How Universal Basic Income Will Save Us From the Robot Uprising

What if they're rich people that are able-bodied and don't have to work, but instead get to just sit at home collecting money. Does that make it okay?

I find that many people that say they're against the idea of people being paid without working really mean that they're against the idea of anybody except the aristocracy being paid without working.

 

So let's further hypothesize that Linda Hamilton rescues us from the camps and achieves some sort of martial detente with the machine armies. And now the new task that needs doing is something else you're not good at, like ... I don't know ... sewing or stand-up comedy or something you're just terrible at. You've got no place in Linda Hamilton's job market, either. What do you do?

 

we do that too, it's called welfare, it's not a pretty life, just the basics, but that is what our society calls the bottom

 

​

You'd be able to say, "So spend your money on food," which would be stupid now since they don't have any. This way they would.

 

As opposed to "spend your welfare on food?"




​

 

If you feel you are paying someone and getting nothing in return... why are you paying them? And why do you imagine it would be more fair if you forced me to do the same?





​

 

Did you see ANY of the Terminator movies? They don't negotiate unless they are trying to trick people into helping them wipe out humanity (ala the TV series and the Salvation movie).

And I guarantee you that there will be now universal income when the machines or zombies or aliens take over.

 

I don't know why we're paying them. I've never understood that part. That's my question.

Because it's at least as just (probably more), and actually benevolent.

 

That is the main problem that the left do not seem to get. If people were good with money in the first place they wouldn't need a guaranteed paycheck. What will happen with this is that they will just as easily spend their money and be right back asking for more. Every semester my brother in law gets the same amount of student loans I do, he is always broke within a few weeks after getting them while mine last until the next round and some goes into savings. Giving him more money simply means he will have more to waste.

Liberals seem to think that everyone knows how to handle money and if they just get a break they will move on and improve their lives but that is not the case. As a taxpayer I have no desire to supplement the wasteful spending habits of others.

 

Not sure who 'we' is. Benevolent means kind or generous. Gifting something you own to another is a generous act.

Now if you are giving your things to people, receiving nothing in return and you don't know why... maybe you should stop. If you know someone else who is making gifts to others, that's really none of your business. But if you want to force someone to play Santa... well it stopped being a kind act when you decided to make that decision for them.

​

​

 

Most Rich people got rich by working. They've earned sitting on their asses. Someone has has barely or never worked doesnt deserve anything.

Let me guess though. You think most rich people have always been rich? Silver spoon babies right?

 

Oh, and they NEVER lose money, do they? Wealthy people have NEVER risked anything, and NEVER lost everything on investments.

Dems live in Disney World............right between their ears.

 

If some (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*) managed to turn the sunshine into his legal private property, then I would have no choice but to pay him for it. The better idea would of course be to abolish his parasitic privilege.

 

Not in a literal sense.

Yes. Statistically, that is the case.

In essence, the republican argument -- the one you're making now -- is that everyone who doesn't have money right now is lazy, and everyone that does have money right now is a good worker. There is no way to be poor except to be a bad person, and there is no way to be rich except to be a good person. We live in a meritocracy, and the possession of money is the ultimate sign of merit.

Did I miss anything?

 

I NEVER said all poor people are lazy. Never said they were bad. You said that. Nice job trolling.

But poor people certainly don't stay poor their whole lives by being savvy, hard working intelligent people. Decisions were made many times which kept them in that position. You don't stay poor by accident. Baring mental illness or a handicap most poor people are poor because they don't have the ability to be anything but. Sorry. Exceptions are not the rule.

 

Well, if one person deserves a portion of the fruits of anothers labors. Then why not divvy up the prison times while were at it. Why should so much more imprisonment belong to one than another?

 

The idea of a basic income is not to set an even income for everyone, or even a maximum income for everyone, but rather a minimum standard of living. Its goal isn't to create a life of luxury for all individuals, it is to prevent individuals from falling into severe poverty

 

Oh, it's arleady begun. They're punishing whites for nonexistent infractions because the numbers don't please them. Too many blacks, and not enough whites breaking the rules.
http://human-stupidity.com/stupid-d...ine-more-asian-and-white-students-eric-holden

 

The issue is if people are pushed into a corner might resort to violence and lash out unless tossed enough to placate them national health care and a basic income might suffice but one might have to assure housing and food to the masses.

 

Labor is changing being an able-bodied worker of average ability doesn't mean you will be successful jobs like factory work is gone, so what options are there?

 

A basic universal income would be nice. I'd like that a lot, especially as a poor person myself. But there's absolutely NO way it's economically feasible or possible.

That said, I've always said that Humans will one day be unemployable and we need to do something about it.

But, the tax of the middle class alone would break the bank. It can't be done, and taxing the rich spoils economic activity by punishing success.

 

You mind backing that bull(*)(*)(*)(*) up?

Recently, PNC Wealth Management conducted a survey of people with more than $500,000 free to invest as they like, a fair definition of “wealthy,” and possibly “millionaire” once you begin including home equity and other assets. Only 6% of those surveyed earned their money from inheritance alone. 69% earned their wealth mostly by trading time and effort for money, or by “working.”

 

*shrug* Then change the law, leave the country, or go to war... when and if that ever happens.





​

 

To employ something just means to use it. An unemployable human is a useless human, by definition.




​

 

It might not be possible to envision it today, but one day technology is going to be faster, smarter, and more able to do everything than humans.

Plus what to do if you just don't like other humans?