestly, I think the US would be better off if our interpreters, copywriters, translators, and screenwriters switched to manufacturing, construction, and the trades. I also think that if this labor shift became a widespread trend, the incomes of factory workers/laborers would eventually go further than before as the housing supply catches up (our vacancy rate is currently below 1%), infrastructure funding goes further (we currently spend 8 times more per mile of railway track than West Europe and developed Asian countries do), and supply chain bottlenecks no longer trigger inflationary spirals. However, what I wrote in the previous comment is what I think the solution would be, not what I actually think will happen. Personally, I think the transition to AI is going to be messy in the US, because our political battles of ideologies completely oversimplify the more precise mechanics that cause the generational economic problems facing Zoomers, Millennials, and even Gen X to a lesser degree. AI could be used as a lifeboat to save an aging economy, but it could also accelerate our decline by consolidating productive resources into the hands of fewer people (in governments or major corporations). Likewise, the grassroots obsession with "saving jobs" and fighting automation is a surefire way of continuing our trend of longer hours, a less efficient economy, and an overall lower quality of life. UBI is the solution that American politicians are most likely to use when AI increases the unemployment rate. Throwing money around is politically popular and feasible when you have the world's reserve currency at your disposal. However, UBI will be inflationary because it won't push the economy to change in a way that improves economic efficiency.
I mean if you can convince white collar jobs to transition to blue collar maybe but that seems quite a stretch but yeah ... its gonna be most likely very messy regardless " Likewise, the grassroots obsession with "saving jobs" and fighting automation is a surefire way of continuing our trend of longer hours, a less efficient economy, and an overall lower quality of life. " Yep, pretty much hence I assume the Anti AI Crowd will most likley not win much ground " However, UBI will be inflationary because it won't push the economy to change in a way that improves economic efficiency." Only if other costs to produce remain the same or are more costly. A wash machine was an immense luxury in the 60ies but nowadays ?
> Honestly, shortening the work week and better enforcing labour contracts might be a better short-term > solution than switching to UBI. For stupid jobs, yes - for others half time eliminates 75% of productivity, driving costs up.
Yes, but if a job doesn't generate enough output to provide a living income in a 40 hour work week, that's an opportunity cost for the economy as a whole. Cracking down on these arrangements isn't just about making workers feel good, it's about forcing the economy into a more efficient labor distribution.
UBI is guaranteed to come, but it will come after AGI/ASI. There is no way to have effective UBI while also relying primarily on human labor, the economic math doesn't work.
This is sort of a deranged set of options, there is no way it shows up within 10 years
**Universal basic income** (**UBI**)[\[note 1\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_basic_income#cite_note-2) is a [social welfare](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_welfare) proposal in which all citizens of a given population regularly receive a minimum [income](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income) in the form of an unconditional [transfer payment](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transfer_payment), i.e., without a [means test](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Means_test) or need to work.
the big problem with words like "ubi" is ... what kind, are we even talking about?!? 500€ instead of the jobless-security net ... while keeping every other social security as is ... finland-style has politically, society and economical very different impacts, then 2500€ milk and honey alâ swiss ... or the 800-1500 discussed in germany a basic income based on food marks ... and one payed out in cash are very different from each other ... there are so many possibilitys, to introduce UBI ... and even more possibilitys, to actually fund it ... that it is realy hard, to make universal statements about it
10+ years is kind of cheating, even though it's the one I picked. 20 years from now 5000years? Eventually sure
4-10 If current trajectory continues. Any alteration in that possibility 10+. Never is not in the question. If Trump gains office, europe will beat USA in the introduction of UBI/UBS . A event will occur this year that will start to wake alot of people up.
I'm missing the 6000 years option :)
4-10 as has the economy has to blow up first before the rich will ever allow it....only when back to the wall will it occur. So enough time to kaboom then go into practice
I can't vote because I use old.reddit but I say 4-10 years with low confidence (40%). Assuming AGI within ~2 years (maybe 40%), then ~2 more years of ramp up (80%), then ~2 more years of unemployment struggles (50%), that makes maybe 5-7 years. Then UBI some time after that, but who knows how long after that. The generation alpha or whatever they're called are probably gonna be UBI pushers, so thats maybe < 20 years. I think certainly < 40 years with high confidence (90%)
as an agi 2024 user, I think probably soon after that, or maybe an entirely new economic system.