Universal Basic Income

[Stom]

UBI has to be the way forward. But that means tax needs to be raised from somewhere...and that means breaking the stranglehold shareholders have over governments...which isn't going to happen now, is it.

While I do think there's something of a revolution just around the corner, I think this is a bit much to ask for. I think we're more likely to see only a minor revolution, with small changes to company regulations rather than system change.

How much more corp tax should be paid by your reckoning? Rate is up to 25% now, with some of the windfall taxed at 75% or higher. Or have you another mechanism in mind?

Oh, I think the whole system is broken and profits should be taxed at 80% or so to eliminate shareholders having such a large say over direction.

But there would need to be mechanisms in place to encourage lending toward small businesses and startups.

And, yes, I know what that means to pension pots. But we don't have pension pots as such. You do, and other "boomers", but younger millenials and younger generations don't have much in the way of savings - the cost of housing has risen too much for that.

On UBI, I think it's the best mechanism to promote actual innovation and quality of life improvements. If people know that they do not need to work 40+ hours a week just to get by, they're going to make more informed decisions about how to spend their time. That could lead to increased spend on leisure activities, a decrease in stress related illnesses, more local travel, better childcare conditions, and so on.

Yes, it would also lead to a dramatic increase in the price of things like fruit and so on, but those are the industries we really need innovation in. We should be looking to AI and machines to eliminate fruit picking jobs, for instance. They already have those tractors to harvest oranges, so it takes one person a lot less time and effort to pick the fruit. Expand that, that's what AI should be working on, not encroaching upon the arts.

[Stom]

UBI has to be the way forward. But that means tax needs to be raised from somewhere...and that means breaking the stranglehold shareholders have over governments...which isn't going to happen now, is it.

While I do think there's something of a revolution just around the corner, I think this is a bit much to ask for. I think we're more likely to see only a minor revolution, with small changes to company regulations rather than system change.

I was reading somewhere that one of the proposals was to eliminate tax loopholes and reliefs as a way of finding this. I’ve not checked if that would be sufficient or not, but what’s considered a level of decent level of income now will only increase over time.

IIRC the Swedish experiment indicated that there was no significant increase or decrease in productivity as a result. So no evidence that it will encourage swathes of people to give up work, but equally no evidence that it encourages those out of work to look. Maybe the uk tests will add something but they seem too small scale to really inform either way on any of the key issues.

I always think that places like Sweden are not good examples to use, as they're an extremist outlier. If UBI is tried in Germany, Netherlands, UK, France, Belgium, Poland, generally temperate countries, it would be much more representative. IMO.

I agree these tests are small scale. But the fact is, we need to boost real innovation. AI exists now, but it's mainly crap and used for really poor applications instead of actually improving our lives. If people don't need to work, they can spend more time on projects that can have an impact on lives, rather than on productivity.

[Banquo]

UBI has to be the way forward. But that means tax needs to be raised from somewhere...and that means breaking the stranglehold shareholders have over governments...which isn't going to happen now, is it.

While I do think there's something of a revolution just around the corner, I think this is a bit much to ask for. I think we're more likely to see only a minor revolution, with small changes to company regulations rather than system change.

How much more corp tax should be paid by your reckoning? Rate is up to 25% now, with some of the windfall taxed at 75% or higher. Or have you another mechanism in mind?

Oh, I think the whole system is broken and profits should be taxed at 80% or so to eliminate shareholders having such a large say over direction.

But there would need to be mechanisms in place to encourage lending toward small businesses and startups.

And, yes, I know what that means to pension pots. But we don't have pension pots as such. You do, and other "boomers", but younger millenials and younger generations don't have much in the way of savings - the cost of housing has risen too much for that.

apologies for working for 40 years and saving . On a semi serious note, we were utterly brassic in 91 when Interest rates were c13% and had a chunky mortgage.....not entirely the serene journey to boomerville.

As for the first para...lol.

[Sandydragon]

UBI has to be the way forward. But that means tax needs to be raised from somewhere...and that means breaking the stranglehold shareholders have over governments...which isn't going to happen now, is it.

While I do think there's something of a revolution just around the corner, I think this is a bit much to ask for. I think we're more likely to see only a minor revolution, with small changes to company regulations rather than system change.

How much more corp tax should be paid by your reckoning? Rate is up to 25% now, with some of the windfall taxed at 75% or higher. Or have you another mechanism in mind?

Oh, I think the whole system is broken and profits should be taxed at 80% or so to eliminate shareholders having such a large say over direction.

But there would need to be mechanisms in place to encourage lending toward small businesses and startups.

And, yes, I know what that means to pension pots. But we don't have pension pots as such. You do, and other "boomers", but younger millenials and younger generations don't have much in the way of savings - the cost of housing has risen too much for that.

On UBI, I think it's the best mechanism to promote actual innovation and quality of life improvements. If people know that they do not need to work 40+ hours a week just to get by, they're going to make more informed decisions about how to spend their time. That could lead to increased spend on leisure activities, a decrease in stress related illnesses, more local travel, better childcare conditions, and so on.

Yes, it would also lead to a dramatic increase in the price of things like fruit and so on, but those are the industries we really need innovation in. We should be looking to AI and machines to eliminate fruit picking jobs, for instance. They already have those tractors to harvest oranges, so it takes one person a lot less time and effort to pick the fruit. Expand that, that's what AI should be working on, not encroaching upon the arts.

That’s an argument for fixing the pensions system for everyone, not hammering a particular demographic.

[Stom]

How much more corp tax should be paid by your reckoning? Rate is up to 25% now, with some of the windfall taxed at 75% or higher. Or have you another mechanism in mind?

Oh, I think the whole system is broken and profits should be taxed at 80% or so to eliminate shareholders having such a large say over direction.

But there would need to be mechanisms in place to encourage lending toward small businesses and startups.

And, yes, I know what that means to pension pots. But we don't have pension pots as such. You do, and other "boomers", but younger millenials and younger generations don't have much in the way of savings - the cost of housing has risen too much for that.

On UBI, I think it's the best mechanism to promote actual innovation and quality of life improvements. If people know that they do not need to work 40+ hours a week just to get by, they're going to make more informed decisions about how to spend their time. That could lead to increased spend on leisure activities, a decrease in stress related illnesses, more local travel, better childcare conditions, and so on.

Yes, it would also lead to a dramatic increase in the price of things like fruit and so on, but those are the industries we really need innovation in. We should be looking to AI and machines to eliminate fruit picking jobs, for instance. They already have those tractors to harvest oranges, so it takes one person a lot less time and effort to pick the fruit. Expand that, that's what AI should be working on, not encroaching upon the arts.

That’s an argument for fixing the pensions system for everyone, not hammering a particular demographic.

Oh absolutely, this isn't the thread for that, though. I shared it elsewhere: we should put a mechanism in place to pay out on pension funds or turn all the investments into government bonds or something else. Just the system needs to change.

UBI would mean companies could basically pay whatever they wanted: if wages weren't high enough, no-one would work for them, which would benefit society a lot.

[Banquo]

Oh, I think the whole system is broken and profits should be taxed at 80% or so to eliminate shareholders having such a large say over direction.

But there would need to be mechanisms in place to encourage lending toward small businesses and startups.

And, yes, I know what that means to pension pots. But we don't have pension pots as such. You do, and other "boomers", but younger millenials and younger generations don't have much in the way of savings - the cost of housing has risen too much for that.

On UBI, I think it's the best mechanism to promote actual innovation and quality of life improvements. If people know that they do not need to work 40+ hours a week just to get by, they're going to make more informed decisions about how to spend their time. That could lead to increased spend on leisure activities, a decrease in stress related illnesses, more local travel, better childcare conditions, and so on.

Yes, it would also lead to a dramatic increase in the price of things like fruit and so on, but those are the industries we really need innovation in. We should be looking to AI and machines to eliminate fruit picking jobs, for instance. They already have those tractors to harvest oranges, so it takes one person a lot less time and effort to pick the fruit. Expand that, that's what AI should be working on, not encroaching upon the arts.

That’s an argument for fixing the pensions system for everyone, not hammering a particular demographic.

Oh absolutely, this isn't the thread for that, though. I shared it elsewhere: we should put a mechanism in place to pay out on pension funds or turn all the investments into government bonds or something else. Just the system needs to change.

UBI would mean companies could basically pay whatever they wanted: if wages weren't high enough, no-one would work for them, which would benefit society a lot.

...how much do you reckon you need to do that?

[Sandydragon]

I won’t quote you Stom as the post will be huge.

Arguably, if everyone get IBI then pensions become meaningless.

[Stom]

I won’t quote you Stom as the post will be huge.

Arguably, if everyone get IBI then pensions become meaningless.

Yes, they would.

Over time.

Those who started work in the late 70s and are retiring around now have often (not always) built up pension pots that are far in excess of £1,600 a month. While I do feel those pensions have contributed to the situation we find ourselves in, I also feel like it's not fair to simply strip those away. They should be protected to some extent, somehow.

But hey, I'm not an economist. I did Politics and Sociology, not Economics.

[Banquo]

I won’t quote you Stom as the post will be huge.

Arguably, if everyone get IBI then pensions become meaningless.

I also feel like it's not fair to simply strip those away. They should be protected to some extent, somehow.

But hey, I'm not an economist.

Big of you- especially as most pensions are money purchase savings schemes, albeit a lot with matched employer contributions at least.

And true.

[Sandydragon]

I won’t quote you Stom as the post will be huge.

Arguably, if everyone get IBI then pensions become meaningless.

I also feel like it's not fair to simply strip those away. They should be protected to some extent, somehow.

But hey, I'm not an economist.

Big of you- especially as most pensions are money purchase savings schemes, albeit a lot with matched employer contributions at least.

And true.

Agreed. I’ve contributed to my pensions (most of them anyway) so I’m not going to give up my money. They probably still have a place, after all I’ll still get a state pension so if UBI replaces that the any private arrangements are on top of that. The same way any salary would be on top of UBI and taxed accordingly.

[Banquo]

I also feel like it's not fair to simply strip those away. They should be protected to some extent, somehow.

But hey, I'm not an economist.

Big of you- especially as most pensions are money purchase savings schemes, albeit a lot with matched employer contributions at least.

And true.

Agreed. I’ve contributed to my pensions (most of them anyway) so I’m not going to give up my money. They probably still have a place, after all I’ll still get a state pension so if UBI replaces that the any private arrangements are on top of that. The same way any salary would be on top of UBI and taxed accordingly.

Well quite. I'd also say the pension industry is a huge employer (and c 80% of employees now are participating cos of auto enrolment), rightly or wrongly....mind, could prob be replaced by AI

[Sandydragon]

I’d still contribute to a private pension. If you can afford to do so, why not? But the state pension would be redundant. It would also be a significant increase for pensioners

[Which Tyler]

Yeah, it's (most) payments from the State to individuals that would find themselves obsolete in a world with UBI.
No state pension absolutely doesn't mean that private pensions go.
Equally jobseekers would go, universal credit would go, sick pay would go, a lot of incapacity benefits would go (not all, depending on cost of the needs), marriage allowances and (state) child support/allowances would be surplus to requirement.

Hell, you could even reduce the minimum wage, as the necessary minimum would be covered, and work would be a top-up.
Tax system could be simplified, if the UBI covered the personal allowance part of income tax.

Also, the jobs that administer all of the above would go.

UBI wouldn't just be a huge expense, but also a huge saving for the government - and the simpler it is, the greater the saving.

And that's just finances; not touching on any other benefits to individuals or society.

[Stom]

Yeah, it's (most) payments from the State to individuals that would find themselves obsolete in a world with UBI.
No state pension absolutely doesn't mean that private pensions go.
Equally jobseekers would go, universal credit would go, sick pay would go, a lot of incapacity benefits would go (not all, depending on cost of the needs), marriage allowances and (state) child support/allowances would be surplus to requirement.

Hell, you could even reduce the minimum wage, as the necessary minimum would be covered, and work would be a top-up.
Tax system could be simplified, if the UBI covered the personal allowance part of income tax.

Also, the jobs that administer all of the above would go.

UBI wouldn't just be a huge expense, but also a huge saving for the government - and the simpler it is, the greater the saving.

And that's just finances; not touching on any other benefits to individuals or society.

Exactly.

However, while the minimum wage should be scrapped for anyone eligible for UBI, what do you about migrant workers or temporary overseas workers?

And, also, because no-one would "technically" need to work, I imagine wages would actually go up, so long as government checks were made on inflation.

On those pension jobs, as Banquo said, AI could take a lot of that, and that's exactly why I think now is the time for UBI. AI is here, but we're programming it to do pointless things and stuff that humans can do better. Maybe because that's what's "cool": to see the AI write poetry, or make beautiful images, but that's for humans. AI could be programmed to take over 60%+ of jobs. And that would be amazing with UBI in place. People could just choose to work part-time to supplement their basic income, they could choose to work full-time as young adults to save for a home and family, then scale back to part-time with young kids, then scale back up to full-time again to put money aside for the grandkids, et al...

It's the society we should be aiming for. Productivity doesn't need to constantly rise, it's risen way too much and young people are so jaded.

[Puja]

Yeah, it's (most) payments from the State to individuals that would find themselves obsolete in a world with UBI.
No state pension absolutely doesn't mean that private pensions go.
Equally jobseekers would go, universal credit would go, sick pay would go, a lot of incapacity benefits would go (not all, depending on cost of the needs), marriage allowances and (state) child support/allowances would be surplus to requirement.

Hell, you could even reduce the minimum wage, as the necessary minimum would be covered, and work would be a top-up.
Tax system could be simplified, if the UBI covered the personal allowance part of income tax.

Also, the jobs that administer all of the above would go.

UBI wouldn't just be a huge expense, but also a huge saving for the government - and the simpler it is, the greater the saving.

And that's just finances; not touching on any other benefits to individuals or society.

Exactly.

However, while the minimum wage should be scrapped for anyone eligible for UBI, what do you about migrant workers or temporary overseas workers?

And, also, because no-one would "technically" need to work, I imagine wages would actually go up, so long as government checks were made on inflation.

On those pension jobs, as Banquo said, AI could take a lot of that, and that's exactly why I think now is the time for UBI. AI is here, but we're programming it to do pointless things and stuff that humans can do better. Maybe because that's what's "cool": to see the AI write poetry, or make beautiful images, but that's for humans. AI could be programmed to take over 60%+ of jobs. And that would be amazing with UBI in place. People could just choose to work part-time to supplement their basic income, they could choose to work full-time as young adults to save for a home and family, then scale back to part-time with young kids, then scale back up to full-time again to put money aside for the grandkids, et al...

It's the society we should be aiming for. Productivity doesn't need to constantly rise, it's risen way too much and young people are so jaded.

I will take a moment to note that AI is not ready to take over most jobs yet. It's had a leap forward, true, but it's very far from being reliable.

However, even without AI, I'd say a UBI would be incredible because it would rid the government of the need to keep employment high. Look at the effort that goes into luring Amazon, Tata, Vauxhall - all of them with subsidies, rebates, barely any tax paid - simply because, if they went, there'd be mass unemployment. If people had enough to live, then we wouldn't need to be scrapping with other countries and hobbling our tax take to acquire and retain low wage, low skill, mass employers.

Puja

[Sandydragon]

Yeah, it's (most) payments from the State to individuals that would find themselves obsolete in a world with UBI.
No state pension absolutely doesn't mean that private pensions go.
Equally jobseekers would go, universal credit would go, sick pay would go, a lot of incapacity benefits would go (not all, depending on cost of the needs), marriage allowances and (state) child support/allowances would be surplus to requirement.

Hell, you could even reduce the minimum wage, as the necessary minimum would be covered, and work would be a top-up.
Tax system could be simplified, if the UBI covered the personal allowance part of income tax.

Also, the jobs that administer all of the above would go.

UBI wouldn't just be a huge expense, but also a huge saving for the government - and the simpler it is, the greater the saving.

And that's just finances; not touching on any other benefits to individuals or society.

No need for free bus passes and tv licenses etc. DWP would be a lot smaller for sure. Barring any top up for the more serious disabilities, the assessment would be far easier.

I agree , minimum wage would become irrelevant, which would give businesses flexibility although workers may choose not to bother if paid too little.

[Sandydragon]

The main argument against seems to be that the entire population would put their feet up. I’m not entirely sure that’s correct. Some people will of course choose that lifestyle. Personally I’d be bored to tears but it would enable me to consider part time work which would free up an opportunity for someone else.

[Puja]

The main argument against seems to be that the entire population would put their feet up. I’m not entirely sure that’s correct. Some people will of course choose that lifestyle. Personally I’d be bored to tears but it would enable me to consider part time work which would free up an opportunity for someone else.

I think that argument is obviated by the fact that people don't currently reduce their work hours to part time to just earn the minimum they need to survive - we already choose to work more than we "have" to, because people like money and the shiny things that can be acquired by having money.

The major paradigm shift would be in low income jobs - a very sizeable chunk of retail workers hate their jobs and do it because they need money to survive. If they no longer need to work to pay bills, they'd be gone in a puff of dust like the Roadrunner. Would companies be able to reduce jobs with technology? Would the job become more alluring as a low-stress top-up income for people? Would companies tey and improve their workplace and culture to lure people back?

Answers on a postcard please.

Puja

[Stom]

The main argument against seems to be that the entire population would put their feet up. I’m not entirely sure that’s correct. Some people will of course choose that lifestyle. Personally I’d be bored to tears but it would enable me to consider part time work which would free up an opportunity for someone else.

I think that argument is obviated by the fact that people don't currently reduce their work hours to part time to just earn the minimum they need to survive - we already choose to work more than we "have" to, because people like money and the shiny things that can be acquired by having money.

The major paradigm shift would be in low income jobs - a very sizeable chunk of retail workers hate their jobs and do it because they need money to survive. If they no longer need to work to pay bills, they'd be gone in a puff of dust like the Roadrunner. Would companies be able to reduce jobs with technology? Would the job become more alluring as a low-stress top-up income for people? Would companies tey and improve their workplace and culture to lure people back?

Answers on a postcard please.

Puja

The latter, which has to be a good thing.

[Stom]

Yeah, it's (most) payments from the State to individuals that would find themselves obsolete in a world with UBI.
No state pension absolutely doesn't mean that private pensions go.
Equally jobseekers would go, universal credit would go, sick pay would go, a lot of incapacity benefits would go (not all, depending on cost of the needs), marriage allowances and (state) child support/allowances would be surplus to requirement.

Hell, you could even reduce the minimum wage, as the necessary minimum would be covered, and work would be a top-up.
Tax system could be simplified, if the UBI covered the personal allowance part of income tax.

Also, the jobs that administer all of the above would go.

UBI wouldn't just be a huge expense, but also a huge saving for the government - and the simpler it is, the greater the saving.

And that's just finances; not touching on any other benefits to individuals or society.

Exactly.

However, while the minimum wage should be scrapped for anyone eligible for UBI, what do you about migrant workers or temporary overseas workers?

And, also, because no-one would "technically" need to work, I imagine wages would actually go up, so long as government checks were made on inflation.

On those pension jobs, as Banquo said, AI could take a lot of that, and that's exactly why I think now is the time for UBI. AI is here, but we're programming it to do pointless things and stuff that humans can do better. Maybe because that's what's "cool": to see the AI write poetry, or make beautiful images, but that's for humans. AI could be programmed to take over 60%+ of jobs. And that would be amazing with UBI in place. People could just choose to work part-time to supplement their basic income, they could choose to work full-time as young adults to save for a home and family, then scale back to part-time with young kids, then scale back up to full-time again to put money aside for the grandkids, et al...

It's the society we should be aiming for. Productivity doesn't need to constantly rise, it's risen way too much and young people are so jaded.

I will take a moment to note that AI is not ready to take over most jobs yet. It's had a leap forward, true, but it's very far from being reliable.

However, even without AI, I'd say a UBI would be incredible because it would rid the government of the need to keep employment high. Look at the effort that goes into luring Amazon, Tata, Vauxhall - all of them with subsidies, rebates, barely any tax paid - simply because, if they went, there'd be mass unemployment. If people had enough to live, then we wouldn't need to be scrapping with other countries and hobbling our tax take to acquire and retain low wage, low skill, mass employers.

Puja

While I agree with the idea it cannot take the actual jobs, it can take 80% of the actual work quite easily.

Remember, AI doesn't mean ChatGPT, et al. It can also mean self driving vehicles in mines, ports, and so on. In fact, these are all actually a reality now. It can mean AI generated fertilizing patterns for farms, which are generally more accurate than manually create ones, saving time for the farmers. It can mean automated check in systems at airports, so instead of needing 4 check-in staff, you need one to help anyone who can't follow simple instructions. It can mean warehousing robots that collect the product, meaning you now only need a QC person and not a team of shelf pickers.

And because that latter exists already, it could quite easily be ported to take care of other work, such as fruit picking.

As Banquo said, most pension teams could be turned to AI. The same can go for insurance, for many industries, with only customer service a needed human presence.

While a human is needed at some stages of most AI journeys, the robots can still take 80% of the work. And that's a good thing.

[Banquo]

Exactly.

However, while the minimum wage should be scrapped for anyone eligible for UBI, what do you about migrant workers or temporary overseas workers?

And, also, because no-one would "technically" need to work, I imagine wages would actually go up, so long as government checks were made on inflation.

On those pension jobs, as Banquo said, AI could take a lot of that, and that's exactly why I think now is the time for UBI. AI is here, but we're programming it to do pointless things and stuff that humans can do better. Maybe because that's what's "cool": to see the AI write poetry, or make beautiful images, but that's for humans. AI could be programmed to take over 60%+ of jobs. And that would be amazing with UBI in place. People could just choose to work part-time to supplement their basic income, they could choose to work full-time as young adults to save for a home and family, then scale back to part-time with young kids, then scale back up to full-time again to put money aside for the grandkids, et al...

It's the society we should be aiming for. Productivity doesn't need to constantly rise, it's risen way too much and young people are so jaded.

I will take a moment to note that AI is not ready to take over most jobs yet. It's had a leap forward, true, but it's very far from being reliable.

However, even without AI, I'd say a UBI would be incredible because it would rid the government of the need to keep employment high. Look at the effort that goes into luring Amazon, Tata, Vauxhall - all of them with subsidies, rebates, barely any tax paid - simply because, if they went, there'd be mass unemployment. If people had enough to live, then we wouldn't need to be scrapping with other countries and hobbling our tax take to acquire and retain low wage, low skill, mass employers.

Puja

While I agree with the idea it cannot take the actual jobs, it can take 80% of the actual work quite easily.

Remember, AI doesn't mean ChatGPT, et al. It can also mean self driving vehicles in mines, ports, and so on. In fact, these are all actually a reality now. It can mean AI generated fertilizing patterns for farms, which are generally more accurate than manually create ones, saving time for the farmers. It can mean automated check in systems at airports, so instead of needing 4 check-in staff, you need one to help anyone who can't follow simple instructions. It can mean warehousing robots that collect the product, meaning you now only need a QC person and not a team of shelf pickers.

And because that latter exists already, it could quite easily be ported to take care of other work, such as fruit picking.

As Banquo said, most pension teams could be turned to AI. The same can go for insurance, for many industries, with only customer service a needed human presence.

While a human is needed at some stages of most AI journeys, the robots can still take 80% of the work. And that's a good thing.

Healthcare will be massively impacted by AI....eventually.

[Stom]

I will take a moment to note that AI is not ready to take over most jobs yet. It's had a leap forward, true, but it's very far from being reliable.

However, even without AI, I'd say a UBI would be incredible because it would rid the government of the need to keep employment high. Look at the effort that goes into luring Amazon, Tata, Vauxhall - all of them with subsidies, rebates, barely any tax paid - simply because, if they went, there'd be mass unemployment. If people had enough to live, then we wouldn't need to be scrapping with other countries and hobbling our tax take to acquire and retain low wage, low skill, mass employers.

Puja

While I agree with the idea it cannot take the actual jobs, it can take 80% of the actual work quite easily.

Remember, AI doesn't mean ChatGPT, et al. It can also mean self driving vehicles in mines, ports, and so on. In fact, these are all actually a reality now. It can mean AI generated fertilizing patterns for farms, which are generally more accurate than manually create ones, saving time for the farmers. It can mean automated check in systems at airports, so instead of needing 4 check-in staff, you need one to help anyone who can't follow simple instructions. It can mean warehousing robots that collect the product, meaning you now only need a QC person and not a team of shelf pickers.

And because that latter exists already, it could quite easily be ported to take care of other work, such as fruit picking.

As Banquo said, most pension teams could be turned to AI. The same can go for insurance, for many industries, with only customer service a needed human presence.

While a human is needed at some stages of most AI journeys, the robots can still take 80% of the work. And that's a good thing.

Healthcare will be massively impacted by AI....eventually.

That's a lot of "customer" facing, though. That's where we need humans, imo.

In back office, however. That was one of the only applications of blockchain that I was instantly on board with. It's possible to store patient data in a very secure and yet very easily accessible manner, which would make record keeping a lot easier. You could use machine learning algorithms to speed up anything in the background to do with patient follow up, notices, repeat prescriptions, and the list goes on.

[Sandydragon]

The main argument against seems to be that the entire population would put their feet up. I’m not entirely sure that’s correct. Some people will of course choose that lifestyle. Personally I’d be bored to tears but it would enable me to consider part time work which would free up an opportunity for someone else.

I think that argument is obviated by the fact that people don't currently reduce their work hours to part time to just earn the minimum they need to survive - we already choose to work more than we "have" to, because people like money and the shiny things that can be acquired by having money.

The major paradigm shift would be in low income jobs - a very sizeable chunk of retail workers hate their jobs and do it because they need money to survive. If they no longer need to work to pay bills, they'd be gone in a puff of dust like the Roadrunner. Would companies be able to reduce jobs with technology? Would the job become more alluring as a low-stress top-up income for people? Would companies tey and improve their workplace and culture to lure people back?

Answers on a postcard please.

Puja

Yeah, there is a huge risk of lower paid jobs going vacant (controlled immigration?). But then do you have a scenario where poorer British people are getting UBI paid for by foreign workers- that doesn’t sound healthy.

Sooooo. Employers will need to pay more to attract people to the crapper jobs (assuming a machine isn’t doing them) which could lead to inflation. Equally some lower paid jobs are actually important so for them not to happen isn’t great.

I suspect that in reality many in low paid jobs will continue to work as, well, it would be boring not to. £1600 per month is great but hardly a millionaire income and will only get you so far. If you want a foreign holiday and a nice car then you’re going to have to work. Which probably means that you would need a tax free banding to encourage that. Which then leads to questions about affordability.

IBI works as a concept when those poorly paid jobs aren’t there, but I think that day will come in time.

[padprop]

Fundamentally, British 2022 GDP was 2.2 trillion. UBI at 1600 per month for those over 16 would be 7.8 trillion by my maths. Do we really expect to more than triple quadruple GDP in a generation of demographic change and prolonged stagnation? I’m not saying its impossible but it just seems like such a utopian view its akin to computers meaning people will have to work 10 hour work weeks.

I am pro the idea of UBI, but do worry it will be used as a crutch from AI companies to justify business.

*please correct my maths if I’m wrong, but the numbers seem so far away to be taken seriously*

[Mellsblue]

While I agree with the idea it cannot take the actual jobs, it can take 80% of the actual work quite easily.

Remember, AI doesn't mean ChatGPT, et al. It can also mean self driving vehicles in mines, ports, and so on. In fact, these are all actually a reality now. It can mean AI generated fertilizing patterns for farms, which are generally more accurate than manually create ones, saving time for the farmers. It can mean automated check in systems at airports, so instead of needing 4 check-in staff, you need one to help anyone who can't follow simple instructions. It can mean warehousing robots that collect the product, meaning you now only need a QC person and not a team of shelf pickers.

And because that latter exists already, it could quite easily be ported to take care of other work, such as fruit picking.

As Banquo said, most pension teams could be turned to AI. The same can go for insurance, for many industries, with only customer service a needed human presence.

While a human is needed at some stages of most AI journeys, the robots can still take 80% of the work. And that's a good thing.

Healthcare will be massively impacted by AI....eventually.

That's a lot of "customer" facing, though. That's where we need humans, imo.

In back office, however. That was one of the only applications of blockchain that I was instantly on board with. It's possible to store patient data in a very secure and yet very easily accessible manner, which would make record keeping a lot easier. You could use machine learning algorithms to speed up anything in the background to do with patient follow up, notices, repeat prescriptions, and the list goes on.

Banquo will know loads more than me but it won’t be long, relatively, until all/the vast majority of surgery and analysis of scans etc will be undertaken by AI. We could find we’re training and importing a load of doctors and nurses that will be surplus to requirements in the future. I suppose they can fill the yawning void in social care staffing but they won’t like the pay cut.