/lit/ - Literature

basic income

>>11405989
This.

Two biggest branches of thinking are
>Dude Elysium (2013)
or what the fags have termed "Luxury Automated Gay Space Communism," where automation takes off to a point that all non-artistic work (and some artistic work) is automated and seized, allowing everyone to hold hands and fly into the sun

>>11405989
>>11405991

Yes, but that becomes a new low class of "welfare" society.

Humans don't do well with no real work or goals.

>>11405985
>What do we do with those with low IQ?
We invent 4chan and leave them to it
That should keep them occupied for a bit

>>11405996
>or what the fags have termed "Luxury Automated Gay Space Communism"
lmfao

Society’s leaders are currently doing their best to get rid of low IQ population via excessive amounts of sugar / meth / netflix series / dangerous neighbourhoods.
All that’s left is cracking down on affordable health care (eventually) and enabling even more people to truly lead a degenerate no-exercise high-carb life via UBI.

>>11405998
this isn't about motivation, this is about restructuring the human society

engineers and programmers are not the end-all, they are one of the first to go as well as big data becomes integrated, the individual will gradually lose the ability to make any impact on the world economy except for the very few

basic income already comes in the form of wage suppression, by keeping wages down brick and mortar companies can hire a steady amount of turnovers without being brought out, even with such bad suppression when you walk into a department store there is hardly anyone on the floor like the good old days

practical capitalist welfare by the corporations is already here, it's just on the level of mass low wage employment rather than cold hard dollars in hand

no matter how much political swing you want to put on it a mass majority of people will need to be supported, one way or another

this is the book board faggot

We put everyone with low IQ in big pit. We dump super hot cheese in pit. We make grill cheese and go home. Or we feed robot autonomy tron. Either or.

> low IQ
*snaps*

>>11405985
people are as smart as they're ever going to be and it's all reverse now

>>11405985
>> there are 2 million Uber drivers many who do that for their main source of income
sure there are "many" who do but i bet it's not "most"
in my experience most uber drivers are people who do it part time to get a bit of extra cash
it's usually indian IT people

Automation will solve itself in the long-term. To start to get rid of the thought that every low skill job is just going to vanish, robots will never be better than humans at creative (in every sense, not just art bros) and empathic roles. It also isn't going to happen magically and will be small transition with some roles being very difficult to fully automate (cleaners for example, getting the contors correct for all kinds of windows, surfaces, etc will be very expensive and probably not warrant the cost). So we are likely to get robots in a mostly assitory role, allowing 1 man to do the job of many.

Now, for those that are 'forced' out of work. The wonders of capitalism will take care of that. The basic necessities are going to become extremely cheap, housing, food and energy production are all poised to be automated and make welfare much more affordable for the state. Then when you have companies and workers earning more money (those that move into more complex work, not to mention the need to raise incentive when cost of living is low), this money will of course be taxed (taxes may need to rise but I'm uncertainty on this) making it easier again to provide for welfare. Now for my favourite part... All those rich people with low living costs, how are they going to spend all that money? Well you can bet that expensive (potentially custom) consumer products start hitting the market which in turn leads to more job creation and after enough time will be ready to go through this cycle all over again.

Anyone who suggests basic income or communism doesn't realise it's just going increase inequality ten fold and make their relative poverty (actual poverty is very rare in the first world) much worse.

>>11405989
>>11405991
>>11406010
What type of retard do you have to be to think rich people will perpetually fund the lives of retard urchins?
Basic income scenarios will just lead directly to Neo-Feudalism, you want to live on my dime you're my fucking serf

>>11406057
They already do

>>11406062
Some of them do a lot of them objectively do not and this in the current scenario where they don't have to pay +90% tax on their income.
They either have their wealth stowed in tax haven nations and increasingly crypto currencies have become a popular means of keeping cash from governments. The ability to hold onto wealth will only increase as Blockchain technology increases

Garbage time is over, you're fucked if you can't contribute

>>11406070
It's not about taxes it's about maintaining pointless jobs and industries

>>11406050

But capitalism already isn't providing enough jobs for low IQ workers. We have college graduates working at Starbucks and Trader Joes.

>>11406074
Durr alright we'll just keep asking people to keep voluntarily pouring their money down the money hole forever, great plan

>>11405985
>45%
No

>>11406080
Physical chains are not needed no matter how good you feel about them

>>11406081
Its true. Its a standard deviation in the West but not in Africa

>>11406083
Oh they very much are, I want to see poorshit humanity grad girls getting all Princess Leia for me if they want to survive

What we know:

>Democratic governments are completely incompetent and too slow to act to fix problems like this
>At the same time, they very well may try to "regulate" any attempt by a non state actor to solve the problem
>Of which there is no guarantee of existence
>Automation is only going to accelerate, not slow down

So what does this mean? A lot of poverty, misery, and unrest.

What do you think all this "culture war" shit is about? Set the proles against one another, let the population decimate itself. Death squads just provoke a rebellion

>>11406137
Natural frustration

>>11406088

Kys you embarrassing subhuman

>>11405998
>Humans don't do well with no real work or goals.
Right now, a shitload of humans care very much about who is better at kicking a ball. Most work is bullshit already and humans are doing fine.

>>11406152
lol nah prefer not to bro. Hope I get your oneitis in my cockslave village

>>11406156
>humans are doing fine
Do we live in the same world?

>>11406156
>a shitload of humans care very much about who is better at kicking a ball
that's literally about goals mate

>>11406076
Your statement doesn't make any sense, do you believe college grads have low IQs?

Anyway capitalism isn't a perfect system, no system can be in this world and that's why I never stated that everyone would have job, in fact I implied that more people would be out of work than they are now, just that it would be much easier to take care of them.

Regarding college grads, just because you have a degree doesn't mean you are capable or deserving of working a good job. Most degrees are irrelevant to work and basic work skills aren't even taught. I'm from the UK so I am talking from the understanding of our education system but I believe the economy would be in a much better position if less people were going into higher education because most do it only out of apathy towards work/taking responsibility.

>>11406157
you'd be one of the serfs moron

>>11406232
Nah I'm /biz/g/ about to make my crypto billions

>>11406182
This meme again. I'd love to see what you thought of live in any other period, even as soon as 75 years ago daily meals weren't a guarantee in first world countries. Poverty has basically been irradiated in the 1st world and vastly reduced elsewhere. The problem we have now is relative poverty and generation so used to having their comforts being given to them that they are somehow entitled to them.

Name a period of time that was genuinely better for everyone (not just the wealthy) than it is today?

>>11405998
Only because the culturally embedded notion of work is suddenly removed. If they directed their time and energies to their own projects and study, they'd not only be more fulfilled than their usual contemporary """work""" they will actually have their own direction and purpose. Shit, assuming basic income isn't just a minimal to ensure proles continue subsisting, in which case, crime and goals like pro gamer/esports would be increasingly popular as they provide money beyond what is possible. Then you could actually do things like being a real craftsman, making things of interest (cultural and commercial) with your very own hands. Surely that's more than hamster-wheel office clerical work that I could literally automate myself with a a few python scripts and proper effective arrangement of technology/software/management.

>>11406023
Yes, and then the rest of the world starves. It's like saying bomb all undeveloped countries when they're the ones that hold up the privileged lifestyles of developed countries (lessening of that privilege brought about by more and more countries rising up).

>>11406245
I mean this sincerely - please keep promulgating this view, it bothers me so much that people think this is at all a disadvantageous time in history to be alive

(not that you need my approval)

>>11406245
>I'd love to see what you thought of live in any other period,

>>11406270
Disadvantageous towards what?
Having a wife, kids and comfortable land of your own, certainly not

>>11406291
If you go out into the world and be a normal person, you will find a woman and have kids just fine, if your issue is that women can now leave men when they're unhappy rather than being trapped in the way that they were 100 years ago, then was that really a better world?

>>11406827
>If you go out into the world and be a normal person, you will find a woman and have kids just fine

All evidence points to this not being the case in comparison to previous generations but ok dude

>>11406830
Well then provide that evidence (or at least some idea of what it might be)

>People actually believe Basic Income is even close to being possible

It's not, and never will be possible. In order for it to be possible you'd have have 90% global employment and the taxable GDP of the world would have to be orders of magnitude higher than it is now.

let them die for the next evolutionary leap

>>11406827
>then was that really a better world?

I don't think it was any worse. Women are stupid and usually just end up in worse situations leaving their husbands as a rule. Just because you're doing something because you think its the source of your unhappiness doesn't mean its the right decision

I once got an uber driver who was the director of an economy department in a university near here.

>>11406842
The amount of men going well into mature years unmarried or without relationships is radically rising. This is easily sourced knowledge
Childless couples are also of course hugely more common, almost the norm though this can be attribute to choice (or at least the woman's choice)

It is a plain fact that it is harder than its ever been as a white man to expect a loving relationship and a family today than in any recorded history of this situation

>>11406848
Sounds like you just hate women dood

>>11406874
I don't hate them, I just think they're subhuman.

>>11405985
>What do we do with those with low IQ?
prune the vine

>>11405998
>>11405989
A Basic Income needs to be addressed in term of symbolism to be understood specifically. There is no point talking about an abstract group being given an abstract amount of money. Look at specific governments, specific groups, specific amounts of money being distributed in a specific manner. The symbolic reading begins with some ideas from Joseph de Maistre. Then we're off to the races with real predictions.

>>11406859
>implying people don't lie on questionnaires about their personal life

>>11406891
>they're all lying only just in recent years only just when they suggest a narrative I don't want to accept

Shut the fuck up. Not an argument

>>11406859
This graph might just show people getting married older rather than not getting married at all.
>or at least the womans choice
Stupid thing to say, seems equally probably (if not more so in my eyes) that its generally mens choice to not have kids
>It is plain fact
It is so incredibly far from plain fact, it would be nearly impossible to even prove this point

Out of curiosity what is your educational history

>>11406881
I'm genuinely curious as to why you think that

>>11406895
Since that chart demonstrates 8% females, and 14% men, it might be as simple as representing the really ugly people of each sex.

>>11406901
Didn't read the no sex part, also where is this graph even from it has no information on it whatsoever

>>11406910
Thats only those who literally had zero sex the previous year. Then comes those who manage to have sex once, then those who manage to have sustained encounters, then those who manage to have relationships. Then those who manage to have stable relationships on which a family can be raised
That 14% quickly becomes a lot higher

>>11405985

>What do we do with useless people?

There are more useless people already than we might realize at first. This happened as far back as the Soviet Union with many factories (e.g bottles) having their peak production at a time where no one could even buy the products, but they couldn't fire anyone so they stuck the people to their pointless jobs. This defeats one of the meanings of work which is, precisely to give meaning to you as being part of a community, recognized by it for your efforts.

This isn't a Soviet-exclusive phenomena too, which can be seen in the (already) tons of people barely scraping by at dead-end jobs that, in spite of our attempts to make it seem good, are just as useless as fabricating bottles to no one. These can range from being a Gamestop clerk (or any kind of that is already readily available online) to being one of the infamous "manager of managers" whose job is to basically fill tables that many enterprises already use automatic procedures to do. These people have already lost the sense that they are actually making an effort to stand inside their community and I believe there is a good correlation with depression to be found there. They're not going to be disposed right now but many of them know how disposable they already are.

Finally, as for the one proposed solution here (UBI) I'd like to point out to this small essay (https://medium.com/@yonatanzunger/basic-income-job-guarantees-and-invisible-labor-c08134e7f310)) that briefly addresses many points made here (both in favor and against basic income). Unfortunately the only people discussing this tend to be lopsided, heavily tending towards what we call the Left approach. I think there is some value to be had in many ideas surrounding UBI either way, and it just takes someone more inclined to specifics (usually a Right approach) to find the metaphorical needles inside that hay.

>>11406901
>Out of curiosity what is your educational history

I have a masters degree in Computer Science following a Bachelors of Arts in Philosophy from a global top 40 deparment.
Fucking dipshit

>>11406906
>I'm genuinely curious as to why you think that

I believe they are inherently incapable of acknowledging any sort of self responsibility and thus lack any sort of moral character beyond what is simply immanent and animal. They are like dogs, not men

>>11405985
The Foundation for Exploration. We need to create agrarian societies of close knit communities while simultaneously exploring and colonizing other planets as a release valve because of too many people on Earth.

>>11406094
I’m not sure about “poverty and misery”. Maybe comparatively poverty versus those who innovate in these fields, but I highly doubt it’ll lead to “poverty”. Automation will lead to drastically lowering the price point of goods. Being in poverty will mean living at a higher standard than at any other point in human history.

We’re just steadily transitioning to post-labor capitalism.

>>11405998
>Humans don't do well with no real work or goals.
You're only considering the kind of work/goals that keep food on the table. There are plenty of trust-fund babies and other spoiled kids who have never needed to work for anything, but have still lead fulfilling, impactful lives. You need to rethink your idea of work.

>>11406919
Lol yeah that figure

>>11406942
t. 100k in debt for a degree in Gender Science and thinks it makes xer an authority on absolutely anything

>>11406943
Genetics masters student, making fun of your embarrassingly dogmatic interpretation of data

>>11406941

I agree with that sentiment (not that guy) and would like to add that it would probably benefit society as a whole to rethink the idea of what a "working hour" is. For all their criticism of it, contemporary Economics is being far too Marxist in only attributing monetary value to production. Within a world where automation is the rule and not the exception, human populations have plenty of time for activities they would probably be doing anyway (e.g home caring, child caring, tidying up, exercising, cooking, writing, shitposting, etc. you get the idea). These working-hours are invisible to macro-economy (including but not limited to house-labor) yet they are more or less essential and easily noticeable to us when they are not present. For a brief example of that close your eyes for a minute and imagine you're in some African country where people don't look after themselves nor provide many of such "unpaid work-hours". Rather than full Universal Basic Income, we could probably start from acknowledging this kind of work as part of making society function and think of clever ways to reward that progressively.

>>11406919
Not the guy you're replying to, but what opportunities does a masters in CompSci open up? Just curious, because my impression was that the market for CompSci degrees is so warped I would think there wouldn't be much of a benefit to going farther than a BS.

>>11406953
Better dogmatic than looking at clear data and drawing absolutely no conclusions because you're a tightwound fucking fairyboy.
I presented my argument and you have none

>>11406958
More or less much just the same options as a BS, though if you can specialize in a good field then it can lend a lot of creedence.
Its easier to get qualified by doing a one year masters after a humanities degree than if you were to spend four extra years getting a second bachelors.

>>11406965
>I presented my argument
yeah with hardly any evidence, my argument is really that you're spouting shit
>Better dogmatic than looking at clear data and drawing absolutely no conclusions
No its not you actual retard, first off that data isn't clear (notice the lack of any fucking external information)
Also thats exactly how you develop and maintain stupid wrong ideas, ever heard of confirmation bias?

>>11405985
Most of those 45% are in Africa, so it is fine for now

>>11406005
Interesting point. Any sources, books preferred, for this?

>>11406988
All I've seen so far is evidence to support my argument and ZERO to support yours. You got some gall talking about confirmation bias when your entire excuse for an argument has been liberally ignoring evidence to sustain your position.

>>11406216
>do you believe college grads have low IQs?
Yes

>basic income
kek. The rich will just fund a massive pro-euthanasia/sterilisation/abortion propaganda campaign and depopulate the world from poor people the second they don't need these poor people as cheap labor. Why would they care to share the world? They only share it with us now because they need us to create their wealth. Universal basic income is a pipe dream.

>>11406005
Is this societies leaders or just a consequence of competitive economics?

>>11406974
>Its easier to get qualified by doing a one year masters after a humanities degree than if you were to spend four extra years getting a second bachelors.
Makes sense. Thanks.

>>11407012
What happens when rich people start having useless kids? And their kids have useless kids and so on?

>>11406010
>this isn't about motivation, this is about restructuring the human society
Dropped

If we were to cull the useless members of society /lit/ would be the first to go

>>11407032
They'll continue being rich forever, same as always happened

>>11405998
>Humans don't do well with no real work or goals.
yeah, that's why perpetuating the current wage cuck system will only exacerbate the increasing depression and suicide rates (which largely affect low-income whites).

Giving everyone a minimal standard of living will at the very least give them the downtime to actually consider what it is they want to pursue in life. The simple fact is that the economy is in need of a serious overhaul with automation displacing low-skilled jobs. The same can be said for our education system. To ignore these problems is to doom our civilization to collapse.

>>11406919
>triggered and projecting your personal disappointments on 4chan
You clearly wasted your time getting that BA in philosophy because you decided to spent even more time in school to get a masters in something else completely. If you actually had a genuine interest in philosophy, then you would have stopped wasting time and money on college and pursued your quest for truth on your own. But you would have to not be a fucking brainlet to figure that out.

What never gets discussed by ignoramuses in the automation debate is the fact that even high IQ and high earning positions are vulnerable. Everyone always thinks that their daddy’s job is safe. The fact is that doctors and lawyers and airplane pilots and engineers and accountants are just as vulnerable to automation as Walmart workers—arguably more so because their labor is more expensive.

Every single poster in this thread needs to read Industrial Society and its Future. Trying to predict the future without acknowleding the very fundaments of our society is a waste of time. Do you want to be coherent and grounded in reality or is ''intellectual" discussion simply a cowardly activity you mistook for science fiction?

>>11407090
You leave my daddy out of this

>>11407087
>because you decided to spent even more time in school to get a masters in something else completely.

More like because I wanted some prospect of earning 6 figures and be able to work at home so I can have the free time to study what I actually care about.
The fuck do you expect me to have done, you're qualified for basically nothing with a philosophy degree no matter how good and passionate you are in the field

>>11406827
>If you go out into the world and be a normal person, you will find a woman and have kids just fine
(not true, by the way)

>>11407105

>>11407102
so it took 4+ years for you to figure out that you'd rather be motivated by money and making 6 figures, and then you enroll in a masters program

fucking kek, you should torch that BA in philosophy because you don't even deserve it

>>11407105
Worked for me and all my ugly looser friends, all my cousins, most of the normal people i went to school with, is this an american thing maybe?

>>11406005
I would believe this if any of these vices kept people from breeding, but since I had to juggle two opiate-addicted babies in the NICU the other day it clearly doesn't. Only one of the babies was black, FYI.

>>11407115
My man, knowledge does not pay rent. Maybe you would want to work 50 hours a week doing mook work just to say you're being true to your bachelors or whatever the fuck you think this is but I got this masters exactly because I want to stay commited to philosophy

>>11407093

>>11407123
orly, go ahead and share with us what philosophy you're reading now, anon

>>11407116
Stop flexing

>>11407123
>>11407134
Stop fighting!

>>11407134
Just wrote 70 A4 pages of notes on Kant's Critique of Pure Reason. Going to be moving on to revising my knowledge of Husserl with his Crisis of the European Sciences before I will be getting intensive with Being and Time

>>11407144
>he fell for the phenomenology meme
Never gonna make it.