It's difficult with a free market. If income goes up for everyone, people can spend more on basic necessities. Robot owners will make prices higher to maximize profit.

A few solutions: 1)Have the government set prices for basic necessities. 2)The government owns companies that produce basic necessities. 3)Replace capitalism.

All the solutions above have its drawbacks.

Capitalism is going away, no matter what, once we have massive unemployment due to automation.

You think people are just going to accept starvation? Shit will get real, real fast.

And most people aren't as articulate or reasonable as the people on this site.

There will be massive violence.

A better way to look at UBI is that it's not about giving poor people money. Its about keeping the fabric of society together and preventing revolutions once automation hits fully.

If we are literally at 100% robot labor, a basic income could be a resource dividend. Basically, the argument for really strong property rights is that it encourages utilization of resources (and thus makes them broadly available to the economy).

With 100% robot labor, utilization of a resource is purely a political decision. The idea that we should give outsize rewards to historical incumbents for their historical incumbency becomes sort of silly.

But those increasing prices for robot labor are (partially) fed into the basic income, so UBI receivers will have more to spend.

There is a cycle and how quickly it cycles will be determined by how quick the various parts move. Not all robot owners will increase their prices just as fast and people will not buy from the overtly expensive sellers. Similar to the economic cycle we already have.

I certainly don't have an economics degree though.

When robots can produce most of the necessary life goods (food, energy, clothing and other manufacturing, medicine), one of the following will happen: (1) robots will be more expensive than humans, and nothing will change (unlikely), (2) there will be a monopoly on robot labour, resulting in an increase of inequality and eventually war (semi-likely), (3) there will be a competition on robot labour, resulting in a sharp fall of prices for basic goods (likely), (4) governments buying (some) robot labour and offering the goods to citizens for free (likely).

(3) and (4) would be nice, but (2) can happen with an oligopoly as well as with a monopoly. Working machines are already owned or controlled by a small number of companies.

If machines could be doing most of the jobs, they would be doing them regardless of basic income.

Machines cost money to develop and buy. They will only replace a class of worker/task once the value exists.

It's very expensive to develop a machine that can replace sewing workers (DARPA is working on one because the US military has a need for it). It hasn't yet created any value because fabric is ridiculously complicated for robots but comparatively very easy for humans to manipulate). So far, the sewing robot is neither very useful nor very valuable (since it is still orders of magnitudes more expensive than fabric workers).

If low-paying work is less desirable than it is now, companies will have to deal with the game theory reactions of how consumers react to there being a shortage of fast food workers, bus boys, valets, etc. There is a certain amount of slack that consumers will absorb, either in resources (time, money, effort) expended. IKEA makes you bus your own tables like a cafeteria. I imagine if bus boys and fast food workers suddenly became more rare / expensive, companies would ask their customers to inconvenience themselves to maintain their profit margins / economic viability.

I think that is what they meant. When machines make all things so that they are basically free, then it might work. Until then, doing UBI would cause supply shortages and higher prices.

So, I, programmer, will be forced to work 12 hours per day to keep robots firmware up to date, while everybody else will enjoy free ride? Sorry, it will not work: I will chose free ride too.

Why not just decrease number of working hours to say 2 per day, but for everybody, instead?

> Sorry, it will not work: I will chose free ride too.

Maybe you would, but I think most people would rather have a job and be fabulously wealthy relative to those surviving on UBI alone. See: all the people who work 60h a week in SF making $200k instead of chilling at a bank working 35h for $80k.

Politics will tell people that they will raise basic income to win election. To raise income, they will raise taxes, so I will work 80h for $20K instead of $200K.

It's not a joke: post-USSR countries already have exactly this problem.

I don't think any countries have successfully automated most of their economies yet so it's apples and oranges.

Alternatively - under UBI - you may decide to work 6 hours per day, and enjoy the earned income in addition to the regular Basic Income payment, all the while knowing that you can leave (or switch employer) any time without fear of destitution.

You would still face the same issue since, you make more money you may have a nicer apartment or house. You would then still be trapped in that job to maintain your chosen lifestyle.

Yes but that is entirely your choice. If you want the freedom to leave a job on a whim then you likely are not going to be spending money on a home that is too expensive to live in without working.

Difference between $X for 0hpd and $Y for 6hpd is too steep.

The free ride bus is too ratty for me; I'll take half of your job and I'm sure we'll find someone else to take the other half.

I would hope that working 12 hours a day to keep robots firmware up to date would command a lot more money than a basic income would?

Taxes will eat that income with easy: 50% tax on firm, 50% tax on worker before salary, 30% tax on worker after salary, 18% tax into basic income fund, 20% VAT, and hundreds of other, smaller taxes.

If basic income is good enough for you, you may stop working. Some people need more than basic income.

Thank you, captain. I already said that.

I am sorry, how is that a useful comment and adds value to discussion?