Basic Universal Income (BUI)

[Ten oz]

What are the pros & cons?

 

I have my own thoughts but do not want to limit the direction of the conversation by including them in the OP. 

[Bender]

Is there a specific implementation you want to limit the discussion to? BUI has been used for different systems. My personal preference goes to the unconditional variant, where everyone gets it.

Do you also want to discuss feasibility?

[fiveworlds]

Quote

What are the pros & cons?

Pro

Everybody gets a small amount of money so they can survive even if they don't have a job.

Everybody should at a minimum have access to education.

Guaranteed income for non-working parents and caregivers. (such as those with disabled children or parents with Alzheimer's)

Con

Rent prices could increase due to people having more disposable income therefore there is no guarantee homelessness will be eliminated. (eg. rent allowance here is 300 a month max. There was no houses here to rent in 2018 for anything less than 320)

Less Incentive to work.

Genuine poor may receive less targeted support since everyone gets money.

Gives the government unprecedented control over people. (eg. If you want to keep you BUI you must attend course a or b and achieve minimum grade y)

Cost of living in different areas could be higher which people in politics often forget. (eg. A family lives in the countryside they have to travel to pick up the BUI, get groceries etc which is more expensive than somebody living in the city who doesn't have to travel)

Edited July 1, 2018 by fiveworlds

[Ten oz]

1 hour ago, Bender said:

Is there a specific implementation you want to limit the discussion to? BUI has been used for different systems. My personal preference goes to the unconditional variant, where everyone gets it.

Do you also want to discuss feasibility?

No limits; yes to feasibility.

[MigL]

Like the taxation/welfare system,, it basically re-distributes wealth to those in need.
there are many ways to implement it, and many ways to fund it.
IOW the devil is in the details.
And without those details, its very hard to make arguments for or against.

Have any countries actually implemented a workable BUI system?
I know quite a few have considered/studied a BUI system.

[iNow]

Pro. It allows people to pursue their passions regardless of ability to earn. Artists. Teachers. Caregivers. Hospice. Authors... people of all sorts and varieties who would struggle to put a roof over their heads and food on their tables were they to pursue these passions without immediate success. 

Women in abusive relationships, but who rely on the abuser to provide the aforementioned shelter and food. They could finally leave. Bring their children into safer more enriching environments. Start new lives without fear of destitution. One of the biggest reasons women don’t leave sbusive men is bc they can’t risk the financial loss. UBI erases that problem with immediacy.

UBI is more efficient than our current hodgepodge of social safety net programs where people fall through the gaps and struggle to navigate in the face of their struggles elsewhere.. It could cover more people in more effective ways and for a cheaper price. Lower expenditure, higher return. End program.

It minimizes the caste-system-nature of our present culture along with the rampant economic inequality so pervasive on our system today. It, if even only slightly, helps to level an extremely uneven playing field and ensures everyone has at least a bare basic minimum starting point. It sets a floor that doesn’t include death from starvation. Fewer have-nots, while still allowing largely unfettered progress among the haves. Same number of silver spoons, but fewer folks with no spoons at all or no food to lift toward the mouth using them. 

Less poverty. Less crime. Less suffering. Less financial outlays from tax dollars.

 

Con. A handful of people would abuse the system. Classic free rider problem. 

Politics. It’s not feasible. Too many fearing folks lolIigagging in hammocks and sucking off the government teet. Misguided and misplaced feelings of unfairness would likely lead to the start of another tea party, mich like with Rick Santelli... “why should I be forced to pay the defaulted mortgage of my neighbor who should never have requested nor been approved for it,” only worse.

Fiscal deficits. We keep stupidly cutting taxes for the already Uber wealthy and can barely pay for Medicare, let alone Medicare for all, social security, infrastructure, and UBI. 

It would further accelerate the takeover of AI, ML, and related robots and further reduce the need for human labor, thus further cutting the funding the funding required to support it.

 

I’m sure I’m missing a few more on both sides, but these are a few that spring immediately to mind. 

Edited July 1, 2018 by iNow

[Bender]

4 hours ago, fiveworlds said:

Gives the government unprecedented control over people. (eg. If you want to keep you BUI you must attend course a or b and achieve minimum grade y)

This an example of where the details matter. In the unconditional variant, the government has no control at all.

49 minutes ago, iNow said:

A handful of people would abuse the system. Classic free rider problem. 

That is not a problem, but a feature. The concept of "free riding" would no longer exist.

49 minutes ago, iNow said:

Fiscal deficits. We keep stupidly cutting taxes for the already Uber wealthy and can barely pay for Medicare, let alone Medicare for all, social security, infrastructure, and UBI. 

While definitely an issue, it is hard to predict the long term financial effect. In some implementations, it could replace social security.

49 minutes ago, iNow said:

It would further accelerate the takeover of AI, ML, and related robots and further reduce the need for human labor, thus further cutting the funding the funding required to support it.

Drop the AI takeover and and this is a big advantage. Everyone could work less and pursue other interests, if they want to. It is ridiculous that we stop technological progress out of fear of losing jobs.

Obviously the tax system would need to change drastically. Currently we mainly tax labour and added value, which is a very stupid thing to do if you want people to work and add value. 

I could go on about this for quite a while, so I'll add only one pro and con.

Pro: freedom of work. Currently most people do not feel free in one of the most important aspects of their lives.

Con: the transition period will be hard while companies and institutions addapt. It could last several electoral cycles before the benefits become apparent.

Edited July 1, 2018 by Bender

[John Cuthber]

8 hours ago, fiveworlds said:

Gives the government unprecedented control over people. (eg. If you want to keep you BUI you must attend course a or b and achieve minimum grade y)

What do you consider the word "universal" to mean?

[fiveworlds]

Quote

What do you consider the word "universal" to mean?

That everyone gets it obviously. But that doesn't stop the government putting conditions on it like you either have to be working or in school or something. There would be nothing to stop the government not paying you because you protested something etc.

Take the welfare system here you have to be actively looking for work in order to get it. If you go protest something then the government can stop your payment because on that particular day you were not actively looking for work.

Edited July 1, 2018 by fiveworlds

[Ten oz]

 

9 hours ago, fiveworlds said:

Less Incentive to work.

 

8 hours ago, MigL said:

Like the taxation/welfare system,, it basically re-distributes wealth to those in need.
there are many ways to implement it, and many ways to fund it.
IOW the devil is in the details.
And without those details, its very hard to make arguments for or against.

Have any countries actually implemented a workable BUI system?
I know quite a few have considered/studied a BUI system.

 Qatar, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Eremites,  Kuwait, and Bahrain all have versions in place. All citizens receive a form of profit sharing from the oil and other govt (Monarchy) controlled industries. It isn't workable though in the terms I think most westerners think in. In those OPEC wealthy nations it simply creates a sort of caste system. To @fiveworlds point citizens in those countries have no incentive to work. As a result they all have massive amounts of foreign migrant workers from India, Pakistan, Indonesia, and etc. For example only 15% of Qatar's population are citizens. The rest are foreign workers. Labor, tradesmen, janitorial, and most all service industries are 100% foreign workers. 

In European nations with strong social programs providing free healthcare, education, and varies housing programs to citizens a similar trend emerges. In Switzerland nearly a quarter of the workforce are migrants. The Swiss govt has strict immigration policies where by immigrants are either temporary, annual, or permanent. To become permanent one must have first been on an annual basis for 10yrs. 

In the U.S. I feel we are already teetering on our own sort of caste system. We use our immigration policies and legal system to create a classes of people society deems unfit for quality employment. It is those classes which must clean our toilets, dig our ditches, and do all the back breaker work. Those classes includes people with: Felonies, multiple misdemeanors, on various forms of probation, in the country illegally, and a variety of temporary Green Card holders. More and more credit history is becoming part of standard employment background checks so in the near future we'll be adding people with bad credit history to the unfit for quality employment to the list. I think BUI would be like pouring gasoline on that fire. 

6 hours ago, iNow said:

Women in abusive relationships, but who rely on the abuser to provide the aforementioned shelter and food. They could finally leave. Bring their children into safer more enriching environments. Start new lives without fear of destitution. One of the biggest reasons women don’t leave sbusive men is bc they can’t risk the financial loss. UBI erases that problem with immediacy.

This is a very interesting point. Many people vitriolically carry on about the number of unwed mothers and children being raised in non-traditional (mom & dad) homes. Yet in some cases it may actually be providing women more freedom, mobility, safety, and etc to not be tied to or dependent upon a Man? Certainly women using BUI to get from certain men would become one of the loudest criticisms against BUI, especially in the Evangelical community. 

[John Cuthber]

23 hours ago, fiveworlds said:

everyone gets it obviously. But that doesn't stop the government putting conditions on it

Yes it does.
If it is conditional then it is not universal.

[Bender]

On 1/7/2018 at 12:59 PM, Ten oz said:

Certainly women using BUI to get from certain men would become one of the loudest criticisms against BUI, especially in the Evangelical community. 

It was. Nixon would have implemented a kind of basic income if it wasn't for the fear of empowering women.

On 1/7/2018 at 12:59 PM, Ten oz said:

To @fiveworlds point citizens in those countries have no incentive to work.

Those aren't exactly free countries, so there are other factors at work (pun not intended).

Experiments in Namibia and Canada show only 10% of the population stopped working. That's not too bad considering the amount of useless jobs that only exist to keep people busy and justifying paying them.

There was also a significant increase in entrepreneurship.

Surveys of people who win "win for life" where you get 1000-2000 € each month also show that nearly none of them stop working.

Rutger Bregman wrote some interesting books on the subject with lots of examples. Here is one of his texts in English.

[MigL]

That would be 10% of the WORKING population that stop working, Bender.
There is a large percentage of the TOTAL population that are retired, or cannot work for health/family reasons.
And that percentage increases in developed countries.
These people still deserve a BUI.

So its not a simple problem of 90% supporting !0%.
It can be as problematical as 30% supporting 70%.

Governments are having a hard enough time meeting their pension obligations to retirees.
I can just imagine how badly they'd bungle BUI.
 

[Ten oz]

27 minutes ago, Bender said:

Those aren't exactly free countries, so there are other factors at work (pun not intended).

Experiments in Namibia and Canada show only 10% of the population stopped working. That's not too bad considering the amount of useless jobs that only exist to keep people busy and justifying paying them.

There was also a significant increase in entrepreneurship.

Surveys of people who win "win for life" where you get 1000-2000 € each month also show that nearly none of them stop working.

Rutger Bregman wrote some interesting books on the subject with lots of examples. Here is one of his texts in English.

I didn't say people would stop working. If you read my post in its entirety I was saying that people would stop doing labor and sanitation related work. That immigrants and people with legal troubles would become a class forced to clean toilets and dig ditches. This is apparent all over the world. Not merely in oppressive countries. That is why I mentioned Switzerland. Lets be real. Growing up it was never a goal of mine to be a janitor. I grow up middle class with the reasonable  expectation I could pursue any professional career I wanted. 

I travel some for work. This year I have been to Atlanta, San Diego, San Antonio, Green Bay, Chicago, Boston, Miami, and Providence. Without exception every housekeeper cleaning my room was female and an immigrant. In modern western society there are many career fields average citizens simply do not do. In theory that should raise the salary in those industries because employers should have to pay more to find people but that isn't what happens. Instead laws are used to create classes  incapable of entering other types of careers. BUI doesn't address this. Rather it would make it worse. Unless you believe BUI would apply to everyone across the broad: felons, illegal immigrants, visa holders, people on probation, and etc. 

[ALine]

Would not UBI give individuals less incentive for working thus causing companies to invest more heavily in automation? Thus decreasing the number of workers who are actually trying to find jobs. So after a period of time, the UBI would remain the same, the individuals who are out of work would increase as automation increased. All of this while the population would be growing due to an increase in health services due to anyone being able to have access to health tips and medication, assuming UBI would be able to handle the price difference. The increase in population would in turn decrease in worth due to a drastic increase in population. So, in turn, the UBI would need to be increased. I guess you could say that automation would help with teaching, but as because automation would be very prevalent then they would not have anywhere to work. So they would, in turn, start small businesses using automated methods. This would create an even higher demand for automation so it would become cheaper and cheaper until it is almost, if not free. So now everyone is either an entrepreneur or an engineer. This may continue until engineers develop an automated process that fully replaces them. After this, all that will be left to do is become an entrepreneur. But now the question becomes "who do I sell to and what do I sell?" So at this point, because everyone is an entrepreneur people will compete to see who can be the most creative and most innovative. Producing new fields and new technologies at a faster and faster rate. This will continue until the engineering automated software that the previous engineers have built will design an automated entrepreneur because one entrepreneur will decide that he does not want to work as hard as the other entrepreneurs in order to increase their time and energy into something else. After this everyone would follow his lead until it will get to the point where no one is working and everything is done by automated processes. Once this happens no one will need to really need to do anything else they want. Everything is automated so no one will need to really do anything except learning and create, although everything that they have ever learned and created would have already been done by the automated systems. So it would essentially be like humanity would be in it "retirement stages" where it could do whatever it wanted. Because humans would live a lot longer there which a less and less incentive to have more children until we would eventually stop. After a large amount of time, we would slowly and steadily reduce the human population more and more, similar to being treated in a nursing home waiting to die. After the last few humans are left they will look at everything that they have accomplished and will smile and say " This is nice." After which the automated systems will lay humanity down one last time until the last human dies. Then because the automated system would have nothing to really do would simply either shut down to maintain resources or will continue do what was programmed to do, most likely the first option because everything is dedicated to human longevity. In a world which spent a large majority of its time dedicated to advancing forward, it would be oblivious to the fact that it is simply running faster and faster to a nice long deserving rest. The world would slowly be taken back by nature and it would be like humanity was simply a very slight blip in the universe. 

Edited July 3, 2018 by ALine

[dimreepr]

1 minute ago, ALine said:

Would not UBI give individuals less incentive for working thus causing companies to invest more heavily in automation?

Well, they'd certainly use it as an excuse...

[Ten oz]

1 hour ago, ALine said:

Would not UBI give individuals less incentive for working thus causing companies to invest more heavily in automation? Thus decreasing the number of workers who are actually trying to find jobs.

Automation isn't a result of people being unwilling to work. Automation is more cost effective. A machine works 24/7, produces a more consistent product, and in many cases can perform tasks individual humans can not. 

1 hour ago, ALine said:

So after a period of time, the UBI would remain the same, the individuals who are out of work would increase as automation increased. All of this while the population would be growing due to an increase in health services due to anyone being able to have access to health tips and medication, assuming UBI would be able to handle the price difference. The increase in population would in turn decrease in worth due to a drastic increase in population. So, in turn, the UBI would need to be increased. I guess you could say that automation would help with teaching, but as because automation would be very prevalent then they would not have anywhere to work. So they would, in turn, start small businesses using automated methods. This would create an even higher demand for automation so it would become cheaper and cheaper until it is almost, if not free. So now everyone is either an entrepreneur or an engineer. This may continue until engineers develop an automated process that fully replaces them. After this, all that will be left to do is become an entrepreneur. But now the question becomes "who do I sell to and what do I sell?" So at this point, because everyone is an entrepreneur people will compete to see who can be the most creative and most innovative. Producing new fields and new technologies at a faster and faster rate. This will continue until the engineering automated software that the previous engineers have built will design an automated entrepreneur because one entrepreneur will decide that he does not want to work as hard as the other entrepreneurs in order to increase their time and energy into something else. After this everyone would follow his lead until it will get to the point where no one is working and everything is done by automated processes. Once this happens no one will need to really need to do anything else they want. Everything is automated so no one will need to really do anything except learning and create, although everything that they have ever learned and created would have already been done by the automated systems. So it would essentially be like humanity would be in it "retirement stages" where it could do whatever it wanted. Because humans would live a lot longer there which a less and less incentive to have more children until we would eventually stop. After a large amount of time, we would slowly and steadily reduce the human population more and more, similar to being treated in a nursing home waiting to die. After the last few humans are left they will look at everything that they have accomplished and will smile and say " This is nice." After which the automated systems will lay humanity down one last time until the last human dies. Then because the automated system would have nothing to really do would simply either shut down to maintain resources or will continue do what was programmed to do, most likely the first option because everything is dedicated to human longevity. In a world which spent a large majority of its time dedicated to advancing forward, it would be oblivious to the fact that it is simply running faster and faster to a nice long deserving rest. The world would slowly be taken back by nature and it would be like humanity was simply a very slight blip in the universe. 

Automation is not a problem. Economies, regardless of structure, require new markets to thrive. As a kid my parents use to by maps to navigate with during long trips now such things are done electronically. Better things always come along. One should always assume the jobs available today with be history tomorrow. Huge portions of the population today work in industries that did not even exist just 50yrs ago. 

[ALine]

58 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

Automation isn't a result of people being unwilling to work. Automation is more cost effective. A machine works 24/7, produces a more consistent product, and in many cases can perform tasks individual humans can not. 

Yes and this is addressed below. 

58 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

I guess you could say that automation would help with teaching, but as because automation would be very prevalent then they would not have anywhere to work.

I should have gone into more depth for this analysis; however, I was under the assumption that it was known that automation is more cost effective vs. human labor because it would be just the cost of electricity vs. humans minimum wage costs. This is what was implied when I stated that, " but because automation would be very prevalent then they would not have anywhere to work." This is not because they "do not want" to work, whereas they "cannot" work.

58 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

Automation is not a problem. Economies, regardless of structure, require new markets to thrive. As a kid my parents use to by maps to navigate with during long trips now such things are done electronically. Better things always come along. One should always assume the jobs available today with be history tomorrow. Huge portions of the population today work in industries that did not even exist just 50yrs ago. 

Yes, this is true, however, if new jobs are created and they can be automated then it would not matter. Once a new job is created then someone can just automate it before any human would even be aware of it existing. Every job no matter complex a machine can do it better, faster and more efficient. This is because every super complex job is a combination of smaller and more specialized jobs. All you need is an engineer who is smart enough to figure out how it works. This is why I made the statement that engineers are going to be more and more prevalent and will be in much higher demand over time. An example of this is that something like even law is currently is replaced by virtual judges and lawyers. Citation: 

Teaching:

And this was back in 2009, ( And even though this technology is specifically designed for teaching student another person can see it as a proof of concept and then use it themselves to teach students. )

A video explaining it

Here is another video

 

Here is a list of the growth in the engineering field

https://www.bls.gov/ooh/computer-and-information-technology/software-developers.htm

The above states that Software engineering fields are expected to rise by 24 percent between 2016 and 2026

Compare this to other Fields like mechanical or biomedical engineering which will only increase either 7-9 percent in relatively the same amount of time.

Mechanical Engineering: https://www.bls.gov/ooh/architecture-and-engineering/mechanical-engineers.htm

Bio-mechanical Engineering: https://www.bls.gov/ooh/architecture-and-engineering/biomedical-engineers.htm

http://fortune.com/2017/02/22/startups-2017-challenger/

The above talks about how the number of entrepreneurs has increased from 4 percent to around 9 percent and this number may only increase due to more competition in the market for bringing new entrepreneurs into the economic system.

So there appears to be a correlation between the increasing number of entrepreneurs and the increasing number of software engineering. As the demand for taking new entrepreneurs go up then the demand for the number of software engineers may go up as well. So because of all the other fields being taken up by automation the only job that will most likely be left would be software engineering. Everyone that does not have a job, the working class, would be funneled into this field. This will inevitably drastically increase software production and innovation. If this increases at an increasing rate then eventually someone will create a piece of software which can write software. If this happens then everyone will be pushed into the entrepreneurial fields. If someone losses their money then they can just become an entrepreneur again and use the services to get back to where they were. In essence, you do not really need a UBI because it will get to the point that there are enough software and other services from other entrepreneurs to just get to a high-class position.

I can keep searching youtube and the internet and the story is the same. Any job can be and will be replaced, no matter how new or old it is.

 

I will create a new thread so that I do not move this thread off track, sorry about that.

Edited July 3, 2018 by ALine

[Ten oz]

12 minutes ago, ALine said:

Yes, this is true, however, if new jobs are created and they can be automated then it would not matter.

This was my point regarding people having jobs today that did not exist 50yrs ago. Every job becomes obsolete. That has always been the case. 

As for the rest of your post I can not make heads or tails of it. Many industries come and go. Some die completely. Your inability to imagine what can come next is no barrier to what's coming next. Today you understand automation and the power of computing so are make arguments based on their perceived abilities. Tomorrows tech will have different limitations, abilities, and requirements. 

[Bender]

1 hour ago, Ten oz said:

This was my point regarding people having jobs today that did not exist 50yrs ago. Every job becomes obsolete. That has always been the case. 

We appear to be reaching a stage where jobs become obsolete faster than they are created. Eg: once self-driving cars are a fact, they will replace human drivers at an enormous rate, rendering a large percentage of taxi drivers, truck drivers, etc unemployed in a matter of years.

Administration is also automated everywhere, although the government is now keeping that "problem" at bay by creating more arbitrary administration.

4 hours ago, ALine said:

All of this while the population would be growing due to an increase in health services due to anyone being able to have access to health tips and medication, assuming UBI would be able to handle the price difference.

1) there is a strong correlation between better health care and population decrease. Rich people who have better access also have less children. 

2) apart from the decrease in population, health care costs would decrease dramatically due to a drop in stress or poverty induced health problems.

[Ten oz]

1 hour ago, Bender said:

We appear to be reaching a stage where jobs become obsolete faster than they are created. Eg: once self-driving cars are a fact, they will replace human drivers at an enormous rate, rendering a large percentage of taxi drivers, truck drivers, etc unemployed in a matter of years.

Administration is also automated everywhere, although the government is now keeping that "problem" at bay by creating more arbitrary administration.

Humanity as a whole is having a great run. 

Quote

 

According to the World Bank, more than 500 million people were lifted out of extreme poverty as China’s poverty rate fell from 88 percent in 1981 to 6.5 percent in 2012, as measured by the percentage of people living on the equivalent of US$1.90 or less per day in 2011 purchasing price parity terms.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_China

 

Less people are living in poverty, not more. Where is the evidence of a turning pointing where automation diminishes human opportunity? 

[Bender]

6 hours ago, Ten oz said:

Humanity as a whole is having a great run. 

Less people are living in poverty, not more. Where is the evidence of a turning pointing where automation diminishes human opportunity? 

I never said there is an increase in poverty. I suggested job creation is no longer keeping up with technology and provided examples of why this will get worse in the future. See this graph.

Our current economic model cannot handle a large unemployment rates, UBI can, by rendering the concept of unemployment meaningless.

Edited July 4, 2018 by Bender

[ALine]

10 hours ago, Ten oz said:

This was my point regarding people having jobs today that did not exist 50yrs ago. Every job becomes obsolete. That has always been the case. 

As for the rest of your post I can not make heads or tails of it. Many industries come and go. Some die completely. Your inability to imagine what can come next is no barrier to what's coming next. Today you understand automation and the power of computing so are make arguments based on their perceived abilities. Tomorrows tech will have different limitations, abilities, and requirements. 

Did you not watch the videos? It explains that innovation does lead to new jobs but more jobs are being created and being taken by automation faster than anyone can come up with new innovations to prevent this from happening.

My job is to create new inventions and innovations and I am saying that I cannot even keep up. Once I come up with a new idea I think, " Hey you know what would be nice? Making this automated so I will not have to worry about paying anyone else to do this job for me." And I automate it and it is done. I do not think about trying to involve humans because they are slow, inefficient and cost too much. 

7 hours ago, Ten oz said:

Less people are living in poverty, not more. Where is the evidence of a turning pointing where automation diminishes human opportunity? 

One of my videos shows an example of this happening. I would suggest watching it, it is a good watch.

 

 

Also sorry, did it again. I will not respond anymore and will create a new thread.

Edited July 4, 2018 by ALine

[Ten oz]

5 hours ago, ALine said:

Did you not watch the videos? It explains that innovation does lead to new jobs but more jobs are being created and being taken by automation faster than anyone can come up with new innovations to prevent this from happening.

The trajectory has been one of people being lifted out of poverty and not vice versa. Provide me some stats that show some combo of jobs, quality of life,  and wealth diminishing over the last 50yrs.  Automation have been replacing jobs for 200yrs and during that 200yrs global poverty has fallen and a staggering rate. You are arguing that there is some sort of upper limit which we are approaching but have no data to support that. Just videos of people pontificating about the future. 

Quote

 

The World Bank only publishes data on absolute poverty from 1981 onwards, but researchers have reconstructed information about the living standards of the more distant past. The seminal paper on this was written by Bourguignon and Morrison in 2002.4 In this paper, the two authors reconstruct measures of poverty as far back as 1820. The poverty line of 1.90 int.-$ per day was just introduced in 2015, so the 2002 paper uses the measure of 'one dollar per day'. This difference in the definition of poverty should be kept in mind when comparing the following graph to those discussed in other sections of this entry.

In 1820, the vast majority of people lived in extreme poverty and only a tiny elite enjoyed higher standards of living. Economic growth over the last 200 years completely transformed our world, with poverty falling continuously over the last two centuries. This is even more remarkable when we consider that the population increased 7-fold over the same time. In a world without economic growth, an increase in the population would result in less and less income for everyone. A 7-fold increase in the world population would be potentially enough to drive everyone into extreme poverty. Yet, the exact opposite happened. In a time of unprecedented population growth, we managed to lift more and more people out of poverty.

https://ourworldindata.org/extreme-poverty

 

Ultimately this whole line of debate is useless to the BUI as automation is here to stay with or without BUI. 

6 hours ago, Bender said:

I never said there is an increase in poverty. I suggested job creation is no longer keeping up with technology and provided examples of why this will get worse in the future. See this graph.

Our current economic model cannot handle a large unemployment rates, UBI can, by rendering the concept of unemployment meaningless.

What does this have to do with BUI? 

Edited July 4, 2018 by Ten oz

[Bender]

8 hours ago, Ten oz said:

What does this have to do with BUI? 

 

14 hours ago, Bender said:

Our current economic model cannot handle a large unemployment rates, UBI can, by rendering the concept of unemployment meaningless.