Elon Musk says universal basic income is needed because 'physical work will be a choice' in future

Elon should stay out of issues regarding money and economics.
 
Kieppie said:
I wouldn't say goods and services are becoming cheaper. production cost go down as the process is improved and refined yes or as technology simplifies the process.
However buying power is not increasing. There is a reason why most of us had more difficulty affording the same lifestyle (house, car etc. not taking into consideration luxuries like tech or stuff not around previously) the previous generation had.
Markets have adapted to a two income house hold and all prices have adjusted. Any time you make a change to a variable it will invariably have a knock on effect to be balanced out somewhere else.

And yes technology has improved, but the increase is accelerating and eventually humanity itself will become the limiting factor. Unfortunately humans are NOT getting smarter, but only more reliant on technology. So we can have this discussion again when physicals labour is almost non-existent (probably still a centaury or more away though).
Click to expand...
Housing is more expensive now than a in past decades but still less expensive than centuries leading up to ours. Cars are pretty cheap if you don't go for the latest and greatest. Food is far cheaper and more varried today than probably any time in history, that's part of goods and services. You can't discount technology, because what would have been impossible or expense like instant messaging replaced things like post, carrier pigeons and telegraphs.
Technology has allowed people to focus less on mandate tasks and become far more productive than previous generations. One farmer can do the work of 10's if not hundreds of farmers of decades and ages ago and this goes for most industries. So yes goods and services are becoming less expensive with a few exceptions. Goods and services has also become more varied and this creates the jobs that those displaced by technology take up.
Kieppie said:
I'm sure there will be some Hilter'esque figure some time in the future advocating for "trimming the fat". However history has shown us that some unforeseen breakthrough can completely alter the way we live.

Remember in this situation the "Elites" will still contain a wide variety of people. As I mentioned mental jobs will not be easily replaced. So it will basically be your upper-middle class of today. People already fight to capture markets. That's if they are competing in the same area. You don't see Jeff or Elon going after each other. Nah I doubt they would squabble over that. More than enough to go around. Those at the top will be at a point where they would not know what to do with their wealth. Collusion will most likely occur yes.
As for allocating resources... not really. Of all future tech this is perhaps the closest to reality. Forget about the sci-fi version of AI, but an AI allocating resources is much more realistic. Just a very complex equation that continuously needs to be solved.
Click to expand...
I love that you mention Jeff and Elon, see how they are already fighting over NASA contracts. If the depth of the Elites are not wide enough, you will end up with near monopolies. You also talk about how easy upward mobility is, but the more advanced technology becomes the greater the upfront capital cost to even just compete and the easier it would be to raise barriers of entry.

AI allocating resources is a communists wet dream, a single entity allocating resources is just a recipe for disaster, humans are not rational, AI will have to be omnipresent and predict the future to do a decent job, good luck with that.
 
Kieppie said:
We've always had massive inequality so yes it will remain stable
Click to expand...
And how is that working out for South Africans and even the global elites, populism is rising for a reason. I know it's been a while but revolutions used to be a lot more common ;)
 
randomcat said:
Imagine how mentally ****ed we will be if we don't do any physical work. There is a reason farmers are the happiest and **** the most.
Click to expand...
There is also a reason farming has never, and will never appeal to me lol. I'm pretty sure a well built smart machine can do most of it.
 
alanB said:
As much I respect Elon for what he has achieved, I think he is completely wrong about this, and this view of the future is horribly misguided.

I personally have no intention of becoming some dumbed down serf, paid to stay at home and vegetate like a plant, while the elites get to live proper lives and achieve their dreams. Nor would I want that for any of my family.

IMO this idea is very much like medieval serfdom, where the lower classes were held in disdain by the upper classes, and treated like cattle.

So stuff them all IMO!

Just look at every suburb in the world where people predominantly live on welfare in homes or apartments, they do not, and cannot own, with very little choice about what options they can take in life. All you see is misery, violence, crime, gangs, decay, drug addiction, teenage pregnancy, broken homes and families, hopelessness etc. Why would anyone think this sort of thing is a good idea?

People need to be free, given the opportunity to rise to their potential, achieve their dreams, not be kept in cages like bloody chickens!
Click to expand...
Yes, and the currently "free" ones are definitely doing such a great job, so many billions realizing their potential and their dreams and living in mansions...
 
neoprema said:
There is also a reason farming has never, and will never appeal to me lol. I'm pretty sure a well built smart machine can do most of it.
Click to expand...
95% of new farmers fail, because they think like you.
Put a thing in the ground and grows, feed cows some grass, eeee-z!
 
Last edited:
username and 23 others said:
Nope.

Imagine a world where you can do things and pursue dreams, without having to worry about the basics of life. Without having to slog and slave and sell your soul to the highest bidder. Nine-to-five (if you're lucky). Day in day out. And you do not have to wait until you're 65 (or whatever the retirement age is).

OK. The above will only work in an ideal dream world (I bet we will never reach it - not even in first world countries or this ZA ghetto).

This idea is very pleasing to me, I guess, bc I am very easy going. Do not care for cars, clothes, houses, etc. Content with the very basics. I have no fanciful dreams, aspirations for tomorrow, no bucket lists and only live for the day. And yes, boredom bows down to me and worships at my feet.

The corporate world with its poisonous and painful atmosphere and fakeness is not worth it for me.

... but humanity has proven over and over again how we can **** up things. I suppose to get to the carrot one will still need the stick and the stick bearer for a long time. Hopefully future generations will make a success of it.
Click to expand...
I don't have to imagine it. I lived it. Already dreading permanent retirement.
I retired twice before 40 and basically went back to work out of boredom.
Sure it sounds nice having all that free time and it is nice not being bound to a clock, but unless you have something you really want to pursue it gets old quite quickly.

For those doing the more traditional retiring after 65 just go ask the wives how fed-up they can get with the man always tinkering away in the garage or on some project around the house to keep themselves occupied.

People need a purpose and this will never change.
 
Brenden_E said:
95% of new farmers fail, because they think like you.
But a thing in the ground and grows, feed cows some grass, eeee-z!
Click to expand...
Farming is easy. Being a successful farmer is not. :P

I like the idea of a UBI. We as a society deciding to get rid of the lower levels of Maslow's hierarchy, hopefully leading more to self-actualization as opposed to spending so much of your time dedicated to meeting your basic survival needs. It's a flight of fancy that will never happen, but one can dream.

Kieppie said:
People need a purpose and this will never change.
Click to expand...
People need to choose to pursue a purpose, yet given the option, we often don't, instead opting to spend our time on things that don't contribute to our or society's betterment.
 
Fulcrum29 said:
People still need to earn their UBI, and UBI cannot be used to acquire luxuries.
Click to expand...
Why would people still need to earn their UBI, and why should UBI not be used to acquire luxuries?
 
Kieppie said:
I don't have to imagine it. I lived it. Already dreading permanent retirement.
I retired twice before 40 and basically went back to work out of boredom.
Sure it sounds nice having all that free time and it is nice not being bound to a clock, but unless you have something you really want to pursue it gets old quite quickly.

For those doing the more traditional retiring after 65 just go ask the wives how fed-up they can get with the man always tinkering away in the garage or on some project around the house to keep themselves occupied.

People need a purpose and this will never change.
Click to expand...
Future UBI societies will need people like you. On behalf of those peoples, I thank you, and others' contribution to us lazy and freeloaders' wellbeing and happiness. We appreciate you.
 
C4Cat said:
Why would people still need to earn their UBI, and why should UBI not be used to acquire luxuries?
Click to expand...
I agree that the point of a UBI is to not have to earn it. You 'earn' it by way of being lucky enough to be born in a place that has it, as with human rights.
C4Cat said:
Why would people still need to earn their UBI, and why should UBI not be used to acquire luxuries?
Click to expand...
Because the B in UBI stands for Basic... UBI should not be expected to make people thrive, just remove the worry of being able to survive.
 
username and 23 others said:
Future UBI societies will need people like you. On behalf of those peoples, I thank you, and others' contribution to us lazy and freeloaders' wellbeing and happiness. We appreciate you.
Click to expand...
That's the funny part, I am actually quite lazy. It can be a positive in driving innovation to make designs more efficient. Perhaps unmotivated is the better description?

Interesting to imagine what the world will be like with majority of people trying to pursue some artistic dream and the resulting attempts to differentiate themselves from the others. Especially how this is already manifest in society. Tik Tok is a horrible vision of the future.
 
C4Cat said:
Why would people still need to earn their UBI, and why should UBI not be used to acquire luxuries?
Click to expand...

You earn by contributing to society. Menial tasks would also apply, probably via state sponsored programs - people would need to upskill others, educate others, etc. UBI in its very nature is to sponsor the necessities, luxuries simply aren't an imperative requirement. Dispensable income is spent on luxuries. We don't have replicators like in Star Trek which eliminates the need to have dispensable income, plus Star Trek's vision is pretty much... uhm, unrealistic at this time.

UBI is also not a wealth taxation, the moment the person richer than you is being taxed to sustain a universal basic income that person will also become poorer. Likewise with entities, which are also legal persons.
 
A couple of things people do not think about when being bribed by UBI. Because hey it sounds nice, who wouldn't want some extra money free?

1) The price of everything is defined by the balance between supply and demand. If everyone gets some extra money that is just injected into the system, unearned, the prices for everything will go up accordingly and we will all be just as poor, relatively speaking, as we were before. So the moment they introduce UBI, the very next month people will be clamouring for an increase.

2) As was mentioned above, the actual core thing which makes the money you earn worth anything, is whether or not you make a positive contribution to society. This simple principle is why capitalism actually works, and makes people actually more wealthy, and lifts people out of poverty, while just giving people money for doing nothing never works. Because what is missing in the latter case is that there is no positive contribution made to society in exchange for those earning - that is just enforced wealth transfer, which is not sustainable, and actually impoverishes the whole of society, and makes the money worthless. Which is why people end up crawling under fences to get out of communist countries.

3) The free market is one of society's best inventions because it automatically allocates relative value to people's contribution to society, simply because if ordinary people are willing to put their own hands in their pockets, without being forced to, and hand over their own hard earned money for a good or service, and just as importantly also when they will not do so, that defines what is valuable and just how valuable it is relative to all other choices available at the time. The accumulated effect of that allocates our resources, time and effort and future investment very efficiently in ways that benefit society. The amazing thing is all happens automatically. Just think how millions of people get up every day, and work very hard, each earning their living by making the contributions they can make, all in different ways, without being told to. Just think what would happen if they stopped doing that?

4) Lastly, nobody is asking the really important questions. For eg with the WEF's promoting their "Great Reset" in which we will all "Own nothing but we will be happy". What's missing in that statement is the the unspoken ..."or else!" Because there is an inherent implication of servitude in the statement - it's a bribe aimed at people too stupid to realise that IMO. The implication is that you will no longer be in control of your life to the extent you are now, someone else will be - the question is who will that be, what will they do to you? What will you not be able to do, that you can now? If you do not own anything, who will own that stuff? If you will not be able to own valuable things like land and property, how will you ever be able to compete financially on an equal footing with those that can own those assets (this is an extremely important issue IMO because this one issue is how entire societies become trapped in relative poverty with no possible way out). The first thing any young couple should strive to do is buy and own a house, because that asset is probably going to be the single most valuable thing on their balance sheet. If you want to know how ordinary people will ever be able to build their financial position to the point they can afford a better life for themselves and their children, it all starts with being able to own property. If you want to trap a society into permanent poverty, deny them the right own property.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X