What do you think?

I think in the face of AI taking over many tasks, we need to rethink about how we frame the future of society. Reframing Universal Basic Income as Automation Compensation means presenting the policy as a way to make up for jobs and income lost due to automation and AI. Instead of viewing UBI as a general welfare payment, it becomes seen as compensation paid to everyone for the value automation creates, supporting those whose work is replaced by machines and helping everyone share in productivity gains. Especially in the US, the average person doesn’t like the idea of someone getting something that they’re personally not receiving. So framing it as a compensation that everyone receives regardless of employment status I think is the only feasible way forward.

  • pelespirit@sh.itjust.works
    8·
    8 hours ago

    What I’ve seen as the most talked about part of this is, how are we going to pay for it. Of course, wealth tax has to be a huge part of it. We’ve seen the following work, so it’s not hard to understand. The billionaires don’t want it:

    • Social Security, but the companies only are the ones to foot the bill
    • Alaska dividends, same concept but of course, a lot more money.
    • Medicare, Medicaid and people on disability.
      • pelespirit@sh.itjust.works
        1·
        57 minutes ago

        So, this would be based on crypto? That’s what I understand, like the stable coin. I have many questions that they didn’t really cover.

        It seems that the way the dividends come about is by loaning out money, your $3 becomes $97. Is that correct? If so:

        • Who is handling these transactions and overhead?
        • What if people don’t pay back the loan?
        • What if that money is stolen? Crypto can be easily corrupted and traced.

        There’s more questions. I’m not trying to shoot it down, I just want to understand.

        Edit, is it still tied to SOFR?

        However, it may still be vulnerable to manipulation. Banks can borrow and lend at biased rates in the wholesale funding market, which can lead them to profit in the much larger market for benchmark-indexed contracts.[8] It was therefore suggested that the lending costs of individual banks be published to increase transparency and deter manipulation.[8]

        The Bank for International Settlements, which serves as the bank for central banks, said in March 2019 that a one-size-fits-all alternative may be neither feasible nor desirable. Although SOFR solves the rigging problem, it does not help participants gauge how stressed global funding markets are. That means SOFR is likely to coexist with something else.[13]

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SOFR

    • shalafi@lemmy.worldEnglish
      2·
      6 hours ago

      Not enough available to tax to pull this off. BUT, when you factor in dropping all other social services, now we’re a lot closer.

    • Botzo@lemmy.world
      4·
      7 hours ago

      Just from the top of my head:

      • Permanent tax on corporations that layoff people until they rehire to the same level.
      • An exise tax on AI use by businesses.

      Both of these would of course get me labeled an antichrist by Peter Thiel. And since AI is propping up the world economy right now, has 0 chance of happening.

      • AnarchistArtificer@slrpnk.netEnglish
        2·
        2 hours ago

        “Permanent tax on corporations that layoff people until they rehire to the same level.”

        This is similar to what the historical Luddites were arguing for. (Probably worth clarifying that I say this as a good thing. The Luddites failed because they were working at a time when unions were literally illegal; the political conditions were just too stacked against them. However, there’s a lot of useful things we can learn from history, and this is one of them)

        Edit: formatting

      • shalafi@lemmy.worldEnglish
        22·
        6 hours ago

        Fine, then no company will ever expand their staff. Can’t risk a downturn a ways down the road.

        You’ve invented a new way to increase unemployment. :)

        • pelespirit@sh.itjust.works
          3·
          4 hours ago

          Dude, every company that thought AI could take over a job, they tried it. Do you think they’re trying to keep employees?

        • Botzo@lemmy.world
          1·
          3 hours ago

          Companies lay people off when the stock doesn’t grow the right way, even when they’re highly profitable.

          The Jack Welch playbook has fucked the concept of business success so hard we can’t even recognize what a huge pile of shit it has become. It needs a reset.