Imagine not working, and just collecting a pay. How does that sound? Is that a prospective future to look forward to?
Many people do this now under our welfare system for various reasons, from being unable to work or unable to find work, or just scamming the system and being a lazy douche thief. Many honest people depend on a safety net, for taking care of themselves, or their disabled children that they can't afford to on their own. Perhaps charity could replace it in a better society, voluntary, not coercive.
As automation displaces more jobs, more of us may come to rely on this welfare system.
The case for Universal Basic Income (UBI) has been gaining popularity in the media, especially thanks to the socialist ideas of Bernie Sanders. This is an unconditional promise to pay people, for doing nothing other that living, in order for them to keep living. They can buy shelter, food, water and clothing. Proponents claim this improves community cohesion and health, while opponents say it promotes laziness and shirking responsibility to work.
Couch Potato
The threat to jobs that automation poses means UBI is of focus to many. Ideas for generating revenue are about taxing enterprises that use the common land of the region/country. Oil revenues, hydro electricity, and other industries that make use of land they don't own because it belongs to the people, would have a percentage return to the people. Alaska has such a program, and returned over $2700 to each citizen last year (2015).
Of course, you earn more if you also work. So it seems even if you work, you get the basic income anyways, as they propose it.
The gloomy prospect of lazy people sapping the system may not be realistic. In one Manitoba, Canada study, the government supplementing people's income who fell below a certain amount, showed a reduced hospitalization and depression rate while the experiment was ongoing. The trial allowed young boys to focus more on school, and mothers on nursing, rather than try to find ways to make money to survive.
Implementing
Next year, in 2017, Norwegians will get an monthly 600 Euro. It's also a trial, so it will last for two years.
The aim is to test whether this promotes more people finding work, or if it does the opposite. They hope it allows people to enter the job market on their terms, rather than the stress and anxiety of being forced into a job to survive. Currently in Finland, people getting government assistance requires monthly paperwork. This UBI way is easier for them.
In areas where BUi is implemented, the municipalities recognize freeloading as an expected aspect. There is always good and bad behavior in policies they implement, they say. They want to analyze how many people this helps get a job, and how many people simply move to the couch.
THe health and well-being aspect is tied to research from Colombia University, studying 1000 children. A strong correlation exists between family income and childhood brain development. It's reasoned that more economic stability at home means more time to spend with the child and help them develop. It's not a causal link though, just an interesting correlation.
A new study on low-income families is being done to support the previous conclusions. Out of 1000 low income mothers, 1100 transactions went to groceries, while only 3 went to alcohol purchases.
Cure-All?
This is a slippery slope of dependence. Next, government can be seen to be "needed" to step in when corporations decide to take advantage, and not pay any benefits, no pensions, no health care. if this is poorly designed, it could not end up changing society much at all, or end up making things worse as well.
Other plans include to not tax the poor but give them the UBI, not tax the middle class, and tax the rich. But performance changes under different taxation methods to steal your money. The more is stolen from you, the more you get pissed about it.
In a study, one group was given money to work and not taxed, while the other had money to start but were taxed. Those who experience loss aversion of losing what they started out with tended to quit their tasks sooner in order to minimize their losses.
This negative tax idea isn't as favorable as the UBI initiative for many.
UBI, automation, and the like, is envisioned to bring about benefits to humanity as a whole. Freeing up time for family, to care for elderly, sick relatives, or pursue creative works, innovate and invent new things, like music, etc.
The question of "what do you do?" may in the future morph into "why do you do?". We won't be obliged to work to survive. We will choose to work, for a reason, purpose, goal and meaning in our lives apart from simply making money.
Voluntary donations trump coercive theft any day, as far as I see it. UBI isn't the direction I want to head towards, but it may be that society will be heading there regardless of what the anarchist or voluntaryists want.
I don't see the UBI as a success in the long term. Whereas automation and opening up new niches for work I do see lasting.
What do you think?
Thank you for your time and attention! I appreciate the knowledge reaching more people. Take care. Peace.
If you appreciate and value the content, please consider:
Upvoting 
, Sharing 
and Reblogging 
below.
me for more great content to come! Please also go through my older work to learn about more topics.
Author: Kris Nelson / @krnel
Contact: [email protected]
Date: 2016-11-04, 7pm EST
I think the UBI will work as a transition model towards a resource based economy where you have no government and where money does not exist and automation has grown to a much higher level where access to things are freely given to everyone. But in order to get there the value system needs to change accordingly from consumerism to sustainability where the environmental effect is taken into consideration. Problem is that the money system of today has no incentive of sustainability and environmental effects because money is driven by profits.
I fully support the UBI but we need to change the current economic model as well because otherwise we just generate even more debt which will just end up with a collapse that hurts everyone. I do not support taxation as being the source of the UBI because I do not believe in theft but I am also well aware that we will not get rid of the notion of government anytime soon. We could maybe close current welfare programs that are working on finding out who should get welfare and not and use that kind of money to fund the UBI.
Here is the answer from the TVP about UBI being a transition to a RBE, maybe it will give you another perspective on this topic of UBI.
https://www.thevenusproject.com/faq/universal-basic-income-means-achieving-venus-project/
automation has grown to a much higher level where access to things are freely given to everyone
what will be the results of self-replicating 3D printers which can print a MUCH broader feedstock? Right now the cheapest and most common is plastic. High Dollar models can print metal. There are even some that are biological. Suppose a printer is developed (not if...but when) that can do all that...AND print more printers? Suppose that a filter is developed (not if, but when) that can separate the 'impurities' (one man's trash is another man's treasure) from water, air (landfills?) and use them for feedstock? Not only using solar power (or thorium?) but printing it's own solar panels?
what happens then?
I have no idea what will happen then but I am well aware of the development of the 3D printer and how it can move the production into peoples homes instead of having it externalized. I think it's possible that something like the replicator in Star Trek can be something that we will see in the future and that itself could transform the entire world from a scarcity based system to a system of abundance.
Keep working, stop paying,...
a UIB isn't that bad IF it is limited by actual income of the State AND IF there is a mechanism preventing those who live off it from voting to increase it.
Any society will eventually collapse once the Takers outvote the Makers
Personally, I would favor UBI over the fragmentary and inefficient public assistance models currently in use.
Ultimately, though, I think that changing how business is done to equitably distribute the gains from tech-driven productivity increases to everyone who produces more value as a result of technological advancement would drastically reduce the need for government assistance/interference with economic imbalances.
So judgemental.
Do you piss in other people's cornflakes often?
I'd like to see the blockchain power a UBI.
The Alaska Permanent fund dividends are are great. Crime and drug use goes up after they come out. But crimes go up around Christmas time as well. Countries in the middle east have the smart programs and I have always wondered if they have the same problems. The syfi series The Expance has a great program like the UBI that is called basic. They also make people work before they go to college to ensure people are going to be productive after school.
This post has been linked to from another place on Steem.
Learn more about and upvote to support linkback bot v0.5. Flag this comment if you don't want the bot to continue posting linkbacks for your posts.
Built by @ontofractal
I think there may be a way to guarantee a universal basic income with out government.
If we are able to displace labor with capital investment completely, dividends will be paid to those who hold the capital. In the future, one may be able to simply hold proof of stake or similiar financial instruments to gaurantee an income.
The problem would lie in distribution, how does one initially obtain ownership stake in the entities that control the means of production?
In truly competitive environment, even in a world without labor due to automation, all prices should approach continuosly declining costs. In an age of abundance, will we even need income?