“In practice as well as theory the society was beyond considerations of wealth or empire. The very concept of money-regarded by the civilization as a crude, over-complicated and inefficient form of rationing-was irrelevant within the society itself. Where the capacity of its means of production ubiquitously and comprehensively exceeded every reasonable (and in some cases, perhaps, unreasonable) demand its not unimaginative citizens could make. These demands were satisfied, with one exception, from within the society itself. Living space was provided in abundance, chiefly on matter-cheap O’Neill Cylinders & Stanford Tori; raw material existed in virtually inexhaustible quantities both between the stars and within stellar systems; & energy was, if anything, even more generally available, through fusion, matter-antimatter annihilation, or from stars (taken either indirectly, as radiation absorbed in space, or directly, tapped at the stellar core). Thus the society had no need to colonize, exploit or enslave.” - The Hydrogen Sonata, Ian M. Banks.
@@eldsentinel7323before the communists came. Education is only for smart people and have money. people usually go straight to work at the age of 5 years. after communism came everyone could get education up to university. regardless of wealth, ethnicity, and gender. even the dumb and crippled could pass school. many capitalists ask the communists why they send stupid and disabled people to school who will not give a return on the amount of investment given. (waste of subsidies) because for the communists it is not important. if people don't have talented, it doesn't matter whether they graduate they will still be unemployed, it doesn't matter even if they are women after graduating from university paid for by the government and only working as housewives. Something that is good for everyone does not have to be seen whether it will generate profits based on the amount of investment that is given. Free education does not make people smart or creative and make money, but free education makes everyone not stupid, open-minded, learn ethics and loyal to the nation and state. compared to people who attend private capitalist schools who only study subjects that they like and make money.(USA) and never touched subjects such as history, geography and mathematics.
David, I am 79 and have been retired for 17 years. I live on two checks totally $1,370 a month with a little rescue dog. My housing is subsidized as I'm a vet and costs $302 a month. In 2007 I ran for Mayor of San Francisco. I've run for Supervisor 5 times in different districts and School Board. Never spent dime on campaigns and friends pay my entries. My dog and I pickup trash around our block every morning and all morning Sundays. I do it for writing material as that is my love. I walk 90 minutes a day up steep hills so don't worry about being bored after 'retirement'. Just spend all of your time doing what you wanted to do in the first place anyway.
@@macrumpton Yup. Imagine Rent being what it is normally in CA for this guy? Isn't it like $1500 a month lol? Here in TEXAS it's around $1,000 - $1,200 a month.
I wholeheartedly support the implementation of Universal Unconditional Basic Income (UBI) as a crucial social policy. However, I firmly believe that in addition to UBI, we must also prioritize the provision of guaranteed housing for all individuals. It is concerning to think about the potential consequences of limited affordability, leading to people being confined to cramped micro-apartments or living in substandard trailer park-like tiny house villages. We should strive for a society where everyone has access to secure and comfortable housing that meets specific standards related to space, aesthetics, and proximity to essential facilities and public centers. When envisioning the future of housing, I consider the transformative potential of AI, robotics, 3D printing, and the exploration of eco-friendly building materials. These advancements offer us exciting opportunities to go beyond mere adequacy and create housing solutions that truly enhance the lives of individuals and communities. By combining these technological advancements with well-designed job programs aimed at constructing and maintaining housing, we can realize the vision of providing high-quality, affordable, and sustainable housing for all members of society. It is essential that we prioritize housing as a fundamental human right and work towards creating inclusive communities where individuals can thrive. By combining UBI, innovative technologies, sustainable building practices, and robust job programs, we can build a future where adequate housing is not only guaranteed but exceeds the expectations of what a home should be.
There doesn't seem to be an option for those who want a solitary lifestyle. I want to own large acres of woodland. Clear a spot and build a small roundhouse. Also, every winter hedge off the land as much as possible.
Exactly. And who will have the money to spend on trinkets if you only get $2000 a month, unless the price of everything else drops so significantly that your services may be $5 or something low like that.
One thng I would add to the UBI framework would be to incentivize education. $2000 month, with no strings attached as a start. If you can sell your skills or goods that you create to other people, great. However, whatever organization is providing the $2000 base amount should also reward time and effort spent on self-improvement. Whether that is studing university level physics or studying blacksmithing and forging. This will encourage progress and guard against societal stagnation.
Useless knowledge is instantly forgotten. The incentive would have to be real and stable. Give an edge, prestige. Like retesting and rewarding with money every single year.
You don't really get this whole ai thing do you, there will be next to no jobs in the future, if you can learn a new skill that can make money the ai will also be able to learn it except way faster and better
@@madalinradion I've spent 30 years in the open source community. People can and will spend a lot of time and effort doing things that they enjoy doing, with no need for a monetary reward. And if AI has changed society to the point where there are almost no jobs (which I agree is very likely, although the timeframe is uncertain) then it is likely that most people will have their basic needs covered somehow. And while AI might be able to do pretty much everything faster and better, there will also be a market for non-AI goods. Just as an example, if you're furnishing your new apartment, you can order a new couch from AI-Mart, and a perfectly built couch that meets your specifications will arrive the next day. But what if you've got a friend who got interested in furniture making, and since they don't need to work offers to make you a couch. It'll take longer, and won't be as perfectly constructed, or exactly what you expected. But it's hand made. If there is no cost difference, which would you pick? If there was a cost difference, how much would you tolerate?
The thing is this is a starting point money type of the situation so it's not like this is all you get for the rest of your life or anything people are starting with that and getting that on a monthly basis like you would in a Monopoly game basically and if they want to try to do something with it they can it's a starting point they can go get a job they can get a place to live and then get a job they can just do whatever they need to do from the starting point and I think that's what they're trying to do here at least for this starting point until other things happen in the future which you might want to look up Robby Wells and the creative society that could be the future which is very interesting.
One thing I think you may be missing is longevity. If we’re going to be living longer mortgages and car payments should be able to be stretched out to 50 yrs or more. So with that being said I would think we would be able to afford bigger houses not smaller houses. Same with cars. What do think David?
It's ironic that AI might end up doing all the interesting work leaving humans to decend into a race of rustic craftsmen and farmers. There's this neat narrative arc in which our species ascends from simple hunter gatherers toward technological sophistication to the point where we create AGI -then slowly reverts back again to the point that we may no longer even understand the machines that come to run our world- sounds like a lot of the golden age sci fi I read as a kid. In reality I suspect that the 'useless eaters' meme may overtake this more positive outcome as those in control work out that they have absolutely no use whatsoever for the redundant millions that clutter up their world and continue to drain it's dwindling resources, even as they add very little economic value to it's future. Cue your favourite dystopian varient of 'soylent green.'
Replying to my own comment to add that I have no idea why that strike through line appeared in my text- perhaps the AI that no doubt moderates these posts objected to this part of the paragraph?
@@hi-gf5yl You assume that this growth would be willingly and equitably shared by those in power. Is there any evidence that even the current level of prosperity has been shared in this way? I don't think there is. There has always been an uneasy truce between capital and labour because those with the wealth and therefore the power recognised that they needed the great unwashed to labour on their behalf. What happens to this truce when capital realises that they no longer need most of the human labour force? Perhaps human nature has changed enough to make a utopian outcome possible- I hope so. But the more likely outcome I fear is that those who have no economic value will be gradually stripped of their rights to the point that they will at best be marginalised and desperately poor, or at worst be 'disposed of' in some way or another. Ironically the AI's may end up having more rights than the humans they displace since their contribution will be of more value to the elites who run the world.
@@paulhiggins5165 wealth redistribution is very common in Western nations. We have innumerable social programs that are funded by taxes. Even the healthcare system, while not universal in the US, has many assistance programs for the poor. It's certainly not perfect, but this is largely due to logistics and corruption, both of which can be addressed by AI. Besides all that, do you think people of the West, who are famous for their rebelliousness will simply allow themselves to be ground into such abject poverty, the likes of which can barely be found outside of a third world country? People have been mislead to believe that life is much worse than it is. There's definitely room for improvement but I think this doomer mentality comes down to negativity bias.
@@Frankiigii I think you've gone too far up your arse to see the suffering of millions on a daily basis while you type your youtube comment. At least I can recognise this and move on but you have been mislead to believe the sort of life you are witnessing around you is the truth of existence which it clearly isn't. By the very fact alone that healthcare isn't universal should be a significant alarming sign, its not a negativity bias its the reality of existence for millions of individuals and billions worldwide. Compared to how much wealth and value is being generated and enjoyed by the wealthiest in society, the rest of us might as well be living in abject poverty for most intents and purposes
Man I like the sound of this but the problem is is I don't think things are going to get cheap enough to live off of $2,000 $2,000 is just not enough to live
A lot of the images proposed have to do with the "fashion" of us imagining 70% unemployment. For instance, the "taxi" thing I think has been leaked out by the US auto manufacturers. OK, this would work in a city. But there are still going to be rural and other needs the "taxi" thing won't meet. Are people going to have to wait half a day for a taxi in a remote area to haul something a short distance? What about work vehicles? There is not going to be a "one size fits all", the way large industries try to push on us. "Tiny houses" are also good for some. Traditionally, in the US Northeast, a "starter home" would be a row house in a city or town. These houses were originally built in walking distance to a factory or somewhere that employed a large group of people. Here we have Winters. Wintertime may be a time when outdoor activity is less, and indoor projects take place. In a tiny house, there's not much room to lay out materials to let's say paint. This is going to bring on cabin fever. Tiny houses are cute and ideal for seasonal residence. But once again, what about stuff that already exists? Are row houses going to be demolished for tiny house communities? Or will existing houses be refurbished? Also 60 years from now the population will be less than toady. Right now my wife and I live in a house about 1590 square feet. It's fine for us. We have a garage and a shed. The heating bill is a little high because we are in a windy area during Winter. Point is, many people live well within their means today. If we had between 2-3K UBI we are pretty much already there. Many things outward appearance wouldn't change drastically, at least not right away, if UBI was implemented for 70%. 70% unemployment would still be a major shock to 100% of the people.
Instead of just giving money to people, why not just get rid of money and we can use data about usage rates to make sure that there is always a sufficient amount of whatever people will need in a given area. Allowing money to exist only facilitates the hoarding of power by rich people, and they get that money by stealing it from the labor of their employees.
I don't think parents should get added UBI for children, even if there is less of it for each child. BUT children should get a reserve which eventually matches a matured account by the age of 18, where upon they child can access that account and so afford a down payment on important stuff like housing. immigrants would have a similar system which matures over time. Similarly, people in prison would have their UBI put into a reserve, which is in part returned gradually as long as they avoid recidivism...some of this goes too to the institution they were imprisoned, both lose the gradual reward if there is recidivism. p.s. There should still be Social Security/Pensions for those who do manage to find work.
I would think that if unemployment reaches 70%, if the UBI payment is not enough, and/or housing solutions are not sufficient, then housing prices, and rental costs will crash. I believe at least in the short term as the baby boomers are a large percentage of home owners and a big chunk of voters, the government will favor saving the housing market from a complete crash. Perhaps leaning toward government purchasing of housing to provide subsidized rentals. Strange times ahead indeed.
Great presentation. I have a question about the basics of UBI, however. It is estimated that about 50% of tax revenues collected by the government comes from workers. Another 36% from payroll taxes. I the vast majority of people are no longer 'contributing' their tax money, where do the funds come from to fund UBI?
You would have a VAT(value added tax) placed on the production of goods made via automation. Since more goods, in theory, could be made tax revenue would be good. It really depends on rather you believe money will still be a thing of course.
The solution is to ask AI to create all aspects of a new economic system. This thought experiment is too complex for a human to figure out. For starters, very few educated Americans are going to be content living in a tiny home.
Ubi has to have an expiration date like a certain amount for food a month and then expires the same for housing and so forth so no accumulation to take place you create disparity
Yeah I think the idea that anyone is going to want to give up their McMansions is silly. Sure there is a small percentage of folks who desire a tiny home but that's a tiny fraction. Most live in small accomodations simply because they have no choice. Same for bunking up with others. Yeah you do it when you are poor and must do so to not starve but it's not a life most dream of. I thought the purpose of AI was to provide us a better life not cause mass downsizing. The concept of comunes like he suggests was done many times in the past. It's not a viable lifestyle for many folks.
Hi i know you probably can’t edit a video after uploading it. But I want to recommend that you discuss the effect AI could have on those that have disabilities. For me being deaf, blind. I use chat, GPT and other AI technology to help me with my challenges.
@@poutingmarslast601 good question. I am not completely deaf blind. It means I can still see and hear a little bit. I can’t see and hear well enough to get the small details. I use voice over and voice. Dictation to interact with the RUclips app.
The job giving your life "meaning" thing is odd to me. Most of us work for someone else, we give their lives meaning and enrich their lives far more than they do our lives. So UBI at least would provide time to find real meaning, making someone else a lot of money while just barely scraping by while using all your free time should in fact make you question whether your life means anything.
Honestly this was boring. If you think you will get a UBI of 2K and that's it, then you're doing it wrong. What are you going to do to earn more than that 2K, when there's no jobs around the world left you to do? Acting? Done by AI. RUclips? Done by AI. Labor? Done by AI. Programming? Manager? CEO? CFO? All done by AI. Science? Art? Music? All freakin done by AI. Do you think when 70% of the population goes unemployed, 30% will remain? You have to rethink about UBI all over again. Heck, you have to acknowledge we won't even have UBI before we lose the concept of money all together. By the time we have UBI means we have the world ruled by AI. That means concept of money quickly goes away. Because AI will definitely not need that. And if you think you will still dictate what happens when AI is in control, well good luck. But yeah, what happens when there's no jobs and no concept of money, now that's the question. Do everyone have tiny houses? Vans? Mansions? Spots in space? Mars? Somewhere else? Do everyone live equal lives? Do actors and NBA players continue living their lives even when they don't make any new money while the others keep their status quo? Who knows? Now those are things I want addressed.
"That means concept of money quickly goes away. Because AI will definitely not need that." this. this video was not fully thought through, it thinks about ubi without considering all the other effects that AI will have on earth. the whole 2k seems laughable in a world where AI has transformed the world so much. super shortsighted
Why tiny houses? Why not cheap big houses? Construction cost isn't an issue, and cheap real estate is just a matter of deploying a more ecological implementation of desalination.
As someone once said "the nerds shall inherit the earth", be they car nerds, gaming nerds, or boat building nerds. As 3D printing, CNC machines, etc, improve so too will our ability to make our own personalized items.
It‘s already like this, but we have to work fulltime just to survive. I mean maybe we‘ll still be slaves under UBI but at least it would be a little more pleasant 😅
I personally cannot imagine a future with AI where housing is a problem. From my understanding of how the market works: higher supply leads to lower prices. If we're living in a world where AGI has replaced all workers, then housing should become another booming autonomous industry, just like others that are being automated. Particularly with 'free' workers building houses, excavating, and perhaps even constructing cities underground, I really can't envision a future where AI has taken over and there is a housing crisis. This contradicts my model of post-labor economics in an AGI-dominated era. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but the argument for downsizing really troubles me as it seems to go against my model of how AGI and post-labor economics should function.
The reason there isn't enough housing is because of the boomer generation that had created anti housing increase regulations to stop the building of new houses to keep the value of their houses high, you can blame the greedy old farts for these problems
If AI is not a threat, it could truly transform the planet and life in an extraordinarily positive way. I also keep thinking about the 1951 sci-fi film The Day the Earth Stood Still where robots were given full authority to prevent violence and war.
I totally agree. It's valid for people to raise concerns about the potential dangers of course, because if it goes badly then it's likely to go super badly. But a lot of people seem to turn "hey here are some issues we should try to mitigate" into full doomerist "WeRe AlL gOiNg To DiE 100% gArAuNtEeD!!" which is just silly and hysterical. People seem to mistake blind cynicism for "realism" and "intelligence" these days. The reality is that there will most likely be a few bumps and scary situations, but it will overall work out in the end and we will end up in a better situation as a species. Objectively life has gotten better on average by every metric. Yeh, the gap between rich and poor is bigger than ever, which is an issue. But even the poorest today live measurably better lives than most of the kings and queens of just a couple centuries ago. We will look back a century from now and say that AGI was a big watershed moment that resulted in a big improvement in human lives.
One thing I always wanted to do with the tiny house villages is have a common area in the middle of each handfull of them. I think they're a perfect oppertunity to have a central meeting place where the residents can be a community again vs the current suburban trend of being shut up indoors and never knowing your neighbors. The common area can also have several amendities that wouldn't fit in the tiny houses, think swimming pools, rec rooms, banquet halls, gym, maybe a pub or cafe. It'll be a third place just outside your home basically.
My fear with UBI is that prices will be driven up by it, especially housing. It may be if you want to live the “UBI lifestyle” that you’re either shacking up with eight roommates or avoiding urban life entirely. It could also be the case that urban centers are abandoned as rural areas grow, since we’d no longer be tied to cities for specific job markets (e.g. programmers living in West coast cities.) Remote work could also have this effect.
Keep in mind that there won't be other jobs. Meaning, the amount of funds available is still finite. UBI won't be a supplemental income, it will be The Sole income. Thinking this way should help to better grasp the world we are heading into.
@@Recuper8 I think initially there will be plenty of supplemental income, but less and less as time moves forward, at least for a large majority of people. But at that point, UBI may be able to afford absolute luxury as automation drives the cost of everything to zero. The only cost that will remain is the scarcity of finite natural resources, like land. (There are also natural resources we view as finite today that may be less finite in the future, like gasoline. But the point is that it’s scarcity makes competition between buyers a relevant factor.)
I am a loner who lives in the country. Even my wife is too many people sometimes. I would rather do physical work so I can maintain my lifestyle and have more "me" time. I'm keeping my 2004 Subaru and our 1972 built "used" house. City life is not for me and there are many country folk besides me. What about houses and cars that already exist?
"It's not enough to cover rent" is not a rational argument against UBI. We currently have a $0 UBI. A $1000 UBI would cover more rent than a $0 UBI. Make sense? Even a mere $1000/mo would make a huge difference for people who currently can't afford rent. UBI doesn't cause jobs to go away, and it doesn't even disincentivize work. So it's a false dichotomy to use such an argument as a reason not to have UBI. A $1000/month UBI would be easier to get into law than a $3000 UBI, so that's what I would push for. Once we have that, increasing the amount would be relatively easy. Meanwhile, if it isn't enough, get a job too. But when you get that job, you are doing so with a better negotiation position that you would otherwise have with a $0 UBI. As automation continues to increaee, it will become easier to fund larger UBI, while deflation makes each dollar go further. Yeah deflation. But UBI causes inflation right? Sure, but automation causes deflation. They balance out. UBI is the best means to address the total disruption of labor.
A lot of the solutions suggested sound like pre-industrial subsistence living. I'd...prefer not. Not saying youre WRONG, just saying I don't think I like where this is going.
The idea of the humans becoming a race of hobbyists is pretty depressing. My hope is that we use AI to improve humans continuously physically, mentally, and emotionally. We can imagine being better and now we have the tools to make it happen. The alternative is to become bystanders watching AI improve itself, like a dog watching its master doing things it can't comprehend.
The problem with U. B. I is inflatiion/lost buying power. If everyone gets its, more currency is chasing same amount of goods. If it's given selectively, those who get it are robbing buying power from those who don't. Govt will introduce price controls, and this will create shortages. We're heading into a lose/lose game, where only a very select few will reap massive long term benefits.
This assumes production capability stays the same. The theory is production capability expands exponentially thus abundance is the result. Your result depends upon demand exceeding supply which is unlikely to be the case with production being cheap. Under our current system, yes the result of increasing wages is indeed inflation.
Where can you afford to live on $2k a month. Because I net almost that much now and I can only afford to live in Waterville, NY or subsidized housing both create a low functioning social environment. The graphic looks like luxury kacznski housing
For various reasons and sheer number of requisite underlying assumptions, UBI will not work in this form. Also, never underestimate political pork barrel politics that will ruin this.
I feel like Dave is advocating for Socialism but not willing to say it, capitalism is centered around profit, the fact that these plans are people first and not profit first shows that this is not capitalism but socialism. Guys, there's nothing wrong with not wanting capitalism (aka worshiping profit) and actually care about human
It's not in theory socialism. That has more to do with who owns the means of production. In socialism it's generally the worker, communism it's the state( government), capitalism it's the owner class. Social safety net is not socialism. UBI isn't socialism. Worker owned co-ops are socialism, government run central planned industry is communism. Many democracies already provide far greater social bets than the US yet are not socialist countries. If businesses are remaining owned and operated by the owner class it's still capitalism. The owners would still profit quite handsomely. Alaska already does a form of UBI in that they distribute a portion of the oil proceeds to every Alaskan citizen annually. You get a check, just for being Alaskan that comes from charging the oil producers to drill the oil. UBI would be similar in that producers of goods would have to pay a tax(VAT) on what is produced and all citizens would qualify to benefit from it. It in no way prohibits folks from making more, not stops owners from profiting. Government isn't seizing control of production and not much changes fundamentally.
This time when updating zoning laws to accommodate tiny homes, walkable cities I sincerely hope they don't do it the way FDR did segregating the housing by race via redlining, walls and invasive highways dividing neighborhoods, that's not progressive nor is it humane
I want to get a tiny house, i live in soCal and housing is just a liability at this point, a luxury j can't afford. However, i want my own space, not much.
I’ve been to a few countries in Europe. St Petersburg getting around on the metro wasn’t difficult to learn. The door opens and the marble on the wall in the station is different in every stop. On the street you stick your right arm out palm down and someone maybe a taxi will take you where you want to go after negotiating price. Germany has an awesome train system as well as local trams. The train system is awesome in Europe and Russia .
If UBI gets established, will all of us get the same amount of money? If yes, who will establish and how will be established what amount of money we will get? If no, who and based on what will decide what amount of money will be given to each individual?
It would have to be the same in order for it to be legitimate. The bureaucracy that gets added the worse. Best to keep it simple and one value for everyone and let everyone make their own choices with it (like where to live).
@@DasRaetsel So a guy who has an IQ of 140, a PhD and 10 years of experience working as a neuro surgeon will have as much money as an imbecile? I hope I will not live long enough to be part of that world.
There's a couple of ways it can be calculated. 1) Look at the cost of living for an area, and base it off of that. In the short term that would be why you wouldn't want it to be equal for everyone, as different areas cost different amounts to live in, so you'd want to balance for that until things even out. 2) You could instead take the size of the pool of UBI money, and split it equally among everyone on UBI with no questions asked. Automation tax is one way to generate the pool for UBI, and David talks about some other methods in the video. This would be the most fair when cost of living has largely evened out across the board. You could do this right off the bad at @DasRaetsel essentially suggested, but that's likely to cause lots of disruprion and mass migrations as people can no longer afford to live in certain places. But then because they're migrating to cheaper places, prices there start to shoot up and people get displaced again. Yeh it would settle down eventually, but it would cause a lot of chaos and probably death and destruction before it does.
Any payment amount can be done…. if you have the down payment, fico and interest rate to make it happen. Obviously you don’t need my $5 to subscribe. I have 25% down payment for the mortgage I qualify for and I have a 741 fico but I can only afford 2 homes in the North Atlantic area. The rest are crack shack rehabs I can’t qualify for. Good job investing in a home at a time that builds personal wealth - I don’t know that a 2% mortgage is enough to cover the alleged price cuts coming in August. Some people could find themselves upside down on their mortgage
Not sure if you mentioned it but Time Banking is a very interesting solution for people to still work and feel connected to producing their own value. May end up being vital while people get adjusted to this new style of living.
I fully support UBI! However, I think long term, the implications of AI, require classifying AI as something everyone in society collectively owns. Maybe that's "socialism", but if we don't do that, I'm not sure how we don't end up with a few wealthy AI-owning families, ruling us forever.
Possibly the AR revolution and automation might also make it possible to build housing or structures exceedingly less expensive than they are presently and then also a variation updating on Elon musk boring equipment could also give us the ability to excavate really cheaply and build downward and then therefore bring down the cost of housing that way as well possibly..
23:00 Aslong ChatGPT or AI/AGI in general is not flawless in its anwsers i would prefer to be teached with books and teachers. Sofar hallucinations seems to still be an issue, so you do not only get obviously wrong answers but some that you will think are correct and then remember those which in my books is worse than not having it learned at all. If i come into a situation with educated people and i recall something that is factually wrong and would present myself like that, damn, i would die of shame. If i would only hang out with bozos looking things up on their smartphone with chatCPT, they may likely not even notice ^^. Technology can cut two ways.
Great points but i strongly disagree with your premise that the majority want to downsize their home. There are people who do, yes, but I strongly doubt it is higher than 30%. And personally I want more space.
I think your fundamentals are spot on, but you're kind of missing it, the adventitious aspects of such a society is that our commitment to creativity skyrockets, that can be in one off boutique solution, or optimizations, the general exploration of the possibility space is comparable to a singularity all by itself.. to the shrinking population sizes, I think it's important to keep in mind the advances in medicine, research into senescence and bioreactors is still in its infancy, very promising developments happening at the moment that have enormous potential to provide vastly improved healthcare to all also, there's already WAAY too many people hiking the Appalachian Trail 😆 I've heard you almost can't get a permit to hike the last leg of it anymore, it's becoming like Everest, most uncouth. maybe once vertical farming blooms we can start reclaiming farm land and sculpting more places to be in nature 🤷personally I'd love to live in a high density apartment spire in the middle of a forest
My purpose is the long-term survival of intelligent life. I can't imagine any idea more destructive to the future of intelligent life than UBI. My own experience on the road leads to the clear conclusion that almost all homeless today are unemployable and not contributing to others or to society in any way, not because of a lack of jobs, but due to drug addiction, disability, or simply no desire to be a contribution to others. A world with UBI will simply enlarge this underclass of the non-contributing who become an ever-increasing burden on the contributing. UBI creates an ever-accelerating vicious circle of non-contribution where the children of the non-contributors never learn the habits and sense of purpose that lead to wanting to make a contribution to others and instead live in a perpetual child-like world of expectation, hedonism, selfishness, dependency and fear. Your passing point that UBI might lead to a lack of productivity and self-actualization is an understatement. Let me say in closing that UBI won't even be necessary, as any student of economics knows, since the opportunities to serve other people and society productively only increase as the cost of goods and services decrease. Spend any time in a typical household today (the 99%) and you'll observe the need and demand for services of all kinds: childcare, elder care, tutors, psychotherapy, physical therapy, fitness training, music, art, cleaning, landscaping, repairs, school teaching, work training, etc. Any one of these professions could use 10% of the adult population when people can afford it, which will be soon. So, even if 70% of the current workforce were to lose their current jobs, the remaining 30% become so much more productive that every household with at least one working member can afford all these additional services, thus putting all the previously underemployed to work serving the needs of others in productive ways, doing work which is much more satisfying as well, but only ONLY if they have not already been caught in the trap of hedonism, dependency, and laziness so that they are unable to contribute to the lives of others. UBI is not a safety net, it is a trap. David, a smart guy like you should take a moment and consider what a hell you are advocating,, and at least wait to see if I am wrong before advocating a solution without a problem. I'm available as @mrfunding on twitter.
You're wrong in your assessment. Had a job, lost said job, ended up homeless myself - and it sucked; badly. I did have some money saved up and so I self-studied for the CompTIA Security+ exam (I was already A+ and Net+ certified) - got that cert and... nothing. No hits on sending out a few hundred resumes for anything related to IT (even basic IT). Decided to get my Cisco CCNA and.. still nothing. I got an offer to interview from a defense contractor across the country, however, they would not pay me to move and only reimburse me (I didn't have the money to do so). So, to make a little bit of, well, I'd say money, but I traded my services (laptop and desktop repair at Burger King) for food. Wrote a couple of books for Kindle, etc.. It wasn't until the pandemic hit that I finally got some help and I was able to find my current WAH job. I'll probably end up homeless again though seeing how the student loan repayments will kick in again (don't get paid enough for rent and wage garnishment) which means I'll lose this job since I won't have a home from which to work out of.
While I understand and respect your perspective, there are some counterarguments to consider. Firstly, it's crucial to remember that UBI is not intended to replace work, but to provide a basic level of financial security, effectively eradicating extreme poverty. This could foster an environment where people have the freedom to pursue jobs (or lifestyles) that they are passionate about and where their skills can be better used, rather than just taking any job to survive more choice is always good. All of those jobs you mentioned can also be done more efficiently by an AI, giving people busy work for it's own sake is a great way to cause the society to stagnate, they expect 70% unemployment over the next 5-10 years, yes there will still be people working at that time but for how much longer? The assumption that UBI recipients will automatically become unproductive, dependent, and hedonistic can be challenged. Studies, such as the one in Finland where they trialed UBI, showed that the recipients continued to work. They also reported lower stress levels, better health, and higher confidence in their future prospects. This suggests that UBI could potentially lead to a healthier, happier, and even more motivated workforce (while it last) and population .
$2K USD is slicing it a little thin. I think 3K net or even 2.5K would make a difference. In the evolution of things, we may evolve into less greedy species when there is no more fear of scarcity or even death. When I was a kid 50 years ago I wanted to be rich. As an adult, the responsibilities involved with being being wealthy sound like a headache. For me to make the most living within our means seems like plenty. So even within our individual lifetimes we can go through changes and evolution.
Anybody who watches these videos knows what's coming. If you still can't be bothered to buy Ai and Robotics stocks to enter the shareholder social class after this all hits, you deserve your tiny house commune.
1:20 -- Suggested UBI: $2,000/month/(USA adult) Adults in United States (per US 2020 Census Bureau): 331.4 Million (331400000) USA adults 12 months/year UBI cost/year: $2000 * 331400000 * 12 = $7953600000000/year = $7,953,600,000,000/year = $7.9536 Trillion / year Total United States Tax Revenue (per cbo.gov; [1]) in 2022: $4.9 trillion I love the idea of an UBI, but -- Where is $7.95 Trillion dollars annually going to come from? And we haven't even started in on the health care. Forbes 2023's 37th annual list of billionaires counts 2,640 billionaries, collectively controlling $12.2 trillion dollars. OK, so you could drain all of the *world's* billionaires to give a UBI to citizens of only the United States for for (12.2/7.95 =) 1.53 years, after which, all of the billionaires have been completely drained. I repeat: How is the UBI paid for?
Big fan of video and UBI in general. Although I do not think it’s an adequate “end goal” as to where we go from ai. Socialism needs to be the answer. The capitalists (owners of the means of production) will always have an incentive to undercut bargaining power, cut ubi and other social welfare to save on taxes, capture public goods through privatization, and monopolize industries. It’s time we look into both ubi as well as how AI can play a hand in central planning and economic decision making. Additionally, worker owned enterprises have a greater ability to equitably and rationally respond to automation than traditional shareholder and wage worker companies because the incentives align more easily with it.
$2000 for UBI is pretty low given the current economic climate. If your predictions are right about a 15% GDP, then it would be almost impossible for the government to lack funding for a higher UBI. If we're going to cling to this outdated capitalistic model, then people will need enough money per month to prop it up. A capitalist system collapses under it's own weight without anyone buying widgets. Also, corporations avoid taxes like the plague, so I can tell you no corporation is going to go for this. They aren't going to want to be the only ones being taxed up the @$$ while the average Joe and Jane get an UBI to globe trot. Corporations exist to make money, not provide goods or services. As long as their motive is profit, they'll do whatever they can to maximize it.
My concern is how myself and many others with large mortgages would be able to pay them on a UBI. But my head hurts thinking through the situation. Many wouldn’t be able to pay, but no one would be able to buy the house if the bank tried to sell it…. How do people move up the housing ladder if they can’t earn more money?
Ownership of any resource in an equitable society is the real discussion, WHen the WEF suggest you will own nothing and you will be happy, this is what they are actualyl referring to. IF everything belongs to everyone, but we have the ability with an abundance of fuels, resources, and time, we can spend more time in metaverses, with all the same 'trappings' of alleged luxury, and the most luxurious thing of all, time, as long as our basic maslows hierarchy of needs are satisfied.
It is true that ownership is often primarily a way to retain autonomy and privacy. When autonomy and privacy are guaranteed, ownership becomes secondary
@Andy Theriault your digital money will expire if you don't spend it where and when they want you to spend it. Government owns you, and you pay for it.
Sadly, UBI will not be a thing with the current political climate even though it will be needed and is probably needed now tbh. Reaganomics and trickle-down economics is the rule-of-the-day and will be so in the foreseeable future. In order to fund UBI, as you mentioned, would be done through the redistribution of wealth from corporations to the civilians and since the corporations won't like giving their profits away, they will just have any laws/regulations related to it to be buried by bribing (I mean, lobbying) the politicians. Honestly, if I was a betting person, I'd place my bets on the future being a dystopia since there are too many corporate interests involved.
I am sad to agree. Increases in productivity gains used to result in compensation gains for labour, until 1971, at which point compensation flat-lined. Corporations, the billionaire class, and their government lobbyists will protect this status quo. Psychopathic traits are much more common in CEOs. (studies have shown) As personal wealth goes up empathy goes down. (again, studies have shown) Billionaires will laugh and compete for high score, as people starve in the streets.
@@MikeCrowe-s3l Did a brainstorm / think tank session with Gemini (which was the last nail in the coffin - stopped using corporate-based LLMs in favor of uncensored, locally hosted versions) with the main factor of allowing humans to evolve past our tribe-based instincts, with a generalized utopian society as being the end goal. The results were.. not pretty, not for a very, very long time (~5,000 years).
Eventually the problem with UBI in a post scarcity world will be costs will start to plummet towards 0. Money wont have much real value at that point and so capitalism itself wont be able to function. Unfortunately no matter how hard people will try to force capitalism it will eventually fail under a post-scarcity world.
If automation leads to deflation and deflation leads to goods, services, products that are essential to life being pennies per ton, then it begs the question: What is the point of UBI? wouldn't everyone just need the loose coins in their couch cushion to be able to comfortably retire? consider if universal constructors or drexler devices become common, what would be the point of money? You could make nearly any device, product, food, drug out of air, dirt, water, and sunlight. you could substitute rare earth minerals like cobalt or gold with common elements. Fullerene is theoretically a batter semi-conductor than gold and fullerene is just carbon. so then what is the point of UBI? I imagine that no more than 2 months after the technological singularity, everyone in the world will have their own personal universal constructor. It might not be the premium version of it. It might be slower, less efficient, not have access to as large of a library of things it can make, but it can make an origami-style pop-up house out of thin-membrane transparent graphene, insulated with aerogel, with air purifier, water purified, solar panel, sink, toilet, bed, Air conditioner, heater, bullet-proof and fire-proof. You can make thousands of drugs to treat, cure, or prevent thousands of common diseases. It can synthesize potato starch and amino acid paste to sustain life. Can turn raw sewage into pure water. So then what do they need UBI for? Will they live 'well'? Well, they wont have their own ranch-style home in the suburbs with a garden, but what would it even mean to "tax" someone who owns a post-singularity factory? What price would they sell their dirt-cheap products and services for? If it costs you 16 cents to make a truck-load of ground beef, and you made it out of just air, water, and sunlight, and it took your factory just a few seconds to produce it, who are you going to sell it to? What would be the point of selling it? Would someone capable of producing that much food bother to do the work of selling something like that for that price? I think you're not seeing the forest for the trees here.
David , you are by far my favourite RUclipsr atm. But have you seen Simon Reeves recent documentary on Australia ? He visits a community of Aborigines who are based near Darwin. 90% of the community are on UBI (they call it "Sit Down Money"), and unfortunately it has made the whole community spiral downwards into domestic abuse, drug and alcohol abuse etc. Its a very real indicator of how things could go
If AI replaces a high cost-to-consumers industry such as doctors, for example, then that cost gets put back into everyone's pockets. And health insurance costs would drop dramatically because AI would do a better job, and there would be no one to sue. My point is that sure, a SPECIFIC industry might collapse, but who cares? THAT money stays in our pockets.
I find this to be an interesting exercise, but I tend to think that the analysis kind of puts a stick in the sand of $2000/month and then looks at what it could provide. If there is 15% year on year growth, there isn't much of a reason why the $2000 won't grow commensurately. I can imagine a form of national tithing where we just dump 30% into a pot and redistribute. As long as the pie is growing, I don't know that anyone will be against contributing - especially when people are just harvesting the proceeds of AI/robotic work. Another issue that I think is important is that human-replacement robotics will soon follow AGI. It will be THE focus. Once you have that, you can unlock the value of pretty much anything. Imagine a group of people who want to live in a brownstone neighborhood in wherever... just get together and put the robots/capital to work. The absurd version of this will be a billionaire building a personal DIsneyland with a great pyramid thrown in to impress.
$2000 a month? That would be a helpful supplement for current wages, but is in no way sufficient to live on unless Prices for everything do way way down. With a 15% GDP people should get closer to 5-6000 a month. Technology should be able to make houses at a very low cost..3D printing. Tiny houses but only if others aren’t allowed mansions… otherwise we aren’t. hunger game territory. Needs to be more equal.
UBI seems a great idea on its own for communities. In your example I would do less GBP growth, since we all need to tune down consumption too. So reducing UBI over time and set goals to a better environment. That will boost health and cut healthcare as well.
I was tracking along until the spiritualism. Not that I don't think that the issue of meaning in today's society isn't an issue. It's possibly one of the biggest issues. And I am not necessarily apposed to, "spiritualism" in a rather soft and benign form. Ultimately, spiritualism and even religion are just facets of philosophy. Philosophy being the models we use to describe reality. So, we are just ascribing more meaning and value to topics of phycology that our current scientific material understanding to not satisfy. I think this is where metamodernism comes into play. The ability to acknowledge the idealism of the modernist movement, while at the same time holding the criticism of the postmodernism movement. For example, I think we can agree that Mark Twain was an eloquent writer. But, it is fair and even necessary to acknowledge that his depiction of black characters has aged poorly. We don't simply wave it away as a matter of its time, but, we also do not throw out the things that are valuable. We similarly, didn't reject super highways or economic automobiles, just because they were propaganda hallmarks of the Nazis. Metamodernism, lets us reconcile the cognitive dissonance of idealism in the face of countervailing evidence. So we can navigating through our past to forge a better present and future. As such, the line between, wellness and spiritualism becomes more blurred. And this line will become thinner and thinner as our scientific exploration continues. And at some point certain spiritual frameworks will no longer be attractive. But, hopefully with meta modern narratives we will have the social psychological tools to transcend the cognitive barriers and prosper. So, I am wary of just saying adopt, "some" form of spiritualism. I think it is more important to first understand what it is, and why it is valuable to do so. Not to, just surrender to it, with total blind faith. This leads to too many opportunities for negative outcomes. Personally, and socially. I of course am still developing this understanding, and it too will evolve. But, it is my current thinking.
There is a few issues with your UBI statement and making it affordable for the government. So there will be mass deflation and a population decline.. so where is the government going to be getting their revenue from? If we have population decline why would we need tiny houses when we have all these other houses that are already built? Office building will be empty. There will be plenty of realestate. With the meaning of work and remuneration not being the same, I’m not sure if you would even need to term money. Policy driven carbon credits maybe. The UBI and housing issues will only happen or be useful during a transition period. If government just print money when then need it do they even need to worry about how much they are giving out?
39:06 Bruce Willis did a movie like this called Surrogates. Humans were neurally plugged into robots outside. 1st stage deep dive VR will happen next year when generative AI merges with VR.
I'm afraid your assumptions might be overestimating the psychological value provided by hobbies. People basically invest their time into something to feel better off (or at least not worse) than their neighbor or colleague. The fight is for prestige because that's how nature built us. Under UBI + AI most people are going to feel hopeless, because AI would be able to provide any goods quickly and cheaply. Except gold. No hobbies would provide value and prestige. People would do anything to get more money and live a better life, or own something made of gold. With no work what would they do?
Shouldn't that title end "...without gainful work?" After all, UBI is just finance, not real-economy. Work still has to be done. If you don't believe me, imagine no-one does anything at all. We would all die of thirst. Someone has to get you that drink, even if it is just you.
I think you are missing an important thing about cars. That is, if you are no longer driving 20k miles a year to a job and you choose a common model with good parts availability, your cost to own a car becomes pretty cheap. As an car enthusiast, I'm rather keen on the idea of maintaining and detailing a car while it sits in the garage 6 days a week.
Re tiny house: after lot size, water, sewer, and electricity hookup, $50,000 is reasonable in less populated states. All inclusive comes from RUclips channels from people who built their own tiny homes.
I made a video on it as well. Interestingly high numbers. I personally think it should probably start low, in general for public support purposes, but also lower by age that increases by age. And removing minimum wage. More may be possible, but the job = honor feeling is really strong. Interesting what AI may do.
I won't be truly happy until the technology allows me to actually escape the confines of my meatbag body and exist entirely in virtual reality, freed entirely from conventional existenced. I have zero attachment to the human condition and can't wait to be rid of it.
![Cody Johnson - I'm Gonna Love You (with Carrie Underwood) [Official Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/yy9PuYMU29g/mqdefault.jpg)
Post Labor Economics for more of the macro-economic perspective: ruclips.net/video/9yN7885s5rA/видео.html
“In practice as well as theory the society was beyond considerations of wealth or empire.
The very concept of money-regarded by the civilization as a crude, over-complicated and inefficient form of rationing-was irrelevant within the society itself.
Where the capacity of its means of production ubiquitously and comprehensively exceeded every reasonable (and in some cases, perhaps, unreasonable) demand its not unimaginative citizens could make.
These demands were satisfied, with one exception, from within the society itself. Living space was provided in abundance, chiefly on matter-cheap O’Neill Cylinders & Stanford Tori; raw material existed in virtually inexhaustible quantities both between the stars and within stellar systems;
& energy was, if anything, even more generally available, through fusion, matter-antimatter annihilation, or from stars (taken either indirectly, as radiation absorbed in space, or directly, tapped at the stellar core).
Thus the society had no need to colonize, exploit or enslave.”
- The Hydrogen Sonata, Ian M. Banks.
Where do you get 15% GDP growth, with 70% unemployed? Who is buying all the output, with 2K?
B2B
@@eldsentinel7323before the communists came. Education is only for smart people and have money. people usually go straight to work at the age of 5 years.
after communism came everyone could get education up to university. regardless of wealth, ethnicity, and gender. even the dumb and crippled could pass school.
many capitalists ask the communists why they send stupid and disabled people to school who will not give a return on the amount of investment given. (waste of subsidies)
because for the communists it is not important. if people don't have talented, it doesn't matter whether they graduate they will still be unemployed, it doesn't matter even if they are women after graduating from university paid for by the government and only working as housewives.
Something that is good for everyone does not have to be seen whether it will generate profits based on the amount of investment that is given.
Free education does not make people smart or creative and make money, but free education makes everyone not stupid, open-minded, learn ethics and loyal to the nation and state.
compared to people who attend private capitalist schools who only study subjects that they like and make money.(USA) and never touched subjects such as history, geography and mathematics.
Also would you be able to move and live in another cheaper country?@@DaveShap
David, I am 79 and have been retired for 17 years. I live on two checks totally $1,370 a month with a little rescue dog. My housing is subsidized as I'm a vet and costs $302 a month. In 2007 I ran for Mayor of San Francisco. I've run for Supervisor 5 times in different districts and School Board. Never spent dime on campaigns and friends pay my entries. My dog and I pickup trash around our block every morning and all morning Sundays. I do it for writing material as that is my love. I walk 90 minutes a day up steep hills so don't worry about being bored after 'retirement'. Just spend all of your time doing what you wanted to do in the first place anyway.
Love this comment.
Im guessing having a good life on a fixed income is a lot easier with rent at $302/mo.
@@macrumpton Yup. Imagine Rent being what it is normally in CA for this guy? Isn't it like $1500 a month lol? Here in TEXAS it's around $1,000 - $1,200 a month.
I wholeheartedly support the implementation of Universal Unconditional Basic Income (UBI) as a crucial social policy. However, I firmly believe that in addition to UBI, we must also prioritize the provision of guaranteed housing for all individuals. It is concerning to think about the potential consequences of limited affordability, leading to people being confined to cramped micro-apartments or living in substandard trailer park-like tiny house villages. We should strive for a society where everyone has access to secure and comfortable housing that meets specific standards related to space, aesthetics, and proximity to essential facilities and public centers.
When envisioning the future of housing, I consider the transformative potential of AI, robotics, 3D printing, and the exploration of eco-friendly building materials. These advancements offer us exciting opportunities to go beyond mere adequacy and create housing solutions that truly enhance the lives of individuals and communities. By combining these technological advancements with well-designed job programs aimed at constructing and maintaining housing, we can realize the vision of providing high-quality, affordable, and sustainable housing for all members of society.
It is essential that we prioritize housing as a fundamental human right and work towards creating inclusive communities where individuals can thrive. By combining UBI, innovative technologies, sustainable building practices, and robust job programs, we can build a future where adequate housing is not only guaranteed but exceeds the expectations of what a home should be.
There doesn't seem to be an option for those who want a solitary lifestyle. I want to own large acres of woodland. Clear a spot and build a small roundhouse. Also, every winter hedge off the land as much as possible.
Where do you put handmade trinkets or furniture if you live in a tiny house?
Exactly. And who will have the money to spend on trinkets if you only get $2000 a month, unless the price of everything else drops so significantly that your services may be $5 or something low like that.
One thng I would add to the UBI framework would be to incentivize education. $2000 month, with no strings attached as a start. If you can sell your skills or goods that you create to other people, great.
However, whatever organization is providing the $2000 base amount should also reward time and effort spent on self-improvement. Whether that is studing university level physics or studying blacksmithing and forging. This will encourage progress and guard against societal stagnation.
Useless knowledge is instantly forgotten. The incentive would have to be real and stable. Give an edge, prestige. Like retesting and rewarding with money every single year.
You don't really get this whole ai thing do you, there will be next to no jobs in the future, if you can learn a new skill that can make money the ai will also be able to learn it except way faster and better
@@madalinradion I've spent 30 years in the open source community. People can and will spend a lot of time and effort doing things that they enjoy doing, with no need for a monetary reward. And if AI has changed society to the point where there are almost no jobs (which I agree is very likely, although the timeframe is uncertain) then it is likely that most people will have their basic needs covered somehow.
And while AI might be able to do pretty much everything faster and better, there will also be a market for non-AI goods. Just as an example, if you're furnishing your new apartment, you can order a new couch from AI-Mart, and a perfectly built couch that meets your specifications will arrive the next day. But what if you've got a friend who got interested in furniture making, and since they don't need to work offers to make you a couch. It'll take longer, and won't be as perfectly constructed, or exactly what you expected. But it's hand made. If there is no cost difference, which would you pick? If there was a cost difference, how much would you tolerate?
The thing is this is a starting point money type of the situation so it's not like this is all you get for the rest of your life or anything people are starting with that and getting that on a monthly basis like you would in a Monopoly game basically and if they want to try to do something with it they can it's a starting point they can go get a job they can get a place to live and then get a job they can just do whatever they need to do from the starting point and I think that's what they're trying to do here at least for this starting point until other things happen in the future which you might want to look up Robby Wells and the creative society that could be the future which is very interesting.
I've added this to my limited list of favorites in my favorites folder.
One thing I think you may be missing is longevity. If we’re going to be living longer mortgages and car payments should be able to be stretched out to 50 yrs or more. So with that being said I would think we would be able to afford bigger houses not smaller houses. Same with cars. What do think David?
It's ironic that AI might end up doing all the interesting work leaving humans to decend into a race of rustic craftsmen and farmers. There's this neat narrative arc in which our species ascends from simple hunter gatherers toward technological sophistication to the point where we create AGI -then slowly reverts back again to the point that we may no longer even understand the machines that come to run our world- sounds like a lot of the golden age sci fi I read as a kid.
In reality I suspect that the 'useless eaters' meme may overtake this more positive outcome as those in control work out that they have absolutely no use whatsoever for the redundant millions that clutter up their world and continue to drain it's dwindling resources, even as they add very little economic value to it's future. Cue your favourite dystopian varient of 'soylent green.'
Replying to my own comment to add that I have no idea why that strike through line appeared in my text- perhaps the AI that no doubt moderates these posts objected to this part of the paragraph?
@@paulhiggins5165 I would think ai would use more abundant materials and more efficient energy production to continue growth.
@@hi-gf5yl You assume that this growth would be willingly and equitably shared by those in power. Is there any evidence that even the current level of prosperity has been shared in this way? I don't think there is.
There has always been an uneasy truce between capital and labour because those with the wealth and therefore the power recognised that they needed the great unwashed to labour on their behalf. What happens to this truce when capital realises that they no longer need most of the human labour force?
Perhaps human nature has changed enough to make a utopian outcome possible- I hope so. But the more likely outcome I fear is that those who have no economic value will be gradually stripped of their rights to the point that they will at best be marginalised and desperately poor, or at worst be 'disposed of' in some way or another. Ironically the AI's may end up having more rights than the humans they displace since their contribution will be of more value to the elites who run the world.
@@paulhiggins5165 wealth redistribution is very common in Western nations. We have innumerable social programs that are funded by taxes. Even the healthcare system, while not universal in the US, has many assistance programs for the poor. It's certainly not perfect, but this is largely due to logistics and corruption, both of which can be addressed by AI. Besides all that, do you think people of the West, who are famous for their rebelliousness will simply allow themselves to be ground into such abject poverty, the likes of which can barely be found outside of a third world country?
People have been mislead to believe that life is much worse than it is. There's definitely room for improvement but I think this doomer mentality comes down to negativity bias.
@@Frankiigii I think you've gone too far up your arse to see the suffering of millions on a daily basis while you type your youtube comment. At least I can recognise this and move on but you have been mislead to believe the sort of life you are witnessing around you is the truth of existence which it clearly isn't.
By the very fact alone that healthcare isn't universal should be a significant alarming sign, its not a negativity bias its the reality of existence for millions of individuals and billions worldwide. Compared to how much wealth and value is being generated and enjoyed by the wealthiest in society, the rest of us might as well be living in abject poverty for most intents and purposes
Man I like the sound of this but the problem is is I don't think things are going to get cheap enough to live off of $2,000 $2,000 is just not enough to live
A lot of the images proposed have to do with the "fashion" of us imagining 70% unemployment. For instance, the "taxi" thing I think has been leaked out by the US auto manufacturers. OK, this would work in a city. But there are still going to be rural and other needs the "taxi" thing won't meet. Are people going to have to wait half a day for a taxi in a remote area to haul something a short distance? What about work vehicles? There is not going to be a "one size fits all", the way large industries try to push on us.
"Tiny houses" are also good for some. Traditionally, in the US Northeast, a "starter home" would be a row house in a city or town. These houses were originally built in walking distance to a factory or somewhere that employed a large group of people. Here we have Winters. Wintertime may be a time when outdoor activity is less, and indoor projects take place. In a tiny house, there's not much room to lay out materials to let's say paint. This is going to bring on cabin fever. Tiny houses are cute and ideal for seasonal residence.
But once again, what about stuff that already exists? Are row houses going to be demolished for tiny house communities? Or will existing houses be refurbished? Also 60 years from now the population will be less than toady.
Right now my wife and I live in a house about 1590 square feet. It's fine for us. We have a garage and a shed. The heating bill is a little high because we are in a windy area during Winter. Point is, many people live well within their means today. If we had between 2-3K UBI we are pretty much already there. Many things outward appearance wouldn't change drastically, at least not right away, if UBI was implemented for 70%. 70% unemployment would still be a major shock to 100% of the people.
Instead of just giving money to people, why not just get rid of money and we can use data about usage rates to make sure that there is always a sufficient amount of whatever people will need in a given area. Allowing money to exist only facilitates the hoarding of power by rich people, and they get that money by stealing it from the labor of their employees.
I don't think parents should get added UBI for children, even if there is less of it for each child. BUT children should get a reserve which eventually matches a matured account by the age of 18, where upon they child can access that account and so afford a down payment on important stuff like housing. immigrants would have a similar system which matures over time. Similarly, people in prison would have their UBI put into a reserve, which is in part returned gradually as long as they avoid recidivism...some of this goes too to the institution they were imprisoned, both lose the gradual reward if there is recidivism.
p.s. There should still be Social Security/Pensions for those who do manage to find work.
I would think that if unemployment reaches 70%, if the UBI payment is not enough, and/or housing solutions are not sufficient, then housing prices, and rental costs will crash. I believe at least in the short term as the baby boomers are a large percentage of home owners and a big chunk of voters, the government will favor saving the housing market from a complete crash. Perhaps leaning toward government purchasing of housing to provide subsidized rentals. Strange times ahead indeed.
Great presentation. I have a question about the basics of UBI, however. It is estimated that about 50% of tax revenues collected by the government comes from workers. Another 36% from payroll taxes. I the vast majority of people are no longer 'contributing' their tax money, where do the funds come from to fund UBI?
You would have a VAT(value added tax) placed on the production of goods made via automation. Since more goods, in theory, could be made tax revenue would be good. It really depends on rather you believe money will still be a thing of course.
The solution is to ask AI to create all aspects of a new economic system. This thought experiment is too complex for a human to figure out. For starters, very few educated Americans are going to be content living in a tiny home.
Can I have access to the slides of the video in case I want to study them?
They are making is you can’t live in your tiny houses in Australia now because of the fire risk. lol
Ubi has to have an expiration date like a certain amount for food a month and then expires the same for housing and so forth so no accumulation to take place you create disparity
Yeah, no. Will move out of the US if that happens. Have fun being a new serf class.
This lol
This seems like a complete nightmare.
We need to start a ai apocalypse dating website or something cuz it’s really hard to find someone who cares about this stuff lol
lol
Holy crap this is a genius idea
@@sinnwalker I'm okay with that personally. I've actually found chat bots rather interesting at times.
Japan is doing this right now. Using AI to get people to find a romantic companion.
Humans evolve.....ways of living evolve. This could be in America 🇺🇸 furure.
I would rather die than live with roommates again or in a pod or van.
with UBI you could move to some small town and have place for yourself. it would stop towns from becoming ghost towns.
Yeah I think the idea that anyone is going to want to give up their McMansions is silly. Sure there is a small percentage of folks who desire a tiny home but that's a tiny fraction. Most live in small accomodations simply because they have no choice. Same for bunking up with others. Yeah you do it when you are poor and must do so to not starve but it's not a life most dream of. I thought the purpose of AI was to provide us a better life not cause mass downsizing. The concept of comunes like he suggests was done many times in the past. It's not a viable lifestyle for many folks.
Hi i know you probably can’t edit a video after uploading it. But I want to recommend that you discuss the effect AI could have on those that have disabilities. For me being deaf, blind. I use chat, GPT and other AI technology to help me with my challenges.
Thats powerful, I'd say deserves its own video. Not only on the side of assistance, but meaningful healing and rehabilitation too.💚
How did you access the content of RUclips?
@@poutingmarslast601 😂😂😂😂
@@poutingmarslast601 it's chatGPT talking
@@poutingmarslast601 good question. I am not completely deaf blind. It means I can still see and hear a little bit. I can’t see and hear well enough to get the small details. I use voice over and voice. Dictation to interact with the RUclips app.
The job giving your life "meaning" thing is odd to me. Most of us work for someone else, we give their lives meaning and enrich their lives far more than they do our lives. So UBI at least would provide time to find real meaning, making someone else a lot of money while just barely scraping by while using all your free time should in fact make you question whether your life means anything.
exactly, what's your favorite art, novel, song or movie vs what's your favorite excel spreadsheet?
Honestly this was boring.
If you think you will get a UBI of 2K and that's it, then you're doing it wrong. What are you going to do to earn more than that 2K, when there's no jobs around the world left you to do? Acting? Done by AI. RUclips? Done by AI. Labor? Done by AI. Programming? Manager? CEO? CFO? All done by AI. Science? Art? Music? All freakin done by AI. Do you think when 70% of the population goes unemployed, 30% will remain? You have to rethink about UBI all over again. Heck, you have to acknowledge we won't even have UBI before we lose the concept of money all together. By the time we have UBI means we have the world ruled by AI. That means concept of money quickly goes away. Because AI will definitely not need that. And if you think you will still dictate what happens when AI is in control, well good luck. But yeah, what happens when there's no jobs and no concept of money, now that's the question. Do everyone have tiny houses? Vans? Mansions? Spots in space? Mars? Somewhere else? Do everyone live equal lives? Do actors and NBA players continue living their lives even when they don't make any new money while the others keep their status quo? Who knows? Now those are things I want addressed.
"That means concept of money quickly goes away. Because AI will definitely not need that."
this. this video was not fully thought through, it thinks about ubi without considering all the other effects that AI will have on earth. the whole 2k seems laughable in a world where AI has transformed the world so much. super shortsighted
Why tiny houses? Why not cheap big houses? Construction cost isn't an issue, and cheap real estate is just a matter of deploying a more ecological implementation of desalination.
The government (govern-mind) never cared about us ...they have ONLY ONE PLAN and nothing else
If I have to live in a tiny house due to losing my job to AI, I'm going to be pissed off, lol.
why are we talking about sharing tiny houses and living in boxes to save money if AI causes production to skyrocket?
As someone once said "the nerds shall inherit the earth", be they car nerds, gaming nerds, or boat building nerds. As 3D printing, CNC machines, etc, improve so too will our ability to make our own personalized items.
"Here slaves, heres a basic income for you, while we claim everything that exists for ourselves" and a dr evil laugh at the end.
When enough money is stolen from the market, wealth becomes relative
It‘s already like this, but we have to work fulltime just to survive. I mean maybe we‘ll still be slaves under UBI but at least it would be a little more pleasant 😅
Slaves?! slaves that are actually *free* to pursue their own interests?|
You have a strange definition there.
I personally cannot imagine a future with AI where housing is a problem. From my understanding of how the market works: higher supply leads to lower prices. If we're living in a world where AGI has replaced all workers, then housing should become another booming autonomous industry, just like others that are being automated. Particularly with 'free' workers building houses, excavating, and perhaps even constructing cities underground, I really can't envision a future where AI has taken over and there is a housing crisis. This contradicts my model of post-labor economics in an AGI-dominated era. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but the argument for downsizing really troubles me as it seems to go against my model of how AGI and post-labor economics should function.
@@AirKiter
Economic resources are Land, Labour, and Capital....
Who will own the land on which houses are built..??
The reason there isn't enough housing is because of the boomer generation that had created anti housing increase regulations to stop the building of new houses to keep the value of their houses high, you can blame the greedy old farts for these problems
If AI is not a threat, it could truly transform the planet and life in an extraordinarily positive way. I also keep thinking about the 1951 sci-fi film The Day the Earth Stood Still where robots were given full authority to prevent violence and war.
Iain M Banks Culture series are how i think things will pan out.
I totally agree. It's valid for people to raise concerns about the potential dangers of course, because if it goes badly then it's likely to go super badly. But a lot of people seem to turn "hey here are some issues we should try to mitigate" into full doomerist "WeRe AlL gOiNg To DiE 100% gArAuNtEeD!!" which is just silly and hysterical. People seem to mistake blind cynicism for "realism" and "intelligence" these days. The reality is that there will most likely be a few bumps and scary situations, but it will overall work out in the end and we will end up in a better situation as a species. Objectively life has gotten better on average by every metric. Yeh, the gap between rich and poor is bigger than ever, which is an issue. But even the poorest today live measurably better lives than most of the kings and queens of just a couple centuries ago. We will look back a century from now and say that AGI was a big watershed moment that resulted in a big improvement in human lives.
I worry about the Forbidden Planet scenario (1956)
@@lievenvv monsters from the ID.
One thing I always wanted to do with the tiny house villages is have a common area in the middle of each handfull of them. I think they're a perfect oppertunity to have a central meeting place where the residents can be a community again vs the current suburban trend of being shut up indoors and never knowing your neighbors. The common area can also have several amendities that wouldn't fit in the tiny houses, think swimming pools, rec rooms, banquet halls, gym, maybe a pub or cafe. It'll be a third place just outside your home basically.
Wow looks like a massive drop in standard of living what with living in a garden shed and no car! Not exactly living the dream is it
My fear with UBI is that prices will be driven up by it, especially housing. It may be if you want to live the “UBI lifestyle” that you’re either shacking up with eight roommates or avoiding urban life entirely.
It could also be the case that urban centers are abandoned as rural areas grow, since we’d no longer be tied to cities for specific job markets (e.g. programmers living in West coast cities.) Remote work could also have this effect.
Keep in mind that there won't be other jobs. Meaning, the amount of funds available is still finite. UBI won't be a supplemental income, it will be The Sole income. Thinking this way should help to better grasp the world we are heading into.
@@Recuper8 I think initially there will be plenty of supplemental income, but less and less as time moves forward, at least for a large majority of people. But at that point, UBI may be able to afford absolute luxury as automation drives the cost of everything to zero. The only cost that will remain is the scarcity of finite natural resources, like land. (There are also natural resources we view as finite today that may be less finite in the future, like gasoline. But the point is that it’s scarcity makes competition between buyers a relevant factor.)
"What will I do without my job" has got be one of weirdest question ever heard
I am a loner who lives in the country. Even my wife is too many people sometimes. I would rather do physical work so I can maintain my lifestyle and have more "me" time. I'm keeping my 2004 Subaru and our 1972 built "used" house. City life is not for me and there are many country folk besides me. What about houses and cars that already exist?
They already have tiny home sub division in Dallas because regular size houses got too expensive.
"It's not enough to cover rent" is not a rational argument against UBI. We currently have a $0 UBI. A $1000 UBI would cover more rent than a $0 UBI. Make sense?
Even a mere $1000/mo would make a huge difference for people who currently can't afford rent. UBI doesn't cause jobs to go away, and it doesn't even disincentivize work. So it's a false dichotomy to use such an argument as a reason not to have UBI.
A $1000/month UBI would be easier to get into law than a $3000 UBI, so that's what I would push for. Once we have that, increasing the amount would be relatively easy.
Meanwhile, if it isn't enough, get a job too. But when you get that job, you are doing so with a better negotiation position that you would otherwise have with a $0 UBI.
As automation continues to increaee, it will become easier to fund larger UBI, while deflation makes each dollar go further.
Yeah deflation. But UBI causes inflation right? Sure, but automation causes deflation. They balance out. UBI is the best means to address the total disruption of labor.
Greed will ruin it because prices of everything will rise especially rent. So it will be just like before.
A lot of the solutions suggested sound like pre-industrial subsistence living. I'd...prefer not. Not saying youre WRONG, just saying I don't think I like where this is going.
The idea of the humans becoming a race of hobbyists is pretty depressing. My hope is that we use AI to improve humans continuously physically, mentally, and emotionally. We can imagine being better and now we have the tools to make it happen.
The alternative is to become bystanders watching AI improve itself, like a dog watching its master doing things it can't comprehend.
The problem with U. B. I is inflatiion/lost buying power. If everyone gets its, more currency is chasing same amount of goods. If it's given selectively, those who get it are robbing buying power from those who don't. Govt will introduce price controls, and this will create shortages. We're heading into a lose/lose game, where only a very select few will reap massive long term benefits.
This assumes production capability stays the same. The theory is production capability expands exponentially thus abundance is the result. Your result depends upon demand exceeding supply which is unlikely to be the case with production being cheap. Under our current system, yes the result of increasing wages is indeed inflation.
Where can you afford to live on $2k a month. Because I net almost that much now and I can only afford to live in Waterville, NY or subsidized housing both create a low functioning social environment. The graphic looks like luxury kacznski housing
For various reasons and sheer number of requisite underlying assumptions, UBI will not work in this form. Also, never underestimate political pork barrel politics that will ruin this.
I feel like Dave is advocating for Socialism but not willing to say it, capitalism is centered around profit, the fact that these plans are people first and not profit first shows that this is not capitalism but socialism. Guys, there's nothing wrong with not wanting capitalism (aka worshiping profit) and actually care about human
It is capitalism, because you gove the poor a chance to consume more goods. Socialism is centering everything.
It's not in theory socialism. That has more to do with who owns the means of production. In socialism it's generally the worker, communism it's the state( government), capitalism it's the owner class. Social safety net is not socialism. UBI isn't socialism. Worker owned co-ops are socialism, government run central planned industry is communism. Many democracies already provide far greater social bets than the US yet are not socialist countries. If businesses are remaining owned and operated by the owner class it's still capitalism. The owners would still profit quite handsomely. Alaska already does a form of UBI in that they distribute a portion of the oil proceeds to every Alaskan citizen annually. You get a check, just for being Alaskan that comes from charging the oil producers to drill the oil. UBI would be similar in that producers of goods would have to pay a tax(VAT) on what is produced and all citizens would qualify to benefit from it. It in no way prohibits folks from making more, not stops owners from profiting. Government isn't seizing control of production and not much changes fundamentally.
This time when updating zoning laws to accommodate tiny homes, walkable cities I sincerely hope they don't do it the way FDR did segregating the housing by race via redlining, walls and invasive highways dividing neighborhoods, that's not progressive nor is it humane
I want to get a tiny house, i live in soCal and housing is just a liability at this point, a luxury j can't afford. However, i want my own space, not much.
I’ve been to a few countries in Europe. St Petersburg getting around on the metro wasn’t difficult to learn. The door opens and the marble on the wall in the station is different in every stop. On the street you stick your right arm out palm down and someone maybe a taxi will take you where you want to go after negotiating price. Germany has an awesome train system as well as local trams. The train system is awesome in Europe and Russia .
"stick you right arm palm down"
🤔😬😳
Russia is Europe
Everyone living with others sounds like the makings of gangs of New York.
Wouldnt the real world limited supplies of basic commodities place constraints on economic growth?
sometimes dogs don't like the sound of machines motors, this suggests a way to solve this issue
If UBI gets established, will all of us get the same amount of money? If yes, who will establish and how will be established what amount of money we will get? If no, who and based on what will decide what amount of money will be given to each individual?
It would have to be the same in order for it to be legitimate. The bureaucracy that gets added the worse. Best to keep it simple and one value for everyone and let everyone make their own choices with it (like where to live).
@@DasRaetsel So a guy who has an IQ of 140, a PhD and 10 years of experience working as a neuro surgeon will have as much money as an imbecile? I hope I will not live long enough to be part of that world.
There's a couple of ways it can be calculated. 1) Look at the cost of living for an area, and base it off of that. In the short term that would be why you wouldn't want it to be equal for everyone, as different areas cost different amounts to live in, so you'd want to balance for that until things even out. 2) You could instead take the size of the pool of UBI money, and split it equally among everyone on UBI with no questions asked. Automation tax is one way to generate the pool for UBI, and David talks about some other methods in the video. This would be the most fair when cost of living has largely evened out across the board. You could do this right off the bad at @DasRaetsel essentially suggested, but that's likely to cause lots of disruprion and mass migrations as people can no longer afford to live in certain places. But then because they're migrating to cheaper places, prices there start to shoot up and people get displaced again. Yeh it would settle down eventually, but it would cause a lot of chaos and probably death and destruction before it does.
Plenty of wealth to go around for who? Taxing corporations, good luck with that one.
Any payment amount can be done…. if you have the down payment, fico and interest rate to make it happen. Obviously you don’t need my $5 to subscribe. I have 25% down payment for the mortgage I qualify for and I have a 741 fico but I can only afford 2 homes in the North Atlantic area. The rest are crack shack rehabs I can’t qualify for. Good job investing in a home at a time that builds personal wealth - I don’t know that a 2% mortgage is enough to cover the alleged price cuts coming in August. Some people could find themselves upside down on their mortgage
Not sure if you mentioned it but Time Banking is a very interesting solution for people to still work and feel connected to producing their own value. May end up being vital while people get adjusted to this new style of living.
Won’t there be people who spend free time learning? I know I would
I fully support UBI! However, I think long term, the implications of AI, require classifying AI as something everyone in society collectively owns. Maybe that's "socialism", but if we don't do that, I'm not sure how we don't end up with a few wealthy AI-owning families, ruling us forever.
Possibly the AR revolution and automation might also make it possible to build housing or structures exceedingly less expensive than they are presently and then also a variation updating on Elon musk boring equipment could also give us the ability to excavate really cheaply and build downward and then therefore bring down the cost of housing that way as well possibly..
23:00 Aslong ChatGPT or AI/AGI in general is not flawless in its anwsers i would prefer to be teached with books and teachers. Sofar hallucinations seems to still be an issue, so you do not only get obviously wrong answers but some that you will think are correct and then remember those which in my books is worse than not having it learned at all. If i come into a situation with educated people and i recall something that is factually wrong and would present myself like that, damn, i would die of shame.
If i would only hang out with bozos looking things up on their smartphone with chatCPT, they may likely not even notice ^^. Technology can cut two ways.
Great points but i strongly disagree with your premise that the majority want to downsize their home. There are people who do, yes, but I strongly doubt it is higher than 30%. And personally I want more space.
Consider that homeownership is beyond the means of most young people.
waw that was the most depresing thing I've ever heard.
Sounds like going backwards - we'll be Cuba.
I think your fundamentals are spot on, but you're kind of missing it, the adventitious aspects of such a society is that our commitment to creativity skyrockets, that can be in one off boutique solution, or optimizations, the general exploration of the possibility space is comparable to a singularity all by itself..
to the shrinking population sizes, I think it's important to keep in mind the advances in medicine, research into senescence and bioreactors is still in its infancy, very promising developments happening at the moment that have enormous potential to provide vastly improved healthcare to all
also, there's already WAAY too many people hiking the Appalachian Trail 😆 I've heard you almost can't get a permit to hike the last leg of it anymore, it's becoming like Everest, most uncouth. maybe once vertical farming blooms we can start reclaiming farm land and sculpting more places to be in nature 🤷personally I'd love to live in a high density apartment spire in the middle of a forest
My purpose is the long-term survival of intelligent life. I can't imagine any idea more destructive to the future of intelligent life than UBI. My own experience on the road leads to the clear conclusion that almost all homeless today are unemployable and not contributing to others or to society in any way, not because of a lack of jobs, but due to drug addiction, disability, or simply no desire to be a contribution to others. A world with UBI will simply enlarge this underclass of the non-contributing who become an ever-increasing burden on the contributing. UBI creates an ever-accelerating vicious circle of non-contribution where the children of the non-contributors never learn the habits and sense of purpose that lead to wanting to make a contribution to others and instead live in a perpetual child-like world of expectation, hedonism, selfishness, dependency and fear. Your passing point that UBI might lead to a lack of productivity and self-actualization is an understatement. Let me say in closing that UBI won't even be necessary, as any student of economics knows, since the opportunities to serve other people and society productively only increase as the cost of goods and services decrease. Spend any time in a typical household today (the 99%) and you'll observe the need and demand for services of all kinds: childcare, elder care, tutors, psychotherapy, physical therapy, fitness training, music, art, cleaning, landscaping, repairs, school teaching, work training, etc. Any one of these professions could use 10% of the adult population when people can afford it, which will be soon. So, even if 70% of the current workforce were to lose their current jobs, the remaining 30% become so much more productive that every household with at least one working member can afford all these additional services, thus putting all the previously underemployed to work serving the needs of others in productive ways, doing work which is much more satisfying as well, but only ONLY if they have not already been caught in the trap of hedonism, dependency, and laziness so that they are unable to contribute to the lives of others. UBI is not a safety net, it is a trap. David, a smart guy like you should take a moment and consider what a hell you are advocating,, and at least wait to see if I am wrong before advocating a solution without a problem. I'm available as @mrfunding on twitter.
You're wrong in your assessment. Had a job, lost said job, ended up homeless myself - and it sucked; badly. I did have some money saved up and so I self-studied for the CompTIA Security+ exam (I was already A+ and Net+ certified) - got that cert and... nothing. No hits on sending out a few hundred resumes for anything related to IT (even basic IT). Decided to get my Cisco CCNA and.. still nothing. I got an offer to interview from a defense contractor across the country, however, they would not pay me to move and only reimburse me (I didn't have the money to do so). So, to make a little bit of, well, I'd say money, but I traded my services (laptop and desktop repair at Burger King) for food. Wrote a couple of books for Kindle, etc.. It wasn't until the pandemic hit that I finally got some help and I was able to find my current WAH job. I'll probably end up homeless again though seeing how the student loan repayments will kick in again (don't get paid enough for rent and wage garnishment) which means I'll lose this job since I won't have a home from which to work out of.
While I understand and respect your perspective, there are some counterarguments to consider. Firstly, it's crucial to remember that UBI is not intended to replace work, but to provide a basic level of financial security, effectively eradicating extreme poverty. This could foster an environment where people have the freedom to pursue jobs (or lifestyles) that they are passionate about and where their skills can be better used, rather than just taking any job to survive more choice is always good.
All of those jobs you mentioned can also be done more efficiently by an AI, giving people busy work for it's own sake is a great way to cause the society to stagnate, they expect 70% unemployment over the next 5-10 years, yes there will still be people working at that time but for how much longer?
The assumption that UBI recipients will automatically become unproductive, dependent, and hedonistic can be challenged. Studies, such as the one in Finland where they trialed UBI, showed that the recipients continued to work. They also reported lower stress levels, better health, and higher confidence in their future prospects. This suggests that UBI could potentially lead to a healthier, happier, and even more motivated workforce (while it last) and population
.
$2K USD is slicing it a little thin. I think 3K net or even 2.5K would make a difference. In the evolution of things, we may evolve into less greedy species when there is no more fear of scarcity or even death. When I was a kid 50 years ago I wanted to be rich. As an adult, the responsibilities involved with being being wealthy sound like a headache. For me to make the most living within our means seems like plenty. So even within our individual lifetimes we can go through changes and evolution.
Anybody who watches these videos knows what's coming. If you still can't be bothered to buy Ai and Robotics stocks to enter the shareholder social class after this all hits, you deserve your tiny house commune.
1:20 -- Suggested UBI: $2,000/month/(USA adult)
Adults in United States (per US 2020 Census Bureau): 331.4 Million (331400000) USA adults
12 months/year
UBI cost/year: $2000 * 331400000 * 12 = $7953600000000/year = $7,953,600,000,000/year = $7.9536 Trillion / year
Total United States Tax Revenue (per cbo.gov; [1]) in 2022: $4.9 trillion
I love the idea of an UBI, but -- Where is $7.95 Trillion dollars annually going to come from? And we haven't even started in on the health care.
Forbes 2023's 37th annual list of billionaires counts 2,640 billionaries, collectively controlling $12.2 trillion dollars. OK, so you could drain all of the *world's* billionaires to give a UBI to citizens of only the United States for for (12.2/7.95 =) 1.53 years, after which, all of the billionaires have been completely drained.
I repeat: How is the UBI paid for?
Big fan of video and UBI in general. Although I do not think it’s an adequate “end goal” as to where we go from ai. Socialism needs to be the answer. The capitalists (owners of the means of production) will always have an incentive to undercut bargaining power, cut ubi and other social welfare to save on taxes, capture public goods through privatization, and monopolize industries. It’s time we look into both ubi as well as how AI can play a hand in central planning and economic decision making. Additionally, worker owned enterprises have a greater ability to equitably and rationally respond to automation than traditional shareholder and wage worker companies because the incentives align more easily with it.
This is going to be an Awesome episode!
Agree with most of this, but HOAs are never needed, & should be outlawed. lol
I will always avoid HOAs like the plague
$2000 for UBI is pretty low given the current economic climate. If your predictions are right about a 15% GDP, then it would be almost impossible for the government to lack funding for a higher UBI. If we're going to cling to this outdated capitalistic model, then people will need enough money per month to prop it up. A capitalist system collapses under it's own weight without anyone buying widgets.
Also, corporations avoid taxes like the plague, so I can tell you no corporation is going to go for this. They aren't going to want to be the only ones being taxed up the @$$ while the average Joe and Jane get an UBI to globe trot. Corporations exist to make money, not provide goods or services. As long as their motive is profit, they'll do whatever they can to maximize it.
Always viewed it as post scarcity/ post 'year zero event. Love your takes. Would like to follow you on twitter?
My concern is how myself and many others with large mortgages would be able to pay them on a UBI. But my head hurts thinking through the situation. Many wouldn’t be able to pay, but no one would be able to buy the house if the bank tried to sell it….
How do people move up the housing ladder if they can’t earn more money?
what keeps you from earning more money or value? would being resourceful be illegal under UBI?
@@andytheriault9383 No, but AI will be better than you at anything and everything, no matter how hard you try or how resourceful you are.
Ownership of any resource in an equitable society is the real discussion, WHen the WEF suggest you will own nothing and you will be happy, this is what they are actualyl referring to. IF everything belongs to everyone, but we have the ability with an abundance of fuels, resources, and time, we can spend more time in metaverses, with all the same 'trappings' of alleged luxury, and the most luxurious thing of all, time, as long as our basic maslows hierarchy of needs are satisfied.
It is true that ownership is often primarily a way to retain autonomy and privacy. When autonomy and privacy are guaranteed, ownership becomes secondary
@Andy Theriault your digital money will expire if you don't spend it where and when they want you to spend it. Government owns you, and you pay for it.
Your definition of socialism is much too simplistic.
Montreal too is walkable, no need for a car. That is if you like walking on ice and snow
Sadly, UBI will not be a thing with the current political climate even though it will be needed and is probably needed now tbh. Reaganomics and trickle-down economics is the rule-of-the-day and will be so in the foreseeable future. In order to fund UBI, as you mentioned, would be done through the redistribution of wealth from corporations to the civilians and since the corporations won't like giving their profits away, they will just have any laws/regulations related to it to be buried by bribing (I mean, lobbying) the politicians. Honestly, if I was a betting person, I'd place my bets on the future being a dystopia since there are too many corporate interests involved.
I am sad to agree. Increases in productivity gains used to result in compensation gains for labour, until 1971, at which point compensation flat-lined. Corporations, the billionaire class, and their government lobbyists will protect this status quo.
Psychopathic traits are much more common in CEOs. (studies have shown) As personal wealth goes up empathy goes down. (again, studies have shown)
Billionaires will laugh and compete for high score, as people starve in the streets.
@@AAjax "Billionaires will laugh and compete for high score, as people starve in the streets." Exactly--just like they already do.
UBI may happen eventually but there will be serious social unrest first.
Just like at the present time then.....
@@MikeCrowe-s3l Did a brainstorm / think tank session with Gemini (which was the last nail in the coffin - stopped using corporate-based LLMs in favor of uncensored, locally hosted versions) with the main factor of allowing humans to evolve past our tribe-based instincts, with a generalized utopian society as being the end goal. The results were.. not pretty, not for a very, very long time (~5,000 years).
I don't at all think it's a positive thing that everyone will keep getting poorer and forced to live in pods
should everyone have a mansion?
What rules are likely related to starting a business while receiving UBI. ?
I suspect it would be highly encouraged. If you can spot an opportunity to create market value, go for it.
Eventually the problem with UBI in a post scarcity world will be costs will start to plummet towards 0. Money wont have much real value at that point and so capitalism itself wont be able to function. Unfortunately no matter how hard people will try to force capitalism it will eventually fail under a post-scarcity world.
If automation leads to deflation and deflation leads to goods, services, products that are essential to life being pennies per ton, then it begs the question: What is the point of UBI?
wouldn't everyone just need the loose coins in their couch cushion to be able to comfortably retire?
consider if universal constructors or drexler devices become common, what would be the point of money? You could make nearly any device, product, food, drug out of air, dirt, water, and sunlight.
you could substitute rare earth minerals like cobalt or gold with common elements. Fullerene is theoretically a batter semi-conductor than gold and fullerene is just carbon.
so then what is the point of UBI?
I imagine that no more than 2 months after the technological singularity, everyone in the world will have their own personal universal constructor. It might not be the premium version of it. It might be slower, less efficient, not have access to as large of a library of things it can make, but it can make an origami-style pop-up house out of thin-membrane transparent graphene, insulated with aerogel, with air purifier, water purified, solar panel, sink, toilet, bed, Air conditioner, heater, bullet-proof and fire-proof. You can make thousands of drugs to treat, cure, or prevent thousands of common diseases. It can synthesize potato starch and amino acid paste to sustain life. Can turn raw sewage into pure water.
So then what do they need UBI for?
Will they live 'well'? Well, they wont have their own ranch-style home in the suburbs with a garden, but what would it even mean to "tax" someone who owns a post-singularity factory?
What price would they sell their dirt-cheap products and services for? If it costs you 16 cents to make a truck-load of ground beef, and you made it out of just air, water, and sunlight, and it took your factory just a few seconds to produce it, who are you going to sell it to?
What would be the point of selling it? Would someone capable of producing that much food bother to do the work of selling something like that for that price?
I think you're not seeing the forest for the trees here.
David , you are by far my favourite RUclipsr atm.
But have you seen Simon Reeves recent documentary on Australia ? He visits a community of Aborigines who are based near Darwin. 90% of the community are on UBI (they call it "Sit Down Money"), and unfortunately it has made the whole community spiral downwards into domestic abuse, drug and alcohol abuse etc. Its a very real indicator of how things could go
Whats your update on the AI from Israel, Faception?
If AI replaces a high cost-to-consumers industry such as doctors, for example, then that cost gets put back into everyone's pockets.
And health insurance costs would drop dramatically because AI would do a better job, and there would be no one to sue.
My point is that sure, a SPECIFIC industry might collapse, but who cares? THAT money stays in our pockets.
This sounds miserable
Live in pod, eat bug
I find this to be an interesting exercise, but I tend to think that the analysis kind of puts a stick in the sand of $2000/month and then looks at what it could provide. If there is 15% year on year growth, there isn't much of a reason why the $2000 won't grow commensurately. I can imagine a form of national tithing where we just dump 30% into a pot and redistribute. As long as the pie is growing, I don't know that anyone will be against contributing - especially when people are just harvesting the proceeds of AI/robotic work.
Another issue that I think is important is that human-replacement robotics will soon follow AGI. It will be THE focus. Once you have that, you can unlock the value of pretty much anything. Imagine a group of people who want to live in a brownstone neighborhood in wherever... just get together and put the robots/capital to work. The absurd version of this will be a billionaire building a personal DIsneyland with a great pyramid thrown in to impress.
$2000 a month? That would be a helpful supplement for current wages, but is in no way sufficient to live on unless
Prices for everything do way way down. With a 15% GDP people should get closer to 5-6000 a month. Technology should be able to make houses at a very low cost..3D printing. Tiny houses but only if others aren’t allowed mansions… otherwise we aren’t. hunger game territory. Needs to be more equal.
UBI seems a great idea on its own for communities.
In your example I would do less GBP growth, since we all need to tune down consumption too. So reducing UBI over time and set goals to a better environment. That will boost health and cut healthcare as well.
I was tracking along until the spiritualism. Not that I don't think that the issue of meaning in today's society isn't an issue. It's possibly one of the biggest issues. And I am not necessarily apposed to, "spiritualism" in a rather soft and benign form. Ultimately, spiritualism and even religion are just facets of philosophy. Philosophy being the models we use to describe reality. So, we are just ascribing more meaning and value to topics of phycology that our current scientific material understanding to not satisfy. I think this is where metamodernism comes into play. The ability to acknowledge the idealism of the modernist movement, while at the same time holding the criticism of the postmodernism movement. For example, I think we can agree that Mark Twain was an eloquent writer. But, it is fair and even necessary to acknowledge that his depiction of black characters has aged poorly. We don't simply wave it away as a matter of its time, but, we also do not throw out the things that are valuable. We similarly, didn't reject super highways or economic automobiles, just because they were propaganda hallmarks of the Nazis. Metamodernism, lets us reconcile the cognitive dissonance of idealism in the face of countervailing evidence. So we can navigating through our past to forge a better present and future. As such, the line between, wellness and spiritualism becomes more blurred. And this line will become thinner and thinner as our scientific exploration continues. And at some point certain spiritual frameworks will no longer be attractive. But, hopefully with meta modern narratives we will have the social psychological tools to transcend the cognitive barriers and prosper.
So, I am wary of just saying adopt, "some" form of spiritualism. I think it is more important to first understand what it is, and why it is valuable to do so. Not to, just surrender to it, with total blind faith. This leads to too many opportunities for negative outcomes. Personally, and socially.
I of course am still developing this understanding, and it too will evolve. But, it is my current thinking.
There is a few issues with your UBI statement and making it affordable for the government. So there will be mass deflation and a population decline.. so where is the government going to be getting their revenue from? If we have population decline why would we need tiny houses when we have all these other houses that are already built? Office building will be empty. There will be plenty of realestate. With the meaning of work and remuneration not being the same, I’m not sure if you would even need to term money. Policy driven carbon credits maybe. The UBI and housing issues will only happen or be useful during a transition period. If government just print money when then need it do they even need to worry about how much they are giving out?
39:06
Bruce Willis did a movie like this called Surrogates.
Humans were neurally plugged into robots outside.
1st stage deep dive VR will happen next year when generative AI
merges with VR.
I'm afraid your assumptions might be overestimating the psychological value provided by hobbies. People basically invest their time into something to feel better off (or at least not worse) than their neighbor or colleague. The fight is for prestige because that's how nature built us. Under UBI + AI most people are going to feel hopeless, because AI would be able to provide any goods quickly and cheaply. Except gold. No hobbies would provide value and prestige. People would do anything to get more money and live a better life, or own something made of gold. With no work what would they do?
Shouldn't that title end "...without gainful work?" After all, UBI is just finance, not real-economy. Work still has to be done. If you don't believe me, imagine no-one does anything at all. We would all die of thirst. Someone has to get you that drink, even if it is just you.
QUESTION: $2000/month for just 150 million Americans = 3.6 trillion dollars a year. Where will this 3.6 trillion come from?
I think you are missing an important thing about cars. That is, if you are no longer driving 20k miles a year to a job and you choose a common model with good parts availability, your cost to own a car becomes pretty cheap. As an car enthusiast, I'm rather keen on the idea of maintaining and detailing a car while it sits in the garage 6 days a week.
Re tiny house: after lot size, water, sewer, and electricity hookup, $50,000 is reasonable in less populated states. All inclusive comes from RUclips channels from people who built their own tiny homes.
I made a video on it as well. Interestingly high numbers.
I personally think it should probably start low, in general for public support purposes, but also lower by age that increases by age.
And removing minimum wage.
More may be possible, but the job = honor feeling is really strong.
Interesting what AI may do.
24:14 like mowing yards ?? I see robots taking over. Yard design for beauty and person. Implementation of yard design a robot.
I won't be truly happy until the technology allows me to actually escape the confines of my meatbag body and exist entirely in virtual reality, freed entirely from conventional existenced. I have zero attachment to the human condition and can't wait to be rid of it.