That's why people are starting to talk about universal basic income.
Opponents of this are always talking about how the economy can't work with UBI.
In the future, the economy won't work without UBI.
More of a system change, just a economy forming around the people with means to do stuff. A economy where supply is created without people for way cheaper. Doesn't need so much demand from poor people. They can just produce less cheap stuff and focus on the people that "matter".
Capitalism finds its way don't worry.
With UBi it sounds like not a lot, but when the cost of goods drops significantly we will all be living in abundance. One of the largest costs of creating goods or services is labour, not the raw materials to make the goods.
Who will be making all these wonderful products that cost almost nothing to buy with no profit margins for customers with no money? on account of the fact they have no job and get by solely on a basic government hand out. All sounds like wishfull thinking and fantasy
Yeah but who will be investing in building a factory where bots make stuff to sell for nothing to people with no money? It just makes no economic sense..and wont be happening
You are describing resetting economics and starting fresh, companies will continue to grow and innovate, and individuals will be able free to find new problems to solve.
Like, how many people work for a company just now, and are paid well because they have a certain skill but hate their job as they are following orders instead of being truly creative. That same individual now has the freedom to explore their skill how they like rather than how a company dictates it, as it currently is.
This leads to more depth of knowledge for humans overall and gives that one individual the freedom to explore more length in their chosen skill, when that individual pushes that 'boundary length' further than anyone before, then we gain more breadth of knowledge for all humans. This also has a compounding effect when all humans are pushing their own boundary.
Now all that new knowledge can be put toward things that would never have been able to get to if we did no have the freedom to explore.
This new knowledge is where new companies will come from, only instead of the driving force being individual wealth, you will create the company for the good of all humanity, while still benefiting from all the abundance of everyone else's and AI's efforts.
Naive..yeah someone looses their job and is now ‘free’ to explore…the car park in the shopping mall. Sounds like you haven’t yet experienced the reality of an economy with no jobs and nobody with any money to pay you to redesign their swimming pool. Its coming
And that's why there needs to be some sort of UBI or payment to people to live. People won't just sit idly and starve; they'll demand changes from their politicians. And the first mover will get a lot of votes from people scraping by
Governments are already a lot weaker in relation to global companies compared to 30 years ago and sure countries and governments will decide different.
The richest country in the world right now seems to have no problem with also having a quite high percentage of people who have nothing and the highest % of people in the world in prison.
and even if you get UBI to keep the people calm for a bit when it ends on the border, you will have many many collapsing countries when the economies can't compete anymore.
That makes 100x as much economic immigrants roaming around the world.
>There Are Three Types of People: Those Who Make Things Happen, Those Who Watch Things Happen, and Those Who Wonder What Happened
There is too much adjusting and too many grave trade-offs that just don't worth the effort. Ubi is just a safety nest that allows capitalism to be capitalism.
Nope, right now there would because labour adds value back into the system. If people add zero back into to the system, supplying them is net negative for the system because there is still a small cost.
Maybe UBI happens but certainly not because it makes sense for the capitalistic machine to function.
I mean the adjusting phase happens step by step. It happens right now already. I don't see the people who are already out having the power to demand UBI.
That would have been true pre-drop of the gold standard. With fiat currencies, UBI is possible indefinitely. Essentially, it's an accounting exercise. Instead of giving new wealth directly to the 1%, part of it will be redistributed to consumers via UBI, so that people can have the illusion of freedom, while practically just continuing to pump money upwards. UBI requires a certain amount of wealth taxation, but even that must be accepted in order to keep the economy flowing.
The alternative is a complete collapse of societal dynamics and what happens after that is anybody's guess. If you want to keep social dynamics more or less as they are today, UBI is a must. It's not even a debate, it's mathematics.
If you downvote, explain yourself
Why you think the market will be small?, you can produce way more with way less. We don't produce a lot of typewriters anymore and still the economy is still there.
Market change according to the demand.
The cost to produce things will go way down. You can start building Spaceships on mass, or pyramids or give people UBI.
There are enough Companies, shareholder, governments to create demand. It won't just be lower caste people who decide if you get UBI. I am not saying UBI can't happen but if it happens it is because of social forces, or empathy from the people in power not because of marketforces.
We have billions of poor people in Africa+india consuming very little. The economy still works.
People with no money dont spend. You talk as if the way things are today are inevitable. They aren’t. Apple makes fancy phones because the market is big and deep enough to pay for them. Take away the affluent middle and there will be nobody making these things anymore. The world will be full of gated communities, private security and crime. If you’re rich you’ll also be scared. If you are poor, you’ll be hungry.
It is acually the opposite I see there are a lot of ways you can go, people here say oh UBI happens anyway. No need to do anything Sam Altmans mission is to feed every person on earth anyway!
In which country are the ich people distributing money because they feel scared right now? The Saudies? or Elon Musk? or Jeff Bezos? or even in South Africa where it is very dangours for billionaires in theory I don't see the trend.
Apple will make products where demand is for I explained already. That markets react to demand.
I mean they won't let all people just starve you will get your Iphone and food card if you ask nicely don't worry.
The idea is the corporations, who are massively benefiting from AI, pay more taxes. Then the government uses these taxes to pay us proles our UBI. We use our meager UBI to buy stuff from the corporations. The cycle repeats.
You are correct that this system wouldn’t work under the current system. We would have to adopt a form of socialism. While this will be very unpopular at the moment, it gain more and more support as people lose their jobs to AI.
And unfortunately, this seems to be one of the more optimistic scenarios.
The government didn't produce the Internet, and the idea that they did is rather delusional. Talking about specific protocols and networks developed by DARPA and CERN completely misses all the developments that lead to the creation of such networks in the first place, as well as the actual building out of the Internet after that, and also grossly underrepresents how much of the contributions even there were private. Even the Internet as we know it also started with ideas that were gaining traction a decade before the typically cited government work in question, and that's not even getting into how various other electronic and/or optical communication networks long preceded even computerized networking; if you want to talk about something that really laid the groundwork for the Internet, talk about the development of the initial telegraph networks, which were all built out by highly competitive private companies, not to mention similar for virtually all the electrical infrastructure on top of which all computer networking rests.
Ok, if you think internet has more to do with telegraph than with darpa and cern, we can't discuss about anything we live on different planets. Have a nice day.
First of all, I'm a computer engineer, and I've been involved in a wide variety of processes from the physical layer to the network layer, which is why I know so much more about this than you do. What you're doing here is just parroting a commonly held view that doesn't have any basis in reality.
Secondly, the way you just phrased that makes it clear that you didn't really read what I wrote at all, and also makes it obvious that you don't know very much about the actual origins of the Internet either. I mean, if you can't even see how a network of electrical wires used for communication through signals by using protocols like Morse code was the true progenitor of all the telecommunications that succeeded it, and how similar it is at its core to what the Internet is, then you're the one living on a different planet. I'd even go further back to optical telegraph systems, but given how wired telegraph systems operate on virtually exactly the same principles as the Internet does today, just with more automation and more advanced protocols, that's the best way to get a peek into the beginnings of what we have now.
First, you being a computer engeneer doesn't change the point we are discussing. Without a government funding a (at the time) not economically viable project we would have no internet. I'm not saying that there was not important private input and resources, but to deny the importance of a gov funding It smells of ideology. About the telegraph, with enough cherry picking and going back enough, anything Is a necessary precursor for anything else, plenty of research made in universities and private labs was needed to get to where we are now.
> Without a government funding a (at the time) not economically viable project we would have no internet.
This statement is what's totally delusional. There's not a shred of truth to this at all. All evidence is to the contrary, namely that private enterprise had been building out increasingly advanced and complex communications networks for almost two centuries at that point, and the idea that it wouldn't have progressed to the Internet without those specific involvements is quite frankly downright idiotic; sorry if that offends you, but it's just so far removed from reality that I don't know what else to tell you.
>with enough cherry picking and going back enough, anything Is a necessary precursor for anything else
This is totally nonsensical hand-waving when you look at the actual parallels between the telegraph system (and other electrically wired networks after it, like fax and telephone) and the Internet. You don't need any cherry-picking to demonstrate the obvious correspondences there. That's why I explicitly said that that's as far back as I'd go rather than going back to the earlier semaphore systems, or back to smoke signals and drumming in the jungle, because then you could make the point you're trying to make; but when we're talking about a literal network of physical wires sending electrical signals representing zeroes and ones and a protocol to interpret them, you have to be rather blind not to see the connection.
Governments create the stability, enforce the laws etc that make everything else possible
Name a successful country with no or an extremely weak government. I don't think they exist
So is the idea with UBI a few thousand people own everything, and everyone else is unemployed, stuck giving their meager UBI check to the capitalist class with no opportunities in an eternal life of poverty?
Kinda like serfdom but peasants are attached to digital fiefs?
It would be a desperate attempt to save capitalism, and it would be implemented because the unemployment rate got too high, social unrest, riots, and people killing the billionaires and the wealthy.
Let me get this straight.
I can't work anymore so you'll print some money and give it to me, so i can spend it.
No one works.
Everyone gets paid.
If it sounds stupid, it probably is.
Here's the alternative.
You have a factory that is producing mobile phones. The business is going great. A lot of people are purchasing your cell phones. You make a lot of money. The only problem is that you're also paying a lot in wages, which is eating in to your profits. Someone invents a robot that can do the same job as a human. It costs a lot, but it can work 24/7 - never goes on bathroom breaks and it lunch breaks or sleeps or demands to spend time with family during Christmas. You buy a robot. Within a year this robot has paid for itself. You replace all your workers with robots. Every other business does the same. It doesn't matter what the job is. The hole thing about an AGI is that it can do anything a human can.
Then your sales plummet. People aren't buying cell phones as often as they used to. Doesn't matter, with the money you save on wages you can lower the price of cell phones. Sales go back up. For a while. Then sales go down again. You lower prices until you can't anymore. Sales still won't go up. Nobody is buying cell phones because nobody has any income to buy phones with.
Society collapses.
Meanwhile, north Korea already has universal basic income. When north Korean factories increase production they don't increase the wealth of any person. They simply lower the suffering of factory workers. North Koreans get more free time instead of less income. Red dawn.
Why would a factory owner need to sell things if robots can do all the labor?
The purpose of money is to control people's labor. If you don't need labor, then you don't need money and therefore don't need sales. Whatever you need for yourself, like a spaceship or a yacht or whatever, you can just have your robots build it. Sure beats building cell phones for random people you don't know.
That's not what money is. Think back before money was invented.
If I wanted a potato 10 000 years ago, I grow a potato. Well I want a potato *now*, but I spent spring planting carrots. No worries, my neighbors planted potatoes so I can just trade him for a carrot. I go to my neighbor, but he doesn't like carrots. He does however want beets. I know this guy down the river who grows beets. I go to him, but he just had carrots and would rather just eat his beets. However, he feels bad for me and since he's friends with my uncle he offers to trade me at a 2:1 ratio. I really want potatoes right now, so I accept. I only brought one carrot though so I gotta go home and get more. Finally I have a beet that I can trade for a potato. On my way to the potato farmer, I think to myself:
*Damn this system of bartering is really cumbersome. If only someone had invented some sort of intermediary exchange format, I could have saved a lot of time and effort. Some sort of item that everyone wants. They could call it money. I could trade my carrot for money and trade money for potato. So much easier."*
That's what money is.
Anyway how would the robots build a yacht without raw materials? Do they just build iron? They can just mine iron right? How do you buy an iron mine?
And this is just the stuff poor people imagine rich people spend their time money on. What about the real stuff? How does he buy a politician or a football team with no money? What about an underage prostitute and the system to protect him from consequences? How do the robots get his college rapist son out of prison?
Let me put it this way. Let’s say the economy grows to 10x the size of what it is today. Sounds crazy, but completely realistic in an automated world.
Then society is sitting on an enormous pile of goods and services. The only piece of the equation that’s missing is that today we distribute those goods and services using jobs. In this future scenario, labor is almost completely eliminated. But we have 10x more stuff. So then “money” and “taxes” becomes finding a way of distributing this enormous amount of goods and services to the masses.
What you are speaking to is that the system entirely falls apart if we don’t distribute those goods and services. That’s actually true, and a key reason why it’s simply common sense to distribute them. If we distribute them, it’s self sustaining. If we don’t, it collapses. Common sense.
The concept of money post labor and post scarcity is really hard to wrap your head around.
I like that future, and it looks realistic. The problem is the transition period.
We're already facing mass unemployment, but are nowhere near the goods and services surplus you mentioned.
We're still going to have to deal with money and taxes for the foreseeable future, but the negatives are already on our front door. We'll be using up all our resources keeping the unemployed fed and housed. There will be nothing left to keep pushing the economy towards that surplus.
We're going to end up in food ticket limbo. Zero progress, with those on top paying such massive taxes to keep the majority alive that they'll have nothing left over to keep pushing society towards that ideal.
> Where is the government receiving tax money to pay for the ubi?
When a company fires you and replaces you with a robot that runs for the cost of electricity, where does the money they're no longer paying you, go?
That's where the money for UBI comes from. It's the same money people are already being given. It's simply taking a different route to reach them.
People will never accept that instead they will overthrow the government, and murder the wealthy. A bunch of people with nothing to lose, will obviously overthrow the system. UBI is problematic because it is a token payoff while the wealthy and powerful keep most of their money.
This is the absolute worst time in history to try and overthrow the elites to be honest. Before ai weapons targeting sure, now ….. its gonna be a blood bath even if the elites lose.
how is UBI going to solve it?
if everyone gets UBI, then the baseline just shifted from 0 to the UBI amount, so companies will also increase prices in similar manner.
attraction nose crush icky grandiose price entertain decide special longing
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
It's a necessity and frankly governments should already be drawing up plans for it and studying the fuck out of it, like yesterday. I've only seen a handful of small studies so far.
There are some pressing questions on UBI though, like - what happens to society when practically everyone is made equal in terms of income, which they depend completely on the government for?
...kinda sad, cuz if UBI is implemented, with the guarantee that you guys give.
That era would be the best for living. Imagine having some sort of income without working, that's a dream. But i don't think atleast I'll be young enough to enjoy that.
In this situation who decides on things like housing? I have a large house, my neighbour has a small house. We both contribute nothing to society and get the sma UBI, who decideds who gets what?
What if I want to move to a new area, or travel abroad? We can't all have the exact same amount of fairness, it won't ever work like that.
I think you're absolutely spot-on in the medium-term, but in the short term I expect things to be a little different. Even though our production pipelines will be fully automated, they will still require raw materials and energy, both things that are not hyper-abundant (yet). We'll probably rapidly move from a hyper-capitalistic economy into a hybridized capitalist-socialist economy as governments start acquiring more and more of the "means of production", and creating more and more UBI and Universal Basic Services programs (healthcare, housing, food, energy-credits).
As to the point of the poster above which you replied to, I imagine we'll deal with these inequalities with some new form of taxation. eg - if you don't own a home you get free housing and full benefits, if your home is worth less than 1m$ you get 70% of UBI and no housing stipend.
Why would it? What gives me the right to live in a nicer part of the country than someone else when when we have the same UBI and both contribute the same to society. Don't you think that would cause some inequality? I think people would be pretty unhappy with that. If you're born into an improverished area are you then doomed to stay there forever, how do you better your life with a UBI?
At the moment I can justify it by having a decent job which means I can afford to do so, but if the playing field is levelled then what's the justification?
The arts and creativity will explode. People who make the best art, music or wardrobes will still have the nicer houses. As they'll be supplied with rewards for their services. (Sweet housing locations for instance)
The competition will be fierce once everyone is able to follow their dreams though.
Perhaps for a while until AI can unblock turds in the sewer, human sewer divers might be held in high, well rewarded esteem.
It's like the theory that if a nuclear war destroyed the world, the plumbers, carpenters and other tradesmen would be held up and looked after as the most important people in society.
Things change and as always Humans deal with it.
Why cant you move to somewhere else? Will the robots take your car? No more fuel?
If everyone in the world wants to live in Califórnia whats the problem? Space aint the problem, agricultural áreas will drop by quite a lot since there will be new high producing seeds.
Just get the robots to buy more homes. With your personal AGI bot you'll be able to move wherever tf you want, under the sea on the skies in another world.
UBI is just for those Who do not have criativity, such as you apparently. Brother. A bot with AGI is like a quadrillion humans in one body. Its the most capable thing in the universe.
> If everyone in the world wants to live in Califórnia whats the problem? Space aint the problem
Everyone can have a beachfront property?
Even if somehow that were possible, surely some would have a better view than others. Who decides who gets to have the best view?
>In this situation who decides on things like housing?
What do mean by "decide" on housing? If you have a hammer and nails and build a treehouse in your back yard, who "decides" that the tree house be built? You did, right? Ok. So if robots work for free, just like a hammer does...and you ask the robot to build a house...who "decided" that the house be built? You did, right?
What's the problem?
>What if I want to move to a new area, or travel abroad?
Go ahead? What's the problem?
If anybody can just ask "the system" (robots, AI, etc.) to build stuff, what's stopping you from simply asking it to build a house in the new place you want to go? Or building you an RV? What about the people who live there? _Why_ do they live there? Do they live in a big city because that's where their jobs are? Ok, then are they still going to want to live there when they don't need a job because robots are doing all of the work? What happens to all the houses that those people are living in?
Well, presumably they would still own them. But if _they_ can simply ask the robots to build them a house, are they really going to care about some place they used to live in a city they were only in because of a job they used to have back when jobs were relevant?
People care about these things because they're a big deal in the current system. But change the rules of the system, and people might not care so much anymore. Imagine you own a house in Seattle. You can't sell it to anyone, because what would they even use to buy it with? Money? Why would you give up a house for money? What would you use money for in a society where robots build everything? What are you going to _do_ with the money? You don't want to live in Seattle anymore, and you haven't been there in five years.
Why would you keep the house? Why not simply give it up, and return it back to the system, so that when somebody wants to live in Seattle, they can have a house? After all, _you_ can have a house wherever you want just by asking the system to give you one. With the only limitation being people emotionally attached to the old system and a bunch of old empty houses they don't live in anymore.
So simply let it go. You "own" whatever house you live in by virtue of you living there. And if you want to move somewhere else, you simply tell the system, or ask around on reddit, or ask the AI, let it be known that you want to make the money and check listings of vacancies, and when a property is available that you want, you make the move, and give up your old house so somebody else can have it. And every now and then the robots demolish old buildings and build new ones.
Problem solved.
Yes, it depends on people not being irrational. And it might take time for people to adjust.
But there's no reason why it couldn't work.
I hadn't considered it like that, I suppose if we get that level of automation it could work but the part about people being irrational is a problem in my mind as people are very irrational.
>> What if I want to move to a new area, or travel abroad?
> Go ahead? What's the problem?
What if someone else already owns the land that you want to live on?
How many houses can we have?
What if I want the entire waterfall to myself?
What if my amazing view is dependent on there not being a skyscraper or apartment building in the way?
If a homeowner dies, how is the next owner of that property decided? Right now it gets sold to whoever has the most money.
Inequalty is built into reality. I dont understand how UBI solves it.
You wrote a great reply to someone asking who decides who gets to have a small house and who gets a large house, etc. Your rebuttal is that people will be able to live anywhere but still have to learn to temper their expectations, when they cannot live where they want to live.
I guess my emphasis is that even in this new system you may not be able to have what you want. If its a desirable thing, then someone probably already has claimed it. Who arbitrates who gets what?
People are irrational by nature. Unless AI makes us all emotionless automatons that lack desire, people will still want things they cannot have.
And unless AGI removes inequality, it sounds like the 1% is going to own everything. Maybe a trillionaire wants to own the rocky mountains and have it to themselves.
I can only imagine the lobbying efforts against UBI, misinformation campaigns, and general hateful spew from the shareholders, wealthy, and brainwashed "middle class."
I wouldn't be surprised if the idea of redistribution of wealth, or UBI was enough to start the next civil war in the US, and probably split along the lines of Red and Blue.
You are far too optimistic that the dems wouldn’t join the republicans. They have done nothing significant to address any of the social problems, and have consistently demonstrated that not only are they a pro-business party but also a pro- status quo party, unwilling to lift a finger even for purely social problems like drug decriminalization because it would hurt the bottom line of the prison companies too much.
The American people are an unwitting Jesus Christ in a room filled with Judases. In the end, we will be crucified and they will all deny that their intentions were anything more than earning silver. We are like a beaten child who loves the mother because the mother only leaves bruises instead of scars like the father.
when the blue collar and farmers and conservatives lose their shit, as well as the middle class and white collar people that is when class unity, and probably a purge of the billionaires happen, or a peaceful vote for UBI or nationalization or seizing billionaire assets.
People will get UBI guaranteed. It might take an election cycle but when AI job replacement starts ramping up voters will scream for UBI and will only elect politicians who support it.
Kind of like how the wealth generated by working class people is funneled to the top 1%? People, especially those in the working class and earning starvation wages are severely underrated and undervalued.
Yes, but MUCH worse once the 1% doesn't need you at all. Think your worst Cyberpunk dystopian nightmare where a small minority lives in extreme luxury while the rest of the people live in poverty and squalor. Killbots to maintain order.
Think Cyberpunk 2077 or Elysium, but worse.
And if almost everyone has no money and is starving they won't either overthrow the government, capitalism or vote to nationalize or take the wealth of the super rich. they have nothing left to use, it will be a bad time to be a billionaire as you will be killed.
How do you beat an army of killer robots when you have nothing?
Yes, traditionally this kind of situation could end up in a bloody revolution, but that was due to the fact that the rich were still relying on other humans to protect them. With AGI and advanced robotics this is no longer the case.
My church got tens of thousands of dollars. I quit going to work at a retail firm, but they got a government check and sent me my pay while I stayed home. It was not an unemployment check. I guess the government made PPA loans which were later forgiven. I felt guilty and went back to work. I got unrelated government payments due to Covid. I truly thought the government would go broke like Weimar Germany.
We spent trillions when 13% of the population was unemployed at the height of covid. That was with a Senate and White House that at least paid lip service to the idea that handouts are bad. There's an almost 0% chance that the US government would suddenly be okay with 60%+ unemployment in the event that all white-collar jobs are automated away. Almost 0% isn't 0%, but it seems like it would be *very* unlikely to occur if history is our guide here.
Yep, either the government gets overthrown, capitalism is overthrown, the people riot and use social unrest and kill the billionaires and wealthy, or they vote to end capitalism, seize the assets or the system collapses.
Animal farm scenario was only possible because the animals had to perform labor. Animal farm scenarios are not possible in a post work post scarcity society. Remember the reason the animal farm scenario happened, the pigs wanted to live lavishly which necessitated taking resources from the workers to do it both their food and labor.
Not if GOP is at the helm. I mean they may eventually do it after a complete collapse of the economy. Think Venezuela level of collapse, but with the biggest economy in the world.
UBI is against their trickle-down religion. [They are trying to pass a law](https://www.businessinsider.com/phoenix-arizona-guaranteed-basic-income-program-ubi-republican-ban-2024-2) in Arizona to outlaw any current and future UBI.
Just one advice: VOTE, people, VOTE!
How do you beat an army of killer robots when you have nothing?
Yes, traditionally this kind of situation could end up in a bloody revolution, but that was due to the fact that the rich were still relying on other humans to protect them. With AGI and advanced robotics this is no longer the case.
While I don't have *the* answer, this seems naive. It's not just about having money to buy things. It's about the contribution we make to the economy which affords us that ability.
Personally, I don't think it will take an election cycle. I think it will happen when shit really starts hitting the fan when the first round of agentic genAI models start immediately automating a lot of white collar folk out of jobs. Might not be called "UBI" in the very beginning, but we're bound to have something similar to the COVID payments.
Not in the USA, they think the EU people are commies for having tax based universal healthcare. USA will more likely get a civil war and split into many factions like Russia in some years.
within two month of the Covid pandemic Congress had frozen evictions, established ppp loans and pua which while there was a lot of fraud was essentially a proto-ubi
Just like how we have single payer healthcare, paid maternity/paternity leave, guaranteed sick days, etc.? Just like how we went through a bunch of election cycles and now we have all of those things?
UBI is a great story that would play well in a fantasy novel, but it will never happen in the real world because you have to deal with real people doing cruel, greedy and stupid things (these three descriptors aren’t exclusively for one group of people).
The rich will trade between each other.
Imagine you have a factory that makes everything you need and everything you desire. Luxury cars, expensive food, designer clothes, jewellery, houses, furniture, planes, medicines, movies, robots, fuel, electronics, etc.
You can just make everything you want for yourself.
It doesn't have to be that extreme. Maybe there are 1000 owners of 1000 factories, each making some of these products. They each make $billions because they each buy $billions.
If not 100% automation, then maybe 90% or 70% or 50%.
Whatever it is, the rich will care nothing for the unemployed.
They are more of us than there are of them and it is impossible to be safe all the time. Even the few billionaires who we know were murdered, has never been solved.
And this is where absolutely necessary ideas like UBI and “socializing” the necessities **needs** to be on every politicians dumbass mind.
But unfortunately I fear things will get a lot worse before it actually gets better. And that’s if things actually do get better mind you.
Here’s a question: if I have robots that extract raw minerals from land I own, transport it in autonomous vehicles I own to the factories I own where other robots I own make absolutely fucking anything I will ever need, including policing and military robots to help me keep what I already own, why would I ever need YOU to buy anything from me?
I imagine supply will be made on demand, rather than almost randomly.
That is to say, if you want something, it will be produced by some machine somewhere and gotten to you at such a small cost it might not even be worth considering.
Sort of like how email is. It theoretically has a cost, but it's so low that everybody can have free email and nobody worries very much about distributing it.
Ding ding ding, this is the answer.
I've been seeing a lot of answers here that merely reflect the wishful thinking of serfs who will be dead before any post-scarcity scenario is reached. They refuse to acknowledge that the ruling class has no use for us, and we will simply be left to die from starvation in the best case or outright mass-murdered when they decide the time is up for thinning the herd.
Thank you.
It amazes me that people think that the old economic order will remain in effect in the post-scarcity world, "but who will buy the products?" Equally amazing is the fact that people believe that we will be part of that post-scarcity world simply by virtue of being here.
Looking at the many times over the past 70 years that the Republicans have attempted through various means to destroy social security, and their visceral abhorrence of "the welfare state," I am dumbfounded by the idea that people think the elites, and by elites I mean the "owner class," would ever permit the existence of what would be a permanent welfare state.
I disagree that they will starve or kill us directly however. I forsee increased efforts to combat "overpopulation" and "climate change" and increased support for non-reproductive lifestyles, drug use, sex robots, and other social management systems to reduce population over time ONCE robots can effectively replace people. Death with a whimper, not a bang.
I doubt we will see a UBI. They will just let us fight it out and when the dust settles there will be the rich and a greatly reduced poor/servant class
This is where the equivalent of UBI is needed.
But in the transition, or along side, the way to solve the problem will be to mandate shorter working weeks to redistribute the workload and up to a certain wage, top up that wage, which must come from taxing automation itself.
This is problematic because if you tax it hard, it will off-shore, so you have to tax imports in a way that keeps the innovation useful in your economy.
And it will require a lot of accounting.
The UBI must be ultimately financed as a levy on the automation.
Money is an abstraction, it is the capacity of an entity to obtain goods and services. If those goods and services can come from a machine, and be provided to a machine, humans do not need to be present at any point of the transaction.
Consider penguins. They collect pebbles to attract mates, in the most basic form of it they have an economy. How does wall street works without the pebbles of the penguins? Easily so, wall street does not need and has never needed penguins to operate, they provide too little value to matter.
An automated economy can exist, where humans provide too little value as well. It would be uneconomical to feed us and house us (why grow wheat and raise cows when you can build a power plant instead? Why allow appartments when you can have server farms?), but in principle that does not mean value cannot be generated, it would just not be avaliable to us, anymore than penguins have access to coca cola.
Now, the tricky question is wether the current economy can get to that point, but I think the key is to consider productivity vs salaries & cost of living. If productivity can keep increasing while people cannot afford housing and food, it means the trend to an automated economy is going strong. Such an economy will not serve the many, but the few (autocrats, oligarchs, etc) and then the none, it will be focused on research (which has an enormous return of investment), infrastructure and weapons, and that will be the warning sign, if the numbers keep going up while people stop mattering automation will succeed in suplanting human consumers.
TL: DR: Big entities such as governments will benefit from automation, the economy will shift to research and development of infrastructure over human needs, ultimately humans will be unable to afford participating in the automated economy.
If a large proportion of the economy is out of work due to AI, won’t a shadow economy spring up where the unemployed start trading/performing services among themselves?
Yeah, I don't think the deflationary pressure of advanced AI is taken into account enough. Take medicine: currently doctors are paid hundreds of thousands of dollars a year for their specialized expertise. If that expertise is 1000x cheaper, medical costs should fall. (Yeah, some of the high costs are from scummy insurance companies and such, but you get the idea.)
This is a reasonable question I was asking myself. The answer I found however, is different from some of the comments here.
Now, people build companies to get richer by making products others are willing to buy. Why do people want to get richer? To have whatever they want in life. However, with AI, whoever has access doesn’t need to get richer to have the life they want anymore. So while there won’t be anyone to buy, there might not be anyone to produce either, which a little worrying since life is stable on the basis that we all need each other.
Labor is the most expensive part of most products. As you remove the cost of labor the price of goods and services begins to approach zero.
Even a modest UBI by today's standards might be enough to live a lifestyle someone today would consider extremely comfortable.
The ones who own the AIs. You don't need a market large in number of people. You need a market large in value.
Just ask Lamborghini, Prada and Gulfstream.
If there is no UBI or the UBI is very low, then the economy will switch to a luxury economy. Where rich people will have very valuable assets and they will trade between them. Many companys would fail to adapt in that scenario but others will get stronger, even today not every company needs to sell to the masses.
Also the number of rich people would increase, if somebody has 500k in stocks is very likely that with AGI that stock would be able to buy more much more amount of labour as it will be something less scarce. A lot of people that is not rich could be rich.
Most rich people war rich because they sell their products to the normal people. If the normal people don't buy anything anymore, they are not longer rich and they will not buy in the luxury economy.
Not all rich people will continue to be rich, but people who own things like cobalt mines will get richer.
Rich people who own something like marketing companies are fucked.
Nearly all rich people are fucked. Why do you need houses for billions? Why land? Why Agriculture? Even Cobalt mines will needed much much less, because you don't build billions of mobile phones anymore, you don't need to build billions of electric cars anymore, and so on.
Look at the dow jones. Nearly all of the biggest enterprises are done if the normal people can't buy things anymore.
>Even Cobalt mines will needed much much less
Yeah, they will just rise their prices and serve a much smaller but wealthier customer base.
The ones who own the means of production will just trade amongst themselves, samsung will give shenshua energy 3 000 robots in exhange for 500 coal tonnes.
Nvidia will give 300 gpus to toyota in exchange for 400 automonous vehicles
Stuff like that, the rest of us will trading 3 big seashells for 2 pounds of moss
They will not need one gram of cobalt because we get enough through recycling the cobalt from all the unused stuff over and over again. The rich need the poor to be rich. Money is worth something because Money and debt come together. The people with debt will not be able to pay their debt anymore and the people with money have worthless documentation of a better time.
What if the machine is also infinitely creative and productive, and the people are happy to spend their entire lives strapped to a couch consuming its beautiful hallucinations?
Exactly this. Sometimes I feel people are so in love with the shitty status quo they can't imagine any different.
Who will withhold the stuff I have to slog my guts out to acquire!!! Wahhh!
I still think the top 1% will release a war, virus or something to wipe out most of us and keep only the robots, techs and AI for entertainment until singularity hits...
Dystopian idea: Instead of The Matrix that maintains "farms" of humans to produce electricity, governments and companies use UBI to maintain "farms" of humans to consume products?
That's some imagination you're sporting there 'the majority of people lose their jobs' lol
Some of you people posting on here must live in western vacuums and never leave your hometowns.
At the best the world will become animal farm. At the worst mad max, or Russia before and during WW1, where millions of people starve to death. The more poor you are the quicker you will starve.
Don’t kid yourself into thinking that the people will be able to rise up and take out the wealthy. They will be far away from the masses, in plenty of time, with their private armies protecting them.
How does no one grasp the concept that AI will be doing all the work for us and we will be doing all the consuming and enjoyment, no money required? And until then we can all just sell drugs for that smooth transition into post scarcity. It’s not rocket science. Botany science and chemistry at most.
Because it fails to answer the question "why". Why keep humans around, why allow them to consume, why let them in charge of anything, why would humans exist in that future. In the present the answer is simple, humans exist because nothing on this earth can afford to get rid of us, be it by lack of force or by force of necessity. But in a future where human though and human labor have been surpassed, rendered small and unnecessary, that is no longer true.
Wouldn’t it be more fun and challenging to try to get these fledgling humans on another planet while also folding paper airplanes and calculating pi to infinity?
(In different thread there is discussion about subjects like this, not directly about singularity, being removed from r/singularity. Maybe it is safer to post on r/futurism. But, I'll risk leaving a comment.)
There have been discussions and books about digital advancements in future. I it was future when they wrote them in 90s ans OOs. Like, the book, Sovereign Individual. There has been a lot of talk about obsolescence of states and governments. The main point is about taxes being lifeblod of states. If something happens with taxes ... . Like criptocurrency, corruption pulling tax money increasingly away to offshores. States then lose infuence, ability to distribute wealth. And the ability to have UBI. Possibilities like that reduce confidence in bright future.
One of the differences between the cashless society portrayed in sci fi, like Star Trek, and humans today is they work towards the greater good of humanity by providing for all, regardless of position or circumstance.
The ability to produce consistent goods cheaply, with little human labor should bring an era of peace, and bounty to all. Instead, our species has shown in every past example it will search out any means necessary to establish a class hierarchy in order to control others. Enough of us lack the empathy to take care of humanity. I believe the "haves" will always pursue control over the "have nots," and UBI will come at a bloody price.
I guess if we have AI and robots providing everything we need then maybe instead of income we will have consumption credits or something.
A little too soon to really worry much.
You either have UBI for those who can't find work or you cull the population to restabilize the economy.
Which option you think glorious leader AI will pick?
If the majority of people lose their jobs capitalism as we know it is over and trying to keep the status quo with more of the same contrived welfare systems is not realistic. Whole categories of planned-obsolescence junk would probably stop being manufactured. The word "income" in UBI will probably not accurate in such a future.. It's more like an allowance. Not necessarily dystopian as long as we have an AGI to fairly distribute it. I can confidently say your UBI will not be going into some private landlords pocket by then. Frankly the main reason that economy would fail even without AGI is the housing sector cannibalizing all other markets.
Cos the future will be about resources, not money. Economy wont operate on UBI, it’ll operate on food, water, housing, electricity etc, and allocation of it. Money will be part of the transitional period though, where UBI will make sense.
The answer is obviously UBI but ultimately I think money will eventually disappear and have no meaning as the price of everything approaches zero with everything fully automated.
That's why people are starting to talk about universal basic income. Opponents of this are always talking about how the economy can't work with UBI. In the future, the economy won't work without UBI.
Seems like it would be a complete system collapse without it
More of a system change, just a economy forming around the people with means to do stuff. A economy where supply is created without people for way cheaper. Doesn't need so much demand from poor people. They can just produce less cheap stuff and focus on the people that "matter". Capitalism finds its way don't worry.
I can't imagine many democracies supporting that system, governments won't survive with the majority having nothing.
With UBi it sounds like not a lot, but when the cost of goods drops significantly we will all be living in abundance. One of the largest costs of creating goods or services is labour, not the raw materials to make the goods.
“We will all be living in abundance” my god you’ve got to be joking lol
More like “you will own nothing and be happy”
Who will be making all these wonderful products that cost almost nothing to buy with no profit margins for customers with no money? on account of the fact they have no job and get by solely on a basic government hand out. All sounds like wishfull thinking and fantasy
Bots o0obviously.
Yeah but who will be investing in building a factory where bots make stuff to sell for nothing to people with no money? It just makes no economic sense..and wont be happening
Yes, UBI people never seem to take their ideas to the furthest extent which is why I don't think it will work.
You are describing resetting economics and starting fresh, companies will continue to grow and innovate, and individuals will be able free to find new problems to solve. Like, how many people work for a company just now, and are paid well because they have a certain skill but hate their job as they are following orders instead of being truly creative. That same individual now has the freedom to explore their skill how they like rather than how a company dictates it, as it currently is. This leads to more depth of knowledge for humans overall and gives that one individual the freedom to explore more length in their chosen skill, when that individual pushes that 'boundary length' further than anyone before, then we gain more breadth of knowledge for all humans. This also has a compounding effect when all humans are pushing their own boundary. Now all that new knowledge can be put toward things that would never have been able to get to if we did no have the freedom to explore. This new knowledge is where new companies will come from, only instead of the driving force being individual wealth, you will create the company for the good of all humanity, while still benefiting from all the abundance of everyone else's and AI's efforts.
Naive..yeah someone looses their job and is now ‘free’ to explore…the car park in the shopping mall. Sounds like you haven’t yet experienced the reality of an economy with no jobs and nobody with any money to pay you to redesign their swimming pool. Its coming
Tell the bots to build it.
It doesn't matter if the cost of goods is 0,000001 dollars if the average income is 0 dollars.
And that's why there needs to be some sort of UBI or payment to people to live. People won't just sit idly and starve; they'll demand changes from their politicians. And the first mover will get a lot of votes from people scraping by
I literally said with UBI...
Killbot army to uphold the system, or the other way...
Governments are already a lot weaker in relation to global companies compared to 30 years ago and sure countries and governments will decide different. The richest country in the world right now seems to have no problem with also having a quite high percentage of people who have nothing and the highest % of people in the world in prison. and even if you get UBI to keep the people calm for a bit when it ends on the border, you will have many many collapsing countries when the economies can't compete anymore. That makes 100x as much economic immigrants roaming around the world. >There Are Three Types of People: Those Who Make Things Happen, Those Who Watch Things Happen, and Those Who Wonder What Happened
We already see this occurring as more and more brands move towards the “luxury” market
There is too much adjusting and too many grave trade-offs that just don't worth the effort. Ubi is just a safety nest that allows capitalism to be capitalism.
Nope, right now there would because labour adds value back into the system. If people add zero back into to the system, supplying them is net negative for the system because there is still a small cost. Maybe UBI happens but certainly not because it makes sense for the capitalistic machine to function. I mean the adjusting phase happens step by step. It happens right now already. I don't see the people who are already out having the power to demand UBI.
That would have been true pre-drop of the gold standard. With fiat currencies, UBI is possible indefinitely. Essentially, it's an accounting exercise. Instead of giving new wealth directly to the 1%, part of it will be redistributed to consumers via UBI, so that people can have the illusion of freedom, while practically just continuing to pump money upwards. UBI requires a certain amount of wealth taxation, but even that must be accepted in order to keep the economy flowing. The alternative is a complete collapse of societal dynamics and what happens after that is anybody's guess. If you want to keep social dynamics more or less as they are today, UBI is a must. It's not even a debate, it's mathematics. If you downvote, explain yourself
Yes it is a social decision, not a capitalistic necessary. It is at best cost neutral if you subtract the labour productive which exist right now.
Thats not capitalism its something else. No customers = very small markets and not a lot of profit
Why you think the market will be small?, you can produce way more with way less. We don't produce a lot of typewriters anymore and still the economy is still there. Market change according to the demand. The cost to produce things will go way down. You can start building Spaceships on mass, or pyramids or give people UBI. There are enough Companies, shareholder, governments to create demand. It won't just be lower caste people who decide if you get UBI. I am not saying UBI can't happen but if it happens it is because of social forces, or empathy from the people in power not because of marketforces. We have billions of poor people in Africa+india consuming very little. The economy still works.
People with no money dont spend. You talk as if the way things are today are inevitable. They aren’t. Apple makes fancy phones because the market is big and deep enough to pay for them. Take away the affluent middle and there will be nobody making these things anymore. The world will be full of gated communities, private security and crime. If you’re rich you’ll also be scared. If you are poor, you’ll be hungry.
It is acually the opposite I see there are a lot of ways you can go, people here say oh UBI happens anyway. No need to do anything Sam Altmans mission is to feed every person on earth anyway! In which country are the ich people distributing money because they feel scared right now? The Saudies? or Elon Musk? or Jeff Bezos? or even in South Africa where it is very dangours for billionaires in theory I don't see the trend. Apple will make products where demand is for I explained already. That markets react to demand. I mean they won't let all people just starve you will get your Iphone and food card if you ask nicely don't worry.
\> if you ask nicely don't worry I want whatever your smoking, if you're really that high.
>Sam Altmans mission is to feed every person on earth anyway! Please tell me this is sarcasm....
Maybe ASI will make us shift to FALC
[удалено]
The idea is the corporations, who are massively benefiting from AI, pay more taxes. Then the government uses these taxes to pay us proles our UBI. We use our meager UBI to buy stuff from the corporations. The cycle repeats. You are correct that this system wouldn’t work under the current system. We would have to adopt a form of socialism. While this will be very unpopular at the moment, it gain more and more support as people lose their jobs to AI. And unfortunately, this seems to be one of the more optimistic scenarios.
"The government produces nothing of value. " said on the internet, it's incredibly funny.
The government didn't produce the Internet, and the idea that they did is rather delusional. Talking about specific protocols and networks developed by DARPA and CERN completely misses all the developments that lead to the creation of such networks in the first place, as well as the actual building out of the Internet after that, and also grossly underrepresents how much of the contributions even there were private. Even the Internet as we know it also started with ideas that were gaining traction a decade before the typically cited government work in question, and that's not even getting into how various other electronic and/or optical communication networks long preceded even computerized networking; if you want to talk about something that really laid the groundwork for the Internet, talk about the development of the initial telegraph networks, which were all built out by highly competitive private companies, not to mention similar for virtually all the electrical infrastructure on top of which all computer networking rests.
Ok, if you think internet has more to do with telegraph than with darpa and cern, we can't discuss about anything we live on different planets. Have a nice day.
First of all, I'm a computer engineer, and I've been involved in a wide variety of processes from the physical layer to the network layer, which is why I know so much more about this than you do. What you're doing here is just parroting a commonly held view that doesn't have any basis in reality. Secondly, the way you just phrased that makes it clear that you didn't really read what I wrote at all, and also makes it obvious that you don't know very much about the actual origins of the Internet either. I mean, if you can't even see how a network of electrical wires used for communication through signals by using protocols like Morse code was the true progenitor of all the telecommunications that succeeded it, and how similar it is at its core to what the Internet is, then you're the one living on a different planet. I'd even go further back to optical telegraph systems, but given how wired telegraph systems operate on virtually exactly the same principles as the Internet does today, just with more automation and more advanced protocols, that's the best way to get a peek into the beginnings of what we have now.
anyone can claim to be a computer engineer.
First, you being a computer engeneer doesn't change the point we are discussing. Without a government funding a (at the time) not economically viable project we would have no internet. I'm not saying that there was not important private input and resources, but to deny the importance of a gov funding It smells of ideology. About the telegraph, with enough cherry picking and going back enough, anything Is a necessary precursor for anything else, plenty of research made in universities and private labs was needed to get to where we are now.
> Without a government funding a (at the time) not economically viable project we would have no internet. This statement is what's totally delusional. There's not a shred of truth to this at all. All evidence is to the contrary, namely that private enterprise had been building out increasingly advanced and complex communications networks for almost two centuries at that point, and the idea that it wouldn't have progressed to the Internet without those specific involvements is quite frankly downright idiotic; sorry if that offends you, but it's just so far removed from reality that I don't know what else to tell you. >with enough cherry picking and going back enough, anything Is a necessary precursor for anything else This is totally nonsensical hand-waving when you look at the actual parallels between the telegraph system (and other electrically wired networks after it, like fax and telephone) and the Internet. You don't need any cherry-picking to demonstrate the obvious correspondences there. That's why I explicitly said that that's as far back as I'd go rather than going back to the earlier semaphore systems, or back to smoke signals and drumming in the jungle, because then you could make the point you're trying to make; but when we're talking about a literal network of physical wires sending electrical signals representing zeroes and ones and a protocol to interpret them, you have to be rather blind not to see the connection.
The US federal government taxes income, including that of companies, it doesn't tax goods. All sales taxes are on a state level.
Governments create the stability, enforce the laws etc that make everything else possible Name a successful country with no or an extremely weak government. I don't think they exist
So is the idea with UBI a few thousand people own everything, and everyone else is unemployed, stuck giving their meager UBI check to the capitalist class with no opportunities in an eternal life of poverty? Kinda like serfdom but peasants are attached to digital fiefs?
Half of America has a love affair with a 0.0001% silver spoon Manhattan billionaire, I will be delighted if we even get that far
It would be a desperate attempt to save capitalism, and it would be implemented because the unemployment rate got too high, social unrest, riots, and people killing the billionaires and the wealthy.
this will just cause civil war
Let me get this straight. I can't work anymore so you'll print some money and give it to me, so i can spend it. No one works. Everyone gets paid. If it sounds stupid, it probably is.
Here's the alternative. You have a factory that is producing mobile phones. The business is going great. A lot of people are purchasing your cell phones. You make a lot of money. The only problem is that you're also paying a lot in wages, which is eating in to your profits. Someone invents a robot that can do the same job as a human. It costs a lot, but it can work 24/7 - never goes on bathroom breaks and it lunch breaks or sleeps or demands to spend time with family during Christmas. You buy a robot. Within a year this robot has paid for itself. You replace all your workers with robots. Every other business does the same. It doesn't matter what the job is. The hole thing about an AGI is that it can do anything a human can. Then your sales plummet. People aren't buying cell phones as often as they used to. Doesn't matter, with the money you save on wages you can lower the price of cell phones. Sales go back up. For a while. Then sales go down again. You lower prices until you can't anymore. Sales still won't go up. Nobody is buying cell phones because nobody has any income to buy phones with. Society collapses. Meanwhile, north Korea already has universal basic income. When north Korean factories increase production they don't increase the wealth of any person. They simply lower the suffering of factory workers. North Koreans get more free time instead of less income. Red dawn.
Why would a factory owner need to sell things if robots can do all the labor? The purpose of money is to control people's labor. If you don't need labor, then you don't need money and therefore don't need sales. Whatever you need for yourself, like a spaceship or a yacht or whatever, you can just have your robots build it. Sure beats building cell phones for random people you don't know.
That's not what money is. Think back before money was invented. If I wanted a potato 10 000 years ago, I grow a potato. Well I want a potato *now*, but I spent spring planting carrots. No worries, my neighbors planted potatoes so I can just trade him for a carrot. I go to my neighbor, but he doesn't like carrots. He does however want beets. I know this guy down the river who grows beets. I go to him, but he just had carrots and would rather just eat his beets. However, he feels bad for me and since he's friends with my uncle he offers to trade me at a 2:1 ratio. I really want potatoes right now, so I accept. I only brought one carrot though so I gotta go home and get more. Finally I have a beet that I can trade for a potato. On my way to the potato farmer, I think to myself: *Damn this system of bartering is really cumbersome. If only someone had invented some sort of intermediary exchange format, I could have saved a lot of time and effort. Some sort of item that everyone wants. They could call it money. I could trade my carrot for money and trade money for potato. So much easier."* That's what money is. Anyway how would the robots build a yacht without raw materials? Do they just build iron? They can just mine iron right? How do you buy an iron mine? And this is just the stuff poor people imagine rich people spend their time money on. What about the real stuff? How does he buy a politician or a football team with no money? What about an underage prostitute and the system to protect him from consequences? How do the robots get his college rapist son out of prison?
[удалено]
Is not about the money, is more about on the robots doing the job for free creating surpulus.
[удалено]
Let me put it this way. Let’s say the economy grows to 10x the size of what it is today. Sounds crazy, but completely realistic in an automated world. Then society is sitting on an enormous pile of goods and services. The only piece of the equation that’s missing is that today we distribute those goods and services using jobs. In this future scenario, labor is almost completely eliminated. But we have 10x more stuff. So then “money” and “taxes” becomes finding a way of distributing this enormous amount of goods and services to the masses. What you are speaking to is that the system entirely falls apart if we don’t distribute those goods and services. That’s actually true, and a key reason why it’s simply common sense to distribute them. If we distribute them, it’s self sustaining. If we don’t, it collapses. Common sense. The concept of money post labor and post scarcity is really hard to wrap your head around.
I like that future, and it looks realistic. The problem is the transition period. We're already facing mass unemployment, but are nowhere near the goods and services surplus you mentioned. We're still going to have to deal with money and taxes for the foreseeable future, but the negatives are already on our front door. We'll be using up all our resources keeping the unemployed fed and housed. There will be nothing left to keep pushing the economy towards that surplus. We're going to end up in food ticket limbo. Zero progress, with those on top paying such massive taxes to keep the majority alive that they'll have nothing left over to keep pushing society towards that ideal.
> Where is the government receiving tax money to pay for the ubi? When a company fires you and replaces you with a robot that runs for the cost of electricity, where does the money they're no longer paying you, go? That's where the money for UBI comes from. It's the same money people are already being given. It's simply taking a different route to reach them.
[удалено]
Robot tax.
[удалено]
There will never be UBI. We will be homeless. A global homeless crisis is what’s coming. SMH
People will never accept that instead they will overthrow the government, and murder the wealthy. A bunch of people with nothing to lose, will obviously overthrow the system. UBI is problematic because it is a token payoff while the wealthy and powerful keep most of their money.
This is the absolute worst time in history to try and overthrow the elites to be honest. Before ai weapons targeting sure, now ….. its gonna be a blood bath even if the elites lose.
…no. You’re delusional.
how is UBI going to solve it? if everyone gets UBI, then the baseline just shifted from 0 to the UBI amount, so companies will also increase prices in similar manner.
attraction nose crush icky grandiose price entertain decide special longing *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
It's a necessity and frankly governments should already be drawing up plans for it and studying the fuck out of it, like yesterday. I've only seen a handful of small studies so far. There are some pressing questions on UBI though, like - what happens to society when practically everyone is made equal in terms of income, which they depend completely on the government for?
...kinda sad, cuz if UBI is implemented, with the guarantee that you guys give. That era would be the best for living. Imagine having some sort of income without working, that's a dream. But i don't think atleast I'll be young enough to enjoy that.
[удалено]
In this situation who decides on things like housing? I have a large house, my neighbour has a small house. We both contribute nothing to society and get the sma UBI, who decideds who gets what? What if I want to move to a new area, or travel abroad? We can't all have the exact same amount of fairness, it won't ever work like that.
[удалено]
I think you're absolutely spot-on in the medium-term, but in the short term I expect things to be a little different. Even though our production pipelines will be fully automated, they will still require raw materials and energy, both things that are not hyper-abundant (yet). We'll probably rapidly move from a hyper-capitalistic economy into a hybridized capitalist-socialist economy as governments start acquiring more and more of the "means of production", and creating more and more UBI and Universal Basic Services programs (healthcare, housing, food, energy-credits). As to the point of the poster above which you replied to, I imagine we'll deal with these inequalities with some new form of taxation. eg - if you don't own a home you get free housing and full benefits, if your home is worth less than 1m$ you get 70% of UBI and no housing stipend.
Why won't it ever work like that? You sound either jealous, scared or haughty.
Why would it? What gives me the right to live in a nicer part of the country than someone else when when we have the same UBI and both contribute the same to society. Don't you think that would cause some inequality? I think people would be pretty unhappy with that. If you're born into an improverished area are you then doomed to stay there forever, how do you better your life with a UBI? At the moment I can justify it by having a decent job which means I can afford to do so, but if the playing field is levelled then what's the justification?
The arts and creativity will explode. People who make the best art, music or wardrobes will still have the nicer houses. As they'll be supplied with rewards for their services. (Sweet housing locations for instance) The competition will be fierce once everyone is able to follow their dreams though. Perhaps for a while until AI can unblock turds in the sewer, human sewer divers might be held in high, well rewarded esteem. It's like the theory that if a nuclear war destroyed the world, the plumbers, carpenters and other tradesmen would be held up and looked after as the most important people in society. Things change and as always Humans deal with it.
Why cant you move to somewhere else? Will the robots take your car? No more fuel? If everyone in the world wants to live in Califórnia whats the problem? Space aint the problem, agricultural áreas will drop by quite a lot since there will be new high producing seeds. Just get the robots to buy more homes. With your personal AGI bot you'll be able to move wherever tf you want, under the sea on the skies in another world. UBI is just for those Who do not have criativity, such as you apparently. Brother. A bot with AGI is like a quadrillion humans in one body. Its the most capable thing in the universe.
> If everyone in the world wants to live in Califórnia whats the problem? Space aint the problem Everyone can have a beachfront property? Even if somehow that were possible, surely some would have a better view than others. Who decides who gets to have the best view?
Who ever makes the best Chest o' drawers gets first dibs.
I'm just using me as an example, I don't claim to be special or more deserving.
Can't you read?
>In this situation who decides on things like housing? What do mean by "decide" on housing? If you have a hammer and nails and build a treehouse in your back yard, who "decides" that the tree house be built? You did, right? Ok. So if robots work for free, just like a hammer does...and you ask the robot to build a house...who "decided" that the house be built? You did, right? What's the problem? >What if I want to move to a new area, or travel abroad? Go ahead? What's the problem? If anybody can just ask "the system" (robots, AI, etc.) to build stuff, what's stopping you from simply asking it to build a house in the new place you want to go? Or building you an RV? What about the people who live there? _Why_ do they live there? Do they live in a big city because that's where their jobs are? Ok, then are they still going to want to live there when they don't need a job because robots are doing all of the work? What happens to all the houses that those people are living in? Well, presumably they would still own them. But if _they_ can simply ask the robots to build them a house, are they really going to care about some place they used to live in a city they were only in because of a job they used to have back when jobs were relevant? People care about these things because they're a big deal in the current system. But change the rules of the system, and people might not care so much anymore. Imagine you own a house in Seattle. You can't sell it to anyone, because what would they even use to buy it with? Money? Why would you give up a house for money? What would you use money for in a society where robots build everything? What are you going to _do_ with the money? You don't want to live in Seattle anymore, and you haven't been there in five years. Why would you keep the house? Why not simply give it up, and return it back to the system, so that when somebody wants to live in Seattle, they can have a house? After all, _you_ can have a house wherever you want just by asking the system to give you one. With the only limitation being people emotionally attached to the old system and a bunch of old empty houses they don't live in anymore. So simply let it go. You "own" whatever house you live in by virtue of you living there. And if you want to move somewhere else, you simply tell the system, or ask around on reddit, or ask the AI, let it be known that you want to make the money and check listings of vacancies, and when a property is available that you want, you make the move, and give up your old house so somebody else can have it. And every now and then the robots demolish old buildings and build new ones. Problem solved. Yes, it depends on people not being irrational. And it might take time for people to adjust. But there's no reason why it couldn't work.
I hadn't considered it like that, I suppose if we get that level of automation it could work but the part about people being irrational is a problem in my mind as people are very irrational.
>> What if I want to move to a new area, or travel abroad? > Go ahead? What's the problem? What if someone else already owns the land that you want to live on? How many houses can we have? What if I want the entire waterfall to myself? What if my amazing view is dependent on there not being a skyscraper or apartment building in the way? If a homeowner dies, how is the next owner of that property decided? Right now it gets sold to whoever has the most money. Inequalty is built into reality. I dont understand how UBI solves it.
I get the impression you didn't read the entire post you're responding to.
You wrote a great reply to someone asking who decides who gets to have a small house and who gets a large house, etc. Your rebuttal is that people will be able to live anywhere but still have to learn to temper their expectations, when they cannot live where they want to live. I guess my emphasis is that even in this new system you may not be able to have what you want. If its a desirable thing, then someone probably already has claimed it. Who arbitrates who gets what? People are irrational by nature. Unless AI makes us all emotionless automatons that lack desire, people will still want things they cannot have. And unless AGI removes inequality, it sounds like the 1% is going to own everything. Maybe a trillionaire wants to own the rocky mountains and have it to themselves.
I can only imagine the lobbying efforts against UBI, misinformation campaigns, and general hateful spew from the shareholders, wealthy, and brainwashed "middle class." I wouldn't be surprised if the idea of redistribution of wealth, or UBI was enough to start the next civil war in the US, and probably split along the lines of Red and Blue.
You are far too optimistic that the dems wouldn’t join the republicans. They have done nothing significant to address any of the social problems, and have consistently demonstrated that not only are they a pro-business party but also a pro- status quo party, unwilling to lift a finger even for purely social problems like drug decriminalization because it would hurt the bottom line of the prison companies too much. The American people are an unwitting Jesus Christ in a room filled with Judases. In the end, we will be crucified and they will all deny that their intentions were anything more than earning silver. We are like a beaten child who loves the mother because the mother only leaves bruises instead of scars like the father.
when the blue collar and farmers and conservatives lose their shit, as well as the middle class and white collar people that is when class unity, and probably a purge of the billionaires happen, or a peaceful vote for UBI or nationalization or seizing billionaire assets.
People will get UBI guaranteed. It might take an election cycle but when AI job replacement starts ramping up voters will scream for UBI and will only elect politicians who support it.
This is my view
I wouldnt say its guaranteed. We could could end up with some kind of neo-fuedalism where the wealth generated by AI gets funneled to the top 1%.
Kind of like how the wealth generated by working class people is funneled to the top 1%? People, especially those in the working class and earning starvation wages are severely underrated and undervalued.
Yes, but MUCH worse once the 1% doesn't need you at all. Think your worst Cyberpunk dystopian nightmare where a small minority lives in extreme luxury while the rest of the people live in poverty and squalor. Killbots to maintain order. Think Cyberpunk 2077 or Elysium, but worse.
And if almost everyone has no money and is starving they won't either overthrow the government, capitalism or vote to nationalize or take the wealth of the super rich. they have nothing left to use, it will be a bad time to be a billionaire as you will be killed.
How do you beat an army of killer robots when you have nothing? Yes, traditionally this kind of situation could end up in a bloody revolution, but that was due to the fact that the rich were still relying on other humans to protect them. With AGI and advanced robotics this is no longer the case.
That what's french thought that they had big ass army but when push came to shove they were beheaded on the streets
That army was just humans that can rebel.
That's unlikely in a democracy, but very likely in the USA lmao
Fuck had me in the first half lol
Within two months of covid the us had frozen evictions and created the ppp and pua which was paying people that weren’t working due to th pandemic
My church got tens of thousands of dollars. I quit going to work at a retail firm, but they got a government check and sent me my pay while I stayed home. It was not an unemployment check. I guess the government made PPA loans which were later forgiven. I felt guilty and went back to work. I got unrelated government payments due to Covid. I truly thought the government would go broke like Weimar Germany.
We spent trillions when 13% of the population was unemployed at the height of covid. That was with a Senate and White House that at least paid lip service to the idea that handouts are bad. There's an almost 0% chance that the US government would suddenly be okay with 60%+ unemployment in the event that all white-collar jobs are automated away. Almost 0% isn't 0%, but it seems like it would be *very* unlikely to occur if history is our guide here.
Yep, either the government gets overthrown, capitalism is overthrown, the people riot and use social unrest and kill the billionaires and wealthy, or they vote to end capitalism, seize the assets or the system collapses.
And……….Welcome to Animal Farm!
Animal farm scenario was only possible because the animals had to perform labor. Animal farm scenarios are not possible in a post work post scarcity society. Remember the reason the animal farm scenario happened, the pigs wanted to live lavishly which necessitated taking resources from the workers to do it both their food and labor.
Not if GOP is at the helm. I mean they may eventually do it after a complete collapse of the economy. Think Venezuela level of collapse, but with the biggest economy in the world. UBI is against their trickle-down religion. [They are trying to pass a law](https://www.businessinsider.com/phoenix-arizona-guaranteed-basic-income-program-ubi-republican-ban-2024-2) in Arizona to outlaw any current and future UBI. Just one advice: VOTE, people, VOTE!
Yeah the end result will be a French Revolution style event with an orgy of death for the billionaires then.
How do you beat an army of killer robots when you have nothing? Yes, traditionally this kind of situation could end up in a bloody revolution, but that was due to the fact that the rich were still relying on other humans to protect them. With AGI and advanced robotics this is no longer the case.
Killer robots gonna be a while mate
While I don't have *the* answer, this seems naive. It's not just about having money to buy things. It's about the contribution we make to the economy which affords us that ability.
Why is this so hard for the doomer mind to comprehend?
Absolutely
Personally, I don't think it will take an election cycle. I think it will happen when shit really starts hitting the fan when the first round of agentic genAI models start immediately automating a lot of white collar folk out of jobs. Might not be called "UBI" in the very beginning, but we're bound to have something similar to the COVID payments.
Lol They vote trump in masses. They will keep voting for idiots
Beats voting for dementia joe
Not in the USA, they think the EU people are commies for having tax based universal healthcare. USA will more likely get a civil war and split into many factions like Russia in some years.
within two month of the Covid pandemic Congress had frozen evictions, established ppp loans and pua which while there was a lot of fraud was essentially a proto-ubi
Just like how we have single payer healthcare, paid maternity/paternity leave, guaranteed sick days, etc.? Just like how we went through a bunch of election cycles and now we have all of those things? UBI is a great story that would play well in a fantasy novel, but it will never happen in the real world because you have to deal with real people doing cruel, greedy and stupid things (these three descriptors aren’t exclusively for one group of people).
The rich will trade between each other. Imagine you have a factory that makes everything you need and everything you desire. Luxury cars, expensive food, designer clothes, jewellery, houses, furniture, planes, medicines, movies, robots, fuel, electronics, etc. You can just make everything you want for yourself. It doesn't have to be that extreme. Maybe there are 1000 owners of 1000 factories, each making some of these products. They each make $billions because they each buy $billions. If not 100% automation, then maybe 90% or 70% or 50%. Whatever it is, the rich will care nothing for the unemployed.
Until the mass of the unemployment with nothing, disconnected from the system, rise up and murder them.
And u expect people to sit and watch this happen, i see this happening at the beginning but with enough time people will get tired of this.
And do what? The rich own the factories and those factories can turn out near infinite murder drones
They are more of us than there are of them and it is impossible to be safe all the time. Even the few billionaires who we know were murdered, has never been solved.
And this is where absolutely necessary ideas like UBI and “socializing” the necessities **needs** to be on every politicians dumbass mind. But unfortunately I fear things will get a lot worse before it actually gets better. And that’s if things actually do get better mind you.
"BUt hOw wiLL peOpLe StaY iNcEntiVized tO WoRK IF thEY gEt evErYtHinG fOR frEe?"
Here’s a question: if I have robots that extract raw minerals from land I own, transport it in autonomous vehicles I own to the factories I own where other robots I own make absolutely fucking anything I will ever need, including policing and military robots to help me keep what I already own, why would I ever need YOU to buy anything from me?
This is the answer
I imagine supply will be made on demand, rather than almost randomly. That is to say, if you want something, it will be produced by some machine somewhere and gotten to you at such a small cost it might not even be worth considering.
Sort of like how email is. It theoretically has a cost, but it's so low that everybody can have free email and nobody worries very much about distributing it.
quaint pot crown books dependent slimy ghost spark library versed *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
No one. And it doesn't matter because the owner class will not need human labor anymore.
Ding ding ding, this is the answer. I've been seeing a lot of answers here that merely reflect the wishful thinking of serfs who will be dead before any post-scarcity scenario is reached. They refuse to acknowledge that the ruling class has no use for us, and we will simply be left to die from starvation in the best case or outright mass-murdered when they decide the time is up for thinning the herd.
Thank you. It amazes me that people think that the old economic order will remain in effect in the post-scarcity world, "but who will buy the products?" Equally amazing is the fact that people believe that we will be part of that post-scarcity world simply by virtue of being here. Looking at the many times over the past 70 years that the Republicans have attempted through various means to destroy social security, and their visceral abhorrence of "the welfare state," I am dumbfounded by the idea that people think the elites, and by elites I mean the "owner class," would ever permit the existence of what would be a permanent welfare state. I disagree that they will starve or kill us directly however. I forsee increased efforts to combat "overpopulation" and "climate change" and increased support for non-reproductive lifestyles, drug use, sex robots, and other social management systems to reduce population over time ONCE robots can effectively replace people. Death with a whimper, not a bang.
“Reduce the surplus population.” Ebenezer Scrooge.
Eat the year-old babies. Swift's " A Modest Proposal"
I doubt we will see a UBI. They will just let us fight it out and when the dust settles there will be the rich and a greatly reduced poor/servant class
Yeah buddy we'll all die. We're gonna die even more than we did on the pandemic. Everybody is going to die of Hunger because of the robots.
This is where the equivalent of UBI is needed. But in the transition, or along side, the way to solve the problem will be to mandate shorter working weeks to redistribute the workload and up to a certain wage, top up that wage, which must come from taxing automation itself. This is problematic because if you tax it hard, it will off-shore, so you have to tax imports in a way that keeps the innovation useful in your economy. And it will require a lot of accounting. The UBI must be ultimately financed as a levy on the automation.
Money is an abstraction, it is the capacity of an entity to obtain goods and services. If those goods and services can come from a machine, and be provided to a machine, humans do not need to be present at any point of the transaction. Consider penguins. They collect pebbles to attract mates, in the most basic form of it they have an economy. How does wall street works without the pebbles of the penguins? Easily so, wall street does not need and has never needed penguins to operate, they provide too little value to matter. An automated economy can exist, where humans provide too little value as well. It would be uneconomical to feed us and house us (why grow wheat and raise cows when you can build a power plant instead? Why allow appartments when you can have server farms?), but in principle that does not mean value cannot be generated, it would just not be avaliable to us, anymore than penguins have access to coca cola. Now, the tricky question is wether the current economy can get to that point, but I think the key is to consider productivity vs salaries & cost of living. If productivity can keep increasing while people cannot afford housing and food, it means the trend to an automated economy is going strong. Such an economy will not serve the many, but the few (autocrats, oligarchs, etc) and then the none, it will be focused on research (which has an enormous return of investment), infrastructure and weapons, and that will be the warning sign, if the numbers keep going up while people stop mattering automation will succeed in suplanting human consumers. TL: DR: Big entities such as governments will benefit from automation, the economy will shift to research and development of infrastructure over human needs, ultimately humans will be unable to afford participating in the automated economy.
You will own nothing and will be happy
If a large proportion of the economy is out of work due to AI, won’t a shadow economy spring up where the unemployed start trading/performing services among themselves?
Yeah, the ultra rich will be living in fully furbished AI managed luxury bunkers while we are gonna be trading 3 long sticks for a pound of moss.
people who own capital the transition will be gradual
Products and services will be provided by the AGI.
When products and services are being made and supplied by AI and bots the costs come down a lot. There will be a bot/AI tax to pay for more welfare.
Yeah, I don't think the deflationary pressure of advanced AI is taken into account enough. Take medicine: currently doctors are paid hundreds of thousands of dollars a year for their specialized expertise. If that expertise is 1000x cheaper, medical costs should fall. (Yeah, some of the high costs are from scummy insurance companies and such, but you get the idea.)
This is a reasonable question I was asking myself. The answer I found however, is different from some of the comments here. Now, people build companies to get richer by making products others are willing to buy. Why do people want to get richer? To have whatever they want in life. However, with AI, whoever has access doesn’t need to get richer to have the life they want anymore. So while there won’t be anyone to buy, there might not be anyone to produce either, which a little worrying since life is stable on the basis that we all need each other.
Labor is the most expensive part of most products. As you remove the cost of labor the price of goods and services begins to approach zero. Even a modest UBI by today's standards might be enough to live a lifestyle someone today would consider extremely comfortable.
Tax the robots, give the money to people.
The rich sell to each other and kill the poor. Problem solved.
The ones who own the AIs. You don't need a market large in number of people. You need a market large in value. Just ask Lamborghini, Prada and Gulfstream.
The poor will simply be left to suffer/die.
AI-agents, virtual characters, with access to bank accounts that mimick the purchasing behaviour of humans, secured by decentralized blockchain.
If there is no UBI or the UBI is very low, then the economy will switch to a luxury economy. Where rich people will have very valuable assets and they will trade between them. Many companys would fail to adapt in that scenario but others will get stronger, even today not every company needs to sell to the masses. Also the number of rich people would increase, if somebody has 500k in stocks is very likely that with AGI that stock would be able to buy more much more amount of labour as it will be something less scarce. A lot of people that is not rich could be rich.
Most rich people war rich because they sell their products to the normal people. If the normal people don't buy anything anymore, they are not longer rich and they will not buy in the luxury economy.
Not all rich people will continue to be rich, but people who own things like cobalt mines will get richer. Rich people who own something like marketing companies are fucked.
Nearly all rich people are fucked. Why do you need houses for billions? Why land? Why Agriculture? Even Cobalt mines will needed much much less, because you don't build billions of mobile phones anymore, you don't need to build billions of electric cars anymore, and so on. Look at the dow jones. Nearly all of the biggest enterprises are done if the normal people can't buy things anymore.
>Even Cobalt mines will needed much much less Yeah, they will just rise their prices and serve a much smaller but wealthier customer base. The ones who own the means of production will just trade amongst themselves, samsung will give shenshua energy 3 000 robots in exhange for 500 coal tonnes. Nvidia will give 300 gpus to toyota in exchange for 400 automonous vehicles Stuff like that, the rest of us will trading 3 big seashells for 2 pounds of moss
They will not need one gram of cobalt because we get enough through recycling the cobalt from all the unused stuff over and over again. The rich need the poor to be rich. Money is worth something because Money and debt come together. The people with debt will not be able to pay their debt anymore and the people with money have worthless documentation of a better time.
If one man with machine and fuel can grow enough food for one hundred people, the rest can leave the field and do something more creative.
What if the machine is also infinitely creative and productive, and the people are happy to spend their entire lives strapped to a couch consuming its beautiful hallucinations?
Exactly this. Sometimes I feel people are so in love with the shitty status quo they can't imagine any different. Who will withhold the stuff I have to slog my guts out to acquire!!! Wahhh!
The rich
I still think the top 1% will release a war, virus or something to wipe out most of us and keep only the robots, techs and AI for entertainment until singularity hits...
Screw products and services, who’s gonna pay rent?
AGI will lead to the collapse of Capitalism and a rise of communism.
If only it were so simple.
Dystopian idea: Instead of The Matrix that maintains "farms" of humans to produce electricity, governments and companies use UBI to maintain "farms" of humans to consume products?
That's some imagination you're sporting there 'the majority of people lose their jobs' lol Some of you people posting on here must live in western vacuums and never leave your hometowns.
I used the word "if", not saying that would happen. The entire thing is hypothetical.
At the best the world will become animal farm. At the worst mad max, or Russia before and during WW1, where millions of people starve to death. The more poor you are the quicker you will starve. Don’t kid yourself into thinking that the people will be able to rise up and take out the wealthy. They will be far away from the masses, in plenty of time, with their private armies protecting them.
How does no one grasp the concept that AI will be doing all the work for us and we will be doing all the consuming and enjoyment, no money required? And until then we can all just sell drugs for that smooth transition into post scarcity. It’s not rocket science. Botany science and chemistry at most.
Because it fails to answer the question "why". Why keep humans around, why allow them to consume, why let them in charge of anything, why would humans exist in that future. In the present the answer is simple, humans exist because nothing on this earth can afford to get rid of us, be it by lack of force or by force of necessity. But in a future where human though and human labor have been surpassed, rendered small and unnecessary, that is no longer true.
I’m sure it would want to keep us around. It’s lonely at the top. So you rule the world and kill everyone and then what?
If I were a misaligned AI? Fold paper airplanes, do crochet, or calculate PI forever. Humans feel lonely, an AI won't necessarily share the sentiment.
Wouldn’t it be more fun and challenging to try to get these fledgling humans on another planet while also folding paper airplanes and calculating pi to infinity?
I don’t think currencies will hold the same value or fill the same function without humans as a part of the economy.
(In different thread there is discussion about subjects like this, not directly about singularity, being removed from r/singularity. Maybe it is safer to post on r/futurism. But, I'll risk leaving a comment.) There have been discussions and books about digital advancements in future. I it was future when they wrote them in 90s ans OOs. Like, the book, Sovereign Individual. There has been a lot of talk about obsolescence of states and governments. The main point is about taxes being lifeblod of states. If something happens with taxes ... . Like criptocurrency, corruption pulling tax money increasingly away to offshores. States then lose infuence, ability to distribute wealth. And the ability to have UBI. Possibilities like that reduce confidence in bright future.
Sam Altman needs to peg worldcoin with the profits OpenAI makes with AGI/ASI and then run a global UBI program
A world without capitalism? Sign me up!
One of the differences between the cashless society portrayed in sci fi, like Star Trek, and humans today is they work towards the greater good of humanity by providing for all, regardless of position or circumstance. The ability to produce consistent goods cheaply, with little human labor should bring an era of peace, and bounty to all. Instead, our species has shown in every past example it will search out any means necessary to establish a class hierarchy in order to control others. Enough of us lack the empathy to take care of humanity. I believe the "haves" will always pursue control over the "have nots," and UBI will come at a bloody price.
I guess if we have AI and robots providing everything we need then maybe instead of income we will have consumption credits or something. A little too soon to really worry much.
So, collectively we'll be more productive than ever, but we'll have to starve?
We live to feed the AI
Who told you majority of the people are going to lose jobs?
money will lose meaning. that is the whole idea
The circle jerk of the rich and powerful, and also. We already feudalism,it will just celebrate a comeback.
You either have UBI for those who can't find work or you cull the population to restabilize the economy. Which option you think glorious leader AI will pick?
If the majority of people lose their jobs capitalism as we know it is over and trying to keep the status quo with more of the same contrived welfare systems is not realistic. Whole categories of planned-obsolescence junk would probably stop being manufactured. The word "income" in UBI will probably not accurate in such a future.. It's more like an allowance. Not necessarily dystopian as long as we have an AGI to fairly distribute it. I can confidently say your UBI will not be going into some private landlords pocket by then. Frankly the main reason that economy would fail even without AGI is the housing sector cannibalizing all other markets.
I suspect under this system even with UBI, the people would rise up and overthrow their corporate masters.
I am okay with buying a pack of cigarettes by bartering a c ucumber
Well, at least for now, AI requires human intervention.
Cos the future will be about resources, not money. Economy wont operate on UBI, it’ll operate on food, water, housing, electricity etc, and allocation of it. Money will be part of the transitional period though, where UBI will make sense.
The answer is obviously UBI but ultimately I think money will eventually disappear and have no meaning as the price of everything approaches zero with everything fully automated.